September 25, 2011

Mark Levin’s ‘There Never Was a Frontrunner, and There Never Was a Two-person Race’

Filed under: Immigration,Soc. Sec. & Retirement,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:55 pm

In his opening to Friday evening’s show:

Key mentions (mentioned in the order indicated):

… The Republican establishment doesn’t get to tell us who our nominee is — and a couple of states don’t get to tell us who our nominee is.

… Now I watched that debate yesterday, every bit.

Now Herman Cain was superb. Herman Cain should be considered seriously for President of the United States.

Rick Santorum was superb. He should be considered seriously for President of the United States.

Michelle Bachmann was superb. She should be considered seriously for President of the United States.

Newt Gingrich was superb. And he should be considered too.

As should of course should Romney and Perry, but let me tell you something.

… In Romney’s case, he keeps digging in on RomneyCare and he keeps sounding like a left-wing Democrat on Social Security.

In Perry’s case, his in-state tuition (for illegal immigrants) position, he dug in on that and it’s a position that I reject.

Levin goes on to note that those rooting for former Florida Governor Jeb Bush to enter the race should know that he supports in-state tuition rates for illegal-immigrant Floridians.

Listen to the whole thing.

Abbas UN ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ Accusation, Refusal to Recognize Israel Absent From Press Reports

Friday at the UN (text here), Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas accused Israel of engaging in “ethnic cleansing.”

Earlier, in a speech to 200 supposed “senior representatives of the Palestinian community in the U.S.” (would that include Gaza flotilla organizers and Barack Obama pals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn? Just askin’), Abbas declared, as relayed by, that “They talk to us about the Jewish state, but I respond to them with a final answer: We shall not recognize a Jewish state.”

Given that there would hardly be a point to covering Abbas’s speech if readers knew of the just-cited statements, it’s hardly surprising that the press is also in a non-recognition mode:

  • A search at the Associated Press’s national site on “ethnic cleansing” (not in quotes) returns nothing relevant.
  • In a review of several AP stories, I found no reference to Abbas’s non-recognition statement. In one instance, the AP brought up Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s mention of it: “[h]e reiterated in interviews with Israeli TV stations that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state and that talks would first have to address security arrangements.”
  • Based on a search on “ethnic cleansing” (in quotes) at the New York Times, the last time the term was used in connection with anything was September 16.
  • A Google News September 22-25 search on “ethnic cleansing” (in quotes, sorted by date) returned 56 items (it looks like 108, but it’s really 56). None are original source, U.S.-based establishment media outlets.

Yes, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Palestinian terrorists of engaging in ethnic cleansing, but only after Abbas weighed in, and with an accuracy Abbas did not have:

For his part, Netanyahu accused the Palestinians of racism and ethnic cleansing in their call for a state with no Jewish settlers — “Judenrein,” in Netanyahu’s words, using the Nazi-era term.

“That’s ethnic cleansing,” he said.

He accused the Palestinians of wanting statehood but not peace. “The truth is, so far the Palestinians have refused to negotiate,” he said. “The truth is the Palestinians want a state without peace.”

We’re where we’ve always been, namely that meaningful talks can’t start until the Palestinians recognize Israel and renounce terrorism. They never have.

Frankly it all seems like a such a waste of media and diplomatic time and effort — unless the long-term goal is, through a long-term campaign of disparate treatment, to make Israel look like the obstacle to peace, when it isn’t and never has been. That’s seemingly what’s it’s been all about for at least 44 years since the 1967 war.

In case you’re wondering where all of this might be headed, an AP story’s headline this afternoon should give you an idea: “With UN bid, Abbas rises out of Arafat’s shadow.” Marvelous.

Cross-posted at

Herman Cain’s Cancer Survival and Obamacare

Filed under: Health Care,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:12 am

The first two minutes of this clip are driving the left crazy.

Truth hurts (HT Hot Air):

UPDATE: Relevant portion of transcript

(Fox News’s Chris) WALLACE: And we’ll get right to that question of Obamacare.

Mr. Cain, you are a survivor of stage 4 colon and liver cancer. And you say, if Obamacare had been…


WALLACE: …and we all share in the happiness about your situation. But, you say if Obamacare had been in effect when you were first being treated, you would dead now. Why?

CAIN: The reason I said that I would be dead under Obamacare is because my cancer was detected in March of 2006. From March 2006 all the way to the end of 2006, for that number of months, I was able to get the necessary CAT scan tests, go to the necessary doctors, get a second opinion, get chemotherapy, go — get surgery, recuperate from surgery, get more chemotherapy in a span of nine months. If we had been under Obamacare and a bureaucrat was trying to tell me when I could get that CAT scan that would have delayed my treatment.

My surgeons and doctors have told me that because I was able get the treatment as fast as I could, based upon my timetable and not the government’s timetable that’s what saved my life, because I only had a 30 percent chance of survival. And now I’m here five years cancer free, because I could do it on my timetable and not a bureaucrat’s timetable.

This is one of the reasons I believe a lot of people are objecting to Obamacare, because we need get bureaucrats out of the business of trying to micromanage health care in this nation.

Positivity (Somewhat): Abortion, Adoption, and Steve Jobs

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 6:30 am

From a September 16 Washington Times column by John Paul Cassil:

… Jobs story normally begins with him attending Reed College for a semester before dropping out and subsequently auditing art classes that would later help him create fonts for Apple products. He worked briefly for Hewlett Packard and Atari before founding Apple with two of his friends. A few years later, he was fired from Apple following a disagreement with the CEO. Over the years he founded NeXT Computer, and owned PIXAR working with Disney. NeXT was later acquired by Apple, which brought him back into the company. He then transformed Apple into its present state.

However, his story actually begins before Reed College. In a 2005 Stanford University commencement address Steve Jobs painted a brief picture of his beginnings: “It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife.

Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl. So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night asking: “We have an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?” They said: “Of course.” My biological mother later found out that my mother had never graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school. She refused to sign the final adoption papers. She only relented a few months later when my parents promised that I would someday go to college.”

Jobs’ biological parents were Joanne Simpson and Abdulfattah John Jandali. Although the details of Simpson and Jandali’s relationship have not been made public, we do know a good deal about Mr. Jandali. A Syrian immigrant, he came to the United States to pursue his higher education in 1949. According to The Daily Mail, he is now vice president of a casino in Reno, Nevada. At the time, however, Joanne’s parents would not allow the two to get married.

For that reason, Jobs was given up for adoption to his parents Paul and Clara Jobs.

Eighteen years later saw the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which paved the way for hundreds of millions of legal abortions to take place in the United States over the following years. In 1955, abortion was nowhere near as prevalent as it is today. It was primarily rejected by society as the termination of innocent life.

Instead, adoptions were preferred. Adoptions ensure that children are given life. Jobs’ adoption was very beneficial, creating and shaping him into the leader that he would later become.

What would a world look like in which Steve Jobs had been aborted?

This is only somewhat positive, as seen in Cassil’s final question: “Out of the 52 million abortions in the US in the past 38 years, how many other Jobs’s have we extinguished?”