Sunday, April 3, 2016

Liberal or Conservative?

I could easily do an entire post on the left wing propaganda permeating mainstream TV shows. But this latest example is too good to pass up. On a recent episode of "Quantico," some well armed gunmen attacked the FBI's training grounds, killing some agents. A US Senator, speaking to the trainees, claimed there had been 330 mass shootings in 2015. (Of course, it depends on how one defines mass shootings.) Then the Senator said this: "I am tired of this. And you should be too. You are being trained to carry a weapon, to respect the power of a gun, to understand that it is a privilege to be earned - not a right given to anyone..."

I wonder if those on the left even notice this type of subtle propaganda. It is, of course, a total lie - as the Supreme Court has, in fact, said there is a RIGHT to gun ownership. But this is the type of bias that is seen across both the entertainment media and the news media. It is pervasive.

According to Fox, the Food and Nutrition Service of the US Department of Agriculture has proposed a new rule dealing with food at schools. For schools that do not follow the sodium and calorie limits in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, and "persistently disregard" the lunch rules, they will be fined. This is akin to Eric Holder threatening schools across the country for excessively disciplining misbehaving (Holder meant black) children.

So I ask, does it even occur to a liberal to ask if local school lunches should be dictated by a federal bureaucracy? Are my friends on the left even aware of the ever growing behemoth that is the federal government? Or, do those people simply say if the goal is worthy, then so what if the feds are involved. So what if the feds preempt the states in what should be a local issue. And do those on the left ever ask if any branch of government should be involved, or is a child's lunch something that a parent gets to decide. Do you want the feds inspecting the contents of your refrigerator?

Senator Patrick Leahy was joined by 10 members of Congress in seeking an investigation into the cessation of military aid to Israel and Egypt. There is a statute that allows the US government to stop military aid to countries guilty of human rights abuses. Under current military rule, Egypt clearly has some issues. But Israel? Israel will kill terrorists in the act of committing terrorism. And, even if there are a few instances where a soldier is second-guessed about whether the shooting was necessary, there is no pattern of misbehavior by the IDF.

Not surprisingly, each and every one of the Congressmen and women joining Leahy, is a democrat. As is Leahy. Jonathan Tobin recently wrote a piece in Commentary magazine about the shift by Democrats away from supporting Israel. A companion article discussed the shift by Republicans towards support for Israel. This quote from Tobin is instructive: "...if the Democratic Party is divided it is between those who think pressuring Israel into suicidal concessions is for its own good and those growing voices on the left that support BDS and other measures intended to destroy the Jewish state altogether." Do my Jewish friends on the left get this - or will you keep voting Democrat?

With Scalia gone from the Supreme Court, the Court issued a 4-4 decision in the case of Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association. The tie vote left the lower court holding in place, enforcing a California law. Some teachers who had not joined the union did not wish to pay the "fair share service fee" or "agency fee" that state law allows unions to collect from non-members. Those "fees" are equivalent to paying "dues." Many states have similar laws. In any event, the non-member teachers objected to having to pay the fees but lost in the lower court.

Not surprisingly, the four liberal justices saw no problem in allowing a union to take the money of someone who did not voluntarily sign up as a member. But those non-members benefit from the union negotiating pay increases and benefits. So what? Since when does a private organization that I do not belong to have a right to take my money? Do you come down on the side of liberty (as conservatives do), or tyranny (as liberals do)? Or, does the issue not even occur to you? This provides yet another example of the importance of not confirming a fifth liberal Justice to the Court.

The European Union is obsessed with what goes on in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Now, the EU wants a list of all businesses operating in the West Bank, because the EU believes the land is being illegally occupied by Israel. Or, is the EU obsession based on anti-Semitism?

As pointed out in a recent article in the Jewish Press, Cyprus is actually a member of the EU, and Northern Cyprus has been illegally occupied by Turks since the Turkish invasion in 1974. Except for Turkey, the rest of the world considers Turkey's occupation to be illegal. So what, you say? How is it that the EU does not care about the illegal occupation of an EU member country, but is obsessed over what happens in a non-member state? How is it that the EU seeks what amounts to a boycott of Israel, while continuing relations with Turkey? Is there any possible explanation other than anti-Semitism? The same factor likely motivating the above-referenced Congress members.

I suggest to my liberal friends and readers, it is time to start thinking about issues beyond gay marriage and abortion. Or, will you support tyranny and anti-Semitism?