California Goes Crazy Again...

Ah, the beat goes on...

Notwithstanding the massive recalls of Chevy Volts, the low driving range before recharging and the high incidence of battery fires,The California Air Resources Board unanimously approved a set of new rules requiring that one in seven of the new cars sold in California by 2025 be an electric or other zero-emission vehicle.

The plan also mandates a 75 percent reduction in smog-forming pollutants by 2025, and a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from today's standards. All hail Gaia! :

"Today's vote ... represents a new chapter for clean cars in California and in the nation as a whole," said Mary Nichols, the board's chairman. "Californians have always loved their cars. We buy a lot of them and drive them. Now we will have cleaner and more efficient cars to love." [...]

Trade groups representing auto dealers worried that the new regulations would increase the costs of vehicles for consumers and stifle the industry's growth.

The California New Car Dealers Association and other industry groups representing those who sell cars said the board is overestimating consumer demand for electric vehicles and other so-called "zero-emission vehicles."

Dealers are concerned that the regulations will lead to higher costs in all cars, and say consumers have been slow to warm to electric and other zero-emission vehicles.

Board member Sandra Berg, who said she drives the all-electric Nissan Leaf, said before the vote that regulators need to take consumer behavior and choice seriously in this equation.

She said a lot of work must be done to educate dealers to sell the new generation of cars.

"Early adopters (of electric cars) are willing to go without heat to save the miles they need to get to their destination, but that is not going to help grow the consumer base," Berg said, referring to the range issues with some current electric vehicles.

The board's research staff disputes the argument from dealers that the mandates for new technology will increase costs for cars. They point to steady increases in hybrid and other sales and argue that fuel cost savings will make up for any vehicle price increase.

"Our research shows a $1,400 to $1,900 car price increase. But over the life of the vehicles, the owners save $6,000 in reduced fuel and maintenance costs," board spokesman David Clegern said.

Consumers have largely shied away from these electric vehicles because of their limited driving range, higher purchase prices ( I don't know what planet Clegern and his 'researchers' are living on) and a mixed record for reliability in a number of models. Simple solution..California's bureaucrats are going to force you to buy them.

Let's look at the likely results of this stupidity:

Car prices across the board are going to rise sharply. That includes the price of used cars as people desperately try to avoid having to shell out huge bucks for an electric car that only gets 30 to 40 miles per charge and makes trips to outlying areas without a charging station a thing of the past.And by the way, do you know how long it takes to charge up an electric car as opposed to a fill up at your local gas station?

Additional government spending in a state that's already broke to put in the infrastructure for charging stations and the all important bureaucrats and their staffs to ensure and monitor compliance by dealers and manufacturers.

Increased demand in the urban areas of California for electric power from the state's already strained power grid...and of course, higher prices for energy for both homes and what remains of California's businesses. Welcome to blackout city!

The ironic part is that this is being done in the name of 'global warming', but will have little or no effect of emissions because all that electric power comes from - you guessed it, power plants fueled by oil, gas, coal or nuclear power. And even if that wasn't true, pollution doesn't honor state boundaries. Or even national borders.

Of course, this isn't about pollution per se, but almost entirely political in nature. The Obama Administration loves cap n' trade because it provides tax revenues, cripples the hated oil and coal industries and gives them bureaucratic control over yet another segment of American industry. And it also allows them to use taxpayer dollars to reward campaign donors with Solyndra-like green energy scams. The Democrats who run California are no different.

If California was anything but a state of the Union, it would be under receivership right now.

California Goes Crazy Again...

Ah, the beat goes on...

Notwithstanding the massive recalls of Chevy Volts, the low driving range before recharging and the high incidence of battery fires,The California Air Resources Board unanimously approved a set of new rules requiring that one in seven of the new cars sold in California by 2025 be an electric or other zero-emission vehicle.

The plan also mandates a 75 percent reduction in smog-forming pollutants by 2025, and a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from today's standards. All hail Gaia! :

"Today's vote ... represents a new chapter for clean cars in California and in the nation as a whole," said Mary Nichols, the board's chairman. "Californians have always loved their cars. We buy a lot of them and drive them. Now we will have cleaner and more efficient cars to love." [...]

Trade groups representing auto dealers worried that the new regulations would increase the costs of vehicles for consumers and stifle the industry's growth.

The California New Car Dealers Association and other industry groups representing those who sell cars said the board is overestimating consumer demand for electric vehicles and other so-called "zero-emission vehicles."

Dealers are concerned that the regulations will lead to higher costs in all cars, and say consumers have been slow to warm to electric and other zero-emission vehicles.

Board member Sandra Berg, who said she drives the all-electric Nissan Leaf, said before the vote that regulators need to take consumer behavior and choice seriously in this equation.

She said a lot of work must be done to educate dealers to sell the new generation of cars.

"Early adopters (of electric cars) are willing to go without heat to save the miles they need to get to their destination, but that is not going to help grow the consumer base," Berg said, referring to the range issues with some current electric vehicles.

The board's research staff disputes the argument from dealers that the mandates for new technology will increase costs for cars. They point to steady increases in hybrid and other sales and argue that fuel cost savings will make up for any vehicle price increase.

"Our research shows a $1,400 to $1,900 car price increase. But over the life of the vehicles, the owners save $6,000 in reduced fuel and maintenance costs," board spokesman David Clegern said.

Consumers have largely shied away from these electric vehicles because of their limited driving range, higher purchase prices ( I don't know what planet Clegern and his 'researchers' are living on) and a mixed record for reliability in a number of models. Simple solution..California's bureaucrats are going to force you to buy them.

Let's look at the likely results of this stupidity:

Car prices across the board are going to rise sharply. That includes the price of used cars as people desperately try to avoid having to shell out huge bucks for an electric car that only gets 30 to 40 miles per charge and makes trips to outlying areas without a charging station a thing of the past.And by the way, do you know how long it takes to charge up an electric car as opposed to a fill up at your local gas station?

Additional government spending in a state that's already broke to put in the infrastructure for charging stations and the all important bureaucrats and their staffs to ensure and monitor compliance by dealers and manufacturers.

Increased demand in the urban areas of California for electric power from the state's already strained power grid...and of course, higher prices for energy for both homes and what remains of California's businesses. Welcome to blackout city!

The ironic part is that this is being done in the name of 'global warming', but will have little or no effect of emissions because all that electric power comes from - you guessed it, power plants fueled by oil, gas, coal or nuclear power. And even if that wasn't true, pollution doesn't honor state boundaries. Or even national borders.

Of course, this isn't about pollution per se, but almost entirely political in nature. The Obama Administration loves cap n' trade because it provides tax revenues, cripples the hated oil and coal industries and gives them bureaucratic control over yet another segment of American industry. And it also allows them to use taxpayer dollars to reward campaign donors with Solyndra-like green energy scams. The Democrats who run California are no different.

If California was anything but a state of the Union, it would be under receivership right now.

Iran Warns US: 'Keep Your Aircraft Carrier Out Of The Persian Gulf'

Iran issued warnings today that they regard the Strait of Hormuz as their territorial waters and that a US ship that exited into the Strait into the Gulf of Oman had better not return to the Persian Gulf - or else.

“We recommend to the American warship that passed through the Strait of Hormuz and went to Gulf of Oman not to return to the Persian Gulf,” said Maj. Gen. Ataollah Salehi, the commander in chief of the army, as reported by Iran’s official news agency, IRNA. “The Islamic Republic of Iran will not repeat its warning.”

The ship General Salehi was talking about is the aircraft carrier the USS John C. Stennis.

The warning was accompanied by a statement from a senior member of Iran's majlis (parliament) Nader Qazipour, reported in Iran's FARS News Agency that any foreign warships trying to pass through the Strait of Hormuz without Iranian consent should be stopped, as Iran considers the Strait part of its territorial waters rahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifther than a freely passable international waterway :

"If the military vessels and warships of any country want to pass via the Strait of Hormoz without coordination and permission of Iran's Navy forces, they should be stopped by the Iranian Armed Forces," Nader Qazipour told FNA, explaining about the contents of the plan.

In relevant remarks on Monday, another Iranian legislator stressed that Iran will use all its capabilities and possibilities to defend the country against foreign threats and the country will use the Strait of Hormoz as a defensive tool and will close the waterway if it comes under threat.

"Iran will definitely use the defensive potential of the Strait of Hormoz if it is faced with threats," Rapporteur of the parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Kazzem Jalali told FNA.

The bellicose saber rattling has a purpose, of course.

In the midst of all of this, the Iranians suddenly announced that they're willing to entertain talks again on their nuclear program with the UN 5+1 (the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) due to the wonderful non-results that occurred last time.

It's the carrot and stick game the Mullahs have played so successfully in the past,and its one purpose is to buy time for Iran to complete its nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

President Obama bought into this big time. He reluctantly ( his own words) finally signed tough sanctions passed by Congress against Iran into law that target their central bank and would make it difficult for them to process their oil payments.

The only problem is, they're meaningless because of how the Senate Democrats watered them down. Not only don't they take effect for six months, but President Obama has the wiggle room not to apply them if he judges doing so would not be in US interest.

There's no question in my mind that President Obama will almost certainly bend over again, swallow hard and engage with Iran. It's also almost a certainty the US will not enforce any sanctions while talks are going on, let alone any military action. And of course,Russia will see to it that the proposed talks go absolutely nowhere except to a highly watered down policy statement the Mullahs will use for toilet paper.

This is indeed a very bad time for America to have a leader like President Obama at the helm of the ship of state.

Iran Warns US: 'Keep Your Aircraft Carrier Out Of The Persian Gulf'

Iran issued warnings today that they regard the Strait of Hormuz as their territorial waters and that a US ship that exited into the Strait into the Gulf of Oman had better not return to the Persian Gulf - or else.

“We recommend to the American warship that passed through the Strait of Hormuz and went to Gulf of Oman not to return to the Persian Gulf,” said Maj. Gen. Ataollah Salehi, the commander in chief of the army, as reported by Iran’s official news agency, IRNA. “The Islamic Republic of Iran will not repeat its warning.”

The ship General Salehi was talking about is the aircraft carrier the USS John C. Stennis.

The warning was accompanied by a statement from a senior member of Iran's majlis (parliament) Nader Qazipour, reported in Iran's FARS News Agency that any foreign warships trying to pass through the Strait of Hormuz without Iranian consent should be stopped, as Iran considers the Strait part of its territorial waters rahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifther than a freely passable international waterway :

"If the military vessels and warships of any country want to pass via the Strait of Hormoz without coordination and permission of Iran's Navy forces, they should be stopped by the Iranian Armed Forces," Nader Qazipour told FNA, explaining about the contents of the plan.

In relevant remarks on Monday, another Iranian legislator stressed that Iran will use all its capabilities and possibilities to defend the country against foreign threats and the country will use the Strait of Hormoz as a defensive tool and will close the waterway if it comes under threat.

"Iran will definitely use the defensive potential of the Strait of Hormoz if it is faced with threats," Rapporteur of the parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Kazzem Jalali told FNA.

The bellicose saber rattling has a purpose, of course.

In the midst of all of this, the Iranians suddenly announced that they're willing to entertain talks again on their nuclear program with the UN 5+1 (the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) due to the wonderful non-results that occurred last time.

It's the carrot and stick game the Mullahs have played so successfully in the past,and its one purpose is to buy time for Iran to complete its nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

President Obama bought into this big time. He reluctantly ( his own words) finally signed tough sanctions passed by Congress against Iran into law that target their central bank and would make it difficult for them to process their oil payments.

The only problem is, they're meaningless because of how the Senate Democrats watered them down. Not only don't they take effect for six months, but President Obama has the wiggle room not to apply them if he judges doing so would not be in US interest.

There's no question in my mind that President Obama will almost certainly bend over again, swallow hard and engage with Iran. It's also almost a certainty the US will not enforce any sanctions while talks are going on, let alone any military action. And of course,Russia will see to it that the proposed talks go absolutely nowhere except to a highly watered down policy statement the Mullahs will use for toilet paper.

This is indeed a very bad time for America to have a leader like President Obama at the helm of the ship of state.

Tom Friedman vs. Israel

That's the title of a brand new Pajamas Media column by David Gerstman, whose Middle East media analysis appears here from time to time. Here's a slice:

Two weeks ago, columnist Thomas Friedman created a controversy in his column “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir“ when he wrote:

I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.

By using language evoking antisemitic imagery of Israel “owning” Congress, Friedman seemed to step over a line. In an effort to control the damage of his ill-advised language, Friedman defended himself to Gary Rosenblatt of the The Jewish Week. At the end of the article Rosenblatt wrote:

Friedman has often written of his support for the State of Israel, despite his sometimes sharp criticism of Jerusalem’s policies.

Last year Bradley Burston of Ha’aretz quoted Friedman:

“Israel doesn’t have to worry about me,” Friedman had stressed early in the interview. “At the end of the day, Israel will have my support — it had me at hello.”

Supporters like Rosenblatt portray Friedman as a friend of Israel. However a survey of his extensive writing about the Middle East shows that Friedman is hostile to Israel. The problem isn’t simply his “sometimes sharp criticisms” of Israel, rather it is his ever-shifting standards that always find Israel wanting.

In 1999, Friedman wrote a hypothetical column titled “How Bibi got Re-elected.” The conceit of the column — actually written before Netanyahu lost the premiership to Ehud Barak — was that Netanyahu tackled the most important issue facing Israel at that time — withdrawing Israeli troops from Lebanon. Friedman wrote:

Now that Israeli troops are out of Lebanon, noted Mr. Netanyahu, everything is reversed: Politically, if the Iranian-directed Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas try to come across the border, they will be invading Israel, and Israel will be justified in massively retaliating against Lebanese, Syrian and Iranian troops that abet such an invasion. And if Israel does retaliate, it won’t be with guerrilla warfare, but with the Israeli Air Force massively striking Lebanese, Iranian and Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and maybe inside Syria.

The Israeli move has totally unnerved the Syrians, the Hezbollah guerrillas and Iran. ”They are all now in a quandary,” said the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen. ”The Hezbollah guerrillas are saying to themselves: ‘Now that we have liberated Lebanon, do we want to use that as leverage to rule Lebanon? Or do we want to use that as a springboard to move on to Jerusalem?’ If they want to do the latter, now they’re really going to have to pay for it.”

Over the next six years Hezbollah violated the internationally approved border no less than 20 times, killing and wounding Israeli civilians and soldiers. In 2006 — following a particularly egregious incident in which Hezbollah crossed the borders, immediately killing eight soldiers and kidnapping (later killing) Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, Israel struck back. How did Friedman describe Israel’s response?

In a column titled “War, Timeout, War, Time …” Friedman wrote about Israel’s three recent wars against terror:

What is different about these three wars, though, is that Israel won them using what I call “Hama Rules” — which are no rules at all. “Hama Rules” are named after the Syrian town of Hama, where, in 1982, then-President Hafez el-Assad of Syria put down a Muslim fundamentalist uprising by shelling and then bulldozing their neighborhoods, killing more than 10,000 of his own people.

In Israel’s case, it found itself confronting enemies in Gaza and Lebanon armed with rockets, but nested among local civilians, and Israel chose to go after them without being deterred by the prospect of civilian casualties. As the Lebanese militia leader Bashir Gemayel was fond of saying — before he himself was blown up — “This is not Denmark here. And it is not Norway.”

The brutality of the Israeli retaliations bought this timeout with Hezbollah and Hamas, and the civilian casualties and troubling TV images bought Israel a U.N. investigation into alleged war crimes.

Even as Friedman acknowledged that Israel was fighting an enemy embedded among civilians, he still compared Israel’s second Lebanon War with Hafez Assad’s brutal assault on civilians. Rather than defending Israel’s right to self-defense, Friedman equated Israel’s self-defense with Assad’s all out assault on civilians. Even though Israel heeded his advice by withdrawing from southern Lebanon, Friedman didn’t defend Israel when the withdrawal resulted in a new threat.

While Israel fought against the terror infrastructure that Arafat had built up subsequent to Oslo, there was international pressure for diplomacy. Ahead of the Arab League summit scheduled for March 2002, Friedman wrote a column (in the form of a fictional memo from President Bush) titled “Dear Arab League“:

Memo to: President Hosni Mubarak, Crown Prince Abdullah, King Abdullah, President Bashar al-Assad and the rest of the Arab League
…
We’re just bystanders. You’re the ones with the power to really reshape the diplomacy, not me. And here is my advice for how to do it. You have an Arab League summit set for March in Lebanon. I suggest your summit issue one simple resolution: “The 22 members of the Arab League say to Israel that in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the June 4, 1967, lines — in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem and on the Golan Heights — we offer full recognition of Israel, diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees. Full peace with all 22 Arab states for full withdrawal.”

Since you’ve all told me privately that this is your position, why not make it public and get the benefit? This is how to bury Osama bin Laden and define for the world who the Arabs really are. If you can’t take that risk, why should I?

An excellent takedown of one of Israel's self-proclaimed 'friends. Read the rest here

Tom Friedman vs. Israel

That's the title of a brand new Pajamas Media column by David Gerstman, whose Middle East media analysis appears here from time to time. Here's a slice:

Two weeks ago, columnist Thomas Friedman created a controversy in his column “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir“ when he wrote:

I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.

By using language evoking antisemitic imagery of Israel “owning” Congress, Friedman seemed to step over a line. In an effort to control the damage of his ill-advised language, Friedman defended himself to Gary Rosenblatt of the The Jewish Week. At the end of the article Rosenblatt wrote:

Friedman has often written of his support for the State of Israel, despite his sometimes sharp criticism of Jerusalem’s policies.

Last year Bradley Burston of Ha’aretz quoted Friedman:

“Israel doesn’t have to worry about me,” Friedman had stressed early in the interview. “At the end of the day, Israel will have my support — it had me at hello.”

Supporters like Rosenblatt portray Friedman as a friend of Israel. However a survey of his extensive writing about the Middle East shows that Friedman is hostile to Israel. The problem isn’t simply his “sometimes sharp criticisms” of Israel, rather it is his ever-shifting standards that always find Israel wanting.

In 1999, Friedman wrote a hypothetical column titled “How Bibi got Re-elected.” The conceit of the column — actually written before Netanyahu lost the premiership to Ehud Barak — was that Netanyahu tackled the most important issue facing Israel at that time — withdrawing Israeli troops from Lebanon. Friedman wrote:

Now that Israeli troops are out of Lebanon, noted Mr. Netanyahu, everything is reversed: Politically, if the Iranian-directed Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas try to come across the border, they will be invading Israel, and Israel will be justified in massively retaliating against Lebanese, Syrian and Iranian troops that abet such an invasion. And if Israel does retaliate, it won’t be with guerrilla warfare, but with the Israeli Air Force massively striking Lebanese, Iranian and Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and maybe inside Syria.

The Israeli move has totally unnerved the Syrians, the Hezbollah guerrillas and Iran. ”They are all now in a quandary,” said the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen. ”The Hezbollah guerrillas are saying to themselves: ‘Now that we have liberated Lebanon, do we want to use that as leverage to rule Lebanon? Or do we want to use that as a springboard to move on to Jerusalem?’ If they want to do the latter, now they’re really going to have to pay for it.”

Over the next six years Hezbollah violated the internationally approved border no less than 20 times, killing and wounding Israeli civilians and soldiers. In 2006 — following a particularly egregious incident in which Hezbollah crossed the borders, immediately killing eight soldiers and kidnapping (later killing) Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, Israel struck back. How did Friedman describe Israel’s response?

In a column titled “War, Timeout, War, Time …” Friedman wrote about Israel’s three recent wars against terror:

What is different about these three wars, though, is that Israel won them using what I call “Hama Rules” — which are no rules at all. “Hama Rules” are named after the Syrian town of Hama, where, in 1982, then-President Hafez el-Assad of Syria put down a Muslim fundamentalist uprising by shelling and then bulldozing their neighborhoods, killing more than 10,000 of his own people.

In Israel’s case, it found itself confronting enemies in Gaza and Lebanon armed with rockets, but nested among local civilians, and Israel chose to go after them without being deterred by the prospect of civilian casualties. As the Lebanese militia leader Bashir Gemayel was fond of saying — before he himself was blown up — “This is not Denmark here. And it is not Norway.”

The brutality of the Israeli retaliations bought this timeout with Hezbollah and Hamas, and the civilian casualties and troubling TV images bought Israel a U.N. investigation into alleged war crimes.

Even as Friedman acknowledged that Israel was fighting an enemy embedded among civilians, he still compared Israel’s second Lebanon War with Hafez Assad’s brutal assault on civilians. Rather than defending Israel’s right to self-defense, Friedman equated Israel’s self-defense with Assad’s all out assault on civilians. Even though Israel heeded his advice by withdrawing from southern Lebanon, Friedman didn’t defend Israel when the withdrawal resulted in a new threat.

While Israel fought against the terror infrastructure that Arafat had built up subsequent to Oslo, there was international pressure for diplomacy. Ahead of the Arab League summit scheduled for March 2002, Friedman wrote a column (in the form of a fictional memo from President Bush) titled “Dear Arab League“:

Memo to: President Hosni Mubarak, Crown Prince Abdullah, King Abdullah, President Bashar al-Assad and the rest of the Arab League
…
We’re just bystanders. You’re the ones with the power to really reshape the diplomacy, not me. And here is my advice for how to do it. You have an Arab League summit set for March in Lebanon. I suggest your summit issue one simple resolution: “The 22 members of the Arab League say to Israel that in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the June 4, 1967, lines — in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem and on the Golan Heights — we offer full recognition of Israel, diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees. Full peace with all 22 Arab states for full withdrawal.”

Since you’ve all told me privately that this is your position, why not make it public and get the benefit? This is how to bury Osama bin Laden and define for the world who the Arabs really are. If you can’t take that risk, why should I?

An excellent takedown of one of Israel's self-proclaimed 'friends. Read the rest here

The Payroll Tax Issue, Simply Explained

With all the verbiage and posturing going on,(a deliberate attempt to obscure things by the democrats and their media allies, as far as I'm concerned) I think a simple and direct explanation of this issue is in order.

The legislation in question actually has three components. Needless to say, the president and the Democrats are only talking about one of them.

The first one, the one that's getting all the attention is a payroll tax holiday extension for an additional two months.

The second part is completing the Keystone Pipeline to carry 700,000 barrels of crude per day from the Canadian oil sands in Alberta to refineries in Port Arthur, Texas. This would provide an estimated 20,000 American jobs and lower prices at the pump.The president, of course, says he'll veto it, citing global warming and environmental issues.

The third part involves another Federal extension of unemployment benefits.

A number of Republicans in the Senate stupidly approved a bill that would extend the payroll tax for another two months, allow President Obama the leeway to approve the pipeline construction at his discretion, (which means it won't happen) and provides funding for another federal unemployment extension.

The GOP-dominated House refused to go along with this, as Speaker Boehner showed some courage for a change. The House wants a compromise that would extend the payroll tax holiday for an entire year,would force President Obama to veto the Pipeline bill, and allow the extension of unemployment benefits.

The President and the Democrats have so far refused to sit down and negotiate any of this. The last thing the president and his allies want, aside from lower gas prices is a long term tax cut, both of which provide less revenues for President Obama's domestic agenda.

The House Republicans made a huge PR error in not making the pipeline the sticking point rather than the payroll tax holiday. Instead, they should have compared the jobs and the savings at the pump to the estimated $40 per paycheck a family of four with a $50,000 income would save (about $160 total) as compared to the jobs and the more permanent lowering of gas prices, goods and services. To make it even simpler, they could have upped the ante and said "President Obama wants to save you about $160 for two months. We want to save you $1,040 by extending the tax holiday for a full year, plus the benefit of lower gas prices at the pump. Which would you rather have?"

That's what's going on,in a nutshell.I'm frankly amazed that the GOP leadership can't explain that for some reason.

Perhaps they ought to hire me in some capacity.

UPDATE, 2:00PM PST : I see where the House Republican leadership caved in completely. Idiots. And gutless ones at that.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The Payroll Tax Issue, Simply Explained

With all the verbiage and posturing going on,(a deliberate attempt to obscure things by the democrats and their media allies, as far as I'm concerned) I think a simple and direct explanation of this issue is in order.

The legislation in question actually has three components. Needless to say, the president and the Democrats are only talking about one of them.

The first one, the one that's getting all the attention is a payroll tax holiday extension for an additional two months.

The second part is completing the Keystone Pipeline to carry 700,000 barrels of crude per day from the Canadian oil sands in Alberta to refineries in Port Arthur, Texas. This would provide an estimated 20,000 American jobs and lower prices at the pump.The president, of course, says he'll veto it, citing global warming and environmental issues.

The third part involves another Federal extension of unemployment benefits.

A number of Republicans in the Senate stupidly approved a bill that would extend the payroll tax for another two months, allow President Obama the leeway to approve the pipeline construction at his discretion, (which means it won't happen) and provides funding for another federal unemployment extension.

The GOP-dominated House refused to go along with this, as Speaker Boehner showed some courage for a change. The House wants a compromise that would extend the payroll tax holiday for an entire year,would force President Obama to veto the Pipeline bill, and allow the extension of unemployment benefits.

The President and the Democrats have so far refused to sit down and negotiate any of this. The last thing the president and his allies want, aside from lower gas prices is a long term tax cut, both of which provide less revenues for President Obama's domestic agenda.

The House Republicans made a huge PR error in not making the pipeline the sticking point rather than the payroll tax holiday. Instead, they should have compared the jobs and the savings at the pump to the estimated $40 per paycheck a family of four with a $50,000 income would save (about $160 total) as compared to the jobs and the more permanent lowering of gas prices, goods and services. To make it even simpler, they could have upped the ante and said "President Obama wants to save you about $160 for two months. We want to save you $1,040 by extending the tax holiday for a full year, plus the benefit of lower gas prices at the pump. Which would you rather have?"

That's what's going on,in a nutshell.I'm frankly amazed that the GOP leadership can't explain that for some reason.

Perhaps they ought to hire me in some capacity.

UPDATE, 2:00PM PST : I see where the House Republican leadership caved in completely. Idiots. And gutless ones at that.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

When Rabbis Turn Bigot

Denver Bronco's Quarterback Tim Tebow is one notorious fellow these days.Imagine...someone who not only made fools out of his critics in the best way possible, but is *gasp!* a believing Christian who openly professes his faith and is unashamed about it.

Apparently that was just too much for Rabbi Joshua Hammerman.He wrote an amazing bigoted screed in the publication Jewish Week ( since pulled from both Jewish Week and his blog, but Yid With Lid has it here) saying that if Tebow, who he refers to as "a poster boy of the Christian right" led the Broncos to the Superbowl, Christian mobs would be indulging in "burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants."

According to Rabbi Hammerman, a Broncos Superbowl victory would "give fodder to a Christian revivalism that has already turned the Republican presidential race into a pander-thon to social conservatives, rekindling memories of those cultural icons of the ‘80s, the Moral Majority and “Hee Haw.” "

From the above, you can tell exactly whom Rabbi Hammerman is pretty easily....a self-identified, hate-filled 'progressive' who heads a left leaning synagogue in a deep blue state, a member of the George Soros funded J-Street Rabbinical council and undoubtedly part of Rabbis for Obama, which he means he was likely one of the rabbis partaking in one of those conference calls with the Dear Leader telling him how to work talking points for ObamaCare and voting Democrat into his High Holidays sermons. In other words, George Soros and the Left own him body and soul.

As far as I'm concerned, after what he wrote, it's a testimony to what a force for good Christianity is in this country and how tolerant most Americans are of their Jewish fellow citizens that some of those Christians he demonized didn't react violently to his poisonous diatribe.One can only imagine what would have happened if he had written the same thing about a Muslim athlete. But Christians?They represent a soft and easily maligned target.

Both Rabbi Hammerman and Jewish Week - a notoriously left leaning publication, where Rabbi Hammerman and his ilk are regular contributors - ran apologies after they saw the reaction this got, from Christians and from Jews who have stopped drinking the Kool-Ade. Rabbi Hammerman's 'apology' in particular was an afterthought as his initial smirking reaction ( also since removed) was: "my Tebow piece is generating the expected outrage from the evangelical right (cant' wait for Jews to begin chiming in!)".

As far as I'm concerned, both apologies were inadequate.

There's an old Chassidic story about a Jew in a small village in Poland who passed rumors and slandered the local rabbi and later found out what he had said was totally unjustified. Approaching the rabbi, the man apologized and asked how he could repair the damage he had done.

The rabbi instructed him to take a pillow filled with feathers and walk to the top of a local hill with him. When they reached the top the rabbi instructed him to cut it open.

After the feathers had scattered, the rabbi then told the man to gather them back up and replace them in the pillow case. "That would be impossible rabbi", the man replied.

"Yes", the rabbi told him, "And it will likewise be impossible to repair the damage you have done to me."

One of Judaism's central tenets is to avoid Lashon Hara, literally 'an evil tongue'. Perhaps they skipped that concept where Rabbi Hammerman went to seminary.

As a Jew and a non-football fan, it not only embarrasses me that someone with the temerity to style himself 'rabbi' would write this sort of thing, but it also strikes me as the height of ingratitude.

America, by and large has always blessed its Jews, as opposed to Europe. There has always been a certain amount of Jew hatred present, but the difference was that is was never a matter of law, never a matter of government policy. There were never ghettos where Jews were literally locked inside at sundown, and no quasi-legal pogroms in America as there were in Europe,with the police turning a blind eye while Jews were raped, pillaged and slaughtered.

Even in the 1920's and later, when there were de facto quotas on admitting Jews to universities and restrictions on buying homes in many areas, when many major firms in law, insurance, and manufacturing refused to hire them, America always provided its Jewish citizens with a way upward.

They were always free to worship as they chose, and have been since George Washington wrote a letter to the Jewish congregation in Newport Rhode Island saying that the children of Abraham would always be welcome here.

Most Jews have amply repaid that generosity of spirit, and the role of America's great and accomplished in every field reflects a contribution that far outweighs their numbers. It even extended to popular culture. Back when the Jews actually owned Hollywood, they made movies that celebrated not only America's history and its greatness but its Judeo-Christian roots. It was a Russian Jewish child who witnessed his family's home being burned to the ground in a pogrom who later immigrated to America and went on to write not only "God Bless America" but "White Christmas" and "Easter Parade".

But then, there are Jews like Joshua Hammerman.

The normal reaction of a man of G-d to a young athlete whose fame is based on his courage in openly showing his gratitude and his allegiance to the Almighty no matter what anyone thinks about it would be admiration and applause.

But then, Rabbi Hammerman's true allegiance isn't to G-d, but to the Left.

Since my Christian friends are unlikely to get the teshuvah ( repentence) and apology from Joshua Hammmerman they deserve, please allow me to apologize humbly in his stead from the bottom of my heart. He is a bigot and an embarrassment to my faith, and indeed to the Judeo-Christian values of America most of us hold dear.

I realize many of you will forgive him, but I can't. Unlike those famous Romans, he knew exactly what he was doing.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

When Rabbis Turn Bigot

Denver Bronco's Quarterback Tim Tebow is one notorious fellow these days.Imagine...someone who not only made fools out of his critics in the best way possible, but is *gasp!* a believing Christian who openly professes his faith and is unashamed about it.

Apparently that was just too much for Rabbi Joshua Hammerman.He wrote an amazing bigoted screed in the publication Jewish Week ( since pulled from both Jewish Week and his blog, but Yid With Lid has it here) saying that if Tebow, who he refers to as "a poster boy of the Christian right" led the Broncos to the Superbowl, Christian mobs would be indulging in "burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants."

According to Rabbi Hammerman, a Broncos Superbowl victory would "give fodder to a Christian revivalism that has already turned the Republican presidential race into a pander-thon to social conservatives, rekindling memories of those cultural icons of the ‘80s, the Moral Majority and “Hee Haw.” "

From the above, you can tell exactly whom Rabbi Hammerman is pretty easily....a self-identified, hate-filled 'progressive' who heads a left leaning synagogue in a deep blue state, a member of the George Soros funded J-Street Rabbinical council and undoubtedly part of Rabbis for Obama, which he means he was likely one of the rabbis partaking in one of those conference calls with the Dear Leader telling him how to work talking points for ObamaCare and voting Democrat into his High Holidays sermons. In other words, George Soros and the Left own him body and soul.

As far as I'm concerned, after what he wrote, it's a testimony to what a force for good Christianity is in this country and how tolerant most Americans are of their Jewish fellow citizens that some of those Christians he demonized didn't react violently to his poisonous diatribe.One can only imagine what would have happened if he had written the same thing about a Muslim athlete. But Christians?They represent a soft and easily maligned target.

Both Rabbi Hammerman and Jewish Week - a notoriously left leaning publication, where Rabbi Hammerman and his ilk are regular contributors - ran apologies after they saw the reaction this got, from Christians and from Jews who have stopped drinking the Kool-Ade. Rabbi Hammerman's 'apology' in particular was an afterthought as his initial smirking reaction ( also since removed) was: "my Tebow piece is generating the expected outrage from the evangelical right (cant' wait for Jews to begin chiming in!)".

As far as I'm concerned, both apologies were inadequate.

There's an old Chassidic story about a Jew in a small village in Poland who passed rumors and slandered the local rabbi and later found out what he had said was totally unjustified. Approaching the rabbi, the man apologized and asked how he could repair the damage he had done.

The rabbi instructed him to take a pillow filled with feathers and walk to the top of a local hill with him. When they reached the top the rabbi instructed him to cut it open.

After the feathers had scattered, the rabbi then told the man to gather them back up and replace them in the pillow case. "That would be impossible rabbi", the man replied.

"Yes", the rabbi told him, "And it will likewise be impossible to repair the damage you have done to me."

One of Judaism's central tenets is to avoid Lashon Hara, literally 'an evil tongue'. Perhaps they skipped that concept where Rabbi Hammerman went to seminary.

As a Jew and a non-football fan, it not only embarrasses me that someone with the temerity to style himself 'rabbi' would write this sort of thing, but it also strikes me as the height of ingratitude.

America, by and large has always blessed its Jews, as opposed to Europe. There has always been a certain amount of Jew hatred present, but the difference was that is was never a matter of law, never a matter of government policy. There were never ghettos where Jews were literally locked inside at sundown, and no quasi-legal pogroms in America as there were in Europe,with the police turning a blind eye while Jews were raped, pillaged and slaughtered.

Even in the 1920's and later, when there were de facto quotas on admitting Jews to universities and restrictions on buying homes in many areas, when many major firms in law, insurance, and manufacturing refused to hire them, America always provided its Jewish citizens with a way upward.

They were always free to worship as they chose, and have been since George Washington wrote a letter to the Jewish congregation in Newport Rhode Island saying that the children of Abraham would always be welcome here.

Most Jews have amply repaid that generosity of spirit, and the role of America's great and accomplished in every field reflects a contribution that far outweighs their numbers. It even extended to popular culture. Back when the Jews actually owned Hollywood, they made movies that celebrated not only America's history and its greatness but its Judeo-Christian roots. It was a Russian Jewish child who witnessed his family's home being burned to the ground in a pogrom who later immigrated to America and went on to write not only "God Bless America" but "White Christmas" and "Easter Parade".

But then, there are Jews like Joshua Hammerman.

The normal reaction of a man of G-d to a young athlete whose fame is based on his courage in openly showing his gratitude and his allegiance to the Almighty no matter what anyone thinks about it would be admiration and applause.

But then, Rabbi Hammerman's true allegiance isn't to G-d, but to the Left.

Since my Christian friends are unlikely to get the teshuvah ( repentence) and apology from Joshua Hammmerman they deserve, please allow me to apologize humbly in his stead from the bottom of my heart. He is a bigot and an embarrassment to my faith, and indeed to the Judeo-Christian values of America most of us hold dear.

I realize many of you will forgive him, but I can't. Unlike those famous Romans, he knew exactly what he was doing.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

What Happens When You Smoke Too Much Dope

Remember people, she has the same vote you do...unless she gets too blitzed and forgets!

Where else but in California.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

What Happens When You Smoke Too Much Dope

Remember people, she has the same vote you do...unless she gets too blitzed and forgets!

Where else but in California.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Krauthammer: "Arrogant Amateur" Obama Has Done More To "Undermine" Israel Than Predecessors

President Obama made an incredibly egregious remark about Israel the other day at a Manhattan fundraiser attended by a number of servile Jews at the home of Obama donor Jack Rosen,the chairman of the American Jewish Congress, who threw the president a softball, saying "it would be remiss for me not to say there are many in the Jewish community who are concerned" about the relationship between Israel and the United States.

Obama's answer? "I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more for the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration. We don't compromise when it comes to Israel's security ... and that will continue."

Above, Dr. Charles Krauthammer absolutely rips the president for this ridiculous nonsense:

"This president has done more to delegitimize and undermine Israel’s position in the world than any other president and he did it by arriving on the scene and imposing and demanding of Israel a freeze on settlements including the building of the Jewish homes in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, of all places, something that had never been precondition in 17 years of negotiations."

"The Palestinians had to insist on it as well once the president did and that destroyed the negotiations. It made Israel the fall guy for an error, an error of an amateur -- an arrogant amateur that imposed this at the beginning of his term. As a result there are no negotiations."

Dr, Krauthammer also went on to discuss the president's fatally flawed policy on Iran,who are now on the brink of nuclear weapons and have openly threatened to destroy Israel numerous times.

I simply can't imagine how much more plain the president's feelings on Israel could be. Have people like Jack Rosen forgotten the calculated insults towards Israel and its government, or how this president trashed previous agreements with Israel, told them they have no right to their religious shrines , threatened an aid cutoff, and instituted what amounted to a de facto arms embargo ?

Are they unaware of how the Obama Administration is supporting Islamist governments in the Middle East, or how the Administration is funding a 'Palestinian' Authority now allied in a unity agreement with the genocidal Hamas?

There are obviously some Jews to whom the right to kill Jewish babies in the womb in America is more important than standing with living ones in Israel.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Krauthammer: "Arrogant Amateur" Obama Has Done More To "Undermine" Israel Than Predecessors

President Obama made an incredibly egregious remark about Israel the other day at a Manhattan fundraiser attended by a number of servile Jews at the home of Obama donor Jack Rosen,the chairman of the American Jewish Congress, who threw the president a softball, saying "it would be remiss for me not to say there are many in the Jewish community who are concerned" about the relationship between Israel and the United States.

Obama's answer? "I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more for the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration. We don't compromise when it comes to Israel's security ... and that will continue."

Above, Dr. Charles Krauthammer absolutely rips the president for this ridiculous nonsense:

"This president has done more to delegitimize and undermine Israel’s position in the world than any other president and he did it by arriving on the scene and imposing and demanding of Israel a freeze on settlements including the building of the Jewish homes in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, of all places, something that had never been precondition in 17 years of negotiations."

"The Palestinians had to insist on it as well once the president did and that destroyed the negotiations. It made Israel the fall guy for an error, an error of an amateur -- an arrogant amateur that imposed this at the beginning of his term. As a result there are no negotiations."

Dr, Krauthammer also went on to discuss the president's fatally flawed policy on Iran,who are now on the brink of nuclear weapons and have openly threatened to destroy Israel numerous times.

I simply can't imagine how much more plain the president's feelings on Israel could be. Have people like Jack Rosen forgotten the calculated insults towards Israel and its government, or how this president trashed previous agreements with Israel, told them they have no right to their religious shrines , threatened an aid cutoff, and instituted what amounted to a de facto arms embargo ?

Are they unaware of how the Obama Administration is supporting Islamist governments in the Middle East, or how the Administration is funding a 'Palestinian' Authority now allied in a unity agreement with the genocidal Hamas?

There are obviously some Jews to whom the right to kill Jewish babies in the womb in America is more important than standing with living ones in Israel.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Epic fail - Super Committee Folds Without Agreement

The Congressional Super Committee that was such a big part of Minority leader Mitch McConnell's sucker's deal with President Obama has admitted failure...just as I predicted, here and here. Instead of presenting cut cap and balance, passed by the House and by every Republican in the Senate as a final offer and letting the president take the onus for shutting the government down, McConnell gave the president everything he wanted..including a brand new higher credit card limit.

The way it was set up, President Obama won either way, thanks to McConnell's gutless approach. With the sort of Democrats that were appointed to the committee, they were never going to agree to any compromises. Either the GOP was going to go along with the massive tax hikes the Democrats love - oh, sorry, 'new revenues' - and destroy itself politically or the committee, which like the President favors hollowing out our military and defense budget would just sit on their hands and let the massive automatic cuts in those areas take place.

And the cuts aimed at defense are downright irresponsible. SecDef Pannetta has already targeted the military with over $450 billion in cuts as it is. Add that to the proposed $600 billion and we're talking over one trillion in cuts from our defense budget.

President Obama is channeling his model Tony Blair and New Labour once again. This is exactly how Blair and his cronies destroyed Britain's armed forces.

Even the Republican's craven offer to accept $500 billion in tax hikes wasn't enough - the Democrats insisted on one trillion. In other words, they never had any attention of seriously making a deal.

McConnell and the Republicans who signed on to the budget deal and the supercommittee scam got nothing except a screwing done without the benefit of any sort of lubrication.

President Obama, sporting one of his trademark smiles happily announced that he will veto any attempt by Congress to try and protect our military or defense establishment from any of the mandated cuts. He and the Democrats got exactly what they wanted, more money to use on domestic spending to reward the president's political allies in the run up to the elections.

A number of political figures are pointing fingers at each other in an effort to assign blame, but I put this squarely on the shoulders of the Republican leadership for allowing themselves to be conned in the first place.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Epic fail - Super Committee Folds Without Agreement

The Congressional Super Committee that was such a big part of Minority leader Mitch McConnell's sucker's deal with President Obama has admitted failure...just as I predicted, here and here. Instead of presenting cut cap and balance, passed by the House and by every Republican in the Senate as a final offer and letting the president take the onus for shutting the government down, McConnell gave the president everything he wanted..including a brand new higher credit card limit.

The way it was set up, President Obama won either way, thanks to McConnell's gutless approach. With the sort of Democrats that were appointed to the committee, they were never going to agree to any compromises. Either the GOP was going to go along with the massive tax hikes the Democrats love - oh, sorry, 'new revenues' - and destroy itself politically or the committee, which like the President favors hollowing out our military and defense budget would just sit on their hands and let the massive automatic cuts in those areas take place.

And the cuts aimed at defense are downright irresponsible. SecDef Pannetta has already targeted the military with over $450 billion in cuts as it is. Add that to the proposed $600 billion and we're talking over one trillion in cuts from our defense budget.

President Obama is channeling his model Tony Blair and New Labour once again. This is exactly how Blair and his cronies destroyed Britain's armed forces.

Even the Republican's craven offer to accept $500 billion in tax hikes wasn't enough - the Democrats insisted on one trillion. In other words, they never had any attention of seriously making a deal.

McConnell and the Republicans who signed on to the budget deal and the supercommittee scam got nothing except a screwing done without the benefit of any sort of lubrication.

President Obama, sporting one of his trademark smiles happily announced that he will veto any attempt by Congress to try and protect our military or defense establishment from any of the mandated cuts. He and the Democrats got exactly what they wanted, more money to use on domestic spending to reward the president's political allies in the run up to the elections.

A number of political figures are pointing fingers at each other in an effort to assign blame, but I put this squarely on the shoulders of the Republican leadership for allowing themselves to be conned in the first place.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Wikileaks: Obama Tried To Apologize For Hiroshima And Nagasaki - Japan Said No

This beggars belief.

Back in November 2009 President Obama visited Japan and bowed to the emperor, something no American president had ever done. Apparently the president had something even worse in mind but was saved from dishonoring himself and our country by the Japanese themselves.He planned to visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima to apologize for winning WWII with the atomic bomb.

A heretofore secret cable dated Sept. 3, 2009, was recently released by WikiLeaks. Sent to Secretary of State Clinton, it reported Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka telling U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a 'nonstarter.'"

The Japanese government strongly objected to Obama's planned apology because they feared it would strengthen the opposition on the Left, particularly those opposed to the continuing alliance of the U.S. and Japan.Perhaps they also acted out of a certain compassion, realizing that the actions of a young, inexperienced and frankly stupid president would have caused a firestorm back home in the USA and likewise endangered the America-Japan relationship.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrific, but even most Japanese historians admit that it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives by convincing Emperor Hirohito to surrender instead of the U.S. having to invade the Japanese home islands, something that American military experts at the time estimated might have cost over a million dead and poisoned the relationship between the two nations for generations.

For President Obama to attempt to apologize for America's victory over a fascist foe in WWII and by extension, for the bringing of freedom to Japan staggers the imagination.

It not only shows his abysmal ignorance of history. It's an unforgivable insult to every American who served in WWII and to the country as a whole, and it proves beyond a doubt that we now have a president in the White House whose very morality is skewed and twisted and whose patriotism and love of country can justifiably be questioned.

I can't wait to see how the president's enablers and apologists in the dinosaur media try to spin this.

UPDATE: Yup, they're already at work. BTW, here's a link to the actual cable. The money quote is in part 5, discussing the President's upcoming visit:

"He[Yabunaka] underscored, however, that both
governments must temper the public's expectations on such
issues, as the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to
apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a
"non-starter."

President Obama obviously advanced the idea of a Hiroshima apology. Otherwise, why would Vice Foreign Minister Yabunaka mention it and advise strongly against it?

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Wikileaks: Obama Tried To Apologize For Hiroshima And Nagasaki - Japan Said No

This beggars belief.

Back in November 2009 President Obama visited Japan and bowed to the emperor, something no American president had ever done. Apparently the president had something even worse in mind but was saved from dishonoring himself and our country by the Japanese themselves.He planned to visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima to apologize for winning WWII with the atomic bomb.

A heretofore secret cable dated Sept. 3, 2009, was recently released by WikiLeaks. Sent to Secretary of State Clinton, it reported Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka telling U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a 'nonstarter.'"

The Japanese government strongly objected to Obama's planned apology because they feared it would strengthen the opposition on the Left, particularly those opposed to the continuing alliance of the U.S. and Japan.Perhaps they also acted out of a certain compassion, realizing that the actions of a young, inexperienced and frankly stupid president would have caused a firestorm back home in the USA and likewise endangered the America-Japan relationship.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrific, but even most Japanese historians admit that it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives by convincing Emperor Hirohito to surrender instead of the U.S. having to invade the Japanese home islands, something that American military experts at the time estimated might have cost over a million dead and poisoned the relationship between the two nations for generations.

For President Obama to attempt to apologize for America's victory over a fascist foe in WWII and by extension, for the bringing of freedom to Japan staggers the imagination.

It not only shows his abysmal ignorance of history. It's an unforgivable insult to every American who served in WWII and to the country as a whole, and it proves beyond a doubt that we now have a president in the White House whose very morality is skewed and twisted and whose patriotism and love of country can justifiably be questioned.

I can't wait to see how the president's enablers and apologists in the dinosaur media try to spin this.

UPDATE: Yup, they're already at work. BTW, here's a link to the actual cable. The money quote is in part 5, discussing the President's upcoming visit:

"He[Yabunaka] underscored, however, that both
governments must temper the public's expectations on such
issues, as the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to
apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a
"non-starter."

President Obama obviously advanced the idea of a Hiroshima apology. Otherwise, why would Vice Foreign Minister Yabunaka mention it and advise strongly against it?

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Proof The GOP Is Going To Win The White House

Absolute, concrete, bet-real-money-on-it proof.

Yes, Bob Shrum is now predicting that President Obama wins re-election handily from 'the crazies' as he calls them.

When a partisan, ignorant political hack with the political acumen and judgment gained from having run or had major responsibility for the presidential campaigns of Ted Kenedy, Ed Muskie, George McGovern Dick Gephart, Michael Dukakis, Bob Kerrey, Al Gore, and John Kerry makes a prediction like the one above, it's practically time to break out the champagne.

0 and 8, no wins or draws.

Perhaps both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama's smartest move was making sure that Bob Shrum had nothing to do whatever in any capacity with their campaigns.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Proof The GOP Is Going To Win The White House

Absolute, concrete, bet-real-money-on-it proof.

Yes, Bob Shrum is now predicting that President Obama wins re-election handily from 'the crazies' as he calls them.

When a partisan, ignorant political hack with the political acumen and judgment gained from having run or had major responsibility for the presidential campaigns of Ted Kenedy, Ed Muskie, George McGovern Dick Gephart, Michael Dukakis, Bob Kerrey, Al Gore, and John Kerry makes a prediction like the one above, it's practically time to break out the champagne.

0 and 8, no wins or draws.

Perhaps both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama's smartest move was making sure that Bob Shrum had nothing to do whatever in any capacity with their campaigns.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!