Monday, November 26, 2012

90% Orthodox go Romney

Headline in World Jewish Digest
90 Percent of Orthodox Jews Voted Romney
1. They are way more committed to Judaism and Israel and understand Judaism than your average non Orthodox Jew. I know there are a few exceptions but as a rule absolutely true, by any measure of Jewish living.
2. The religion of most Jews is liberalism not Judaism
3. Judaism is conservative in orientation-stresses private property,
sacredness of life, military strength, the horrors of being dependent
4. They see the Democratic party booing Jerusalem at the convention\\

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Voter fraud won the election?

d To Our Votes?

I Voted SC What Happened To Our Votes?
This is the latest chapter from my book How the New Age Hijacked America:
Watching the election coverage on the eve of November 6th, 2012, and while sifting through the media posturing, I noticed the emergence of what appeared to be some apparent anomalies related to the numbers. That, it turns out, was just the beginning.
Later that night, according to the jubilant media, Mitt Romney and his closest advisers were reportedly dumbfounded— “shell-shocked” was the word most often quoted relative to the emerging election night news. [1] After all Romney had been meeting with overflow audiences in the final days of the election while Obama turnouts during the same period seldom exceeded a couple thousand. The Democrat’s super hero apparently had simply morphed into a politician, and one with a mediocre record at that. Despite unusual bias and support from the media he had become clearly vulnerable.
Sure Democrats outnumbered Republicans but when it came down to it voter turnout would be the crucial issue—a fact that seemingly favored the GOP. Republican confidence also stemmed from the fact that the economy was the number one voter issue and that unemployment remained high and the economy sluggish. In fact unemployment figures did not even tell the story as many had either dispiritedly dropped out of the work force or were seriously underemployed.
This was, after all, the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression and there was, for anyone who was taking notice, an actual threat of a second recession due to looming tax hikes along with the presidential foot on the brake of oil and gas exploration and development. Intriguingly, like his friend, Putin, Obama was already finding himself at least indirectly in control of some of the greatest wealth the world has ever known and with a rather curious agenda that could keep this nation’s entrepreneurial talent tied in knots for a generation. Republicans were reportedly and assuredly taking note.
So what happened? Of course, not everyone tracks news that requires some personal study. And besides Republicans reportedly can’t put two coherent sentences together—which makes it tough for making analysis and fine distinctions. Also Obama always had an edge with the Electoral College—an edge that had to be overcome by winning the important “swing states,” the states that had a history of voting a majority for either party depending on the current mood and the issues. But there was also in the mix a Middle America, the Silent Majority or whatever name we assign to the people who often don’t get caught up in politics until just before the election and are usually the ones that actually decide the outcome. Recent polls had shown these folks were leaning strongly in Mitt’s direction.
Romney, with some help from his VP pick, Paul Ryan, had also seemingly and finally won over the Tea Party and evangelical conservatives (as much motivated now by their dislike for Obama as anything else). Part of the reason the prospects looked good was that four million registered Republicans, due to lack of enthusiasm with their flag bearer, John McCain, had declined to vote in 2008. These people now seemed energized to rejoin the fray. Just the opposite effect was expected for Democrats. The question was, then, could Romney capture the swing states—and in the final days of the election it looked like he could.
However, the news outlets subsequently trumpeted the amazing turnout of Obama’s electorate and quickly assigned the Republican Party to the trash-heap of history—citing both the changing mood and demographics of the nation. Political pundits were everywhere celebrating their wisdom and the opposition’s ignorance and folly. Actually ridicule had been the mainstay of both the media and the Administration for this entire election cycle beginning already with the GOP Primaries and carrying through the debates. The GOP candidates were described as “clowns.” Who would have even thought that Romney would or could be an actual option in the end? It must have been the result of obstinate conservative die-hards living in some alternate reality—some people apparently didn’t buy into or even understand what the intelligencia was serving up. After all, what do NASCAR rednecks know about anything?
Actually, in exasperation with the improbable persistence from conservative quarters, this challenge to enlightenment was cast by the media as a not so thinly veiled form of racism. Truly ignorant heresy! How could anyone with a conscience actually vote against the first black American President? It was true that in the beginning almost everyone had wanted him to succeed–even those who did not vote for him in 2008. Everyone hoped for the best. There was a certain catharsis in it. The nation had somehow atoned for its past mistakes. Having a black man as president was right and good. And, to throw him out unceremoniously after one term would have seemed crass and politically incorrect. He didn’t have to be perfect. The ship of state would not sink. And he was a good talker—a really good talker.
The catch was that that the alternate reality was truly on the other foot. It was and is actually the New Age reality which we are now experiencing—a reality in which situational ethics and fuzzy logic rule the day—in which right and wrong get inverted and swept up in an ethical maelstrom that leaves the nation and its people in a Wonderland of moral confusion sans guideposts—a significant space being created between us and our Constitution and our coveted States-Rights, fueled by Regulations, Executive Orders and a compliant and brow-beaten Congress. Rhetoric has advanced to the point that it has formed its own reality—a reality partly supported by criminal activity—a reality sometimes just half a wavelength or 180 degrees out of phase with the actual. All the energy input into this illusory system creates a force field that appears to be reality—until mounting dissonance creates the coming fatal cracks in its matrix.
Earlier I spoke of anomalies surfacing election night. Initially it just seemed odd to me that the state polls, especially those for the swing states, were apparently so far off. The most historically reliable of the polls, Gallop and Rasmussen, had tightened up in the final two days but still gave Romney a slight edge or at least parity—especially as he could expect a strong GOP turnout. [2]One of the jokes going around Twitter was that any early lead held by Obama’s supporters would be cancelled out once the Republicans got off work!
But as the night wore on it just got worse. And we all knew that when California finally came on line that the popular vote advantage we were watching for Romney would eventually disappear. The question then became how could the polls have missed a three million vote plurality for Obama? How could our expectations for GOP turnout fall so short? Well, clearly some people voted that were not represented by the polls. In fact, some people voted who were not people. And some people voted even though they didn’t vote. And some people voted repeatedly. One district in Pennsylvania had 141.1% of its registered voters supposedly vote. Unregistered immigrants who spoke no English, had no knowledge of the candidates, no party affiliation, etc., cast straight party votes for the Democrats. [3]
Though the above might normally be considered rather extreme examples of voter fraud it turned out to not be so unusual. Despite denials by Administration officials and MSNBC in particular such were too often characteristic of the election in general and of the all-important swing states in particular. In fact, here is the reality: at no time in history had the powers of incumbency complicit with the media and local criminals performed such a travesty in the name of democracy.  Should this election stand it will be a sad commentary on the state of the morals and integrity of this nation and a permanent smirch on the great history and place of America in the free world community.
One of the aspects of the numerous election numbers that seemed strange to me was the following. In 2008 there were approximately 69 million votes cast for Obama versus 60 million for McCain. Approximately four million GOP voters, unmotivated by the choices, stayed home. This still provided a total vote number of 129 million votes cast. It was then current wisdom that many of those who failed to vote were more conservative and lacked enthusiasm for their moderate flag bearer.  It was anticipated, however, that the bulk of these would turn out for the Romney/Ryan ticket energized by the Tea Party, a moderate who could attract Independents, a general GOP dislike of the nation’s direction under Obama (now considered a serious bad guy) and, of course, the state of the economy.
So in 2012 we have a total of only 120.5 million votes cast giving Obama a 2.7% plurality. This means, that despite all the ballot stuffing, we had 8.5 million less votes recorded than in 2008. Such was actually to be expected (including the ballot stuffing). However, this decline was projected to come mainly from Democratic ranks. It took a record turnout and a weak opponent in 2008 to provide Obama a whopping nine million vote margin. This time, though, there was not an overall record turnout, and considering what the GOP assayed was at stake there should have been a record turnout for them. Consequently, if there were 8.5 million less voters this time the attrition should have come mainly from the democrats and perhaps some Independents. So how could Obama still win by 3.25 million votes? The situation should have been a slam-dunk for Romney/Ryan and one of the reasons for their confidence coming up to the election. You could see it in their demeanors and you could also see it in the crowds. Because of what was at stake Republicans were not staying home this time—and, in fact, they didn’t. So what exactly happened to their votes? [4]
In a dubious attempt at explanation we were told afterwards that there was actually this great turnout for Obama after all. But to explain that you would have had to have, instead of 4 million, about 10 or 12 million registered Republicans who said they would vote, fail to vote. Not likely this time! It apparently wasn’t just block captains and precinct personnel who jiggered this election. Consequently, we must also look at the technology. [5] These people clearly took no chances. Like Obama’s former refrain, the math just doesn’t add up.
Relevance Magazine editor Dr. Phillip M. O’Halloran recently stated, “the computer voting system in this country is a veritable can of worms, so open to tampering that if there is no organized election fraud going on, the criminals are falling down on the job… computer vote fraud is not only feasible but, by its very nature, undetectable… it is hard to conceive of an organized criminal enterprise with such a favorable combination of high profit potential and low risk.” [6]
Common Cause, in a 2006 report entitled, Malfunction and Malfeasance: A Report on the Electronic Voting Machine Debacle, reported on four major studies that all concluded that voting machines were vulnerable to hacking and reprogramming. “Each report concluded DRE machines to be vulnerable to malfunction and also to tampering in which a computer-savvy hacker with minimal access to the machine could introduce malicious code to the DRE software and change the results of an election. Such manipulation could be undetectable. In machines equipped with a modem, it could even be done from a remote location.” One example is given of a machine in a previous election that was proven to have erroneously cast 100 thousand non-legitimate votes for a candidate.[7] And, by the way, all our voting machines have modems.[8]
Obama received a staggering 85% of the vote in Philadelphia in 2008, according to WikiLeaks a result of serious ballot-stuffing even then, which now pales in comparison to 99% of the vote in 2012.[9] Clearly none of our 8.5 million missing voters lives in Philadelphia! Accordingly Chris Zane asks pointedly, “With Philadelphia’s record unemployment, record homicide rate, and an Obama-induced economy that has literally bankrupted the city, could Obama have won 99% of the vote? Show us the ballots, Mr. President!” [10]
If ever there was a time when the ends were used to justify the means this was it. Even at this writing the pseudo-intellectual talking heads on TV are gloating over self-fulfilling prophecies that they blatantly exerted themselves to achieve. They do not care a tinker’s you-know-what if there was fraud. They got what they wanted. There was once a day when the media prided itself on serving the public in a watchdog role—part of the checks and balances that kept this nation safe. Watergate was an example of this kind of welcome journalistic integrity. However, the only place one can find this now is in obscure corners of the Internet—and one wonders now how long even this will be tolerated?
As of this writing there is more than enough evidence to throw the legitimate outcome of this election into doubt—despite the fact that there is indeed a growing number of people, and possibly soon to be a majority, who no longer see any particular value in this nation being a meritocracy. We have a coalition of educators, politically correct yuppies, government employees, New Agers, ethnic minorities and welfare recipients that are seemingly either ashamed of the American Dream, have given up on it or simply don’t understand it.
The subterfuge that should be obvious to even the casual observer is glossed over or even considered fair play as revenge for past Republican shenanigans. Unfortunately there may be some grist for this mill such as the Bush/Kerry year 2000 election replete with its hanging chads and other irregularities. People consequently justify their own current lack of integrity based on the idea that all politicians are dishonest and that they are just supporting the lessor of the evils with respect to options. [11]
However, this time was actually different—and in a way that is telling not only with respect to our national character but also with respect to the continued existence of the Constitution and even of the Republic we know as the United States of America. Versus the projected fulfillment of the Marxist dreams of his father we have allowed our President, his administration and all of its sycophants to vilify and ridicule possibly the cleanest and most honest presidential candidate in recent history—indeed a throwback in this arena and era. Many of us unfortunately stood by and let him be tarred by a group of dishonest, hypocritical, immoral, intellectually bankrupt yahoos.
Nevertheless and to a certain extent, regardless, there are two basic issues at play here. 1) If this nation wishes to choose a leader and a path that exudes the notion that government is responsible for wealth distribution and the assurance and maintenance of fairness to all (and assumes that government is actually capable of such) then it is clearly their right to make that choice, particularly if they also are offered a credible alternative. 2) However, the people of this nation also have a right to an honest and verifiable opportunity to validate whatever decision has been made through a lawful, legal and demonstrably accurate democratic process. Until that happens or can be proven to have happened there is a sizable portion of this people who cannot be expected to enthusiastically support our leadership. Consequently serious schisms will be too easy to maintain or exploit. What we are witnessing and are about to witness is a perfect case in point.
When we see that vested interests can buy up politicians at the state level who certify voting and control the programmable and hack-able technology used for voting and also own the software used for recording and processing votes in addition to the usual block captain hijinks at the precinct and district levels the legitimacy of our elections cannot now be guaranteed for even a minute. [12] When the final digital audit trails for this election are actually in the hands of a foreign company with ties to certain infamous liberal globalists we might justifiably wonder how this ever came about. [13] The opportunity for fraud exists at so many levels and with so many incentives—the lack of safeguards is simply incredible. The question must be asked: how did we ever allow ourselves to become so vulnerable? [14]
It also used to be that exit polls were a check on the actual vote data. Interestingly the exit polls for Bush/Kerry suffered some disrepute by showing Kerry with a 3% advantage while the result ended with a 2.5% plurality for Bush—probably a point that should have generated more attention at the time. However exit polls exist for two different purposes. The main one it seems is so that the news outlets can do their thing—like forecast winners hours (or, in some cases, days) before all the votes are counted. However, in the current state of largely digital voting exit polls could serve, if rigorously done, to check on and validate to some extent the tallies derived from the voting process.
The number of exit polls was reduced in this election cycle purportedly due to cost. [15] They were concentrated in areas deemed key to the election. The exit polls not only questioned who voted for whom but also other items of interest. One of the reasons Romney/Ryan thought they could win was reflected in the fact that, according to and as confirmed by the exit polls, 60% of those who actually cast votes indicated that the economy was the main factor of consideration, and 52% of those polled expressed that the country “was on the wrong track.” Indeed, one pundit wrote that the exit polls could not explain why Obama was elected nor could the national state of affairs—although he cheerfully proceeded to make other explanations for this anomaly. [16]Personally I have seen at least 23 different explanations as to why Obama won—many of which are factors for the GOP to consider going forward, but none of which are actually telling the present story in real time.
In the aftermath of this apparently colossal loss the Republicans found themselves bickering, finger-pointing, trying to reconcile what happened and wondering why God had deserted them. The problem was that they did not have all the data…and possibly never will. There were those with strong suspicions that mischief was afoot who implied they would leave no stone unturned in efforts to invalidate this election and prevent Obama from actually taking office in January. Romney has even been asked to rescind his concession. However, the deck is stacked at least as much afterwards as it was prior to the election. The fact is there will never be another fair presidential election in this nation until an absolute audit trail that matches votes cast with the actual registered voters is put in place.
Mr. President, I was one of the four million Republicans that didn’t vote last time, but I can assure you most of us turned out this time along with and beside our more loyal and consistent GOP voters. Our party was undeniably energized and we did indeed cast our votes. So now we are wondering where they went? Like you pointedly asserted before the election, the math just doesn’t add up!

[1] J Crawford, Advisor. Romney Shellshocked by Loss, CBS News, Nov. 8, 2012,, retrieved 11/14/12.
[2] The Gallop and Rasmussen Polls are now suffering unnecessary ridicule by the media.
[3] For a comprehensive list of voting complaints and anomalies including examples of voting exceeding the number of actual registered votes in a district see At the time of this writing updates were streaming in hourly. In the first 24 hours of this election over 70,000 complaints had been registered with authorities and petitions being filed by residents of over thirty states to succeed from the Union. Thanks, I guess, to Eric Holder, Obama’s Attorney General, when my wife and I voted early we were surprised and a little disquieted that we needed no ID whatsoever to either register or vote. Everyone just smiled at us, gave us our “I voted early” sticker and sent us on our way. This despite the fact that Internet info detailed the need to have a valid driver’s license or state issued ID card to vote.
[4] S Trende, The Case of the Missing White Voters, Real Clear Politics, Nov. 8, 2012,
[5] E Barnes, Internet Voting Arrives . . . But Is It Secret and Secure?, Fox News, Nov. 1, 2010,, “…for the first time, voters in 33 states will be able to vote using some aspect of the Internet. But no matter the outcome, experts say no one will be certain those votes haven’t been tampered with. ‘We are still a decade away from being sure that Internet voting is secure and not subject to manipulation,’ said Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat, president of the Overseas Vote Foundation, which helps servicemen and Americans living abroad to vote in elections using the Internet. She said she supports delivering ballots via the Web to overseas voters, but she adds that no voting system has proven safe enough to collect ballots that way. Her position got a major boost…when Washington, D.C., conducted a pilot project to test its new electronic voting system for the collection of overseas and military absentee ballots. The system was opened to the public to test how secure and usable it was. Within 36 hours, a team of University of Michigan computer students and teachers had taken it over. ‘Without the hacking of the District of Columbia system we would never have known how vulnerable Internet voting systems are,’ said John Bonifaz, legal director of Voter Action.“
[6] Lotus, Does Your Vote Count? Computer Voting Machines VS Hand CountS.A.V.E. Democracy, Secure, Accurate and Verifiable Elections,, retrieved 11/12/12
[7] Malfunction and Malfeasance: A Report on the Electronic Voting Machine Debacle, Common Cause, Holding Power Accountable,, retrieved 11/14/12.
[8] Lotus, Op Cit.
[9] J Hoft, Stratfor Emails Show Dems Stuffed OH and PA Ballot Boxes in 2008, Human Events,Apr. 21, 2012,, retrieved 11/14/2012.
[10] K Zane, Did Obama Rig the Voting Machines?, The Western Center for Journalism, Nov. 9, 2012,, retrieved 11/14/12
[11] Publias (an insider alias), At The Polls: Who Is Stealing Your Vote?, International Business Times, Opinion, Nov. 6, 2012,, retrieved 11/12/2012.
[12] M Vadum, Soros-supported ‘Secretary of State Project’ dealt blow in midterm elections, The Daily Caller, Nov. 9, 2010,, retrieved 11/12/2012. The SoS Project, which raised at least $182,035 in the 2010 election cycle, is an officially approved grant recipient of the Democracy Alliance, a financial clearinghouse that directs its members’ money toward left-wing political infrastructure such as media outlets and activist groups. Soros belongs to the ultra-secretive Alliance, along with billionaires Peter B. Lewis and Herb and Marion Sandler and more than 100 other wealthy liberals.
[13] The most visible of these globalist minded conspirators is, of course, George Soros—Obama’s mentor and sponsor. See also footnote #10 above and #12 below.
[14] D Book, Spanish Company Will “Count” American Votes Overseas In November, The Western Center for Journalism, Apr.10,2012,, See also FOREIGN COMPANY BUYS U.S. ELECTION RESULTS REPORTING FIRM, Investment Watch, Jan. 17, 2012,, retrieved 11/12.2012. SCYTL, the company in question, is based in Barcelona, Spain and is involved in elections in the U.K., France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia. The American advocacy group Project Vote has concluded that SCYTL’s internet voting system is vulnerable to attack from the outside and the inside, a situation which could result in “…an election that does not accurately reflect the will of the voters…” The SCYTL CEO is Pere Valles, a socialist who donated heavily to the 2008 Obama campaign and an associate of globalist George Soros.
[15] A Edwards-Levy, Exit Polls Canceled In 19 StatesThe Huffington Post, Oct. 4, 2012,
[16] T Noah, Exit Polls Can’t Explain Why Obama WonThe New Republic, Nov. 7, 2012,, retrieved 11/13/2012.
Photo credit: Cali4Beach (Creative Commons)

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

oBAMA'S LIES about Bengazigate

Posted: 19 Nov 2012 08:30 AM PST
(Paul Mirengoff)
Ralph Peters provides a helpful list of the things the White House wants the American people to believe about Benghazihate. It’s a long list:
* That intelligence professionals watching the Benghazi attack in real time and reading flash messages from the scene weren’t sure an obvious terrorist attack was a terrorist attack. A Cub Scout watching that strike go down would have recognized a planned terror operation.
* That, even now, the attack somehow, magically, might have been partly about that discredited video, after all, since the first phase was sloppier than the crisper second phase. Jeez. It’s obvious the terrorists did what any seasoned commander would do: Used the B-team as bait at the consulate, reserving the A-team to spring the trap on the CIA facility.
* That it was purely coincidental the attack occurred on the 11th anniversary of 9/11.
* That doctoring the early CIA analysis to eliminate any mention of terrorism was purely a bureaucratic quirk (having coped with the interagency process, I assure you it would be easy to identify who neutered the analysis — if the White House wanted to).
* That Obama pal and UN Ambassador Susan Rice is so naïve that, after reading the classified analysis blaming a terrorist operation, she found the unclassified, castrated analysis more convincing than common sense.
* That Rice was the logical choice to dispatch to five Sunday talk shows to blame the video for the violence, even though our president himself stated in last week’s press conference that Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi. (We were also treated to another of Obama’s now-routine how-dare-you-question-me hissy fits as he defended Rice with far greater vigor than he defended our team in Benghazi.)
* That it was another bureaucratic coincidence that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wasn’t told about CIA chief David Petraeus’s new exercise routine until late on Election Day — even though Clapper was the one person in the entire government with an obvious need to know.
* That despite the general’s Friday testimony under oath on the Hill that the CIA’s analysis identified the Benghazi attack as an act of terror involving al Qaeda affiliates from the start, the available evidence somehow supported the video-did-it narrative, after all.
* That the president personally did all he could to help our personnel in Benghazi, even though the White House can offer no evidence of it.
* That there was no reason to be concerned about security in Benghazi, even though incidents and requests for better protection had stacked up for months.
* That four Americans dead as a result of a planned act of terror on another Sept. 11, just isn’t that big a deal and we need to move on.
I would add one more item to Peters’ list of highly implausible things Obama would like us to believe: That the Obama administration is conducting an honest, good-faith investigation of the events relating to Benghazigate.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Obama hid food stamps data till after the elction

Food Stamp Data Was Hidden Until After the Election

Obama hid so much data from us before the election.
While there had been speculation that the BLS may delay the release of its October nonfarm payroll number until after the election, it turned out there was no reason to worry. Perhaps this is because the number, while at stall speed, was not quite as horrible as some had expected (even if the change in average hourly earnings did tumble to new all time lows) and so boosted Obama's reelection chances.
There was, however, another closely tracked number which perhaps is far more indicative of the economic "growth" in the past 4 years, which certainly had a delayed release. The number of course is that showing how many Americans are on foodstamps, and usually is released at the end of the month, or the first day or two of the next month.
This time the USDA delayed its release nine days past the semi-official deadline, far past the election, and until Friday night to report August foodstamp data. One glance at the number reveals why: at 47.1 million, this was not only a new all time record, but the monthly increase of 420,947 from July was the biggest monthly increase in one year. One can see why a reported surge in foodstamps ahead of the elections is something the USDA, and the administration may not have been too keen on disclosing.

Read more at 

Obama new regulations every day

68 New Obama Regulations Every Day

How are business supposed to succeed?President Barack Obama's administration withheld some of the most controversial environmental and healthcare regulations during October so as not to jeopardize his reelection chances. However, the federal government has still posted an average of 68 regulations and notices a day for the last three months.
Those in the business community predicted there would be a "tsunami of regulations" if Obama won reelection. A CNS analysis found 6,124 regulations and notices posted on the federal government's website in the past 90 days, which may seem like limited government in comparison to what may be in store in the coming months.   
One posting concerns a "12-month finding" dealing with the endangered status for the Acuna Cactus and the Fickesian Plains Cactus and designation of critical habita. 
Another is a proposed rule dealing with "volatile organic compound emissions from architectural coatings" under the Clean Air Act.

Read more at 

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Dangerous J Street and the election

Concerns arise over J Street’s influence on election

( A U.S. election that many political pundits hailed as “a return to the status quo” was a different story for many in the pro-Israel community, with concerns arising over the future of bipartisan support for Israel relating to the influence of the self-labeled “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group J Street. But others say J Street has overstated its influence.
J Street’s stated goal is “redefining what it means to be pro-Israel in America” by “changing the U.S. political dynamics around Israel.” However, critics contend that J Street’s efforts are ultimately anti-Israel, and several prominent Jewish leaders, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have refused to meet with the group.
In the recent election, J Street’s political action committee—JStreetPAC—spent more than $1.8 million to endorse 71 candidates in the recent election. According to J Street, 70 of its endorsed candidates won.
J Street believes the election outcomes present an opportunity for American leadership to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
“JStreetPAC’s resounding success speaks to the deep hunger among American Jews and friends of Israel for a political voice that represents their belief that American leadership is vital to achieving a two-state solution and to securing Israel’s Jewish, democratic future,” said J Street Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami in a press release.
However, some feel that J Street is overstating its influence in many races that Democrats would have won regardless of the group’s support.
For instance, in the heavily contested Ohio Senate race between Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown and Republican Josh Mandel, most analysts attribute Mandel’s loss to a backlash against Mitt Romney’s position on the auto bailout—not the money poured in by groups like J Street against Mandel.
“It is clear that J Street’s role in this year’s election was basically irrelevant, and certainly far humbler than its own superlative: ‘astounding,’” wrote columnist Lori Lowenthal Marcus in The Jewish Press.
There are also concerns that J Street’s efforts to support more liberal candidates may eventually lead to an erosion of bipartisan support for Israel—an issue that groups like AIPAC have worked hard to cultivate and maintain.
J Street supporters like Peter Beinart often “depict Israel as the obstacle to peace and favor U.S. pressure to force Israeli concessions,” wrote Middle East expert Stephen J. Rosen in Foreign Policy.  
“As a result, these ideas are moving gradually from the far left to the center-left of the Democratic base. And as the older generation of Democratic stalwarts gradually passes from the scene and new Democrats to the left of their predecessors enter the House and Senate and slowly climb the ranks, there will be an evolution within the Democratic Party,” Rosen wrote. 

for info on the evils of J Street see

Kerry for Defense? Loves Muslim Brotherhood

Told you So.
I know there are still skeptics about Obama's pro terrorist policies, despite him inviting hundreds of terrorists to White House, employing 6 Muslim brotherhood people, and it will come up Obama was giving Libyan weapons to al Quida in Syria through the dead Ambassador and Turkey. but now Obama is considering making John Kerry Defense Secretary. The same John Kerry who said this:
John Kerry Defends Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood
June 24, 2012
“In our discussions, Mr. Morsi committed to protecting fundamental freedoms, including women’s rights, minority rights, the right to free expression and assembly, and he said he understood the importance of Egypt’s post-revolutionary relationships with America and Israel,” he added. “Ultimately, just as it is anywhere in the world, actions will matter more than words.”

The same Morsi who

Any Jew supporting Obama and Kerry evidently are suicidal.
Kerry will be our defense secretary? 
Reality? Declare the Muslim Brotherhood A Terrorist Organization
The Obama Administration has resisted naming the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. But if any group deserved to be on that list, the Brotherhood does. Ever since 1962, it has worked to convert Americans to jihad and Islamist extremism. It is actively building terrorist cells in the United States.

And the evidence is that it is succeeding. More and more of the terrorist attacks on American soil are coming from people who live here, many of whom converted to Islam through the work of the Brotherhood.

Since 9-11, 156 men have been indicted for terror-related activities. 127 of them had lived in the U.S. for ten years or more at the time of their arrest. One-third of these terrorists converted to Islam in their teens or twenties, most often through the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Inclusion on the list of terrorist organizations is no symbolic step. The feds block donations to such groups and deny them access to all sorts of financial, administrative, and other aids.

Internationally, of course, the Muslim Brotherhood is working zealously to replace the secular liberalism of the Arab Spring with hard-core, Shariah-compliant, theocratic dictatorships. Suppressing women, eliminating free speech, persecuting Christians, and preaching hatred of Jews, Israel, and America, the Brotherhood is gradually taking over the Middle East as first dictators and now monarchs fall from power.

To fight an enemy, you need to name it as your adversary and that is why including the Muslim Brotherhood on the list of terrorist groups is so important.

Legislation is pending in Congress to require the State Department to include the group on their terrorist list. With your help, we have a good chance of passing this important legislation.

For more information about the Muslim Brotherhood and to enlist in the battle to contain it, go to Citizens for National Security (, a group struggling to “out” the Brotherhood. They the the leading group advocating inclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood on the terrorist list.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Hillary and terrorists



Saturday, November 10, 2012

We're headed for Greek riots because of debt

Posted: 08 Nov 2012 10:45 AM PST
(John Hinderaker)
No doubt we will have more to say about the election now and then, but it is time to get back to the issues. Conservatism, after all, is about issues far more than political campaigns. Issue number one is the national debt, currently in excess of $16 trillion.
The Obama administration made no effort to address the debt during its first term–other than adding more than a trillion dollars a year to it, that is. Obama won’t do anything about it in his second term, either, unless he has to. But I suspect events will not allow him to ignore it for another four years.
If you want a preview of where our debt is taking us, check out Greece. The Economist reports:
Greece has been in recession for over five years. In August the unemployment rate rose for the 39th consecutive month. Joblessness among all workers stood at 25.4%, while unemployment for those aged 15-24 soared to 58%. More sobering still, the European Commission’s latest economic outlook forecasts a contraction of 4.2% for the Greek economy in 2013. The Commission reckons the Greek economy might expand by 0.6% in 2014.
So Greeks are rioting:
Greece faced massive strikes turned riots yesterday as its government passed a new round of fiscal consolidation, designed to shrink the budget €18.5 billion by 2016. The contents of the austerity plan hardly seems like the stuff to drive Greeks to firebomb riot police; among the measures under debate were a two-year rise in the retirement age and measures to make it easier to fire public employees.
When Greeks riot, they don’t fool around:
Does this guy look familiar?
Of course, there are many differences between the United States and Greece. For one thing, you are a lot deeper in debt than the Greeks are:
Actually, you are deeper in debt than anyone, and Barack Obama doesn’t care. We are, as Mark Steyn sometimes says, the brokest nation in history. What can’t go on forever, won’t, and I don’t think Obama can go four more years without the wave of debt crashing on his head. And ours:


Scandanavia is reducing taxes and liberalizing their economies

Scandinavian Irony: Socialism Meets Liberalization

Scandinavia is in the midst of an economic transformation. Thanks to tax reform, openness to investment/trade, sound property rights, little corruption, and continuing efforts to privatize, economies there have made great strides toward liberalization. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden have been rated “free” economies by the Heritage Foundation’s 2006 Index of Economic Freedom (online at Norway lags behind with a “mostly free” rating. 
Scandinavian countries have low corporate tax rates and transparent procedures to establish a business. Moreover, these countries have implemented numerous reforms over the past couple years. For instance, cutting income taxes has become one of Iceland ‘s crowning economic achievements. Denmark has been ranked by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) as having the best business environment thanks to, among other things, its flexible labor market. 
Despite the good news about reform, other details remain grim. Sweden has extremely high taxes, which encourage workers to cut hours to avoid them. The Norwegian government continues to drag its feet on privatization, thus thwarting investment into the country. Additionally, the Scandinavian welfare state hinders productivity by enabling otherwise healthy workers to stay at home.
Economic Performance in Scandinavia 
Denmark       5.4 million          2%              6.4%  
                                           (2004)          (2004) 
Finland          5.2 million        1.8%            7.9% 
                                           (2005)          (2005) 
Iceland          296,737           6.5%            2.1% 
                                           (2005)          (2005) 
Norway         4.6 million          3%              4.5% 
                                           (2004)          (2004) 
Sweden        9 million           3.6%            5.5%
                                           (2004)          (2004) 
Source: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Country Guides in cooperation with the Economist Intelligence Unit ( 
Johnny Munkhammar, director of the Swedish free-market institute, Timbro, wrote in TCS Daily in March that Sweden is like two different countries. One is a country that has pursued reform, the other a country that has held on to the “Social Model of a big state.” 
This could be said for all the countries of the region as they balance free-market reforms with generous welfare systems. For instance, every day about one-fifth of the workforce stays home in Sweden. These “potential” workers are receiving disability benefits or are on sick leave. “Almost everyone who requests sick leave is granted it,” notes the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 
The Swedish government’s aim is to help bridge the gap between sickness and work. But many take advantage of these benefits and use them as permanent income, as evidenced by the increase in disability and sick leave over the past decade. “The sickness rate of a Swede in his or her twenties, for example, is higher than the overall absence rate in all but four European countries,” the OECD said in a 2005 economic survey of Sweden. 
Scandinavia also has generous paternity leave. In Iceland, fathers can take up to three months off while receiving 80 percent of their salary. Swedish couples are entitled to take up to 480 days (240 per person). The first 390 days pay 80 percent of parents’ qualifying income, while the last 90 days pay a flat rate of 60 Swedish krona (about $8.40) per day. Not surprisingly, 95 percent of the high-rate benefit days are used. 
“A total of 2.2 million people in Denmark received income-substitute benefits in 2003,” according to the 2005 Danish Statistical Yearbook. The term “income-substitute benefits” includes sickness, unemployment, maternity, and social assistance. Many Scandinavians use these benefits as a means to earlier retirement.
In Finland “nearly 7 out of ten new retirees rely on some form of unemployment or disability payments,” the OECD reported this year. On the other end of the age spectrum, generous benefits encourage the young to take their time with school, delaying entry into the workforce. 
Whether they work or not, it’s unlikely that Scandinavians will have to worry about having a roof over their heads. Several countries have housing programs. Almost 75 percent of the Finnish population, even high income earners, are eligible for government-subsidized housing, according to the OECD. Denmark manipulates the housing market through direct subsidies and price regulation. Sweden offers a housing allowance based on housing costs and the number of children in the household. 
Paying for medical coverage isn’t a concern either. Scandinavia ‘s generous health-care system is well known, with the government continuing to pick up most of the tab. For instance, the EIU reports, the Norwegian system gives free treatment to all “with the exception of adult dental care and opticians.” The government pays 84 percent of health-care costs. 
Likewise, Iceland ‘s central government covers about 85 percent of the costs, with patients contributing toward outpatient care and pharmaceuticals. Iceland has more doctors per 1,000 inhabitants than the United States and United Kingdom do. Finland has reduced health-care spending, paying about 76 percent of total costs in 2003. Finnish cuts have resulted in fewer hospital beds, falling from 11 for every 1,000 inhabitants in the 1990s to fewer than seven in 2004, according to the EIU. 

Swedes Get Subsidized Health Care 

Subsidized health care is available to all Swedish residents. Adults may be charged up to 900 krona (about $126), whereas children (anyone under 20) receive free care. Dental care, while subsidized from the national dental insurance, has been deregulated, allowing providers to set their own fees. Health care is largely a public-sector effort, with only 8 percent of physicians in private practice. Private insurers pay for less than 1 percent of health care. 
Denmark ‘s system gives coverage to everyone, although immigrants must wait six weeks for coverage to start. Health care is free, with the exception of “dental care and physiotherapy.” Medication is subsidized. The majority of health-care costs, 86 percent, are covered by local municipalities, with the rest of the money coming from the central government (5 percent), private insurance (5 percent), and employers (4 percent), reports the EIU. 
While free or heavily subsidized health care for all may sound ideal, the quality of the care is often far from it. The biggest problem may simply be access. Sweden has “a low proportion of general practitioners relative to specialists,” notes the EIU. Swedes often have to wait a long time to be treated for nonthreatening conditions. A Swedish company, RelaxU, has turned this unfortunate reality into a profitable venture by working with Bangkok Phuket hospital to organize trips to Thailand for treatment. Leif Erre, RelaxU’s head, states that in Sweden “the waiting period for an operation or treatment can be anywhere from two to eighty weeks.” Such news isn’t shocking when the Swedish government freely admits that “the health services in Sweden rest largely in the hands of local politicians in 21 geographical areas.” 
All is not well in Denmark either, as Danes have one of the lowest life expectancies in Western Europe. As costs have risen, standards have declined and waiting times have increased, according to the EIU. Danes have responded by taking greater interest in private insurance. The number of people holding private policies rose from 1.1 million in 1991 to 1.75 million in 2004. 
Finland also has a low number of general practitioners, and until recently Finns had to wait a long time for care. The government introduced waiting-time targets in 2005, and things have improved, according to the OECD. Norway has also implemented reforms, thereby improving service, reducing waiting times, and increasing levels of treatment. But costs have risen steeply due to the volume of services and increasing salaries, says the OECD. Oil revenues give little incentive to impose cost-cutting measures. 

Paying the Piper 

Scandinavians may seem to have it all, with generous paternity leave, sick leave, education benefits, and cheap health care, but it all comes at a price. Scandinavians pay for these benefits with high taxes. The governments make no effort to hide this, as evidenced by this paragraph from a Danish government tax guide for new citizens: 
“The tax rate in Denmark is one of the highest in the world, as Denmark has a very large public sector. The public sector looks after many things that people in other countries often have to pay for themselves or that may not even be available to the public. Danish society is expensive to run and thus requires a lot of tax funds.” 
Danes are subject to numerous taxes, including state income taxes and municipal, county, and church taxes. Tax rates are progressive and reach 59 percent. Income taxes were cut in 2004, and a tax freeze was implemented in 2001. The Danish Ministry of Finance projects that the tax burden as a percentage of GDP will fall from 50.1 percent in 2005 to 47.5 by 2007. 
Taxes stifle business. A high tax on new cars makes innovation in the auto sector impossible, according to Ford’s managing director in Denmark , Kenneth Jorgensen. Taxes and duties account for around 50 percent of GDP. Currently, corporate taxes are levied at 28 percent. 
Sweden ‘s tax burden was 50.5 percent of GDP in 2004. The OECD notes that some Swedes avoid taxes by working fewer hours or “operating in the black economy.” 
Swedish taxes are so high that even the Swedish tax authority doesn’t want to pay them. A May 19 article inForbes magazine noted that the Swedish tax authority produced television commercials in Estonia to escape the high taxes in Sweden. These commercials, which encouraged Swedes to pay their taxes on time, would have cost “50 to 100 percent more to make in high-tax Sweden.” Despite having high personal income taxes, Sweden has low corporate taxes with a flat 28 percent rate. The inheritance and gift tax was abolished in 2004. 
“Finns face a high personal tax burden, particularly when taken together with municipal tax, church tax and social insurance contributions,” reports Deloitte Touche. Finland ‘s corporate tax rate was lowered in 2005 from 29 percent to 26 percent. Finland ‘s VAT (value-added tax) rate for goods and services is 22 percent. 
Like the Finns, Norwegians face a heavy tax burden, with progressive income tax rates up to 51.3 percent in 2005. The wealth tax will be halved this year and cut again in 2007; the goal is to eliminate it eventually. Corporate taxes are 26 percent, and the VAT rate is at 22 percent. 
Iceland ‘s low corporate and personal income taxes are an exception to the rule, and they will go even lower thanks to reforms that started in 2004 and that will continue through next year. The general rate for personal income tax will be lowered to 21.75 percent by 2007. 
Reforms introduced in 2002 have lowered corporate taxes from 30 to 18 percent (26 percent for partnerships),Indsigt magazine reports. These taxes are lower than they were in the early ’90s, when the rate was 50 percent. “The largest single source of Treasury revenue is the value-added tax, which is levied at 24.5 percent on most goods and services,” the Central Bank of Iceland reported last year. The VAT has also been targeted for reform. 
Corporate rates in these countries are considerably lower than income tax rates, indicating that Scandinavian governments recognize the necessity of low rates to attract new investment. 

Open for Business 

These countries have a solid base for investment through their protection of property rights and strong rule of law. Moreover, they offer an educated workforce, a range of natural resources, and little or no corruption. In addition to low corporate tax rates, the Scandinavians have made other notable changes to open the door to investment. 
Privatization has come to these countries, thus increasing opportunities for investment, although some have been slower than others. The EIU notes that privatization has exposed “ Denmark to increased competitive pressures” and has provided a “useful source of income for reducing public-sector debt.” 
According to the Invest in Iceland Agency, public ownership there is being “phased down by privatization and the main role of the public sector is in health, education and social welfare.” Icelandic industrial policy has undergone changes over the past decade through implementation of “a more active competition policy replacing price supervision or even price controls that prevailed in many sectors,” says the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 
Applications to establish a new business in Iceland are usually handled in one day. In business, time is money, thus Iceland ‘s quick turnover results in lower overhead costs. Likewise, Denmark offers “quick, informal and cost-efficient establishment procedures,” Invest in Denmark says. Denmark also offers an online registration system and boasts that a company can be incorporated “within a few hours.” 
Establishing a business in Sweden takes a little longer, about two to three weeks. Yet according to a report by the World Bank, it’s worth the wait. A 2005 World Bank comparison of 145 countries found that Sweden is one of the world’s top ten economies in “terms of ease of doing business.” 
Starting a business in Finland is easy. The Finnish government reports that 185 new foreign-owned companies opened their doors there last year. Finland ‘s location aids its success in attracting new companies. “ Finland is an attractive export base for the Baltic states and the regions of Russia bordering Finland ,” notes Deloitte Touche. 
These countries also have a history of trade and are known for exports such as bacon, oil, autos, fish, timber, machinery, and cell phones. Their free-trade policies have contributed to their growth. According to the Heritage Foundation, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden have a “low level of protectionism,” while Iceland has a “moderate level.” 
Denmark, Finland, and Sweden are members of the European Union (EU). Iceland and Norway belong to the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and to the European Economic Area (EEA). The EEA covers the 25 member states of the EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway . 
Trade’s contribution to these economies is significant. It accounted for 46 percent of Swedish GDP in 2003. The Swedish government credits surging exports as one of the main drivers in economic growth. Norway describes trade as part of the foundation to advance its economy. 

Still Room for Improvement 

These countries still have much room for improvement despite the strides that they have made toward liberalization. Scandinavian countries have a good deal to offer, yet their reluctance to radically reform the welfare system makes them their own worst enemy. According to Stephen Brugger, executive director at the American Chamber of Commerce in Denmark , it is impossible to maintain things the way they are while expecting different results: 
In other words you can’t retain all of the safety mechanisms of the existing social welfare system and simultaneously grow a competitive, innovative and entrepreneurial economy. It is important that the government communicate to the population that we can’t both renew ourselves and keep things the way they are, otherwise we will be outpaced by the countries surrounding us. It is necessary that we change  some things fundamentally if we are to attract foreign investment. 
A simple focus on productivity would do these countries a world of good. Excessive regulations cost productivity (and money) and thus will deter, not attract investment. As the U.S. Commercial Service acknowledges, Swedish “labor laws create an expensive market for low cost labor, making operations like franchising a challenge.” 
Attracting investment is one issue, while convincing Scandinavians to decline generous sick leave and go to work is another. Sweden ‘s problem cannot be blamed on an uneducated workforce; on the contrary, it’s the less skilled, for the most part, who are working while the educated stay home. 
Sweden ‘s official unemployment rate, 5.5 percent in April according to Statistics Sweden, should be viewed with skepticism. A recent study by the McKinsey Global Institute indicates that Sweden ‘s real unemployment rate is around 15 percent. “McKinsey reached its conclusions by including those who want to work and those could do so, meaning people on government programmes as well as those on prolonged sick leave,” according to the Financial Times. 
These countries could learn a lot from Iceland. It has one of the highest labor-participation rates in the world, with older people staying in the workforce longer. Little Iceland has experienced larger growth and lower unemployment than the other countries. It seems that tax reform, privatization, and citizens who are willing to work befit growth. 
Greater privatization opens the door to more investment. Although state ownership is declining in Norway , it still has a long way to go. The government owns some of the largest companies in Norway, such as Statoil, which is partially privatized, and Norsk Hydro. The government also owns other enterprises ranging from electric plants to banks. Norway ‘s problems extend beyond its lack of privatization. Norwegian labor costs and taxes deter investment as well. 
Scandinavia has taken notable steps toward liberalization and has benefited greatly from it. If history is any indication, greater liberalization will bring greater investment. This transformation depends in large part on political will. Various factors, including the competitive forces of globalization and the fiscal pressure of large aging populations, may convince their leaders that there’s still work to be done.