Posted 07/19/2012 06:46 PM ET
The Obama Record: After angry Egyptians pelted her motorcade with shoes, chanting “Leave!,” Secretary of State Clinton insisted the U.S. wasn’t there to take sides. Too late.
‘I want to be clear that the United States is not in the business, in Egypt, of choosing winners and losers, even if we could, which of course we cannot,” Hillary Clinton intoned earlier this week.
Of course, the administration could, and it did, picking and even colluding with the Muslim Brotherhood. And one of its hard-liners, Mohammed Morsi, now sits in the presidential palace, where he refused to shake unveiled Clinton’s hand.
This administration favored Islamists over secularists and helped them overthrow Hosni Mubarak, the reliable U.S. ally who had outlawed the terrorist Brotherhood and honored the peace pact with Israel for three decades. The Brotherhood, in contrast, has backed Hamas and called for the destruction of Israel.
Now the administration is dealing with the consequences of its misguided king-making. Officials fear the new regime could invite al-Qaida, now run by an Egyptian exile, back into Egypt and open up a front with Israel along the Sinai. Result: more terrorists and higher gas prices.
In fact, it was Hillary’s own department that helped train Brotherhood leaders for the Egyptian elections. Behind the scenes, she and the White House made a calculated decision, and took step-by-step actions, to effectively sell out Israel and U.S. interests in the Mideast to the Islamists.
The untold story of the “Arab Spring” is that the Obama administration secretly helped bring Islamofascists to power. Consider this timeline:
2009: The Brotherhood’s spiritual leader — Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi — writes an open letter to Obama arguing terrorism is a direct response to U.S. foreign policy.
2009: Obama travels to Cairo to deliver apologetic speech to Muslims, and infuriates the Mubarak regime by inviting banned Brotherhood leaders to attend. Obama deliberately snubs Mubarak, who was neither present nor mentioned. He also snubs Israel during the Mideast trip.
2009: Obama appoints a Brotherhood-tied Islamist — Rashad Hussain — as U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which supports the Brotherhood.
2010: State Department lifts visa ban on Tariq Ramadan, suspected terrorist and Egyptian-born grandson of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna.
2010: Hussain meets with Ramadan at American-sponsored conference attended by U.S. and Brotherhood officials.
2010: Hussain meets with the Brotherhood’s grand mufti in Egypt.
2010: Obama meets one-on-one with Egypt’s foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, who later remarks on Nile TV: “The American president told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.”
2010: The Brotherhood’s supreme guide calls for jihad against the U.S.
2011: Qaradawi calls for “days of rage” against Mubarak and other pro-Western regimes throughout Mideast.
2011: Riots erupt in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. Crowds organized by the Brotherhood demand Mubarak’s ouster, storm buildings.
2011: The White House fails to back longtime ally Mubarak, who flees Cairo.
2011: White House sends intelligence czar James Clapper to Capitol Hill to whitewash the Brotherhood’s extremism. Clapper testifies the group is moderate, “largely secular.”
2011: Qaradawi, exiled from Egypt for 30 years, is given a hero’s welcome in Tahrir Square, where he raises the banner of jihad.
2011: Through his State Department office, William Taylor — Clinton’s special coordinator for Middle East transitions and a longtime associate of Brotherhood apologists —gives Brotherhood and other Egyptian Islamists special training to prepare for the post-Mubarak elections.
2011: The Brotherhood wins control of Egyptian parliament, vows to tear up Egypt’s 30-year peace treaty with Israel and reestablishes ties with Hamas, Hezbollah.
2011: Obama gives Mideast speech demanding Israel relinquish land to Palestinians, while still refusing to visit Israel.
2011: Justice Department pulls plug on further prosecution of U.S.-based Brotherhood front groups identified as collaborators in conspiracy to funnel millions to Hamas.
2011: In a shocking first, the State Department formalizes ties with Egypt’s Brotherhood, letting diplomats deal directly with Brotherhood party officials in Cairo.
April 2012: The administration quietly releases $1.5 billion in foreign aid to the new Egyptian regime.
June 2012: Morsi wins presidency amid widespread reports of electoral fraud and voter intimidation by gun-toting Brotherhood thugs — including blockades of entire streets to prevent Christians from going to the polls. The Obama administration turns a blind eye, recognizes Morsi as victor.
June 2012: In a victory speech, Morsi vows to instate Shariah law, turning Egypt into an Islamic theocracy, and also promises to free jailed terrorists. He also demands Obama free World Trade Center terrorist and Brotherhood leader Omar Abdel-Rahman, a.k.a. the Blind Sheik, from U.S. prison.
June 2012: State grants visa to banned Egyptian terrorist who joins a delegation of Brotherhood officials from Egypt. They’re all invited to the White House to meet with Obama’s deputy national security adviser, who listens to their demands for the release of the Blind Sheik.
July 2012: Obama invites Morsi to visit the White House this September.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s sudden ascendancy in the Mideast didn’t happen organically. It was helped along by a U.S. president sympathetic to its interests over those of Israel and his own country.
Another egregious lie by Democrats and far left wing groups is that Paul Ryan will ban in vitro fertilization. Democrats are using the 3 page ‘The Sanctity of Human Life’ bill to make up this lie. Here’s the TRUTH:
The bill is a declaration regarding when life begins.
The bill does absolutely nothing to address any laws.
There is ZERO language regarding in vitro fertilization.
There is no languange banning ANYTHING in the bill.
Oh and by the way – this bill was NEVER passed.
The full text of the bill is here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr212ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr212ih.pdf. You can read it for yourself and see the ridiculous nature of yet another Democrat lie.
Democrats have been telling the most despicable lies to women voters. They are fearmongering and lying about all for a vote. What they don’t talk about is the higher poverty rate for women under Obama or the high unemployment rate for women under Obama’s reign.
Click on the links below to find out the TRUTH
Republicans are going to ban abortion!!!
Republicans are going to force women to have babies!!
Republicans are going to overturn Roe v Wade!!!
Even when Republicans held a MAJORITY in all branches of government, Roe v Wade wasn’t overturned.
Even when Republicans held a MAJORITY in all branches of government, there was never a National ban on abortions.
Roe v Wade is law.
States make laws about abortions, not the Federal Government.
The majority of Republicans believe that abortion is acceptable in the cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at stake.
Even if Republicans would LIKE to ban abortion based on their belief that it is the murder of a child, they have NEVER tried to pass a National Bill banning abortion.
Republicans do not believe the Federal Government should pay for abortions – and neither do the majority of people. 51% of Americans are pro-life; their tax dollars should not be spent on ending life.
Liberal women should stop hysterically lying about Republicans and Conservatives and worry more about the record levels of POVERTY that women are in thanks to Democrat policies.
The Demcorats’ lie that Corporations buy Republicans is just that, a LIE. As you can see from the chart below:
Notice which political party gets more money in donations…and notice it’s Unions that are buying Democrats.
In recent days, the Left has pumped up the volume with scare tactics about the new majority in the House of Representatives. Republicans are back and they want to take over your personal lives! Ironic, of course, given the whole Obamacare incident. And the image of Speaker John Boehner asking Chris Wallace to leave him and his bad smoking habit alone is a little bit in conflict with that contention, too.
The latest attempt at scaring and misleading the public is the recent claim that Republicans, in some kind of supposedly radical ban on federal taxpayer funding of abortion — a ban along the lines of what the pro-choice Left has claimed has been law all along — are trying to redefine rape.
In particular, abortion activists* are taking aim at H.R. 3, “The No Funding for Abortion Act,” which everyone from John Boehner to Republican Study Committee chairman Jim Jordan, to Democrat Dan Lipinski has explicitly and vocally supported for about a year now. On their radar is also “The Protect Life Act,” which Rep. Chris Smith (R., N.J.) introduced along with Lipinski the morning after January’s Obamacare repeal vote (the same day Smith joined Boehner to introduce H.R. 3).
A Mother Jones piece that ABCNews’s website republished yesterday as what appeared to be a news story (and later removed) insists that Republicans are on some kind of rape campaign: “Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.”
“The Hyde Amendment does permit federal funding of abortions for women who are impregnated through assaults, regardless of age, which of course includes drug-assisted rape and rape of unconscious women, to cite just two of the more ludicrous examples invented by pro-abortion propagandists in recent days,” Douglas Johnson, of the National Right to Life Committee, counters. “And so do the bills.”
Johnson explains further:
In our view, on this matter, H.R. 3 and H.R. 358 would codify the substance of the policy that was in place from 1993 on (which rape/incest exceptions were added to the Hyde Amendment). We do not believe that the Hyde Amendment has ever been construed to permit federal funding of abortion based merely on the youth of the mother (“statutory rape”), nor are we aware of evidence that federal funding of abortion in such cases has ever been the practice. It is true that the new bills would not allow general federal funding of abortion on all under-age pregnant girls — but this is no change in policy. In falsely claiming that it is a change in policy, the pro-abortion advocacy groups really are engaged in a brazen effort greatly expand federal funding for abortion. They want to federally fund the abortion of tens of thousands of healthy babies of healthy moms, based solely on the age of their mothers. We would oppose such an expansion of federal funding of abortion.
You can read the FBI’s own longstanding definition of “forcible rape,” which explicitly excludes statutory rape, here. Michael New took a critical look at some of the nonsense the New York Times was peddling this weekend here.
* Would it be redundant to include the media here? I’ll stop asking the question when I see more coverage of the senseless violence that is such a mainstream part our culture today. Planned Parenthood, for instance, is painfully mainstream, a recipient of taxpayer funding and leading politicians’ support. I’ll stop asking the question if I see more coverage and action in response to this new video from New Jersey.
The $6,400 Myth
Breaking down a false Obama Medicare claim.
One of President Obama’s regular attacks on Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform is that it would force seniors to pay $6,400 a year more for health care. But merely because he keeps repeating this doesn’t mean it’s in the same area code of accurate.
The claim is based on a now out-of-date Congressional Budget Office estimate of the gap between the cost of health care a decade from now, in 2022, and the size of the House budget’s premium-support subsidy for a typical 65-year-old in 2022.
Editorial board member Joe Rago critiques the latest Obama Medicare ad.
In other words, the $6,400 has no relevance for any senior today. None. But it also is unlikely to have any relevance for any senior ever because CBO concedes that its number is highly uncertain and “will depend on the evolution of the health care and health insurance systems over time, which is hard to predict.” That’s for sure.
Republican Vice Presidential candidate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks during the Victory Rally in Florida at Town Square, Lake Sumter Landing on August 18, 2012 in The Villages, Florida.
The more fundamental problem is that the CBO analysis has nothing to do with the current Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan plan. Nada. Over the last year Mr. Ryan has made major adjustments to his original proposal as he sought a compromise with Democrats. In its most up-to-date analysis, CBO admits that it “does not have the capability at this time to estimate such effects” in the new version. That is, it does not have the tools to make its $6,400 exaggeration again.
The reason CBO can’t model the 2013 House budget and the Romney-Ryan plan is that they harness markets with competitive bidding. Congress’s budget gnomes can’t handle these dynamic forces.
So how would Ryan 2.0 work in practice? Traditional Medicare and all private insurers in a region would make bids to cover seniors and compete for their business by offering the best value and prices. Then the government would give everyone a subsidy equal to the second-lowest bid.
If seniors chose that No. 2 option, whether it was Medicare or another plan, they’d break even and pay nothing extra out of pocket. If they picked the cheapest plan, they’d keep whatever was left over after the government subsidy—that is, they’d get a cash refund. If they instead picked the third-cheapest option, the fourth-cheapest, etc., they’d pay the difference above the government subsidy.
That structure ensures that seniors would have at least two choices (and likely far more) that they are guaranteed to do better than they do now. The amount of the premium-support subsidy would also be tied to underlying health-care costs, so it would not shift costs to beneficiaries, as Democrats also falsely claim. The very reasonable Romney-Ryan policy bet is that costs could nonetheless fall over time because seniors would have the incentive to switch to the most competitively priced Medicare plan.
The latest real-world reason to expect that would happen comes from a new paper by the Harvard economists Zirui Song, David Cutler and Michael Chernew. The researchers—Mr. Cutler used to be an Obama health adviser—looked at Medicare Advantage, the program that currently gives one of four seniors private alternatives (and that ObamaCare deliberately undermines).
The Advantage insurers make bids today against a benchmark set by traditional Medicare spending, and the Harvard trio find that the second lowest bid in 2009 came in 9% below the normal program on average. Medicare costs $717 per person per month, but the cheapest private plan could provide the same coverage for 87 cents on the government dollar. The second cheapest could do it for 91 cents.
Messrs. Song, Cutler and Chernew are alarmed because they say their results imply—broadly speaking—that seniors in traditional Medicare would have to pay $64 a month more if they kept that coverage. (Note: That totals $768 a year, not $6,400.) But a better way of reading the data is that seniors would migrate to more cost-effective options, saving both themselves and taxpayers a bundle.
None of these facts are likely to deter Democrats from their distorted claims. But the truth is that the Ryan-Romney reform isn’t anywhere close to Mr. Obama’s cartoon version.
A version of this article appeared August 20, 2012, on page A10 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The $6,400 Myth.
The Democratic Party Owes Blacks An Apology
Slavery: Democrats Fought to Expand It – Republicans Fought to End It
The Civil War: Democrats Seceded From The Union to Preserve Slavery
Segregation: Democrats Opposed Civil Rights – Republicans Championed Civil Rights
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Was A Republican
The “Dixiecrats” Remained Democrats
Republicans Pushed To Achieve The “Brown v. Board of Education” Decision
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” Harmed Blacks
Republican President Eisenhower Achieved Desegregation Of The Military
Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
President Lyndon Johnson Was Not A Civil Rights Advocate
President John F. Kennedy Was Not A Civil Rights Advocate
Democrats Smeared Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Senator Barry Goldwater Was A Libertarian, Not A Racist
Nixon’s Southern Strategy Was Not A Racist Appeal
A Myth: Republicans Today Are Racists
Hurricane Katrina – Democrats use this tragedy for partisan political gain
The Confederate Flag
The Democratic Party Is The Party Of The Rich
Republicans Do Not Disenfranchise Blacks
The Democratic Party Is The Party Of Socialism
What Have Republicans Done For Blacks Lately?
President Bush Walked The Walk For Black Americans
How Can Republicans Win Back The Black Vote?
Democrats Talk Tolerance, But Practice Intolerance
Vice President Joe Biden and President Bill Clinton Are Racists?
President Barack Obama Practices The Politics of Poverty
From Black & Right
“Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies.
Well, I decided to get some opinions on the matter from some historians.
I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States.
The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.
So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.”
From the Wall Street Journal
“As Democrats prepare to nominate Sen. Barack Obama to be the first black president, the Democratic National Committee and its chairman, Howard Dean, have whitewashed the party’s horrific and lengthy record of racism. The omission is in the section of the DNC Web site that describes the party’s history. The missing history raises the obvious question of whether the Democrats, unable or simply unwilling to put their party on record as taking direct responsibility for one of the worst racial crimes of the ages, will be able to run a campaign free of the racial animosities it has regularly brought both to American presidential campaigns and American political and social life in general.
The DNC Web site section labeled “Party History,” linked here, is in fact scrubbed clean of the not-so-little dirty secret that fueled Democrats’ political successes for over a century and a half and made American life a hell on earth for black Americans. Literally, the DNC official history, which begins with the creation of the party in 1800, gets to the creation of the DNC itself in 1848 and then–poof!–the next sentence says: “As the 19th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more and more rapidly.” It quickly heads into a riff on poor immigrants coming to America.”
From Black & Right
“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”
June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.
August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor
February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII
September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs
June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act
August 10, 1988 President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR
November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation
August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law
…So the next time any Democrat claims they’ve been supportive of civil rights in America (and been so all along), ask them to explain their past. “We’ve grown” is not gonna cut it, considering they continue to lie about their past to this day, and only someone lacking in common sense would believe two distinct political parties could juxtaposition their stances on civil rights seemingly overnight.”