The DNC - Democratic National Circus

As the DNC Convention is approaching its apogee tonight, with Obama's acceptance speech delivered in front of a full stadium, many see a missed opportunity in a convention which offered no coherent message to America and a whole lot of circus-like show.
After all the show that they put up, Democrats are still having a hard time to figure how it was that John McCain had inched further up in the polls during this, of all things, the week
of the Democratic National Convention in Denver. But the only real mystery is why they were so mystified.
Out of touch with middle America, the Democrats opened their Convention with a salute to the party's ultra liberal wing. First came Ted Kennedy, the Democratic icon from Massachussetts, who simbolizes to so many voters the very definition of a "limousine liberal".
Next came Michelle Obama. For all the hype surrounding her appearance, all she needed to do was to look smart and project the impression that she and her husband are not the elitist, angry black radicals that they were perceived by so many Americans.
She largely succeeded, yet her appearance came across as overly staged, and kept alive
lingering doubts among some voters as to her true feelings towards those who don't follow the liberal orthodoxy as her.
After Michelle Obama, Dennis Kucinich put up a show rivaling circus clowns and Brian Schweitzer's appearance wasn't far off.
The tension built up as Hillary Clinton took the stage. She delivered a speech which many characterized as a good way to position herself for a possible run in 2012 (if McCain wins this year) and mentioned Obama's name 3 or 4 times. After Bill Clinton's appearance, it became clear that Joe Biden notwithstanding, he has a third running mate, whether he likes it or not.
Joe Biden closed the show on Wednesday, after launching in a tirade of hypocrisy questioning his "good friend's" judgement on a number of issues, conveniently leaving aside the successful surge in Iraq.
Watching the pathetic show put on by the Democrats, one cannot but recognize the hypocrisy and double talk going on. Hillary Clinton, still bruised by a nasty and lenghty battle in the primaries, made it clear on more than one occasion how she feels about Obama's inexperience and lack of judgement versus McCain, yet on the podium, she was all praises. Bill Clinton, who complained publicly that the Obama campaign "has played the race card against" him and that "they have played it from the bottom of the deck", wanted us to believe him that Obama is fit to be President. How utterly Clintonesque of him....And Joe Biden, whose comments regarding Obama's lack of experience and his praises of John McCain are now part of campaign ads, tried to make up something off of a thin resume which he would like to sell to the American people as "Commander in Chief".
Instead of this despicable show of lies, the Democrats should have been reassuring moderate
voters that they will be safe this November if they abandon their recent past habit of voting for the Republicans and passing on liberal solutions.

The Social Security Quiz

Regardless of one's party affiliation or political believes, the subject of Social Security seems to affect all of us and the Democrats have been successful in creating an image that presents them as the guardians of this program and the Republicans as the "bad guys".

Their Hollywood techniques notwithstanding, the Democrats are betting on your ignorance of history. But facts are facts and they don't support the Democrats.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary
2) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program
3) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible for
income for tax purposes each year
4) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into
the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security retirement Program, and nothing else
5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of the retirees who have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social
Security check every month and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money
we paid to the Federal government to "put away", lets try this quick quiz:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into
the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA)?
A: The Democratic Party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote while he was Vice President
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats have the hutzpah to turn around and tell us that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! The worst part about
it is that uninformed citizens believe their stories! What do you think Barack Obama will do to your finances if he gets elected?

The best way to combat their rhetoric is to arm yourself with facts and never take for granted the images that the Democrats and their Hollywood friends doctor for you.

To Bomb or Not to Bomb

This seems to be the key question as Iran has rejected yet another overture from the West, Russia and China. It is obvious by now to all fair minded people that the Islamo-Nazi regime in Tehran is playing games and stall tactics in order to gain time. Deluded lefties prefer to close their eyes (and minds) and call this "Iran's efforts to resolve the crisis by diplomatic means".

As the perception that Washington now prefers diplomacy over confrontation with Tehran sinks in, Israel's options are shrinking. Israel has purchased 90 F-16I fighter jets and will receive 11 more by the end of 2009. These jets are capable to operate in Iran. Israel has also bought 2 more Dolphin submarines - in addition to the 3 it already has - capable of firing nuclear-armed warheads.

The foreign media also likes to speculate that Israel already has intelligence cells actively operating inside Iran (no such reports have been confirmed).

Israel estimates that the mad regime in Tehran can have enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb by next year, which prompted Shaul Mofaz (Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and possibly next Prime Minister) to say last week that "if Israeli, U.S., or European intelligence gets proof that Iran has succeeded in developing nuclear weapons technology, then Israel will respond in a manner reflecting the existential threat posed by such a weapon".

A nuclear armed Iran is a threat for the entire civilized world, whether this world realizes it or not. However, for Israel, it would be an existential threat. Israel does not have the "luxury" to ignore such a threat, live with it or dismiss it (like Obama, who said that Iran does not pose a danger because it is a "small country").

Iran, of course, maintains that its uranium enrichment plan is meant for "electricity generation" only, but apart from the "anti-war" lunatics and those who'd actually like to see a terrorist nation posses the Dooms Day Weapon, no one in his right mind can believe that.

Since Fuhrer Ahmadinejad is not going to stop, the question is what to do: To Bomb or Not to Bomb?

After destroing the Iraqi reactor and more recently, the Syrian one, Israel has sent a clear message that it will not tolerate its sworn enemies getting nuclear capabilities and is willing to use force preemptively against any target.

"For Israel, Iran is not a target that cannot be achieved," said Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash,
former head of Israel's army intelligence. However, Israel will most likely seek and need the US approval for such a move.

Bush administration officials last week assured visiting Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the U.S. has not ruled out the possibility of a military strike on Iran.
And the U.S., aware of Israel's high anxiety over Iran's nukes, is also hooking Israel up to an advanced missile detection system known as X-Band to guard against any future attack by Iran.

If Israel attacks, it will face the Russian-made Tor-M1 surface-to-air missiles purchased by Iran only last year.

Military experts say an Israeli strike would require manned aircraft to bombard multiple
targets and heavy precision bombs that can blast through underground bunkers. It is widely assumed that Israel posses bunker buster bombs.

Elite ground troops could also be necessary to penetrate the most difficult sites, though Israeli military planners say they see that option as perhaps too risky.

US has far more superior capabilities to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. The United States has cruise missiles that can deliver high-explosive bombs to precise locations and B-2 bombers capable of dropping 85 500-pound bombs in a single run.

Besides the "how" and "when", the aftermath of such an attack is also a big question mark.

Iran could halt oil production and shut down tanker traffic in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which could send the price of crude skyrocketing and wreck Western economies.

It could stir up trouble for the U.S. in Iraq and activate its militant proxies in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, from where Israel could come under heavy rocket attack. It could also strike Israel with its arsenal of Shahab-3 long-range missiles — something Israel is hoping to guard against through its Arrow missile defense system.

Whether an attack on Iran would be worth its cost would depend on how long the nuclear program could be delayed, said Chuck Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national security
adviser and now a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.

"For a five to 10-year delay I would say yes," he said.