* In light of the recent record cold temperatures around much of the U.S., as a result of the "polar vortex," the Obama Administration was anxious to let everyone know that such temps did not mean the end of global warming. Said John Holdren, Obama's science adviser: "...a growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues." Did he go to school? I see no point in debating the issue of "global warming" with believers. After all, if it gets too hot - global warming is the culprit. Too cold? Global warming. Too much rain? Global warming. No rain? Global warming. Severe storms? Global warming. No severe storms? Global warming. So, what's to debate?
* The newly elected socialist Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, is determined to bring "income equality" to New York. But wealthy people are not the only targets he's going after. No, he is going to bring an end to that evil institution of...the horse drawn carriage! It is a joy to ride them through Central Park. Well, it was. Says de Blasio: "We are going to get rid of the horse drawn carriages. Period. They are not humane, they are not appropriate for the year 2014. It's over. So, just watch us do it." Not appropriate? Why? Who knows? Maybe the cynics are right; maybe it's all about rewarding a big donor by giving him the opportunity to purchase the land upon which the no longer needed horse stables sit. Either way, it will bring an end to a wonderful tradition.
* We know that Obama will only speak on local criminal matters if he perceives there is a black victim. Well, the Attorney General just found some black victims that might not be apparent to the rest of us. Said Holder: "Schools...violate federal law when they evenhandedly implement facially neutral policies and practices that, although not adopted with the intent to discriminate, nonetheless have an unjustified effect of discriminating against students on the basis of race." Some of the policies referred to include "...being late to class, being in possession of a cellular phone, being found insubordinate, acting out, or not wearing the proper school uniform." Any reader of this blog knows that I am not in favor of "zero tolerance" policies. But what's the message here? That black students should be excused from their misconduct because they are black? That ought to prepare them well for the real world.
* Do liberal "feel good" policies ever work? Let's take a look at some of the cities that have already applied Holder's approach. Baltimore: "...as student suspensions have plunged, assaults on school staffers have more than doubled." Portland: "Even more black kids are acting out." Oakland: "There have been serious threats against teachers." One teacher, after ending up in the ER following an assault by a black student, was advised by the vice principal not to press charges; it is too hard for young blacks to overcome a criminal record. So, rather than encourage black youth to actually behave properly, Holder praised the Oakland and Baltimore approach, and wants to prosecute schools if they discipline black students. (Information from the 1/10/14 Investor's Business Daily.) Don't ask me why liberals consistently seek to appease those engaged in bad behavior. But here is yet another example of such behavior.
* Obama and Kerry are determined to create a state that never existed alongside Israel - the state of Palestine. It matters not that Abbas (whose term as President of the PA expired long ago, with no elections since) says he will not ever recognize Israel as the Jewish State. He says he will not allow a single Jew to reside in his new state. Then there's the little matter of terrorism and honoring those who carry out terrorist attacks and kill innocents. Doesn't matter. Obama and Kerry said Israel had to release Arab (Palestinian) terrorists from their prisons as a sign of "good faith." Of course, the press never inquires why it shows "good faith" to release convicted terrorists and criminals. It is simply the same approach of rewarding bad behavior that liberals favor.
* I have long maintained that Obama and Kerry maybe have 1/10 of the knowledge of the Middle East that I have. Does not matter. They have a goal. But here is what one senior Israeli official had to say about Kerry: "Kerry visits here a lot, but he does not display any understanding of what is happening here. The U.S. plans are superficial and not serious. There is no connection between what is said in public about the progress of the negotiations and what is actually happening. It seems that Kerry is just not in touch with reality. He is not an expert, to say the least, on the roots of the conflict, he does not know how to create real solutions and does not even demonstrate proficiency in reading maps that are presented to him." (From the 1/9/14 Jerusalem Post on line.)
* Michael Hiltzik is a columnist for the LA Times. In his 12/22/13 column he said that "Obama is right to put (a) spotlight on economic inequality." Says Hiltzik: "Virtually every economic problem we have today - slow growth, high unemployment, low social mobility among the underclass - is both a manifestation and a cause of economic inequality." It's easy being a liberal. Like Obama's science adviser, one theory explains everything. In this case, Hiltzik happens to opt for Marxist theory - proven wrong time and again. It could not possibly be that the added taxes, regulations and the burdens of Obamacare have had a negative impact on job growth. Hiltzik favorably cites Berkeley economist, J. Bradford Delong.
* Said Delong: "Tell me if you can do so with a straight face, that any aspect of the large upward leap in inequality we have experienced has paid any benefits at all in terms of true...human material welfare-enhancing economic growth." Another socialist/Marxist viewpoint. The money earned by the wealthy should not belong to them. It should belong to the government to redistribute as it sees fit. See how easily notions of individual freedom and liberty can be lost? As Mayor de Blasio has said: "I believe in the heavy hand of government." Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, who said: "Are you entitled to the fruits of your own labor or does government have some presumptive right to spend and spend and spend?"
* As the IBD notes in a 1/7/14 editorial, progressivism "is a system of compulsion and threats." You see, a handful of government bureaucrats and elected officials are so much smarter than the other 300 million of us, that they need to dictate our every decision, and how we should live. However, as Reagan also said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
* Reagan also said: "As government expands, liberty contracts." I have yet to see any liberal Democrat express concern about the contraction of liberty under this president, and under the "progressive" agenda.