The Real Meaning of the 4th of July
Israel Ortega
The 4th of July -- Independence Day. For American families, it's a tradition that involves food, friends and fireworks. Unfortunately, as with many holidays, it's easy to lose sight of why we're celebrating.
America's independence is significant in part because, to many people worldwide, it's the defining characteristic of our country and its citizens. Many other countries came together because of a common language, religion or ethnicity. That's how the countries in South and Central America, for example, came to be. The United States of America, by contrast, was born because its founders believed in a series of principles and ideas. Having escaped religious persecution in Europe, the first non-native Americans were firm defenders of a number of things including: liberty, freedom and opportunity. These concepts are the bedrock of our country's rich history, and have guided us in the 232 years since we declared our independence from Britain. And although we haven't always lived up to these ideals, the American spirit to strive for perfection has always prevailed. Ultimately, the genius of our country lies in its people. Previous immigrant waves began with the first pilgrims from England, and included Germans, Irish, Polish, Chinese and Italians, among others. Today's Hispanic Americans are just the latest in a long list of those who left their homelands and their families in search of a better future. And yet, precisely because there are no requirements or preconditions to become an American (other than an understanding and appreciation for all that bind us together), immigrants have an obligation to honor and love our country. Like those who came before us, it is vital to know our country's history, customs and language. Only then can we ensure that future generations of Americans can be as blessed as we are to live in such a great country. Israel Ortega is a Senior Media Services Associate at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
Colin Powell Jumping Ship?
George Joyce
Add Colin Powell to the ranks of Americans waking up from the Obama induced stupor. The Washington Times is reporting that Mr. Powell has voiced serious reservations in a CNN interview about Obama’s big government agenda and its consequences for our nation and our children.
In the CNN interview to be aired Sunday on “State of the Union with John King” Powell cautioned Mr. Obama about "budgets that are running into the multi-trillions of dollars" and "a huge, huge national debt that, if we don't pay for in our lifetime, our kids and grandkids and great-grandchildren will have to pay for it."
Haven’t conservatives been issuing these same warnings ever since Obama began his presidential campaign? It seems rather disingenuous for Mr. Powell, an early Obama supporter, to suddenly have this epiphany after a mountain of economic evidence has portended the frightening consequences of President Obama’s budget.
Maybe it’s Powell’s way of distancing himself from the Democrats after Obama’s truly outrageous handling of recent events in Honduras and in Iran.
Remember about a month ago when Newsweek’s Evan Thomas gushed:
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
I guess even Colin Powell assumes that God would be able to balance a budget.
Oh to Be an Obama Czar!
Larrey Anderson
Obama’s health Czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle, has spent the last eight years making a fortune working for medical companies that have been under federal investigation for violating Medicare laws. Once again, Obama has managed to place a fox in the federal chicken coop with minimum criticism from the mainstream media.
The Investigative Reporting Workshop has the story:
Nancy-Ann DeParle … served as a director of corporations that faced scores of federal investigations, whistleblower lawsuits and other regulatory actions, according to government records reviewed by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.
Several of the companies were investigated for alleged kickbacks or engaging in other illegal billing schemes, while others were accused of serious violations of federal quality standards, including one company that failed to warn patients of deadly problems with an implanted heart defibrillator. Several of the cases ended with substantial fines paid to the federal government, even though the companies admitted no wrongdoing.
When Obama introduced DeParle, the President crowed about DeParle’s service in running Medicare under President Clinton. Obama failed to mention that DeParle made millions after she left government service to work in the private sector:
After leaving government, DeParle accepted director positions at half a dozen companies suspected of violating the very laws and regulations she had enforced for Medicare. Those companies got into further trouble on her watch as a director. Now she’s back in government as a leading voice in deciding the shape of health care reform.
Obama promised us “transparency” under his administration. One thing seems transparent enough: the potential for even more corruption with the appointment of DeParle.
Hat tip: my wife
Greenies kill jobs, stymie increased gasoline production
Thomas Lifson
More unemployment means a smaller carbon footprint, as California greenies succeed in convincing a judge to shut down a needed modernization of California's oldest refinery, the massive 104 year old Chevron Richmond refinery. David R. Baker of the San Francisco Chronicle reports:
A judge has ordered Chevron Corp. to stop work on its controversial oil refinery expansion in Richmond, handing environmentalists their biggest victory in a long fight over the project.
Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga gave Chevron 60 days to wind up work on the project, which would have given the 107-year-old refinery greater flexibility to process different types of crude oil. Zuniga's orders, dated Wednesday, were released Thursday.
Her ruling doesn't kill the upgrade project outright. But before it could proceed, Chevron would need a new environmental impact report and a new permit from the Richmond City Council, which narrowly approved the project last year. Zuniga ruled last month that the original environmental report didn't answer key questions, siding with environmental and community groups that had sued to stop the expansion.
One hundred workers were laid off yesterday, and as many as a thousand may lose thier jobs as the project shuts down. After years of effort, and many millions of dollars expended, I wonder if Chevron will be willing to risk another round? Might jus be simpler to buy refined products elsewhere, or maybe invest in a refinery in Mexico. The improvement project looked like a real winner to me. I have been following its progress for a couple of years now, as I have taken an interest in the civic affairs of Richmond, a deeply troubled, mostly-minority city a few miles north of Berkeley. Among the many benefits of the project, the refinery would have been able to squeeze 7% more gasoline out of a barrel of oil, and would have been able to refine a wider range of crude. Greenies don't care, though.
Tens of Thousands in Honduras demonstrate in favor of military
Rick Moran
 This is a picture from a demonstration in support of Honduran democracy and the government of President Michelleti who has defied the OAS and has said there is no chance that the Chavez stooge, former President Zelaya will return. (Picture courtesy of Gateway Pundit )
James Kirchick of the New York Daily News shows how Obama and the US government is on the wrong side in this matter:
On Tuesday, Zelaya was given a hero's welcome by the United Nations General Assembly. More worrying has been American complicity in the campaign to restore an authoritarian to power, beginning with U.S. co-sponsorship of a resolution stating that the removal of Zelaya "interrupted the democratic and constitutional order and the legitimate exercise of power in Honduras."
This is exactly backwards. It was Zelaya, who in his avowal to ignore a supreme court decision and proceed with an illegal power grab, subverted his country's democracy. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has cut off all cooperation with the Honduran military and Obama administration officials told The New York Times of their intention to give the poverty-stricken Central American nation "a taste of isolation" (would they threaten such consequences for the mullahs in Iran?).
Secretary of State Clinton said that Honduras' actions "should be condemned by all" and President Obama said that his administration would "stand with democracy" by supporting Zelaya's reinstatement. Propping up an authoritarian undermining his country's constitution (which he claimed needs fixing to reflect a new "national reality," apparently one in which he rules forever) is a strange way to demonstrate that solidarity.
It is unfair to the people of Honduras and their institutions to characterize the removal of Zelaya as the rogue work of the country's military, and the most noxious aspect of the coverage this past week has been repeated use of the term "coup" to describe what transpired.
Indeed, the correct diplomatic term for when a military overthrows a civilian government and replaces it with another civlian government is a "pronunciamento." Even that term is not entirely accurate since there was never a loss of civilian government as the military was acting under the direct orders of the Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress.
I have a very bad feeling that the situation in Honduras and Obama's lethargic and tepid response to the Iranian crackdown are indicative of a foreign policy where we will constantly be on the wrong side of history. Obama's Muslim speech also had elements of this myopia about who the good guys are and what the bad guys look like. Sometimes, you have to choose. And Obama has so far demonstrated a spectacular ability to choose the wrong side.
How much does it cost to buy the Washington Post?
Andrew Thomas
Andrew Thomas, of Dark Angel Politics, knows:
Now they want the Gipper's name removed from Washington airport
Rick Moran
Well that's one way to deal with Reagan's legacy. Erase it from history like the communists used to do:
At Wednesday's Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board meeting, chairman H.R. Crawford - a former District Council member and Marion Barry confidante - told fellow Board members that he has heard talk on Capitol Hill about yanking former President Ronald Reagan's name off the local airport and returning it to its previous generic moniker: National Airport.
"It was just a discussion. We're not aware of anything specific," MWAA spokeswoman Tara Hamilton later told The Examiner.
It's clear that the current crop of congressional leaders want no part of Reagan's grand conservative vision for America, but erasing all trace of his memory from an airport that's already been named in his honor is about as petty as you can get.
Barbara Hollingsworth of the Examiner brings us this story at a time when Democrats are busy trying to destroy everything that Ronald Reagan stood for; smaller government, lower taxes, less government spending, a strong defense. and a proud, assertive foreign policy.
Perhaps they feel that in addition to trashing his legacy, they may was well ape what the Soviets used to do when they wiped former heroes of Communism from the pages of history.
A new wind is blowing through Washington. And it has the stench of the sewer.
Airline mulls installing 'standing seats'
Thomas Lifson
As airlines cut back on amenities like hot meals, free soda, and clean interiors, word comes of a new innovation aimed at saving money while maximizing revenue: selling standing room.
The report comes from a serious trade magazine, Flight Global: Privately-owned Chinese low-cost carrier Spring Airlines has spoken to Airbus about adding standing-seats on its Airbus A320s so it can have 40% more passengers on board.
Zhang Wuan, an official at the Shanghai airline who works closely with the CEO, says: "We are planning to have standing seats" and have had "initial discussions with the Airbus side to see if the safety question can be" addressed.
Don't worry about safety, though. There will be something resembling a "bar stool" featuring some form of restraint. Presumably, the revenue-maximizing airline will be selling drinks to passengers on the bar stools, so the complete package could feature the ambience of a low rent cocktail lounge. As wealth continues to be destroyed, we are all going to become accustomed to less and less luxury in our lives. Soon it will be thirty-somethings who remember the good old days. Hat tip: Bryan Demko
Scary story of the week
Thomas Lifson
If you are spooked by the spate of recent airline crashes, read no further. You may not want to think about who worked on maintaining the next airplane you ride on. And don't let your mind turn to the question of how the elaborate and expensive regulatory bureaucracy allowed this to happen. Put it all out of your mind. Unless you value your life, that is.
WFAA Television (You have to love the way its call letters recapitulate the principal aviation regulator) reports: ...hundreds of aircraft mechanics have been brought into the United States to work at aircraft repair facilities.
Insiders say the companies that are importing the mechanics are so eager to save money, they're overstating their qualifications. The result may be a threat to safety, abetted by lax enforcement of immigration law.
At daybreak any morning at San Antonio Aerospace, hundreds of workers amble through the gates for the day shift. They repair big jets like Airbuses, Boeing 757s and MD-11s. But, despite the fact that it's a huge facility in the middle of the San Antonio International Airport, a large number of the mechanics are only temporary workers from foreign countries. ...
San Antonio Aerospace uses several contracting companies to supply it with workers. It can be a high-profit business for the contractors. They can make $3 to $12 an hour for every worker hired by SAA, contractors say.
The drive for profits is so big, Williams and other insiders said, that the contractors often falsify the qualifications of the imports.
"We had two," she said. "One of them was a female. She was about 16. It was a brother and a sister. One guy was a grocery bagger, one was a security guard in Puerto Rico. Their ages were between 18 and 22."
Their ages are important because it takes years of experience or schooling to learn how to repair a big jet, experience they couldn't have had.
"There had been padded resumes at SAA before," said an administrator at another contractor. "That's why another contract house was kicked out (of SAA)."
Hat tip: Bryan Demko
They can keep her
Rick Moran
You may have heard that the Israeli navy intercepted a ship of Palestinian sympathizers who were trying to get to Israel to highlight the plight of civilians in Gaza and deliver aid. Of course, spouting anti-Israeli propoganda to the world press was their primary objective - something they could do just as easily from home but no one would pay any attention to them there.
At any rate, on board this ship of fools was none other than former Congressman, 9/11 truther, and certified leftist loon Cynthia McKinney. It may please you to know that she and 20 other leftist lunatics were taken off the ship and have been held in an Israeli detention center since Tuesday.
CNN reports:
The ex-lawmaker is in the Givon immigration detention center in the central Israeli city of Ramle, the U.S. Embassy said.
She has been given deportation papers but has refused to sign them, the embassy said.
She will be held for three more days, assuming she does not sign the papers, and then will be sent back to the United States, the embassy added.
The location of others taken into custody was not immediately known.
The IDF said the ship, which it called the Arion, had been warned while at sea that it would not be allowed to enter Gazan waters "because of security risks in the area and the existing naval blockade."
The IDF said the cargo boat disregarded all warnings and entered Gazan coastal waters. An Israeli navy force intercepted, boarded and took control of the vessel, directing it toward Ashdod, Israel, the IDF said.
The boat's crew would "be handed over to the proper authorities," the military said.
Why send her home? She obviously doesn't want to leave. Let her stay among her Hamas friends and get an authentic immersion in what it means to live in Gaza. I'm sure she would enjoy herself so much, she might never want to come back to the US.
If only we were so lucky.
Sotomayor and ACORN joined at the hip
Rick Moran
This is not surprising - Republican senate staffers have been whispering for weeks that a Sotomayor-ACORN connection was in the process of being unearthed.
But the extent of the relationship is more than a little shocking. Jennifer Rubin writing in Contentions:
Below the surface of the daily news coverage, Senate Republicans have been struggling to get documents from PRLDEF, the liberal civil rights group in which Sotomayor held a variety of leadership positions for a dozen years. It seems odd, at first blush, that there should be a tussle over a group whose public positions on a variety of issues are well known and in which Sotomayor played such a central leadership role. Why fight over boxes of old letters and legal briefs? At first, many speculated that this might have been problematic because it would feed the racial preference storyline and breathe new life into the "wise Latina" remakrs. But maybe it is far more explosive.
Roll Call buries the lede on this one:
The PRLDEF on Tuesday turned over a number of documents that could become political flash points, including papers on the organization's work with the nonprofit Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now during Sotomayor's time with the PRLDEF. ACORN has become a major rallying cry for conservatives after allegations that its organizers falsified voter registration forms in the 2008 election. The mere mention of ACORN in association with Sotomayor - regardless of how significant her involvement with the group was - will almost certainly intensify opposition to her high court installment from conservatives on and off Capitol Hill.
Ya think? Well that would be problematic.
Indeed it would be - and is. Sotomayor apparently held several positions with the group, including "Member and Vice President, Board of Directors Chairperson, Litigation and Education Committees." And the New York Times reported:
"She just believed in the mission," Luis Alvarez, a former chairman of its board, said of Ms. Sotomayor. "This was a highly refined group of individuals who came from the premier academic institutions. It was almost like Camelot. It was a wonderful growth period."
But Ms. Sotomayor stood out, frequently meeting with the legal staff to review the status of cases, several former members said. And so across her 12 years on the board - she left when she was appointed a federal judge in 1992 - she played an active role as the defense fund staked out aggressive stances on issues like police brutality, the death penalty and voting rights.
The board monitored all litigation undertaken by the fund's lawyers, and a number of those lawyers said Ms. Sotomayor was an involved and ardent supporter of their various legal efforts during her time with the group.
This news will have no impact on Democrats. But it will make it a little harder for those Republicans who were planning on deserting the party and voting for her confirmation to make the case she is a "mainstream" judge. ACORN is a proto-Leninist, thuggish group of far left radicals who want to overturn American society and create a Marxist state.
Perhaps some Republican senator on the Judiciary Committee might ask her whether she still believes in ACORN's "mission" which lately appears to be gaming the electoral system by trying to steal elections.
Hat Tip: Ed Lasky
How's that transparency in science coming, fellas?
Rick Moran
Here's a great opinion piece by Kim Strassel in today's Wall Street Journal on the EPA scientist who was muzzled for his contrary views on making carbon a pollutant.
This story is not going away any time soon because the EPA refuses to answer questions posed by Republicans in Congress and keeps insisting that the scientist who was told not to write anything more about global warming - 35 year EPA vet Alan Carlin - was heard out.
Emails from Carlin's boss Al McGartland tell a different story.
Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.
The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." (Emphasis added.)
Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate." Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.
Making carbon a pollutant and subject to the tender regulatory mercies of the EPA is going to add a massive layer of bureaucracy to energy production, thus driving up costs, discouraging innovation, and all the attendant evils that a huge increase in paperwork entails.
Read the rest of Strassel's article on this clear example of hypocrisy by the Obama administration.
Hat Tip: Ed Lasky
Obama the Redeemer
Ed Lasky
Is there a pattern emerging, given the Cap and Trade bill recently passed at Obama's urging?
Indeed there is.
His apology tour for past American "sins" (all occurring before his reign, he explains) was not enough for Obama to cleanse our collective historical record. He wants to go beyond being the redeemer. He wants to be the rectifier. The military has been complicit in war crimes, so we should gut the military so as to minimize the risk of similar "crimes" in the future. Has America,as the great industrial power, used its might to pollute the earth? Gut American industry with taxes, regulations, and cap and trade (which will empower our competitors and reduce America to a second-rate, if we are lucky, industrial power).
All the better that our American-based multinationals will have less power to wreak havoc on the lesser developed world. Have we played a "bad role" on the international stage? Well, we are walking back from supporting our allies (Columbia, Great Britain, Georgia, Israel) since our power is always a temptation to use, and every time we use it (in Obama's fevered imagination) we harm the world. So we will weaken our allies by minimizing our support for them and rectify our past actions (see especially Iran and Israel). Since America played a role in a coup in Iran over 50 years ago, we must rectify our sin by stepping back from "meddling" in Iran.
We opposed Hugo Chavez in the past. We must rectify that by shifting to the opposite tack and implicitly support him and his allies in the region (think Honduras).
To Obama, the mere existence of American strength - be it diplomatic, economic, military - is a sin because it leads us to exercise such power. Every time we exercise such power we bring about harm. He must not only apologize (and be the redeemer) but turn back the clock by "undoing" the harm. He wants to make history right - by undoing history.
As Obama wants to level Americans by engineering a massive transfer of wealth (remember the "spread the wealth" gaffe during the campaign) so also he wants to level America to the status of any other nation in the world. This is reflected in his reliance on the standards of the ‘international community" and his increasing emphasis on abiding by the rulings and directions of the United Nations rather than focusing on supporting American interests abroad.
These are the lessons, the education, he learned at Columbia, at Harvard, and in the pews of his finishing school ‘Trinity United Church of Christ" from his American-hating mentor and moral compass, Jeremiah Wright, Junior- a man who based his sermons on the evil that America has always practiced in every sphere where it exercises any national power.
Obama, redeemer of America's sins. Our modern day Christ figure-but without the personal and redemptive suffering. That is what he has in store for the rest of us. And for America.
Dershowitz's Weak Analysis of Obama's Support for Israel (updated)
Lauri Regan
Against the background of increasing world-wide anti -Semitism, Alan Dershowitz has been a helpful advocate for Israel, particularly given the paucity of Israeli support from the left. His piece in today's Wall Street Journal, however, falls far short of the mark.
Dershowitz argues that Obama's strident policy on settlements is not an indication of America's lack of support for Israel. He is wrong to do so. First, Dershowitz claims that Obama's harsher approach toward Israel is rhetorical form over substance, cavalierly dismissing stated policy simply because he can envision an acceptable compromise. He bases his statement on a flimsy rationale of some perceived but unsubstantiated Jewish American support which is not exactly a reassuring stratagem for foreign policy. But what happened to Obama's insistence that "words must matter"? Is that rhetoric or substance? Furthermore, Dershowitz neglects to mention the seminal settlement related issues, such as the fact that the settlements are not illegal under international law -- and that the U.S. has no business meddling into the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. (It seems as though that policy only applies to hostile nations who are openly committed to the destruction of Israel and the U.S.) That Dershowitz has in the past made compelling arguments in favor of the legality of Israel's settlements is telling if not intellectually dishonest. Additionally, Dershowitz omits any mention of our past written and oral commitments to Israel supporting its right to natural settlement growth that, like other inconvenient facets of reality not fitting into Obama's grand scheme of weak-kneed appeasement, have been completely ignored. In discussing the most striking example of the administration's hostility toward Israel, the nonsensical linkage between a two state solution and a nuclear Iran, Dershowitz states that Rahm Emanuel "appeared" to link the two issues, completely ignoring the numerous statements coming out of the White House indicating that this is in fact the administration's policy. Since there is no justification for such an appalling position, Dershowitz dances around the issue by calling it "disturbing" and suggesting it should be "disavowed." The Obama administration has done nothing to suggest it will drop this ultimatum or to indicate it is willing to get tough with Iran. Where is Dershowitz's outrage for a policy of risking the security of our nation's greatest ally to palliate the Arab world? What data points does Dershowitz cite to support his view that the Obama administration will change course relative to either Israel or Iran? Does anyone seriously believe that Obama would consider the military option? Dershowitz drops the ball on this point because there is nothing to suggest otherwise. That he mentions Dennis Ross as the administration's "point man" -- who publicly questioned the linkage of Iran and the settlement issue -- is vapid. Dershowitz omits the fact that the administration has replaced Ross as envoy to Iran. Dershowitz also claims there is no evidence to suggest weakening support for Israel's right to defend itself. What about the constant drumbeat of our administration's support for closing checkpoints, easing restrictions at the crossings, and handing over control of the West Bank to Palestinian armed militants, all under the convenient tripe of making life easier for those poor, unfortunate Palestinians? How about the billion dollars of support for Hamas? Dershowitz concludes that there is no reason to confuse Obama's policy on settlement expansion with undercutting Israel's security. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. In justifying his opinion, Dershowitz states that: "Successful presidential candidates often soften their support for Israel once they are elected."
The bait and switch Dershowitz refers to at the beginning of his article never occurred under Bush and it should not be acceptable under Obama simply because Dershowitz's liberalism allowed him to buy into the deceit dished out by Obama throughout the campaign. If he is having buyer's remorse, Dershowitz should whine to a different audience, but I expect that the readers of the WSJ found his justification for his vote "despite [Obama's] friendships with rabidly anti-Israel characters" to be pathetically lacking in reasoned analysis.
Update: The incomparable Melanie Phillips weighs in on Deershowitz's op-ed. Mladen Andrijasevic writes:
It all boils down to Obama’s policy towards Iran.
Alan Dershowitz writes:
If the Obama administration were to shift toward learning to live with a nuclear Iran and attempt to deny Israel the painful option of attacking its nuclear targets as a last resort, that would be troubling indeed.
Melanie Phillips responds:
Dershowitz also grossly underplays the terrible harm Obama is doing to the security not just of Israel but the world through his reckless appeasement of Iran. In the last few weeks, this has actively undercut the Iranian democrats trying to oust their tyrannical regime, and has actually strengthened that regime. All the evidence suggests ever more strongly that Obama has decided America will ‘live with’ a nuclear Iran, whatever it does to its own people. Which leaves Israel hung out to dry.
In an article I wrote in October last year I criticized Alan Dershowitz and Colin Powell for underestimating the Iranian threat:
What do Alan Dershowitz and Colin Powell have in common? Apparently, neither of them know much about the Mahdi , the hidden Twelfth Imam whose return will be triggered, the mullahs are convinced, by the destruction of the Jews through a nuclear war.
Dershowitz has by now begun to realize the significance of Iran. He understands that the linkage between the efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and Israeli actions with regard to the settlements is wrong:
This is a disturbing linkage that should be disavowed by the Obama administration. Opposition to a nuclear Iran -- which would endanger the entire world -- should not be dependent in any way on the issue of settlement expansion.
Despite the stopping Iran - settlements linkage created by the administration, Dershowitz still believes that the Obama administration has not shifted towards learning to live with a nuclear Iran and attempting to deny Israel the painful option of attacking its nuclear targets. But Obama is continuing to seek "engagement" with Iran as John Bolton points out , whereas Biden has already stated that Israel would be ill-advised to attack Iran . Therefore Dershowitz’s hypothetical “troubling” scenario is already happening.
Helen Thomas: Who do they think we are, puppets?
Bill Tate
Helen Thomas to CNSNews on the unprecedented lengths the Obama White House goes to to control the press. "Nixon didn't try to do that," Thomas said. "They couldn't control (the media). They didn't try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets?".
Thomas made her comments after this week's carefully-orchestrated "town hall" meeting on Obamacare. "I'm not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well--for the town halls, for the press conferences. It's blatant. They don't give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame."
|
|
|
