Boker tov, Boulder!

What does a Palestinian negotiator, the IRS, the White House and Z-Street all have in common? You'd be surprised.

Those posing as investigative journalists in the supposedly-mainstream media should take a lesson... from Rick Richman.

 

Prompted by a Wall Street Journal editorial about the IRS targeting of pro-Israel organizations, my friend and colleague Rick Richman noted a specific observation made in the New York Times (in July 2010) and quoted by the WSJ, that while the "American government seeks to end the ... Jewish settlement enterprise," the Treasury Department helps to sustain that same enterprise "through tax breaks on donations to support them." The Journal editorial wondered, "Did the T-men take their political cues from such [media] stories, or did Administration officials give them orders?" -- and noted that "either explanation would be a violation of public trust."

Richman dug deeper, actually going back to the minutes of meetings of the Palestinian negotiating unit, included in something called the Palestine Papers, and published by Al Jazeera in 2011. In those minutes he found this clue, which he posted at Commentary two months ago:

 

Did the Palestinians Ask Obama to Target

Pro-Israeli 501(c)(3)s?

 

.... At the June 16 meeting, Erekat said Benjamin Netanyahu’s June 14 Bar-Ilan speech had sought to put the Palestinians on the defensive. Netanyahu endorsed a two-state solution and stated that in the meantime, “we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements,” but would “enable the residents to live normal lives.” He urged the Palestinians to engage in immediate negotiations, without preconditions. Erekat wanted to respond to the speech with a letter to the U.S. that would cite the number of individual housing units under construction. Dr. Mohammed Shtayyed made an additional suggestion to Erekat:

“We should also focus on the government incentives to settlers: loans without interest, land for free, agricultural subsidies in the Jordan valley. We can’t stop a pregnant lady from having a baby, but look at what we can do. We should look at the 501(c)(3) organizations in the States that make donations to settlers. Let the US administration investigate this.” [Emphasis added]

Shatayyed was wrong about Israeli government incentives, which had been terminated by Israel during the Bush administration, as part of a negotiated arrangement (detailed by Elliott Abrams in Tested by Zion) allowing new construction only within already built-up areas, which permitted normal growth without an increase in the Israeli “footprint” in the territories. Given our evolving knowledge of how the IRS operated under Obama, however, it seems possible the Palestinians followed through on Shtayyed’s other suggestion, asking the administration to investigate pro-Israeli groups.

 

I read this at the time, but could not have told you today the name of the Palestinian who made the suggestion to "look at" American 501(c)(3)s.  Rick did remember, however, and mentioned it to me in a recent conversation: Dr. Mohammed Shtayyed ... the very same whose facebook page has recently made the rounds of Israel-related blogs!

Palestinian negotiator’s Facebook page betrays true anti-Israel aspirations

While ['Palestinian negotiator'] Dr. Shtayyeh has been paying lip service to Kerry’s peace talks initiative publicly, his Facebook background image reveals his aspirations for a Palestinian state that incorporates the entirety of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The word ‘Filastin’ (Palestine) can be seen emblazoned across the entirety of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

 

And just think, this very same "Palestinian negotiator" Mohammad/Mohammed Shtayyed/Shtayyeh, purveyor of erroneous maps, was...

WITH THE PRESIDENT.

IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

Just yesterday.

 

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with Palestinian Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat and Mohammed Shtayyeh (right) and Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Yitzhak Molho (left) at the formal resumption of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, in the Oval Office, July 30, 2013 (photo credit: Official White House Photo, Chuck Kennedy)

 

No word from the mainstream media as to whether Shtayyeh was able to discuss any IRS-related matters with the President at that meeting.

Go to hell, McRINO!

I can't believe I gave this man's campaign more money than I could afford in the hope of getting him elected president in '08.

John McCain on Congressional "tea partiers" (as quoted in the Washington Times, by way of Weasel Zippers:

 "Many in this group didn’t come to power to get things done.

 They came to power to keep things from getting done.”

 

 

Does it not occur to him that We The People sent folks like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee to the Senate precisely to "keep things from getting done," because we were outraged by what WAS getting done? Do I really need to make a list? The 'stimulus,' Obamacare, unemployment, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...

Holy mackerel, McCain is starting to sound like Obama! Whatever happened to McCain (and Graham), happened in a meeting at the White House the week before Obama took 12 GOP senators to dinner at the Jefferson Hotel in March.

 

From left: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK), Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) met with President Barack Obama for a rare dinner... (New York Daily News/Getty Images)

President Obama and his guests ordered from a three-course prix-fixe menu. The White House specifically requested that the staff of Plume restaurant include the Maryland blue crab risotto appetizer and filet of prime beef entree among the options. . .  soooo, does that mean that’s what the president ordered? The restaurant wouldn’t say.

But we do know that of the 16 people seated in the hotel’s private Parlor Boardroom (including the 12 senators and presumably a handful of staffers), there were six orders of the filet, five of the Colorado lamb açaí, four Lobster Thermidors, and one special-ordered vegetarian plate. Dessert options included peanut butter crumble, heart of guana chocolate tart and iced Tahitian vanilla and praline bar.

The president had arranged for the $85 per person tab (not including tax or tip) to be billed directly to the White House. The hotel was sworn to secrecy on the question of whether or not wine was ordered or consumed.

 

Now fast forward four months after dinner, to today:

• Progressive Poverty ~"Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream." (AP, "Exclusive: Signs of Declining Economic Security," July 28, 2013)
• Weakest Recovery ~ "Since World War II, 10 U.S. recessions have been followed by a recovery that lasted at least three years. An Associated Press analysis shows that by just about any measure, the one that began in June 2009 is the weakest." (AP, "Economic recovery is weakest since World War II," August 15, 2012)
• Hope and Change? ~ Under Obama, the poverty rate grew from 14.3% in 2009 to nearly 17% in April 2013. The poverty rate fell from 15.2% during the peak of the 1982 recession to 12.8% when Reagan left office. (Based on BLS figures. See Peter Ferrara at Forbes, "Reagaonomics vs. Obamanomics: Facts and Figures," May 5, 2011).
• Welfare Explosion ~ "[S]ince President Obama took office [in January 2009], federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year... Despite an unprecedented increase in federal anti-poverty spending, the national poverty rate has not declined, the [Cato] study finds." (CNS News, "Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars..," June 25, 2012)
• More Americans Struggling ~ "About 97.3 million Americans fall into a low-income category, commonly defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level, based on a new supplemental measure by the Census Bureau that is designed to provide a fuller picture of poverty. Together with the 49.1 million who fall below the poverty line and are counted as poor, they number 146.4 million, or 48 percent of the U.S. population." (AP/NBC, "Dismal Prospects," December 15, 2011)
• Long-Term Unemployment ~ "An unprecedented 4 in 10 jobless workers—nearly 5 million people—have been out of work for 27 weeks—nearly six months—or longer, pushing the average duration of unemployment up to 37 weeks, nearly 16 weeks longer than during the worst of the 1980s downturn, according to the law project's data." (NBC, "Slow Crawl to Poverty," April 4, 2013)
• Government Dependency ~ First Lady Michelle Obama recently claimed in a political fundraising email that Barack Obama wants to free Americans from "any form of public assistance." Currently, nearly 110 million Americans receive some form of federal welfare. (Weekly Standard, "Over 100 Million Now Receiving Federal Welfare," August 8, 2012). President Obama said on the 2008 campaign trail that spreading the wealth around is "good for everybody."

 

So maybe We The People just don't trust Government when it comes to "getting things done."

 

 http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/30/obama-the-keystone-pipeline-is-not-a-jobs-plan-you-know/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/irs-employee-union-we-dont-want-obamacare/article/2533520

 http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/69222-while-treasury-says-government-out-of-funds-obama-cuts-check-to-palestinian-authority-for-500-million/

Pay No Attention to that Man Behind the Curtain (At Your Own Risk)

You heard it here first, boys and girls:

"Oy gevalt, shades of Moscow"

 

(I knew it, I knew it!)

 

Stanley Kurtz at NRO's "The Corner":

... Early but unmistakable signs indicate that Obama’s regionalist push is well underway. Yet the president doesn’t discuss his regionalist moves and the press does not report them.

The most obvious new element of the president’s regionalist policy initiative is the July 19 publication of a Department of Housing and Urban Development regulation broadening the obligation of recipients of federal aid to “affirmatively further fair housing.” The apparent purpose of this rule change is to force suburban neighborhoods with no record of housing discrimination to build more public housing targeted to ethnic and racial minorities.

Several administration critics noticed the change and challenged it, while the mainstream press has simply declined to cover the story.

Yet even critics have missed the real thrust of HUD’s revolutionary rule change. That’s understandable, since the Obama administration is at pains to downplay the regionalist philosophy behind its new directive. The truth is, HUD’s new rule is about a great deal more than forcing racial and ethnic diversity on the suburbs. (Regionalism, by the way, is actually highly controversial among minority groups. There are many ways in which both middle-class minorities in suburbs, and less well-off minorities in cities, can be hurt by regionalist policies–another reason those plans are seldom discussed.)

The new HUD rule is really about changing the way Americans live. It is part of a broader suite of initiatives designed to block suburban development, press Americans into hyper-dense cities, and force us out of our cars. Government-mandated ethnic and racial diversification plays a role in this scheme, yet the broader goal is forced “economic integration.” 

 

READ. IT. ALL.

 

 

Today in Tennessee

 

 

10:45 am || Departs White House
12:30 pm || Arrives Chattanooga, Tennessee
1:35 pm || Tours the Amazon Fulfillment Center
2:00 pm || Delivers remarks
3:05 pm || Departs Chattanooga
4:55 pm || Arrives White House

 

 

In today's Wall Street Journal:

Obama to Offer New Deal ...

 

"As part of his efforts to focus Washington on the middle class, today in Tennessee the president will call on Washington to work on a grand bargain focused on middle class jobs by pairing reform of the business tax code with a significant investment in middle class jobs,"

said Dan Pfeiffer, senior adviser to the president.

 

Abu Mazen wants a Jew-free state

 

"How close to a Jew are they willing to live,

or rather, how far away do we have to be

in order for them to call it peace?"

 

 July 29, 2013: 

(al-Reuters) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas laid out his vision on Monday for the final status of Israeli-Palestinian relations ahead of peace talks due to resume in Washington for the first time in nearly three years.

"In a final resolution,

we would not see the presence of a single Israeli

- civilian or soldier - on our lands,"

 Abbas said in a briefing to mostly Egyptian journalists.

 

[See also the facebook page of "Palestinian negotiator," Mohammad Shtayyeh.]

 

The good thing about having such an old blog is that having been here and done this, over and over again, I have already answered.  The bad thing about it is that I am not as good at it now as I was then. (The Won seems to have redistributed not only our wealth, but our energies as well.)

BtB in January 2008, when "tiny encampments" of Jews were looming large as "impediments to a peace deal" :

 

.... Why does Dhimmedia never ask [the Palestinians, the leftist Israelis or U.S. State Department officials] exactly how "a few trailers" impede peace efforts? Is the problem that Arabs might have to breathe the same air as Jews? Or is it only the land they cannot share? What exactly is it about Jewish life they cannot live with, or even near?

Could they share water with us? The shade of a tree? Would it be okay if Jews prayed under the same sun and clouds, or slept under the same stars as Arab Muslims? What's the radius? How close to a Jew are they willing to live, or rather, how far away do we have to be in order for them to call it peace?

It seems to me that any "peace agreement" would imply some level of coexistence. I'd like to ask the Palestinian "negotiators" about the extent of their willingness to coexist with Jews. What would it look like? If Jews shouldn't live in the house next door, could they live on the same street? And if Arabs can't tolerate Jews on their street, could Jews live on the next street over? In the next town? How about in a few trailers on a hilltop here and there?

Then again maybe it's not space, but numbers. I'd like to ask those Israeli leftists that if 40 families should not live in Migron, could 30 families live there? How about four couples with no children? Two Jews and a goat? No, I know, there is an unquestioned and unquestionable idea that it has to be no Jews whatsoever. None. Not one.

The sun comes up in the east and Arabs require any territory under their control to be totally Jew-free. It is a given. The Sinai had to be rendered Jew-free before Egypt would accept it in the late 70s, and Gaza had to be Jew-free before the Palestinians would accept it in 2005. 

Is that not the most abhorrent sort of

bigotry?

I can't think of any places on earth, other than Arab countries, that are necessarily off-limits to anyone. There are no Black-free zones, no Pole-free zones, no square foot on the earth where a Canadian or a Parisian or a Bangladeshi or a Catholic cannot go based on who they are. So why does everyone think it's so okay, even so great, that a place... any place... would be officially Jew-free?

 

 

53 pct disapprove, 41 pct strongly so

The Won's approval among Democrats is down to 78 pct, and his disapproval among unaffiliated voters is up to 59 pct.  Read more at Rasmussen.

 

Goodbye Hopenchange, Hello Angry Black Man

First of all, let's admit that Barack Obama has already poisoned race relations in America:

... At the beginning of the president’s first term, 79 percent of whites and 63 percent of blacks had a positive view of American race relations. Those numbers have plummeted to 52 percent and 38 percent, respectively.

Meanwhile, 45 percent of whites now consider race relations fairly or very bad, compared with 20 percent in 2009, and the negative views held by black Americans has jumped from 30 percent to 58 percent. 

 

And now, believe it or not...

He's threatening that racial tensions "may get worse"

if Republicans continue to oppose his economic agenda.

 

Keith Koffler has the whole ugly story at White House Dossier.

 

"... we have to emphasize first of all our belonging..."

Four relevant, instructive flashbacks from Israel's national treasure (and my hero), Yisrael Aumann, mathematician and winner of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Economics for his research in Game Theory:

 

2011:

“Jewish presence in Israel lasted for 4,000 consecutive years, with the exception of 19 years between and 1948 and 1967 and another 90 years during the Crusades,” added Aumann.

“We should stop talking about the need for defensible borders. It’s not a matter of security but of belonging. If we do not belong here we do not have the right to security. Therefore we have to emphasize first of all our belonging to the land of Israel, and convince ourselves of that before trying to persuade others.”

 

In 2006 Aumann asserted that Israel needed to clearly redefine its national goals before any real compromise in the Arab Israeli conflict could take effect:

"There could well be a compromise. But before that is possible, a necessary condition is to make clear to ourselves and then to our cousins [the Arabs] that we are here to stay. That is by no means clear at the moment. We don’t have clearly defined goals. We used to, but we don’t anymore. It’s all very vague, and we have nothing to stick to. Because of that, I am pessimistic that we can convince our neighbors of what we want, when we don’t know what we want ourselves."

 

And in 2010, Aumann applied his expertise in Game Theory to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  He explained:

Two men —let us call them Reuben and Simon— are put in a small room containing a suitcase filled with bills totaling $100,000.  The owner of the suitcase announces the following:

“ I will give you the money in the suitcase under one condition…you have to negotiate an agreement on how to divide it. That is the only way I will agree to give you the money.”

Reuben is a rational person and realizes the golden opportunity that has fallen his way. He turns to Simon with the obvious suggestion: “You take half and I’ll take half, that way each of us will have $50,000.”

To his surprise, Simon frowns at him and says, in a tone that leaves no room for doubt: “Look here, I don’t know what your plans are for the money, but I don’t intend to leave this room with less than $90,000. If you accept that, fine. If not, we can both go home without any of the money.”

Reuben can hardly believe his ears. “What has happened to Simon” he asks himself. “Why should he get 90% of the money and I just 10%?”  He decides to try to convince Simon to accept his view. “Let’s be logical,” he urges him, “We are in the same situation, we both want the money. Let’s divide the money equally and both of us will profit.”

Simon, however, doesn’t seem perturbed by his friend’s logic He listens attentively, but when Reuben is finished he says, even more emphatically than before: “90-10 or nothing. That is my last offer.”

Reuben’s face turns red with anger. He is about to punch Simon in the nose, but he steps back. He realizes that Simon is not going to relent, and that the only way he can leave the room with any money is to give in to him. He straightens his clothes, takes $10,000 from the suitcase, shakes Simon’s hand and leaves the room humiliated.

This case is called 'The Blackmailer’s Paradox” in game theory. The paradox is that Reuben the rational is forced to behave irrationally by definition, in order to achieve maximum results in the face of the situation that has evolved. What brings about this bizarre outcome is the fact Simon is sure of himself and doesn’t flinch when making his exorbitant demand. This convinces Reuben that he must give in so as to make the best of the situation.

 

Finally, I find even his early biography to be instructive and helpful. The last dot in this sequence comes from a lengthy interview, which should be read in full.

Aumann: I was born in 1930 in Frankfurt, Germany, to an orthodox Jewish family. My father was a wholesale textile merchant, rather well to do. We got away in 1938. Actually we had planned to leave already when Hitler came to power in 1933, but for one reason or another the emigration was cancelled and people convinced my parents that it wasn't so bad; it will be okay, this thing will blow over. The German people will not allow such a madman to take over, etc., etc. A well-known story. But it illustrates that when one is in the middle of things it is very, very difficult to see the future. Things seem clear in hindsight, but in the middle of the crisis they are very murky.

Sergiu Hart (interviewer): Especially when it is a slow-moving process, rather than a dramatic change: every time it is just a little more and you say, that's not much, but when you look at the integral of all this, suddenly it is a big change.

Aumann: That is one thing. But even more basically, it is just difficult to see.

Let me jump forward from 1933 to 1967. I was in Israel and there was the crisis preceding the Six-Day War. In hindsight it was "clear" that Israel would come out on top of that conflict. But at the time it wasn"t at all clear, not at all. I vividly remember the weeks leading up to the Six-Day War, the crisis in which Nasser closed the Tiran Straits and massed troops on Israel's border; it wasn't at all clear that Israel would survive. Not only to me, but to anybody in the general population.

Maybe our generals were confident, but I don't think so, because our government certainly was not confident. Prime Minister Eshkol was very worried. He made a broadcast in which he stuttered and his concern was very evident, very real. Nobody knew what was going to happen and people were very worried, and I, too, was very worried. I had a wife and three children and we all had American papers. So I said to myself, Johnny, don't make the mistake your father made by staying in Germany. Pick yourself up, get on a plane and leave, and save your skin and that of your family; because there is a very good chance that Israel will be destroyed and the inhabitants of Israel will be wiped out totally, killed, in the next two or three weeks. Pick yourself up and GO.

I made a conscious decision not to do that. I said, I am staying.

.... I am saying all this to illustrate that it is very difficult to judge a situation from the middle of it. When you're swimming in a big lake, it's difficult to see the shore, because you are low, you are inside it. One should not blame the German Jews or the European Jews for not leaving Europe in the thirties, because it was difficult to assess the situation.

 

Now let us rehash these four dots.

1. Jews have belonged in the Land of Israel for four thousand years.

2. We are in the Land to stay.

3. When confronted by hostile neighbors, apply #'s 1 and 2 above, and do not flinch.

4. When one is the middle of a crisis, it is very difficult to assess the situation and see the future. (Amen.)

 

 Memorable Moment: Professor Auman with his family at the Nobel Prize ceremony in Sweden in 2005. "Read more" at the link.

Israeli Cabinet Approves Netanyahu's Agreement to Release Terrorists

Never in all my ten years of blogging have I seen BOTH Israel and the U.S. in such bad shape at the same time. Carl in Jerusalem reports --

 

Disgraceful:

Cabinet approves terrorist release

 

UPDATE 4:58 PM 

For: Netanyahu, Steinitz, Yaalon, Saar, Lapid, German, Peri, Piron, Cohen, Livni, Peretz, Landver and Aharonovitch
 
Against: Bennett, Ariel, Orbach, Landau, Shamir, Erdan, Katz

Abstain: Livnat, Shalom.

 

I had been hoping that Netanyahu was saying Yes only because he knew his Cabinet would say No. As it turns out, not only did Israel fail to gain the release of Jonathan Pollard from U.S. captivity, not only did the Prime Minister and Cabinet agree to release terrorists who will -without a doubt- attempt to murder Israelis again, but according to Esther Sarah (who is brave enough to read ALL gorey details in the news), they are releasing convicts who are Arab citizens of Israel. This aspect is apparently unprecedented. Who could have guessed that John Kerry's arm could reach so far into that country?

And all to attract Abu Mazen just to sit at the negotiating table. And of course, unlike the Jew in the room, the other two peace-processing "partners" need make no preconditional concessions whatsoever. Been here, done this.

So here's the parlor guessing game of the day:

What did Obama-Kerry promise Bibi? That the U.S. would take out the Iranian nukes? That the U.S. would somehow "back" Israel when she takes out the Iranian nukes? Or that the ObamaNation would refrain from criticizing Israel when Israel saves the world. again.

Oy, a broch. My heart is on the floor.

 

 

And We Are All Ashamed

There were two very good reasons to get up this morning: the lovely 55 degrees outside and the coming of Shabbat.

 

©Thorney Lieberman

 

Unfortunately, however, we have the typical ObamaNation onslaught of bad news that could put a saint back to bed.

Esther Sarah sent me some comments from a Harvard alum, accusing Israel of genocide. The only genocide in the world in which the victim population consistently increases. Simple arithmetic must not be as sophisticated and desirable as leftist fascism in the Ivory/Ebony Tower.

My friend Shirl sends word from Jerusalem that the Obama regime is floating the possibility of Martin Indyk as American negotiator in the Arab-Israeli-Obama/Kerry Peace Process, which portends - if not guarantees - "failed peace talks" blamed on the Jews.

Meanwhile, the Obama regime's Waffen-NSA wants your internet passwords.  Of course they do.

"I've certainly seen them ask for passwords," said one Internet industry source who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We push back."

A second person who has worked at a large Silicon Valley company confirmed that it received legal requests from the federal government for stored passwords. Companies "really heavily scrutinize" these requests, the person said. "There's a lot of 'over my dead body.'"

Some of the government orders demand not only a user's password but also the encryption algorithm and the so-called salt, according to a person familiar with the requests. A salt is a random string of letters or numbers used to make it more difficult to reverse the encryption process and determine the original password. Other orders demand the secret question codes often associated with user accounts.

 

 

Along these same dictatorial lines, the College Republicans were denied entry to The Won's speech in Missouri on Wednesday. Why he has to travel to make speeches is beyond me; they all look the same on tv. But I digress.

...an unidentified police officer told the group they were barred from the event for “security reasons and for the president’s protection.”

“You will not be allowed any further,” the officer allegedly told the group of six College Republicans, dressed in republican and tea party clothing, as they attempted to enter the event.

Scott said each member of the group had a ticket to enter the event and that they arrived early complying with all rules.

“Obama was scheduled to speak at around 4 p.m., so around 3:30 pm we gathered our stuff up,” said Scott. “They had announced that there were to be no posters or anything so we dropped our stuff off. We were not carrying anything. We followed all the rules.”

 

In "regular" politics, Drudge points us to Chris Christie's attack on libertarians -- especially Rand Paul, who is probably the biggest threat to Christie in the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said.

“You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this,” he said. “I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. … I’m very nervous about the direction this is moving in.”

 

Widows and orphans, eh?  Pardon me if I repeat myself:

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants..."  - Camus

 "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis

  

The Winter Aid (Winterhilfswerk ) was the Nazi Party charity. Each year there was a drive to solicit donations to help the needy. Contributions were not entirely “voluntary.” The text translates as: “No one shall go hungry! No one shall be cold!”  [Photo courtesy of Dr. Robert D. Brooks and the German Propaganda Archive at Calvin College]

 

In case you missed this bit yesterday:

Obama took a break from his jobs-pivot speeches to meet Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang at the White House. The pair held joint remarks in the Oval Office afterward....

"... we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.”

 

And if that's not enough to make you wretch, SoS John Kerry felt obliged to drag the memory of Benjamin Franklin into his speech for the "particularly holy" month-long Islamic holiday of Ramadan:

I want you to know that the tradition of sharing respect for this particularly holy month actually reaches back to the earliest days of our Republic. This is the Benjamin Franklin Room, and it’s a fitting venue for this occasion because Ben Franklin was really our first formal diplomat. And he was also among the earliest proponents of religious freedom in our country. He wrote in his autobiography, “Even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.”

 

If you are a real sucker for punishment, you can help yourself to the First Lady's speech to the National Council of La Raza:

“... while food might be love, the truth is that we are loving ourselves and our kids to death.”

 

And lastly, the most heart-wrenching and infuriating news of all. 

 

Mother Of American Killed In Benghazi To Obama:

“My Son Is Dead. How Could That Be Phony?”…

Because Obama said so, that’s why.

 

 

The president saw Trayvon Martin as a son he never had, and/or as himself thirty-five years ago, because "as a Black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station."

But the non-Leader of the increasingly non-Free World recognizes no such relationship to Sean Smith, ignobly treating the Smith family with utter disregard bordering on contempt.

And we are all ashamed.