Age old agendas guide geo-political events

Spellchek has posted many times on natural resources, energy access and distribution as being the reasons behind the bulk of global conflicts. Religion and land are usually cited as the top reasons for war, however, even those are sometimes merely a front for a natural resorces basis. The fight over natural resources goes back centuries and still sits at the top of the list for governments to consider when making policy.

The next two globally intertwined conflicts fit the bill. Syria, which is primarily over pipeline distribution routes, and the lesser known China-Japan dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, which is over the massive Chunxiao gas field.

Russia has been repositioning assets into the Mediterranean for the first time in decades –

Mere coincidence with the escalating rhetoric for more direct U.S. involvement in Syria? That may be the ‘official’ bill of goods being peddled but you can draw your own conclusions as the U.S. Marines with their assault ships are now in Israel coincidentally –

You may recall that the first Sino-Japanese war was fought over land in the form of North Korea –

As a newly emergent power, Japan turned its attention toward Korea. In order to protect its own interests and security, Japan wanted to block another power from annexing Korea or maintaining dominance in Korea, or at least ensure Korea’s effective independence by developing its resources and reforming its administration

Interesting that is was U.S. intervention in 1854 that led Japan to become involved in global trade.

It is likely a common misunderstanding that nations intervene in foreign conflicts in an effort to secure assets for themselves. Iraq for oil as an example. Some would also suport the idea that to the victor goes the spoils as a form of repayment. The idea being that the U.S. nation built in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it’s OK to take their oil as repayment.

The problem is that you are painted a tyrant and occupier by most. If your agenda is global conquest, you would follow this logic as an aura of fear is preferable anyway.

History is replete with failed global tyrants and the governments of the world take notice, particularly the so-called superpowers. It is considered more efficient strategically to pursue what we see today. Proxy wars and interventions designed to ensure global access to natural resources as a way of denying opponents a strategic edge. Doesn’t matter if it’s water, land, gas, oil, precious minerals, whatever it may be, if it can be made available to a global market than no one country can control it.

It becomes clear when one studies the seemingly random and irrational pattern of interventions based upon issues such as human rights and third-world poverty. The way in which countries pick and choose their battles. The U.S. getting involved in Syria would qualify as Assad killing his own people is repeated daily in many other countries around the globe in which we don’t intervene.

This is not to say that natural resources are always the reason behind conflicts. The spread of Islam via the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda is very much ideology based and fully supported by our President even if he’ll never declare it. His actions defy him. It may seem to be a conflict of interest with the President’s personal agenda and the nation’s agenda. Yet any good politican always finds a way to make their personal beliefs coincide with their professional role.

Many times multiple agendas come together at certain points. Obama and the democrat party are one. His agenda is much bigger than the party, yet they are often bedfellows where the agendas align.

Any hopes for global peace and a lessening of wars and conflicts is folly. Simply way too many fingers in the pie for that to ever happen.

Liberal Suffering and Confusion by Walter E. Williams

Liberal Suffering and Confusion by Walter E. Williams.

Here is yet another must-read article from the great Walter Williams. However, I will have to disagree with Mr. Williams on his title. It is the rest of us that suffer due to liberal confusion.

The liberal world vision and reality are often at variance, for example, with equal pay for equal work. I’ve often watched “Lockup,” a show that features California supermax prisons, including Pelican Bay and Corcoran. Often, a recalcitrant prisoner must be extracted from his cell through brute force. I’ve never seen female guards remove a prisoner. If they are part of the process at all, it’s to videotape the extraction for legal purposes. It’s my bet that female guards receive the same salaries as male guards while not having to risk injury. Along the same lines, women on aircraft carriers earn as much as their male counterparts, but I have yet to see women hefting a hernia bar to attach a 500- or 1,000-pound bomb to a fighter jet wing. All of this suggests that liberals are for equal pay for unequal work. Or could it be sex discrimination whereby equally qualified women are denied the opportunity to extract beastly inmates from their cells and load heavy bombs on fighter planes?

Here’s another bit of liberal confusion. Liberals deny that raising labor cost through minimum wages reduces incentives to hire. But if you asked a liberal for advice on how to stop rich people from shirking their tax obligations, they’d say raise the penalty. Ask low-information Harvard University doctors what should be done to stem gun violence and they answer that government should institute “a new, substantial national tax on all firearms and ammunition.” Ask Illinois’ Cook County Board of Commissioners President Toni Preckwinkle how to reduce purchases of bullets and guns. She’d say levy a nickel tax on each bullet and a $25 tax on each gun. Liberals demonstrate they understand the law of demand – that raising the cost of something lessens the amount taken – but they deny that it applies to labor. That’s as ludicrous as suggesting that the law of gravity applies to everything in the universe except cute creatures, such as pandas and puppies.

Liberals love political correctness that conceals information. For example, how does one know whether the “chair” of a board of directors or the chair of a city council is a man or woman? This issue arose during my (1995-2001) chairmanship of George Mason University’s distinguished economics department. At a chairman’s meeting or gathering, I was referred to as department chair. I told the speaker that I am a chairman and that I have empirical evidence as proof. Needless to say, it didn’t go over well, but academics don’t like the terms chairwoman or chairperson, either, but puzzlingly, God forbid that people refer to their idol as Chair Mao instead of Chairman Mao.

How liberals identify black people must be confusing to whites. Having been around for 77 years, I have been through a number of names. Among the more polite ones are colored, Negro, Afro-American, black and, more recently, African-American. Among those names, African-American is probably the most unintelligent. Let’s look at it. To identify their races, suppose I told you that I had a European-American friend, a South America-American friend and a North America-American friend. You’d probably say, “Williams, that’s stupid. Europe, South America and North America are continents and home to different races, ethnicities and nationalities.” You might suggest that my friend is a German-American instead of European-American. My friend from Brazil is a Brazilian-American rather than a South America-American, and my friend from Canada is a Canadian-American instead of a North America-American. So wouldn’t the same apply to people whose heritage lies on the African continent? For example, instead of claiming that President Barack Obama is the first African-American president, he’s the first partially Kenyan-American president. Obama is lucky; he knows his national heritage. The closest thing to a national identity for most black Americans is some country along Africa’s Gold Coast. Adding to the confusion, what would you call a white American of Afrikaner or Egyptian descent? Is he an African-American?

Liberals suffer confusion and cognitive dissonance because the rest of us don’t help explain things to them.

April 30, 2013

Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page

The MSM doesn’t seem to like us bloggers much, do they?

Some reflections on the Boston Marathon bombings.

I’ve listened to a sizable amount of news media reports over the last several days. The common denominator? To attack bloggers as irresponsible, misinformed and basically reckless for posting photos from the bombings. Then the F.B.I. released the video and photos of the 2 suspects. What did the media do at that point? They began to speculate and opine wildly as to the details of the 2 suspects (non-suspects according to DHS Napolitano). Let’s review.

It was the F.B.I. that announced the “person of interest” named Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi and raided his apartment. Keep in kind that they already possessed the surveillance tape footage showing the eventual 2 suspects one of which is now dead and the other on the run. Also keep in mind that this is the same F.B.I. that destroyed Richard Jewell by mistakenly focusing on him as public enemy number one during the Atlanta Olympics tragedy.

Point is that the F.B.I. hardly has a record of accuracy so for the media to get the green light to engage in their own reckless and irresponsible speculation is hardly any more noble than bloggers who utilize publicly available information to opine on an event.

There have been a multitude of erroneous leaks and inaccurate reports from a variety of sources. Let’s remember that law enforcement is not watching news reports nor are they reading blogs as a guide to their investigation. So, media types who are so offended that an unofficial source may beat you to the story? Chill out. Just worry about doing your job properly.

Did they kill the right guy? After all, he was never even named a suspect. What’s the real story with the original person of interest? Why did Kerry and Obama get hands-on with the Saudi Foreign Minister on the spot and right afterward the guy is cleared and rumored to be deported? Why have we already seen official video releases from the F.B.I. in less than one week on 2 people not even named suspects and yet we still haven’t seen the video from Benghazi after seven months? Why haven’t we seen the drone feed from Benghazi? Why was the bomb squad conducting a drill during the marathon?

As always, many more questions than answers. I for one hope we never see the day where bloggers stop asking questions simply because they are only commenting on officially released information. Official journalism died in America some time ago. It is bloggers and the like who keep hope alive that we can still get to the bottom of things beyond what we’re told we are supposed to believe.

A tribute to friends

My five year anniversary blogging is fast approaching so I thought I would pay a little tribute to those who have helped, contributed, commented or just been a friend along the way.

I hail from the great state of Michigan. Unfortunately, Detroit has been the posterchild for failed leftist policies over the last half-century and in the Motor City, Times have never been worse. Should you blog with a lean toward the Right, Michigan can be a lonely place and even make you ask, Wy Blog? Truth is, even in a socialist utopia, we need a Sentry. Journalists in the internet age see themselves as guardians over the Asylum, Watchers if you will.

All is not lost here in Michigan. The U of M wolverines made it to the final game of the big dance. Along the way as reported in the Gainesville Daley, Gator fans were extremely disappointed to see their team get beaten badly. U of M had a great showing in Texas, Conservative News outlets reported. The highlight of the season had to be the progression of That Mr. G Guy, Mitch McGary.

Spellchek covers a wide variety of topics, however, if it’s Political, Realities dictate that the content could be considered far right, a Conservative Hideout if you will. The Constitution around these parts is revered. It is our foundation, the tradition, the Classic, Liberal activists intent on reinterpreting it be damned.

This blog, as well as all of the friends linked here, do their level best to overcome the low-information voter. To educate and spread the word, even to the drones, the blind followers, the Mind Numbed, Robots that they are. Many are simply ignorant. Too many aren’t and still ignore reality. It isn’t that we are any smarter than they are. In fact, we are No One Of Any Importance. We just tell the truth.

Maybe someday they’ll make a movie about our efforts. A David and Goliath story. The blogger revolution and how it saved America! Lots of patriotic themes and lessons from the Founders. The movie poster should be plastered with reds and whites, and if I were the Director, Blue would be everywhere.

There you go. I think I linked all those featured on my header without stretching too much. I appreciate all of you as well as many others that have helped to keep Spellchek going over the years. It’s good to have friends.

The Fairness and Equality in Taxation Act of 2013 – how’s $308 cash each week sound?

Have you seen this new taxation bill in Congress yet? Of course you haven’t since I just made it up. But with fairness and equality the mantra of today’s liberal/progressive movements, why not integrate them into our tax code and tax collection system? The left likes to claim the title of the all-inclusive party in which everyone is welcome and treated the same. No discrimination, no disparity, just completely equal and just.

So why not put that theory to the test? Most have heard of the flat tax proposals being floated to replace the current tax code. Let’s take it a step further. Rather than the same tax rate for all, shouldn’t it be the same tax amount for all? You know, one person/one vote type thinking? Why would the left ever support a progressive tax rate that means the wealthier amongst us pay more? They are still just a person completely equal to the rest so why discriminate against them by penalizing their material possessions?

Of course I’m asking a rhetorical question because virtually no one supports this true measure of equality. Certainly not the poor as they generally pay no federal income taxes as it is. I would even contend that the rich don’t like it despite the seemingly obvious alternative to lessen their tax burden. They are investors and business owners and recognize the necessity for a modern infrastructure and the tax base required to provide it. Decreasing the tax base per person to an amount that even the poor can afford means an overall massive decrease in the total tax revenue collected.

So who would support it? Only a slice of the middle class who have grown tired of watching the poor benefit from the welfare state and watching the rich keep getting richer off of our crony-capitalism and crony-corporatism rewards system.

Can you imagine if a truly fair and equal tax rate were implemented at a level that raises enough revenue to match government spending? Obama finally released his budget for 2014 that spends $3.77 trillion in taxpayer revenue. We need to examine raising that much as fairness would seem to apply to a balanced-budget approach.

Let’s look at the logistics of applying this new tax rate. First, it isn’t an income tax. That leaves out too many people who either aren’t working or not earning income. Remember, fairness and equality. Everybody must contribute and participate. FETA would be an existence tax for Americans. If you’re capable of drawing breath and residing in America, you should have to pay your fair share.

That makes it simple. Every adult American citizen should have to pay this tax until death. Can’t be any more equal than that. Many millions would howl that this isn’t fair but let’s remember the premise. Every person is created truly equal so throughout their life they should have that same level of respect given to them.

The guideline then becomes any adult 18 and older which according to the U.S. Census Bureau is somewhere north of 235 million people. A simple calculation of $3.77 trillion divided by 235 million means everyone’s “fair” and “equal” share of the tax burden would be…. drumroll please…just over $16,000 bucks. Each. Per person. Totally fair and equal.

Can the total equality crowd complain about that? It shouldn’t matter if you have a job, are disabled, are a retired person, none of it. You live here, you benefit from the American system.

How about our tax collection system? Want to have an immediate and profound effect on people and their perception of the income tax system? Collect taxes in cash each and every week from them personally. No more income withholding. If people had to pay their share of the income tax in cash every week, they would be shocked at how much it is and we would have protests unlike anything America has ever witnessed. Direct deposit, electronic banking and credit cards have effectively neutered our pain threshold for spending our hard-earned dollars.

The $16,042 share of each American’s tax burden (which is federal only by the way) would amount to about $308 dollars due in cash each week at your door when the collection/enforcement agent shows up. No, it wouldn’t be an IRS agent, the IRS would be abolished since we no longer have an income tax. Fair and equal.

OK, I’ve had enough fun now. Not a chance in the world any of this ever happens but it does serve to highlight the hypocrisy of the fair and equal crowd who really want nothing of the sort. Nor would most not even involved in promoting all this fairness and equality. Paying a truly equal share of our federal government’s spending addiction, and paying weekly in cash to boot, is a frightening scenario. Add in your state and local tax burdens on top and the reality of just how out-of-control our centralized government has become would hit home.

Obama the amateur or a man with a plan?

It’s very disconcerting when you hear more and more conservatives that seem resigned to dismiss ideology as fringe, conspiratorial talk. What do I mean? Simply that many people wish to give Obama a pass on his rigid ideology and just chalk up his errors in governance as inexperience or ignorance. I assume the thinking is that incompetence is more disparaging. Certainly there is resentment in that Obama was re-elected despite a horrific track record in office. Discarding someone as somewhat irrelevant due to their inadequacy is a reaction to that deep disappointment.

Anytime you misjudge an adversary, you are at a disadvantage. Did I just call Obama an adversary? Absolutely, anyone that enacts policies that restrict our rights and confiscate private property is not a friend. The fact is that liberty is an impediment to Obama’s agenda and he will continue to attack it at every opportunity.

Whether it’s healthcare, the economy, energy policy, foreign policy, you name it, the policies that Obama has been implementing pay no heed to what is considered a traditional standard for success. In fact, the opposite must be true. A successful economy is a negative for the President’s agenda. Yes, it’s true. Confiscatory tax policy, a more stringent regulatory environment, income and wealth redistribution schemes, etc., all require a failing economy in order to secure the public support necessary to implement his agenda.

This is why it is folly to simply label Obama an amateur. His belief system that has been molded over his lifetime has given him a very clear thought process as how to achieve his goals. There is nothing remotely conspiratorial in this. His ideology is a paradigm shift in traditional American values and the foundation the Founders put in place. Thus you get his promise of fundamentally transforming America.

Obamacare was always intended to collapse the private healthcare system. It has to in order to shift to a government run system. This is where Obama realized years ago that a step process would be required in order to get to a single payer system. Obama’s energy policy is similar. He promised us skyrocketing energy prices in order to force a change in behavior. In other areas, he practices the Cloward-Piven strategies designed to overwhelm the system and enact change.

What’s been astonishing about the entire progression of his agenda is that you can find either video or audio of Obama throughout the years detailing his plans. There really are no surprises with the guy. Some like to think that Obama has a unique ability to connect with mainstream America and accordingly garner support for his agenda. I’d be more inclined to liken it to a perfect storm.

Clearly, Obama is not a very good public speaker. Just listen to him stammer and stumble if he doesn’t have a teleprompter handy. He has no gift for uniting people as we’ve never seen a more devisive public servant in America. He just has the right combination of ethnicity, skin color, being in the right place at the right time (read beneficiary of a financial crisis), and he has mastered the rhetoric that is very effective on a society in transition. America was ready for Obama, however, I think they were just as ready for a female.

If you’re the person I’ve described, you’re not doing yourself any favors by searching for a profile that fits a President in over his head. Why does it matter? Conventional thinking was that the poor economy would sink Obama regardless of his message demonizing the rich and promoting envy and greed. Obama was never attempting to promote his economic plan as superior to his competitors. You don’t need to put forth a viable alternative if you’re successful at directing blame.

The Obama routine of ceaseless campaigning and refusing to govern is no accident nor it is due to incompetence. It is just an ideologue at work. Obama doesn’t make a move that isn’t calculated to elicit a certain response. It’s allowed him to stay ahead of his detractors as they twist in the wind trying to sell the public even now after his re-election that he isn’t qualified for the gig.

It’s good to be King.

Equality, justice, fairness, morality vs. liberty and faith (and a Happy Easter, or Pascha, to all)

Do you think it’s possible to achieve true equality? How about social justice? Perhaps an end to any of the litany of social ills such as racism, discrimination, persecution or whatever the intolerance may be? The answer is clearly no. Unfortunately, human beings are imperfect, always have been and always will be. Doesn’t mean we can’t strive to cure these ills though.

It would be nice if we could say that all activists amongst us were following the road of good intentions in attempting to cure what ails us, but we are imperfect, aren’t we? Take racism for example. It’s hard to believe it’s been nearly half a century since Dr. King delivered his infamous “I have a dream” speech. He referenced the Emancipation Proclamation of a hundred years prior . A century and a half of society decrying slavery and inequality based upon the mere color difference of one’s skin. How far have we come?

In some respects, we have made progress. But in others, nothing has changed. It’s a sad testament that we actually have a race industry in this country, but we do. Why? Money. The lure of one form of evil is greater than the satisfaction of defeating another. Thus we’ll continue to see the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton front and center at every opportunity to further promote divisiveness and keep racism alive and well. It’s a prosperous business.

What’s the most frustrating and disappointing point when it comes to solving societal ills? When the cure isn’t directed at the cause. Look at the current furor over same-sex marriage. It has nothing to do with “rights” and everything to do with eligibility to receive government benefits. There are gays that aspire to achieve true equality in the eyes of society. To be accepted as just another human, no less, no more. Yet those that drive the debate see to it that their cause becomes just another scheme to redistribute wealth and secure votes.

Virtually all aspects of the equality/justice movement have been hijacked. Equality has become ‘equality of outcome’. Justice is now ‘social justice’ and is based upon legal precedent rather than established, traditional law. Political correctness has trumped freedom of religion.

I raise these points to ask if it is feasible for liberty to survive amongst the push to legislate morality, equality and justice? Why? Because when the purity of the basis to solve societal ills is compromised, it must come at the expense of something else. A ‘balanced approach’ as our President likes to call things. We aren’t attempting to solve problems, only to shift blame and profit off of the debate.

If our intentions were true, liberty could surely stand and even prosper alongside the fight to fix our humanity defects. However, we don’t really want some of those “true intentions”. Equality? Do you think we really want it? What would it mean, particularly in our world based upon all things government?

Would people want equality if it meant every American paid the same income tax? Not the same rate, the same amount. Isn’t that equal and fair? One person, one tax. Depends upon where you fall on the income scale as to your view of the “fairness” of true “equality”.

Government discriminates everyday by selecting some groups of people to reward and some to punish. How about the child tax credit? It’s meant to help lower-income parents get along. Should they be rewarded for a life choice? Lifestyle choices are behavior issues. Government is rewarding a behavior by targeting one group against others. Those who elect to not have children by making that lifestyle choice don’t receive the benefit the government hands out those who do. Certainly not fair or equal.

There are an astounding number of examples one could cite in which government picks the winners and losers based upon behavior and lifestyle choices. Those who trumpet equality all day long likely would not be so inclined if they were presented with just how many life events would be affected if true equality were to be implemented.

Equality, justice, fairness, morality, etc. We can’t pick and choose when they apply. Most who promote them do so out of personal gain. To right a wrong in their life. No one can fault them for the desire to do so. So long as they realize the extent to which it really means.

American society today, along with their elected officials that represent their views, doesn’t reflect the true intentions I mentioned earlier. We have become a divided country of special interests. Sometimes they align with others strengthening their impact. However, in all instances in which the intentions aren’t true liberty pays the price.

There is a tipping point. When liberty is compromised enough at the expense of these special interests, freedom is gone and nothing short of a revolution can restore it.

Public discourse today over our rights isn’t very practical since most of the time we aren’t even debating the same thing. Tough to get a consensus opinion when we can’t even agree on the ground rules.

I read an article promoting Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights –

These are always interesting to read with detailed explanations of why traditional rights arguments fall flat and Rand’s theory succeeds. For instance, here is the intro to the article.

What are rights? Where do they come from? One’s answers to these questions determine whether one is capable of defending a free society. If one does not know the nature and source of rights, one cannot know whether rights are real or imagined. And if rights are not real, there is no foundation for freedom; governments and societies may do as they please.

The traditional answers to the above questions fall into three categories: (1) Rights are moral laws specifying what a person should be free to do, and they come from God. (2) Rights are political laws specifying what a person is free to do, and they are created by governments. (3) Rights are moral laws specifying what a person should be free to do, and they are inherent in man’s nature. But each of these theories is demonstrably false, and a person or society attempting to defend freedom on such grounds will ultimately fail—as Americans are failing today.

Essentially, Rand’s theory subscribes to the notion that anything faith-based is flawed and cannot serve as a foundation to defend rights. If rights extend under natural law or from God himself, supporters can’t prove anything so the whole premise must be thrown out according to Rand.

The article then attempts to explain why the Rand idea of “observation based morality” is superior. Therein lies the problem. I always find this problem with those who wish to defend their view based upon “observation” as opposed to opinion. Observation of reality, as some like to call it, is merely your opinion. Use the glass half-empty, glass half-full analogy for an example. Reality can have widely-varying observations amongst people. The way I see and interpret something may be entirely different than you do. Does that make a sound basis for what reality is?

I’m not trying to delve too deep here and enter the debate over just what reality is, but it is clear that humans cannot ever agree on the basis for the argument, let alone a solution. We aren’t programmable robots and our minds are capable of vastly different interpretations of the same things. Even reality is different to different people so any “observation of reality” is still nothing more than your opinion.

The point is that the Rand theory can also be easily discounted as somewhat of a faith-based theory in that you must believe that all humans are capable of the same level of observation. It is no more sound based upon Rand’s own principles than a truly faith-based belief system.

The author quoted Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich challenges anyone to identify another possible source of inalienable rights: “If you are not endowed by your Creator with certain inalienable rights where do they come from?”

Is observation superior to faith? I think not. Not to mention the fact that observation based thinking cannot account for how our little universe came to be. Wrapping your head around the concept of the really big picture is difficult enough without having to rely upon science to deliver a provable account to explain it all.

So where does that leave us on this beautiful Easter Sunday? Are you comfortable looking within for all the answers? Can you sufficiently prove your own theories as to what equality, justice, morality, fairness, liberty and faith should be not just for you, but for all? Not this guy, I can’t do it. I’ll leave it in the hands of the Almighty. Makes much more sense to me especially when taken in context of explaining what it all means.

Obama finally sets foot in Israel – a scheduling error or just part of the agenda?

My, where has the time gone? President Obama has finally set foot in Israel, in what is purported to be our best ally in the Middle East. He couldn’t find the time during his entire first-term in office. Or perhaps it was a matter of priorities? So what has changed?

The Palestinian Authority’s pending new unity government including Fatah and Hamas. It’s no coincidence that Obama finally shows up at this critical time in the process. The trip is to accomplish a multitude of things but a couple that stand out relate to funding the Palestine Authority.

U.S. law prevents funding terrorist organizations, so a central theme of the Obama trip is to legitimize the unity government agreement between Fatah and Hamas. Defenders have denied for years that Palestine funding intended to support humanitarian actions and infrastructure support for the West Bank, controlled by Fatah, ever makes it to Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Clearly with the new unity government set to take over, that denial will no longer be possible.

To satisfy Congress, Obama had to make the trip to show his involvement and oversight if you will as to the “new” leaf turned over by Hamas. The trip has already paid dividends as nearly half a billion dollars in U.S. aid was released recently. A State Dept. briefing yesterday confirmed this.

To date, we have moved $295.7 million in Fiscal Year 2012 money, 200 million of that – see, this – numbers don’t – oh, and 200 million in Fiscal Year 2013 assistance. So breaking that down again, 200 million in FY2013 ESF money was direct budget support for the Palestinian Authority; 195.7 million in FY12 Economic Support money went for development and humanitarian assistance implemented by USAID; 100 million in FY2012 for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; and then in February – at the end of February we notified Congress about another 200 million that we’d like to move.

Obama had to journey to Israel despite his obvious disdain for having to bite the bullet and do so. After all, what else would one expect from a muslim? But, he had to do it as Israel controls the taxes and tariffs collected by goods passing through Israel into Palestine. They regular withhold these as a form of economic sanctions.

The $107.31 million Israel released is only a one-time reprieve however. Arab nations have a supposed “safety net” in place to subsidize the Palestine Authority budget whenever Israel withholds the tax/tariffs, yet they haven’t come through as promised.

Obama was well-prepared in advance for the trip. He met with a multitude of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas groups prior to leaving and had his marching orders in hand –

Obama has quite a bit on his plate when you consider all that he needs to accomplish at the same time. He needs to maximize the public pain inflicted back home in America from the relatively miniscule sequester cuts. He also had to take the pain himself and visit Israel to pay lip service to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. And he had to play referee at the Palestine unity government negotiations (along with financier Qatar I might add) to insure that U.S. aid keeps flowing despite the law in place to prevent it.

Funding Hamas with the approval of Congress and Israel at the same time? Well done. Funding Hamas at the same time sequester is bringing government to a halt back home? Well done. Funding Hamas while sequester stops White House tours and starves the staff of Debbie Wasserman Schultz while Biden toughs it out in Paris with a half-million dollar price tag? Wow, really well done Mr. President.

Nobody ever said fundamentally changing America while promoting a global Islamic Caliphate would be easy, did they? So far, Obama has shown himself to be up to the challenge.

Can inducing a stroke be the cure for liberalism?

Liberalism is a disease. It is an affliction that doesn’t happen by chance, it is the direct result of indoctrination via academia or some other external influence, generally in our youth. The good news is that much like some physical diseases such as asthma, we can simply outgrow it as we age. Thus we tend to see many younger liberals finally see the light and convert to conservatism later in life. Unfortunately, the bad news is that irreparable damage may have already occurred to our rights and the American way of life along the way.

I ask the question in the title of this post not out of curiosity for I have actually witnessed this phenomenon. Yes, it’s true! Well, sort of.

What I witnessed was not an induced stroke. It was a stroke that happened to a brother-in-law of mine due to years of heavy drug use. So in a way, it was induced, just not proactively as a cure for liberalism.

However, that’s just what the result seems to have been. My brother-in-law, let’s call him Lefty for purposes of this story, was a died-in-the-wool democrat for the many years I have known him. A union worker in the sheet metal trades, he was also a union steward. Lefty fit the standard description of a liberal democrat.

His American made cars always had some sort of barrage of bumper stickers promoting “buy union” or “buy American” alongside whatever democrat candidates were running for office. Of course, he’s been an advocate of all things Obama and refuses to watch Fox News. Needless to say, politics were avoided at all family functions as much as possible in order to avoid resurrecting the Hatfield-McCoy type of family division.

We also had to stick to the standard Ford-Chevy battles we here in the midwest have had ingrained in us for many a decade. Should you try to convince Lefty that the most American made car you can buy is a Toyota, he would launch into a tirade that I’m surprised never induced a stroke on the spot.

At any rate, Lefty suffered a heart attack some years ago that left his heart functioning at only 15% of its capacity. I didn’t believe anyone could survive such an event, but he did. He never worked again as he never fully recovered and remains today on long-term disability. Fortunately for Lefty, the union benefits package is substantial and he has managed to get along OK with relatively inexpensive drug costs and the like.

Some in the family speculate that Lefty returned to dabbling in drug use. To this day, I still don’t know if this is true, however, he had a stroke some 6 months ago which really surprised everyone as we thought he had put all of his health issues behind him.

This brings us to the amazing transformation. Lefty has recovered for the most part from the stroke. The doctors tell us it’s an on-going process due to the fact that he is rewiring his brain. He actually has an improved long-term memory now recalling things he had long forgotten. His short-term memory is not good at all. He has some problems with his peripheral vision but just last week was able to pass the test and resume driving.

By far the most astonishing change has been his politics. He is no longer a liberal. He’s like a little kid that just discovered some secret that no one else knows and can’t wait to tell everyone. Gone are all the bumper stickers. Now, he’ll never drive a Toyota, but that’s OK by me. We can now discuss such a wide variety of topics that were always off-limits before. He hasn’t seen the light on everything yet, but he’s well on his way.

Scientists tell us that the right part of the brain controls speech and emotions and the left side controls movement and logic. Clearly, that doesn’t equate to politics as the left is all based upon emotion and the right utilizes critical thinking. However, in the case of Lefty, the evidence shows that the brain can actually rewire itself and correct this small oversight the Good Lord apparently never saw coming.

Now, I would never want the liability to suggest that we should encourage all liberals to head down to their local pharmacy and see if they can purchase just such an inducement drug, but if they should happen to take it upon themselves to do so…well, you get the idea. Hey, you never know, it may even be covered under Obamacare!

Join the blogger filibuster!

Insert your blog name here has risen to filibuster the shredding of the U.S. Constitution and the destruction of the America our Founding Fathers blessed us with.

I will exercise the full weight of the keystroke in order to expose the media bias in America.
To expose hypocrisy and bigotry.
To expose racism and sexism.
To expose partisanship over the rule of law.
To hold to account our elected officials to honor their oath of office.
To protect our unalienable rights.
To promote individualism over collectivism.

I pledge to not rest my weary fingers until America has been restored in all her majestic glory.

Here are some videos to support my filibuster and drive my opponents mad.