Note from the Author

If you like what you see on Kauffmans Commentary, tell your friends and family to visit this site.
For all other requests, feedback, and suggestions, email Kauffman at

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Diplomatic Chutzpah

In the ultimate act of diplomatic chutzpah, the Obama administration recently requested from Israel an explanation as to why the IDF killed three terrorists who were responsible for the callous murder of 40 yr. old Meir Hai. The terrorists, whom the IDF hunted down and eliminated, brutally murdered a father of seven and a beloved teacher.  How could the Obama administration have such a nerve to ask Israel to "explain" why she defended herself in killing three terrorists who not only killed Hai but had been responsible for other attacks on Israelis?  This brazen attempt by the Obama administration to equate Palestinian terror with Israeli self-defense would have been tantamount to  Israel asking the Bush administration  for an "explanation" as to why the U.S. Armed Forces killed Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan after 9/11.

It would behoove the Obama administration to ask the Palestinian Authority for an explanation as to why they continue to endorse terror and incite their people to become homicide bombers in violation of international law which continues to be conveniently ignored by the U.N.  That would be a much better use of the Obama administration's time.

Monday, December 28, 2009

Obama Administration Concedes Airline Security Failed

 The Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, has finally admitted to a disturbing reality.  Airline security failed when Mutallab carrying explosives on a watch list(although he was not on " a no fly list" like he should have been) was able to board a U.S. airliner bound for Detroit. Secretary Napolitano, we can not afford to have airline security fail on us? I am glad you admitted to the reality we are experiencing. Namely, that airline security needs to be drastically improved. But, now that you have come to the realization that airline security has failed us, what are you going to do about it so that the NWA incident does not ever happen again? Was not 9/11 a big enough wake up call for airline security to never fail us again? Apparently not.

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Terror returns to the skies on NWA Flight 253

Vice-President Biden stated during the campaign that President Obama would be tested just like President Bush was tested with 9/11. Now, we may have had our first real test of the Obama administration by Al Qaeda with this latest attempt to blow up  NWA Airlines flight 253 on December 25th as it proceeded to make its final approach into Detroit. The NWA flight originated from Nigeria  with a stop over in Amsterdam before departing for Detroit. On board NWA Flight 253 was a Nigerian man by the name of  Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab. According to the New York Post and other news sources, Mutallab has ties to Al Qaeda. Apparently, Mutallab stated that he was instructed by Al Qaeda to blow up a U.S. Airliner.

Mutallab could have very easily blew up this aircraft or could have caused serious harm. Luckily, he was not able to detonate the bomb and only caused a small fire on board which was put out by the crew. The other passengers, particularly a Dutch man by the name of Jasper Schuringa, was able to restrain Mutallab until law enforcement authorities arrived.

This incident should serve as another wake up call for the U.S. to get their act together. We have already had the incidents on AirTran and  United Airlines this year. (See my earlier posts on those incidents ). How many wake up calls can you get before its too late? You're lucky if you get one wake up call. We've now had three wake up calls with little or no damage caused. The fourth wake up call will not be so innocuous. Do we have to have another major terrorist attack again on U.S. soil, God forbid, before the U.S. intelligence community and aviation industry learns to connect the dots and provide better security on our flights?  The terrorists are professionally trained. They will take advantage of our inadequate security measures to our detriment.

We learned that the father of Mutallab warned the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria that his son could be dangerous.  Unfortunately, Mutallab was not put on any "no fly list." Why not? He should have at least been subjected to stricter security checks at the airport when boarding the flight.  Certainly, the information learned by the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria should have been conveyed to the FAA and the CIA and the FBI. And, if they knew about this information which they may or may not have been aware of until now, they should have immediately flagged Mutallab for greater surveillance.

I am sure in the coming days more information will be revealed about what the U.S. knew about Mutallab and when they knew it similarly to the investigation that occurred after 9/11. But, the aviation industry is missing the boat if security measures as they stand now will continue unchanged.

In the wake of this NWA incident,  the government is requiring that passengers remain in their seats for the last hour of the flight. And, on international flights, passengers are only allowed once carry on bag. There certainly will be longer lines.But, these new restrictions are not sufficient. More needs to be done to protect U.S. Airliners from another terrorist attack.

While I am no security expert and do not purport to be one, the problem  does not seem to be one of keeping passengers in their seats. A terrorist attack could still happen regardless of whether a passenger stays in his seat or not. Rather, the only way to really ensure that the aircraft is safe on the ground and in the air  is to profile passengers before they board the aircraft to determine who appears to be a threat to the flight. This procedure has been done for years in Israel.  Many have argued quite sensibly that this investigative questioning of passengers before they board flights, which is done by Israeli airlines and by the airport authority at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, could not be replicated in a massive capacity in the U.S. However, the time may have come where we do not have a choice but to do what the Israelis have been doing for years.

I would propose the following new security measures:

1) All U.S. Airliners must hire their own trained security to oversee the check-in procedures for all flights whether they are operating within the U.S or are originating from an overseas airport.  It can no longer be sufficient for U.S. Airliners to rely on other airports to solely run the security for their flights.  Nor can U.S. Airliners solely rely on TSA personnel who may not be trained in detecting a bomb or other explosive device.

2) All passengers going on a domestic or international flight must check in their bags at the ticket counter instead of curb side check in.

3) All passengers should expect that they may be subjected to questioning at the ticket counter by trained airport or airline-hired security. (The need for questioning of passengers will be greater on international flights) If there is a serious question as to whether a passenger may be a threat to a particular flight, that passenger will not be allowed to fly on that flight and will have to be rebooked on another flight once he or she is cleared to fly again.

4) All U.S. Airports should have the same security procedures. We are learning now that security procedures depends on which airport you are flying from.  Uniformity is vital to prevent another terrorist attack. Every airport in the U.S. must provide comparable security. (Fort Lauderdale's airport must provide the same security that JFK or LAX provides. Now, its true that Fort Lauderdale does not have the same flight load as LAX or JFK. But, passengers departing from Fort Lauderdale's airport must be subjected to the same security procedures that they would experience at a more busy airport.)

5)  If the FAA, CIA, or FBI learns of information pointing to an individual who may be a risk to a flight, that person should immediately be put on a "no fly list" or should be subjected to more stringent security checks at the airport by either airport or airline security.

I  know that these proposed security measures would probably significantly raise airline prices and cause more hassle at the airports including more wait time.

Ultimately, this may be the price that we have to pay  if we want to fly terror-free.

Friday, December 25, 2009

Carter's apology not accepted

Just in time for the holiday season, the former U.S. President Jimmy Carter offered an apology to Jewish Americans for "stigmatizing Israel." In fact, he offered an "Al Chet" which is the prayer that Jews say on Yom Kippur when asking God for forgiveness. Why  all of a sudden after years of  attacking the Jewish state without any feelings of remorse does Jimmy Carter have an epiphany and decide that maybe he committed a major sin in spewing outrageous blood libels about the State of Israel. Last Christmas, he did not apologize. And the Christmas before that, he did not apologize.  Why now? Well, some are saying its because Carter's grandson is running for Congress in a District which is heavily populated with Jews.  The grandson probably called up grandfather Jimmy, and said "hey grandpa can you help me here. I am having problems with the Jews. Bail me out." And Grandpa Jimmy said, "sure grandson, let me apologize to the Jews and everything will be alright."

Now, Carter says that the fact that his grandson is running for office has nothing to do with his apology. Regardless of whether the apology was precipitated because of his grandson's quest for higher office or because of some other reason, the apology is too little too late and should not be accepted by the Jewish community or anyone else who is deserving of an apology from Carter.

Jimmy Carter has done more to delegitimize and besmirch the credibility of the Jewish State than any another other politician in the U.S. and perhaps in the rest of the world.  Now, there are definitely many others who follow Jimmy Carter's lead vis a vis Israel. But, Carter is at the head of the pack of anti-Israel enthusiasts who never seem to miss a dull moment in slandering all aspects of the State of Israel.  And, he has caused significant harm to Israel in the PR battle in recent years which is unforgivable. In addition, his Carter Center receives more money each year from pro-Arab groups including Saudi Arabia, so who knows if his apology will be long-term or more likely short-lived. 

Lets examine Carter's disturbing career maligning the character of the State of Israel.

1)  Jimmy Carter has famously retorted that Israel's policies are worse than Apartheid in South Africa when Arab citizens have more rights in Israel than they do in Arab countries.

2)  He authored a book called Palestine: Peace not Apartheid where he demeaned Israel and traveled around the world to promote his book calling Israel all kinds of horrible names. (Carter: Israel treats Palestinians like animals, Israel is persecuting the Palestinians, the Palestinians are victimized, Israel is colonizing Palestinian land, Israel is the primary obstacle to peace,  Israel is starving the Palestinians of the necessities of life, Israel should be condemned for attacking Hamas etc.)

3) Here is Carter taking the airways attacking Israel which he did regularly when promoting his book (

4) Carter took pride in outing Israel's nuclear program claiming Israel has 150 nuclear weapons. That disclosure harmed Israel's security and her steadfast refusal to reveal whether or not it has nuclear weapons. (

5) Carter had no problem meeting with Hamas and providing an aura of legitimacy on the terrorist organization.He admired Yasser Arafat.  He traveled to Syria and Lebanon to meet with terrorist leaders even though Syria in cooperation with Hezbollah vow Israel's destruction. He and his Carter Center has had extensive ties with the Arab world and have long supported Arab causes even when they were detrimental to Israel's security.  He believes that Israel should talk to everyone even to those countries who want to wipe her off the face of the map.

6) Carter has downplayed Palestinian attacks on Israel  making very little mention of Israeli victims in his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. He also has played the morally equivalent game linking Israel's self-defense mechanisms on an equal plane to Palestinian homicide bombings. He's good at that game.

The list goes on and on.

How can you forgive such a man who has spent a whole career validating the Arab world which has vigorously worked since 1948 to eradicate the State of Israel? Maybe there will be some in the Jewish community who will forgive Carter.  I doubt he will get too many favorable responses.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

The Nazi Grinch Who Stole Christmas

An unkown story buried in the annals of  the history books finally becomes known more than sixty years after the end of the Holocaust.  The story involves the Nazis who sadistically robbed six million Jews of their G-dgiven right to human existence.  In an untold story, they also attempted to alter the meaning of Christmas and to drastically change the way Christmas was celebrated in Germany for centuries. A new exhibition in Cologne, Germany reveals a Nazi plan to ban Christmas presumably because they could not stand the fact that Jesus  had a Jewish past. But, they found banning Christmas to be too difficult. So, instead of depriving Germans of their holiday, the Nazis did what they do best. They corrupted Christmas. Christmas was changed to "Julfest" which is a German term. According to the Nazis, Christmas was now defined as an ancient winter tradition. Jesus was no longer in the picture and Santa Claus became a Viking Knight. All references to Christmas were erased especially in songs. And, Swastika symbols had to be placed on the tree.  

Despite the Nazi attempts to transform Christmas, most Germans were able to keep their long-standing traditions at least privately within the confines of their family. Nevertheless, the Nazi Grinch dampened the national Christmas spirit and also somehow prevented this story from being told for sixty some years.

Now, the story of the Nazi Grinch is on display for all to see at this exhibit in Cologne, Germany until January 17th, 2010.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Not so fast Harry Reid

According to Lindsey Graham(R-SC), the Democrats buyout deal of  Ben Nelson over the weekend could prompt a constitutional challenge. In a stunning turn of events, the Democrats were able to garner the last holdout vote on the Democrat side, giving the Dems the 60 vote majority to pass health care, by cajoling Ben Nelson to change his mind and vote in favor of the health care bill. Why, all of a sudden,  did Ben Nelson change his mind? Remember, he was very adamant in opposing the bill in recent weeks because of provisions in the bill which funded abortion.  The answer to Ben Nelson's rather sudden change of heart: Money and lots of it.

Harry Reid & Co. in a secret backroom deal exempted Ben Nelson and the State of Nebraska from paying for  Medicare.   Every other state is still required to pay their share for Medicare. But, not Nebraska. It certainly renews the American people's distrust of the political establishment in Washington to know that our Senators have no conviction and can be bought out if prodded with money. Who else has been bought out to change their vote on this bill or any other bill in the history of policymaking in this country? Too many to even ponder.

But, the American people still have a voice even if it appears otherwise sometimes. And, if  Lindsey Graham is correct, Harry Reid and the Democrats may have a lawsuit to contend with by angry Americans in 51 other states who do not want to see Nebraska exempted from paying Medicare while everyone else is expected to pay their share.

Good luck defending yourselves Harry Reid and Ben Nelson.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Mahmoud Ahmadenijad analyzes Obama's Copenhagen Speech

President Obama to UN Climate Control Summit: " We are running out of time. The time for talk is over. It is better for us to act than to talk."

Ahmadenijad to President Obama: Keep up the good work on Climate Control. By the time you figure out how to save the planet, I will have obtained the ultimate prize in a nuclear bomb.

Mr. President, is not it time to stop talking and act on saving the world from a nuclear Iran?


Friday, December 18, 2009

Senate Fireworks



Thursday, December 17, 2009

Leave Hadassah Lieberman Alone

If you have not heard already, the liberal blogs have stooped to an all time low. They have resorted to attacking a Senator's wife. Namely, Joe Lieberman's wife Hadassah. The liberal blog, Firedoglake, is demanding that Hadassah Lieberman be fired from her position as spokeswoman for the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. According to Firedoglake, she is not suitable for her position at Susan G. Komen because of her husband's opposition to the Democratic health care plan or at least the provision where the Democrats want to include medicare coverage for 55 yr. olds.

First, let me cut to the chase and make my first point known right out of the box. The Firedoglake blog is engaging in outrageous conduct. Why should a Senator's wife be the subject of personal attacks and political retribution which could result in professional repercussions merely because a liberal group opposes the policies of her husband?  Hadassah is not responsible for what her husband supports while he is a Senator in the U.S. Senate.She is her own person and should be judged based on her own credentials.  If Firedoglake wants to launch a campaign against Joe Lieberman, that's one thing. But to engage in the politics of personal destruction by attacking a Senator's wife in order send a message to a Senator that liberals vehemently disagree with is the epitome of  "chutzpah" for a lack of a better word.

Even if Senator Lieberman  is opposed to health care reform which he is not( the truth is that Senator Lieberman is not opposed to reforming health care in this country. He is opposed to the Democrats spending an exorbitant amount of money on health care reform which will bankrupt this country in a time of economic downturn) why should Hadassah be targeted?  What did she do to deserve being singled out by this liberal blog? Is she a U.S. Senator who made any statements positive or negative about the Democrats' health care plan? After all, Mrs. Lieberman has proven herself on her own merits and is highly qualified to represent the Susan G. Komen Foundation. But the liberal blogs these days would never consider this fact when it does not suit their interests. They refuse to discuss issues in a legitimate constructive manner. Instead, they have to strike below the hip with the hope that Lieberman would cave in and support the health care bill in its current form if he sees his wife being attacked by the liberal blogs. If you look at the liberal blogs, they also have resorted to ad hominem attacks laced with profanity against Senator Lieberman. Whatever happened to civilized debate?

Unfortunately, civilized debate does not pay anymore. Pressuring organizations in order to make a statement is more effective which is why the liberal blogs are turning their sights on the Susan G. Komen Foundation. The Foundation has stated repeatedly that they support Mrs. Lieberman and are happy with her performance. But, the liberal blogs have beseeched the assistance of  Ellen DeGeneris and other celebrities to pressure the Foundation to fire Mrs. Lieberman as their spokeswoman. Who knows what will happen when the Foundation gets negative press or receives angry calls for Mrs. Lieberman's termination from high profile celebrities like DeGeneris?

Its time for those of us who are tired of the way liberals do business to make a statement of our own. If you are outraged by Firedoglake's mistreatment of Hadassah Lieberman and are concerned that the Foundation could terminate her position, contact the Susan G. Komen Foundation at 1-877 Go Komen and urge them to keep Mrs. Lieberman as their spokeswoman now more than ever before. If we can rise to the occassion, we can send a very powerful message that the politics of personal destruction will no longer be tolerated even from liberal blogs like Firedoglake.

Monday, December 14, 2009

China cancels world meeting on Iran

The world powers were scheduled to meet in Brussels to discuss Iran's nuclear program. Unfortunately, China canceled the meeting claiming scheduling problems. Out of all of the world powers, China is the least to call for the destruction of Iran's nuclear program because they receive a significant amount of oil from the Iranians. The fact that China cancelled the meeting raises a very important question.

During the campaign, we heard a litany of reasons why Obama should become President. One of those reasons was that he needed to restore America's reputation in the eyes of the world. We needed to reach out to the rest of the world and understand their concerns and interests. But, what happens if the rest of the world is diametrically opposed to a major U.S. initiative that could protect the American people from a nuclear attack?  In order to not be arrogant, would the President have to follow along with the desires of the rest of the world and in turn reject U.S. security interests?  We may be confronting this very question with the Iranian nuclear program. Regardless of whether Obama truly wants to procure sanctions, the U.S. has expressed interest in procuring sanctions against the Iranians by agreeing to participate in this meeting in Brussels.  Well, what happens when China says we are not going to support opposing Iran's nuclear program as it appears they are doing now, what will Obama do then?  Will he be arrogant and bypass China in order to protect America and the free world from nuclear attack or will he try to understand the Chinese and delay procuring sanctions indefinitely? Time will answer that question.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

United Airlines Flight 227

I wrote yesterday about the disturbing incident on AirTran flight 297 which remains clouded in mystery. Add United Airlines to the mix in an ever growing saga of Middle Eastern looking men causing disturbances on U.S. flights.  Most recently, UAL flight 227 on December 9, 2009 had to return to the gate in order to remove unruly passengers of Middle Eastern descent who were engaging in suspicious conduct. One passenger stated that he had never seen  flight attendants so scared in his life. As previously discussed, these incidents on AirTran and United Airlines should not be viewed in a vacuum.We could be seeing a return of Al Qaeda & Co.  using  U.S. airliners in  order to carry out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil or in other parts of the world if the U.S. government fails to heed the warning signs.

Stay tuned to Kauffmans Commentary for continued updates on this very topic.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

AirTran Airways Coverup?

Could AirTran Airways be covering up a terrorists dry run on one their recent flights this past November 17th?  Thankfully, we have not had a terrorist attack on American shores since 9/11. President Bush was never given credit by the mainstream media for his efforts in preventing another terrorist attack in America after 9/11. We all thought  that the U.S. would be targeted inside America by Al Qaeda in the months and years after 9/11. Even though we have not been hit since 9/11 which is certainly a huge achievement considering the times we find ourselves in, the fact that we have not been hit since 9/11 may have a detrimental effect if we are going to become complacent and less vigilant. I personally have had conversations with friends who tell me, "we have not had another attack since 9/11, we should be focusing more on the economy instead of national security." This seems like the prevalent attitude in our society today.  While its true that we have been able to avoid another terrorist attack since 9/11, terrorism is alive and well in this country and in the surrounding world. If we become complacent as it seems we have become, the U.S. will be on a collision course for another terrorist attack G-dforbid. (Remember after the 1993 WTC attack, there was a lull of eight years before the terrorists struck us again) What people do not understand is that the war against Radical Islam, which supports and provides aid to the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, is an ongoing battle. If we at any time reach the conclusion that we can cease attending to national security and solely focus our attention on other matters, we are in for a rude awakening. (The terrorists are hoping that we will do just that).

Unfortunately, with the recent news that AirTran Airways may be covering up a terrorists dry run on one of their flights, it is clear that even the airline industry does not fully understand today's reality.   According to AirTran Airways' own account, AirtTran Airways flight # 297 on 11/17/09 which was scheduled to fly from Atlanta to Houston had to return to the gate after a passenger would not stop talking on his cell phone. However, there appears to be more to the story. One of the passengers, who was late and missed boarding this flight, claims being told from other passengers who made the flight that several Arab men were singing loudly in Arabic on the flight prior to leaving the gate. They refused to sit down when asked by flight attendants. Furthermore, these men took out their cell phones to take pictures of other passengers. And, according to this passenger, the men proceeded to pretend to shoot other passengers with their fingers.

Now, in all fairness to AirTran, I was not on board this flight and am only hearing about the incident through news reports. Maybe the incident on AirTran is nothing more than a fluke and nothing to worry about. It should also be pointed out that these men were questioned by police and released. But, something seems very awry when passengers have conflicting accounts of what occurred on the flight.  Someone is telling the truth and someone is clearly covering up what occurred. Unfortunately, AirTran has more to loose by clearly articulating  what occurred, namely that several Arab men were taking pictures of other passengers and pretended to shoot other people. After the six Imams who received a lot of money from US Airways after being kicked off a flight for allegedly engaging in suspicious conduct, the airlines are afraid to accurately assess a situation because they are afraid of insulting Muslims. Because of this fear, it appears that AirTran sugarcoated what occurred and has decided to dispute any other account as being a "conspiracy theory."  AirTran should not flippantly dismiss passenger accounts (AirTran execs were not on the flight, these passengers experienced what occurred)  which is what they did in their press statement. If the airlines are going to be bullied in remaining silent to such an extent that AirTran can not address the missing pieces to this story and can not respond to media requests for an explanation as to the varying accounts, the airline industry will  be adopting a mindset that will result in the American people becoming vulnerable as opposed to being secure.

While, under normal circumstances, it is prudent to avoid offending people, social niceties do not mix well with security especially in this day and age. The simple fact is that the airlines can not be put in a position where they will be precluded from identifying the perpetrators of disturbances on their flights because of a fear of a lawsuit or because of political correctness.   (The airlines should have no qualms about identifying whomever is causing a disturbance on their flight whether they are Muslim or from some other nationality) Otherwise, the terrorists will use our relaxed environment to their diabolical advantage.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Orrin Hatch: I feel sorry that I am not Jewish

                      Eight Days of Hanukkah from Tablet Magazine on Vimeo.


Thursday, December 10, 2009

Nobel Peace Prize for Excellence in Appeasement

In a shocking turn of events which caught Americans and the world by surprise, Oslo Norway decided to award President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize.  Now, Obama will accept the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway later today amidst media fanfare. No doubt this will be a great photo-op opportunity for the President. A much needed boost. I am sure Obama intends to ride the waves of this award all the way up to Mount Rushmore. But, I must ask a very important question that has been on my mind ever since it was announced in October that Obama would be receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Its a question that's on a lot of people's minds.  What did Obama do to deserve such a coveted award?  Usually people have to accomplish something or engage in some constructive action in order to deserve an award. This question becomes even more important when it was learned that the nominating committee had to select Obama around February 1, 2009 which was only two weeks after Obama assumed the presidency.  What could have Obama done so significant to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize only two weeks after he took the oath of office? According to the nominating committee, they were impressed with Obama's reaching out to the Muslim world and his attempts to reduce nuclear proliferation. In other words, Obama is receiving the award for adopting a worldview that Norway supports even if it is contrary to the goals of world peace. In other words, Norway could care less whether Obama achieved peace or not as long as he makes nice with the Europeans.  Because the Europeans were left out in the dark during the Bush years and rightfully so I might add, my guess is Norway was so happy to get rid of Bush who opposed EU policies that when Obama took over and openly endorsed EU policies, Norway had to show its sigh of relief and ecstatic pleasure by giving Obama the ultimate prize. Not a very impressive substantiation of why Obama should receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

Despite the unimpressive substantiation, let's closely examine what Obama has done to achieve worldwide peace since the nominating committee made its decision in the early part of February 2009. Perhaps, Obama did something monumental to deserve the prize in the weeks and months after he was selected to receive the award.

                         ARROGANT CARD                   

1)  As soon as Obama assumed the presidency, he went on his famous whirlwind tour apologizing to the world for Americas "arrogance."  Obama told Europe that America had been "arrogant and dismissive even derisive to its allies" as he offered an apology for the Bush presidency.  Its pretty low when the U.S. President calls his own country arrogant. The country that liberated millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq and eradicated a terrorist supporting regime in that of Saadam Hussein and eliminated Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. The country that was attacked on 9/11 and went to battle in order to defend its citizens from further attacks and in turn made the world safer. That country is arrogant according to President Obama. But besides the clear problem with what Obama articulated in that April 2009 speech to the Britons, Obama failed to realize that America's enemies were also listening to that speech. Iran, North Korea etc. who also have been calling America arrogant finally got vindication in the U.S. President agreeing with their malevolent dogma. Now, whenever an enemy disagrees with a legitimate U.S. policy, it will call America arrogant in an almost childish game to see if the U.S. President will run to their country and apologize for being an arrogant country. For example, what's stopping China or Russia from calling America arrogant if it attempts to procure sanctions against Iran? Will Obama rescind any efforts to bring about sanctions against Iran if China or Russia use the "arrogant" card against America in an effort to stop the U.S. from punishing Iran?  If Obama feels compelled to play it safe in order to mollify the international community, world peace will be irreparably harmed.


2)   What in the world has Obama done to reduce nuclear proliferation?  Since becoming President, he has leveled empty threats against the Iranian regime which have not worked. He tried to start low-level negotiations with the Iranian regime. That has not worked as the Iranians have already indicated that they will not talk to the West. The IAEA have already declared that negotiations with the Iranians are at a dead-end . Meanwhile, Iran have made several incendiary threats against Israel signaling that they intend to wipe Israel off the face of the map. And, a U.N. detector placed on the border near Iran determined that Iran has not stopped its nuclear program and we know that Iran will not destroy its secret nuclear plant despite demands to do so. Furthermore, Obama has done nothing to pursue the procurement of sanctions against Iran. We are right now at a crossroads with negotiations having failed and no sanctions as Iran vigorously makes strides towards obtaining the nuclear bomb. Surely, there does not appear to be any reduction of  Iranian nuclear proliferation which was one of the main reasons that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.

                        REACHING OUT TO THE MUSLIM WORLD?

3)   We have been told that Obama recieved the Nobel Peace Prize because he has reached out to the Muslim world. Why should the U.S. have to reach out the Muslim world? If anything the Muslim world should reach out the U.S. for supporting a culture that produced the 9/11 hijackers. If anything the Muslim world should explain to the U.S. why it denies its own citizens the freedoms that the rest of the world appreciates. If anything, the Muslim world should travel to Washington to give a speech as to why it spends millions of dollars on Kassem rockets and other weaponry that are launched on Israeli cities and towns? Why should the victim apologize to the aggressor? Sure enough, Obama went to Cairo in June of 2009 and tried to understand the Muslim world. He tried to understand a Muslim world that seeks to annihilate the only  viable democracy in the middle east and the only Jewish state in the world.  In that speech, he ended up comparing the German massacre of 6 million Jews to "Palestinian dislocation."  Obama did more harm to world peace in that speech by comparing the genocidal acts of the Nazis to legitimate acts of self-Defense by the IDF. Instead of condemning the Palestinians for promoting violence, Obama has had a field day chastising  the U.S.'s staunchest ally Israel and has thus caused a stir in U.S.-Israel relations. He has capitulated to a Muslim world that is largely opposed to western values and ardently supports terrorist organizations that seek to undermine world security.  And for all the talk during the campaign that Obama was the only one who had the special ability to bring about peace between Israelis and Palestinians,  he has found that its not so easy convincing the Palestinians that they should return to the negotiating table and rescind all enmity towards Israel. So much for the unique talents of the "anointed one."

The plain conclusion is that Obama has not shown at any time during his young presidency that he should be receiving the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 2009. (He should be receiving the appeasement award instead) But, what do you expect from an organization that also awarded the prize to Yasser Arafat(may his name be blotted from our memories), the anti-semite Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore?

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

University Professor blames America on Iranian TV



Better late than never

Annonymous person returns  60 yr. old overdue book to an Ohio Library.

Disabled hunter wins legal battle

After 2 1/2 years fighting the Manville, New Jersey police department, a 46 yr. old quadripalegic man is finally awarded the right to hunt with accommodations.  According to Jamie Cap, the Manville police department denied his application to obtain a hunting license because he is in a wheelchair. The courts agreed with him and all is settled as Cap has returned to hunting with his breathing tube.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Obama's first year job approval rating

                            WHAT A SURPRISE!


Monday, December 7, 2009

Obama: Turkey could help stop Iran

President Obama stated at the White House today that he is of the opinion that Turkey could be an "important player" in dissuading Iran from using their nuclear weapons in a menacing manner.  However, Turkey has already made it clear that they oppose implementing sanctions against Iran. How could Turkey be an important player when it is already opposed to punishing Iran for acquiring nuclear weapons?  Without a strong and coherent message to Iran that the West will not support its nuclear program through the implementation of sanctions, mere negotiations or empty threats will never act as a deterrent and only encourages Iran to continue enhancing its nuclear program. Further, analysts claim that Turkey is more interested in promoting anti-western values and fostering ties with its Arab neighbors.  The Obama administration is also eager to pressure Turkey to assist the U.S. in Afghanistan which means that Turkey may only agree to become involved in Afghanistan on condition that Turkey remain opposed to siding with the U.S. on procuring sanctions against Iran. If that's the case, Turkey surely could not be an "important player" in stopping the Iranians from acquiring the nuclear bomb especially since Turkey is more interested in maintaining good ties with Iran.

Obama ought to begin thinking of a realistic workable strategy for dealing with Iran which does not expect any involvement from Turkey or other Arab countries.  Otherwise, the Obama admnistration will be kidding itself if it seriously believes that Turkey will be an important player in stopping the Iranians.

Anti-semitism watch: Jew-hatred on the rise in Europe

Hatred of Jews  ↑  especially in Poland which is seen as the most racist country on the European continent.

Has anything changed since the Holocaust?


Sunday, December 6, 2009

Mixed Messages

Are we leaving or staying in Afghanistan?  The answer to that question depends on whether you talk to the President or the Secretary of State.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Tempers flare at the WH Press Briefing


Obama says no to Jerusalem

Last Thursday, President Obama followed in his predecessors footsteps and  informed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that he intends to delay moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. He was given the power to delay the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem by the U.S. Congress. In 1995, the U.S. Congress unanimously passed a law recognizing Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel and required that the U.S. Embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. However, in that same law which required that the U.S. Embassy be moved to Jerusalem, Congress gave the President the legal authority to delay the moving of the Embassy every 6 months on national security grounds. Since 1995, every U.S. President has decided to postpone the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem until negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are resolved.

I would like to know the answer to the following question. Why create a law which essentially prevents the moving of the Embassy  to Jerusalem? Either move it or do not move it. If the goal of the U.S. Congress is to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, giving the President the power to delay the moving of the Embassy defeats the purpose of the legislation. As it stands now, every President regardless of whether they are Democrat or Republican will use the 6 month loophole to delay the moving of the Embassy indefinitely.

I call on the U.S. Congress to enact an amendment which would eliminate the 6 month loophole. It is utterly preposterous that practically every U.S. Embassy is in the capital of the host country and Israel, which is one of the U.S.'s staunchest allies, is disrespected by having the U.S. Embassy in  Tel Aviv which is not Israel's capital city.  The U.S. has no qualms about putting their Embassy in Damascus, the capital of Syria or in Riyadh or in Beirut. As far as I know, the U.S. Embassies are located in every capital city in the Arab world. Why should Israel, the country which is constant contact with the U.S regarding defense matters, be given the cold shoulder by not having the U.S. Embassy in their capital city as is the case in the Arab world?

Could you imagine if Israel decided to put their Embassy in Annapolis, MD instead of Washington DC because the State of Israel didn't recognize Washington DC as the undivided capital of the U.S? There would undoubtedly be an uproar in Washington and rightfully so. Why should Israel be any less perturbed?

If you agree with me on this issue, call your Senator or Congressman and tell them that you want the U.S. Embassy to be moved to Jerusalem.  The time has come for the international community to formally recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel.

Where is Gilad Schalit?


Thursday, December 3, 2009

Medical mystery solved

12-year-old girl can’t stop sneezing

Girl who couldn't stop sneezing finally has a diagnosis......   Good for her! It must have been so frustrating having to sneeze incessantly like that,  to miss school, and be away from her friends.  Thankfully, it seems like that she will be able to be treated and  move on with her life.

Skeptical Dems have "serious misgivings" about Obama's Afghanistan plan

What a shocker for the Obama White House!
Not only are Republicans weary of Obama's Afghanistan plan, but so are members of his own party.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Negotiations with Iran not working

Ahmadenijad announced today that uranium enrichments will continue indefinitely despite the international community's strong condemnation of Iran's nuclear program. Iran has also refused to shut down a secret uranium enrichment plant. (BTW, the international community has been condemning Ahmadenijad's psychopathic rants for at least two years now to no avail as Iran has not indicated that it feels threatened enough by the west to disband its nuclear program). Clearly, empty threats are not effective. And, neither are negotiations as Iran has already rejected demands to work with the IAEA and the UN. The Iranian leader adamantly stated "You should know that even if you sizzle (from impatience or desire to talk) ... the Iranian nation won't talk to you concerning the nuclear issue." In response to this statement from Iran, the IAEA even believes that negotiations are at a dead end. If the IAEA believes that negotiations will not be the mechanism that destroys Iran's nuclear program, what more proof does the Obama administration need to accept the fact that no one is capable of negotiating with a tyrannical regime that seeks to dominate the world and destroy western and Jewish civilization?

Its time for a new strategy. When will Obama make a speech regarding his strategy on Iran? Unfortunately, Obama is opposed to even consider taking any military action which in all likelihood will be the only option that will stop Iran from getting their hands on a nuclear bomb. He has not been successful thus far in procuring sanctions against the Iranians. Obama has also left Israel in the dark as the Jewish state waits anxiuosly for Obama to make a decision.(Israel may be forced to go into Iran alone) Meanwhile, as Obama continues to hedge his bets on meaningless negotiations, Iran is enhancing its nuclear program at an alarming rate.

Analysis of President Obama's Afghanistan defeatist speech

Conclusion: Obama is more concerned about rebuilding the economy than securing the world from radical Islamic tyranny. Obama admitted in this speech what we already knew. He is opposed to war. He does not support going to war for any reason. If he had his way, he would pull the troops out immediately and focus all of his efforts on health care. As Obama stated, " I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions." In actuality, the long term effects of defeating Al Qaeda will result in freedom for the Afghani people and by extension the American people. Instead, Obama would rather restrain himself as Al Qaeda and others rearm.

He made clear that the economy is his number one priority: 1) " the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home." 2) "Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. " [Bush should have focused on the economy and ignored national security] 3) "global economy has grown more fierce, so we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars." 4) "our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people, from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth."

You get the picture. Obama is trying to find a way out of these wars by asserting that the economy should be our main focus. But, what Obama fails to realize is that as long as Al qaeda is in business, no entrepreneur will be able to save America from a terrorist attack. And, if there is Gdforbid another terrorist attack, the economy will plunge anyway which is why it would behoove Obama to equally focus on national security issues as well.

Unfortunately, his Afghanistan plan will not secure America and may not even secure Afghanistan. By alerting to the enemy that you plan to remove the troops by a deadline, you encourage them to continue their war against America because no matter how many attacks they launch against U.S. troops, the U.S. will withdraw by 2011. Its a defeatist strategy. One thing about President Bush when he announced his surge in 2007 is that he never gave any timetables. Timetables are dangerous for morale and Obama fell into the terrorists trap.

I gather that the following occurred. Obama found himself in a difficult situation. General McChrystal informed him that the U.S. needed to put more troops in Afghanistan. Obama was not pleased at the recommendation which is why he waited to make a decision. Obama finally came up with a clever compromised plan. He decided to authorize the sending of 30,000 troops. (Mchrystal asked for close to 60,000 troops) In the meantime, he'll blame the fact that he needs to send more troops to Afghanistan on Bush. And in the speech, Obama eluded to the reduced troops in Afghanistan as being Bush's fault "the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention, and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world." But, Obama will get the troops out of Afghanistan in 2011 just in time for his reelection campaign so he will be able to reunite the left that is no doubt upset about his decision to enhance the war efforts. This goes hand in hand with Hoyer who in responding to Cheney's criticism of Obama remarked that Obama is merely fixing the mess that he inherited from Bush. (Mchrystal's request is somewhat accepted, Obama can frame the surge as a response to Bush's failures and the troops can be out by 2011)

What happens after 2011 when the Taliban reemerges and Al qaeda kicks out Karzai after our troops have left Afghanistan. We got a problem on our hands which Obama fails to understand.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Candidate Obama vs. President Obama

One of the reasons President Obama was successful in his bid for the presidency in 2008 is because he was able to cultivate a relationship with the media. The media idolized Obama either because of his "rockstar" status or because he may have been the first leftwing African-American politician in recent years that had a decent shot at winning the White House. Even though Obama had only been in the U.S. Senate for four years and had virtually no other leadership experience other than serving in the Illinois State legislature and being a "community organizer," the media in a violation of journalistic integrity refused to cover any negative stories that could ruin the Obama campaign and instead propped up candidate Obama all the way to the White House. Obama's conversant and cool personality only excited the media even more. Having the media as your friend in a political campaign is a huge asset and that's why Obama went out of his way to be in regular contact with the media answering their questions in an "open door policy" because he knew that the media would never ask him any threatening questions. After becoming President, Obama continued his cozy relationship with the media and held more press conferences and sat down for more interviews than any other President in his first months in office. However, Obama's honeymoon period with the media may be coming to an end as the Washington Times is reporting that Obama has in recent days ducked questions from the WH press corps. If he had ducked questions during the campaign and the media actually reported on the ducked answers, Obama may not have become President. Perhaps, people would have started to question whether Obama had the experience to be President as they questioned Palin's ability. Thats's all fantasy at this point. But, the real question now is what effect Obama's change of heart in dealing with the the media will have on his political chances in the future. Will the media turn on Obsma? Without the media on his side, Obama may be vulnerable in 2010 and 2012. Maybe Obama will finally come to the realization that his free ride wouldn't last forever and even the "annoited one" will have to be held accountable. If he continues down this path of avoiding questions and not holding regular press conferences which he sought out to do when he became President, the media factor which created the "Obama phenomena" may become less significant. 

Taxpayer money on flowers?

Nancy Pelosi is adamant that the Dems socialist healthcare plan wont cripple the economy even though a public health option clearly can not operate alongside a private health option. Our economy can not logistically sustain both options and expect an improvement in the economy. Even if the health care legislation would be able to survive the economic downturn that we are in, you would think that Nancy Pelosi would be more conservative with her money on less important matters considering that she's proposing a multi billion dollar health care initiative. Not Speaker Nancy. Would you know that Speaker Pelosi spent $2,993.00 on flowers between June and October? Lets get this straight. She can not go to the local giant and pay $10.00 for flowers?    Thats not sufficient? Everyone else is expected to spend less and downsize in order to conserve money. Why does that not also apply to the Speaker? On what other pointless matters is the Speaker going to spend money? Maybe she'll spend 3,000.00 for the House to eat choclate chip cookies.