A great example why Jimmy Carter is dangerous

Jimmy Carter was on the Today show this morning, where he was interviewed by Meredith Viera. Carter's exposition of events in the Middle East consisted mostly of an endorsement of Hamas. It almost has to be read to be believed:

CARTER: ... We've had a chance to meet two times with the leaders of Hamas, both those in Gaza and those that are top leaders in Damascus, Syria.

VIEIRA: And you've been criticized for that, sir, because Hamas is considered a terrorist group.

CARTER: By some, they are, and they've done some bad things. But for instance, the year before we had the cease-fire, that I helped to orchestrate last June, the 19th, there was one Israeli killed by rockets. And on an average, 49 Palestinians killed every month during that previous year. And as soon as the cease-fire went into effect, Hamas obeyed it completely. There was no serious rocket fire during the next four or five months.

Whereas, Israel did not restore providing provisions for the Palestinians and Gaza. But Hamas has pledged to me -- and publicly -- that they will accept any cease-fire that is negotiated between the Fatah leader, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Israelis, provided the cease- fire, in turn, is then submitted to the Palestinian people for approval and a referendum. So, that's a major step forward.

Hamas is considered a terrorist group "by some"? Carter apparently does not count himself among those "some," but on what conceivable theory is Hamas not a terrorist organization?

That, in any event, is evidently a small concern for Carter. In his view, Hamas is entirely reliable, and when anything goes wrong it is Israel's fault:

VIEIRA: Do you believe that Hamas can be trusted?

CARTER: Yes, I do. I think they can, because of their own self- interest, not because they're benevolent, or kind, or that sort of thing. But yes, I do. I think they can. And they've never betrayed any commitment that they've made to me, or publicly, as a matter of fact. ...

VIEIRA: But Hamas has said its goal is to destroy Israel. How can you involve them in a peace process when they said their goal is to destroy Israel? They don't recognize Israel.

CARTER: I'm not here to defend Hamas, but to tell you what they have pledged to me, and publicly: That if any agreement is negotiated between Fatah leaders and Israel, that Hamas will accept the agreement if it's submitted to the Palestinian people in a referendum. And that's a very good step forward. And I think they will do that because of their own self-interest.

And Hamas complied very thoroughly with the cease-fire agreement that I had worked out for the last June the 19th. For five months, there were no rockets fired until Israel did attack Gaza again on November 4th.

So Hamas' firing of 126 rockets and 71 mortars into Israel in November, and the many that have followed since then, was all Israel's fault because the Israelis "did attack Gaza again on November 4th."

For those who don't recall that "attack," these are the facts, as we related here:

The IDF sent special forces 200 yards across the border to destroy a tunnel that had been built to facilitate the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Intelligence indicated that such a kidnapping was imminent:

The IDF accused Hamas of jeopardizing the truce by digging the tunnel and plotting to abduct more Israeli soldiers in the immediate future.

"The tunnel we uncovered was ready for imminent use, forcing us to act immediately," the military source said. "We did not know where the other end of the tunnel surfaced. In light of the intelligence we received about its immediate use, plans for special forces to enter Gaza this evening after sundown were approved," he added.

Hamas gunmen opened fire on IDF forces and Hamas fired 45 rockets into Israel the same night.

I can't speculate on his motives, but Carter's animus against Israel and his weirdly positive attitude toward America's terrorist enemies make him a force for evil, not for good, in the Middle East.

Not only do U.S. taxpayers have to pay for abortions, we have to pay for foreign abortions.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday will lift restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, reversing a policy of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush, an administration official said.

"It will be today. He's going to make an executive order (lifting the global gag rule)," the official said.

The Democratic president's decision is a victory for advocates of abortion rights on an issue that in recent years has become a tit-for-tat policy change each time the White House shifts from one party to the other.

When the ban was in place, no U.S. government funding for family planning services could be given to clinics or groups that offer abortion services or counseling in other countries even if the funds for those activities come from non-U.S. government sources.

It has been called the Mexico City Policy because it was unveiled at a United Nations conference there in 1984 and became one of the centerpiece social policies of the conservative administration of former President Ronald Reagan, a Republican.

Critics call it the "gag rule" because it also cuts funds to groups that advocate or lobby for the lifting of abortion restrictions, so they say it infringes on free speech. They also say it has reduced healthcare for some of the world's poorest women.

Former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, rescinded the rule when he took office in January 1993 and his successor, Republican George W. Bush, reinstated it in January 2001.

When he reinstated it, Bush said taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for or advocate abortions.

Anti-abortion activists agreed with Bush and criticized the move to lift the ban on funding.

"When we wake up every morning to a deepening financial crisis, it is an insult to the American people to bail out the abortion industry," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life.

"Planned Parenthood is a billion dollar company and they do not need additional resources to burden the American taxpayer," she added.

The United States spends more than $400 million on overseas family planning assistance each year.

Critics of the funding ban say the anti-abortion restrictions have resulted in huge drops for funding worldwide to organizations that provide family-planning services and basic healthcare. They say this means many women are deprived of contraception and other health services in poor countries, leading to back-alley abortions and deaths.

The Center for Reproductive Rights says, for example, that in Ethiopia and Lesotho, some non-governmental organizations are no longer able to offer comprehensive and integrated healthcare services to patients suffering from HIV/AIDS.

Abortion rights opponents and groups who support the Mexico City Policy contest the view that it has led to an increase of illegal abortions or deaths overseas.

Unlike Clinton and Bush, Obama did not act on the rule on the January 22 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that made abortions legal throughout the country.

Obama asks GOP what they think about bailout then says I won.

(Newser) – President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus plan today, then calmly reminded them that "I won," Politico reports. The GOP is seeking more middle-class tax cuts, among other things, and says the spending package is too large. Further negotiations are planned, but Dems appear to be in control. Asked if he worried about GOP resistance to passing the bill by Feb. 14, Harry Reid replied, “No.”

“We expressed our concerns about some of the spending that’s being proposed in the House bill,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said, adding that “government can’t solve this problem." Republicans have pointed out an OMB report that indicates stimulus funds won’t reach the economy until 2010; Reid said the report was based on partial data, and that the $825 billion or larger plan would quickly provide relief.

Why did he ask, he knew he didn't care what they thought.

Waste of money

The obama inauguration is going to cost $170,000,000. More than Bush 2005, Bush 2001, Clinton 1997, clinton 1993 and Bush senior, combined.

Spirit airlines did what?

No, seriously: they did *what*?

Posted by Moe Lane (Profile)

Monday, January 19th at 2:00PM EST
22 Comments

So, let’s review the bidding.

* You and your friend are flying to Myrtle Beach to do some golfing. Sounds like fun; have a good time!
* Oops! Your regular carrier cancels your flight! Well, that’s all right: they get you a flight on another airline. So, you fly off…
* …and your plane promptly loses both engines because of a flock of what were likely geese*. And, oh, look, there’s the Hudson River.
* Fortunately, your captain today is Chesley B. Sullenberger III, who proceeds to demonstrate that he’s just that good. So you manage to actually walk away from a forced water landing in the middle of winter. Don’t buy any more lottery tickets, by the way - and look both ways while crossing the street from now on. You’ve used up your quota of luck for a while.
* All of this means that you never actually make it to Myrtle Beach.
* And so, when you eventually get around to calling your original carrier to cancel your return trip, guess what happens?

That’s right! Spirit Airlines charges you a $90 cancellation fee! See also here.

(pause)

You know, in some cultures the response to this would be to lock the customer service representative in a room with a gun and expect him to do the honorable thing. I’m not saying that this is the right solution - but it’s probably the one that Spirit Airlines might end up wishing that it could pursue…

Election theft in MN.

Posted by Brian D (Profile)

Wednesday, January 7th at 12:36PM EST
9 Comments

The Wall Street Journal in an Op Ed published on Monday, Funny Business in Minnesota, made the case that funnyman Al Franken is stealing the disputed U.S. Senate election from Senator Norm Coleman in Minnesota. After the first count of ballots, Senator Norm Coleman retained a 215 vote lead, but the margin of victory triggered a mandatory recount of the election. After a recount, Franken emerged with a 225 vote lead. This controversy will be resolved by the Minnesota courts, yet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already decreed, “Norm Coleman will never ever serve [again] in the Senate.”

The WSJ points to the following examples of how Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies leaving the certified result in doubt:

1. Franken picked up between “80 to 100 votes,” because duplicate ballots may have been double counted. There is evidence that “25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote.”
2. Franken gained 46 votes when the Canvassing Board decided to jettison the recount results from Hennepin County and substituted the election night results.
3. Franken gained 37 votes in Ramsey County where 177 more ballots were counted in the recount than were recorded on election night.
4. Franken gained 176 votes because of inconsistent consideration of contested absentee ballots.

Minnesota law does not allow a certification of the result until the court cases are resolved and the Senate should let this process work out in the Minnesota Courts. A vote of the United States Senate to seat Franken without a certificate of election would prejudice any change Coleman has to win this case on appeal in Minnesota. Of course, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already decided the case and declared that “Norm Coleman will never ever serve [again] in the Senate,” Reid told Politico’s Manu Raju. “He lost the election. He can stall things, but he’ll never serve in the Senate.”

Another great of example of schools that don't have enough money.

Chicago public school bureaucrats skirted competitive bidding rules to buy 30 cappuccino/espresso machines for $67,000, with most of the machines going unused because the schools they were ordered for had not asked for them, according to a report by the CPS Office of Inspector General.

That was just one example of questionable CPS actions detailed in the inspector general's 2008 annual report. Others included high school staffers changing grades to pump up transcripts of student athletes and workers at a restricted-enrollment grade school falsifying addresses to get relatives admitted.

In the case of the cappuccino machines, central office administrators split the order among 21 vocational schools to avoid competitive bidding required for purchases over $10,000. As a result CPS paid about $12,000 too much, according to Inspector General James Sullivan. "We were able to find the same machines cheaper online," he said.

"We also look at it as a waste of money because the schools didn't even know they were getting the equipment, schools didn't know how to use the machines and weren't prepared to implement them into the curriculum," Sullivan said.

CPS spokesman Michael Vaughn said CPS plans to change its purchasing policy so that competitive bidding kicks in when a vendor accumulates $10,000 worth of orders, no matter how many schools are involved. One person was fired and disciplinary action is pending against three others, he said.

The grade-changing took place at an unidentified high school, where student athletes grades were boosted, then, after transcripts were issued for college admission offices, the grades were changed back. The culprits could not be identified because passwords allowing entry to the grading system were shared by a number of people, Sullivan said. A new record system has tighter security, he said.

At Carson Elementary, an overcrowded school in Gage Park where even neighborhood kids were restricted from enrolling, five lower- level employees got six relatives into the school by falsifying addresses. Sixty-nine students from outside the attendance area got in, but they didn't even bother to lie about their addresses. CPS had to spend as much as $252,000 to bus kids who live in the neighborhood to other schools, Sullivan said.

Vaughn said the employees involved have resigned, been fired or will be fired.

The main street media finally is mad at Al Qauda

Killing of thousands of innocent people and vowing to destroy all non believers did not upset them. Calling Obama a house negro has really set them off.

Al Qaeda's number two crackpot, Ayman Zawahiri, called Barack Obama a "house Negro" in an audio tape released yesterday. That was beyond the pale, as State Department spokesman Sean McCormack explained:

"It's just, you know, more despicable comments from a terrorist," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters when asked to comment on the remarks.

"And if anybody needed ... more of a contrast between what ... the West and the United States stand for, in terms of democracy and what these terrorists stand for, I don't think you need to go any further than those comments," he said.

I would have said that you don't need to go farther than the fact that the terrorists try to crash airliners, blow up buildings and kill as many innocent people as possible. In some people's eyes, though, that seems to be a subtle distinction.

What's ironic about this is that liberals have been calling people like Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell "house Negroes" for some years now. Maybe the Left needs a new aphorism: "One man's terrorist is another man's liberal.

Another great example of the anti religion anti God feeling of the Democrats.

On his November 10 Huffington Post, Nicholas Graham and nearly every commenter thereafter, purposefully distorted what Governor Palin said about prayer and the 2012 presidential race. The universal misconstruction of Palin's comments was that she was "praying to become president" in 2012 and that somehow God was speaking directly to her. But reality is she did not say that at all.

Graham offhandedly claimed that Palin said that she was waiting "for a sign from God" as to whether she would run in 2012. Further distorting her comments, he claimed she was "confident God would show the way to the White House." But, once again, she said neither of these things. In fact, what she actually said is rhetoric that is pretty much in accord with what even elected presidents have said at one time or another.

Unfortunately, we have arrived at a time when the default position for Democrats as a party is to despise religion even if individually they consider themselves religious. They consider any expression of religious sentiment whatsoever to be an example of "extremism," and "bigotry" against others. Well, at least the second any Republican expresses a religious sentiment, that is. When anyone from their side does it, they wink, nod and assume that their politician is just lying and merely trying to get elected and doesn't really mean it -- which is still an expression of a hatred for religion when all is said and done.

ready to rule day 1

So says Valerie Jarrett, co-chair of Barack Obama's transition team. Part of Obama's "ruling" will be a quick succession of executive orders, news reports indicate. High on the list will be an order reversing President Bush's order that cleared the way for expanded offshore drilling.

The price of gasoline and heating oil has dropped off the radar screen somewhat as a political issue, but blocking the development of domestic energy reserves is absurdly short-sighted. As soon as the economy rebounds, so will the price of petroleum, and the high cost of energy will brake the recovery that is sure to come in the next 12 months. The Democrats must know this, but to the victors go the spoils, and the Dems have little choice, apparently, but to reward the interest groups who financed their victory.

Still, poll data indicate that even most Democrats favor more offshore drilling, so Obama's order will be a sop to the hard environmental left, not the Democratic base as a whole. Which explains why Obama will issue the order: in September, before the financial crisis took center stage and when John McCain was making energy a centerpiece of his campaign, Congressional Democrats let the statutory ban on offshore drilling expire.

By issuing an executive order banning development of this critical source of domestic energy, Obama will take the Democrats in Congress off the hook. They won't have to take the blame for the economic havoc wreaked by their party's fealty to the hysterical wing of the environmental movement. Obama figures, perhaps, that in four years no one will remember the implicit tax that he placed on everyone who drives a car, heats a home, or buys products in stores.

Most affluent voters key to Obama sweep

Barack Obama promised he would lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans and presumably raise them for the 5 percent who benefited most under President Bush’s tax policies. But, remarkably, the most affluent 5 percent supported Obama and that was perhaps the key to his victory last week.

This group — and the rise of a new elite class of voters — is at the heart of the fast-paced changes in demographics affecting the political, sociological and economic landscape of the country. While there has been some inflation over the past 12 years, the exit poll demographics show that the fastest growing group of voters in America has been those making over $100,000 a year in income. In 1996, only 9 percent of the electorate said their family income was that high. Last week it had grown to 26 percent — more than one in four voters. And those making over $75,000 are up to 15 percent from 9 percent. Put another way, more than 40 percent of those voting earned over $75,000, making this the highest-income electorate in history.

The poorest segment of the electorate, those making under $15,000, has shrunk from 11 percent to 6 percent over the past dozen years. And those making $15,000 to $30,000 annually — the working poor — also shrunk from 23 percent to 12 percent of the electorate.

At the same time, the voters have become more racially diverse (with white voters dropping 9 points from 1996 to 74 percent of the electorate and minorities) and better educated — voters who had attended some college are surging.

While Obama received record votes from the expanded minority communities, that alone would not have led to victory had he not also secured so much support among the growing professional class — and in doing so went beyond the successful 1996 coalition that also climbed the income ladder to include newly targeted soccer moms. Back then, President Clinton got 38 percent of the vote among those making over $100,000. This year Obama earned 49 percent of that vote. He also got 52 percent of a new polling category — those making over $200,000 a year who were no longer among the top 1 percent of earners, as they had been in past elections, but were now the top 6 per cent.

And for all the talk about the surging youth vote, those under 29 went from 17 percent in 1996 and 17 percent in 2004 to a mere to 18 percent of the electorate today — and that youth surge was heavily fueled by the fact that the minority communities are much younger than their white counterparts. Of the 18 percent under age 29 who voted this year, 11 percent were white and 7 percent were minority.

So the fusion of expanded minority voting and the expanded upper class, combined with shifting demographics, were key to Obama’s victory. But while demographers have been predicting the growth in minority voting — especially the Latino increases — for decades, they did not predict the upscale income changes in the electorate or focus on them. Most people in America (over 80 percent) no matter what their income, say they are middle class, which is why that phrase is so powerful on the stump.

But 69 percent of all Americans in polls I conducted in recent years now also call themselves “professionals,” a new class transcending the old class labels or working or middle class or the wealthy. They have white-collar jobs requiring higher education and are earning more than ever before. Because of layoffs and business scandals of recent years, they have become increasingly embittered toward the corporate cultures that would have otherwise been their natural home base.

Unlike the small-businessman who is typically anti-government, these professionals come out of the era of the growth of global corporations believing more than ever before in government intervention, teamwork and collective action. They are the voters who favored the bailout, while the left and the right saw it as a betrayal of their fundamental principles.

These higher educated voters generally believe more in science than religion, in the interconnectedness of the world, and in pragmatism over ideology. They see us all living in a new world and are watching their kids enter it taking new economy kinds of jobs in places increasingly far away from home.

This group is at the core of voters receiving more of their information online and through cable TV in their offices all day long. As they leave many of the problems of working class life behind, this new class is easily captivated by the Sunday shows. What appears on the front pages has more impact on shaping their views than what they experience in their everyday life.

In the end when it comes to a congressional vote, will they support higher taxes if they have to pay them? That is a big question that remains to be seen – they could quickly fragment over the issue if it gets raised early in the Obama administration. And they part company with many other Obama supporters in believing that we need to compete and win in the global economy, seeing trade as a necessity for economic growth.

These new professionals in software, the media, consulting, and mid-management have now declared themselves to be Democrats. After seeing Clinton and Bush back to back, they have switched their votes as part of a rejection of the religious right, the war in Iraq, and laissez-faire economics.

The history of revolution usually parallels the history of rising, not falling incomes, and the middle class revolutions of 1848 brought many countries the democratic system in the first place. In the Obama revolution, the upper-classing of America took a front seat – the central question is whether they will remain there.

Good show of strong media bias, so sickening

Having run interference for Barack Obama throughout the campaign, the press is now preparing to do the same once he has been sworn in. A common theme, as the media anticipate Barack's ascendancy, is how tough he has it. Today's Associated Press account is typical: "Like Lincoln and FDR, Obama faces nation in crisis:"

All presidents are tested. Few walk into the Oval Office when the nation is in the throes of multiple crises.

Like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President-elect Obama is facing a banking emergency.

Like Abraham Lincoln, Obama is trying to patch up national divisions. ...

"With two wars and an economic crisis, this is one step away from what Lincoln or FDR faced," said Terry Sullivan, associate professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Well, yes, I can see the analogies. Like Lincoln, Obama will take office confronted by a threat of secession and civil war from the states that supported his opponent. No, wait....

The better analogy must be Roosevelt, who took office with the nation more than two years into a depression and with unemployment at 25%. Hey, at 6.5%, we're a quarter of the way there! In addition, of course, not only did Roosevelt face a "banking crisis" of his own, he had to worry about fascism rising in Europe and the threat of world war.

The "two wars" meme is one we're hearing a lot, but by historical standards it's pretty silly. The war in Iraq is nearly won, while the Afghan conflict has so far claimed the lives of 609 American military personnel, every one of them a hero. But still: around 400,000 American servicemen died in World War II. Let's have a little sense of perspective here.

Actually, it isn't just Lincoln and Roosevelt who took office under more difficult conditions than Obama. Think of Truman; World War II was still raging and he had to decide to use atomic weapons to bring it to an end; beyond that, the Soviet threat was visible on the horizon. Or Eisenhower, who assumed office while the Korean War was going on. Or Richard Nixon: Vietnam and riots in the streets. Or Ronald Reagan, who began his Presidency with unemployment at 7.5 % and inflation at 12%. Was there a banking crisis? Oh yes, interest rates were at 18-20%. Now, THAT was an economic challenge! In addition, not only was the Cold War in full swing, the U.S. was losing with the Soviet Union advancing around the world.

It's not hard to understand what lies behind the current spate of articles on how tough Barack has it. Reporters and editors are preparing the battlefield. They are concerned that Obama's first year or two won't appear to be notably successful, so they're lining up excuses in advance. How long are they willing to continue to cut their candidate some slack?

Knowing his opening moves will be widely scrutinized, Obama tried to roll back expectations on election night.

"Our climb will be steep," he said. "We may not get there in one year or even in one term."

Yet he remained upbeat as did Roosevelt, who took the reins of a nation in the depths of the Depression.

That answers the question, I think. The press is already preparing to run interference for Obama's campaign for a second term.

PAUL adds: The two wars that Obama and his cheerleaders harp on have ensured that Obama won't have to deal with two regimes that attacked and/or abetted attacks on us and/or our allies during the presidencies of Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. The two wars are part of a larger effort that has routed terrorists around the world and vastly decreased the likelihood of a successful attack on the U.S. during Obama's administration.

Ironically, though, Obama actually does have it tough when it comes to one foreign situation that the Bush administration hasn't successfully handled -- Iran's substantial progress towards developing nuclear weapons. For obvious reasons, Obama and his cheerleaders are less inclined to portray this as a crisis. The AP story John links to above makes no mention of Iran.