This Week at Presidential University - Netanyahu Gives Lesson About Middle East

This video must be seen.

Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel visited President Obama immediately after the president's suggestion that Israel be willing to withdraw its borders to the pre-1967 lines that existed before the Six-Day War. This means returning Gaza and the West Bank that Israeli citizens have settled.

Netanyahu calmly gives our president a history lesson, which I can only assume he had never heard before this day- for if he had, there is no possible way he could make the suggestion that he did. Either that, or he is willfully colluding against Israel.

But obviously, Benjamin Netanyahu has faith that Obama's horrible judgment was simply ignorance of history, for which he can be forgiven.

In watching Netanyahu speak, I see strength and resolve. Outward and genuine respect. Compassion for his people. Intelligence and prudent foresight. I see a leader that is worthy of my admiration, a leader that I would gladly follow, and I am thankful the Israelis elected. In watching Obama, I see a man reciting political rhetoric, as we now know, from a teleprompter. Incitement to envy and class welfare. Murky ambition in supporting Middle Eastern uprisings. And in his befuddled face, as Netanyahu deconstructs Israeli history for him, I see him thinking of the political ramifications of what he is saying, not thinking of the substance.

Like our president, all Americans need to listen to this man explain why, as I have suggested before, Israel cannot possibly negotiate with Hamas and why retracting it's borders would leave Israel indefensible to the threats that will inevitably strike.

William Sullivan

In case you cannot view the embedded video below, it can also be found here.

Arrogance Unbound

What is the most handy way for a president to circumvent checks and balances necessary for America to engage in foreign military action? Pretend they don't exist.

Of course, to do this you have to have a propaganda machine deeply within your pocket, champing at the bit to deflect all criticism as right-wing lunacy. And it helps to have formerly anti-war liberals and RINOs of the establishment defect to your cause.

The rationale behind the interjection of American military influence in Libya could be a lengthy discussion. The proposed presence of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood alone should be enough to warrant a detailed debate as to the merits our actions as they pertain to American interests. But like anthropogenic climate change, the left positions the discussion as "over" despite having never taken place. The verdict is in, and it says that Gaddafi must be out.

"Shoot first, ask questions later" seems to now be the policy of Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. For the latter to even have an influential opinion on American foreign intervention represents an enduring travesty for Congress, after having accused his fellow soldiers of fabricated crimes as a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War organization. But nonetheless, it's curious how quickly these former peaceniks have shifted position on foreign intervention to oust dictators since the Iraq War that had Congressional and international support.

And now Obama is suggesting that he doesn't need Congressional support to intervene in Libya; our efforts is too limited. But the fact is, regardless of how limited our role is in the war, it is costing a tremendous amount of American money and effort, and has now been going on for a substantial amount of time. And as our role in Libya shapes the perception of our nation, America and it's elected officials as a whole should be represented. Many of whom would disagree with his course of action.

Perhaps Barack Obama needs to be reminded that the country's path was never meant to be at his discretion alone. But somehow, I think he knows that. He just doesn't care.

William Sullivan

A Scourge Has Been Eliminated- And To Rejoice is Proper

“The western dogs are rejoicing after killing one of our Islamic lions. From Al-Aqsa Mosque, where the future caliphate will originate with the help of God, we say to them – the dogs will not rejoice too much for killing the lions. The dogs will remain dogs and the lion, even if he is dead, will remain a lion.”

These are the words of the Al-Aqsa mosque’s imam. They are meant to describe that the "dogs" of America should not celebrate the killing of Osama bin Laden, who in this metaphor, is a "lion."

Typical fundamental Islamic rhetoric; America is evil, Islam is righteous. But pertinent to note are two things.

First, we notice that once again Glenn Beck has been proven correct in his assessment that fundamental Islam seeks to reestablish a caliphate. As this is directly from the horse’s mouth, it is now quite beyond dispute. But don't hold your breath for the mainstream media to repudiate their own false and irresponsible assault on Beck for making that claim. That would take a modicum of integrity. And they don't have it.

Second, we notice the glaring implausibility of the metaphor. The lion has for thousands of years been a symbol of heroism, bravery, and strength. To conclude that Osama bin Laden exemplified any of these things can only be a perversion of reason. The animal kingdom has no representative that could be compared to bin Laden without insult to the animal he is compared to. To find such sickness, we have to look to our own species.

His disease showed amalgamated symptoms of cult leaders and serial killers. He was capable of corralling young followers to worship in his twisted manner, but rather than being solely self-destructive like the Heaven's Gate or Jonestown cults, bin Laden found personal value and happiness by sending indoctrinated children on suicide missions meant to bring sorrow and death upon thousands of innocent people.

Osama bin Laden was no lion. He was a scourge upon the Earth; the worst mankind is capable of becoming. And yes, we rejoice in his death, because this means his life cannot continue poisoning humanity. I am delighted in the manner in which he was killed- meeting an American bullet to pay for his enormous crimes against our country. And I am equally contented to think that he was laid to his torment in the sea, drifting fathoms below humanity, rather than putrefying the ground of some accessible grave that would only become a monument to his followers.

William Sullivan

Jesus was a liberal? Guess again...

Recently, I was reminded by friends of some dated writings in which liberals work against all odds and logic to convey that Jesus Christ, both Biblically and historically, would be considered liberal by today's standards.

In almost all cases (two good examples found here and here) the authors relate the basic definition of liberalism. Then, that definition is set against cherry-picked quotes that are taken entirely out of context in order to prove the argument correct. Where Jesus' words were meant to shape people's ideology, these authors have shaped Jesus' words to meet their established ideology. This, expectedly, calls the intellectual and Christian integrity of the argument into serious question.

But rather than jumping to the defensive and crying, "Jesus was quite obviously a conservative," I will simply point out one story that proves that Jesus' ideology doesn't fully jive with that of today's liberal.

The American left as a whole generally decries the disproportionate distribution of wealth in America. Despite having a robust middle class and a poorer class that enjoys a fantastic standard of living by global standards, liberals incessantly decry the "obscene" wealth of the top 10% of American earners. This is generally followed by a call to extract more tax revenue from the wealthy. That revenue will then be redistributed to the less wealthy, and thereby the rich will be become less rich and the poor will become less poor.

But does Jesus think it's okay for the government to steal money from the wealthy to redistribute among the masses? Liberals think so. In fact, this is likely the first thing that you'll hear when liberals want to convey that Christ shared their opinion. Jesus didn't like rich people just like the liberals don't like rich people, so shouldn't the act of taxing the wealthy be justified, even to conservative Christians?

It is true that Jesus warns of the dangers of greed and against being miserly. Note that in Matthew, chapter 19, Christ relates to the apostles: "Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." (19:23) Now, it is at this point that your average liberal will set down the book, entirely convinced: "Well, that's all I needed to hear. Jesus was obviously liberal."

This is likely what Gary Vance was thinking when he penned his article conveying that Christ is a liberal. "The labor movement of the early twentieth century was aided significantly when major Christian denominations got behind it. No average American would have a fair wage today if it weren't for liberal Christians and labor activists."

In other words, if unions and the government hadn't overcome greedy businessmen like Christ would have wanted, we'd all be worse off. But if Mr. Vance were to read past the previously quoted verse, he may find how wrong he is. He would find that in chapter 20 of Matthew, the parable Jesus tells is entirely antithetical to very notion of unions and the "tax-the-wealthy" mentality of today's liberals.

In the Parable of the Vineyard, we discover how Jesus feels about compensation for labor and the private property of the wealthy. One day, a farmer went out at sunrise to seek workers for the vineyard. Those he found he told that he would pay "1 denarius" for a day's labor, which was the going rate for such work. Three hours later, he hired more workers telling them that he would "pay them what is right." At 12, 3, and 5 o'clock he again hired more workers, each time telling them the same. At the end of the day, he called the workers to be paid:

“The workers who were hired about 5 in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

If American labor unions were involved, do you think the landowner could have gotten away with this? Certainly not. He would have to pay more because that is what would be "right" for those who labored all day. They would strip from the landowner the right to pay the wage he would choose. How, again, are labor unions the result of Christian doctrine?

And as far as redistribution of wealth, can you possibly read this and think that Christ would advocate the government taking the landowner's wealth and distributing it to all in Judea that did not work on his fields? Envy is the root of such an argument. American liberals are envious of the wealthy and do not feel they are entitled to their property because others have less, which leads to the belief that their property can be taken and distributed among the masses. And this parable warns against such envious ambition.

Beyond a warning about envy and a verifcation of Jesus' opinion that a man has a right to his property and to do with it what he pleases, this parable is also a lesson about charity. It is important to note that the landowner is a private landowner- not Caesar or his appointed representatives. It is he who is charitable, not the government. This is a lesson much better practiced by conservatives, as the charitable giving of conservatives eclipses that of liberals.

In truth, as Christians believe that Christ is God and not man, to paint Him entirely in the box of either liberal or conservative is to do Him disservice. But for the sake of argument, I will say that there is no question that Christ would have been viewed as a liberal in the Roman province of Judea in his time. And I would be dishonest to say that Christ did not share some values that the common liberal of today holds dear. But the truth is, as this one parable suggests, Christ did not believe, as American progressives do, that government redistribution is a justified course of action, and he would not agree with a union strong-arming a business owner. So the calls of liberals saying that Christ believes the same as a modern liberal needs to be taken for what they are: inconsistent and illegitimate political rhetoric.

William Sullivan

Morales and the Socialist

A Modern Retelling of a Narrative Poem by Lewis Carroll
Morales and the Socialist
Were walking side by side,
They wept like anything to see
The planet slowly die.
"We must try to fix this mess;
The risk we run is high."

"If capitalism, a year from now,
simply went away?
Do you suppose," Morales said,
"that we could save the day?"
"I'm certain," said the Socialist,
and so they planned their play.

"O People, come and walk with us!"
Morales plainly said,
"A pleasant chat, and you'll find that,
There's a new path ahead.
One where greedy industry
Won't leave our Mom for dead."

The wisest Person heard them,
But just sat silent by:
How would he look, after all,
To support what makes Mom die?
So there he sits, as the two
Propagate a lie.

But most young People hurried up,
All eager to take part:
Their minds all green, ready to place
the horse behind the cart.
And this was odd, because, you know,
They're supposed to be so smart.

Four other People followed them,
and yet another four;
Thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more--
All clinging to the mindset
That they came to adore.

Morales and the Socialist,
Had led them on this road,
And then they held a meeting,
Which would dictate where they'd go.
And so the People waited,
All desperate to know.

"The time has come," Morales said,
"To talk of many things:
Of rocks--and bugs-- and carbon-tax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And human rights for things.

"But wait a bit," the People cried,
"Before we get to that;
We're all wrapped up in other things,
that make us nice and fat!"
"No! Hurry!" said that Socialist.
"We have no time for that."

"The power to rule," Morales said,
"Is what we chiefly lack:
The means to drive corporations down,
Will make Earth's clocks roll back.
Now if you're ready, People of Earth,
We can begin the tax."

"But not on us!" the People cried,
Now a little blue.
"After such promises, that would be,
A dismal thing to do!"
"What'd you think?" Morales said,
"That we wouldn't punish you?"

"It was kind of you to hitch a ride
to our political star."
The Socialist said nothing but
"What fine comrades you are!
Now open up your pocketbooks,
And buy this new green car!"

"It seems a shame," Morales said,
"To play them such a trick.
After they trusted us to rule with care,
and make the Earth less sick!"
The Socialist said nothing but
"The wealth's still spread too thick!"

"O People," said the Socialist,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall you pay us for this service still?"
But money came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd swindled everyone.

--William Sullivan

To New York: Consider the Shuttle a Gift. Sincerely, Texas

Anyone with half a brain knows that the first two places ever considered for retired NASA shuttles should be Houston, TX and Cape Canaverel, FL. No two cities are more identified with or have done more for space exploration.

But New York, known more for pizza and rude inhabitants than space travel, will now be home to a retired shuttle, while Houston got snubbed. Texans are understandably confused, so Chuck Schumer said in response:

"When people from Paris, Beijing, Tokyo and Amsterdam start saying they want to go to Houston, maybe then they'll get a shuttle," Schumer told the Daily News. "I'd say to Texas, don't mess with New York."

Sorry, Chuck. No one's buying that you're a tough guy. And thanks for confirming that "arrogant New Yorker" stereotype.

I'd go on, but I think AlamoZ in the comment section of the linked article pretty much sums up what is likely every Texan's feelings on the matter:

That's okay Schumer, New York can keep the shuttle. In fact, California can keep theirs too. Texas will just keep on taking all of your tax-burdened corporations as well as your productive members of society.

Now that just could not be said any better.

William Sullivan

School Days, Gruel Days

If you've ever wondered why private schools and online distance learning programs are becoming more and more attractive for parents and students everywhere, here's one more reason.

At Little Village Academy in Chicago, children are prohibited from bringing their lunches from home, and are required to eat the school offering. This is a progressive move to join Chicagoans Barack and Michelle Obama in their crusade to combat childhood obesity, so try to imagine that horrible lunch food you remember as a child made exponentially worse by trying to make it “healthy.”

It’s pretty obvious that the kids don’t like it. When reporters visited the school, seventh grader Fernando Dominguez, like a modern-day Samuel Gompers, bilingually incited his classmates to the unison chant, “We should bring our own lunch!” Most parents are understandably upset by this, too, because many children choose to eat nothing at all rather than choking down the horrible lunch food the school offers. Sure, eating nothing won’t make them fat, but we can’t exactly say that’s healthy, either.

But in spite of the obvious popular opinion of the student body or the ire of their parents, Principal Elsa Carmona feels strongly that making the children eat the disgusting food that she wants them to eat is a good thing. And as little sense as that makes, she even has a few parents carrying water for her. Parent Miguel Medina, for example, thinks the no-home-lunch policy is good, because “when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."

But he’s wrong. There is control. Just not the control he and the principal want.

Most parents understand and embrace the opportunity to provide an element of control in their child’s life. They use that opportunity to nurture their child’s exceptionalism and potential as an individual in a society of other individuals. Mr. Medina, it seems, would defer this opportunity to the “experts” of society, because parents (including him, I presume) just aren’t smart enough to know what is good for their kids.

We need to understand that this is not “about nutrition and the excellent quality of food they are able to serve in the lunchroom.” It’s not about a concerned principal “encouraging healthier choices.” This has nothing to do with your kids’ weight or health.

It is simply another blow to the rights of the American family. It is part of a revolutionary movement to control the most intimate choices we make in raising our children. Parents have been stripped of the right to choose what their child will eat. And not least of all, parents are forced to buy a bad product that they and their children do not want.

And nothing about any of that is American.

William Sullivan