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")?