Friday, December 25, 2009

Reid and Obamacare, a Conservative's View of Healthcare "Reform"

1. THE SELLING OF THE SENATE. The Senate needed sixty votes to get their health care bill passed - all 58 democrats and the 2 independents. However, there was much dissension in the dems ranks, so Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had to BUY votes. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska objected to the language on abortion. But somehow, he ended up getting Nebraska PERMANENTLY exempt from the payment for ANY Medicaid expenses for future Medicaid recipients in Nebraska. Currently, each state pays a share of Medicaid and the Feds also pay a share for each state. Now, the taxpayers in the other 49 states will pay for their own Medicaid (Medi-Cal in CA.) recipients and for a share of Nebraska's as well!

Perhaps George Will said it best: "Reid was buying the votes of senators whose understanding of the duties of representation does not rise above the looting of the nation for local benefits. And Reid had two advantages - the spending, taxing and borrowing powers of the federal leviathan, and an almost gorgeous absence of scruples or principles." (From the 12/22/09 Ventura County Star.) Of course, Nelson was not alone in accepting bribes (is there any other word for it?). Senator Mary Landrieu managed to get an extra $300,000,000. for her state by holding out.

And how harsh was the mainstream media about this vote buying and bribery in the United States Senate? The 12/22/09 Ventura County was emblematic in their editorial: " the end, he (Reid) held together his 58 fractious fellow democrats and plus two independents..." Held together? Don't they mean bribed? Let's be realistic. If this type of bribery occurred in any city council in the country, the participants would be going to JAIL! In fact, if this type of bribery occurred in any state legislature in the country, the participants would be going to jail. But when it happens in the highest deliberative political body in the country they call it "deal making," or "horse trading," or "earmarks." But make no mistake; Reid was giving away taxpayers' dollars (YOUR MONEY) to buy votes.

Obama came into office promising transparency in government; trying to put an end to "earmarks;" bipartisanship; and a new way of doing business in Washington. Transparency? Reid engaged in one back room deal after the next. An end to earmarks? See above giveaways! Bipartisanship? No bill of this magnitude has EVER passed on a single party vote. New way of doing business in Washington? Really? So the question is, do any of these politicians even SEE a problem here, the way the rest of America does. Mary Landrieu: "Nothing could make me vote for a bill if I didn't think it was the right thing to do for my state and for the nation." Really Mary? Did $300 million help you come to the conclusion that it was the "right" thing to do? Reid: "A number of states are treated differently than other states. That's what legislation's all about: compromise." (Quotes from the 12/21/09 USA Today.) I think Harry's a little too easy on himself - "bribery" fits a lot better than "compromise." And Obama? He was so impressed with the fact that the Senate was "working" so hard he delayed his holiday trip to Hawaii. "If they're making these sacrifices to provide healthcare to all Americans, then the least I can do is to be around and to provide them any encouragement and last minute help if necessary." (From the 12/23/09 LA Times.) So it appears that mister "Hope and Change" does not see any problem.

So to my readers who support the proposed healthcare legislation: do you agree that the ends justify the means, as the dems in the Senate do? Or do you agree that people like Reid and Nelson and Landrieu should be prosecuted and go to jail? Is anyone NOT totally disgusted by the behavior of these senators?

2. NO NEW TAXES? Obama said the healthcare bill should not increase the deficit or raise taxes. LIE! Seriously, just how did you think they were going to pay for all of this? Obama also said that "the federal government will go bankrupt" if the healthcare bill fails. (From 12/16/09 Verizon News online.) ANOTHER LIE! Where's the proof for that? And how does spending trillions more PREVENT bankruptcy? One of the biggest proposed taxes in the Senate bill is on "Cadillac" health insurance plans costing more than $8500. per year. This writer pays $2053 per month or $24636 per year. The tax would be on the amount over $8500 which is $16136. 40% of that is $6454.40! That's my new tax. Millions of people across the country pay more than $8500. per year for their premiums. So the Dems tell us we have a health care crisis that is making insurance too costly for an increasing number of Americans. So it would be fair to ask: why is the government making it MORE costly? (More on this below.) (Correction on 12/28/09: I am told by my insurance agent that his understanding is that the $8500. tax free limit is per PERSON and not per POLICY. If that is the case, my apologies to my readers.)

All Americans will be required to buy health insurance. If you cannot afford it, the taxpayers will pay it for you. If you can afford it and refuse, you pay a 2.5% income tax surcharge under the House bill; and "fines" (read "taxes") under the Senate bill (up to $750. in 2016, $350. in 2015 and $95. in 2014). However, higher earners pay 2% of their income up to $2250. per family. And businesses get to pay separate taxes: under the House bill up to 8% of payroll for companies with $500,000. or more total payroll; and under the Senate bill a "fine" (read "tax") of $750. for each qualified full time employee with companies employing 50 or more people. (Data from the 12/21/09 USA Today.)

3. CONSTITUTIONALITY? Hopefully, republicans will be challenging the constitutionality of some of the soon to be law's new provisions. Can the feds mandate that people actually buy a particular good or service; in this case, health insurance. As Orrin Hatch noted, the Congress has previously "regulated" activities that people voluntarily engaged in; and not mandated that they actually do an activity. But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says Congress' power comes from Article 1, Section 8, which allows Congress to provide for the "general welfare." (Quotes from the 12/24/09 Investor's Business Daily) If that becomes the standard, then there is absolutely no limit on what Congress can do, from requiring you to buy certain cars, buy certain foods, participate in government run/supervised exercise programs and on and on and on; all for the purpose of the "general welfare." Clearly, the dems have no understanding or respect for the Constitution, which was intended to create a government of limited powers.

Apparently, the Senate also put a provision in their bill that future Congresses would NOT be allowed to amend or change certain parts of this proposed law. That hardly seems constitutional. That would allow this Congress to pass legislation in every major area that could never be changed. Why would we need future Congresses?

4. WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALFIE? Clearly, the dems did not get everything they wanted in the current senate bill. No public option. No Medicare buy-in at age 55. Employers will have to pay fines or subsidize their employees health benefits; or, as seems likely, lay people off. Individuals will have to become law-breakers or buy their own insurance if their employers do not come under the mandate. Small businesses and the self-insured, as usual, will be very hard hit. I think the socialist senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, is on to something: "government run health insurance will return when the realization dawns that private insurance companies are no longer needed." I think the dems intend to revisit the issue down the road when enough people and businesses complain about the new costs and taxes. Then the dems will step in as the saviors, presenting the people with a fully nationalized healthcare system that will forever eliminate private insurance company involvement in healthcare. As Sanders says, his approach "eliminates the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, administrative costs, bureaucracy and profiteering that is engendered by the private insurance companies." (Quotes from the 12/16/09 Verizon News online.) Billions in waste? Administrative costs? Bureaucracy? Profiteering? Funny - I thought he was talking about the federal government!

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Fools, Liars and Thieves

1. Fools. This prize goes to Jimmy Carter. The 12/09/09 USA Today had an article about the four Presidents who have received the Nobel Peace Prize: Obama, Carter, Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. The paper gave a quote by each of the four about war and peace.

Carter: "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children." Carter has no moral compass. War is always an evil. Really? The Allies in WWII had to fight the truly evil Nazi regime; it was the only way to defeat them. But if the Allies engaged in the evil activity of war, doesn't that make them evil? So following Carter's logic (or lack thereof), are the Allies and Nazis equally evil for engaging in war? This is not unlike the liberal writer of the letter to the editor expressing how the use of bullets would upset her, so she would presumably let herself and her family be killed rather than use a gun in self defense. Because guns and bullets - and war - are all evil! As for me, when guns are used to protect the innocent and kill the bad guys - I'm all for them. Same for war.

Contrast T.R.'s comment: "Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy." So while Carter foolishly declares all war "evil," Roosevelt understood that peace itself could be evil if it was imposed to further evil ends. Roosevelt clearly understood the nuances - even peace is not always a "good." And undoubtedly, he would not have called all war "evil." Because war with righteousness, just like peace with righteousness, can not ever be evil.

In the 12/04/09 Jewish Press, Professor Paul Eidelberg coincidentally discusses this very issue, albeit in reference to the Middle East. "Politicians and pundits fail to see that to seek peace with tyrants is to arm the wicked and disarm the virtuous (as Churchill warned in 'The Gathering Storm')...But 'Woe unto them,' warns Isaiah, 'that call evil good and good evil.' Seeking peace with evil men is tantamount to calling evil good." Needless to say, Professor Eidelberg is referring to today's left-leaning, politically correct politicians and pundits. He would not have had to worry about Teddy Roosevelt.

2. Liars. This prize goes to Senate Moronic (sorry, Majority) Leader Harry Reid. As discussed by Michelle Malkin in the 12/10/09 Investor's Business Daily, Reid was accusing Republicans of standing in the way of Obama's healthcare plan. He compared today's Republicans to others who have stood in the way of history: "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'Slow down. It's too early. Things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted 'Slow down...' When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

So you see, Reid suggested that Republicans are always on the wrong side of history. Or, maybe Reid is a liar. Or, maybe it's just that he has as much knowledge of history as the period at the end of this sentence. But it was the Republican Abraham Lincoln that freed the slaves. It was the democratic south that strongly fought against civil rights for blacks. That was in Reid's lifetime. So not likely he forgot, especially something that historic. George Wallace - democrat. Lester Maddox - democrat. And as Michelle Malkin points out: "It was then Democrat Strom Thurmond who led the civil rights filibuster that Reid tried to lay on the Republicans. And it's the Democratic Party, not the GOP, that boasts ex-Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd among its leaders." And it was the "progressive's" pushing women's right to vote.

So what's the message here? The democrats, as usual, get to engage in unlimited amounts of demagoguery and name calling based on outright lies, without ever being called on it by the mainstream media. With the Far Left in charge of the House, Senate, White House and the Fourth Estate, we have no checks and no balances. Nothing to stop or even slowdown the onslaught of government tyranny - except the American people.

3. Thieves. The last prize goes to: the Feds. According to the 12/11-13/09 USA Today, "Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months - and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted." And let's not forget all the paid holidays, great benefits and virtually lifetime job guarantees! The article goes on: "Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time - in pay and hiring - during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector." So we can clearly see that Congress takes care of their own. And anyone still have any doubt about whether they think they work for us or we work for them?

Now, one might think that if Congress had normal, rational people they might understand the fact that the average American doesn't get this. When 7.3 million have lost their livelihoods - their ability to support their families, this kind of salary inflation might appear, shall we say, somewhat unseemly? But apparently not. So who still believes that a government willing to stick it in your face with these unconscionable taxpayer-funded salary grabs is looking out for you? But one thing is for certain: there will be lots of new government jobs in all the new bureaucracies about to be created - and at least 19% of them will apparently pay $100,000 or more!

Honorable mention for the "thief" prize goes to: Medicare. As discussed previously, workers comp cases require a Medicare Set Aside Trust in the lump sum settlement documents in certain cases. The purpose is to set aside some of the settlement money to cover future medical expenses so that Medicare does not have to pay for work related injuries. So Medicare actually approves the amount to be set aside in a separate account. Once that money is used up then (what they say is that) Medicare will cover the industrial injury thereafter. It turns out to be a big lie!

It is up to the individual to keep an accounting and to make sure that the money is used only to pay medical bills related to the injury, and only for treatment that Medicare would otherwise cover, and only at the Medicare rate. This writer had an opportunity to speak with an attorney intimately familiar with the process and who has important contacts at Medicare. He asked one of his contacts: How do you expect the average person to follow all the rules and pay properly and keep an accurate accounting? The reply: WE DON'T! AND WE DON'T CARE! They have no expectation that people will be able to follow all their technical rules. They even expect that many people will improperly use the money for personal items, and not for medical bills.

So then what gives? It's simple. A beautiful scam really. Medicare, knowing that people will make mistakes, will simply deny future Medicare coverage for any body part involved in the industrial injury - FOR LIFE! No matter at all to them that many of these people have paid into Medicare over a lifetime. No matter that they are told that after the "trust account" money is used up, Medicare will cover them. The Government looking out for you!

Saturday, December 5, 2009

A Conservative View (Misc. Musings VI)

1. The Swiss vote on minarets. The people of Switzerland recently voted to ban any new minarets (not mosques) in their country. It was felt that the minarets were tied to radical islam and/or reflected islamic tolerance. Of course, there was much hand-wringing throughout the liberal EU, condemning the Swiss action. But the most "interesting" quote was from one Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. He referred to the ban as an "example of growing anti-Islamic incitement in Europe by the extremist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, scare-mongering ultra-right politicians, who reign over common sense, wisdom and universal values." (From the Verizon News online, 11/30/09.)

This is a beautiful piece of propaganda. Look at how much they cover in one sentence. Are there any more demonizing terms they left out about this politically incorrect ban of minarets? And never mind that the measure passed with 58% approval. And look at how they appeal to "universal values." It is truly a work of art as far as propaganda goes (a topic I have commented on extensively). So here are a few questions I would ask Mr. Ihsanoglu:
1. Hundreds of mosques have been built throughout the Western world in
maybe the last 10 to 20 years. How many churches have the muslim
countries of the world allowed to be built in the same time frame? How
many synagogues?
2. Any Christian missionaries allowed in muslim countries? In how many
muslim countries is it illegal to try to convert a muslim? In how many
muslim countries is it illegal to even enter with a copy of the Old or New
Testament? In how many muslim countries is the punishment death for
a muslim converting to another religion?
3. Why do Muslim countries seem to lose large numbers of their Christian
populations after Islamists take over? Think Iraq, Lebanon, the
"Palestinian" territories.
4. So what about those "universal values?" Not only does this all work one
way, in favor of the muslims, but (as I said many times before) the
liberal, guilt-ridden, politically-correct West falls for it every time!

So just when I despair of no liberals getting any of this, along comes Thomas Friedman, liberal author and columnist for the NYTimes. In his 11/29/09 column, he discusses what he calls "The Narrative." He defines The Narrative as a "cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11...that America has declared war on Islam, as part of a grand "American-Crusader-Zionist conspiracy" to keep Muslims down." Pretty good coming from a liberal - even though this "Narrative" actually started well before 9/11 and applies to the entire Western world, not just the U.S.

He points out, as if it will matter to the muslim world, that America has helped free muslims in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan. He points out that most muslims being killed in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Indonesia are killed by OTHER MUSLIMS! He points out that "for every Abu Ghraib, (not such a scandal to this writer) our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders." (And although he does not say so, George Bush would actually get some of the credit for that - OMG!)

And then Mr. Friedman puts them to the test. If major Hasan is not an example of true Islam, then "you need to tell us what ... is and show us how its positive interpretations are being promoted in your schools and mosques." And why will millions of muslims protest cartoons but not suicide (homicide) bombers blowing up real people? WHY INDEED?

2. Climategate - Scandal at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. (Or how Liberals learned to hate the truth and love their ideologies.) Some hackers (not to be condoned, but who are not the real criminals here; and why wasn't this data made public in the first place) obtained thousands of emails to and from scientists at East Anglia, a clearinghouse for climate data. Phil Jones, director of CRU was rather reluctant to release data based on FOI (freedom of information) requests. From Mr. Jones: "When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half-hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise." (Quote from Investors Business Daily, 12/01/09.) Mr. Jones to a professor Mann at Penn State: "If they ever hear there's a Freedom of Information Act in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." (Quote from the same IBD article.)

You see, it would be totally unacceptable to let people know about the global COOLING of the last decade. But, as noted here on a frequent basis, liberals do not let FACTS determine their REALITY. So one Andrew Revkin of the NYTimes reported on 11/21/09 that "the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument." (Quote from the 12/02/09 IBD.) The IBD article goes on to quote The Washington Post of 11/25/09: "None of it seriously undercuts the scientific consensus on climate change." Really? Fraudulently reporting higher temperatures when they were declining has no effect on anyone's opinion? So I guess we just reach the conclusion first, then conduct the "studies." "Off with her head" said the Queen, of Alice. Alice: "What about the trial?" The Queen: "We'll have the trial afterwards!" So welcome to the Alice in Wonderland of the liberal mentality!

But a Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, in an article on 11/27/09, explains what "global warming/climate change" really means to the liberal/statist: "Most Americans are convinced that climate change is real - a necessary prerequisite for the kinds of huge economic and behavioral adjustments we would have to make." (Quote from the 12/02/09 IBD.) That one sentence pretty much says it all; the liberal mentality is all about CONTROL! So the world economy can lay out trillions of dollars (coming from YOU - the TAXPAYER) to further their agenda of having the government dictate every aspect of our lives. This is truly no different than Obamacare, allowing the government to raise our taxes and "redistribute" the wealth and otherwise control our behavior. Nor is it different from the left's desire to bring back the "fairness doctrine" or bring "net neutrality" to the internet. This is all about government control over you! And while liberals were all in a tizzy over "W" authorizing wiretapping of foreign terrorists who communicated with Americans, they are more than willing to give up so much more at the altar of Big Government.

Monday, November 30, 2009

A Conservative View (Misc. Musings V)

1. From the 11/26/09 LA Times. Their lead editorial expresses what they are thankful for on Thanksgiving. Not surprisingly, they are grateful for Barack Obama. Why? Because he has "greatly improved the United States' relations with the rest of the world" among other things. Really? I'm wondering where that might be. With Israel? No; only 4% of Israelis feel Obama supports them. With the "palestinians?" No; since he opined on the "settlements" the "palestinians" have refused to return to the bargaining table. With Iran? No; as previously reported here, the Ayatollah Khamenei had this to say about Obama reaching out to them: talks with the U.S. would be "naive and perverted." In fact, the Iranians are thinking about developing 10 new uranium enrichment facilities. With the EU? Maybe, since a weakened dollar bodes well for their euro. But greater respect for the U.S.? As previously reported here, even the French think Obama is in over his head. Russia and China? Well, they did just vote to express their disappointment with Iran over their nuclear program. And to "urge" Iran to reconsider; but no sanctions. Japan? According to the 11/27/09 Jewish Press (and notwithstanding Obama's bow to the Emperor) Japan is "backing off" its deal with the U.S. to allow refueling of warhips in the Indian Ocean. Hugo Chavez? At yet another meeting with Ahmadinejad, he accused Israel of engaging in "genocide" against the "palestinians" with the support of the U.S. Brazil? Their leader also just met with Ahmadidnejad; which, of course, only enhances his credibility as a world leader. But the Times says Obama has not only improved our relations with the world, but GREATLY improved those relations. Could this be yet another example of liberals letting their beliefs (in Obama in this case) dictating their reality (a world with much improved global relations)?

2. In their same editorial, the Times first expresses their thanks to our troops. Anybody really buy this? They did not support the Iraq war. They do not support winning in Afghanistan. But they know it is the right thing to say because the American people DO support their troops. But after displaying picture after picture from Abu Graib, one might think that the Times believed our troops engaged in horrible "atrocities;" worse, even than 9/11 and certainly worse than the beheadings engaged in by the radical muslims. And in the same editorial, they refer to the detention facility at Guananamo Bay as being "disgraceful." Gitmo, where prisoners who killed our troops are given three meals a day, copies of the Koran, and time for prayers. So, the only question really is: does the Times believe their own b.s.?

3. While we are on the subject, and in the interest of fairness, former Judge Andrew Napolitano, and current Fox News commentator, had an opinion in the 11/29/09 LA Times. He indicated that Pres. Bush never got a declaration of war from Congress. Rather, Congress authorized the use of military force to hunt down terrorists wherever they may be. He states that without a declaration of war, the Constitution does not allow the government to use the "tools of war," such as military tribunals. He indicates that Federal Court is in fact the proper venue for trying the bastards (the last word is mine, not his).

4. Again, another example of the editorial writers at the LA Times letting their beliefs dictate their reality. In their 11/29/09 editorial, after blaming the problems with Iran on Bush, they conclude that any "solution must be negotiated by political leaders." Are they paying any attention at all? Do they read the news? Has there been any indication anywhere of a sincere effort by Iran to negotiate on their nuclear production? Or, as previously written here, do they continue to play the West for fools while moving full speed ahead on their nuclear development!

5. "Free" health care. Obama says he will not sign health care legislation if people will have their taxes raised. So the obvious questions are : 1. how much will it cost? 2. just who is going to pay for it? According to the 11/27/09 Investor's Business Daily, most real spending under the proposed legislation does not begin until 2014. The cost over the next ten years after that is an astounding 1.5 trillion dollars! But the next five years after that comes in at a truly amazing 1.7 trillion. So we are well over 3 trillion dollars for the first fifteen years. And whereas the Dems project spending 848 billion dollars for the ten years beginning 2010, IBD says the Cato Institute estimates 2.5 trillion dollars for that decade. And again, per the IBD, most of the real expense begins in 2014. And when has a government estimate come in under budget? But no new taxes! Well, they won't call the requirement to buy health insurance a "tax." They won't call the slashing of Medicare benefits a "tax." I wonder just how many new taxes the Dems will pass to pay for all of this - but just not call it a "tax." And the future of the dollar? Look out below!

6. Recently, our President gave an interview on Fox News. He described the building within existing Israeli "settlements" as "embittering" the "palestinians" and that such building could end up "being very dangerous." (From the 11/27/09 Jewish Press.) Does that mean the "palestinians" will engage in further violence? Does it mean that Obama is excusing any such violence in advance as being justified? Would such violence somehow be unlike their past behavior, regardless of what Israel does? Is Obama familiar with the Hamas Charter: "I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah. I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill." (From an article by Prof. Louis Rene Beres, in the 11/27/09 Jewish Press.) Does this help Obama understand the "palestinians" bloodlust; in which they not only torture and kill civilians, but then celebrate those deaths. Does this help Obama get the fact that the "palestinians" do not want a state side by side with Israel, but, as Prof. Beres says, "upon the corpse of Israel"? Is it possible that we have another case of a liberal (Obama) letting his belief in the peace process dictate his reality (that the "palestinians" were a peace-loving, non-violent people before Israel built the "settlements")?

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Does Israel Have the Right to Exist? Should it?

Written November 21, 2009

Over 61 years ago Israel declared its independence. Jews everywhere around the world celebrated. The Holocaust had ended just a few years earlier, and Jews understood the significance of Israel as both a return to our historical homeland, and a sanctuary against a frightening and evil world. Vast amounts of money were raised for Israel by Jews throughout the Diaspora. (For my non-Jewish friends, the Diaspora is simply all Jews who reside outside of Israel.)

Fast forward to today - less than an average lifetime later. The legitimacy of Israel's right to exist is under attack from all corners.

1. Iran. Still the biggest threat to Israel's physical existence. A denier of the Holocaust, it frequently threatens to wipe Israel off the map. It has refused the offer of the Five (permanent members of the Security Council) plus One (Germany) to have its nuclear material reprocessed to civilian use levels in Europe before being returned to Iran. At a recent meeting of diplomats from the 5 + 1 they expressed "disappointment" over Iran's refusal of the offer. Did further sanctions come up? No. Instead, they "urged" Iran to reconsider. Well, that should definitely work! (From the 11/20/09 Jerusalem Post Online.)

Earlier this month, Israel seized a ship with over 300 tons of weapons and over 3000 rockets. The ship departed Iran on its way to Syria, with Israel suspecting the materiel was headed ultimately for Hezbollah. (From the 11/13/09 Jewish Press.) And where is the world outcry over this threat to Israel's existence? Where indeed! (And see more on this below.)

And now, Iran is going to have 5 days of military exercises in which their air force will be practicing a defense against any potential air strikes on their nuclear facilities.

2. The UN (Unconscionable Nations). First, we have the Goldstone Report (previously discussed in this column) threatening to prosecute Israeli civilian leaders and military personnel for alleged war crimes over Operation Cast Lead (the last war with Hamas).

Second, the Unconscionable Nations are completely silent over Iran exporting arms (see above) in violation of a UN resolution. The Unconscionable Nations are completely silent over Hezbollah's refusal to disarm; again, contrary to UN resolutions. UN resolution 1701 also forbids "armed personnel, assets and weapons" in the region south of the Litani River (southern Lebanon, which borders Israel). Yet, in July of this year there was a "massive explosion" in that area which revealed what? A large weapons cache controlled by Hezbollah. And what does the Unconscionable Nations have to say? Hello? Anybody? (From the 11/09/09 Investor's Business Daily.)

Third, we have the threat by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to ask the Unconscionable Nations to recognize a state of "Palestine" in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. How did we get to this point? Well, our President (who is so smart, right?) told the "palestinians" and the world that all Israeli towns in the "occupied" territories are "illegal settlements;" and that no further construction should be permitted.

So, let's be clear about what our "brilliant" President has done. He has accepted the "palestinian" propaganda that the territories are "occupied" land. He has accepted their propaganda that all Israelis living in those areas are in "illegal settlements." So, Obama having announced in advance what the outcome should be, the PA felt comfortable saying no more negotiations until all construction stops - even in Jerusalem, Israel's capital. The O. team then realized that, politically, Israel could not forbid construction in their own capital. But it was too late. Expectations were raised (stupidly, not brilliantly) and now Abbas won't budge.

So would the General Assembly and/or Security Council of the Unconscionable Nations approve a resolution establishing a "palestinian" state on Israeli land? Well, I wonder how the 57 muslim countries would vote. I wonder how all the dictators of the world, who despise democracies like the US and Israel, would vote. And the 5 permanent members of the Security Council? It's a pretty safe bet that Russia and China would vote against Israel. France and England? As anti-semitic as ever. So that leaves the US; or more accurately, Obama. According to Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad (Abbas is the PA President) the Obama administration is not opposed to the plan! (Fayyad comment from the 11/13/09 Jewish Press.)

3. Liberal Jews. Sadly, there is no longer an almost universal appreciation of the significance of Israel to Jews. The strongest support comes from the Orthodox, a minority in the Jewish community. Many liberal Jews have actual disdain for the Orthodox, and for the State of Israel, and for Israel's supporters.

The Hillel at UC Berkeley actually had a dance party on Yom Hashoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day); and a Cinco de Mayo celebration on Israel's Remembrance Day for their fallen soldiers. The Hillel at UC Berkeley also works hand in hand with Students for Justice for Palestine (SJP), a radical group that supports unlimited arab immigration into Israel. They also support UC divestiture from Israel (and apparently companies that do business with Israel). (From the 11/19/09 Jerusalem Post Online, article by Caroline Glick.)

Worse yet, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), considered a mainstream Jewish organization, has just blasted conservative supporters of Israel. And who did they target for their attack? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin. Levin is the only Jew in the group. Yet, these men CONSISTENTLY support Israel on their radio and TV shows. And what do they get for that support? They get to be told that they are "cultivating a climate of hatred and paranoia which could endanger Jews among others." And Beck is called the "fearmonger in chief." (From the same Caroline Glick article cited above.)

So, sadly, many mainstream Jewish organizations in this country have moved to the far left along with the mainstream media. But sadder to see that Jews will not stand up for themselves, nor appreciate those non-Jews who will stand up for them. Rather, liberal Jews have accepted the "palestinian" propaganda and adopted it as their own. So now we have Jews attacking Israel and Christian supporters of Israel.

So, does Israel have a right to exist? This question is not even posed about any other country in the world, no matter how evil. Can Israel continue to exist when Jews will not speak on her behalf? "If I am not for myself, who will be? If not now, when?"

The Liberal Mind

Written November 15, 2009

1. The Fort Hood Murders. Not unexpectedly, the liberal media and commentators were doing their best to explain the behavior of the murdering, radical muslim Major Hasan.

A. From Newsweek's Evan Thomas: "I cringe that he's a muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case. But with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going..." What analysis! Those of us who live in the Judeo-Christian world (and presumably a good number of muslims) do think that flying planes into buildings or shooting unarmed people is "nuts." But that does not mean people who do such things are actually "crazy." They are motivated by an ideology that justifies the killing of "infidels." But the left has difficulty acknowledging that evil exists. It is much easier to write him off as a nut case, than accept the reality of a world-wide effort by islamofascists to dominate the planet and establish sharia law everywhere. As for getting the right wing going...please. After 3000 people were murdered on 9/11, was the right wing out en masse killing muslims in the streets? Even worse, the implication is that we should not pay attention to the fact of yet another muslim terrorist attack. Just how far can this guy Thomas stick his head in the sand? (Quote from Thomas in Investor's Business Daily column by L. Brent Bozell, 11/12/09.)

B. Bob Schieffer of CBS: "...Islam doesn't have a majority - or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts, too." Wow! And these guys actually get paid for their insightful analysis! Again, dismissing Hasan as a "nut" and completely ignoring the motivating factor of radical islam. And yes, everywhere around the world over the last couple of decades, the headlines have been about Christians flying planes into buildings, acting as homicide bombers, and otherwise attacking and killing non-Christian "infidels." Everyone remembers all those headlines, right? (Quote of Schieffer from same article noted above.)

C. And one to never let us down, Chris Matthews of MSNBC: "Apparently, he (Hasan) tried to contact Al-Qaida. Is that the point at which you say, "This guy is dangerous?" That's not a crime to call up Al-Qaida, is it?" Really, Chris. You're not sure if contacting Al-Qaida suggests someone might be dangerous? Are you a total moron? And who would even think to ask that question, as if there can be any issue. (Quote from same article above.)

D. And saddest of all, the head of the Army, General Casey, expressed concern that this incident not negatively impact the "diversity" in the Army. Really? Why would that even be the case? And why was that the concern at the time, instead of your murdered troops and their families?

2. The execution of the D.C. sniper John Mohammad.

A. From a letter to the editor in the 11/13/09 USA Today, an opponent of the death penalty: "I know it's hard to lose people, especially for senseless reasons, but to be responsible for any death would haunt me more than bullets ever could." Really? What if one of those bullets killed one of your family members? What if your entire family was killed? So the writer would not defend themselves and their family against deadly attack because they might have to kill the perpetrator? And just why does a criminal intent on doing fatal harm have a greater right to life than innocent victims? The liberal mind.

B. And another writer (I do not recall the paper) who pointed out that Hasan was obviously against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and having muslims (in the US military) kill muslims. Therefore, the writer concluded that we simply needed to withdraw our troops from those countries. Really? Is that how we should determine US foreign policy? If it's offensive to any individual we should not do it?

3. The decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in U.S. civil courts.

A. From the LA Times 11/14/09 lead editorial: "What matters is that they will be afforded the panoply of rights enjoyed by defendants in U.S. courts, including a prohibition on the use of illegally obtained evidence." Except, these sons of bitches are not U.S. citizens; nor do they meet the qualifications for protection under the Geneva convention. They are enemy combatants. Congress, in fact, established military tribunals for this exact purpose. Those accused of attacking the U.S. Cole will be tried by those military tribunals. So, almost all admissions/comments made by 9/11 defendants while in custody will probably not be admissable in court. Obviously, no "Miranda" warnings were given. The purpose was to capture and interrogate and get information about possible future attacks. And why even risk an acquittal? And why give them a stage for their disgusting ideology? All the world's media will be there. But the LA Times is still worried about our "image" in the world.

As pointed out in the 11/16/09 Investor's Business Daily, this approach reflects a return to the Bill Clinton approach of treating all terror attacks as criminal matters. But 9/11 was an act of war - the most significant attack on U.S. soil in our history. And how well did Clinton's approach work? Yes, there was a conviction after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. But did that stop further islamoterrorist attacks? No. Did it aid our "image" in the muslim world? No. After the 1993 attack, we had the Cole, the 2 embassies in Africa, and numerous other attacks. But at least it gets some more terrorists out of Guantanamo, so Obama can keep his promise to close it.

4. Obama's attempts to reach out to Iran and talk and appease. Has this worked well? Iran has refused to send most of its uranium to Europe to be enriched to levels fit for civilian use only. Ayatollah Khamenei said any talks with the U.S. would be "naive and perverted." And now, three American hikers who crossed over from Iraq into Iran are going to be tried for spying. If convicted, the punishment is death. So just how well is this appeasement of dictators working out? When will Obama's liberal mind understand that all efforts at appeasement are taken as signs of weakness by our enemies?

5. Conclusions. Because liberals do not live in the real world, their approach to dealing with problems often has the opposite effect of what they intend. Appeasement does not result in better relations; it simply encourages the enemy to be more bold. The effort by the mainstream media to explain away Major Hasan's radical islamic ties in hopes of preventing future discrimination against other muslims will have the opposite effect. As Ann Coulter points out, the giving of "victim" status to muslims will not prevent others from being suspicious of them. If the Army had done it's job and gotten rid of Hasan, that would have given confidence to our soldiers that other muslims could be trusted. Now, they have to wonder if other muslims might be the next Hasan, because they have seen the military will not screen out those who are likely to be terrorists. And why wasn't Hasan screened out? Because he is muslim, and after 9/11 the muslims are the victims. Victims of what? You'd have to ask a liberal.

Misc. Musings IV

Written November 9, 2009

1. Election, 2009. Rumors of the demise of the Republican Party are clearly premature. As noted by Charles Krauthammer, the Republican wins were not a surprise. Rather, the surprise was the 2008 election, which he refers to as a historical anomaly. Per Krauthammer: "A uniquely charismatic candidate was running at a time of deep war weariness, with an intensely unpopular Republican President, against a politically incompetent opponent, amid the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression." (From Krauthammer article in the 11/06/09 Investors Business Daily.)

And even so, Obama only won by 7 points. Obama carried Virginia by 6 points. The republican nominee for governor there just won by 17 points - a swing of 23 percentage points! Obama won New Jersey by 15 points. My home state has regrettably been reliably democratic of late. The republican nominee for governor just won by 4 points - a swing of 19 percentage points! (From Krauthammer article.)

One of the key factors in determining the outcomes was the vote of the independents. They went about 2 to 1 for the republican candidate in both states. A recent Gallup poll had 40% of the respondents describing themselves as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 20% as liberal. (Again, from the Krauthammer article.)

No wonder why Obama and the democrats want to push their health care "reform" now. The people do not want it. The people do not want a federal government deeper in debt. The people do not want higher taxes. And the people will probably take away their overwhelming majorities in one or both houses of Congress come next November's elections. So, the "elites," who know what is best for us, need to ram it down our throats while they still have the power to do so.

2. Fox News. On a related note, the network that the President and his people refer to as a not legitimate news organization did extremely well in the ratings on election night. While CNN was down 12%, and MSNBC was up 18%, Fox News was up an astounding 84% in viewership! O'Reilly, with the highest rated show on cable news, was up 1 million viewers. Hannity was up 1.7 million (from 2.5 to 4.2 million). Greta was also up 1.7 million (from 2.0 million to 3.7 million). (Data from the NYTimes online, citing the Nielsen ratings.) So Obama and the dems not only lost 2 key governorships, they must have been stewing over the phenomenal success of the dreaded Fox News. Eat your hearts out!

3. Terror at Fort Hood. One Major Hasan decided to kill and maim as many of his fellow soldiers as he could. The Army is quick to say that he acted alone. They are not calling it terrorism. While he was supposed to be counseling his patients, he would go off on religious rants. He described the "war on terror" as a war against Islam. His fellow classmates complained about his "anti-American propaganda." Apparently, several of his classmates felt that "a fear of appearing discriminatory against a muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint." (From Verizon News online, 11/07/09.)

According to the Investor's Business Daily, he also said that "muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor." (11/09/09 edition.) It has also been widely reported that he viewed web sites related to "suicide bombings." And he apparently yelled "Allah Akbar" at the onset of his killing spree.

Our President tells us that we should not rush to any conclusions before all the facts are in. That is rather ironic, as it was he who referred to the Cambridge police officer as having acted "stupidly" against Professor Gates, after admitting he (Obama) did not have all the facts. So, we have a President who goes out of his way to defend a black man and now a muslim. But "rushing" to a conclusion is hardly the problem. The problem is the exact opposite: political correctness impeding society's ability to take action against those who would do us harm.

The Army did not "rush" to take action against Hasan for any of his actions (as referenced above). In fact, they did NOTHING! This man should have been kicked out of the military long ago - but he is a muslim, so they did nothing. Well, not nothing. They allowed him access to all sorts of weapons, facilitating his mass murder. From this writer's viewpoint, all those in the chain of command who knew about his proclivities should, at a minimum, be kicked out of the army themselves. Political correctness has permeated every aspect of our society and we have got to put an end to it - NOW! As I have said numerous times before, we in the West will let them destroy us. We buy into their propaganda and then adopt it as our own in the form of "political correctness." And the results are deadly.

And please don't tell me he was just a peaceful man who broke from being under tremendous stress and even taunting from his fellow soldiers. SOMEWHERE he picked up a radical islamist agenda. They need to investigate where - his mosque? Online? Where?

Obama vs. The Constitution of the United States of America

Written October 23, 2009

The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." As everyone knows, there has been much talk of bringing back the so-called "fairness doctrine" back to radio. (No one can seriously doubt that the real reason is to shut down the hugely successful conservative talk radio.) Now, the Obama Administration is talking about regulating the internet as well (so-called "net neutrality").

While these proposals are still in the development stage, the O. team has already actively attacked those they do not believe are entitled to free speech: those who disagree with them. Obviously, Rush Limbaugh has been one of their main targets. Now, Fox Cable News is another.

Anita Dunn, O.'s communications director, said that Fox was an "arm of the Republican Party." (Jewish Press, 10/23/09) Recall that Dunn has said that Mao was one of her two favorite political philosophers. She has also said that Fox is not a legitimate news organization. (, 10/21/09)

Obviously taking their cue from either Dunn or O. himself, other high ranking members of the O. team have joined in. Per David Axelrod, O.'s political advisor, Fox is "not really a news station." He goes on to tell George Stephanopolous on ABC that: the bigger thing is that...other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way." (, 10/18/09)

Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel got the same memo, as he told CNN that Fox "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." He goes on: "more importantly is not to have the CNN's and the others in the world basically be led by Fox." (, 10/18/09)

Ken Feinberg, the "executive pay czar," was offering to do interviews with the White House "pool" news organizations - except Fox was not invited. Thankfully, the other networks recognized the attack on free speech for what it was, and refused to participate without Fox. The White House had to back down. (Investor's Business Daily, 10/23/09 opinion by Charles Krauthammer)

Clearly, another one of Obama's lies was his desire to unite the country and end the partisan divide. After all, Limbaugh has the highest rated talk show on radio, with perhaps as many as 13-15 million listeners. Fox Cable News has more than the combined audience of CNN and MSNBC. If Obama was looking to unite people he would go on Fox (with say Chris Wallace, a fair interviewer) and reach out to an entire segment of the population that might not otherwise be inclined to listen to him.

But no. The first instinct is to attack and delegitimize. This is no different than any dictator in history - shut down the free press; or at least those in opposition. The O. team has not felt any need to go after the rest of the media as they compete with each other to shower adulation on Obama. After all, if Fox and Rush and most of talk radio are on one side of the divide, the other side is not exactly devoid of participants: The NY Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, most of the papers in the country (including our local Ventura County Star), ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, National Public Radio, Air America and others. Not to mention the Hollywood crowd and most university professors and public school teachers. Only dictators and totalitarian regimes do not tolerate dissent.

Now, one might think that with the development of the internet, people have access to more news and opinions than ever before in our country's history. Just because a news item or opinion piece does not make it into the newspaper or network TV does not mean you can not read about it on many sites on the internet. After all, it was Fox that broke the Rev. Wright story - a full year before the "mainstream" media felt compelled to pick it up. It was on Fox that we learned about Acorn. It was on Fox that we learned about Anita Dunn's fondness for one of the greatest dictators of all time, Mao. And it was on Fox that we learned about Van Jones, a former czar, and his socialist ideas and belief of US government involvement in 9/11. Not too bad for a "not legitimate news organization."

But the O. team does not see things the same way. Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the FCC, said: "I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust internet." (Investor's Business Daily, 10/22/09) Now, I do not usually make this request, but if anyone reading this does NOT believe that we have an "open and robust internet" without government involvement I would truly like to hear from you. Not so, though, according to O.'s Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd. He wrote: "Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn't value the internet for its public interest benefits. Instead, these companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must control what content you see and how you get it." (Investor's Business Daily, 10/22/09)

In typical dictatorial style, he demonizes those he wants to control or eliminate ("the powerful cable and telecom industry"), and justifies such action by attributing evil motives to them ("profits"). Entitling his hit piece "Net Neutrality is a Civil Rights Issue" it is clear who he thinks can best assure the proper distribution of news and information and opinion on the internet - the government.

But a friend of Lloyd's and Van Jones, one Robert McChesney, is at least forthright in explaining his support for net neutrality. "Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." He goes on: "We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it and perhaps even eliminate it." (Investor's Business Daily, 10/22/09)

Remember, when Obama was running for office he said he wanted to bring FUNDAMENTAL change to the U.S. Anyone think he was kidding?

Misc. Musings III

Written October 3, 2009

1. Obamacare. To my surprise, the LA Times last Sunday ran a front page article about some of the problems with the Canadian healthcare system. Towards the end of the article was a chart showing the wait times for various procedures. For example, the wait for a hip replacement (near and dear to me) is listed at 35.3 weeks. But the chart is misleading. If you read the article you will see that the wait time just to see a specialist, on referral from the gatekeeper, can be a year. Then it can be months to get the necessary MRI. So the actual wait time is about two years! Clearly, the 35.3 weeks wait the chart refers to is from the time the specialist says you need the surgery, even though the chart does not disclose that.

Canada now has a number of doctors opening up private clinics, servicing those who do not want the waits. The question is: will the government shut them down and sanction them? In an opinion article in Investor's Business Daily from 10/2/09, the author comments on some of the states that have enacted healthcare programs for their states. Maine passed their law in 2003. The governor assured everyone that all 128,000 uninsured would be covered. By 2009 only 3,400 (3%) were insured. In 2007 the system was broke and was closed to new enrollees. In Oregon, when you are denied care for serious illnesses they will offer you physician assisted suicide!

Back to the LA Times article. In defending the broken Canadian system, one doctor acknowledged the need for improvements but said their system is more "equitable." And therein lies the socialist mentality - as long as it's "equitable" it's good, quality and delays be damned! Kind of reminds me of the lines to get limited choices of food in the USSR.

And then I heard on TV one of the commentators say that one of the proposals here was heavy fines and even IMPRISONMENT for failure to buy health insurance. In Mass. the fines were too small and many people chose to pay the fines and not buy health ins. until they got sick. So the Feds want a big fine, maybe $25,000., and imprisonment to prevent people from making that decision. If you have not read Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" now would be a good time to do so. The Declaration of Independence tells us we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It looks like your Life (health) will now depend on your government. And Liberty - forget about it.

2. Republicans are evil. A congressman on the floor of the House displayed some poster boards describing the Republican healthcare plan. First, don't get sick. Second, if you do, die quickly! Get that? We Republicans just want people to die. And for those of you who may think that type of accusation is an aberration - NO, NO, NO. When John Dean was Chairman of the DNC he said the difference between us and the Republicans is that we don't want kids going to bed hungry! Of course, that's why I became a republican - I hate kids and want them to be hungry. And the court reporter who said to me that she hates ALL republicans because they are evil. Democrats get to call names or accuse their opponents of the worst motivations. No HONEST disagreements possible.

3. Obama the Showman. Charles Krauthammer had another excellent article yesterday. When Obama became the first US President to preside over the UN Security Council on 9/24/09 he already knew about Iran's secret nuclear facility. The French and British urged him to disclose it at that time, as it would have maximum press coverage and impact. He refused. Why? Per White House officials, Obama did not want to "dilute" his disarmament resolution by "diverting to Iran."

Krauthammer: "Diversion? It's the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless UN disarmament resolution?" Per the French, Obama did not want to spoil his "image" of success at the UN. Obama has said he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Sarkozy was fuming and told Obama: "We live in a real world not a virtual world." Again, Krauthammer: "When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom." (Krauthammer article in the 10/2/09 Investors Business Daily.)

4. The LA Times. On the front page of the 9/30/09 edition, the lead headline is "Iran offers conflicting messages." Just under that is the subheadline: "A tone both defiant and cooperative leaves diplomats unsure if Tehran will take this week's talks seriously."

What a surprise! Maybe I should add these "reporters" to my email list. If they had seen last week's email (or better yet, actually followed the story), they would know that Iran has spent the LAST SIX YEARS "vacillating between talking like they were interested in some deal, and then not talking and refusing to deal." As I said, they successfully used that technique to buy time to build up their nuclear facilities, playing the West for fools.

4. The Mideast. And finally, the Obama Administration has told the Palestinian Authority that they will support the announcement of a Palestinian state within 2 years. It is assumed that Netanyahu will have to cave in; but if he does not the US will supposedly consider sanctions of some form - against Israel! (From the 9/25/09 Jewish Press.) And why not - Obama has abandoned ally after ally in favor of appeasing the dictators of the world. And now, Obama is apparently trying to prevent Netanyahu from working with pro-Israel members of Congress. He wants to make sure the pressure remains where he believes it should be - on Israel! (From the 10/2/09 Jewish Press.)

Iranian Nukes

Written September 26, 2009

At the recent meeting of world leaders at the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a forceful, stirring and clarifying speech. First, he denounced Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust and produced recently released documents from Germany showing all of the plans for the death camps and how to kill the Jews.

Then, for those who stayed and listened to Ahmadinejad's speech he said: "Have you no shame? No decency? What a disgrace, what a mockery of the charter of the UN." Wow - I wish our President spoke with that same truthfulness!

Netanyahu went on: "Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. But if you think that, you are wrong...History has shown us time and time again that what starts with attacks on the Jews, eventually ends up engulfing many, many others."

And then he explained that the struggle against the religious fanaticism exemplified by the likes of Iran, is a struggle that pits "civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death." Again, spoken with the type of moral clarity that I wish our own President was able to articulate. (Quotes from the 9/24/09 Jerusalem Post online.)

Then, yesterday, our President, with Brown and Sarkozi at his side, announced that Iran had a secret, previously undisclosed nuclear facility built deep into a mountainside. The type of site that made it clear to our intelligence people that it could ONLY be used to make weapons, and not for peaceful purposes. So what will this mean. Well, Iran was supposed to have until September to accept Obama's offer for a meeting. Now it is set for October 1. Iran will do nothing; and having come as far as they are to getting nukes, they are not going to stop now. Besides, the Europeans (England, France and Germany, with US support) started these negotiations SIX YEARS AGO! The entire time Iran has vacillated between talking like they were interested in some deal, and then not talking and refusing to deal. In other words, they were playing the West for fools while building up their nuclear facilities the whole time!

So now, there will be a meeting on Oct.1. Nothing will happen. Maybe Russia and China will even go along with tougher sanctions, using the undisclosed nuke facility as their pretext (although maybe Obama got their agreement in exchange for dropping the missile defense in Europe). Regardless, Iran will not back down even with sanctions. So does the West accept a nuclear armed Iran with the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad in charge? Or will they finally launch a joint military operation to eliminate this worldwide threat (something they should have done three years ago)? Or will they once again leave it up to the tiny country of Israel to do the dirty work?

If they leave it up to Israel, this brings up another issue. Zbigniew Brezinski, Carter's National Security Advisor, and current advisor to President Obama, has said that if Israel flies over Iraqi airspace to get to Iran then the US should send up our fighters to confront (attack) the Israelis. EVERYBODY GET THIS? He would go to war against our ally Israel in order to protect Iran's nuclear facilities! Iran - a sworn enemy of the US! (From 9/24/09 J-Post online article by Caroline Glick.) This anti-Israel mentality is consistent with that of a current member of the National Security Council, Samantha Powers. She previously expressed the opinion that the US should send troops into "Palestine" to fight against the Israelis on behalf of the "palestinians." And, sadly, this anti-Israel attitude is consistent with that of our Commander in Chief, who has been putting relentless pressure on Israel regarding the "settlements."

In fact, Obama described all Israeli settlements beyond the 1949 armistice line as "illegitimate." To remind everyone, Israel declared their independence in 1948 after the UN voted partition of the British Mandate into 2 states. The Arabs rejected the idea and Israel had to fight it's own war of independence. When the war ended in 1949, there were no final treaties or agreements. The armistice line simply reflected the territory held by each side when the hostilities ended. And there was no "palestinian" territory. Gaza was held by Egypt and the West Bank was held by Jordan. That was the status until 1967 when, in yet another war, Israel captured those territories as well as the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula. The Sinai was returned to Egypt after a deal was made following the Yom KIppur war in 1973.

So there is no basis for declaring Israel's settlements as being "illegitimate." The "palestinians" have never accepted and to this day say they will never accept the State of Israel. They believe that ALL the land belongs to them. So, absent any agreement EVER on borders, how can it be said that settlements in the West Bank are "illegitimate?" So, sadly, our President lacks the moral clarity that was so eloquently expressed by Netanyahu.

So Obama wants to go to the UN for sanctions and drag this on for how much longer? Until Iran has some nukes and then it's too late to do anything about it? We in the West are fools! After SIX years we still believe in more talking, more negotiating - even though those six years accomplished ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Was it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again - and yet expecting a different result.

An Iran with nukes - G-d bless us all!

Misc. Observations

Written September 11, 2009

1. Obama's latest speech. Regardless of where you stand on healthcare, I trust we can all agree that, notwithstanding Obama's assertions, there are NO free lunches. Here is his scenario: the economy is being pushed towards bankruptcy by the spiraling health care costs, so we will spend 1 TRILLION dollars to fix the problem, and no taxes will be raised, and there will be no increase in the federal debt. So while I disagree with the Congressman who yelled "you lie" (regarding the coverage of illegal aliens) during the President's speech to a joint session of Congress, can there be any doubt that the fiscal scenario Obama laid out can possibly be truthful?

He says there will be enormous savings because of all the "waste and abuse." Now, I have suggested for some time that ALL government budgets be subject to periodic review to cut out true waste. (What are the odds of that truly happening?) Obama's plan is to create an independent commission (doctors and medical experts) to identify and cut waste. He believes the "waste" runs in the hundreds of billions of dollars. As Charles Krauthammer said, if there is so much waste and abuse in the healthcare system dragging down our economy, then why hasn't he been working on that issue from day one? It would be much less controversial than an overhaul of the entire system; and he says the need is immediate.

The reality is, every time I have heard Obama talk about waste in healthcare, it has been in the context of too much testing and too much treatment. In other words, he is talking about rationing. In Britain, a woman gave birth to a premie at 21 weeks and 5 days. But their National Health Service has a "guideline" that says babies born at less than 22 weeks should not get treated. So the baby died. DEATH PANELS, ANYONE? And for those of you who can't believe they would let a baby die because he was only 2 days earlier than the guidelines allowed for treatment, I can only say that based on my experience that is exactly how bureaucratic mentality works. So they told this woman to just think of her baby (born alive) as a miscarriage. (Story from the 9/11/09 Wall Street Journal.)

2. Why Are Jews Liberal? This is a question that I am often asked by my Christian friends. Norman Podhoretz has just written a book with that title. Given the fact that John McCain had a significant history of strong support for Israel, while Barack Obama's associates expressed open hostility towards Israel, one might have expected a large Jewish vote for McCain. Instead, Jews voted for Obama in greater numbers than any other group except blacks. While a large number of Jews in this country are secular, it does not mean they are non-religious. Rather, their religion is Liberalism. (Nature abhors a vacuum.)

Secular Jews tend to believe that their religion of Liberalism is consistent with the Torah and Jewish values. But as Podhoretz points out, Jewish Law is restrictive on abortion (only to protect the life of the mother), is opposed to suicide (assisted or otherwise) except to prevent forced conversion or incest, and prohibits sex between men. Podhoretz concludes that, given the inconsistencies, Liberalism has in fact replaced Judaism as the religion of choice for many American Jews. (Summary of Podhoretz's book from the 9/10/09 Wall Street Journal.)

The September, 2009 issue of Commentary magazine asked five prominent Jews to give their own take on why Jews are liberal. Of particular interest was the commentary by Michael Medved. He points out that the one thing Jews seem to have in common is their rejection of Jesus/Christianity/the New Testament. As he points out, even pro-palestinian Jews are given a voice in the Jewish community. But not Jews for Jesus. Now, there is no denying that Jews have suffered greatly at the hands of Christians (the Holocaust for example). And Jews here distrust the Republican party precisely because of its ties to the Christian community (or more accurately, the Christian Right). And then you get the occasional Pat Buchanan to reinforce Jews ideas about Republicans.

So Jews still fear that Christian conservatives/Republicans will try to impose their values on the much smaller Jewish population. I believe there is much truth in what Medved says. The fact that times have changed and that conservative Christians in large numbers are strongly supportive of Israel (as are Republicans in general) has not changed these long held beliefs/fears. On the other hand, many of these same Jews have a distrust (and even dislike) for their fellow Jews who are Orthodox. There is simply no comfort level with those who "make faith the center of their lives."

3. Hollywood idiots. The latest morons out of Hollywood are Jane Fonda and Danny Glover. At the Toronto International Film Festival they were showing a film celebrating the 100th anniversary of Tel Aviv, the main city in Israel. But these morons signed onto a letter decrying the film and the festival, claiming that Tel Aviv was built on the land where many "palestinian" towns had been destroyed by the Jews. Now, I have said before that the "palestinians" are good at propaganda. And it does not take much to convince leftists like Fonda and Glover, who already think the worst about the U.S. and Israel.

But let's be clear. Notwithstanding their denial of anti-semitism, there can be no other explanation. They are basically saying the Jews are not entitled to live on the land which constitutes the State of Israel. Desert land on which the Jews created a modern and productive society, without the benefits of any oil riches. And other than foreign conquerors, the only "state" to ever exist on the land was the state of Israel - 2000 years ago and again today. There was never a country or state of Palestine. It was a geographic area that Jews in the Diaspora have always considered their homeland. And the Arabs who live there are just that - Arabs. The use of the term "palestinian" is just part of their propaganda. And then morons like Glover and Fonda probably think the "palestinians" had a state that was stolen from them. Then again, so does our President, apparently.

The LA Times

Written August 31, 2009

I have not been a regular reader of the LA Times, of late. It's just a "tad" too liberal for my liking. I had some comments to make on Sunday's edition, but today's was too good to pass up. Yes, I bought it two days in a row - my limit for a week.

1. They have a columnist by the name of Michael Hiltzik. In the 8/31 paper he discusses proposed boycotts of Glenn Beck and Whole Foods. It seems that Mr. Beck's offense is that he called our President a racist. John Mackey, the founder and CEO of Whole Foods, had the temerity to disagree with our President's health care plan. As kids might say: OMG!

Mr. Hiltzik accuses Beck of being "egregious," "destroying civil discourse," and having a "noxious character" in his commentary. Now, I do not watch Beck's show that often. But one might think Hiltzik would explain the content of Beck's allegations about Obama being a racist, and what factual support Beck might have offered to support his position. But why do that when you can engage in your own demagoguery and simply demonize Beck? Is it inconceivable that a president can be a racist? Jimmy Carter is an anti-semite as far as I am concerned.

But apparently far worse is Mr. Mackey who is accused of being "insensitive and even reactionary"! Insensitive! Another OMG! You see, Mr. Mackey wrote an opinion piece in which he said neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution "reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter." I do, however, recall something about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration. But what did our Founders know anyway?

2. Not to be outdone, is a Mr. Gregory Rodriguez. His entire column (also in the 8/31 edition) is an attack on the republican party, describing it as the party of "grievance and resentment." He compares the current party to William Buckley, described as a classic conservative who understood the importance of stability. The irony, is that his entire attack on the repubs applies in totality to the democrats. Talk about "grievance and resentment." Don't they still whine about the 2000 election even though every recount by even their mainstream media showed that Bush was the winner. Were they more interested in "stability" and bringing the election to a close so that the country could have a president? No. Surprise, surprise, they cared more about WINNING! Or is that WHINING?

And the repubs are responsible for the current low level of political discourse? Really? Did Nancy Pelosi call the CIA a bunch of liars? How many different names did the democratic leadership use to describe the people at the town hall meetings and the tea parties? The LA Times itself referred to anyone disagreeing with their position on gay marriage as a "bigot." So, if you disagree with the dems they get to call you names. You see how that works?

The so-called party of "tolerance," as we on the right know, is the MOST INTOLERANT of parties. Any disagreement with the party line will result in ostracism if you are a member (think Joe Lieberman), and name calling if you are outside the party. Because, really, no one can legitimately be against gay marriage, even on religious grounds. Well, except for those hate-filled right wingers who "cling to their guns and religion." And could somebody please tell all these columnists to stop LYING by saying Rush Limbaugh said he wanted Obama to fail. What he said was: I hope Obama fails if he plans on bringing socialism to this country. But why would the party of "tolerance" insist on TRUTH when they are doing the talking?

3. And, finally, in yesterday's edition, the gay marriage obsessed LA Times had yet another editorial on the issue. Now, I know this is an issue that even divides those on the right, with those of a more libertarian bent not being opposed. But in discussing a pending January hearing in federal court, the editorial says it could get "ugly" with more "willful, hateful distortions." Ugly? Who was calling those who disagreed "bigots?" HELLO!!!!

And by "hateful distortions" they mean arguments about the impact on society. One cannot legitimately ask if it is a good idea to change the definition of marriage. One cannot legitimately ask if lawsuits would be brought seeking to force religious groups to conduct same sex marriages. (I think that one's a no-brainer - if a lawsuit can be brought someone will certainly do it!) One cannot legitimately ask what changes might have to made in our public schools any time the subject of marriage comes up. We know the party of "tolerance" will want any teacher fired if they even hint that hetereosexual marriage is preferable.

So, regardless of where you may stand on the issue, the LA Times cannot be relied upon for a fair analysis and discussion. But no real surprise there.

My latest musings

Written August 31, 2009

Some news out of the Middle East.
1. As I indicated in a recent email, the arabs/muslims are claiming that Jerusalem is the home of Islam, and even Christianity. A big lie of course; and while they throw in the Christians for now, once the Jews are gone, guess who's next on their list. The Palestinian Authority's chief islamic judge said that there is NO evidence that Jews ever lived in Jerusalem, or that the Temple ever existed. (From the 8/27/09 Jerusalem Post online.) Imagine that! As I said, the bigger the lie the more often it has to be repeated, and a few new twists don't hurt either.

Similarly, a lecturer in modern history at the Al-Quds Open University said Jews have NO historical connection to Israel. They made it up to get the European Zionists to move to Israel. (From the 8/28 Jewish Press.) Now, does the TRUE historical record matter to these people? Do all the Hebrew prayers going back thousands of years referring to Yerushalayim matter to these people? Why do all the temples in the Diaspora face towards Jerusalem as the congregation is praying? If cutting off someone's head doesn't offend them, and blowing up innocent people in office buildings, cafes and malls doesn't bother them, then what's the big deal about some lies? How many lies did Hitler tell the German people in order to help accomplish his goals? These people not only know how to motivate their own people, but they know they can win the hearts and minds of many in the gullible West.

Obama said in his speech (appeasement) to the muslim world that "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." So here's a question: You feel any obligation Mr. President to speak out against the vicious lies being perpetrated by your buddies in the muslim world? Or, no problem if it's against the Jews?

2. The most recent poll shows that only 4% of Israelis now believe that Obama is pro-Israel. That is down from 6% in June. (From the 8/27/09 Jerusalem Post online.) Sadly, many American Jews still think that Obama somehow supports Israel. Beliefs and Reality are 2 different things, my friends. Some let Beliefs dictate their reality. I prefer to let Reality dictate my beliefs.

3. The Fire Brigades Union, the largest British firefighters union (representing 85% of British firefighters) has called for sanctions and a boycott of Israel. (From the 8/16/09 Jerusalem Post online.) Why? Because Israel had the nerve to go into Gaza to try to stop the incessant rocket attacks. And because Israel has a "blockade" of Gaza. In other words, the only thing Jews are allowed to do is DIE!

4. But we know the U.K. is really on top of things because of the sympathy they felt for that poor man dying of prostate cancer who was going to die alone in prison. So the compassionate thing to do was to release him. He only served 8 years? So what. He killed nearly 300 people when he blew up the plane? So what. We need to have compassion. The Libyans had a great deal of compassion for him - they greeted the Lockerbie bomber as if he were a HERO! So is it any surprise that islam is on the march when the Judeo-Christian world has lost its way?

5. From the 8/28/09 Jewish Press. A Swedish tabloid, Aftonbladet, published reports claiming that Israeli Defense Forces soldiers would simply execute arabs in order to harvest their organs for sale. So here's a question Mr. President: you feel any obligation to fight against negative stereotypes of Jews wherever they appear? I'm sure these allegations originate with your pals, the "palestinians." I really don't need the answer Mr. President - you never said you would speak out on behalf of Jews, just muslims.

World Affairs

Written August 4, 2009

1. The Sudan. Sudanese police beat up women who were protesting the trial of another woman for the "crime" of "indecency." The offense: wearing slacks in a cafe, contrary to Islamic Sharia law. Although this woman decided to fight the charges to publicize the issue, about 10 others were already punished - by flogging. Does Jimmy Carter love these people too, like he does with Hamas/ the palestinians. After all, they are instituting sharia law also.

2. Nigeria. A country of 140,000,000 people, divided between muslims and Christians. A radical islamic sect - Boko Haram - used guns, knives and machetes to attack police stations, military barracks, and churches. Churches even! Can someone remind me again about what a peace loving people the muslims are.

3. Australia. Authorities there were able to thwart planned attacks a military base by: those peace loving people. The attackers were said to be linked to an Al Qaeda group in Somalia. The plan was to enter the base with guns blasting away and kill as many as possible before the attackers were themselves killed. You see how just talking to the muslim world has CHANGED everything. Hope and change, hope and change.

4. USA. President Obama plans to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to one Mary Robinson, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. She has the distinction of presiding over the 2001 UN Durban conference on racism, which descended into a conference attacking Israel. It got so bad that our then Sec. of State Colin Powell withdrew from the conference. But Ms. Robinson saw fit to equate anti-semitism and the Holocaust with the suffering of the "palestinians" caused by "displacement and military occupation."
So here's a question: why would this woman's anti-semitic and anti-Israel rantings bother Obama any more than those of Rev. Wright, his "mentor" by his own admission. What will it take for my liberal friends to see that not only is Obama NOT offended by such comments, but he joins in on the attacks on Israel himself!

5. Israel. Fatah (the "moderate" - Ha - Abbas' party) continues to indicate they will not recognize Israel's right to exist. Of course, Hamas will not recognize Israel either. But Obama is determined to reward these terrorists by surrounding Israel with a "palestinian" state. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has not only told the Israelis that they may not expand even within existing settlements, but they also may not do any further construction within Jerusalem! A "foreign" country (the USA) is telling Israel that they cannot build within their capital city! That would be like the USA being told NO MORE CONSTRUCTION IN WASHINGTON, D.C. So why would Mary Robinson's (see no.4) anti-Israel attitudes bother Obama one iota? Remember, 88% of Israelis felt that George Bush supported Israel. 6% feel the same about Obama. Bush at least tried to stand up to evil. Obama wants to have tea and crumpets with evil.

Misc. Musings

Written June 19, 2009

A few unrelated topics for your consideration.

1. Government control of our health system. For those of you not familiar with workers comp law, we have something called a Medicare Set Aside trust when an injured worker settles his case and is on Medicare. Medicare, through their adjusting agency CMS, must approve a dollar amount to be approved by them to cover the individual's future medical expenses (so Medicare doesn't get stuck paying for medical bills on a workers comp case; although I think they should - but that's another topic). The parties submit a proposed MSA trust amount to CMS. It goes to a central office to make sure they have all the info they need. If there is a problem, they have a DIFFERENT office send a letter to the parties to let them know what further documentation is needed. When they have everything they send it to a REGIONAL office to review and approve. It usually takes 6 to 12 months or longer to get a final approval. Anybody think the national health care system will work with greater efficiency? There will be unacceptable delays and the rationing of benefits.

2. Some interesting comments/facts from/about the Middle East. From a palestinian martyr: "Every day on which the sun rises and no Jew is killed, nor any martyr has died, will be a day for which we will be punished by Allah." What a beautiful sentiment from a man honored by the palestinians. If Obama could just talk to these people I'm sure he could make them decent human beings! (Quote from commentary by Louis Rene Beres in 6/19/09 Jewish Press.)

"I have been in love with the palestinian people for many years." So said Jimmy Carter on his recent trip to the Middle East to meet with the people he loves. They love him too as the arabs have contributed millions of dollars to his Carter Center. Ah, love.

As to Netanyahu's recent speech setting 5 conditions on palestinian statehood: "We received encouraging signs from the Americans that we should not take seriously into consideration Netanyahu's speech." That from Nimer Hamad, senior political advisor to PA Pres. Abbas. He goes on: "The US is committed to the evacuation of settlements" and the final resolution will "not recognize eastern Jerusalem as part of the state of Israel." That's what we need Obama - pressure on those damn Jews to commit suicide while letting Iran get nukes and feebly supporting those supporting democracy in Iran. (And let's not forget Obama has already sent Panetta to Israel to tell the Jews they are NOT to stop the Iranians from getting nukes!) As long as we have our priorities straight! (Quotes from Aaron Klein in the 6/19/09 Jewish Press.)

A little more about those people Carter and Obama love so much. An Egyptian court has ruled that any Egyptian who marries an Israeli will lose their citizenship. Egypt - considered the leading arab country! And a country with a peace treaty with Israel, no less. (From the 6/11 LA Jewish Journal.) And in the West Bank, a family has tortured and hung to death their 15 year old son for cooperating with Israeli authorities. (From the 6/19/09 Jewish Press.) Beautiful people - no wonder why Carter and Obama love them!

According to a recent poll, only 6% of Israelis view the Obama administration as being pro-Israel. In contrast, 88% viewed the Bush Administration as being pro-Israel. Please tell all your Jewish friends who love Obama and hate Bush. (Polling info from the Jerusalem Post.)

And now, in both a sign of the times, and how a president can mold public opinion, only 49% of Americans favor Israel over the palestinians. And while Obama has added one far leftist after another to his administration, one of the latest is Kareem Shora, in the Dept. of Homeland Security. Born in Jordan, she is executive director of the American-Arab Anti -Discrimination Committee. The name sounds reasonable enough, but they have referred to Hezbollah as heroes. Heroes! A group that has killed over 200 Marines and other Americans. Good to know a person like this is in our government! (Info on Shora from Aaron Klein in the 6/12/09 Jewish Press.)

3. And from the mainstream (leftist) LATimes: gun sales are up 32% in the last six months, compared to last year. I wonder what could have happened 5 or 6 months ago to trigger such a huge increase in sales in such a democratic state? Whether you think Obama is a Christian or closet muslim is not the point. It is clear where his allegiances are, and apparently people are preparing accordingly.

Obama's Speech to the Muslim World

Written June 5, 2009

I have a few comments on President Obama's speech to the muslim world. I could go through the speech issue by issue, line by line, but this post would be too lengthy. So, although I will refer to some specific issues, I would like to start with the Big Picture issues.

Clearly, his goal is to have a new relationship with the Islamic world. He has shown that by past speeches and behaviors. He actually said some pretty important things to the muslims:
-he referred to the US as one of the greatest sources of progress the world has ever known,
-he said we support free speech, participatory government, the rule of law and equal justice, transparent and non-corrupt government, and the freedom to live as you choose.
Obama was rightly praised for saying these things to a muslim world that appears not to believe any of it. However, when Bush spoke to the Arab/Muslim world with almost identical comments, he was widely criticized as being naive, and trying to push American/Western values on a different culture. When Bush spoke to the arab/muslim world it did not even make the front page of the papers. But we already know that the mainstream media is a branch of the democratic party.

So, did the muslim world even hear those words? Or did they just hear a few references to the Koran, along with the music to their ears: the words "occupation" and "Palestine." Yes, our president will not say "terrorism" but he had no problem using the arab/muslim term "occupation" to refer to the West Bank and Gaza. He also referred to "Palestine" as if it were a country already. It is clear from reading comments from the muslim world that they expect Obama's words to be followed by real action. What action would that be?

Not likely his promise of aid to improve literacy for girls in the muslim world. Not likely the promise of some micro-financing for women entrepreneurs. I get the idea (not a new one obviously) of improving relations through cultural exchanges and economic aid. He said the last American troops would not leave Iraq until 2012! That did not make them happy. So what actions can he engage in to win the arab/muslim world over?

I'm hoping the answer is: NOT MUCH! In his speech he conceded Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power. He knows very well that Iran wants nukes. In a prior email I discussed how Obama sent Panetta to tell the Israelis to just accept that Iran will have nukes. To me, this sounds like "appeasement." The Arabs heard him talk about "occupation" and "Palestine;" which, to me, sounds like more appeasement.

With regards to the Israeli/palestinian conflict, he wants Israel to abide by their prior commitments. Interesting that he does not feel obligated to abide by prior US commitments, such as when Bush assured Sharon that final boundaries would have to consider the "facts on the ground" (i.e. settlements). Or that there would be no palestinian state until they renounce violence first. So, the question remains, what further actions could/will Obama take to make the arabs happy about Israel?

I was struck by one line in particular in Obama's speech. Right after saying that he would speak the truth, he said: "...the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart." A noble settlement, albeit a platitude; but definitely NOT THE TRUTH. And therein lies the problem. The Soviet Union had an ideology that was completely contrary to that of the US and the West. But Reagan did not help bring down the USSR by appeasement, but rather by strength. Does the muslim world have any less of an opposing ideology than the Soviets did? Democracy? No. Belief in freedom of speech and religion? No. Individual liberty? No. But so far Obama's approach seems to be one of appeasement - allowing Iran to get nukes, forcing a palestinian country on Israel while saying that the suffering of the palestinians is intolerable, while neglecting to say that they have brought it upon themselves.

So in terms of the Big Picture, what should be the approach to people whose ideology is 180 degrees from ours?

Is anybody out there?

Written May 29, 2009

From the May 29, 2009 Jewish Press is an article stating that CIA Director Panetta went to Israel prior to Netanyahu coming to DC. His purpose was to tell Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders that Iran WILL have nuclear weapons and they WILL be able to reach Israel. Furthermore, he told the Israeli NOT to attack Iran without US permission.

In another article in the same edition is a summary of a study conducted by the Israeli government. It states that somewhere in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of Israelis would die in the event of a nuclear attack (with the lower numbers dependent on satisfactory bomb shelters). What I read makes no mention of what happens afterwards from the radiation. I guess "Never Again" is now "Get Ready for it Again in our Lifetimes."

In another story from the same edition, Obama has assured the Palestinians that they will have East Jerusalem as their capital. When the Jordanians controlled East Jerusalem Jews were denied access to the Western Wall (Kotel).

And today's front page of the LA Times says "US - Israeli rift becomes an unusually public one." Obama and Clinton and democratic members of Congress have been telling the Israelis that there can be no more construction in the West Bank, even to allow for natural growth of existing communities. Abbas has also told Obama he wants US help in getting Netanyahu out of the Israeli government! Obama has now met separately with Abbas and Netanyahu and it is clear from Obama's comments that he thinks Israel is the bad guy here. I think it would be fair to say that Israel's last remaining friend in the world has just left the room.

In my 5/24 email I had commented on another article confirming that high level strategic meetings between Israel and the US had ended under the Obama administration. Before that I stated that Obama's first phone call to a world leader was Abbas, his first interview was on Al-Jazeera, he bowed to the Saudi King, and apologized to the muslim world. He is now due to address the muslim world from Egypt on June 4.

Does anyone who voted for Obama and supports Israel have even a hint of doubt about their choice? Please do not get me wrong. When Bush spoke about the 2-state solution I criticized him. When Bush said it is unacceptable that Iran obtain nuclear weapons and did nothing about it, I criticized him. But is anyone else starting to feel like we are in 1930's Europe?

P.S. I am now capitalizing the word Palestinian as the small case insulted one of my readers, for which I apologize. My purpose is not to insult, but (and I apologize again because I know how this sounds) to provide information that may not be readily available in the mainstream media and to get people to think about their assumptions.

Some thoughts on "world views" and other topics

Written May 23, 2009

1. I was in court the other day and a few of us were discussing politics, and particularly the Middle East. At one point I mentioned that about 8000 rockets and missiles had been launched into Israel from Gaza over the last 8 years or so. An attorney (Jewish) listening in on our conversation stated that I was incorrect with regards to the number. I asked him how many rockets he thought had fallen on Israel. HE HAD NO IDEA. He then proceeded to tell me, in any event, that no one had been killed by the rockets. I told him he was wrong again. AGAIN, HE HAD NO IDEA. I also told him that even if he were correct, the entire town of Sderot had been terrorized by the attacks to the point where children were kept at home and not allowed out to go to school, and many adults were afraid to leave their homes as well. Also, others had been injured, even if not killed. THIS HAD NO IMPACT ON HIM EITHER.

So here's a question: why was this Jew willing to ignore all the facts given to him (admitting he did not know the facts but insisting at times that I could not be right) and make excuse after excuse for people who want to kill his people; and who would be happy to kill him also? Is he a moron? Is "liberalism" a mental disorder (as Michael Savage says)? Has he been brainwashed from years of exposure to the liberal media? What would make a Jew not be the least bit offended by constant rocket attacks on innocent civilians in the State of Israel?

From my point of view, his world view does not allow the accurate processing of information in order to reach a rational conclusion. His pre-programmed world view is so hard-wired into his brain that he would not (COULD NOT) even accept FACTS (not opinions) that conflict with his pre-conceived notions. Now, I know we all process information based upon certain assumptions about the world (often unconsciously). My concern is when people hold on to their assumptions/world view so tightly that they can no longer make rational judgments, or even distinguish right from wrong.

Inasmuch as nothing moved the aforementioned attorney I suggested the following hypothetical. I said he should imagine that he lived in a home with 5 people in his family. One day, I move in next door and fire 5 to 10 bullets into his home. No one gets hurt but, of course, he calls the police to immediately come out. The police tell him: "Well, no one got killed so there is nothing we can do about it." Then I keep firing 5 to 10 bullets a day into his home. I asked if he would be good with the situation and lack of police action. Rather than give me an answer he simply said that my hypothetical was unrelated. He did not explain why.

2. From the 5/15/09 Jewish Press: "Officials in both Washington and Jerusalem acknowledge that the level of strategic cooperation between the two countries has dropped significantly since Obama became president in January. They said no high-level strategic meetings have taken place in more than three months and the weekly informal discussions on such issues as Iran, Iraq, Al Qaeda and threats in the Middle East have ended."

3. This is one of my favorites. Also from the 5/15/09 Jewish Press. The British Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, is telling government employees not to use the word "terrorism" but rather "anti- Islamic activity." Everybody get this????? Her terminology makes the perpetrators of terrorism the victims!!!!! We should feel bad for the muslims because terrorism makes them look bad!!!! Never mind about the innocent people who are killed or injured by these "terrorists." This is not far afield from Obama also ordering a stop to the use of the word "terrorism" and replacing it with man-made disasters (or something to that effect).

4. This from the 5/22/09 Jewish Press. In a recent poll fully 40 percent of Israeli Arabs deny that the Holocaust ever happened. One of the most widely documented events in history - NEVER HAPPENED.

5. And finally, from the 5/1/09 Jewish Press. 30 percent of British citizens believe that while Jews have been the the victims of aggression, they have perpetrated aggression in roughly an equal amount. REALLY? Was that when we were slaves in Egypt? During the 2000 year diaspora? During the Spanish Inquisition? During the Holocaust? Oh I know - everything that Israel has done to defend itself against war after war, intifada after intifada, homicide bombing after homicide bombing, was "aggression" against the palestinians; and that "aggression" equals what has happened to the Jews! Got it!