Obama’s Contempt for Israel Continues

It’s hard to believe that Obama’s support among Jewish voters is not eroding. Of course, the Jewish vote going traditionally to the left has always been something of a point of confusion.

This past weekend, Mitt Romney once again visited Israel and any comparison to Obama’s visit there nearly exactly 4 years ago as a candidate can be quickly dispelled.

In July of 2008, candidate Obama stopped in Israel but the visit was far, far different than Romney’s.

In 2008, Obama told the Israelis that, “I’m here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States and my abiding commitment to Israel’s security and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner, whether as a U.S. senator or as president.”

Obama, at the time, also stated, “A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

And, of the Palestinian issue, Obama said, “Israelis desire a secure peace in which both they and the Palestinians can fulfil their legitimate aspirations: a strong secure state of Israel living alongside a viable and peaceful Palestinian state. We must support Palestinian leaders who share this vision.”

So…Over his time in office, how has Obama done regarding these promises?

He has failed at every turn.

An “abiding commitment” to Israel’s security?

Really??

Exactly how “abiding” was his commitment to the security of Israel? Well, As president, Obama told Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel should go back to their pre 1967 borders which, as anyone would tell you, and Netanyahu told Obama, are completely indefensible borders.

In fact, SO committed to Israel’s security has been Obama that, as Egypt’s Mubarak fell, Obama publically stated the Muslim Brotherhood should have a seat at the table in forming a new government. The Brotherhood now owns that table and they’ve pledged to eliminate the decade’s old Israel/Egypt peace accord.

“Abiding commitment” to Israel’s security my gentile arse.

During his 2008 candidate’s visit to Israel, Obama not only met with Israeli officials but, he also paid a visit to Palestinian officials.

Palestine, as we know, is entwined to the nth degree with Hamas who has within their charter, to eliminate Israel and the Jews.

A “viable and peaceful” Palestinian state indeed.

Then there’s Iran and their nuclear program.

By ALL accounts, Iran is now MUCH closer to obtaining nuclear weapons than they were when Obama took office so, what exactly has Obama done to “prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?”

He’s turned to the U.N. for sanctions which ALWAYS work so well. Outside of that, Obama’s done nothing but assist Iran to buy more and more time.

Yes, Obama ordered OUR computer nerds to afflict Iran’s computers with various viruses but, he then let the program LEAK thus insuring such covert ops would NOT be nearly as successful in the future.

Since visiting Israel as a candidate, Obama, as president, has not returned. He has traveled to 30 other countries but, not Israel.

Netanyahu HAS come to the United States and on the first of those trips, Netanyahu was made to wait for his meeting with Obama who left early to dine with the family and Netanyahu was shown the back door exit from the White House.

In their meeting last May, Obama told Netanhayu that Israel should, hand over to the Palestinians, lands that would require walking back Israel’s borders to where they were prior to 1967. That would require Israel to give the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, or at least major portions of those lands to the Palestinians and Hamas.

This is particularly interesting because, on his 2008 candidate visit to Israel, Obama stated that, he supported Israel’s claim to the city of Jerusalem as its capital.

“I continue to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. I have said it before and will say it again … but I’ve also said that it is a final status issue that has to be dealt with by the parties involved.”

Can it be any wonder at all that White House bather point man, Jay Carney, has no idea what city Obama believes is the true Capitol of Israel?

Obviously, Jerusalem can NOT be Israel’s Capitol if it is separated and any part of it is in the hands of Hamas and the Palestinians.

Pressed as to WHY Obama has not made the effort since taking office, perhaps Barney Frank can offer insight.

“This close to the election I would think it would not be a good idea.I don’t think it’s a big deal. I think what’s important is the policy, not the tourism.”

When a sitting president travels to Israel, it is never as a tourist regardless of what Barney Frank seems to think and for that matter, Mitt Romney’s visit was not a tourist visit either and while Israelis understand that clearly, Jewish voters in America should recognize it also.

A sitting president or a candidate on the way to becoming president sends a message when visiting Israel and the message Romney sent over the weekend is the exact opposite of the message sent by Obama’s failure to travel to Israel and the exact opposite of his failed policies.

In the first 2 minutes of his speech in Israel, Romney left little doubt in the minds of Israelis or their enemies where HE stood and WITH whom he stood. There was no hesitation and no waffling like in Obama’s 2008 statement…“I continue to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. I have said it before and will say it again … but I’ve also said that it is a final status issue that has to be dealt with by the parties involved.”

Popout

If it’s about the policy, as Frank states, Jewish voters HERE must understand that Obama’s policies in the region are an abject failure.

Egypt is now in the hands of a government hostile toward Israel and so is Libya. Iran, while working toward nuclear weapons has been testing medium range missiles which can reach Israel. Syria is on the verge of becoming a vacuum which will no doubt be filled by those opposed to the existence of Israel and Syria, with their stockpile of chemical weapons is less than a short range stone’s throw from Israel.

Jewish voter in America have a decision to make.

Will they cling to Obama’s broken promises as a candidate in 2008?

Will they vote as a bloc for him again based on his promise to visit Israel “sometime” in his 2^nd term?

That all depends, I suppose, on whether there will still BE an Israel should that day arrive. As Israel is perfectly able to defend itself, amid a building Iranian nuclear threat and the threat of chemical attack from the likes of Syria, one must wonder what the outcome might be and the level of devastation that Israel might suffer in the process.

This past weekend was not the first time Mitt Romney has visited Israel and most certainly, it won’t be the last either. Romney and Netanyahu have a long and friendly history and Romney’s stated desire to stand WITH Israel and AGAINST common adversaries should not be taken as an empty promise either by Israelis or those adversaries.

It should also not be considered hollow by Jewish voters in this country.

Saudi silence on intelligence chief Bandar’s fate denotes panic

Disquiet in Washington, Jerusalem and a row of Middle East capitals is gaining ground the longer the Saudi government stays silent on the reports of the assassination of the newly-appointed Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, purportedly in a revenge operation by a Syrian intelligence death squad. If true, it would shoot a devastating tentacle out from the Syrian conflict to the broader region.

It is widely feared that Saudi rulers are too traumatized to respond by the fear of Iranian penetration of the highest and most closely guarded circles of Saudi government, possibly climaxing in Bandar’s assassination.
The unconfirmed reports of his death attribute its motive to revenge by Iran and Syria for the bomb explosion five days earlier in Damascus which killed four of Bashar Assad’s top managers of his war on the uprising against his regime.
The prince, son of the late crown prince Sultan, has not been seen in public since Saudi General Intelligence headquarters in Riyadh was hit by a bomb blast Monday, July 23 killing his deputy, Mashaal al-Qarni.  

DEBKA-Net-Weekly 550 of Friday, July 26, was the first world publication to report this attack, in the face of a massive official blackout, from its exclusive intelligence sources.
Now as then, DEBKAfile’s sources have obtained no confirmation that Prince Bandar was injured or killed in that attack. King Abdullah made him Director of Saudi Intelligence on July 19, just a day after the Damascus bombing. But our sources doubt whether a Syrian intelligence squad would be capable of reaching deep inside Riyadh. They therefore postulate that the deed was committed or orchestrated by a clandestine Iranian agency.
It wouldn’t be the first time.

In 2003 and 2004, Iran initiated a wave of bombing attacks inside the Saudi kingdom carried out by Al Qaeda, supplying its terror squads with intelligence, explosives and money. Al Qaeda experts ran those operations. One of them, Saif al-Adal, was later freed by Iran and is now based in Pakistan.
Iran’s terror masters may have gone back to their tested stratagem of hiring Al Qaeda terrorists for an insider job against the Saudi regime.
For Tehran, all means are justified for the preservation of their foremost Arab ally, Syrian ruler Bashar Assad, in power. Furthermore, Iran’s ability to strike deep into the heart of the Saudi capital is meant to serve as a timely object lesson for their Middle East enemies that Iran’s arm is long enough to reach inside any of their capitals.
The attack on Riyadh therefore throws a new perspective on the military calculations actuating the “Arab Spring” and governing US and Israel plans to strike Iran’s nuclear program in the very near future. In the same way, the Damascus bombing of July 18 dragged the Syrian civil war outside its borders to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Iran.
The unconfirmed report claiming Prince Bandar was critically injured and his doctors had lost the fight to save him, spilling out since Sunday July 29, has gained wide resonance – not because it was verified but because of its momentous strategic significance. Corroboration is still lacking. DEBKAfile reports that Washington too is groping the dark and has turned to its many Middle East intelligence contacts for a glimmer of light on what has happened to the key Saudi figure – so far without success.
It looks as though the enigma will be solved one way or another only after an authoritative account or an official statement is forthcoming from the Saudi government or if the missing prince appears in public.  The absence of any word from the Saudi government increases the trepidation in Washington and among concerned parties in the Middle East.

Inside France’s Future Muslim-Majority City

When foreigners think of the French city of Marseille they think of the national anthem, of Renoir sketching the old port in slashes of yellow and blue, and of castles and cafes overlooking the water. But the old port will now be overshadowed by a Grand Mosque.

The Grand Mosque project has cast a shadow over Marseille since 1989; its location on the site of a former slaughterhouse where pigs were once butchered and the Saudi money going into the project has only given the whole affair a more ominous air. The prolonged legal battle over its construction has gone on through the years even as Islamic terrorism in Marseille has grown to dangerous proportions.

In 1994, Marseille was where the Christmas Hijacking of Air France Flight 8969 came to its bloody end. Muslim terrorists from the Armed Islamic Group had hijacked the plane on Christmas Eve shouting “Allah Akbar” and informing the passengers that this particular deity had chosen them to wage war in his name. The terrorists forced the stewardesses to veil themselves with cabin blankets, recited verses from the Koran and murdered a number of passengers.

But the Armed Islamic Group had bigger plans than a few burkas and a few murders. Their plan was to ram Air France Flight 8969 directly into the Eiffel Tower. Marseille was supposed to be a refueling stopover before a final fatal flight to Paris, but with no sign of the extra fuel that would allow them to inflict maximum damage, the terrorists tried to kill a member of the crew who had told them he was an atheist. Instead French authorities took down the terrorists and prevented an earlier French version of September 11.

Islamic terror however wasn’t done with Marseille or the Eiffel Tower. More recently French authorities broke up another terrorist ring which had targeted the Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame. The Grand Mosque of Marseille is a more indirect form of architectural attack. Rather than blow up Marseille‘s Notre-Dame de la Garde church, considered by Catholics to be the guardian and protectress of the city, it will overshadow it instead.

Between a quarter and a third of Marseille’s residents are Muslim and demographics suggest that the city may be on its way to becoming the first majority Muslim city in Europe. Marseille’s coat of arms may still bear the azure cross, but not for long. There are already 60 mosques in the city, but many of them are underground. When it is completed, the Grand Mosque will act as a claim of ownership to the city.

Muslims had attacked the port city in the 9^th century capturing it and enslaving its native inhabitants. That which Muslims once took, their theologians insist is theirs in perpetuity. The Muslim return to Marseille is seen as a reconquista, a return to the land that was once theirs. Building a mega mosque is a way of sealing the deal and making it clear to any infidels that the religion of peace is back with a vengeance.

Romney and the Palestinian Culture of Destruction

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is under attack for speaking an important truth about the Arab-Israeli conflict. At a fundraiser in Jerusalem on Monday, Romney made the obvious, even banal, point about the economic disparity between nations. Speaking of Israel and the Palestinian-run West Bank, Romney said, “Culture makes all the difference.” Rejecting the geographic determinism that claims geography, climate, and species distribution account for the greater power and wealth of the West, Romney added, “you look at Israel and you say you have a hard time suggesting that all of the natural resources on the land could account for all the accomplishment of the people here.” Romney’s point was part of a larger discussion of global economic disparity that he has brought up previously in numerous speeches and in his book No Apology, and that scholars like David Landes and Thomas Sowell have developed in their work.

When it comes to Israel, however, no comment, no matter how sound its scholarly pedigree, that challenges the orthodox narrative favored by the Arabs and their Western shills will be allowed to pass without attack. Saeb Erekat, an aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, responded, “It is a racist statement and this man doesn’t realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation.” Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian legislator and official in the Palestine Liberation Organization, claimed the Palestinians “have to build an economy when they have no freedom of movement, no human rights, no fundamental freedoms.” International reporting on the remarks backed up the Palestinian interpretation by citing the “occupation” and “blockade” as the real explanation for why the Palestinians are failing economically.

These reactions are drearily predictable, including the incoherent charge of “racism” against somebody making a cultural argument. More important, once again Palestinian revanchist obsessions, anti-Semitism, and the jihadist death cult are ignored, and the reasons for Israeli defensive measures passed over, while Western materialist obsessions like “racism” “colonialism,” and “national aspirations” are used to explain destructive behavior the origins of which lie in cultural and religious dysfunctions.

Thus if you want to explain Palestinian economic backwardness, start with the Arab rejection of Israel’s legitimacy, one grounded in Islamic doctrine and culture. For all the duplicitous talk of the “two-state solution,” a critical mass of Arabs simply does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Nor is this rejection a consequence of an “illegal occupation” of an “Arab homeland” by neo-colonialist Jews abetted by Western imperialists. When four Arab armies invaded Israel in 1948, its purpose was not to create a Palestinian nation, something that has no historical reality. Rather, after they destroyed Israel, the aggressor nations planned to carve up among themselves what was left of mandatory Palestine. This rejection of Israel has been a constant over the last 60 years, as historian Efraim Karsh points out: “Had Arafat set the PLO from the start on the path to peace and reconciliation, instead of turning it into one of the most murderous terrorist organizations in modern times, a Palestinian state could have been established in the late 1960s or the early 1970s; in 1979 as a corollary to the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty; by May 1999 as part of the Oslo Process; or at the very latest with the Camp David summit of July 2000.”

The fact is, Israel was and is an abomination to Muslims not because there is no Palestinian state, but because it is a country comprising what Muslims consider dhimmi, a conquered inferior people whose lands and lives are forfeit to Muslims by decree of Allah. Nor does it help that Muslims especially loath Jews, hatred based on the authority of the Koran, Hadiths, and 14 centuries of Islamic theology and jurisprudence. Hence the rank anti-Semitism rampant among Palestinian Arabs, who routinely and publicly indulge invective and genocidal rhetoric redolent of Der Stürmer. The continuing existence in the Middle East of an economically and militarily powerful Israel, populated by despised dhimmi, is a daily humiliation for the peoples who consider themselves the “best of nations” destined to rule the world. Ending the “occupation” or lifting the defensive blockade of Gaza wouldn’t change this irrational, religiously sanctioned hatred.

Punishing Bachmann

n a controversy that FrontPage continues to coverclosely, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has raised questions – not accusations, just questions – about the infiltration of the U.S. government by Muslim Brotherhood loyalists. She and a few cohorts have specifically addressed the demonstrable Brotherhood family ties of Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Secretary of StateHillary Clinton. But under the Obama administration, anything but the most fawning treatment of Islam or Muslims isverboten, and so Ms. Bachmann must be punished.

Andrew C. McCarthy, former prosecutor of the 1993 World Trade Center bomb plot, has already detailed the validity of Bachmann’s concerns in his excellent briefing on the topic. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has also pointed outthe legitimacy of her inquiries. But Bachmann has nonetheless weathered smears and attacks not only from Obama’s people and their media enablers, but sadly, even from invertebrate fellow Republicans like Speaker John Boehner and Senator John McCain as well.

Merely denouncing her is not enough for some on the left, who want to take things to the next level. Democratic consultant Karen Finney, a political analyst for MSNBC, the network that is the progressive left’s loudest and most aggressive television mouthpiece, is calling for Bachmann to be removed from the House Intelligence Committee for daring to raise concerns about this national security issue.

In the bluntly titled “Punish Bachmann,” Finney predictably resorts to the left’s standard arsenal of personal demonization: the race card, the McCarthyism card – shockingly, she doesn’t draw the Islamophobia card but doesresort to “xenophobia” as a handy replacement. Finney calls Bachmann’s questions about Brotherhood infiltration “politically motivated, racist, xenophobic charges,” “baseless accusations,” “offensive,” and “ridiculous assertions” – while Finney herself does not answer, much less refute any of Bachmann’s points. Finney’s sole defense is that she has known Huma Abedin “for over 15 years as a friend and former colleague.”

Making baseless, ridiculous, and politically motivated charges of her own, Finney claimed that any suspicions about Abedin feed into “the narrative of the fearful ‘otherness’ of our first African-American president.” What insulting hooey. The “otherness” many Americans are increasingly outraged about – not “fearful” of – is not Obama’s skin color, but his affinity for Marxism and Islam. Finney claims that this “otherness fear-mongering” is making us

a less globally competitive, internally divided country, unable to embrace change and move forward as a multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, multireligious America bound by a Constitution that calls on us to respect the rights and freedoms of every citizen.

More hooey. America is plenty multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, and multireligious, and already does respect the rights and freedoms of every citizen. It is Obama himself who has made us less globally competitive and internally divided. Finney is trying to divert attention from the issue Bachmann raised: the subversive Brotherhood presence in our midst. She would have us believe that such questions are not only offensive but “jeopardize America’s security,” and that it is in our best interests to cultivate a relationship with the Brotherhood for our own protection:

Bachmann and the others who signed on to her call for an investigation have abused their position as members of the House of Representatives, making baseless accusations that recklessly jeopardize an already tense situation in the Middle East, and endangering the life of an American secretary of State and Americans in the region by stoking anti-American sentiment.

Stoking anti-American sentiment? The Muslim Brotherhood is the avowed enemy of America and the West; it’s already up to its collective henna-stained beard in anti-American sentiment. The left, quite frankly, brings its own anti-American sentiment to the table, and sees in Islamic fundamentalism a useful ally in the transformation of America according to Obama’s anti-colonialist, anti-capitalist, post-American vision. It is this unholy alliance, the Obama administration’s embrace of the Brotherhood domestically and abroad, that is jeopardizing America’s security.

U.N. Small Arms Treaty, Constitution, Second Amendment Second Amendment Safe—For Now

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.—2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In 2006, the U.N. Small Arms Treaty reared its ugly head, ostensibly to prevent the export of small arms to cartels, insurgents, and others. However, opponents of the treaty believe its true purpose was to impose a worldwide gun control standard and eventually give the U.N. the means to confiscate all guns.

The first step in the process consists of gun registration. This would give the U.N. an inventory of who has guns and what kind they have. Once they know this, they can decide which types of guns to ban, or to ban all of them, and then take steps to collect them. Ordinarily, the Senate would have to ratify the treaty for it to go into effect. However, back in 1969, the U.S. signed the Vienna Convention, which stipulated that when we sign a treaty, it will remain in force until either rejected by the Senate or renounced by the president. This treaty would also have the same standing as a Constitutional Amendment and would effectively repeal the 2nd Amendment. The Bush administration rejected the treaty and moved on.

Then, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama made a disparaging remark about people clinging to their God and their guns, which let us all know how he feels about gun rights. He took a lot of flak for that, but he still got elected. He and his liberal friends have made no secret of their disdain for the Second Amendment and this treaty appealed to him so he re-opened the talks. Everything was going along swimmingly well, for Obama at any rate, until the news got out that Hillary was actually set to sign the treaty.

The NRA stepped up their efforts and got commitments from 58 U.S. Senators to vote against it if it came to the Senate. Then the Internet took over, and millions of Americans signed petitions against the treaty. They called their Senators and Representatives who pressured the administration.

According to a report by Forbes, “On June 29, 130 Republican House members sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton arguing that the proposed treaty infringes on the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.” The letter charges that “…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” The lawmakers adamantly insist that the U.S. Government has no right to support a treaty that violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

So on Friday, Hillary was set to sigh a treat that would have remained in force until either the president or the Senate decide to strike it down, but she did not sign it.

We the People spoke, and Hillary did not sign it.

But we shouldn’t celebrate our victory for too long because this issue is not dead. Obama knows that if he pursues this further right now,  it could truly kill any chance he has of re-election. So for now, he’ll most likely just let it lie. Once the election is over, and if he is indeed re-elected, he can and most likely will, take this up again and move forward as though nothing had ever happened.

In the meantime, the Senate is taking a few steps of its own. In a letter to concerned constituents, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) said, “I support Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) in his efforts to prevent any taxpayer funds from being expended in support of negotiation of this United Nations treaty. This year, I again joined many of my Senate colleagues in a letter to the President that expresses our strong opposition to the U.S. even being a party to negotiations about this treaty.”

As time goes on, the U.N. will continue to push this treaty and others at us that have the potential to destroy our sovereignty and invalidate our Constitution. We must remain vigilant and stay involved. Without the involvement of We the People, we are nothing more than sheep.

---

Joan R. Neubauer  Most recent columns

Whatever happened to “do the math?”

Whatever happened to “do the math?”

I’m not suggesting calculators, slide rules, or abaci, just normal common sense responses of indignation at the arrogant and ignorant actions by the current administration, enabled by the ineffectual likes of John Boehner and John McCain, whose spines quiver like Jell-o every time an act of statesmanship is in order.

At a time when a shadow government has been installed before their very eyes and key government positions have been filled by avowed Muslims and Communists, we have McCain telling Michelle Bachmann to stand down instead of pursuing the truth in fulfillment of her sworn responsibility as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, and Boehner running a squeeze-play to force her off the playing field. Why? For questioning the vetting process and family ties of Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, whose family are active and influential members of the radical Muslim Brotherhood? That makes as little sense as FDR retaining key members in his administration with ties to Hirohito or Hitler, or any number of presidents during the Cold War adding staff whose parents were in the KGB, then acting appalled at questions about propriety, notwithstanding national security.

Thankfully, Representative Bachmann and other patriotic members of her committee carry an inborn immunity to the newly discovered Boehner’s Disease, the symptoms of which are an increase in timidity, cowardice, and dereliction of duty which rise in direct proportion to confronting reality and the enemy.

Jihad is often misconstrued as being associated solely with violence, when in fact it is an obligation and religious duty of Muslims to overthrow and convert anything and anyone through any means “to command what is right and forbid what is wrong,” which is a mumbo-jumbo and rationalized way of saying “my way, or the highway,” for flexibility and tolerance only exist within the religion’s narrow and self-created prism of rank subjectivity. Clearly, the steep and slippery slope newer members of Congress must scale is compounded in difficulty by an old guard reluctant to engage in the defense of personal liberties and national security, and exacerbated by this administration’s flagrant circumvention of Congress and The Constitution.


Consider: the previous four presidential administrations, covering a period of 28 years, signed 81 Executive Orders, and that Mr. Obama has blatantly and perniciously in three and one half years already signed 130 such orders and assembled 45 Czars, with the express intent of illicitly centralizing power in the Executive Branch while simultaneously neutering Congress.

There has been so much pussy-footing around the Obama Debacle that it is long past time to mince words and for Congress to embrace its responsibilities with decisive action. Randomly without ranking in order the level of devastation, we are now being ruled instead of governed; we have egregious security leaks that have imperiled thecountry, its operatives, and allies; the fifth consecutive year of Pelosi/Reid/Obama trillion dollar budgetary overruns impedes short and long term economic viability; and taxes that could not be passed legislatively against high-income achievers have been woven into and litter a bill purporting to improve health care. All this at a time when impeachment should be under urgent consideration, indictments and arrests should be issued for treason, and an immediate and entire rescindment of Obamacare should take place until a decade worth of independent studies have been performed in order to weigh the damage government interference will have on health care delivery.

Instead of following the daft and condescending advice of a seditious Nancy Pelosi suggesting the need to pass a law so we know what is in it, how about trying something new, such as learning about the damaging effects of decreased competition and addressing the gross and historical ineptitude of government management? Then we won’t have to read a bill to find out what is in it; we’ll know enough about the detrimental nature of passing such a bill and avoid another government-run fiscal catastrophe.

Obviously, our intelligence apparatus has been jeopardized, and the problem now is to determine to what degree and by whom and how many, and because acceptable vetting procedures were not followed due to end runs around long-standing practices designed to protect, the inevitable compromise has occurred. Predictably, yet incomprehensibly, the designated enemies of this administration are sovereign states, and gun-owning Christians who have been labeled as domestic terrorists by the Director of Homeland Security. Meanwhile the administration is peddling the ruse that domestic drone spying is required for intelligence purposes and forbidding tweeting and texting during speeches by Joe Biden, an infringement upon free speech and the first step toward censorship of untold dimensions. In his spare time, Mr. Obama has also through some heretofore unknown means managed to funnel $1.5 Billion to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, a group our country has long-maintained is a worldwide terroristic organization.

The move toward having more welfare recipients than taxpayers is accelerating due to unilateral and illegal efforts by the administration to grant amnesty and overload the democratic base via executive fiat, (an inconsistent process in our country, should you need a reminder) which when accomplished will render the 49% who do pay as nothing more than indentured servants of the government for those who do not pay and have no inclination to pay as long as they continue to receive freebies, for you must not forget, according to this Marxist president, business success was not the result of innovation, endless toil, and bold risk-taking; it grew ONLY at the expense of others and is now considered nothing more than a pawn on a chessboard whose profits are there for the government to usurp and redistribute.

Through it all, Boehner sits like a clay dummy until he’s beckoned to caddy another round for the president, and John McCain strives daily to become an even bigger embarrassment to his party. The border of the state he claims to represent is a virtual war zone; Arizona has been sued by the federal government and summarily cut off from federal aid to fight terror, and McCain remains idly mute unless he is placating the administration and rationalizing the maintenance of an ever-sinking status quo.

And in what could be the most sicko-ironic-twist of all time, McCain, through unmitigated pomposity, morphs into Jane Fonda by castigated a ranking member of the Intelligence Committee for valid questions about nationalsecurity, suggesting that such concerns are unfounded, implying- ala- Jane that there is not a real and present danger, and that the enemy should be coddled because it is largely misunderstood.
Are you coming up with the same numbers as I?

Math class is dismissed.

Mitt Romney: A true friend of Israel By DANNY DANON

Obama, on the other hand, has been anything but resolute in his support for Israel since he was elected in 2008.

PHOTO: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST

The American presidential elections are upon us, and as with every four-year cycle, each candidate and both parties try to convince voters in the US that they are the true pro-Israel candidate.

In this election, those who want what is truly best for Israel are presented with a starker choice than usual. On one hand, there is Gov.

Mitt Romney, who is taking the time to visit us at the moment, and who time and again has spoken out strongly for Israel’s rights to safeguard our own interests.

On the other hand, incumbent candidate President Barak Obama has all but adopted the Palestinian negotiation position and given Israel the cold shoulder on every possible occasion.
Romney has decided to visit us just three short months before the most important election of his life.

By coming here, Romney is indicating to his Israeli friends his deep commitment to the State of Israel and the importance that he places on his friendship with the Jewish people.

Not only is the governor taking the time to visit the Jewish state in the midst of his campaign, but he has also stated repeatedly that should he win the presidency, his first official trip abroad would be to Israel. It is these types of pledges – along with his steadfast statements affirming Israel’s right to defend itself from all threats, both near and far – that is convincing so many Democratic pro-Israel voters to switch sides and vote for the Republican candidate in the upcoming election.

Obama, on the other hand, has been anything but resolute in his support for Israel since he was elected in 2008. In his now infamous Cairo Speech, the president put the onus of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict squarely on the shoulders of what was once called America’s only true ally in the Middle East.
When later pressuring Israel into the ill-advised construction freeze, Obama was the main reason that for the first time since the establishments of the State of Israel, that Jews were outlawed from building homes in their historic homeland.

At the same time, it was considered completely legitimate for the Palestinians to continue building (legally and illegally) and creating their “facts on the ground” throughout Judea and Samaria.

To add insult to injury, Obama was able to find the time to visit many of Israel’s neighbors during his first term – including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey – but he could not fit a quick stop to Israel into his schedule to discuss these new policies with his Israeli counterparts.

It is my belief that the State of Israel should not be involved in our allies’ elections. We should, however, be ready to cooperate with any candidate who supports our cause.

There are too many enemies in our region and around the world who threaten our very existence to ignore such friends as the United States.

That being said, we do have the right to examine each candidate for who they truly are, and to state clearly when one is a greater friend of Israel than the other.

Welcome to Israel, Gov. Romney!

The writer is Deputy Speaker of the Knesset and chairman of World Likud.

Michelle Obama Sports $6,800 Jacket to London Soiree

The liberal media was all upset that “elitist” Ann Romney wore a $990 top during a May interview on “This Morning.” Yet this same media cheered the fashion and style of Queen Michelle Obama whose taste in sweaters cost her over $2,000 a pop.

But, yesterday Michelle Obama outdid herself.

Michelle Obama wore silver-and-white J Mendel for the evening soiree at Buckingham Palace. (Daily Mail)

The Embroidered Cap Sleeve Jacket costs $6,800.
Just a drop in the bucket.

Hat Tip Rachel

The jacket cost more than the average American family makes in a month ($4,284).

And, she does this as Americans continue to suffer through a deep recession and record unemployment.
Michelle feels your pain.

DHS gears up for civil unrest prior to presidential elections

The Department of Homeland Security has ordered masses of riot gear equipment to prepare for potential significant domestic riots at the Republican National Convention, Democratic National Convention and next year’s presidential inauguration.

The DHS submitted a rushed solicitation to the Federal Business Opportunities site on Wednesday, which is a portal for Federal government procurement requisitions over $25,000. The request gave the potential suppliers only one day to submit their proposals and a 15-day delivery requirement to Alexandria, Virginia.

As the brief explains, “the objective of this effort is to procure riot gear to prepare for the 2012 Democratic and Republican National Conventions, the 2013 Presidential Inauguration and other future similar activities.”

The total amount ordered is about 150 sets of riot helmets, thigh and groin protectors, hard-shell shin guards and other riot gear.

Specifically, DHS is looking to obtain:

- “147 riot helmets” with “adjustable tactical face shield with liquid seal”

- “147 sets of upper body and shoulder protection”

- “152 sets of thigh and groin protection”

- “147 hard-shell shin guards” with “substantial protection from flying debris, non-ballistic weapons, and blows to the leg” and “optimized protective design for severe riot control or tactical situations.”

- “156 forearm protectors”

- “147 pairs of tactical gloves”

The riot gear will be worn by Federal Protective Service agents who are tasked with protecting property, grounds and buildings owned by the federal government.

The urgency of the order can be explained by the fact that there is a growing anticipation that many demonstrators will travel to the Republican National Convention (RNC), scheduled for August 27-30 in Tampa Bay, Florida, and Democratic National Convention (DNC), planned for September 3-6 in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The RNC itself, for example, will have free speech zones, which will serve as containment quarters for the protesters by not allowing them to leave the designated areas and cause trouble.

Another recent DHS move to gear up was back in March of this year, when it gave the defense contractor ATK a deal to provide the DHS with 450 million .40 caliber hollow-point ammunition over a five year period.

On top of that, the DHS has recently purchased a number of bullet-proof checkpoint booths and hired hundreds of new security guards to protect government buildings.

Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen With Health Law

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — In the Inland Empire, an economically depressed region in Southern California, President Obama’s health care law is expected to extend insurance coverage to more than 300,000 people by 2014. But coverage will not necessarily translate into care: Local health experts doubt there will be enough doctors to meet the area’s needs. There are not enough now.

Monica Almeida/The New York Times

Temetry Lindsey, chief executive of Inland Health Services, seeks to hire more doctors.

The New York Times

Other places around the country, including the Mississippi Delta, Detroit and suburban Phoenix, face similar problems. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that in 2015 the country will have 62,900 fewer doctors than needed. And that number will more than double by 2025, as the expansion of insurance coverage and the aging of baby boomers drive up demand for care. Even without the health care law, the shortfall of doctors in 2025 would still exceed 100,000.

Health experts, including many who support the law, say there is little that the government or the medical profession will be able to do to close the gap by 2014, when the law begins extending coverage to about 30 million Americans. It typically takes a decade to train a doctor.

“We have a shortage of every kind of doctor, except for plastic surgeons and dermatologists,” said Dr. G. Richard Olds, the dean of the new medical school at the University of California, Riverside, founded in part to address the region’s doctor shortage. “We’ll have a 5,000-physician shortage in 10 years, no matter what anybody does.”

Experts describe a doctor shortage as an “invisible problem.” Patients still get care, but the process is often slow and difficult. In Riverside, it has left residents driving long distances to doctors, languishing on waiting lists, overusing emergency rooms and even forgoing care.

“It results in delayed care and higher levels of acuity,” said Dustin Corcoran, the chief executive of the California Medical Association, which represents 35,000 physicians. People “access the health care system through the emergency department, rather than establishing a relationship with a primary care physician who might keep them from getting sicker.”

In the Inland Empire, encompassing the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, the shortage of doctors is already severe. The population of Riverside County swelled42 percent in the 2000s, gaining more than 644,000 people. It has continued to grow despite the collapse of one of the country’s biggest property bubbles and a jobless rate of 11.8 percent in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metro area.

But the growth in the number of physicians has lagged, in no small part because the area has trouble attracting doctors, who might make more money and prefer living in nearby Orange County or Los Angeles.

A government council has recommended that a given region have 60 to 80 primary care doctors per 100,000 residents, and 85 to 105 specialists. The Inland Empire has about 40 primary care doctors and 70 specialists per 100,000 residents — the worst shortage in California, in both cases.

Moreover, across the country, fewer than half of primary care clinicians were accepting new Medicaid patients as of 2008, making it hard for the poor to find care even when they are eligible for Medicaid. The expansion of Medicaid accounts for more than one-third of the overall growth in coverage in President Obama’s health care law.

Providers say they are bracing for the surge of the newly insured into an already strained system.

Temetry Lindsey, the chief executive of Inland Behavioral & Health Services, which provides medical care to about 12,000 area residents, many of them low income, said she was speeding patient-processing systems, packing doctors’ schedules tighter and seeking to hire more physicians.

“We know we are going to be overrun at some point,” Ms. Lindsey said, estimating that the clinics would see new demand from 10,000 to 25,000 residents by 2014. She added that hiring new doctors had proved a struggle, in part because of the “stigma” of working in this part of California.

Across the country, a factor increasing demand, along with expansion of coverage in the law and simple population growth, is the aging of the baby boom generation. Medicareofficials predict that enrollment will surge to 73.2 million in 2025, up 44 percent from 50.7 million this year.

“Older Americans require significantly more health care,” said Dr. Darrell G. Kirch, the president of the Association of American Medical Colleges. “Older individuals are more likely to have multiple chronic conditions, requiring more intensive, coordinated care.”

The pool of doctors has not kept pace, and will not, health experts said. Medical school enrollment is increasing, but not as fast as the population. The number of training positions for medical school graduates is lagging. Younger doctors are on average working fewer hours than their predecessors. And about a third of the country’s doctors are 55 or older, and nearing retirement.

Physician compensation is also an issue. The proportion of medical students choosing to enter primary care has declined in the past 15 years, as average earnings for primary care doctors and specialists, like orthopedic surgeons and radiologists, have diverged. A study by the Medical Group Management Association found that in 2010, primary care doctors made about $200,000 a year. Specialists often made twice as much.

The Obama administration has sought to ease the shortage. The health care law increases Medicaid’s primary care payment rates in 2013 and 2014. It also includes money to train new primary care doctors, reward them for working in underserved communities and strengthen community health centers.

But the provisions within the law are expected to increase the number of primary care doctors by perhaps 3,000 in the coming decade. Communities around the country need about 45,000.

Many health experts in California said that while they welcomed the expansion of coverage, they expected that the state simply would not be ready for the new demand. “It’s going to be necessary to use the resources that we have smarter” in light of the doctor shortages, said Dr. Mark D. Smith, who heads the California HealthCare Foundation, a nonprofit group.

Dr. Smith said building more walk-in clinics, allowing nurses to provide more care and encouraging doctors to work in teams would all be part of the answer. Mr. Corcoran of the California Medical Association also said the state would need to stop cutting Medicaid payment rates; instead, it needed to increase them to make seeing those patients economically feasible for doctors.

More doctors might be part of the answer as well. The U.C. Riverside medical school is hoping to enroll its first students in August 2013, and is planning a number of policies to encourage its graduates to stay in the area and practice primary care.

But Dr. Olds said changing how doctors provided care would be more important than minting new doctors. “I’m only adding 22 new students to this equation,” he said. “That’s not enough to put a dent in a 5,000-doctor shortage.”

Annie Lowrey reported from Riverside, and Robert Pear from Washington.

Book bombshell: Obama canceled Bin Laden ‘kill’ raid three times at Jarrett’s urging

At the urging of Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission, according to an explosive new book scheduled for release August 21. The Daily Caller has seen a portion of the chapter in which the stunning revelation appears. In “Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him,”Richard Miniter writes that Obama cancelled the “kill” mission in January 2011, again in February, and a third time in March. Obama’s close adviser Valerie Jarrett persuaded him to hold off each time, according to the book.
Miniter, a two-time New York Times best-selling author, cites an unnamed source with Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning. Obama administration officials also said after the raid that the president had delayed giving the order to kill the arch-terrorist the day before the operation was carried out, in what turned out to be his fourth moment of indecision. At the time, the White House blamed the delay on unfavorable weather conditions near bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. But when Miniter obtained that day’s weather reports from the U.S. Air Force Combat Meteorological Center, he said, they showed ideal conditions for the SEALs to carry out their orders. “President Obama’s greatest success was actually his greatest failure,” Miniter told The Daily Caller Friday. “Leading From Behind,” he said, traces the arc of six key Obama administration decisions, and shows how the president made them — and, often, failed to make them. Another chapter, he told TheDC, concerns the push to pass the Affordable Care Act. The president, Miniter said, was less interested than then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in passing his own signature legislative achievement. Osama bin Laden steered the global operations of the al-Qaida terror network until his death last year at the hands of the U.S. Navy’s SEAL Team Six. The president and his surrogates have made the terrorist leader’s death a focal point in Obama’s re-election campaign, painting Obama as a decisive leader who took down America’s greatest mortal enemy. Follow David on Twitter

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/27/bin-laden-kill-called-off-3-times-valerie-jarrett/#ixzz220YsCvHU 

An ill wind blows between US and Israeli intelligence over attack on Iran

The acrimony reached a nadir with an unusually detailed Association Press report on July 28 quoting anonymous sources as stating, “The CIA considers Israel its No. 1 counterintelligence threat in the agency’s New East Division,” - the group that oversees spying across he Middle East.
Prime Minister Binyamin’s Office reviled its content, including allegations of Mossad intrusions of US officials’ homes, as “a lying report.”

This leak had two objectives, says DEBKAfile:
1. To deter US presidential candidate Mitt Romney from using his visit to Israel Sunday and Monday July 29-30 to promise, if elected in November,  to review Jonathan Pollard’s life sentence for spying for Israel, which all previous US presidents have refused to do at the CIA's behest. It has been suggested that he may be considering going on record with this pledge to win Jewish votes.
2.  To hit back at the Israel watchers dogging the footsteps of CIA agents planted in a widely-flung undercover network for picking up any clues that  Israeli preparations for a unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear program are moving into operational phase.

Although American and Israeli officials habitually stress the commonalty of the two government’s decisions on Iran - and top US officials are again turning up in Israel every few days - President Barack Obama still can’t be sure that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak won’t take him off-guard by springing an attack at a date earlier than the one under discussion between them.
DEBKAfile’s Washington sources report that October is often mentioned these days in the White House, the Pentagon and top military command as the month to watch. Persian Gulf capitals are also on guard for an October attack although they prefer an American to an Israeli strike.
High-ranking Saudi princes have been telling Western officials on recent visits to the kingdom that they received Washington’s assurance that the Israelis would strike first and the Americans join in later.

Riyadh has tried to persuade the Obama administration that the US must go first and do its utmost to keep the Israelis out of it altogether. The Saudis were told that Washington is doing what it can to hold Israel back but can’t be sure of succeeding.
Obama’s National Security Adviser Tom Donilon discussed Iran and Syria with the Israeli prime minister when he visited Jerusalem on July 14. He did indeed share with him the US contingency plan for an operation against Iran, as reported - except for one salient piece of information: He could not say whether or not the US President had decided to execute it.
The information he received from Netanyahu was that Israel is on the point of a decision to attack Iran but has not yet settled on a date.

July 26, twelve days later, Barak was more outspoken: Israel, he said, faced "tough and crucial decisions" about its security and future. "I am well aware of the difficulties involved in thwarting Iran's attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. However, it is clear to me without a doubt that dealing with the threat itself will be far more complicated, far more dangerous and far more costly in resources and human life than thwarting it."

This was a broad hint that Israel no longer regarded action for preempting Iran’s nuclear program to be optional.  It came in response to the Islamic Republic’s steady advance towards weapons-grade uranium enrichment – up to 30 percent grade in recent months in parallel with nuclear negotiations with the world powers – and its published plans for producing Highly-Enriched Uranium (HEU) usable for propelling ships engines, but also for fueling nuclear bombs.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is the latest high-powered American official due to visit Israel. Wednesday, Aug. 1, he will sit down with Israeli leaders. They will no doubt continue talking about the date of an attack on Iran and try to pull US and Israeli timelines and plans together onto a single, agreed track.
But none of the discussions between the two governments has so far tied Israel down to an agreed date or plan of action. Netanyahu is holding tight to the option of a surprise attack – hence the dense network of CIA agents lurking behind every official and military corner in Israel. They are pouncing and reporting on the slightest clue to the IDF switching to operational mode for a strike on Iran.
DEBKAfile’s Western intelligence sources, who don’t recall ever seeing so extensive an undercover CIA presence in Israel, report that Israeli security agencies have gone to extraordinary lengths to counter their access to classified information about IDF activities.
As a result of this duel, US and Israel spy agencies are at daggers drawn, as evinced in the AP report.

Carney Unable to Identify Capital of Israel

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/carney-unable-say-capital-israel_649019.html

Small Retailers Open Up Storefronts on Facebook Pages

When Mandie Miller left her job as an on-air traffic reporter in Charlotte, N.C., to have her first child, she started baking cakes for friends, just for fun. The response was so positive that in April 2009 she started a business, Got What It Cakes.

Ms. Miller put up a Web site, but about five months later her sister created a Got What It Cakes Facebook page. That’s when the business started to grow. Cake orders went from two or three a weekend to six to 10; now Ms. Miller is turning away another 10 each weekend. Annual revenue at the end of her second year in business was a little more than $40,000.

Got What It Cakes is part of a new wave of online commerce: F-commerce. Social media specialists say the term was coined in 2009 to describe the growing number of businesses that sell through a Facebook page. Payvment, a start-up that provides support for Facebook shopping transactions, says it has 170,000 clients and is signing on about 1,500 stores a week, most with fewer than five employees.

The rise of F-commerce has been largely haphazard, something Facebook did not instigate or promote. A spokesman declined to discuss the phenomenon, except to acknowledge, “Retailers are experimenting in a number of ways.”

Small businesses seem to be having more success on Facebook than large companies, said Sucharita Mulpuru, a retail analyst at Forrester. Those doing well, she said, generally have less than $100,000 in revenue and fewer than 10 employees. Gap, Nordstrom, J. C. Penney and GameStop, on the other hand, have all shut down Facebook stores in the last 12 months, mostly, Ms. Mulpuru said, because consumers are accustomed to the richer experience on retailing Web sites.

But Facebook can present challenges to businesses of all sizes. Some consumers do not feel safe buying directly from a Facebook storefront, said Krista Garcia, a social commerce analyst with a market research firm, eMarketer. And business owners should be aware that they do not own their Facebook pages — Facebook does, and it can change the appearance and rules whenever it wants.

GETTING STARTED It’s easy for a small business to open a Facebook storefront by creating a page in the business’s name, loading photos of the product and adding shopping functions. Because Facebook storefronts can look generic, small businesses have to find ways to differentiate themselves, said Jay Bean, chief executive of an online marketing firm, OrangeSoda.

Customizing a page is done by installing applications that enable customers to do things like shop, enter contests or see a menu. Apps are available from Facebook and outside vendors, or they can be custom-developed.

Payvment’s tools let businesses create a storefront with a shopping cart and promotions like discounts and coupons.

USE YOUR PERSONALITY Unlike larger businesses, small businesses can build on their personal relationships to end users, said Wendy Tan-White, chief executive of Moonfruit, which builds and supports e-commerce Web sites. She advises using a cover image for a business’s page that relates not only to the product or service but to customers, too.

On the Got What It Cakes storefront, for example, the cover photo shows the owner, Ms. Miller, in her home, with baby photos on the wall behind her and several cakes scattered about the sitting room; the smaller-profile photo is the company logo.

Many of Ms. Miller’s customers are busy mothers like her, and she communicates frequently with them on Facebook. “I am a local, one-person business but I have 5,000 fans,” she said.

Ms. Miller gives the kinds of tips her customers might get from a friend, like what to do with leftover chocolate cake batter: “Put some butter on your griddle and make pancakes with it.”

POST, PIN AND TAG To attract fans and friends, a storefront needs to be dynamic, with frequent posts — status updates and photos. Tagging people in a photo may cause the photo to show up on the tagged person’s page, where friends (and often friends’ friends) can see it.

Deann Kump, founder of TuTu Cute, which sells hair accessories and clothing for mothers, babies and toddlers, hosts a monthly photo contest on her page.

“If someone posts a photo of their daughter wearing one of my products and tags it, their friends will wonder, ‘What is TuTu Cute?’ and go to my page,” she said.

Mrs. Kump opened on Facebook last December and about half of her sales occur on the site.

Ms. Tan-White of Moonfruit suggested that a business give customers incentives to spread the word, offering a discount if they tag its product in a photo. Facebook’s “pin” feature allows users to pin a post, which might be a product of the week or a special discount and pushes the post to the top of a business’s page.

FOCUS ON COMMUNITY Magical Moments Modeling made TuTu Cute a “boutique of the month” on its Facebook page in April so friends of both pages could see it. And Mrs. Kump often promotes the work of children’s photographers she likes; they in turn promote her accessories.

Patrick Skoff, a painter who sells 90 percent of his paintings on Facebook, said some visitors to his page might have been hesitant about buying until they saw the comments and “likes” on new and sold paintings.

“They see all the likes and think, ‘Oh, I better buy that before someone else does,’ ” Mr. Skoff said.

In July he painted 10 paintings a day for 10 days and sold all of them through Facebook.

Darren Gann, co-owner of the Baby Grocery Store, started his Facebook storefront in February (he also has a kiosk in SouthPark Mall in Charlotte). Thirty-five percent of his sales come through Facebook, and Mr. Gann gives lots of help and advice to his customers. “They communicate with us there about everything, from asking about a shipment to what do we recommend for a gluten-free 9-month-old."

Heather Logrippo opened a Facebook storefront in 2009 for We’ve Labels, which sells clothing labels. She routinely goes to the Facebook pages where her customers spend time, like those for quilters or knitters.

“I log on as We’ve Labels and start interacting with people, writing things like: ‘That’s a beautiful scarf you’ve knitted,’ ” she said. Those knitters and quilters will often click on the We’ve Labels page out of curiosity.

OFFER OPTIONS While some small businesses sell only through Facebook, others maintain separate Web sites or have bricks-and-mortar outlets, because not all consumers feel comfortable using their credit card information on the site.

Ashley Gall, owner of Méli Jewelry, which sells jewelry she designs and makes, said buying on Facebook was still too new for many of her customers — 15 percent of her sales happen there — so she also sells on Etsy, Indie Fashion Marketplace and her own Web site.

Most of Mandie Miller’s customers order on Facebook and pay when she delivers the cake or when they pick it up. Yet she still maintains a Web site of her own.

“I do a lot of wedding cakes, and it’s the moms and dads of brides usually paying and they often want to go to a regular business Web site. I also have grandmothers in their 80s and 90s that come to my cake tastings,” she said. “They aren’t on Facebook.”

This story originally appeared in The New York Times

URL: http://www.cnbc.com//id/48335676/