Official 'Palestinian Authority' television praises
murderer of Fogel family
I'll let Carl explain: http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2012/01/official-palestinian-authority.html
"Send it to the New York Times
and tell them to write about it."
Sunday, 29 January 2012
Green Energy: More Flops
Drip, Drip, Drip: Yet Another Green Energy Stimulus Recipient Hits the Skids (the third this week!)
Earlier this week, Stimulus beneficiary Evergreen Energy bit the dust.
Then, Ener1, a manufacturer of batteries for electric vehicles and recipient of Stimulus largesse, filed for bankruptcy.
And [Friday], the Las Vegas Sun report[ed] that Amonix, Inc., a manufacturer of solar panels that received $5.9 million from the Porkulus, will cut two-thirds of its workforce, about 200 employees, only seven months after opening a factory in Nevada.
The [D]evolution of Obamanomic Theory
In the 2008 presidential election, exit polls suggested that the economy was by far the dominant concern ... with 62% citing it as the most important issue facing the US.
Three months into office, Barack Obama gave his seminal speech on the economy at Georgetown University, known in retrospect as the "pile of sand" speech.
.... There is a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells the story of two men. The first built his house on a pile of sand, and it was destroyed as soon as the storm hit. But the second is known as the wise man, for when "...the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house...it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock."
We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock. We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity - a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.
It's a foundation built upon five pillars [ * ] that will grow our economy and make this new century another American century:
That is the new foundation we must build. That must be our future - and my Administration's policies are designed to achieve that future."
- new rules for Wall Street that will reward drive and innovation;
- new investments in education that will make our workforce more skilled and competitive;
- new investments in renewable energy and technology that will create new jobs and industries;
- new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses; and
- new savings in our federal budget that will bring down the debt for future generations.
Nearly three years later it is worth examining how his pillars have fared.
New Rules?
New investments?
New savings in our federal budget to bring down the debt? A foundation "that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest"?
Eh... not so much.
How far we have come! In just three years, the pile of sand has run out, the pillars have crumbled, the foundation has cracked.
But not to worry, His Presidency has a blueprint.
On Tuesday, in my State of the Union Address, I laid out a blueprint for an economy built to last – an economy built on -
skills for American workers and
a renewal of American values.
Shomrei
A recently released survey shows that some
I was surprised to see a higher ratio in America -- where according to Gallup 92 percent believe in Gd -- but maybe I'm comparing apples and oranges.
Moving right along...
The study, conducted by the Guttman Center at the Israel Democracy Institute, was conducted in 2009 and polled 2,083 Israeli Jews. The survey is a continuation of previous studies conducted in 1991 and 1999.
According to Ynet, the survey showed an increase in religious affinity:
.... In general, a higher number of Jews defined themselves as religious or ultra-Orthodox compared to the previous decade.
3% were "anti-religious seculars" (compared to 6% in 1999),
43% were "seculars" (compared to 46%),
32% "traditional" (compared to 33%),
15% "religious" (compared to 11%)
and 7% "haredi" (compared to 5%).
Hmm... Traditional, religious and haredi combined = 54 pct OR 3 x Chai (18).
The survey also found that Israeli Jews view religious ceremonies as important milestones.
94% said so about circumcision,
92% about the seven days of mourning after a relative's death,
91% about the bar mitzvah ceremony,
90% about saying the Kaddish prayer over deceased parents,
86% about Jewish burial, and
83% about the bat mitzvah ceremony.
While less than a majority of Israeli Jews observe Shabbat fully, a great number celebrate Shabbat in some way:
84% spend time with their family,
69% hold a special meal,
66% light candles and
60% say the Kiddush prayer.
On the other hand, 65% watch television or listen to the radio on the day of rest, and 52% surf the Internet. Thirty-seven percent engage in sports activities or go to the beach, 29% eat out, 16% go shopping and 11% work.
Obama's Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds Quote of the Day
Romney Owns The Schism
That the attack on Newt’s Reagan bona fides came from someone who openly ran against Reaganism and against the conservative agenda in 1994 was an irony lost only on the pro-Romney Republican establishment and media."
Todah RABAH to Wiliam A. Jacobson for being willing - and so very able - to put this mess into words. I urge you to read it all - at Legal Insurrection:
Romney is winning his battles, but losing our war
If you asked me even a couple of weeks ago whether the Republican Party could heal from the wounds of this election cycle in time to unite against Obama, I would have said ”Yes.”
I’m not so sure anymore. After the South Carolina primary the Republican establishment, and media supporters like Matt Drudge, launched Scorched Earth II on Newt, while pro-Romney pundits like Ann Coulter heaped scorn on the conservative and Tea Party voters who sided with Newt.
It may just be “not-beanbag” to the Romney campaign and its supporters, but people hear them loud and clear.
Two lines of attack have exposed a schism between the Republican political haves and have nots which will not easily heal: The attempt to rewrite the history of the Reagan revolution and the embrace of Nancy Pelosi’s partisan ethics attack and blackmail.
As to Reagan, I have documented many times here how the story line espoused by the Romney campaign and its supporters was false. Newt was an important part of the Reagan revolution, and was not anti-Reagan as various pro-Romney pundits claimed.
This line of attack on Newt was pushed by Drudge even as the individual charges highlighted at the top of Drudge were disproved one by one.
There was a backlash on Thursday and Friday among talk radio hosts and a variety of people who were in a first hand position to observe Newt’s interaction with Reagan, culminating in Sarah Palin’s Facebook post on Friday afternoon denouncing the neo-Stalinist attempt to rewrite history.
That the attack on Newt’s Reagan bona fides came from someone who openly ran against Reaganism and against the conservative agenda in 1994 was an irony lost only on the pro-Romney Republican establishment and media.
Romney’s attacks on Newt’s late 1990s ethics charge also were distinctly from the left, echoing the talking points of anti-conservative Democrats like Nancy Pelosi. It took people like Byron York and Mark Levin to expose the truth that the charges were part of a Democratic Party vendetta, and that substantively Newt did nothing wrong and was vindicated.
But mostly, the Republican establishment and conservative media who howled with outrage when Newt and Rick Perry were seen (wrongly in my view) as attacking Romney “from the left” were silent, even as the Romney camp openly embraced Nancy Pelosi’s blackmail and ran ads featuring Pelosi threatening to reveal secret information about Newt after Pelosi already had backed away from the threat.
The embrace of Nancy Pelosi by the Romney campaign should have met with an avalanche of criticism from the Republican establishment, but almost nothing was said.
Romney is back at it in Florida, with a last minute and massive ad buy running a clip of Tom Brokaw from 1997 about Newt’s plea to a single ethics charge. Romney not only attacked Newt again from the left in the spirit of Pelosi, but did so using a mainstream news media figure from a network notoriously hostile to conservatives. Yet again, near silence from the Republican establishment and conservative media.
As Palin pointed out, this no longer is about Romney and Newt. It’s a schism between the Republican political haves and have nots, with the have nots furious at the double standard applied to their candidate by the political haves.
The schism need not have occurred. It entirely is an outgrowth of the way in which the Romney campaign and Republican political and media establishments have conducted themselves.
Friday, 27 January 2012
Shabbat shalom
photograph © Cincy Lieberman
Mark Levin defends Newt
.... This quote from Levin probably sums up his point about Newt more than anything else:
“Newt Gingrich, if he does nothing else, did more for the conservative movement and to stop the liberal Democrats in the House of Representatives than virtually everybody today who is criticizing him!”
He also plays the full audio in context, of the so-called Reagan-bashing that Newt did back in 1988, that absolutely disproves the idea that Newt was bashing Reagan at all.
Listen to the full segment. It is excellent...
Debate: Dhimmedia Disappoints
Sorry I'm so late... I was window-shopping online for Littlest Grandboy's birthday. Time flies when you're having fun - remembering how wondrous the world is when you're three. I completely forgot I had left this in "drafts," neglecting to actually post it.
==========================
Last night's debate was not as dreadful as the previous one, but almost. As we have come to expect, dhimmedia disappoints. Wolf Blitzer is a political yenta (gossip) and apparently thinks his function is to throw gasoline wherever there might be a fire.
Meanwhile, the Establishment (yes, Virginia, there is a Ruling Class - see Codevilla) wanted Mitt to show some "fight" and he ably obeyed his handlers' instructions. Romney is "fine." He will do. He's the next in line. We will all support him if he is the nominee. But he doesn't rouse the base; he can't. Visceral passion is not in his nature. He is the quintessential manager.
Obama will paint Romney as a stuffy, uncool and out-of-touch One Percenter. They will do to him what the Bush people did to John Kerry, but thank him profusely for providing the model for ObamaCare. It will be agonizingly close and the outcome of the election will depend solely on how effectively the Republicans can make Obama the issue and portray him as a failure.
Now then... I didn't think Newt did himself any harm last night. He was obviously frustrated by the media and somewhat beaten down by yesterday's avalanche against him, but the people who favored him before probably still do -- and maybe even more so. I actually thought his space talk was good, especially for anyone who remembers We are living in very dreary circumstances right now, and as much as we want our economy to get back to normal, there has to be more to life than balancing the budget. Discounting Ron Paul, Newt is the only one among the remaining candidates that has any potential whatsoever to be inspiring. I could be wrong, but I'd say his so-called "grandiosity" is no more of a boon to Obama than Romney's lack thereof. Newt would provide quite a contrast to Obama and he would shine in the presidential debates.
If there was a "winner" last night, it was Rick Santorum. He had some great moments, and only got whiney once or twice. I wouldn't mind terribly if he were president, as long as he kept his self-righteous preaching to a bare minimum.
And finally, six months ago I wouldn't have believed that I could appreciate Ron Paul, but I like him more and more. Of course his isolationism scares me to death but because he's running more to get his message out than to actually win, he can relax and be himself much more than the others. He's kind of endearing, straightforward and no-doubt-about-it authentic. Depending on the number of delegates he's able to garner, we'll see a definite increase in libertarian influence at the convention. I think that's a good thing.
"To the moon, Alice!" or in this case... Barack!
