Obama at UN: Arabs Build Bombs; Israelis Build Homes -It’s all the Same

Not surprisingly, Obama doubled down on his message of moral equivalence between Israel and the so-called Palestinians in his UN General Assembly speech.  Yes, he tossed out some politically motivated bromides about our deep friendship with Israel, but overall, he continued to view the two sides equally.

Obama’s overarching theme was that peace in the Middle East is “so hard” to achieve.  He asserted that there will be no peace unless “each side learns to stand in each other’s shoes,” and they “sit down together, to listen to each other, and to understand each other’s hopes and fears.”  As he uttered these puerile platitudes, I was attempting to conjure up an image of such a conversation.  It would go something like this:

Hamas/Fatah guy: “I fear those Jews and their settlements with every fiber of my being.  There will be no Jews living in our state, nor will they live in the remaining parts of Israel, once we inevitably destroy them.  Oh, how I hope all those homes will be within missile range.  Oh, how I regret that I have but one body to blow up for my religion.”

Israeli:  “Oh, how I fear for my children, while missiles fly over their schools.  Oh, how I hope there comes a day when Palestinians will love their children more than they hate us; when they will allow Jews to live peacefully and prosperously in “their” land, as they do in ours.”

Congress Should Support Israel's Right to All Land Ahead of UN Vote

The video embedded above shows the jubilant celebrations taking place in Gaza, while we were attacked on September 11.  No, it wasn’t just a few “extremists” who were celebrating; it was the average Joe Palestinian.   Unfortunately, not only have we declined to treat them as an enemy, we have refused to cut off any foreign aid.  Instead, the Bush and Obama administrations have diverted our diplomatic resources towards the insane ‘peace process’ and the inexorable goal of a Palestinian state.

Over the past few years, we have given over $600 million a year to this terrorist entity, which receives more per capita aid than any other people or nation.  This includes, direct assistance, weapons, security training, infrastructure, and funds transferred through UNRWA.  In July, Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL) introduced the Palestinian Accountability Act (H.R. 2457), which seeks to cut off aid to the PA.  Last week, he introduced a resolution expressing the support of Congress for Israel to annex Judea and Samaria, if the PA unilaterally declares statehood.

Proposed Questions for the GOP Debate: Time for Specifics

Although a debate stage with eight candidates is inherently conducive to a circus atmosphere, the debate moderators need to focus on questions which elicit substantive answers to specific policy questions from the candidates.  Moreover, the liberal moderators from Politico and NBC should remember that they are overseeing a Republican debate.  As such, their questions should stem from conservative premises, and should provoke thoughtful responses from the candidates – responses that will demonstrate their visions of conservative governance to a conservative electorate.

Another bonus proposal would be for the Reagan Library to screen the audience more carefully to prevent outbursts of cheers and jeers, thereby engendering a more serious atmosphere than the previous debate (yes, we're looking at you, Ron Paul supporters).

Here are some proposed questions:

McCain and Graham Claim to Speak for Conservatives on Libya

The Brokeback tag team attacks GOP field

Whenever we attempt to evince bold distinctions between ourselves and the Democrats, Lindsey Graham and John McCain can always be counted upon to muddle those distinctions.  Foreign policy, in particular, is a subject in which voters struggle to perceive clear differences between the parties.  Consequently, we must repel the rapturous support for the so-called Arab Spring emanating from Obama's tag team of favorite Republicans.

Back in the 70s, our most consequential and enduring mistake was supporting the Iranian revolution against the Shah.  Jimmy Carter and his allies failed to comprehend that the problem with the Middle East was not autocracy per se; it was Islamofascism.  Tragically, the Obama administration, along with the Bill Kristol/John McCain Republicans, is helping to consummate the state-level Islamofascist takeover of the entire region.  We have ostensibly handed Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood/Iran and are on the cusp of delivering Yemen to Al-Qaeda.  Our encouragement of the Arab Spring is also emboldening the Palestinian majority in Jordan to overthrow our strongest Arab ally, King Abdullah.  We are doing nothing to prevent Bahrain from transforming into an Iranian proxy, instead of a vital ally.  Meanwhile, Bashar Assad, a dictator who truly deserves a timely demise, is still enjoying diplomatic relations with the U.S., even as he murders his own people in cold blood.

In light of all the upheaval in the Middle East, where was Obama's hill to die on in the Middle East?  Libya.  Yes, Muammar Gaddafi is an evil man; nonetheless, he is an evil man who has fought against Al-Qaeda.  Should we remove every brutal tyrant in the world?  Robert Mugabe is the ruthless leader of Zimbabwe, and has not been fighting Al-Qaeda, yet we are not prosecuting an aimless, impotent war against his regime.  But somehow John McCain and Lindsey Graham believe that the Al-Qaeda-backed Libyan rebels are sacrosanct, the city of Benghazi stands on hallowed ground, and that anyone who believes their plight runs counter to our national security interests ought to shut up.

This is what Lindsey Graham had to say on Meet the Press:

Michelle Bachmann on Israel and the Arab Spring

As Michelle Bachmann's star rises, I figured I'd post this video message about Israel and the wider implications of the tenuous Arab Spring.  Decide for yourself if this woman is qualified to be president:

Jed Babbin on the Libya Disaster

Last week, two competing resolutions were brought to the House floor in an attempt to reign in Obama's disastrous intervention on behalf of the Al-Qaeda backed rebels in Libya.  Ironically, the prudent resolution-the one which would have brought an end to this madness-was offered by far-leftist Dennis Kucinich.

The other resolution, a mere rebuke of the President's callous disregard of congressional council, was offered by John Boehner.  This resolution was a banal attempt to oppose Obama without offering a bold and categorical rejection of the entire Libyan folly.  87 Republicans, mainly conservatives, supported Kucinich's robust resolution.  Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal excoriated these conservative by tainting them with the epithet, "Dennis Kucinich Republicans".

Today, in our series of must read articles, Jed Babbin offered a sagacious rebuttal of the WSJ critque, arguing that Boehner's alternative resolution was vapid political theater, and the 87 Republican dissenters are on the right side of history:

The One State Solution

Here is a great parody of the maniacal assumptions that are made about a Palestinian state.  The One State Solution, by Andrew Clavan:

Obama Lied, AIPAC Died

AIPAC and other pro-Israel Democrats are at a crossroads.

At the AIPAC conference on Sunday, Obama continued to propagate his lies and ignorance regarding the history of U.S. foreign policy towards Israel.  Undaunted by recent criticism, Obama doubled down on his demand that Israel return to indefensible borders by creating a contiguous Palestinian state.  As such, he continued to display his ignorance of the geographical reality that a contiguous Hamas-Fatah state bordering Jordan and Egypt, as stipulated in both speeches, means a noncontiguous Israel.  I guess he can see a Palestinian state (and unicorns) from the White House.

He also regurgitated his cloddish platitude that Hamas must "accept the basic responsibilities of peace."  I could only imagine FDR declaring that the Nazis must change their ways and accept responsibility for peace.  Moreover, Obama's teleprompter continued to lie about the dangers of the "Arab Spring", especially in Egypt, to Israel's (and America's) security.  He even castigated them by saying, "If there is a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance."  Concurrently, he made sure to mention the names of his token liberal Jews like Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz so that everything would appear kosher.  It was also helpful that Imam Magid, an unindicted co-conspirator with Hamas, wasn't in attendance this time, as he was last Thursday.

As vacuous as Obama's intellect really is, he is not that ignorant of geography, nor is he credulous enough to believe that Hamas will put away its jihadi toys some day and accept Israel.  He knows exactly what his Palestinian fantasy will bring forth; he knows precisely how Israel will appear on a map with a contiguous terror state that borders Egypt and Jordan.  Nonetheless, his speech was warmly received (at least from AIPAC's leaders, if not some grassroots activists).  After all, AIPAC's leader, former Obama adviser and prolific fundraiser Lee Rosenberg, admonished them to behave.

Unfortunately, AIPAC has been run by hard-core Democrats for years.  Recently, as support for Israel among Democrats has taken a nosedive, AIPAC leaders have taken it upon themselves to ensconce this inconvenient truth by providing cover for Democrats.  It's time for AIPAC to confront the inconvenience and reveal that it is the moral and intellectual clarity of conservatism-the very ideology that they reject-that will save Israel.  Republicans should also blow the cover off the notion of bi-partisan support for Israel and expose the duplicity of AIPAC and the Democrats by proposing tough anti-PLO/Hamas legislation.

American Spring: Time to Stop Funding Terror Around the World

Job stimulus for terrorists, a housing crisis for Israel, moral relativism, oh my!
Barack Obama has many sinister friends who are egregiously subsidized by taxpayers, but at least they aren't terrorists. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for his foreign patrons. At a time when Congress is searching for any morsel to cut from our domestic budget, Obama wants to expand foreign aid..to terrorists and terror filled nations. His push for expanded foreign aid comes as part of a broader endorsement of the "Arab Spring" uprisings in his latest foreign policy speech. Bin Laden is also endorsing them from the grave. Republicans need to call for an American Spring and categorically oppose all aid to enemy nations and entities in the 2012 budget.

Over the past few months, Obama has helped blow up the Middle East by supporting radical Muslim uprisings in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. Simultaneously, he has hypocritically remained silent on Bashar Assad's violent repression in Syria until this week when he announced vapid sanctions on the Syrian dictator. He is still refusing to recall his ambassador from Damascus that he sent in 2009 as a gesture to Assad. He didn't even call for tough measures against Syria's puppet master; Iran, while claiming to support the Iranian protesters, despite his indifference when it really mattered in 2009.

However, upon further cogitation, Obama's actions are actually quite consistent. In both Egypt and Syria, Obama has strengthened the hand of terrorist organizations, placing Israel in great peril.

His support of Mubabrak's demise in Egypt, has led to a popular groundswell for war against Israel fomented by the Muslim Brotherhood. His continued support for Hamas and Fatah in Israel (with the proviso that they denounce "violence", of course) has emboldened the Palestinian terrorists and jeopardized the besieged state from within. Finally, his calculated tepid response to Syria's aggression, despite his tough rhetoric, and refusal to break diplomatic relations, has emboldened arch terrorist Assad to incite a breach of the Israeli border. State Department officials told the New York Times that Obama is worried about undermining the Syrian murderer because he views him as an indispensable partner in final negotiations for an Israeli peace deal, a.k.a. forcing Israel to hand over the Golan Heights. Hence, Obama views Assad as to big to fail.

Obama has successfully imperiled Israel on all fronts, while using American money and diplomacy to undermine the prestige of both nations. As the ever prescient Caroline Glick succinctly opined last week, "Unlike his predecessors, Obama's interest in the Palestinians is not opportunistic. He is a true believer."

The Palin Foreign Policy Doctrine

What is a conservative foreign policy?

In light of Obama’s morally indefensible and dyslexic policies regarding Egypt, Iran, Israel, Libya, and Syria, it is important that our eventual presidential nominee articulate a bold distinction in the realm of foreign policy.

Conservative domestic policy doctrine is quite indubitable and lucid (except among many elected Republicans); limited government, free enterprise, protection of individual liberties, limitation of criminal liberties, secure borders, and a robust civil society.  Foreign policy is more ambiguous because it is governed more by prudence than by doctrine.  Even though the overarching principle of any foreign policy initiative is American exceptionalism, the murkiness of America’s security interests has long blurred the distinction between divergent foreign policies.

During the Bush years, the distinction between “liberal” and “conservative” foreign policy was obfuscated even further due to President Bush’s embrace of neoconservative principles such as democratization and human rights interventions.  Also, the only opposition from the right which percolated into the media was the voices of those like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, who believed that our involvement in the Middle East and support of Israel served as the impetus for Islamic terror.

As such, the average political observer was presented with a false choice of conservative foreign policy between the so-called neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and so-called paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan.  Moreover, many conservatives, desiring to emphatically repudiate the detestable behavior of the anti-war movement, became inclined to reflexively support foreign intervention at any cost simply to “stay the course” and oppose the anti-war left.  These conservatives continue to injudiciously support an open ended commitment in Afghanistan and Libya, despite serious concerns to our national interests.

Earlier this week, Sarah Palin articulated the principles of a foreign policy that are neither neoconservative nor paleoconservative; rather plain old conservative.  Speaking at the Colorado Christian University for a military charity fundraiser, Governor Palin outlined the following commonsense principles for foreign intervention:

Osama is Dead; Obama's Foreign Policy is Still Dangerous and Perverse

Obama authorized Bin Ladin's demise even as he continues to support terrorists as part of his broader foreign policy.

The big news of the day is that Osama is dead as a result of the brave work of our Special Forces and intelligence teams, as well as the Bush administration policies of terrorists interrogations and targeted assassinations.  Yes, the very policies that Obama so vociferously opposed for political benefit.  President Obama is to be congratulated for disavowing his campaign pledge and continuing those George Bush policies that he had previously repudiated.

The other big news of the day is that the Palestinian terrorists were the first to condemn the assassination, even before Al-Qaeda itself.  Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh denounced the murder of the "Arab holy warrior."

As the left goes agog with excitement over Obama's victory in the war on terror, they might want to ponder about his broader foreign policy, which is not only insouciant to Islamic terror, but actively supportive of it.

Just last week, the Obama-backed Palestinian Authority joined a unity government with Hamas in the anticipation of the formulation of a Palestinian terror state.  Obama, along with his European counterparts, has launched an pertinacious campaign to support the Palestinians and promote statehood at all costs.  Israel has incurred the brunt of those costs, however, we have also been adversely affected from the invariable advancement of Iranian control over the Middle East.  So not only is Obama uncooperative of an Israeli strike (targeted assassination) on Hamas or Iran, he is actively enabling their consummate dream; Palestinian statehood and the destruction of Israel.

So committed is he to create an Iranian-proxy terrorist state, that according to State Department officials, he is actively opposing efforts to bring down Syrian terrorist Bashar Assad.  He views Assad as a stabilizing force and a strategic partner in the establishment of a terrorist state.

The Obama Doctrine: Funding Terrorists in Israel and Libya, Silence on Syria

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has been duping leftists in Western governments for years into thinking he is Mr. Peace.  During the past decade, successive governments in the U.S. and Europe have been genuflecting to Abbas and his Fatah terrorist organization.  They have showered the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority with more foreign aid per capita than even any legitimate country.  The implicit purpose was to strengthen the "moderate" Palestinians so they can defeat the "extremist" Hamas, establish a peace-loving state, and live happily ever after.

To that end, Abbas championed the surreptitious game of good-cop bad-cop.  He discreetly promoted terror while allowing Hamas to publicly embody the face of Palestinian terrorism.  Recently, Abbas has become so emboldened by his continued sainthood among Europeans that he has begun to shed his camouflage.

Mahmoud Abbas is now preparing for a unity government with Hamas in an effort to consolidate power over Hamas-controlled Gaza.  The Jerusalem Post reports:

Libya is Not Our Fight

The absolute dyslexia of liberals and their choices for military intervention.

Liberals have a penchant for engaging in the wrong wars and fighting them the wrong way.  They are always meek and submissive towards those who represent an existential threat to America, such as Iran, Russia, China, Syria, and Venezuela.  When they finally choose to engage in military intervention, it is usually for a dubious cause or for the purpose of some humanitarian aid that lacks a clearly defined mission or end result for our troops.  Unfortunately, many Bush Republicans have a predilection to automatically support any military intervention, even if it lacks a clear mission or its original purpose does not represent a substantial threat to our national security.

Somalia was a classic example of a leftist foreign policy folly.  There was no reason to involve our military in a humanitarian operation in that part of the world.  However, once Somalia became a magnet for terrorists, these hypocritical interventionists refused to deal with the new reality and treat the mission as a military operation.  Consequently, our soldiers were unprepared for the ensuing ambush in which over a dozen American soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.  Instead of bringing the terrorists to justice and turning the place into a waste zone, we summarily retreated.  Thus, the very interventionists who were all too eager to engage in an imprudent use of our military were suddenly lacking the temerity to engage the enemy when it really mattered.

Unfortunately, it appears that history might repeat itself in Libya.  As with the Egyptian insurgents against Mubarak, the Libyan rebels do not share our values, and as such, do not warrant our overt military support.  In addition, unlike Iran and other terrorist supporting states, the Qaddafi regime in Libya does not pose an existential threat to our national security interests. 

Undoubtedly, Qaddafi (unlike Mubarak) deserves to suffer demise for his terrorist attacks during the 80's.  However, the ship already sailed on that one.  Reagan attempted to assassinate him in the 80's (at the appropriate time) and was ironically undermined by some of the same European countries that are suddenly calling for Qaddafi's head 25 years later.  France and Spain undermined Reagan's Operation El Dorado Canyon in 86' by denying us overflight rights, adding 1,300 extra miles for our bombers.  I guess it took them 25 years to conjure up the righteous indignation to take decisive action against Qaddafi. 

So, Which Murderers are your Taxes Funding?

$363 million for domestic baby-killers; up to $1 billion for Palestinian baby-killers
As the budget battle rages on and as we continue to fund domestic baby-killers, do we have to fund foreign ones as well?!

For years, the left wing foreign policy establishment has rapturously promoted the 'Palestinians' as the cause célèbre of our national security interests.  Despite their unyielding commitment to terror, these supercilious 'wizards of smart' have credulously identified the creation of a 'Palestinian' state as the consummate solution to all geo-political problems.  They posit that upon creation of a 22nd Arab state and 2nd Palestinian state (the first being Jordon), the culture of terror would cease and we would all experience peace in our time.

Incidentally, their maniacal fixation on the Palestinians has left them stupefied and devoid of solutions regarding the broader turmoil in the Middle East.

To that end, congress has been cajoled into authorizing billions of dollars in foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA).  In addition, we have equipped and trained their armed forces with the best our military has to offer.  This travesty is justified as integral to strengthening the "Palestinian people" and the "moderate PA leadership" in their alleged battle against the "extremist" Hamas.  Those of us with more than a superficial understanding of the Middle East and Islamo-fascism, have always known the PA to be indistinguishable from Hamas.  After all, the PA, otherwise known as the Fatah, was the catalyst in terror under the leadership of Yasser Arafat long before Hamas arrived on the scene.

The barbaric massacre of a family of five in northern Israel over the weekend should dispel the fallacy of the moderate Palestinian even in the eyes of their fatuous promoters.  Here are the sickening details of the massacre:

Mubarak is not a Great Ally, But What's the Alternative?

There are some apologists for Mubarak who contend that he is a great ally of the U.S. and a strategic partner for Israel. Other wizards of smart like John Kerry and the Bush foreign policy crowd feel that we should actively side with the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow Mubarak. There are some good columns out today explaining why they are both wrong. The bottom line is that Mubarak is not such a strong ally and doesn't deserve $1.5 billion in aid; however, the alternative is much, much worse. To that end, it would be Carteresque to support the "democratic" protesters. 

- Here is Max Boot's Op-ed in the WSJ detailing Mubarak's efforts to undermine Israel and turn a blind eye to the Muslim Brotherhood. Nonetheless, it is clear that the vacuum of his departure would be filled with real nefarious characters.

- Caroline Glick has a great piece in today's Jerusalem Post explaining the coalition between the anti-colonialist left and the Bush democracy peddlers in their pursuit to overthrow Mubarak. They are both misguided in their lack of insight into the Muslim world.

- Bret Stephens of the WSJ explains why he thinks that Mubarak his playing his cards prudently and that the revolution will eventually fizzle.

It is disturbing to see the GOP circle the wagons around the administration and John Kerry by supporting regime change.  It is also disconcerting to see fellow Massachusetts politician Mitt Romney call for Mubarak to resign.  Would these politicians support the protesters in Jordon to overthrow King Abdullah?  Unlike Mubarak, he is a true ally.  Worse yet, the Jordanian people are even more radical than the Egyptians (70% of them are Palestinian).  Don't they understand the consequenses of their actions?

We cannot afford another Iranian revolution paradigm in which we oust a dictator in favor of an Islamist state.  Then again, when we have someone like Dick Lugar leading the Republican foreign policy in the Senate, would you expect anything different?

Rand Paul is Right on Foreign Aid

Unfortunately, we often work assiduously to elect an alleged conservative who upon assumption of office, vacillates between the right and the center. Thankfully, that has not been the case with Rand Paul.  He has not wasted time being a timid, freshman, do-nothing Senator.  In his first few weeks, he has had the temerity to push for private retirement accounts, reform of birthright citizenship, and has formed the Senate tea party caucus.  His greatest accomplishment to date is his blockbuster budget plan which calls for $500 billion in cuts per year, not just per decade!

One of components of our budget that would be targeted for elimination is foreign aid.  Liberals in the media and "pro-Israel" groups are trying to drive a wedge between fiscal conservatives and foreign policy conservatives by suggesting that Rand Paul is being anti-Israel by cutting their foreign aid.

On the surface, this is obviously a flagrantly disingenuous argument because the plan eliminates all foreign aid, not just Israel's.  The reality is that we must prioritize our budgetary needs in order to achieve fiscal solvency before we borrow more money from China to aid other nations.

However, a deeper perspicacity of the issue of foreign policy in general, and the Middle East in particular, illuminates a more salient question that is ignored by the media.  What does it mean to be pro-Israel?  Let's present two world philosophies vis-à-vis Israel; the conservative and the liberal view, and determine which is more advantageous for our ally.

Liberal View

1. Grant Israel several billion dollars of economic and military aid.
2. Use that aid to coerce, castigate, and threaten them into handing over their territory to Islamo-fascists, for the purpose of creating a 22nd Arab state and 2nd Palestinian state.  Every check point, military operation, or act of self defense must be cleared with Washington.
3.  While giving foreign aid to Israel, Washington simultaneously grants billions of dollars of economic and military aid to all of their enemies like Fatah Palestinians, Lebanon (ostensibly Hezbollah), Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.  In addition, they train the Palestinian military and supply them with all the weapons they need to assail Israel.

Conservative View

1. Limited or no aid to Israel as we must balance our own budget.  Israel is thankfully in a stronger position than it was when we began the foreign aid program.
2. As a result, there are no strings attached and no promulgating of the "piss process".
3. Absolutely no weapons, aid, or military training for terrorist entities or Muslim states that threaten Israel or anyone else.

To any true pro-Israel policy thinker, the choice is quite obvious.  But, for those liberals at AIPAC, the most important thing is to perpetuate the status quo of funding Israel, while funding their enemies, and mandating a Palestinian state.  It often appears that they would be satisfied with a robust; U.S. armed and equipped "Palestinian state", as long as Israel would continue to receive its sacrosanct aid.  We must remind them that aid to Israel is not an ends to itself.  It is a means to achieve greater security for Israel, and by extension, America.  If we continue to implement broader policies that negate and countervail that aid, it should be discontinued.  Maybe these hypocritical leftists ought to examine their own views regarding Israel before they slander American conservatives who are Israel's best friends in the world.

Personally, I favor a plan that would cut 90% of foreign aid instead of scuttling it completely.  While allies like Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan no longer need economic assistance, it is in our strategic interest to send them military aid.  A strong reaffirmation of our military assistance to Taiwan would send a powerful message to China, especially at a time when we are projecting weakness on that front.  A further bolstering of South Korea's military would also send a message to....China again!  And, the continuation of some military aid to Israel would project a much needed posture towards her enemies that are currently aided by... U.S. taxpayers.

However, when confronted with a choice between the status quo which funds friends and foes of America, or Rand Paul's across the board cut in foreign aid, there should be no ambivalence from conservatives.  Let's call out these pseudo pro-Israel organizations on their own hypocritical priorities and deny them the opportunity to drive a wedge between conservatives.

Biden Supports Despotism in Egypt

After doing nothing to support the democratic revolutions in Tunisia and Sudan, the President had the gall to take credit for them during his State of the Union Address.  Now, as protesters are on the bring of overthrowing Islamo-fascist Hosni Mubarak, Joe Biden is supporting Mubarak.  The Egyptian government has suspended the remaining liberties that are granted to their citizens, yet the administration has not suspended a red cent of the $1.3 billion in foreign aid to the regime.  This, from the Christian Science Monitor:

A New Year, A New Muslim Rampage

Well, it appears that Islamofacists always want to usher in the new year with a blast.  After slaughtering at least 80 Christians in the Nigerian town of Jos, Muslim terrorists massacred more Christians who were attending mass in the nation's capitol Abuja, as well as in Alexandria, Egypt.  1,000 Christians were gathered for mass at an Alexandria church, when a Muslim suicide bomber blew himself up, killing at least 21 and injuring over 80.  But you wouldn't know anything about the perpetrator from the first paragraph of the article from Reuters.  They begin their report:

A bomb killed at least 21 people outside a church in the Egyptian city of Alexandria early on New Year's Day and the Interior Ministry said a foreign-backed suicide bomber may have been responsible.
Dozens of people were wounded by the blast, which scattered body parts, destroyed cars and smashed windows. The attack prompted Christians to protest on the streets, and some Christians and Muslims hurled stones at each other. (emphasis added)

So, a bomb just passively detonated on its own, and decided to scatter body parts.  Then, the Christians elected to commence a pogrom against the poor innocent Muslims.  Unbelievable! Folks, you can't make this stuff up.

Here was Obama's response:

"Killing innocent civilians who were simply gathering – like so many people around the world – to celebrate the beginning of a New Year further demonstrates the bankrupt vision of those who carry out these attacks, and we are similarly prepared to offer assistance to the Government of Nigeria as it works to bring the perpetrators to justice." (emphasis added)

Isn't it interesting how there is random violence around the world in Nigeria, Egypt, Sudan, Israel, Lebanon, and Somalia.  They are orchestrated by unknown perpetrators.  The fact that they all share the same religion has nothing to do with it!


There is another important point that this weekend's bombing bring to bear.  We provide Egypt with over $1.5 billion in foreign aid every year.  They have always straddled the fence between their ambivalence towards radical Islam and their desire to pander for American support.  If they don't use this tragedy as an opportunity to clamp down on terror, we should immediately cut off their foreign aid.  Why should we be funding another Muslim nation that harbors Al Qaeda?

The 13 Republican Putin Poodles

 Here are the thirteen Republicans who gratuitously gave Obama his biggest foreign policy victory of his presidency.  They pointlessly voted to entrust Putin and Obama with our missile defense, and capitulated to a tyrant during a time when America is exuding weakness throughout the world.  All they had to do was hold out for two days and the session would have been over.  Not only did they support this repudiation of American exceptionalism, they did so in a lame duck session, thus empowering those whom the voters rejected, while disenfranchising those new Senators who were elected.  The resolution of ratification passed with 71 votes, but 9 of those supporters no longer belong in congress.

 The Thirteen Traitors

Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Bob Bennett (Utah), Scott Brown (Mass.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Johnny Isakson (Georgia), Mike Johanns (Nebraska), Richard Lugar (Indiana), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe (Maine), and George Voinovich (Ohio).

The amazing thing is that they are from such conservative states as Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Utah!  Imagine if the Democrats had as many traitors among their ranks as we do.  Imagine if Democrat Senators from Vermont and Massachusetts would vote for staunch conservative legislation.  Unfortunately, they don’t have any sellouts.

Bennett, Gregg, and Voinovich are retiring, but felt the need to flip one last birdie at the American people.  Isakson took the resounding conservative support he just received in his reelection and pocketed it.  But Brown, Corker, Lugar, and Snowe are up this cycle.  Corker and Lugar must be toast at all costs.  Collins, Cochran, Johanns, and Alexander are up in 2014 and every one of them must be defeated.  This is not the first infraction of any of those on this list, and many of them were part of the lame duck massacre that has served to undermine the mandate of the midterm elections.  Hey, when Lindsey Graham thinks that the Senate Republicans have wimped out, we really have a problem.

If Republicans Were Democrats

As an observer of the 2010 midterm elections and the subsequent lame duck session from beginning to end, I am absolutely dumbfounded.  After hearing the news about a plethora of Republicans who committed to pimping away our national security for Obama and Putin, I am flabbergasted.   It's as if the midterm elections never occurred.

The Democrats successfully strike out at our social values, military (DADT), national security (START), liberty (FDA takeover), and economic freedom (FDA takeover, green mandates) in a matter of just a few weeks following an electoral rout.  They come close to passing amnesty, even while our border agents are being killed and nobody demands action.  They also seek to control the internet by administrative fiat in an effort to circumvent the courts.  As gas soars beyond $3 a gallon, they destroy coal and oil exploration, while pushing "green measures" which destroy our economy and impoverish American consumers.  Worse yet, the Republicans help pass almost every one of those legislative calamities.  As a bonus, the margin of passage for all of these bills was achieved through the support of members who no longer belong in the Senate.  It appears that every retiring member is voting for START except for Sam Brownback. There comes a point in time when it's hard to comprehend why we should continue fighting.