Like Slimey Cockroaches & their crooked President, Liberals Spread Disease

[Warph]

     

'Mad Dog' Harry Reid
By Cal Thomas
8/9/2012
http://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2012/08/09/mad_dog_harry_reid


To call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a "mad dog," as Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank did, is an affront to the canine community and those suffering from legitimate mental illness. Reid was completely sane when he spread hearsay about an anonymous Bain Capital investor who allegedly told him Mitt Romney paid no taxes for 10 years.

Doesn't Reid, a Mormon like Romney, subscribe to the prohibition in the Ninth Commandment: "Thou shall not bear false witness"? He appears to pay no political price because he's a Democrat and unlike Joe McCarthy, to whom some are comparing him, no prominent fellow Democrat or top media figure has asked Reid the question put to the commie-hunting McCarthy by attorney Joseph Welch in 1953: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

Reid is a sideshow, a clown in a political circus that seeks to draw the public's attention away from President Obama's record.
Romney's tax returns won't create a single job or revive the economy. Romney must change the subject by shifting the focus to where it belongs: to President Obama, his failed promises and his disastrous economic mismanagement.

If he wants to belabor the point, Romney can challenge Obama to release his college records and other information mentioned in his book "Dreams from My Father." He can offer to release more years of his tax returns in return for the transparency Obama promised.

Or Romney can reiterate that he has fully complied with the law, including the payment of all taxes owed. Would his critics prefer he pay more than his legal obligation? In addition, Romney has certainly made sizable charitable contributions, while Biden and his wife, according to USA Today, averaged just $369 in annual charitable contributions over a 10-year period.

What about the president? Here's what Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler wrote: "When then-presidential candidate Obama released his tax returns during the 2008 campaign, it was revealed that he began making significant gifts to charity after he started making serious money from his books -- and after he decided to run for president.

Here's what the numbers look like: 2005: $77,315 to charity out of income of $1.66 million (4.6 percent); 2004: "$2,500 out of $207,647 (1.2 percent); 2003: $3,400 out of $238,327 (1.4 percent); 2002: $1,050 out of $259,394 (0.4 percent)." In 2010, the number increased to 13.6 percent.

We can go tit for tat on contributions or income taxes forever. The tax returns issue is a smoke screen for the Obama administration's failures. The Romney campaign now appears to be doing what it should to reclaim and redirect the narrative. Romney can prevail if the issue becomes government spending.

People know that waste is a moral failure. Romney could go after Pentagon waste. Washington Post columnist Walter Pincus recently wrote: "How can the Pentagon keep $2.5 billion left over from a canceled program sloshing around for 'reinvestment by the Army' when Capitol Hill and the White House are worried about Pentagon budget cuts and national security?"

Romney has begun to press the president on his "reform" of welfare reform. The Department of Health and Human Services announced last month it will consider waivers to the work requirements for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Requiring welfare recipients to work was a hard-won provision of the landmark welfare reform law passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1996. And it worked. Those receiving welfare benefits, instead of relying on government assistance, were compelled to transition themselves toward work or educational opportunities as a way of creating a better life for themselves and for their families.

Senator Reid is a stink bomb at the garden party. Let "Dirty Harry," as some have dubbed him, continue to demonstrate his flawed character. Romney should not descend to the gutter with him. He should ignore Reid and focus on what most Americans care most about: rebuilding our shattered economy.

[Warph]

        

Yes, vote fraud's real
By MICHAEL A. WALSH
Posted: 11:18 PM, August 8, 2012

The vote of one idiot can cancel out the vote of a single genius — such is the glory of our one-man, one-vote system. But what about the vote of an illegal alien? The deceased? Or a convicted felon? Should they be allowed to spoil the electoral process — and perhaps change history?

And why — in the name of "civil rights" — is Attorney General Eric Holder using the power of the Justice Department to hamstring states trying to put a stop to voter fraud by requiring a secure ID in order to vote?

                             

The answer is clear: In an election that promises to be every bit as close as Bush v. Gore in 2000, each side is going to need every vote it can get. And one way, historically, that Democrats have been able to swing close elections is through fraud.

Consider:
* In the 2004 Washington state governor's race, the Republican's early lead was overcome by the miraculous discovery of previously uncounted ballots squirreled away in the Democratic stronghold of Seattle, handing the election to the Democrat.

* In the close governor's race in Connecticut in 2010, a mysterious shortage of ballots in Bridgeport kept the polls open an extra two hours as allegedly blank ballots were photocopied and handed out in the heavily Democratic city. Dannel Malloy defeated Republican Tom Foley by nearly 7,000 votes statewide — but by almost 14,000 votes in Bridgeport.

* Now a new book — "Who's Counting?" by John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky — charges that Al Franken's 2008 defeat of incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman may be directly attributable to felons voting illegally.

Coleman led on election night, but a series of recounts lasting eight months eventually gave the seat to the former Saturday Night Live star.

Later, a conservative watchdog group matched criminal records with the voting rolls and discovered that 1,099 felons had illegally cast ballots. State law mandates prosecutions in such cases; 177 have been convicted so far, with 66 more awaiting trial.

Franken's eventual margin of "victory"? A mere 312 votes.

The Minnesota win gave the Democrats their 60th Senate seat, creating the filibuster-proof majority that helped shovel ObamaCare into law.

Democrats' chicanery extends back to the days of Tammany Hall and other big-city machines. But today, much of the dirty work is done by lawyers. So maybe it's not so surprising that Holder is either "investigating" or actually suing states like South Carolina, Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania that have instituted tougher new requirements, including the presentation of government-issued ID.

Never mind that the Supreme Court by a 6-3 vote has already upheld the constitutionality of requiring valid identification in a 2008 case in Indiana.

Holder, the most politicized attorney general since Nixon's John Mitchell, has consistently moved against any efforts to protect the integrity of the ballot box in the service of the party that keeps him employed.

Infamously, he dropped prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party, who were intimidating white voters outside a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 presidential election.

And he killed the case despite the urging of lawyers at Justice and members of the US Civil Rights Commission, which in a 2010 report accused Justice of "open hostility and opposition" to prosecuting cases with white victims.

In a speech last month to the NAACP, the AG charged that Republican efforts to ensure the integrity of the electoral process effectively amount to "voter suppression," under the absurd premise that minorities are incapable of obtaining proper ID.

Risibly, Holder likened the tougher ID requirements to the days of Jim Crow and the poll tax — despite the fact that, in Pennsylvania for example, the state provides photo IDs free of charge.

Studies show that the cemetery, illegal-immigrant and felon votes tends to break heavily Democratic. Just ask Norm Coleman, who would have blocked ObamaCare and kept circus clown Al Franken away from Washington.

[Warph]

                                   



Matt Lauer:  Bought & Paid For By The Democratic Party


Matt Lauer became a regular co-host of NBC's Today show on January 6, 1997 and while his partners have changed over the years from Katie Couric, to Meredith Vieira and most recently Ann Curry, he's joined them in regularly serving viewers a hearty portion of liberal spin to go along with their morning cup of coffee.

Over the years Lauer has treated his Democratic guests with light and frothy questions, as was the case when he asked Barack Obama how he would be able to "manage" the "expectations" of those hoping he would be their "Savior" and "Messiah." In contrast he's hit Republicans with  bitter queries about their ability to lead, like the time he asked then Senator-Elect Rand Paul if Republicans, after having rode a "wave of anger and energy" into office in the 2010 midterms, would then "govern in Washington with anger?"


The following is a collection of examples of Lauer sticking up for Democrats and persistently taking the liberal side on every issue from gun control to global warming:

Hating Conservatives/Wishing They Would Moderate Their Ways....

Matt Lauer: "When you look at some of the things the Tea Party and others on the far right are asking for — no funding for Planned Parenthood, no funding for climate control, public broadcasting — does it seem to you, Senator, that this is less about a fiscal debate or an economic policy debate and they are making an ideological stand here?"
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer: "That's exactly right, Matt. You've hit the nail on the head."
— Exchange on NBC's Today, April 6, 2011


Co-host Matt Lauer: "For people who don't remember, Senator, your time in the Senate, how would you describe yourself in terms of the political spectrum? Some have called you an ultra-conservative on social issues. Is that fair?"
Former Senator Rick Santorum: "Look, I'm a conservative. Yeah, I mean, I believe life begins at conception and I believe marriage is between a man a woman...."
Lauer: "In a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 65 percent of people said they are most likely to vote for a candidate in 2012 who is strong on the economy, on the deficit, on jobs, not social issues. That's not really what they are concerned about. So are you, are you barking up the right tree?"
— NBC's Today, March 8, 2011


"Critics of conservative voices right now are saying for the first time in a very long time, the conservatives have lost. They haven't been able to choose their nominee and it's the political version now of a 3-year-old saying, 'if you can't play the game the way I want to play, I'm taking my football and I'm going home.' How do you respond to that?"
— Lauer to Ann Coulter on Today, February 8, 2008.


"A former Cabinet member says the President's party is being held hostage by the far right....[Christine Todd Whitman's] new book criticizing the far right is called It's My Party Too....You say that today's conservatives are not true conservatives. Let me read you a portion: 'Much of their agenda is simply inconsistent with true conservatism. They seem to have forgotten that one of America's greatest strengths has always been its ability to respect the broad range of ideas centered on a core set of values: freedom, opportunity, diversity....' When it comes to the President's agenda for his second term, things like Social Security, how much do you think it's possible he could be held hostage by that far right?"
— Lauer to Whitman on NBC's Today, January 27, 2005.


"They were college classmates from the '60s, mourning the loss of a friend and their idealism....It was 1983, a time of Reaganomics, burgeoning yuppies, and the Decade of Greed."
– NBC's Matt Lauer on the December 30, 2003 Today show, in a story on the 20th anniversary of the film The Big Chill.


Matt Lauer: "Let me write [sic] what one reviewer wrote about you. 'Clancy insists on subjecting readers to a simplistically conservative political philosophy, whether or not they want it. For long stretches in this book it reads like the transcript of a Rush Limbaugh talkathon.'"
Tom Clancy, author, The Bear and The Dragon: "Obviously somebody who voted for George McGovern in 1972."
Lauer: "You too conservative? Does it come through on every page?"
Clancy: "I don't think so. The American people voted for Reagan twice."
Lauer: "You think you're in step with the feelings of this country?"
Clancy: "I'm in step with the feelings of a couple of million readers. I'll settle for that. You know people vote for my books with their money, as opposed to saying yes when the Gallup poll calls them up on the phone."
– Exchange on NBC's Today, August 22, 2000.

"And when you talk about votes like that, that he [Dick Cheney] made while in Congress, anti-affirmative action, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-equal rights, how does George Bush portray him as a compassionate conservative?"
- Today co-host Matt Lauer to Tim Russert, July 26, 2000.

"Governor Bush did very well with voters on the far right of the Republican Party in South Carolina; that may have been his margin of victory. Is it necessary for you now, Senator McCain, to make that a liability for Governor Bush, to portray him as someone beholden to that wing of the party?"
-Today co-host Matt Lauer to John McCain, Feb. 21, 2000.


Democratic Cheerleader/Recruiter...

"You said at a speech recently, you said, you know, 'The Republicans, they're treating me like a dog.' There's a lot of rhetoric out there, coming from the Republicans toward you, coming from the Tea Party toward you. Former President Clinton said he doesn't think the Democrats, and you included, have been rigorous enough in pushing back against some of the Republican attacks. Over these next five weeks, Mr. President, do you intend to change your tone or your emotion in terms of your pushing back?"
— Matt Lauer to President Obama in a September 27, 2010 interview shown across most of NBC Universal's networks, including NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, USA and SyFy


"Passage of this bill and turning it into law has left this country as politically divided as I think it has been in a long time. You might be able to cite some other examples, but the vitriol, the rhetoric, the sniping, the threats — how are you possibly going to continue with any kind of legislative agenda when your opponents have said to you, 'I'm not gonna cooperate with this President, with these Democrats, unless it's a matter of national security.' How do you move on?"
— Matt Lauer to President Obama on NBC's Today, March 30, 2010


"Have you stopped to think what the Obama version of Swift Boating might be in this campaign cycle if you get to the general election? What they did to John Kerry, what's that version going to be with Barack Obama?"
— Lauer to Barack Obama on Today, February 19, 2008.


"Brilliant....Skilled and surprisingly self-destructive....Despite the scandals and investigations, Bill Clinton was an incredibly popular President who connected with the American people....Under Clinton the economy boomed — deficits turned into surplus — and more than 22 million jobs were created. Along with the character flaws and the subpoenas came peace and prosperity."
— Lauer summarizing Bill Clinton's biography during the June 5, 2005 Discovery Channel special listing 25 finalists for the title of "Greatest American."


"Secretary of State Katherine Harris in Florida. As you know she's a Republican, a Bush supporter. Warren Christopher said yesterday that her, her decision on this five o'clock deadline has the look of trying to produce a certain result in the election. Do you think, and to use a rather crude term, that her decision does not pass the smell test?"
– Matt Lauer to Gore aide Bill Daley, Nov. 14, 2000 Today.


"Let's talk about what they are now calling, Mr. Vice President, 'The Kiss'. You heard about 'The Catch' in that football game, this is 'The Kiss.' You really planted one on Mrs. Gore at the beginning of your speech there. What were you thinking?"
"Were you trying to tell the American people that you're really a kind of emotional guy?"
"Well after watching that kiss I know how you survived 30 years, Mr. Vice President. Way to go! It's nice talking to you."
– Today co-host Matt Lauer to Al Gore, August 21, 2000.


Sucking Up to Obama....

"Fit to serve: Barack Obama photographed shirtless in Hawaii and a lot of women are giving him the presidential seal of approval."
— NBC's Matt Lauer starting out the Today show, December 23, 2009


"People have called you 'The Savior,' 'The Messiah,' 'The Messenger of Change.' The expectations have been raised to such a level....If you are, as you just say, lucky enough to be elected the next President, are you going to have to consciously manage expectations during the first several months of your administration?"
— Lauer to Barack Obama on Today, Oct. 20, 2008.


Defending Bill Clinton...

Matt Lauer: "You talk about the loss of opportunity which frustrates Bill Clinton and also must frustrate the American people. So will the lesson that will be learned out of all this, Doris, be that maybe we go back to a time where we give less scrutiny to a President's personal life, back to the Kennedy and Eisenhower and Roosevelt years?"
Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin: "....I hope that the media does go back to that earlier standard. I don't want to talk about this. None of us do. Think about how much more exciting it would be if we were talking about civil rights, education, health care..."
Lauer: "Yeah, but I hope you're right. I hope that the American people would find it more exciting to talk about health care and Social Security and not about these personal peccadilloes."
- Lauer on May 23, 2000 Today.


"Let me end with this. How many times, sitting in front of your computer typing away stories about cigars and cocktail dresses, did you look up and think to yourself 'Why did I ever pursue the Paula Jones story?'"
- Last question from Today co-host Matt Lauer to Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff on his Lewinsky scandal book Uncovering Clinton, April 8, 1999.


"Speaker Wright, let me start with you. When you resigned nine years ago, you had been battered by the right. You called for an end to what you called 'mindless cannibalism.' Nine years later we're hearing terms like that again and others swirling around the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Have we learned nothing in nine years?"
-Matt Lauer to former Speaker Jim Wright, who resigned over ethical problems, December 21, 1998 Today.


"Speaker Wright, during McCarthy's sort of communist witch hunt, the really turning point was when one person being grilled by the Senator said 'Do you have no decency.' Do you see anybody with the credibility in Washington right now to ask that same question?"
-Lauer to Wright, same show.


"Remember when the First Lady was here back in January and she talked about the vast right-wing conspiracy. You agree with a lot of what she had to say. If there is a hierarchy in that conspiracy, like a military hierarchy, where does Ken Starr fall? Is he a private, is he a general, what is he?"
-Today co-host Matt Lauer to James Carville in interview promoting his book, And the Horse He Rode In On: The People vs. Kenneth Starr, October 26, 1998.


"Senator, he brings up an interesting point. If there were no major revelations in the Starr report about all the gates -- Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater – why shouldn't Ken Starr then pick up the other portion of the tab?"
-Matt Lauer to Republican Senator Frank Murkowski, who had suggested making Clinton pay the tab for the Lewinsky probe, after a clip of White House press secretary Mike McCurry urging Starr be made to pay the cost of the probe incurred before Lewinsky, September 16, 1998 Today.


"Based on your dreams for the information age, can you give me your reaction to the type of information we are hearing in the current situation between the President and Monica Lewinsky? Is that the way you envision the information age turning out?"
"But in this particular case, do you think it's gotten to the point where possibly there is a chance that there is too much information on this particular subject?"
"As our partner I'm sure you watch our programming, you're probably a news junkie like the rest of us. Do you think though that we as journalists have gone overboard on this story?"
— NBC Today co-host Matt Lauer pressing Microsoft chief Bill Gates, February 24, 1998.


"You just heard Mr. Panetta and his comments on the proposed Senate Whitewater hearings. Polls in the past, Mr. Gingrich, have said that: a) the American people really don't understand Whitewater; and b) they really don't care about it. Is there a reason for hearings now, other than to inflict political damage on the President prior to the elections?"
— Today substitute co-host Matt Lauer interviewing Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, May 18, 1995.


Matt Lauer Wants to Raise Your Taxes...

"When it comes to taxes, this issue of revenues, is there any way this deal gets done without the Republicans compromising somewhat on taxes?...President Obama talks about shared sacrifice. Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?"
— Co-host Matt Lauer to conservative radio host Laura Ingraham on NBC's Today, July 12.

"Why not use an increase in revenues? Tax hikes to help with that debt problem? What is the evidence that you can present that the tax cuts of the Bush era have actually accomplished their goals?...When the Bush era tax cuts were passed in 2001, unemployment in this country was 4.5 percent. Today it's at 9 percent, just down from 10 percent. So why are the Bush era tax cuts creating jobs?"
— Host Matt Lauer to House Speaker John Boehner on NBC's Today, May 10, 2011. In the five years after the full tax cut package was passed in 2003, the economy added more than 8.3 million new jobs.


"Like Congressman Ryan is suggesting, Medicare needs to be revamped....that affects the elderly and the poor...why shouldn't the burden be equally shared? Why shouldn't we put some of that burden on the wealthy and corporations?"
-Lauer to Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann on the April 13, 2011 Today show.

Co-host Matt Lauer: "Do you ever think about how much money is in politics, in political contributions, in lobbying? And wouldn't it be a great idea if we took even half of that money that's spent by corporations and special interests trying to influence politics and dedicated it to changing the world for the better?...What about a lobbying tax? If you're gonna spend a certain amount of money lobbying for a special interest cause, you have to match that amount of money by giving it to help education or to fight AIDS?"     
Ex-President Bill Clinton: "Well, that's not a bad idea."
— NBC's Today, September 5, 2007.

"That cost [of a war in Iraq] is adding to the potential deficit, some $50-100 billion. Doesn't that have something to do with the President's ability to get his tax cut passed? A lot of people say, 'Why are you cutting taxes now when you're increasing the deficit.' Shouldn't this be a time when you're increasing taxes?"
– NBC's Matt Lauer to CNBC's Ron Insana on Today, March 7, 2003.

And Spend Your Money....

"A bitter battle on Capitol Hill has ended with a deep slash in federal spending. The House made more than $9 billion in cuts, hitting education and employment programs especially hard."
— NBC Today anchor Matt Lauer, August 4, 1995.


Saluting Socialism....

Co-host Matt Lauer: "What's the civics lesson in this for our kids as they're watching this on TV?"
Correspondent Natalie Morales: "Well, I think there — as a parent, there's a huge civics lesson, and it teaches, you know, what is important about this. What are — I think you have to ask the questions, 'What are they there for, what are the reasons behind this?' And I think the idea of having that civil discourse is important to teach our kids and it's something in history we've seen...."
— Exchange on NBC's Today about the Occupy Wall Street protestors on October 21, 2011.

"I'm worried if you think if that's a good thing [for Goldman Sachs to pay back its bailout money early]. Are they doing this because of financial stability, or might they be talking about that simply to get out from under the thumb of the federal government and be allowed to go back to running the business the way they want to run it, as opposed to the way the government wants them to run it?"
— Lauer to Obama economic adviser Christina Romer, April 14, 2009 Today.

"Russia's rush to capitalism left the vast majority scrambling to survive. For many, life is worse than it was in Soviet times."
– NBC's Matt Lauer in Moscow on the February 12, 2004 Today.

"Americans are working more and getting less vacation time than people in any other industrialized nation....I feel strange saying, I never stopped to think about the fact there is no official U.S. policy on vacation time."
-Today host Matt Lauer to Escape magazine's Joe Robinson, a proponent of mandated vacation, June 12, 2000.


Baffled/Embarrassed by Unabashed Expressions of Liberty and Patriotism....

Matt Lauer: "Two thousand British moviegoers were recently polled on a very important question. What are the Top 10 Cheesiest Movie Lines of all-time?...Braveheart takes #8 with the baffling battle cry."
Clip of Mel Gibson on horseback rallying his warriors in the movie Braveheart about 13th century Scots battling the British: "That they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!"
— NBC's Today, December 7, 2004.


Matt Lauer: "You are expecting a greater wave of patriotism here in the United States, in this particular time, than other countries have shown when they've hosted the games."
Lloyd Ward, U.S. Olympic Committee President: "I certainly expect the stands to be rocking. I expect the flags to be flying. And you know, the expression of patriotism is fine for any country that hosts the Olympics. We want to express our nationalism as a part of the world's community and I expect to see that."
Lauer: "But we have to also be careful and draw a line not to let our patriotism get in the way of the games in general."
– Exchange on NBC's Today, February 7, 2002.


Anti-War/Torture.... 

Matt Lauer: "If there are flickers, as you say, of al Qaeda among the rebels, would it not be a sign to them or showing them that the United States has compassion and we are willing to use our military might to help all people?"

Michele Bachmann: "Compassion for al Qaeda?"

-Lauer trying to convince Bachmann that Obama's strategy of bombing was a good way to show support for rebels on the March 30, 2011 Today show. Lauer later scrambled to clarify he meant "civilians in Benghazi." Bachmann pointed out to Lauer: "Well of course we have compassion for people. That is not the point."


"For months now, the White House has rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into civil war, and for the most part news organizations like NBC have hesitated to characterize it as such. But after careful consideration, NBC News has decided a change in terminology is warranted, that the situation in Iraq with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas can now be characterized as civil war."
— Lauer leading off NBC's Today, Nov. 27, 2006.


Host Matt Lauer: "He [Senator John Kerry] made a joke, he says he blew the joke and inadvertently sounded as though he questioned the intelligence of U.S. troops in Iraq. Look me in the eye and tell me, if, with even a fraction of your heart, you think John Kerry meant to question the intelligence of U.S. troops in Iraq."
Former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card: "Well, he's had a past bias that would allow people to believe that....Even more significantly, it's the Democrats that have said, 'John Kerry stay home.'"
Lauer: "And, by the way, I think a lot of Democrats should have shame on their shoulders, because they ran away from this guy, as opposed to standing up and saying it was just a mistake."
— NBC's Today, November 3, 2006.


NBC's Matt Lauer: "You admitted that there were these CIA secret facilities. Okay?"
President George W. Bush: "So what? Why is that not within the law?"
Lauer: "The head of Amnesty International says secret sites are against international law....Are you at all concerned that at some point, even if you get results, there is a blurring the lines of, between ourselves and the people we're trying to protect us against?"     
— Interview shown on NBC's Today, September 11, 2006.



Matt Lauer in Baghdad: "Talk to me...about morale here. We've heard so much about the insurgent attacks, so much about the uncertainty as to when you folks are going to get to go home. How would you describe morale?"
Chief Warrant Officer Randy Kirgiss: "In my unit morale is pretty good. Every day we go out and do our missions and people are ready to execute their missions. They're excited to be here."
Lauer: "How much does that uncertainty of [not] knowing how long you're going to be here impact morale?"
Specialist Steven Chitterer: "Morale is always high. Soldiers know they have a mission. They like taking on new objectives and taking on the new challenges...."
Lauer: "Don't get me wrong here, I think you are probably telling me the truth but a lot of people at home are wondering how that could be possible with the conditions you're facing and with the attacks you're facing. What would you say to those people who are doubtful that morale can be that high?"
Captain Sherman Powell: "Sir, if I got my news from the newspapers also, I'd be pretty depressed as well."
— Exchange on NBC's Today, August 17, 2005.


"Because he did not attend any of the funerals of the fallen soldiers in Iraq, some family members felt he was not showing compassion, or a connection to the suffering that they have felt as a result of this war. Was this trip an effort to blunt that criticism?"
– NBC's Matt Lauer to Condoleezza Rice on Today, Nov. 28, 2003. Since the war began, Bush has repeatedly met with hospitalized soldiers and with the families of those killed in Iraq.



Anti-Gun...

"You know, [Mexican] President Calderon wants a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that expired during the Bush administration....How can President Obama, who ran against assault weapons, how can he not deliver on that?"
— Lauer to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, April 16, 2009 Today.

Matt Lauer: "Have you ever gotten up one morning, read the newspaper or seen the news about a particularly horrific crime or event that involved a shooting and thought even for a second, I may be on the wrong side of this issue?"
NRA President Charlton Heston: "No, I never felt that."
Lauer: "Never wavered?"
– Exchange on NBC's Today, September 5, 2002.

"Let's take hijacking and potential crimes out of this for a second, and I know you say you don't want to dwell on [a] worst case scenario, but pilots are human beings. They get depressed, they get suicidal, they get angry. If they're armed, isn't that a formula for disaster?"
-Question from NBC's Matt Lauer to the head of the Airline Pilots Association about a plan to permit pilots to carry guns to protect their planes, September 26, 2001 Today.

Matt Lauer: "Let's say I come down to your dealership, I buy a car tomorrow, I get my voucher, I go out and get my gun and then in a week or so I decide that I don't want it, what's to stop me from selling it to anyone I want to sell it to?...."
"And so if then the person that buys that gun from me goes out and commits a crime with it, or God forbid takes a life with it, how are you going to feel at your auto dealership?"
Tennessee car dealer Greg Lambert, who gave free gun to car buyers: "I'm not responsible for the actions of other people...what we need is crime control, not gun control."
Lauer: "Yeah, but why not take away the possibility? If you give someone a CD player, they can't go out and kill someone with it....From what I understand, Mr. Lambert, you're taking the promotion a little bit further. Even children who come to your dealership are going to get a free water pistol, and some people say that's just going too far."
– Aug. 25, 2000 Today interview.

"But isn't it just a case of terrible timing, Mr. LaPierre? I mean, not coincidentally, we've had a show this morning that's been filled with a murder in Los Angeles, a murder in Florida, five people were executed in a Wendy's restaurant here in New York just last week. I mean, this doesn't seem like the time you want to be promoting guns?"
— Matt Lauer to NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre about plans to open a restaurant in Times Square, May 30, 2000 Today.

"When Lauer has to report stories such as the recent first-grade shooting in Michigan, he says, a part of him wishes he weren't a journalist. Then he wouldn't have to appear objective. 'I'd love to be more opinionated about guns.' He fears historians will describe turn-of-the-21st-century America 'in just two words: gun violence.' He tells of attending a party where friends discussed their office layouts – which closets they'd hide in to save their lives. 'People at cocktail parties now talk about their personal safety. There's something really wrong here.'....
"If he could ask President Clinton just two questions: 'It wouldn't be about [Monica Lewinsky]. I'd ask, "What are you going to do about guns? Why not make this issue one of your legacies?'"
-From a profile of Today co-host Matt Lauer by Jeffrey Zaslow in the April 28-30, 2000 edition of USA Weekend.

"And General Powell, one of the aspects of the program that I think may get some attention is that there is training in riflery, in marksmanship here. I understand they use .22 caliber rifles. At a time when we are so sensitive, it seems, to the connection between young people and guns, do you think it's a good idea to be putting them in contact with guns in high school?"
-Today co-host Matt Lauer to Colin Powell in interview about expanding ROTC in high schools, July 30, 1999.

"You'll start debate on the youth violence bill today. That, of course, comes up with tougher punishments for youths who commit crimes with guns. But then you will deal with the actual gun bill. Why talk about the penalties for guns before you talk about the guns themselves?"
-Today co-host Matt Lauer to Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.), June 16, 1999.



...but Pro-Green

Co-host Matt Lauer: "The book is called The World Without Us, and it asks the question what would happen to planet Earth if human beings were to suddenly disappear....And really it's all about trying to figure out how long it would take nature to reclaim what we've created."
Co-host Meredith Vieira: "The mess."
Lauer: "How long it would take nature to fix the mess we've made?"
— Teasing upcoming segment on NBC's Today, September 4, 2007.



"A controversy in Washington over what literally could be the end of the world as we know it. Did the Bush administration freeze out scientists trying to sound the alarm on global warming?"
— Lauer on NBC's Today, January 31, 2007.



Matt Lauer: "From your point of view, if you were to run for President you could take this issue [global warming] to the next level, even during just a campaign. And if you were fortunate enough to win the presidency, you'd sit in the most powerful office in the free world with a real chance to make — you could be in a position to save the planet, without putting too much emphasis on it. Wouldn't that be enough of a reason to run for President for you?"     
Former Vice President Al Gore: "Well, I appreciate the impulse behind the question. I am not planning to run...."
Lauer: "But as someone who feels as passionately about the subject as you do, and your documentary is evidence of that, why pass up the opportunity to have that world stage again?"
— Exchange on NBC's Today, December 6, 2006.

[Warph]

                    

5 Things That Will Be Different If Mitt Romney Defeats Barack Obama
By John Hawkins
8/10/2012

       

Far too much of the campaign season so far has revolved around trivia. That's largely Barack Obama's fault. Obama wants to see more of Mitt's tax returns. Who cares? Obama's rich, but Mitt's really rich; so we should hate him because he has more money than we do -- or something. After Mitt left Bain, some company went bust, some random guy lost his health care and later got it back, but it wasn't as good as it was at Bain; so Mitt killed his wife somehow or another? On the other hand, while Mitt's campaign has at least focused on meaningful issues, the ad dollars have mostly been spent highlighting the sea of incompetence that has been Barack Obama's first four years in the White House, as opposed to what Romney would do when he gets elected. On top of that, neither candidate has exactly been a model of consistency when it comes to his views. So, it's worth asking the question: What will be different if Mitt Romney defeats Barack Obama?

1) Businesses will feel more comfortable hiring and spending money: As William Henry Harrison noted, "The prudent capitalist will never adventure his capital... if there exists a state of uncertainty as to whether the government will repeal tomorrow what it has enacted today." Barack Obama has introduced just that kind of uncertainty into the economy with his demonization of business, Obamacare, the fiscal cliff, and the threat of tax increases in his second term. That's why American corporations have piled up record cash reserves instead of using that money to increase production and hire new workers. Romney will be business-friendly, will oppose tax hikes, cut regulations, and reassure these companies that they're not going to be under attack for the next four years. In and of itself, that should significantly improve the economy and help create jobs.

2) Obamacare will be gutted: Obamacare is essentially Romneycare writ large and if Mitt were perfectly honest, he'd probably tell you that he thinks there's a lot to like in the plan. While there's always an outside chance that Mitt might be looking for some way to save Obamacare, he has gone so far out on a limb to condemn the unpopular plan that there would be serious political ramifications if he doesn't pull the trigger when the time comes. So, whether Obamacare will ultimately live or die on the vine seems likely to depend on who wins in November.

3) Taking a crack at entitlement reform may be tackled: It is impossible for the United States to get its spending under control without real entitlement reform and Barack Obama has chosen to demagogue the issue instead of making a serious attempt to fix the problem. Whether Romney could pull it off is up in the air because realistically, without some Democratic cooperation, it's not going to be possible to reform Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Still, when someone as cautious as Mitt Romney makes the politically risky decision to embrace Paul Ryan's plan, it means something. Mitt may not be able to push through entitlement reform, but if it's passed in the next four years, he'll deserve the lion's share of the credit.

4) Taxes are more likely to go down than up: If Barack Obama is reelected, we can be sure that he will push a number of new tax increases and there are signs that the Republican Party is starting to soften its position on the issue. On the other hand, Mitt Romney is likely to push cuts to the marginal tax rate, the death tax, and the corporate tax rate in an effort to stimulate economic growth. That doesn't mean it's impossible that we could see a tax increase because Democrats are likely to demand higher taxes in return for their cooperation on any sort of serious entitlement reform or deficit reduction plan. However, Obama would be likely to raise taxes significantly in his second term, while Romney would be much more likely to cut them.

5) The Supreme Court may move to the right: Currently, we have four doctrinaire liberals on the Supreme Court (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer), three originalist conservatives (Alito, Thomas, Scalia), and two right leaning moderates (Roberts, Kennedy). After looking at that precarious balance, consider that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79, Antonin Scalia is 76, Anthony Kennedy is 75, and Stephen Breyer is 73. What that means is that depending on who retires, a single appointment has the potential to lead to a historic shift on the Court. Given the buzzsaw that George W. Bush ran into when he tried to appoint Harriet Miers, Mitt Romney has very little room to maneuver here. Appointing candidates that the base believes are originalists will be a necessity and then we'll face the same crapshoot that we always do with conservative judges: Will they stay true to the law or move to the left?

[Warph]

   

If You Like Obama's Failed Policies, Vote for Him
By David Limbaugh
8/10/2012

Those who understand that America is now on the wrong track cannot reasonably vote for Obama in November, because he is absolutely unwilling to change, perhaps even ideologically incapable of changing, course. Evidence abounds.

First, consider his disastrous economic record and his rejection of any semblance of a course change. He and his economic advisers told us his stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent. It didn't. He didn't consider for a second that his policies exacerbated the economic crisis. He blamed Bush and said that if anything, he -- Obama -- hadn't spent enough. He demanded more stimulus packages -- high-speed rail, other infrastructure, American Jobs Act. He continued to grow government in a wide variety of areas; things continued to get worse. No sign of any significant economic recovery; we had the worst recovery in 50 years. No sign of unemployment relief. He didn't change course.

Despite his failed performance, he told us in 2009 that only the government could break this business cycle. He told us in Osawatomie, Kan., that the private sector couldn't lead us back to economic vitality on its own. Recently, he told us that successful entrepreneurs didn't build their businesses -- or roads or bridges or whatever claptrap he pretended to have meant. He refuses to reconsider his flawed notions. Arrogance, as much as ignorance.

If you think that despite all this, Obama may have learned his lesson and will change course going forward, you are fooling yourself. Obama won't change his economic policies, because he is addicted to spending and to growing government on several levels. His economic philosophy, his ideology and his political survival demand that he stay the course.

He firmly believes that only government spending -- Keynesian pump priming -- can stimulate a moribund economy. He believes it to the point that he's willing to bankrupt the nation to do it. His philosophy countenances no other alternative methods of recovery, specifically letting the private sector breathe and recover on its own. That's the economic philosophy component.

He also knows that the most efficient way to redistribute wealth and otherwise reallocate resources from groups he believes less deserving to those he believes more deserving is through an increasingly progressive tax code and more government spending. That is, even if he shared the ordinary American's debt aversion and reasonable anxiety about our horrifying financial predicament, he wouldn't discontinue (hasn't discontinued) his pursuit of ever-greater taxing and spending, because to do so would be tantamount to abandoning his quest, his obsession to fundamentally transform America. That's the ideological component.

Finally, he fully realizes that even if he didn't firmly believe in expanding the welfare state -- incentivizing states to expand their food stamp rolls, extending unemployment benefits, sabotaging welfare reform, increasing the percentage of people not paying income taxes and otherwise presiding over the unprecedented swelling of the welfare state and those dependent on government aid of one form or another -- he would still be compelled to continue expanding it because he believes a great majority of his constituents depend on this expansion. He couldn't win re-election without doing so. That's the political component.

The same general themes hold true for Obama's extremist environmental agenda. His policies are enormously destructive to our coal, oil, nuclear energy and natural gas industries, but he shows no signs of letting up, even though these policies are also manifestly destroying American jobs and otherwise harming the economy. Why would he? He telegraphed his actions, and he's merely fulfilling his promise.

While sabotaging our reliable energy sources, he is also throwing as much federal money as he can at failed green energy projects, which are so ill-conceived that a reasonable person might conclude his goal is to waste money. Solyndra wasn't the only such failed enterprise, as we've shown. There were a dozen others, and despite these failures and the unconscionable waste, he has revealed nothing but a defiant determination to double down and spend more on other such projects. It's mind-blowing.

Likewise, he pursued Obamacare with maniacal intensity, even when the public clearly and emphatically registered its dissent. His response was more haranguing speeches to browbeat the recalcitrant, ignorant masses into seeing his superior wisdom. Even after the stated purposes for his grand design have been shown to be fundamentally flawed -- it's going to bend the cost curve up, not down, and dramatically so, and it's going to leave 30 million people uninsured -- he is more determined than ever to implement it against the people's will.

I am just getting warmed up here; I haven't even discussed his politics of division or his wars on business, our defenses and the Constitution.

The bottom line is this: If you like Obama's record, vote for him, because you're only going to get more of it -- way more if he wins and thinks he has a mandate.

[Warph]

         

Unfit To Govern
By Mona Charen
8/10/2012

We have reached a point in the 2012 campaign when you long for a referee -- someone with a whistle to call foul and declare that one side has so discredited itself that it must forfeit points or be otherwise disqualified.

Nancy Pelosi, the leader who warned that we were losing "500 million jobs a month" without the stimulus bill and who said "God bless them" regarding Occupy Wall Street but condemned the tea party as "AstroTurf," has declared that the Republican Party supports E. coli. True, it's not news when Pelosi mangles the facts. But until her colleagues demote her, she remains the leader of House Democrats. Speaking at a fundraiser, she described the Republican Party as follows: "It's an ideology. We shouldn't have a government role. So reduce the police, the fire, the teachers -- reduce their role." As a mother, she continued, "You could depend on the government for one thing -- it was about, you had to be able to trust the water that our kids drank and the food that they ate. But this is the E. coli club. They do not want to spend money to do that."

In an ideal world, a loud buzzer would issue from the heavens. Foul! The Democrats have presided over an expansion of the welfare state to the point where 1 in 3 American households now receive some form of welfare. That's 100 million Americans receiving benefits -- excluding those receiving Social Security, Medicare and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Yet to suggest that the federal government must reduce the rate of increase in federal spending -- or even to cut back to the comparatively sane levels of spending that prevailed under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- is to be the party of E. coli. Maybe Pelosi should stick to theology. She once explained that the Catholic Church didn't oppose abortion.

Don't look to the other body for relief. The Senate majority leader, who holds a post usually associated with at least a minimal level of dignity, has descended into outright McCarthyism -- claiming that "the word is out" that Mitt Romney hadn't paid taxes in 10 years. How did the "word" get out? Some anonymous caller supposedly told it to Harry Reid. Where's that buzzer? An equivalent accusation would be for John Boehner to announce that "the word is out" that Barack Obama quietly and illegally gutted the work requirements in the welfare reform law passed in 1996. Oh, wait ...

Now, an Obama Super PAC, Priorities USA, has issued an ad that is so cartoonish that it seems to have come straight from The Onion. A former employee of GST Steel, Joe Soptic, accuses Mitt Romney of closing the plant. Actually, the plant was shut down two years after Romney left Bain. Soptic then relates that his wife became ill, but because he had lost his health coverage due to the plant closing, she couldn't afford health coverage and died of cancer. Not quite. The plant closed in 2001. She died in 2006. Ranae Soptic didn't lose health coverage because of what happened to her husband. She was covered by her own employer, until an injury caused her to lose her job. The ad closes with Soptic saying, "I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone, and furthermore I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned." Buzz.

As CNN and others have noted, Soptic has cooperated with the Obama campaign before and appeared in an Obama ad back in May -- though, oddly, Obama campaign advisor Robert Gibbs insists that he "doesn't know the specifics of this woman's case." Bain bought the troubled steel company, couldn't revive it and closed it. It's possible that if Bain hadn't invested in the company, it would have closed in 1993 instead of 2001. It's possible that even if Ranae Soptic's cancer had been detected earlier, she would have died anyway. It's possible that Joe Soptic might have contracted cancer if the plant had remained open, leaving his wife a widow. Who knows? The beat of a butterfly's wings in Bolivia supposedly can cause a thunderstorm in Bangor. But never let a misfortune go to waste when you can accuse your opponent of murder.

This has become the season of Democrat disgrace. Beyond running the dirtiest, emptiest and most deceptive campaign in memory, the party has demonstrated a total incapacity to govern. The Democrat-controlled Senate has not passed a budget -- the sine qua non of governing -- in more than three years. Under Reid's leadership, no budget resolution has even been brought to the floor. The federal debt, under Barack Obama, has increased by more than $5 trillion in less than four years. The economy is stalled. After saying (in a nonelection year) that he lacked the power unilaterally to alter immigration laws, the president did exactly that. The administration was so heedless of national security in its haste to laud Obama's accomplishments that even the usually phlegmatic former Obama administration secretary of defense, Robert Gates, felt obliged to tell the president's national security advisor to "shut the f--- up."
There is no cosmic buzzer. It's all up to us voters.

[Warph]

     

When an Insufferable Blowhard Runs Out of Money. This is What it Looks Like:
By John Ransom
8/10/2012

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2012/08/10/when_an_insufferable_blowhard_runs_out_of_money_this_is_what_it_looks_like

Let me set the scene for you: Rising oil and gas prices, rising equity prices and falling housing prices. Storm signals start winking on the global economic front after a month of a braggadocious presidential tour telling us all that finally the economy has got it right; that it's on its way to recovery.

Where have I seen this film before? Oh yeah: February 2010, 2011, 2012.

In his State of the Union address of January 2011 and 2012, Obama was bragging about his economic accomplishments.

"We are poised for progress," he told Congress in 2011. "Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again."

At the start of 2011, the president was an insufferable blowhard, anxious to let us know that he saved the economy. He was even more of a blowhard in December going into 2012.

But after successfully destabilizing the Islamic world by intervening in Libya, Obama, along with loose money policies of the Federal Reserve, created successively higher oil prices as more and more regimes felt pressure from the Islamic Spring and Obama stifled production at home. And it wasn't just oil prices, either, that went up. Food prices, gold and silver and other basic material prices were heading up just at a time when the global economy was showing signs of slowing.
Inflation then acted as a brake on economies that were struggling to gain traction.

Then Mr. President Obama- who has always looked disinterested in real policy work- took several long vacations, inspired a sovereign debt crisis in the US and started the class warfare rhetoric that he now clings to bitterly as a substitute for religion and guns and real tax reform.

Several sovereign debt crises later, the largest economic union in the world, the Eurozone, is on life support, while China deteriorates economically and Japan is listless.

And how did America do in this after all of Obama's bragging?

Corporate profits are mixed, unemployment is ticking back up, while GDP grows at about 1.5 percent annually. The S&P 500 returned a measly 1.02 percent for 2011, however much Obama was roaring about the stock market in January.

Apparently the president doesn't get to decide in January what the market will do for the year.

Now Obama knows that.

Investors, who make economic decisions, not political speeches, didn't buy the all-is-well mantra and bought very little equity in the stock market in 2011, despite "record profits."

This time around, in 2012, as Obama's economy rises from the dead once again, he's claiming only to have saved the auto industry on the backs of the taxpayers' gift of ten and twenty dollars bills that stretches out a billion times.

General Motors, which made "record profits" last year, after getting the largest forgivable loan in the history of mankind- seriously- from the federal government, has announced profits have plunged.

Investors haven't been buying those "record profits" either, chasing shares down to $20 from an offering of $33 in late 2010. $54 is break even for taxpayers- I guess investors were waiting for higher "record profits" before they are convinced that GM is as valuable as Obama says.

Now Obama has a big problem.

He wants you to believe that the economy is so bad that he needed trillions more to fix it. If that's true, then all the bragging in the world by him isn't going to remove the responsibility he has for the mess that he's created over three years.

But he also wants you to think that things are improving as well. If that's true, if unemployment is heading downward, as Obama would want you to believe, then the question becomes: Why does he need trillions more to fix an economy already in recovery?

It's clear the both-ways president, as usual, wants it both ways. He wants to declaim any responsibility for anything, while taking credit for everything.

He got Bin Laden, he saved GM and he blamed Bush.

Subtle clues can be seen in places other than the bottom line of the employment report that the economy is fragile and at risk of fracturing.

Let's for a moment ignore the contortions that socialist economists execute in order to make it appear the best-of-times and the worst-of-times alternately for the benefit of Obama.

Millions of people have left the workforce in the last year, driving labor participation rates to a 30 year low and costing the economy literally hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Consumer sentiment is down markedly, but that's a lagging indicator of the economy. Confidence will be meaningful only on election-day. Even still, consumer confidence is well below what is considered healthy- for an economy or a president.

Getting the picture?

While GDP was not-so great in the first half, that was a one-off event. It will be a disaster in the second half of the year. And the first quarter of 2013 will be decidedly worse, maybe even 2008-9 type worse.

Already we have seen durable goods orders drop. And quarterly dividend futures point to companies eager to retain cash despite "record profits."

Now add into that potent mix of economic miasma: 1) an Obama energy policy that has resulted in higher, less stable prices; 2) an Obama foreign policy that has resulted in more hostile and less stable global relationships, and; 3) world wide central bank policies that admits of one conclusion: We are out of money.

We. Are. Out. Of. Money.

So this is what it looks like when an insufferable blow hard runs out of money?

Yes, sir.

[Warph]

  

Health Care, Israeli-Style
By P. David Hornik on 8.9.12 @ 6:07AM

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/09/health-care-israeli-style

When good deeds don't pay.

On Wednesday one of Israel's largest dailies had a scoop: four months ago a man from Gaza received urgent medical treatment at Beilinson Hospital in Petah Tikva, Israel. He had had a serious cardiac episode that no hospital in Gaza was able to treat.

Not such a scoop, one might think? The man was the husband of Suhila Abd el-Salam Ahmed Haniyeh -- sister of Ismail Haniyeh, political leader of Hamas in Gaza and an ideological enemy of Israel, to put it mildly.

Haniyeh's movement, Hamas, says in its charter that "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it"; and quotes the famous hadith: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'"

And Hamas regularly acts in the spirit of such statements, having killed and injured thousands of Israelis in suicide bombings, rocket firings, and other terror. As for Ismail Haniyeh, you can see him here at Hamas's 24th anniversary rally in Gaza last December 14, bellowing decidedly unfriendly things about Israel such as:

the armed resistance and the armed struggle are the path and the strategic choice for liberating the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, and for the expulsion of the [Israeli] invaders and usurpers from the blessed land of Palestine. The Hamas movement will lead Intifada after Intifada until we liberate Palestine -- all of Palestine, Allah willing.... We won't relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine.

Words that don't leave much room for a "two-state solution" or any sort of peaceful rapprochement. Most recently Haniyeh has blamed Israel for Sunday night's terror attack at the Israeli-Egyptian border, in which global-jihad terrorists killed 16 Egyptian border guards, commandeered their armored vehicle, and would have rammed it into an Israeli community if not stopped in time by the Israeli army and air force. Egypt, rather than pinning this exploit on Israel, has been retaliating against comrades of the actual culprits.

It was this background, then, that made the lifesaving treatment of Haniyeh's brother-in-law by an Israeli hospital noteworthy -- not the fact that the brother-in-law is a Palestinian. In 2010 over 100,000 Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza were treated in Israeli hospitals, over 100 Palestinian doctors interned at them, and five organ donations were performed.

In one notorious case, a Palestinian woman patient from Gaza didn't show much appreciation for her treatment. In 2005 Wafa al-Biri was treated at Soroka Hospital in Beersheva for burns sustained over 45 percent of her body in a gas-cooker accident. Her family wrote a thank-you note to the hospital on her behalf. Two months later Al-Biri, on the way to Soroka for follow-up tests, was detained at a checkpoint; hidden in her clothing was a 20-pound bomb with which, she said, she had hoped to kill 30 to 50 Jews once inside the hospital. [/color]

Though admittedly an extreme case, it would be nice to think this large number of Palestinians' benefiting from Israeli medicine would have a conciliatory effect. In the case of Haniyeh's brother-in-law, the above-linked report says that, after his cardiac episode, the couple filed an urgent entry request with Israeli authorities, a Palestinian ambulance transported the husband to the Erez Crossing, [and] he was moved to [an Israeli ambulance] and taken to the hospital in Petah Tikva along with his wife.

The husband was hospitalized in Israel for about a week, during which his condition was stabilized. Following the treatment, the couple returned to Gaza.

When the chips were down, then, they knew not only that an Israeli hospital could give lifesaving treatment that Gaza hospitals couldn't give, but that there was a chance the Israeli authorities would consent to their request even though Gaza is a hostile entity that instills hate and regularly bombards Israel with rockets and mortars -- in part at the instigation of the distressed man's own brother-in-law.

Ideally, this would induce soul-searching not only about Israel's technological superiority but a value system that sees the humanity even of members of a hostile population. There is, though, no sign of such a reckoning.

[Warph]

       

Something that surprises me, but probably shouldn't, is that college towns are inevitably centers of left-wing derangement.  Whether we're discussing Berkeley (CA), Boulder (CO) or Cambridge (MA), there is more conformity of thought and opinion than you are likely to find anywhere outside a gathering of Islamic mullahs or Obuma's election headquarters.  Ivory towers, whether they're located in New York or Texas, are just another name for Towers of Babel.

I think we can all agree that both political parties could do better.  The difference is that the Democrats could hardly do worse.  It also occurs to me that politics is not only show business for ugly people, but when you consider such ignoramuses as Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, Andre Carson, Nancy Pelosi and Sheila Jackson Lee, you realize it also provides gainful employment for those too ignorant to pass a civil service exam.

I find it odd that Romney has been labeled a flip-flopper when it's Obuma who should go to London and compete for a gold medal.  Nobody can approach him when it comes to flipping; as for flopping, he's setting records that may never be equaled.

For instance, he said he would be a one-term president if his trillion dollar stimulus didn't keep unemployment from exceeding eight percent.  Under his stewardship, it's never been below that figure.  He also vowed to cut the deficit in half.

This is the same big-eared oaf who said his efforts would create five million energy sector jobs, and who, after two years of spouting off about how his program would create millions of shovel-ready jobs, admitted, while sharing a chuckle with his pal, jobs czar Jeffrey Immelt, that there was no such thing as a shovel-ready job.

He also said that doing things his way would put a stop to home foreclosures and that ObumaCare would lower health care costs by $2,500-a-year for the average family.  If Pinocchio had uttered such enormous whoppers, a platoon of eagles could have perched on his shnoz.

Obuma said a person would have to be a "Insane-Hussein" to raise taxes in the middle of a recession, and then proved it by trying to raise income taxes on those making over $250,000, hiking taxes on dividends from 15% to 43%, and doubling the current 15% rate on capital gains.

As for Obuma's oft-stated desire to raise income taxes on the top 1%, in spite of the fact that it would hurt businesses looking to expand and individuals looking to invest, the increased annual revenue would cover a scant eight days at the rate Obuma blows through our tax dollars.

It's actually closer to six days if it's a week during which his wife is taking one of her vacations at our expense.

When you get right down to it, aside from Michelle and his Chicago cronies, there are only two people who have a good reason to be grateful that Barack Insane-Hussein Obuma was elected in 2008.  The first is Jimmy Carter, who is no longer the worst president in U.S. history.  The other is George W. Bush, who left office under a cloud, but who now, by comparison, looks more and more like Mt. Rushmore material.

[Patriot]

Keep em coming, Warph.  While some of us see it clearly, it may take awhile for others.  Sooner or later maybe it will soak in somewhere.

For those who are reading all this consolidated agony and can see America heading down the entirely wrong path, it might be wise to remember two words on November 6th:  Democrat and Moderate. 

Why Democrats?  That should be self explanatory by now.

Why moderates some will ask?  Because it is they who have too often foolishly 'reached across the isle' and handed our country over to the likes of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer & others of the same ilk.  Happens in Topeka all the time, and there's a real battle raging over it right now in Kansas political circles.  Heck, even we have a local democrat who switched parties on paper a few years back and is still in office. Why the D to R switch?  Because a real conservative light bulb came on?  Can't see that from the evidence.  No, likely the change was a strategy just to get elected, and they would surely self describe today as moderate.  Looking at our mill levy (among other things), I'm not  sure that's turned out too well for the taxpayers.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.  Alexander Hamilton