Israel, Iran, and Obama's new tough language

Gee, there must be an election this year? How did I come to that startling conclusion? Besides the endless Republican primaries? Think about what Obama has just done when it comes to Israel. What a U-turn after three years of trying to woo the Iranian mullahs to the bargaining table with diplomacy and slapping Israel, our best ally, repeatedly in the face.


Mr. Obama opened the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Sunday with a keynote whose strong talk on Iran kept the audience coming to its feet. The President took credit for isolating the Islamic Republic diplomatically and imposing a de facto oil embargo that has sent the Iranian rial tumbling. His speech follows an interview last week with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg in which Mr. Obama went out of his way to call a nuclear Iran "unacceptable." He referred to the "military component" of U.S. policy and said that "I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as President of the United States, I don't bluff." As startling, he added that containing a nuclear Iran wouldn't work because of near-certain proliferation in the region and that "the risks of an Iranian nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorist organizations are profound." Did someone kidnap the real Obama and replace him with another person?? Hard to believe this is the same man who has dissed Israel over the last three years.


The timing of all this is no accident as Benjamin Netanyahu meets Mr. Obama in the White House today amid intense speculation about an imminent Israeli strike on Iran. In an interview with Journal editors on Friday, Eyal Gabbai, the former director general of the Israeli Prime Minister's office, said Mr. Netanyahu's meeting with Mr. Obama "will be the last time they can speak face-to-face before a decision is taken."


The Israelis believe Iran's nuclear programs will soon enter a "zone of immunity," beyond which they may be effectively invulnerable to a non-nuclear Israeli strike. But also driving Israeli fears is the sense that the Obama Administration isn't prepared to use military means if diplomacy, sanctions and covert acts don't persuade Iran to stand down.


Well, no wonder they don’t trust Obama. Those fears are far from groundless. Though Mr. Obama now takes credit for sanctions, his Administration fought Congress tooth-and-nail on sanctioning Iran's central bank. The President only reluctantly signed the sanctions into law as part of a larger defense bill. His aides also worked to stop legislation to cut off Iran from making financial transactions via the Swift banking consortium.


As for military strikes, senior Administration officials have repeatedly sounded as if their top priority is deterring Israel, rather than stopping Iran from getting a bomb. Here’s one example. As recently as November, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said a military strike would have "unintended consequences" and wouldn't necessarily result in "deterring Iran from what they want to do."


It's welcome news if Mr. Obama is now trying to put those fears to rest, but he is also more outspoken than ever in trying to avert Israel from acting on its own. "Do we want a distraction in which Iran can portray itself as a victim, and deflect attention from what has to be the core issue, which is their pursuit of nuclear weapons?" Mr. Obama told Mr. Goldberg—the "distraction" here meaning an Israeli attack.


The question Mr. Netanyahu and Israeli leaders have to ponder is whether Mr. Obama now means what he says. The President has built up an immense trust deficit with Israel that can't be easily dispensed in a week. All the more so when Israelis know that this is an election year when Mr. Obama needs to appear more pro-Israel than he would if he is re-elected.


It's good to hear Mr. Obama finally sounding serious about stopping a nuclear Iran. But if he now finds himself pleading with Israel not to take matters in its own hands, he should know his Administration's vacillation and mixed signals have done much to force Jerusalem's hand. More fundamentally, a President who says he doesn't "bluff" had better be prepared to act if his bluff is called. These are serious times, and we need prayer now more than ever.

Barack Obama--he's Jimmy Carter, part 2

OK, it’s hard to ignore the fact that we will be voting this November. Do we want another four years of Obama? Let’s consider the big picture--what has he done in general?

On the domestic front, he has halted all efforts to turn back the waves of illegal aliens streaming across the Mexican border. Then there’s Obamacare--he has jammed down America’s throat an unpopular government takeover of health care that runs roughshod over our most cherished religious freedoms.

How about his handling of the economy? His health care boondoggle only promises to hurl us further into quicksand deficits. The hundreds of billions he has spent on “stimulating” the economy has done little more than cause paralysis. Remember Solyndra and how he was going to pick green companies to invest in? Unemployment remains at more than 8 percent despite his administration’s promises to dramatically lower it. And the truth is that with all the people who have quit looking for work, that rate is much higher.

Then there’s his promise to be a new kind of politician. He was going to rise above partisanship and make bold decisions. How has that worked out? In truth, he has led timidly just as he did serving in the legislatures in Washington and Illinois, where his record of “leadership” became a mockery of indecision for all the times he couldn’t take a stand and instead voted “present.” Or maybe he voted that way in a cold, calculating manner to avoid controversies as he ran for President. Either way, that’s not what we want from a good leader. Even on the Keystone Pipeline decision, one that seemed so obvious to help our economy, Obama nixed it only because, he whined, Republicans forced his hand and didn’t give him all the time he wanted to dawdle and stall over the important issue that could provide jobs for thousands of workers.

Has he had any successes? The only area for which he might be commended is in foreign affairs, where he has doubled down on so many of his predecessor’s policies aimed at killing terrorists. He has kept open the prison at Gitmo, oversaw two surges in Afghanistan and expanded drone assaults to new heights. And he deserves credit for ordering Osama bin Laden killed. But this is the same man who spends a lot of time apologizing to the Muslim world for America.

Just when you think it can’t get worse, another item pops up on the news. Just recently his campaign formed a group called “African Americans for Obama.” I thought we were trying to purge racism from politics. Can you imagine the reaction if I started “Whites for Santorum”?

As someone said, it looks like Obama is trying to finish Jimmy Carter’s second term. I’m discouraged that so many people still support him

The death of self-reliance

Did you hear about a recent comment by Barack Obama during a speech? It reveals so much about his mentality regarding American values and the role of government from his perspective. ABC News reported the following: "At a million-dollar San Francisco fundraiser today, President Obama warned his recession-battered supporters that if he loses the 2012 election it could herald a new, painful era of self-reliance in America." I was amazed.

Obama has issued a dire warning. He is the only thing standing between us and having to rely on ourselves! This country has stood for many things, but one ideal has certainly been self-reliance. And now we are told this is a nightmare scenario.

Obama added more later in the speech to drive the point home. "The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don't work even harder than we did in 2008, then we're going to have a government that tells the American people, 'you are on your own. If you get sick, you're on your own. If you can't afford college, you're on your own. If you don't like that some corporation is polluting your air or the air that your child breathes, then you're on your own. That's not the America I believe in. It's not the America you believe in."

What are we to make of this? Our President explicitly rejects the American ideal of self-reliance that has been so important throughout our history. He sees dependence on government not as an evil, if sometimes a necessary one, but as a goal to be pursued. The rest of the country is made up of childish, naive, lost souls in need of Obama and the Democrats to guide and protect them through the use of a huge central government.

I can still remember Bill Clinton and a question he got at a town meeting as he ran for re-election. A young man in the audience plaintively told the President that "we are your children" and asked what Clinton could do to protect him from all the abuses of life. Wow . . . a product of our school system . . . This guy saw government as the only way to help him survive the difficulties ahead. He sounded like a five-year old afraid of the dark.

This is not the America we all cherish. We need to grow up and tackle life head-on. The song of the liberals is one that sounds nice and rocks us to sleep, but there's a steep price to be paid. We give up our independence and our adulthood if we follow that siren's song.

Language abusers and their hypocrisy

I'll get back to blogs on I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist next time, but I wanted to cover something else first that recently appeared in the news. As an English teacher, I'm very interested in the use of language. I follow politics closely, and I was amused to see hypocrisy at work in regards to political rhetoric.

An Arizona Congresswoman was shot a few months back. Liberals blamed it on political language that inflamed her attacker (this was later discovered not to be his motive). They lectured conservatives to tone down their language in the future. How has that worked out? Well, glad you asked. You may have heard the latest--it's an attempt to smear Tea Party Republicans, thanks to liberals using abusive language. How's that for hypocrisy?

According to The Wall Street Journal, at a recent two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) said (referring to the debt-ceiling talks) "We have negotiated with terrorists . . . This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money."

This sort of language is not just happening in Congress. It's become commonplace on the opinion pages of the New York Times, where one editorialist rants:
You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them. These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. . . . Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that's what it took. . . . For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests. But rest assured: They'll have them on again soon enough.

But it's not just this one editorial. Others have chimed in with the same message. Last Wednesday Thomas Friedman described the Tea Party as the GOP's "Hezbollah faction." The same day Maureen Dowd approvingly quoted "some Democrats" as describing the Tea Party as "the Republican 'Taliban wing.' "

And it's not just the Times that has launched this vicious talk. Liberal columnist Margaret Carlson said, "There's a nihilist caucus which is, 'Listen, we want to burn the place down.' I mean, they're not, they've strapped explosives to the Capitol and they think they are immune from it." Then there's a cartoon from David Fitzsimmons of the (Tucson) Arizona Daily Star depicting President Obama ordering Navy SEALs to stage a bin Laden-style raid on the House side of the Capitol. This same man took center stage when the Arizona Congresswoman was shot; he was on CNN blaming "the right in Arizona" for "stoking the fire of heated anger and rage" and making the attack "inevitable." Guess it's OK to use vitriolic speech when he wants to argue for his side.

So what's going on here? Simple hypocrisy? No, it's deeper than that. Barack Obama came to power with lefties all aglow. He was going to show liberalism at its finest with his Ivy League credentials, superior attitude, pseudointellectual prattlings, and adherence to lefty ideology. But something funny happened after the inauguration. He has been an utter failure both at winning public support and at managing the affairs of the nation. Obama's failure is the failure of the liberal elite, so they are reacting with desperation and anger. Their ideas, such as they are, are being put to a real-world test and found severely wanting. As a result, their authority is collapsing. Americans need to end this experiment with leftist ideology at the next election.

Obama's shabby record here at home

Last time I focused on the foreign problems that President Obama has brought the United States. But for this blog I wanted to save the really horrific for last--the utter disaster he has been for our country on the domestic front.

Let's start with the recent news about our credit rating. Friday's downgrade by Standard & Poor's of U.S. long-term debt to AA+ from AAA will be the first of many such humiliations if the Democrats don't change their economic and fiscal policies.

Then there's the federal budget deficit. According to The Wall Street Journal, the deficit is estimated to come in at around 11% of GDP in 2011, up from about 3% in 2008. Wow, we thought the Bush administration did a poor job with spending (and it did).

Of course, this has led to a huge jump in the federal debt. Under the Obama administration it has grown to $14.3 trillion this month from $10.7 trillion at the end of 2008. He has added more debt more quickly than any other President in history. Quite an accomplishment.

How is our dollar doing these days? Thanks to Obama's policies it has lost almost half its value against gold since Aug. 2008.

Every time I fill up with gas, I'm reminded of another failure of this administration.The average retail price of a gallon of gas hovered near the $1.80 mark when Mr. Obama was inaugurated. It has since more than doubled.

I am grateful to have a job, but many Americans don't share my good fortune, thanks to this administration. In November 2008, president-elect Obama promised he would create 2.5 million jobs by 2011. By October 2010 the economy had shed 3.3 million jobs.

We can't forget ObamaCare, an unpopular program rammed through Congress. It's full of exceptions for certain states and powerful companies, it will increase our expenses (it was sold as a money saver), and it will end up rationing our health care.

Other than the things I've listed, Obama has been a smashing success on the home front. He makes me yearn for Jimmy Carter, which is hard to do, considering the ineptness of the toothy one. Let's continue the comparison of Obama to Carter by making both a one-term President.

The failures of Barack Obama (Jimmy Carter 2.0)

OK, I was bored and started thinking of ways Barack Obama has been a huge disappointment. Here are some, starting with foreign affairs. If I have time and don't get too discouraged, I'll switch to domestic disappointments.

First, there's the Arab world. Wasn't he going to get the angry Muslims on our side after repeated abject apologies for being an American? How has that worked out? Well, according to The Wall Street Journal, not so well--this year, Zogby International found that 5% of Egyptians had a favorable view of the U.S. In 2008, when George W. Bush was president, it was 9%. When will we learn that tyrants and crazies respect strength and resolve, not groveling?

How about trade with the world? Bill Clinton signed Nafta in 1994, which helps facilitate nearly $2 trillion in the trade of goods and services between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. George W. Bush helped get free trade agreements all across the world, from Australia to Singapore to Morocco to Bahrain. Number of these agreements signed by the current president: zero.

Then there's Libya. Obama entered this rebellion with the goal to remove the tyrant Gadhafi. Weeks later, the Libyan strongman is still there, and NATO looks like the Marx brothers. That will be seen by the rest of the world as a failure of Western resolve. Gadhafi will loom as a new threat to spread terrorism to the West.

What other stellar jobs has he been involved with? He has mistreated our ally Israel, he has repeatedly snubbed our best ally England, he failed to back Iranian protestors, he has allowed Afghanistan to spiral out of control, he urges North Korea to act better and get involved in multi-party talks (fat chance), he has been rebuffed by Putin when he attempted to set up better relations with Russia, he has not been able to put a halt to Iranian nuclear enrichment, he has allowed Chavez of Venezuela to build up connections with Iran. And so it goes.

His failure to pursue American interests, his inability to proclaim American exceptionalism, his belief that we are a nation in decline which must be gently guided down the path of senility--all these have disappointed me and so many others. But these failures are eclipsed by his domestic disasters, which I'll try to cover next time. We need a change in 2012.

What's really going on in the debt ceiling talks

The current debate over raising the debt ceiling has suggested something interesting about where we are in our politics today. We are actually considering ways to cut back government growth. Imagine that.

Consider how quickly things have changed. Just last February Pres. Obama submitted a budget that would have increased the debt drastically, spending more money than any previous budget in U.S. history. The Senate rejected that in May. Then, just three months ago he called for an increase in the debt ceiling without any spending cuts, without any attempts to slow the runaway debt.

But today the same man calls for debt reduction. Of course, he also asks for an increase in taxes. The problem with these two concerns is the history of what happens when they both are brought forward. The increase in taxes always takes place immediately while the proposed cuts in spending are stretched out into the future and never quite materialize.

So how did Obama do when he offered to consider cuts in spending? Well, judge for yourself. Negotiations which were chaired by Joe Biden, our current Vice President, came up with a grand total of $2 billion in spending cuts. That was all. To put that amount in perspective, the federal government spends $10 billion each day. Of course, that was nothing but a drop in the bucket, so today we find ourselves locked in a struggle over the debt ceiling.

What I find really interesting is the suggestion that free-spending, big-government programs may be on their way out. Look at European countries such as Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland. Then look at places a little bit closer, like Illinois and California. As George Will says, "Entangled economic and demographic forces are refuting the practice of ever-bigger government financed by an ever-smaller tax base and by imposing huge costs on voiceless future generations."

That statement bears repeating. Will is saying that economic problems as well as a lack of population growth are bringing to a close the idea that you can have bigger government by squeezing money out of fewer people and kicking the can of huge deficits down the road to a future generation.

So, my hope is that this liberal philosophy of taxing endlessly to keep a larger and larger number of people dependent upon the government is reaching a dead end. People are waking up to the fact that economic growth under this system cannot generate enough money to keep up with the growing entitlements.

We will see in next year's election if enough Americans have awakened to this fact: Obama is using these negotiations to finance the blowout spending of his first two years by insisting on tax increases. That’s not the way to go.

The key question for the 2012 election (oh no, I'm rhyming like Jesse Jackson)

Well, a week ago a new jobs report came out. It showed an unemployment rate that moved up to 9.2%. This reminded me of a famous line used by Ronald Reagan when he ran for President against Jimmy Carter. You remember Carter? He's the man who had only one term and then spent years growing more bitter and angry, lashing out at George W. Bush and Israel.

Reagan's line came at the end of his only debate with then-President Carter. It was devastating: "When you make [your decision to vote next Tuesday]," he said to the American people, "it might be well if you would ask yourself: Are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was?"

Why am I bringing this line up now? This latest unemployment bad news is starting to feel like a rerun of the 1970s. Both Carter and Obama suggested Americans should ratchet down their dreams and expectations for the future. Nobody likes the feeling that our President is not sold on the positive possibilities of America. Remember when Obama refused to say the United States was an exceptional country?

These latest numbers regarding unemployment are just a small part of a general unease in this country. We are worried about where things are headed. Food costs are up, gas prices have soared under this President, any economic progress seems weak and uncertain, the world seems hostile while the administration appears hesitant about what to do.

The official response from the administration is not likely to dispel these concerns. The Wall Street Journal reports that Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, has recently stated that the best-case scenario for 2012 will be an unemployment rate of 8.2%. Wow, that's a lot higher than when Obama took office, despite all his spending and all those promises of jobs "created or saved."

So, we need to face that question: "Are you better off?" For many the answer is "No." Obama will have to say in his re-election bid that it would have been worse if he hadn't been elected. Remember when he ran in 2008? Then he was the man of the future, the candidate of change who declared that his nomination would mark the moment "when the rise of oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Instead, doom and gloom have settled over the nation.

Maybe he can get away with that defensive position. Maybe Americans who believed Mr. Obama when he said unemployment wouldn't go past 8% if we passed his stimulus will now be persuaded by his explanation that his job was tougher than he or his economists expected. Maybe that's the only way to get around the "Are you better off?" question.

But I think Americans expect more from their leaders. If we're not better off, policy changes that fail should be acknowledged, and those who peddled such rosy but inaccurate cures should be voted out of office.

Defense spending and the Obama adminstration

I have been reading about Robert Gates, our Secretary of Defense, who will be stepping down this month after four-plus years at the Pentagon. He has been warning about our reckless plans to cut defense severely, considering what a dangerous world we are in.


Back in the 90s, we thought threats were disappearing to our national interests. As a result, the Clinton administration decided to cash in the Cold War peace dividend. Of course, we soon found out that bad ideas and dictators didn't end in 1989.


Many Americans assume we spend way too much on defense. It usual is the first target of budget cutbacks. But in historical terms, the U.S. spends relatively little on defense today, even after the post-9/11 buildup. This year's $530 billion budget accounts for 3.5% of GDP, 4.5% when the costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars are included. That seems like a lot to us, but we have to know what the spending was like in other times as a percent of GDP. The U.S. spent, on average, 7.5% of GDP on defense throughout the Cold War, and 6.2% at the height of the Reagan buildup in 1986.


But on coming into office, the Obama Administration decided on new priorities. And defense wasn't one of them. The money went instead to new European-sized entitlements, starting with $2.6 trillion for ObamaCare. The White House proposed a $553 billion defense budget for 2012, $13 billion below what it projected last year. Through 2016, the Pentagon will see virtually zero growth in spending and will have to whittle down the Army and Marine Corps by 47,000 troops. The White House originally wanted deeper savings of up to $150 billion.


It was a good thing that Gates helped fight off some of these ideas. But he was unable to get any share of the stimulus. Instead, he has cut or killed some $350 billion worth of weapon programs. He told his four service chiefs last August to find $100 billion in savings. The White House came back and asked for another $78 billion. Last year, Mr. Gates said that the Pentagon needs 2%-3% real budget growth merely to sustain what it's doing now, but it could make do with 1%. The White House gave him 0%.


Defense money has focused on the demands of today's wars over hypothetical conflicts of tomorrow. This has distracted from budgeting to address the rise of China and perhaps of regional powers like a nuclear Iran that will shape the security future. I'm especially concerned about Iran and its capacity to stir up trouble in the Middle East. The decision to stop producing the F-22 fighter and to kill several promising missile defense programs may come back to haunt the U.S.


Liberals always think you can balance the budget by cutting defense way back. Not true. Gates noted that if the defense budget was cut by 10%, "which would be catastrophic in terms of force structure, that's $55 billion out of a $1.4 trillion deficit. We are not the problem." Good point.


Thanks to FDR and the New Deal, entitlements got their start, and Obama is happily increasing their weight in the budget. Under current projections, entitlements will eat up 10.8% of GDP by 2020, while defense spending goes down to 2.7%. The Wall Street Journal reports that if current trends continue, those entitlements (Medicare, Social Security, etc.) will consume all tax revenues by 2052.


Take a look at Europe, which headed down this same path years ago. Today it spends just 1.7% of GDP on defense. They can get away with this since the nations there can relax and depend on us to protect them. But what happens when we weaken our defense? Who do we look to for protection? China? I don't think so. It all comes down to the need for a strong economy, one that is able to generate enough money for defense and internal improvements. Here's where Obama's administration is a disaster. His fiscal policies leave us with no money for either. He needs to find a new job in 2012.

A new low for Obama

Well, just when you thought the Obamas had reached a new low, along comes Common, a rapper who performed at the White House last night. You may have noticed this item on the Drudge website, but you may not have seen some of the lyrics to his “music.”

First is his song threatening police and former President Bush. Here are some of the lyrics for you to ponder:

A Letter to the Law
. . . Tell the preacher, God got more than one son
Tell the law, my Uzi weighs a ton
I walk like a warrior,
from them I won’t run
. . . make them the main attraction
Turn around and attack them
Black gem in the rough
You’re rugged enough
Use your mind and nine-power, get the government touch
Them boys chat-chat on how him pop gun
I got the black strap to make the cops run
They watching me, I’m watching them
Them dick boys got a lock of cock in them
My people on the block got a lot of pok* in them
and when we roll together
we be rocking them to sleep
. . . Burn a Bush cos’ for peace he no push no button
Killing over oil and grease
no weapons of destruction
How can we follow a leader when this a corrupt one
The government’s a g-unit and they might buck young black people
Black people In the urban area one
I hold up a peace sign, but I carry a gun.


OK, besides the bad poetry, notice the references to guns and death—“nine power,” “”we be rocking them to sleep,” “Burn a Bush.” Nice, huh? Can you imagine if a white President invited a KKK leader to show up and sing threats to the black community??

Then there’s his other poem (using the term loosely) called “A Song for Assata.” This is a reference to convicted cop-killer and former Black Panther Assata Shakur, formerly known as Joanne Chesimard. She was convicted for the 1973 slaying of Trooper Werner Foerster on the New Jersey Turnpike, escaped prison in 1979, and is living in asylum in Cuba. Note the great sympathy for her in the portions of the song I have put here:

In the spirit of god.
In the spirit of the ancestors.
In the spirit of the black panthers.
In the spirit of assata shakur.
We make this movement towards freedom
For all those who have been oppressed, and all those in the struggle.
Yeah. yo, check it-

. . . Shot twice wit her hands up
Police questioned but shot before she answered
One panther lost his life, the other ran for his
Scandalous the police were as they kicked and beat her
Comprehension she was beyond, tryna hold on

. . . They lied and denied visits from her lawyer
But she was buildin as they tried to destroy her
. . . I read this sister's story, knew that it deserved a verse
I wonder what would happen if that woulda been me?
All this shit so we could be free, so dig it, y'all.


I'm thinkin' of assata, yes.
Listen to my love, assata, yes.
Your power and pride is beautiful.
May God bless your soul.



. . . It’s time for her to breathe, and not be told how or when
She untangled the chains and escaped the pain
How she broke out of prison I could never explain
And even to this day they try to get to her
But she's free with political asylum in cuba.


I'm thinkin' of assata, yeah.
Listen to my love, assata, yeah.
We're molded from the same mud, assata.
We share the same blood, assata, yeah.
Your power and pride, so beautiful...
May God bless your soul.
Your power and pride, so beautiful...
May God bless your soul.
Oooh.


So this is the person the Obamas stand beside, the person they want in the White House, the person they think can help bring us all together (wasn’t that what Obama told us he wanted when he ran for President?). What a disgusting joke.

Libya and the United Nations

The latest news from the United Nations reinforces the cynicism of many in the United States towards this world organization. It was set up in the aftermath of World War 2, much like the old League of Nations was established after the first world war. The utopian dreams were the same—if we could only get together and control any bad impulses of nations . . . Of course, we know how well the League functioned. The world ended up with Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Hirohito. Not exactly what naïve world leaders like Woodrow Wilson were hoping for.

Now we have the United Nations dealing with Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi. Just last January this august body looked into the regime’s moral progress through one of its agencies, The U.N. Human Rights Council.
It released its quadrennial report on human rights in Libya as part of its "universal periodic review." The UPR—advertised as one of the improvements of the Council when it replaced the U.N.'s old Human Rights Commission in 2006—is supposed to provide "objective and reliable information" on human rights in U.N. member states. Sure . . .

So how did Libya fare? According to The Wall Street Journal, the report notes that "a number of delegations commended Libya for the preparation and presentation of its national report, noting the broad consultation process with stake holders in the preparation phase. Several delegations also noted with appreciation the country's commitment to upholding human rights on the ground."

Now how did the council come to that conclusion? Well, to start with, Libya itself offered a generous assessment of its own rights record. Then other truly noble and humane countries lavished praise on Gadhafi’s government. Cuba commended Gadhafi for "the progress it made in . . . primary education," and North Korea lauded Libya's "achievements in the protection of human rights." I don’t know about you, but I feel relieved that such democratic, liberal, and sophisticated countries lined up behind Libya.

The sad part is seen in comments by countries that ought to know better but have been blinded by multicultural, relativistic, non-judgmental nonsense. For example, Australia, "welcomed Libya's progress in human rights." Canada praised "the recent legislation that granted women married to foreigners the right to pass on their Libyan nationality to their children." Then there was Poland, which highlighted Libya's "achievements in recent years, including its efforts to combat corruption and trafficking."

How about our country? Can you guess how it reacted, thanks to the leadership of President Obama, who has made a point of ignoring our friends and elevating our enemies? The U.S., which joined the Council as a sign of the Obama Administration's good global citizenship, "supported Libya's increased engagement with the international community." At least the U.S. also "expressed concern about reports of the torture of prisoners" along with other rights violations. Similarly limp statements of concern were offered by the Australians, Canadians and Poles.

Did any country report the real picture? Yes, little Switzerland noted that Libyan "courts continued to pronounce death sentences and inflict corporal punishment, including whipping and amputation." Gee, in my view that calls into question the praise heaped on Libya, or am I wrong?

So the U.N. continues to exist, thanks in large part to our donations. It’s hard to take this organization seriously when its human rights body has members like Libya and Cuba. What next—North Korea’s “Dear Leader” for the Nobel Peace Prize?

A couple of surprising things to end the year on

Two things to end the year on--a climate update and a new poll. Both are instructive and, for some, surprising.

First, a climate update. Flash . . . it's cold outside. Why is this a hot item (pardon the pun)? Well, as we have been told endlessly by the global warming "experts," we are heading toward a catastrophe of our own doing, where we expire in heat death. But wait, whether in Los Angeles or London, recent predictions have gone crazily awry. Global warming? Seems more like a new Ice Age. Get the parkas out.
Those stranded travelers stuck in airports across Europe because of an arctic freeze are a bit confused as well as angry. Sadly, they've been told for more than a decade now that such a thing was an impossibility — that global warming was inevitable, and couldn't be reversed.

This is a big problem for those who see human-caused global warming as an irreversible result of the Industrial Revolution's reliance on carbon-based fuels. Based on global warming theory — and according to official weather forecasts made earlier in the year — this winter should be warm and dry. It's anything but. Ice and snow cover vast parts of both Europe and North America, in one of the coldest Decembers in history.

But what have we been hearing from the experts? Those who wrote the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, global warming report in 2007 predicted an inevitable, century-long rise in global temperatures of two degrees or more. Only higher temperatures were foreseen. Moderate or even lower temperatures, as we're experiencing now, weren't even listed as a possibility. I saw an article from a British newspaper a few years ago that said snow would soon become a distant memory for those in England.

Here's the ugly truth for the global warming crowd. Since at least 1998 no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality.

Will this moderate their views? Will they admit it's extremely difficult to predict global weather? I doubt it. Not even the extraordinarily frigid weather now creating havoc across most of the Northern Hemisphere bothers them. Don't wait for any forthcoming admissions from this set. They want to bring down the Western world's economic base, and this is one way to do it.

And the other item has to do with the findings of a new poll. Muslims have gradually lessened their support for radical Islam over the past several years. Guess when the support lessened the most? During the years Bush was in office. But I thought Obama was reaching out to the Muslims, soothing them and offering praise for all their accomplishments (and other fairy tales). Looks like people respond better to strength than to pablum and weakness. Who's surprised by this? Only lefties who think we just need to sit down and make nice with our enemies to disarm them. Yeah, that worked for Hitler, didn't it?

Exciting times coming up in Washington

I just read a great piece in The Wall Street Journal, which laid out Republican plans for the coming two years in Washington, D.C. When Republicans take over the House of Representatives in January, they'll have a solid majority, 242 to 193. The author, Fred Barnes, says many good things can happen as a result. Let's hope so.

Barnes believes House Republicans intend to take full advantage of the new conservative mood in the country as people saw the Democrats enlarge the government at a frightening pace. Public sentiment now strongly favors cuts in spending, less government, and a shift in power to the states. Even now the House Republicans are ready to join their Senate colleagues to block the spending surge that Democrats are trying to slip through the lame duck Congress this week.

The Republicans' strategy, according to Barnes, is to use the House as a battering ram to force their proposals and ideas to the top of Washington's list of priorities. By passing spending cuts—a new one every week—and curbs on government activism, the goal is to put Democrats and the president on the defensive. Guess who will now be called the party of "no"?

Barnes mentions several committees which will be at the head of the charge. First is the budget committee. Wisconsin's Paul Ryan, the incoming chairman, says he's "stockpiling bills right now" to cut back spending and overhaul the entire budget process. At the Energy and Commerce Committee, the incoming chairman is Michigan's Fred Upton, who is eager to contain the rising cost of Medicaid. He plans to dispatch committee members to investigate federal agencies to "see if they're capable of running their programs." I have a hunch he'll discover many are not.
In addition, Mr. Upton intends to have what he calls "top-flight governors," including Chris Christie of New Jersey, testify on Medicaid at a series of committee hearings. I'm looking forward to that; Christie is my new political hero. Ever see some of his confrontations with liberals on YouTube? That's not all. He also wants to subject the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare, to "heavy-duty oversight." I like that. Of course, parts of it may disappear once the courts get through with it.

Another committee will be looking at financial wrongdoings in our government. The Financial Services Committee, which will be led by incoming Chairman Spencer Bachus of Alabama, is preparing to review the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill enacted this year. More important, he will take up what that law completely ignored, the money-hemorrhaging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The House Appropriations Committee, where the purse strings are held, will be the first to act. Its task is to offer "rescissions," or cuts, in the current 2011 budget. To prove their seriousness about reining in spending, House Republicans will vote first on a 5% decrease in funding for congressional operations, the speaker's office included. That vote will be followed by one to repeal ObamaCare. Both are expected to pass the House. Won't that be interesting to watch as it unfolds?

So, here's to a new Washington in 2011. The Republicans have to produce or the American people will turn on them. They didn't win because the electorate loved them. They won because Americans didn't like the direction Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were taking them. It's up to these incoming representatives to make things right. The Democrats won't go quietly, so these next two years should provide plenty of fireworks. Keep our elected officials doing what they promised--trimming the excesses of the past two years.

Good news (at least for some)

Some good news from last week’s election:

1. Republicans added two new African-Americans to the Congress with Allen West in Florida and Tim Scott in South Carolina.

2. Republicans also gained two new Hispanic stars this election: Sen.-elect Marco Rubio from Florida and the new governor of New Mexico, Susanna Martinez. So, how do Democrats portray Republicans as racist now? I’m sure they’ll come up with something. I think they are very worried about Rubio, who has star appeal.

3. But the biggest news (and the one less commonly known or discussed) is that Republicans clobbered the Democrats in the state gubernatorial and legislative races. Next year, state lawmakers draw new congressional districts, determining the congressional map for the next decade. In the past, Democrats have had a 2-1 advantage in congressional redistricting. Not anymore.

The list of governor races won by Republicans is amazing--Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Alabama, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Maine, Iowa and Florida. They also swept the state legislatures.

Now, it’s true that the tidal wave didn’t sweep through all parts of the nation equally. Democrats won governor's races in California, New York, Massachusetts, Arkansas and Maryland. But what’s interesting about these victories is that all the Democrats' states are losing population—not a good sign for the future of liberalism in the nation.

More bad news from California for the Dems—we’re not only losing congressional seats for the first time since the '50s, but (thanks to the passage of Prop 20) we’re also taking the redistricting out of the hands of the California legislators (hugely Democratic) and turning it over to a Citizens Redistricting Commission.

4. The results will probably mean some Dems currently in Washington will abandon the leftist policies pushed so hard by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, making it easier for Republicans to gain some of their goals. No doubt Claire McCaskill, Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown, and Jon Tester of Montana -- all of whom will be facing the voters in two years -- noticed that popular, long-serving Democrat Russ Feingold just lost an election in a much more liberal state than their own.

All in all, it’s going to be an interesting couple of years. The key question is whether Barack Obama will be like Bill Clinton and modify his position to keep in step with the voters. All indications right now tell me he won’t want to compromise. He’s an elitist, leftist ideologue who thinks we are just too stupid to understand what good things he has done and will continue to do for us, as long as we are willing to turn our lives over to him and a giant national government. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want that. Let's keep the pressure on the Republicans to derail Obama's ambitious plans to remake this nation into another European state.

Why I voted the way I did

Well, the election is over. The people voted for change—the biggest increase of one party in the House of Representatives in over sixty years. I voted as a conservative on all issues as well as candidates and wanted to share six reasons for doing so.

I believe in common sense. Look at the Democratic Party. Its leaders are lawyers. In fact every presidential nominee since 1984 went to law school. Every vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Then look at Republicans on the national scene—business leaders, company starters, teachers, blue collar workers. I would trust this group far more to reach a common sense conclusion about how the world really operates, especially in this time of economic concerns. If more conservatives had been in charge, I think they would have seen the stupidity of pouring money into new-car rebates or huge stimulus plans that failed to deliver real improvements.

I believe in the existence of real evil. Barack Obama has downplayed the horrors of Iran, North Korea, China, and other miserable countries where human rights are neglected. He thinks, like so many liberals in the Democratic Party, that tyrants will change their ways if they are accommodated, smiled at, embraced, praised, listened to. That didn’t seem to work with Hitler, Mao, or Stalin, and I don’t see any reason to believe it will work now. Let’s go back to calling terrorism what it really is rather than “man-made disaster,” in the words of the current administration.

I believe in smaller government. A huge bureaucracy cannot respond well to individual needs. As I heard the other day, “A big government means a small citizen.” We are part of America, where freedom from bloated government has allowed for business to thrive, for people to become anything they wish, for self-reliance to flourish. Do we really want to become another Europe? Look at how they have reacted in France when the government has had to reign in all the goodies.

I believe in a strong family. There are way too many who, for the sake of social experimentation, have called for more abortion, same-sex marriage, and other attacks on the family, which is the place where the young learn to become civilized. A traditional family is where the next generation is raised, loved, and sent out into the world as complete individuals.

I believe in American exceptionalism. That’s not popular today in some quarters, including the White House, where Obama can’t bring himself to say there’s anything special about the United States. But it was our country where liberty, equality, the respect for laws, and religious fervor provided inspiration for the entire world. We have done more to make the world a better place than any other country in the history of mankind. I wish this was taught in our schools as it once was.

Finally, I believe in seeing the world realistically. The liberal view is one of wishes, utopias, dreams, and abstractions. They don’t seem to get it-- evil really exists, the world’s climate has changed many times long before the industrial age, business is not a dirty word, the Constitution shouldn’t be twisted out of shape to serve a current fad, school is a place for information rather than indoctrination, hard work needs to be rewarded instead of being penalized, the human heart is twisted so that cleaning up the exterior will not solve the problem, oil is necessary right now while we are switching over to alternative fuels, and the existence of God seems like a reasonable assumption, given all the evidence.

Now that the election is over, the hard part begins. Let’s make sure these new members of Congress carry out the desires of the people who sent them there.

Tuesday--what message will the President receive from the voters?

Tomorrow America votes. It will primarily be a vote of confidence or no confidence in the policies of Barack Obama--whether we are moving the right way as a country. Many pundits believe the nation will hand Obama a stinging repudiation of his big-government policies. I found the following on the internet and thought you all might appreciate it.


Think about the reasons you might have voted for Obama, and it's almost impossible to find any cause for enthusiasm this year:

• You agreed with his policies. Like most politicians, he has fallen short of his promises. Some he has flat-out broken (closing Guantanamo, not raising taxes on anyone making under $250,000 a year), some he has kept in ways that make hardly anyone happy (health care "reform"), some he has carried out in a half-hearted way (escalating the war in Afghanistan), and some he has deferred for the future (the global warming tax). As a practical matter, the last category is indistinguishable from the first, since it's unlikely that the next Congress will pass any liberal initiatives that couldn't get through the current one.

• You liked the intangible aspects of his candidacy. Obama has given way to "Oh, bummer," hope and change and unity and bipartisanship to condescension and bitter attack politics. Maybe you think it's the Republicans' fault. It's still no cause for enthusiasm.

• You wanted to get beyond racism by electing the first black president. Obama's supporters have told us endlessly that racism still thrives in America. Besides, no matter how badly the Democrats do Nov. 2, Obama will still be president, and he will still be black.

• He wasn't George W. Bush. If you are the sort who actively despised Bush, this may still be a motivator. But if you were just weary of Bush, by now you're probably weary of Obama, who won't shut up about him.

• You like voting for a winner. Obama and the Democrats don't look like winners now.

• You're a partisan Democrat. This is about the only reason anyone would be enthusiastic about voting Democratic this year.


OK, back to me. I hope you vote tomorrow. When you do, consider what you want from your government. As someone said, "A bigger government makes for a smaller citizen." I trust the American people will vote to keep their government limited, with opportunities for individuals to grow great instead.

A look at Obama's speech to Muslims--The Grand Jihad continues

I've been working my way through Andrew McCarthy's book, The Grand Jihad. I wanted to share a section with you that was eye-opening. In June 2008 Pres. Barack Obama took a trip to the Middle East. Why? He wanted to blaze "a new beginning" in the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. McCarthy analyzes Obama's speech in Cairo, showing how our President sees Islam much differently than most of us do: "The speech was excruciating, combining fictional accounts of Islamic history and doctrine, a woefully ignorant explanation of Israel's claim to its sovereign territory, and an execrable moral equivalence drawn between southern slave owners in early America and modern Israelis besieged by Palestinian terror." Let's see what he means.

He starts by noting Obama's reference to American history. The President quoted John Adams as saying the U.S. had no disagreement with Muslims when he signed the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796. However, Obama skipped history leading up to this Treaty. The Barbary states of North Africa (Muslim nations) were using the ports to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. More than 1 million Europeans and Americans were sold into slavery as a result of this. The United States, with no help from any nation, felt forced to sign this treaty. So, Adams was not complimenting Muslims out of respect and love; he was forced into it to avoid more piracy by Muslims.

In his speech Obama later played up Muslim cultural achievements. But McCarthy says these achievements actually occurred despite Islam (especially in the areas of literature, art, and music). It was the conquered people who produce the accomplishments, not the Muslims who were invading their territory. The President claimed Islam single-handedly "carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment." But this is a myth, according to the author. It is not true that Muslims alone preserved the works of Aristotle, Galen, Plato, Hippocrates, and other pillars of Western Enlightenment. The truth is, arrested development in the Islamic world over the last several hundred years is due to a strong anti-intellectualism that is so prevalent today. Many Islamic authorities say that no education beyond the study of the Quran is necessary.

Then Obama began quoting from the Koran to show how peaceful this religion is. He took one verse (Sura 5:32) and read it: "Whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind." But Obama failed to read the very next verse, which is well known by Muslims: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger... is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land." Obama also neglected other verses which command Muslims to violence, dehumanized Jews as children of monkeys and pigs, and order Muslims not to take Jews or Christians as friends and protectors.

Later in the speech, Obama talked about a Jewish homeland. He made a basic argument that the Jewish nation was established to sooth the guilty consciences of Europeans who are embarrassed about the Holocaust. He makes it sound like the Jews have no legal, historic, or moral rights to the land of Israel. McCarthy says this is false. Jews have a claim upon the land because they are the only people for whom Israel was ever their nation, which it was for hundreds of years -- centuries before the Arabs and Muslims came on the scene area, so, according to the author, legal, historical, and moral claims of Jews predate Adolph Hitler by many centuries. In fact, the League of Nations in 1922 did not endorse the creation of the Jewish state but rather the reconstitution of it.

Coupled with this reference to the Jews, Obama then talked about the Palestinians and their problems. He, of course, stressed that they were poor people struggling in refugee camps waiting for a life of peace and security. The truth is different; the Arabs could easily have created a Palestinian state during the twenty years (1948 -- 1967) that Jordan and Egypt held the West Bank and Gaza, respectively. But the Arab states decided not to do this. Before that, the Palestinians had been offered a homeland in 1936 and 1947, and Israel renewed the offer in 1967 and 2000. Why do the Palestinians turn down these offers? McCarthy says their goal is to destroy Israel, not to coexist in peace and security.

There is more to this speech that Obama gave in Cairo. But this is important material, and I don't want to rush past it. I'd rather you had a chance to read this, digest it, and think about it. More to follow.

Discouraging news

I hate to bring bad news, but I came across the following piece commenting on our current economic situation. It's pretty depressing, but it's what could be expected from simply throwing money at our problems--

The signs of a deep and sudden slowdown in the US are becoming ever clearer as the "sugar rush" from the Obama fiscal stimulus wears off and the inventory boost fades. California, Illinois and other states are cutting spending, tightening US fiscal policy by 0.8 percent of GDP.

Thursday's plunge in the Philadelphia Fed's July index of new manufacturing orders to –4.3 suggests that the economy may have buckled abruptly, as it did in mid-2008. The Economic Cycle Research Institute's ECRI leading indicator has tumbled, reaching –8.3pc last week. This points to a sharp slowdown or recession within three months.

While US port data looked buoyant in June, the details were troubling. Outbound traffic from Long Beach fell from 139,000 containers in May to 116,000 in June. Shipments from Los Angeles fell from 161,000 to 155,000. This drop in exports is worsening the US trade deficit, eroding the dollar.

The US workforce has shrunk by a million over the past two months as discouraged jobless give up the hunt. Retail sales have fallen for the past two months. New homes sales crashed to 300,000 in May after tax credits ran out, the lowest since records began in 1963. Mortgage applications have fallen by 42pc to 13-year low since April. Paul Dales at Capital Economics said the "shadow inventory" of unsold properties has risen to 7.8m. "The double dip in housing has begun," he said.

Back to me--I can't wait until November. Let's clear Congress of both parties and start over. This bunch is looking after their own interests, not ours.

NASA . . . to boldly go . . .

Every time I think I have heard it all, something blindsides me. The latest really hit me hard because it has to do with NASA, the organization that got us to the moon, put the Hubble telescope in space to reveal some amazing photographs of the universe, and sent two incredibly hardy rovers to Mars where they have been exploring the surface for over five years.

NASA administrator Charles Bolden recently gave an interview with Al Jazeera. I was flabbergasted when I came across this statement by him: "When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he {Obama] charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering."

Now, think about NASA. What does it represent? I think of science, careful calculations, the universe, the mysteries of the solar system, human and robotic exploration, incredibly complex machinery, clever fixes of difficult problems. What don't we think of when we think of NASA? Helping different cultures "feel good" about themselves. When did it become NASA's job to stroke egos across the globe? Apparently it's now the "foremost" task of this agency, thanks to our current President, who never misses an opportunity to grovel before the rest of the world.

Well, maybe I'm missing something here. NASA is always searching for new ways to do things, new technologies, new attempts to explore the frontier of space. Maybe the Moslem world has techniques to help NASA. Let's think about this . . . what recent developments has Islam given us? Beheadings, stonings, demotion of women, suicide bombings, threats, riots over cartoons. So, all we have to do is figure out how to channel this technology into rocket flight, long-distance communication between the planets, miniaturization of scientific instruments. Hey, if Charles Bolden can channel this hatred and ignorance into advanced technology, then President Obama has made a wise choice.

But I have my doubts. It was the Judeo-Christian worldview that gave us modern science. I would be much happier if NASA concentrated on its original mission and left pandering to the experts (cue Obama).

A sad but accurate commentary on our president

The following is a powerful essay from Dick Morris, former advisor to Bill Clinton. It's entitled "Obama Doesn’t Have a Clue." We have to work hard this fall to deprive President Obama of support in the House and Senate. Then in 2012 we have to find a much better replacement for him and his failed policies. Here it is:



Conservatives are so enraged at Obama’s socialism and radicalism that they are increasingly surprised to learn that he is incompetent as well. The sight of his blithering and blustering while the most massive oil spill in history moves closer to America’s beaches not only reminds one of Bush’s terrible performance during Katrina, but calls to mind Jimmy Carter’s incompetence in the face of the hostage crisis.

America is watching the president alternate between wringing his hands in helplessness and pointing his finger in blame when he should be solving the most pressing environmental problem America has faced in the past 50 years. We are watching generations of environmental protection swept away as marshes, fisheries, vacation spots, recreational beaches, wetlands, hatcheries and sanctuaries fall prey to the oil spill invasion. And, all the while, the president acts like a spectator, interrupting his basketball games only to excoriate BP for its failure to contain the spill.

The political fallout from the oil spill will, indeed, spill across party and ideological lines. The environmentalists of America cannot take heart from a president so obviously ignorant about how to protect our shores and so obstinately arrogant that he refuses to inform himself and take any responsibility.

All of this explains why the oil spill is seeping into his ratings among Democrats, dragging him down to levels we have not seen since Bush during the pit of the Iraq war. Conservatives may dislike Obama because he is a leftist. But liberals are coming to dislike him because he is not a competent progressive.

Meanwhile, the nation watches nervously as the same policies Obama has brought to our nation are failing badly and publicly in Europe. When Moody’s announces that it is considering downgrading bonds issued by the government of the United States of America, we find ourselves, suddenly, in deep trouble. We have had deficits before. But never have they so freaked investors that a ratings agency considered lowering its opinion of our solvency. Not since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states’ Revolutionary War debt has America’s willingness and ability to meet its financial obligations been as seriously questioned.

And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline.
Both the financial crisis and the oil come ever closer to our shores — one from the east and the other from the south — and, between them, they loom as a testament to the incompetence of our government and of its president.

And, oddly, to his passivity as well. After pursuing a remarkably activist, if misguided and foolhardy, agenda, Obama seems not to know what to do and finds himself consigned to the roles of observer and critic.

America is getting the point that its president doesn’t have a clue.
He doesn’t know how to stop the oil from spilling. He is bereft of ideas about how to create jobs in the aftermath of the recession. He has no idea how to keep the European financial crisis contained. He has no program for repaying the massive debt hole into which he has dug our nation without tax increases he must know will only deepen the pit.

Some presidents have failed because of their stubbornness (Johnson and Bush-43). Others because of their character flaws (Clinton and Nixon). Still others because of their insensitivity to domestic problems (Bush-41). But now we have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again.

Who would have thought that this president, so anxious to lead us and so focused on his specific agenda and ideas, would turn out not to know what he is doing?