In re the Thursday speech of Mr Obama regarding Israel:

Clearly, it’s the proverbial “tough love” for Israel with the exception, I proffer, that there is no love between Mr Obama and Israel. That said, where is the “tough love” for the Middle East? Acknowledgment that Israel is entirely surrounded by enemies (save the Mediterranean)? Mr Obama wants Israel to release the Golan Heights?

Mr Obama conveniently fails to mention the rockets faithfully and consistently launched by terror elements in the Gaza Strip, the fact that fully half the “Palestinian government” consists of Hamas — an organization completely devoted to the total eradication of Israel. Hamas refuses to even acknowledge the 1948 resolution of the creation of the state of Israel.

Obama: Borders of Israel, Palestine should be based on 1967 lines

Published: 05.19.11, 19:56 / Israel News

share

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states,” President Barack Obama said in his speech. “The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state,” he added. (Yitzhak Benhorin, Washington)

In an attempt to point out the obvious, I say: our Mr Obama cannot even manage the border of the United States to the south, with Mexico. And yet he deems it pertinent and important to re-write and manage the borders of Israel?

Yoni The Blogger weighs in:

May 19, 2011

Netanyahu says ‘No’ to 1967 borders

PM expects Obama to reaffirm bush pledges, whereby settlement blocs will remain in Israel

Attila Somfalvi
Published: 05.19.11, 21:41 / Israel News

Responding to President Barack Obama’smajor Mideast policy speech, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that Israel will not be withdrawing to the 1967 borders as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians.

Bibi stand strong against Obama, Israel’s survival depends on your strength.

We can give up on Israel.

Or we can stand firm.

BZ

FIFTY DOLLARS for ONE light bulb.

No, I’m sorry, this is not a joke. And I suspect you’ve not heard of this until now. Because the DEM/MSM has been doing its best to carry the water for Obama and his Religious Leftists.

From YahooNews:

NEW YORK – Two leading makers of lighting products are showcasing LED bulbs that are bright enough to replace energy-guzzling 100-watt light bulbs set to disappear from stores in January.

Their demonstrations at the LightFair trade show in Philadelphia this week mean that brighter LED bulbs will likely go on sale next year, but after a government ban takes effect.

The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each — so the development may not prevent consumers from hoarding traditional bulbs.

The technology in traditional “incandescent” bulbs is more than a century old. Such bulbs waste most of the electricity that feeds them, turning it into heat. The 100-watt bulb, in particular, produces so much heat that it’s used in Hasbro’s Easy-Bake Oven.

To encourage energy efficiency, Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals, starting in 2012. Conventional light bulbs don’t meet those goals, so the law will prohibit making or importing them. The same rule will start apply to remaining bulbs 40 watts and above in 2014. Since January, California has already banned stores from restocking 100-watt incandescent bulbs.

Which is why I went to Nevada recently to create my MASSIVE stock of regular light bulbs from the Reno Home Depot, which should keep me in stock, cheaply, for years. And who takes responsibility for MY electric bills?

Why yes, that would be ME. I PAY my own electric bills.

Screw your mercury-laden CFL bulbs, federal government.

Not like I didn’t write about CFLs here and here and here and here.

And screw your FIFTY-DOLLAR light bulbs. I OWN my electricity and I choose to utilize it as I wish. Because I paid for it.

Of course, naturally, the “poor” will have THEIR light bulbs SUBSIDIZED. All they have to do is proffer one mere tear.

YOU want to pay $50 for ONE light bulb?

You go right ahead. Be my trembling toady guest.

BZ

P.S.
And ask yourself: how many light bulbs are in your home? Perhaps you should multiply that number times $50. Plus: what about obscure, boutique bulbs? What about the bulb in your oven? Could that be a CFL and withstand the temperature? Perhaps some mercury lovingly-splashed, when broken, over your roast or your chicken or your casserole?

Ah yes, your loving Religious Leftists at work.

And do you suspect those waivers might — possibly — be politically-motivated?

And why would ANYone get a “waiver” from ObamaKare?

BZ

[A gentleman named Ryan has asked to post a guest article on my blog, regarding the EPA. I read the content and now proffer it for your perusal. -BZ]

EPA rules continue to be in question

GOP representatives are continuing their disapproval of recent Environmental Protection Agency regulations by evaluating the possible harm to electricity generating companies. Fred Upton, a republican from Michigan, as well as some other GOP officials have recently called into question the EPA’s effect on the power industry.

The EPA has been under a ton of fire recently, mostly because of costly and continuing regulations. Republicans like Upton have pointed out the possible damage many of the EPA’s regulations have, such as damaged employment, raised gas prices and lower revenue. Most of the controversy has surrounded the EPA’s efforts to oversee greenhouse gas emissions.

Essentially the EPA has begun to regulate too many things in a short period of time and GOP reps seem convinced that the environmental agency has started to overrun its power. Recent questioning involves the fact that the EPA may not have analyzed and consulted with the Council on Environmental Quality and Energy Regulatory Commission on any of their newer regulations. The only response EPA administrator Lisa Jackson had to this questioning was to say that “the rules are sensible.” Surely, the agency’s major official could respond to the actual questions or confirm that the regulations have at least been consulted with some other organizations, but unfortunately this hasn’t been the case.

The questioning of the EPA’s recent regulations on energy would be one thing, but the agency has made some rather controversial decisions in the late months of 2010 and into 2011. The EPA seems to be losing sight of some of its own major initiatives in defending one or two regulations. Throughout the early part of 2011 they’ve continued to defend greenhouse gas emission regulations, even though they seem to have little effect on public health.

The EPA is essentially suffering from an inability to properly delegate their resources. Many of the agency’s important regulations are being disregarded in the process of defending greenhouse gas emission regulations. Certainly there are a number of other programs that have more impact on health than greenhouse emission regulations, such as the fight on asbestos exposure or battle to cut down on water contamination.

It remains to be seen what the remainder of 2011 will hold for the EPA. The agency simply seems to be misguided in recent months, perhaps because of a need for power, as GOP reps have suggested. Unfortunately this power hungry mindset could end up damaging the organization in the long run. Unless the agency switches up its delegation of resources, budget cuts and legislation against the EPA is likely to continue throughout the coming years.

-Ryan Halston

Please comment as with any other post.

BZ

It’s pretty simple.

No one really thought that Donald Trump would last as a presidential candidate. Of course, he didn’t disappoint — he has officially pulled out. He was a temporary distraction. He’d rather continue with business and his television shows. Nothing wrong with that, indeed. But blowing up the presidential skirts? Just wrong. But: no loss.

Huckabee is out. I repeat: no loss.

Newt Gingrich is in. Paul Ryan is not too terribly keen on Newt.

Mitt Romney has raked in, so far, the most cash.

Rick Santorum has his hat in the ring but predominantly no one knows who the hell he is.

Ron Paul is just — Ron Paul. Only a smattering of dimwits would vote for this elderly flake. But he does make one recent interesting point.

Obama’s “OBL Bump” has ended.

In the meantime, the USA borrows $58,000 a SECOND.

Pete and Repeat were walking down the street. Pete fell down.

And who was Left?

BZ