A University of Michigan professor, who is the head of the communications department, wrote an article in which she announced: "I hate Republicans." Very professional, and very nice for any Republicans who might be enrolled in any of her classes. She also wrote this: "I can't stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehnor, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legion of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal 'personhood.'"
She left out gay marriage as one of the big issues for the left. And certainly no mention of the ongoing threats from Islamic terrorist groups or North Korea or Russia or China. No concern about Iran getting Nukes. No worries about the left's assault on the Constitution. And certainly no concern over jobs.
In California, the labor force participation rate, those working or actively seeking work, is down to 62.3%. That is the lowest it's been since the 1970s. In December, 2007 - pre-Obama - it was 65.9%. (Stats from the 12/4/14 LA Times.)
And I do not know how distraught Professor Douglas was over the recent brutal murders of 148 people, of which 132 were children, by the Taliban in Pakistan. Of course, the list of atrocities recently committed by Islamic terror groups could take up several paragraphs. Are these of concern to Professor Douglas?
Professor Susan Douglas must be just beside herself. Imagine, the Republicans control the Senate and have the largest Republican majority in the House since the WWII era. Republicans control 31 governor mansions. And Republicans control 67 of the 98 state houses in the country. (Nebraska has a nonpartisan unicameral legislature.) I think it's fair to say that the predictions of the Republican Party's demise were a tad premature. And I suspect Professor Douglas may not be getting much sleep during the next two years.
Out of Macalester College in Minnesota comes this story - the college is banning the use of words that may be hurtful to others and have an oppressive impact on culture. Words like "wuss" and "you guys." How about "swell" and "so's your old man?" (See "The Music Man.") It seems to me that we are raising a generation of fragile wusses. Oops.
Speaking of which, Columbia Law School announced that students could defer taking their finals if they were too traumatized by the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, and the lack of indictments of the police officers involved. That would be appropriate for family members or close friends of the Brown and Garner families. But everyone?
Getting back to Professor Douglas, it is clear she is in touch with the issues that people care about. Or is she? The 12/22/14 Investor's Business Daily reported on a poll conducted by the UN about what issues are of most concern to people worldwide. The top three - no, not climate change or abortion or immigration. The top three were: A good education, better health care and better job opportunities. Protection from crime and violence came in at number 6. Climate change was number 16.
Maybe Democrats took the shellacking they did because they focused on the wrong issues. "...Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them...and put all of our focus on the wrong problem - healthcare reform." That's not from me. That's from liberal Senator Charles Schumer. Something for Professor Douglas and other liberals to think about.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Year End Reflections - Part III
The very liberal state of Vermont had what they thought was a good idea - a single payer healthcare system. However, Governor Peter Shumlin recently put an end to those plans. Said the Governor: "It was clear to me that the taxes required to replace health-care premiums with a publicly financed plan that would best serve Vermont are, in a word, enormous."
The higher taxes would have hurt the citizens and businesses in Vermont. The Governor was unable to justify the negative impact on his state's economy. But notice what else he said, a "plan that would best serve Vermont." Could it be that he realized that not only would the taxes be enormous in order to provide quality healthcare to the people; but that if he lessened the tax impact it would result in a lower standard of care, with long waits for treatment and less choices. Did the Governor have a conservative moment? Did he actually let reality dictate his beliefs and policy? Good for him!
Meanwhile, SCOTUS will be hearing a case next year on an issue that could have a major impact on the ACA. The issue is whether or not the subsidies available to Obamacare enrollees are only available to those who enroll through a state exchange; or can those who enrolled through the federal exchange (because their states did not set up a state run exchange) also be eligible for the subsidies? As most states did not set up their own exchange, the impact on Obamacare could be enormous.
Paul Krugman, the award winning far-left columnist for the New York Times, said in his 11/10/14 opinion piece that it was all much ado about nothing. The drafters merely made a typo in referring to "state" run exchanges. Anyway, he said you could ask them. Okay, let's ask Jonathan Gruber, one of the main architects of Obamacare. Gruber: "If you're a state and you don't set up an exchange that means your citizens don't get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill." (Comments by Gruber on 1/18/12.)
Recall that SCOTUS upheld the ACA by calling the penalty/fine a "tax." (See 7/1/12 post discussing the Supreme Court decision.) The statute said it was a fine, Obama said it was a fine. So now we have a challenge to the law as to whether "state exchange" also means "federal exchange."
Will the Chief Justice be all in? It was Chief Justice John Roberts who voted with the four liberal Justices to uphold the ACA by rewriting the statute and calling the "fine" a "tax." It seems to this writer that it will be just as easy for Roberts to rewrite the statute yet again in order to define "state" as also meaning "federal" with regards to the exchanges. The Court has no power to write or rewrite legislation. But we know the four liberals on the Court will put their agenda ahead of the law. Will Roberts?
Gruber also said the bill was intentionally written with a lack of transparency. Said Gruber: "Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass." Because Gruber believed the ACA was an important piece of legislation, and as a typical left-wing elitist also believed he knew what was best for the American people, he had no compunction about the lies and lack of transparency surrounding the ACA. But Gruber was not an elected official. Our top leaders, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, also had no compunction about lying. After all, the ends always justify the means to these people. Truth is not a value in and of itself.
So will Roberts be all in? I hope not; but if the past is any indication, he will allow the enrollees in the federal exchanges to get the same subsidies as those in the state exchanges. He will be all in.
The higher taxes would have hurt the citizens and businesses in Vermont. The Governor was unable to justify the negative impact on his state's economy. But notice what else he said, a "plan that would best serve Vermont." Could it be that he realized that not only would the taxes be enormous in order to provide quality healthcare to the people; but that if he lessened the tax impact it would result in a lower standard of care, with long waits for treatment and less choices. Did the Governor have a conservative moment? Did he actually let reality dictate his beliefs and policy? Good for him!
Meanwhile, SCOTUS will be hearing a case next year on an issue that could have a major impact on the ACA. The issue is whether or not the subsidies available to Obamacare enrollees are only available to those who enroll through a state exchange; or can those who enrolled through the federal exchange (because their states did not set up a state run exchange) also be eligible for the subsidies? As most states did not set up their own exchange, the impact on Obamacare could be enormous.
Paul Krugman, the award winning far-left columnist for the New York Times, said in his 11/10/14 opinion piece that it was all much ado about nothing. The drafters merely made a typo in referring to "state" run exchanges. Anyway, he said you could ask them. Okay, let's ask Jonathan Gruber, one of the main architects of Obamacare. Gruber: "If you're a state and you don't set up an exchange that means your citizens don't get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill." (Comments by Gruber on 1/18/12.)
Recall that SCOTUS upheld the ACA by calling the penalty/fine a "tax." (See 7/1/12 post discussing the Supreme Court decision.) The statute said it was a fine, Obama said it was a fine. So now we have a challenge to the law as to whether "state exchange" also means "federal exchange."
Will the Chief Justice be all in? It was Chief Justice John Roberts who voted with the four liberal Justices to uphold the ACA by rewriting the statute and calling the "fine" a "tax." It seems to this writer that it will be just as easy for Roberts to rewrite the statute yet again in order to define "state" as also meaning "federal" with regards to the exchanges. The Court has no power to write or rewrite legislation. But we know the four liberals on the Court will put their agenda ahead of the law. Will Roberts?
Gruber also said the bill was intentionally written with a lack of transparency. Said Gruber: "Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass." Because Gruber believed the ACA was an important piece of legislation, and as a typical left-wing elitist also believed he knew what was best for the American people, he had no compunction about the lies and lack of transparency surrounding the ACA. But Gruber was not an elected official. Our top leaders, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, also had no compunction about lying. After all, the ends always justify the means to these people. Truth is not a value in and of itself.
So will Roberts be all in? I hope not; but if the past is any indication, he will allow the enrollees in the federal exchanges to get the same subsidies as those in the state exchanges. He will be all in.
Monday, December 22, 2014
Year End Reflections - Part II
You have to hand it to the Europeans. Home of the appeasers. The European Court of Justice ruled that Hamas should be taken off the EU's list of terrorist organizations. So what if they are responsible for numerous terrorist attacks on civilians in Israel, and the firing of thousands of rockets and mortars into Israeli cities in the hopes of killing civilians? The Europeans love them - just like Jimmy Carter does. Next, let's remove Hezbollah, ISIS, Al Qaeda from the list. Hell, let's just do away with the list. It's so judgmental.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said this: "Hamas is a murderous terrorist organization whose charter says that its aim is to destroy Israel." I need to tell Netanyahu a little secret - the Europeans do not give a damn if Israel is destroyed!
The great "moderate" leader of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas, recently said this: "We cannot recognize a Jewish State...because it contradicts our interests." Yes, their interest in destroying Israel. There was some honesty out of Abbas; just don't expect to see it in the mainstream media.
While the palestinians have been pushing for a return to the 1967 borders, there has also been talk of some land swaps. But the "moderate" Abbas would have none of it, as he said: "I will not allow, or force, any Arab to relinquish his Israeli citizenship...as far as I'm concerned, Arabs remaining citizens of Israel is a sacred matter." Sacred matter? What a bunch of... What he really means is he wants Arabs and Jews living in Israel, but only Arabs in a new state of Palestine (he already has said no Jews will be allowed) and then eventually merge the two into a single Arab state.
Meanwhile, liberal commentator Roger Cohen, wrote a piece in the 12/21/14 New York Times entitled: "What Will Israel Become?" Mr. Cohen was agonizing over growing numbers of "settlements" in the West Bank, and a growing wave of nationalism that has resulted in a proposed law to remove Arabic as an official language of Israel.
As do others, he frets over whether Israel will remain a democracy or not. In his support, Cohen refers to Israel's founding charter of 1948, indicating that the new state was to be based "on freedom, justice, and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, or sex."
Very nice. But let me remind Mr. Cohen that the palestinian's charters (of Hamas and Fatah) call for Israel's DESTRUCTION! The nice thing about being a liberal is that you need not concern yourself with either facts or reality. As I have stated before, liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs.
Just the other day a man in France drove his car directly into a crowd of 12 pedestrians. Two were reported to have been badly injured. I should point out that the man was heard to yell "Allahu Akhbar!" He also apparently claimed to act on behalf of the children of Palestine. Would I be that far off if I said here is the European mentality - if we let them kill the Jews maybe they will leave us alone? After all, the largely secular Europeans have not shown much interest in the plight of Christians throughout the Arab world, so why would they concern themselves with the Jews?
Interestingly, the Jerusalem Post reports that Secretary of State Kerry recently said Arab leaders are willing to make peace with Israel and stand up against the likes of Hamas and Boko Haram. Now wouldn't that be something - the Arabs tiring of the terrorists in their midst while the Europeans seek to empower them.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said this: "Hamas is a murderous terrorist organization whose charter says that its aim is to destroy Israel." I need to tell Netanyahu a little secret - the Europeans do not give a damn if Israel is destroyed!
The great "moderate" leader of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas, recently said this: "We cannot recognize a Jewish State...because it contradicts our interests." Yes, their interest in destroying Israel. There was some honesty out of Abbas; just don't expect to see it in the mainstream media.
While the palestinians have been pushing for a return to the 1967 borders, there has also been talk of some land swaps. But the "moderate" Abbas would have none of it, as he said: "I will not allow, or force, any Arab to relinquish his Israeli citizenship...as far as I'm concerned, Arabs remaining citizens of Israel is a sacred matter." Sacred matter? What a bunch of... What he really means is he wants Arabs and Jews living in Israel, but only Arabs in a new state of Palestine (he already has said no Jews will be allowed) and then eventually merge the two into a single Arab state.
Meanwhile, liberal commentator Roger Cohen, wrote a piece in the 12/21/14 New York Times entitled: "What Will Israel Become?" Mr. Cohen was agonizing over growing numbers of "settlements" in the West Bank, and a growing wave of nationalism that has resulted in a proposed law to remove Arabic as an official language of Israel.
As do others, he frets over whether Israel will remain a democracy or not. In his support, Cohen refers to Israel's founding charter of 1948, indicating that the new state was to be based "on freedom, justice, and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, or sex."
Very nice. But let me remind Mr. Cohen that the palestinian's charters (of Hamas and Fatah) call for Israel's DESTRUCTION! The nice thing about being a liberal is that you need not concern yourself with either facts or reality. As I have stated before, liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs.
Just the other day a man in France drove his car directly into a crowd of 12 pedestrians. Two were reported to have been badly injured. I should point out that the man was heard to yell "Allahu Akhbar!" He also apparently claimed to act on behalf of the children of Palestine. Would I be that far off if I said here is the European mentality - if we let them kill the Jews maybe they will leave us alone? After all, the largely secular Europeans have not shown much interest in the plight of Christians throughout the Arab world, so why would they concern themselves with the Jews?
Interestingly, the Jerusalem Post reports that Secretary of State Kerry recently said Arab leaders are willing to make peace with Israel and stand up against the likes of Hamas and Boko Haram. Now wouldn't that be something - the Arabs tiring of the terrorists in their midst while the Europeans seek to empower them.
Year End Reflections - Part I
Two NYPD officers were shot and killed by a lunatic who had already shot his girlfriend. However, he felt a need to take revenge on the police for the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. The Mayor of New York, after the killing of Eric Garner, said this on 12/3/14: "People need to know that black lives and brown lives matter as much as white lives." After saying he had to warn his mixed race son about how to deal with the police, he also said this: "...we are dealing with centuries of racism that have brought us to this day."
Actually, we are dealing with leftist elected officials - morons - who, while not responsible for these deaths, did not help. Mayor DiBlasio sees fit to accuse the officers involved in the death of Eric Garner, and really the entire police department, of racism. Where was his evidence for that? Are all the black and Hispanic and Asian cops racist also? Or was the Mayor taking his cue from much higher elected officials? Recall Obama calling the Cambridge P.D. officers stupid for arresting Professor Gates, a black man. Had it been a white professor, we never would have heard from the media or the President about it.
But if Obama had a son, he would look like Trayvon. And the Attorney General of the United States saw fit to go to Ferguson and announce that he was there not just as the A.G., but as a black man. Holder also said: "I think it's pretty clear that the need for wholesale change in the Ferguson police department is appropriate"; but deferred on what changes would be needed "until we complete our inquiry." Then how did he conclude "wholesale change" was even necessary before the inquiry was completed?
The great thinkers in the mainstream media piled on. Ezra Klein did not believe officer Wilson's account of the Michael Brown shooting. He wrote on Vox asking why Michael Brown, described as an 18 year old headed to college, would refuse an order to get out of the road, or would curse at a police officer, or would attack a police officer, and so on. He concluded that "none of this fits with what we know of Michael Brown."
I would bet Mr. Klein saw the video of Brown robbing the convenience store and shoving the store clerk. Did he know that Mr. Brown was headed for a trade school, not a college? Or that his mother said she relied on family and friends to help mentor him, presumably because his father was not around? Did he know Brown's parents were just teenagers when Brown was born? But why add any complexity to the story when it's so much easier to go with the lying, racist police officer.
The Eric Garner case brings up some interesting political issues. Garner was selling individual cigarettes - loosies - on the street. Apparently, shop owners were not happy, especially since they have to collect and pay the taxes on the cigarette sales. Garner, undoubtedly, had an all cash business; and we can assume he was not concerned about taxes. Garner had been arrested many times before. He was resisting arrest. Yet no one with whom I have spoken feels the same way about Eric Garner's death as they did about Michael Brown's death. What if Garner was a 10 year old kid selling lemonade? Would the police "take the kid down?"
Yes, I know that local authorities have in fact stopped kids from selling lemonade in some communities. And there is the issue - just how much government control and involvement do we need in every single aspect of our lives? Secondly, if selling loosies is bad, does that mean it requires police involvement in the first instance? What if a civil employee, or someone equivalent to a traffic cop, simply gave him a citation? What if there were no police involvement unless a judge ordered his arrest for failing to pay the fine or appear in court?
Do I believe the police are always right in everything they do? No. I thought they hit Rodney King too many times. And it was fairly shocking when the police shot, and thankfully did not kill, 2 small Hispanic women they somehow mistook for Christopher Dorner. But I'm not a politician. I'm not going to make wholesale charges of racism and widespread police misconduct in order to satisfy an agenda or please a base. So rest in peace Officer Rafael Ramos and Officer Wenjian Liu. May your lives be an inspiration to others who want to protect and serve.
Actually, we are dealing with leftist elected officials - morons - who, while not responsible for these deaths, did not help. Mayor DiBlasio sees fit to accuse the officers involved in the death of Eric Garner, and really the entire police department, of racism. Where was his evidence for that? Are all the black and Hispanic and Asian cops racist also? Or was the Mayor taking his cue from much higher elected officials? Recall Obama calling the Cambridge P.D. officers stupid for arresting Professor Gates, a black man. Had it been a white professor, we never would have heard from the media or the President about it.
But if Obama had a son, he would look like Trayvon. And the Attorney General of the United States saw fit to go to Ferguson and announce that he was there not just as the A.G., but as a black man. Holder also said: "I think it's pretty clear that the need for wholesale change in the Ferguson police department is appropriate"; but deferred on what changes would be needed "until we complete our inquiry." Then how did he conclude "wholesale change" was even necessary before the inquiry was completed?
The great thinkers in the mainstream media piled on. Ezra Klein did not believe officer Wilson's account of the Michael Brown shooting. He wrote on Vox asking why Michael Brown, described as an 18 year old headed to college, would refuse an order to get out of the road, or would curse at a police officer, or would attack a police officer, and so on. He concluded that "none of this fits with what we know of Michael Brown."
I would bet Mr. Klein saw the video of Brown robbing the convenience store and shoving the store clerk. Did he know that Mr. Brown was headed for a trade school, not a college? Or that his mother said she relied on family and friends to help mentor him, presumably because his father was not around? Did he know Brown's parents were just teenagers when Brown was born? But why add any complexity to the story when it's so much easier to go with the lying, racist police officer.
The Eric Garner case brings up some interesting political issues. Garner was selling individual cigarettes - loosies - on the street. Apparently, shop owners were not happy, especially since they have to collect and pay the taxes on the cigarette sales. Garner, undoubtedly, had an all cash business; and we can assume he was not concerned about taxes. Garner had been arrested many times before. He was resisting arrest. Yet no one with whom I have spoken feels the same way about Eric Garner's death as they did about Michael Brown's death. What if Garner was a 10 year old kid selling lemonade? Would the police "take the kid down?"
Yes, I know that local authorities have in fact stopped kids from selling lemonade in some communities. And there is the issue - just how much government control and involvement do we need in every single aspect of our lives? Secondly, if selling loosies is bad, does that mean it requires police involvement in the first instance? What if a civil employee, or someone equivalent to a traffic cop, simply gave him a citation? What if there were no police involvement unless a judge ordered his arrest for failing to pay the fine or appear in court?
Do I believe the police are always right in everything they do? No. I thought they hit Rodney King too many times. And it was fairly shocking when the police shot, and thankfully did not kill, 2 small Hispanic women they somehow mistook for Christopher Dorner. But I'm not a politician. I'm not going to make wholesale charges of racism and widespread police misconduct in order to satisfy an agenda or please a base. So rest in peace Officer Rafael Ramos and Officer Wenjian Liu. May your lives be an inspiration to others who want to protect and serve.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Obama's Take on His World
Like many on the left, President Obama was undoubtedly dumbfounded by the outcome of the midterm election. After all, if people vote their pocketbooks, then with the unemployment rate being way down and the stock market being way up - what happened? Are the American people just stupid? (We'll get to Jonathan Gruber soon enough.) Said Obama at his 11/5/14 post-election press conference: "On almost every measure we are better off economically than when I took office." Let's see.
When Obama took office in January, 2009, the median household income was $55,871; in July, 2014 it was $54,045. Other than gas prices, inflation has caused the dollar to shrink, requiring Americans to take home more - not less - to keep up.
In January, 2009, 31,983,716 Americans were on food stamps. In July, 2014, that number soared to 46,486,434. Who thinks that huge increase speaks to a healthy economy? No surprise that the number of Americans living in poverty also increased from 2009 to 2013 - from 43.6 million to 45.3 million. Similarly, the poverty rate increased for women and blacks, although only slightly for Hispanics.
While the UNemployment rate is down, the employment rate (a more accurate reflection of the labor market) shrunk from 65.7% in January, 2009 to 62.7% in September, 2014. That is the lowest it has been since 1968. The unemployment rate does not count the chronically unemployed, and therefore can result in a misleading number. Obama, again, has done no favors for blacks as their labor participation rate is down from 63.2% to 61.7%. Women are down from 59.4% to 56.7%. Hispanics are also down - from 67.9% to 65.7%.
Homeownership rate? In the fourth quarter of 2008 it was 67.5% compared to the second quarter of 2014 when it was down to 64.7%. And those promised reductions in health insurance premiums? Up from $13,375 in 2008 to $16,351 in 2013. (All of the above stats from Fox/Hannity, 11/6/14.)
Obama was asked at the press conference if it was a mistake not to have developed closer relations with Congress. Obama's reply: "I'm certainly going to be spending a lot more time with them (Boehner and McConnell) now because that's the only way we're gonna be able to get some stuff done." Translation: "I haven't bothered meeting with those guys for 6 years; I'm not going to start now. You ever hear of an executive order?"
Obama also said this: "I'm gonna wake up every single day doing my absolute best to deliver for them (the American people)." Translation: "Screw the people. They clearly do not appreciate all that I've done for them, voting in a Republican Congress. A majority still don't even approve of the ACA. I'm gonna focus on foreign policy and make a deal with Iran about their nukes. When they get nuclear weapons it won't be on my watch. And I'm gonna make sure Kerry gets me a peace deal between the Arabs and Israelis. And if none of that works out, there's always golf, fund raising and hanging out with my buds in Hollywood and the music biz."
And while the following is unrelated to the election results, it also reflects on Obama's perception of his world. Said Obama: "My own experience tells me race relations continue to improve." Wrong again Mr. President. According to the latest IBD/TIPP poll, 46% of Americans think race relations are either much worse (24%) or somewhat worse (22%). Only 18% of Americans think race relations are either much better (4%) or somewhat better (14%). This is no surprise as Obama injects race into almost everything - from Professor Gates to Trayvon Martin to Ferguson, Missouri to the disciplining of black students by schools to the attacks on bankers, and on and on.
Therefore, it is not terribly surprising that Obama would count Al Sharpton as one of his trusted advisers. Obama and his minion are race baiters. Recall Biden saying to a black audience that Romney's policies would "put all you back in chains." And recall Harry Reid saying: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?"
But didn't Obama attend Rev. Wright's church for 20 years? Didn't he call Rev. Wright his mentor? Need I say more?
When Obama took office in January, 2009, the median household income was $55,871; in July, 2014 it was $54,045. Other than gas prices, inflation has caused the dollar to shrink, requiring Americans to take home more - not less - to keep up.
In January, 2009, 31,983,716 Americans were on food stamps. In July, 2014, that number soared to 46,486,434. Who thinks that huge increase speaks to a healthy economy? No surprise that the number of Americans living in poverty also increased from 2009 to 2013 - from 43.6 million to 45.3 million. Similarly, the poverty rate increased for women and blacks, although only slightly for Hispanics.
While the UNemployment rate is down, the employment rate (a more accurate reflection of the labor market) shrunk from 65.7% in January, 2009 to 62.7% in September, 2014. That is the lowest it has been since 1968. The unemployment rate does not count the chronically unemployed, and therefore can result in a misleading number. Obama, again, has done no favors for blacks as their labor participation rate is down from 63.2% to 61.7%. Women are down from 59.4% to 56.7%. Hispanics are also down - from 67.9% to 65.7%.
Homeownership rate? In the fourth quarter of 2008 it was 67.5% compared to the second quarter of 2014 when it was down to 64.7%. And those promised reductions in health insurance premiums? Up from $13,375 in 2008 to $16,351 in 2013. (All of the above stats from Fox/Hannity, 11/6/14.)
Obama was asked at the press conference if it was a mistake not to have developed closer relations with Congress. Obama's reply: "I'm certainly going to be spending a lot more time with them (Boehner and McConnell) now because that's the only way we're gonna be able to get some stuff done." Translation: "I haven't bothered meeting with those guys for 6 years; I'm not going to start now. You ever hear of an executive order?"
Obama also said this: "I'm gonna wake up every single day doing my absolute best to deliver for them (the American people)." Translation: "Screw the people. They clearly do not appreciate all that I've done for them, voting in a Republican Congress. A majority still don't even approve of the ACA. I'm gonna focus on foreign policy and make a deal with Iran about their nukes. When they get nuclear weapons it won't be on my watch. And I'm gonna make sure Kerry gets me a peace deal between the Arabs and Israelis. And if none of that works out, there's always golf, fund raising and hanging out with my buds in Hollywood and the music biz."
And while the following is unrelated to the election results, it also reflects on Obama's perception of his world. Said Obama: "My own experience tells me race relations continue to improve." Wrong again Mr. President. According to the latest IBD/TIPP poll, 46% of Americans think race relations are either much worse (24%) or somewhat worse (22%). Only 18% of Americans think race relations are either much better (4%) or somewhat better (14%). This is no surprise as Obama injects race into almost everything - from Professor Gates to Trayvon Martin to Ferguson, Missouri to the disciplining of black students by schools to the attacks on bankers, and on and on.
Therefore, it is not terribly surprising that Obama would count Al Sharpton as one of his trusted advisers. Obama and his minion are race baiters. Recall Biden saying to a black audience that Romney's policies would "put all you back in chains." And recall Harry Reid saying: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?"
But didn't Obama attend Rev. Wright's church for 20 years? Didn't he call Rev. Wright his mentor? Need I say more?
Massacre in Jerusalem
This past Tuesday, November 18, two Arabs entered a synogogue in the Har Nof neighborhood in the west side of Jerusalem and brutally murdered at least three rabbis and one other worshiper during morning prayers. It was reported that at least seven others were hospitalized, and that a Druze police officer was also killed. Israeli police killed the two murderers. This savage attack, using a gun and meat cleavers, did not occur in the area of eastern Jerusalem, an area to which the Arabs are claiming entitlement. During the attack the murderers shouted "Allahu Akbar," ("God is great").
This attack follows other attacks on Jews in Jerusalem, some of which used vehicles to drive directly into crowds of people. Hamas, of course, praised the attack. The same Hamas that calls for Israel's destruction; and that would likely win any election for control of the West Bank should the Arabs get a state there. (Abbas is in the 10th year of a 4 year term. You read that correctly.)
President Obama condemned the attack, noting that three of those killed also held American citizenship. Obama does not get particularly worked up when Americans are murdered by Muslims. Obama took the usual leftist equivalency approach in stating: "too many Israelis have died and too many Palestinians have died." And he again claimed another attack was due to "extremism," rather than any particular ideology. Finally, and typically, he concluded with a platitude - a lie - that Palestinians and Israelis just want to raise their families and live in peace. No. That is what the Jews want. As the Arabs frequently tell us, they value death whereas we value life.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister of Jordan reportedly sent a condolence letter to the families of the two murderers, saying: "I ask God to envelope them with mercy and to grant you with patience, comfort and recovery from your grief." The Jordanian Parliament held a minute of silence in memory of the two murderers.
Let me be clear. The immediate responsibility for these savage murders lies with the attackers. However, and contrary to leftist beliefs, our government's policies have consequences. Obama refuses to acknowledge Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel. Obama repeatedly calls for Jerusalem to be divided, giving the eastern part of the city to the Arabs for the capital of a Palestinian state. As if that makes any sense. And as if Israel will ever divide Jerusalem. But Obama and other Western leaders are also responsible for these deaths. Knowing that nearly the entire Western world is on their side, the Arabs are using these violent tactics to intimidate the Israelis, in the hopes that they will give up. These Arabs know that the only consequence they will suffer are some words of condemnation from Western leaders. While the Arabs were busy murdering Jews, Spain's parliament was busy joining other European countries in recognizing a Palestinian state.
In a similar fashion, Obama wants to force a "peace" deal on the Israelis - regardless of the consequences. It's not enough that Israel has Hezbollah on their north, Hamas on their south, Al Qaeda and ISIS in the bordering Sinai, and an increasingly hostile Jordan to the east. No, Israel needs to put a Palestinian state - which everyone knows will end up being controlled by Hamas - right on the doorstep of their major cities.
As Yuval Steinitz, Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister, said before this latest attack: "Someone has to explain to the Americans that after what happened in Gaza, we are not planning to commit suicide here. We will not allow what happened in Gaza to be repeated in Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank).
Amen.
This attack follows other attacks on Jews in Jerusalem, some of which used vehicles to drive directly into crowds of people. Hamas, of course, praised the attack. The same Hamas that calls for Israel's destruction; and that would likely win any election for control of the West Bank should the Arabs get a state there. (Abbas is in the 10th year of a 4 year term. You read that correctly.)
President Obama condemned the attack, noting that three of those killed also held American citizenship. Obama does not get particularly worked up when Americans are murdered by Muslims. Obama took the usual leftist equivalency approach in stating: "too many Israelis have died and too many Palestinians have died." And he again claimed another attack was due to "extremism," rather than any particular ideology. Finally, and typically, he concluded with a platitude - a lie - that Palestinians and Israelis just want to raise their families and live in peace. No. That is what the Jews want. As the Arabs frequently tell us, they value death whereas we value life.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister of Jordan reportedly sent a condolence letter to the families of the two murderers, saying: "I ask God to envelope them with mercy and to grant you with patience, comfort and recovery from your grief." The Jordanian Parliament held a minute of silence in memory of the two murderers.
Let me be clear. The immediate responsibility for these savage murders lies with the attackers. However, and contrary to leftist beliefs, our government's policies have consequences. Obama refuses to acknowledge Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel. Obama repeatedly calls for Jerusalem to be divided, giving the eastern part of the city to the Arabs for the capital of a Palestinian state. As if that makes any sense. And as if Israel will ever divide Jerusalem. But Obama and other Western leaders are also responsible for these deaths. Knowing that nearly the entire Western world is on their side, the Arabs are using these violent tactics to intimidate the Israelis, in the hopes that they will give up. These Arabs know that the only consequence they will suffer are some words of condemnation from Western leaders. While the Arabs were busy murdering Jews, Spain's parliament was busy joining other European countries in recognizing a Palestinian state.
In a similar fashion, Obama wants to force a "peace" deal on the Israelis - regardless of the consequences. It's not enough that Israel has Hezbollah on their north, Hamas on their south, Al Qaeda and ISIS in the bordering Sinai, and an increasingly hostile Jordan to the east. No, Israel needs to put a Palestinian state - which everyone knows will end up being controlled by Hamas - right on the doorstep of their major cities.
As Yuval Steinitz, Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister, said before this latest attack: "Someone has to explain to the Americans that after what happened in Gaza, we are not planning to commit suicide here. We will not allow what happened in Gaza to be repeated in Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank).
Amen.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Major Republican Victory!
As of this writing the Republicans have taken back the US Senate, with 52 seats to 45 for the Democrats, and three still pending. Of those three it is believed that the Republicans have a chance to pick up two more.
In the House, the Republicans have so far picked up 12 more seats, apparently nearing their all time high from about 70 years ago.
And for those who believe certain states are permanently locked in to one party or the other - not so fast. In the very blue states of Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois, Republicans have won the governorships.
The Democrat candidates who campaigned on the "war on women" fell flat. And a black Republican was elected to the US Senate from South Carolina, a very conservative state. According to one web site (Vox) Tim Scott is the first black to win a statewide office in South Carolina since Reconstruction; and the first black elected to the Senate from any Southern state.
While Democrat candidates from around the country ran away from Obama, Obama nevertheless said (to the Dems chagrin) that his policies were on the ballot. If so, the American people just expressed their huge disappointment with him and his policies. For those who will claim racism dictated tonight's result (Obama and Holder will certainly think that even if they do not say so), take a look at the above paragraph.
So what now? Obama has never been one to compromise. In fact, he does not care that much for governing, as his own party has complained about his lack of interest in even meeting with Democrat Senators and Congressmen. He likes to campaign; he likes to hang out with the rich and famous; and he prefers Executive Orders.
Republicans need to pass legislation that will help the economy. They need to pass bills that will eliminate the worst provisions of Obamacare. And they need to act as a bulwark against our dwindling military capabilities, and a disastrous foreign policy. I suspect the Israelis are breathing a little easier tonight, as Republicans have been staunch supporters.
If, however, the Republicans do not act wisely, my readers can count on me to say so. A reader commented on one of my last posts ("You Really Want to Elect These People") and basically said if the Republicans win they will get all the blame for Obama's last two years of failures. But, with only controlling the House, Republicans get all the blame from the mainstream media already - the "obstructionist" Republicans. Now, Republicans will actually be able to pass legislation that Harry Reid had prevented from coming to a vote in the Senate.
The question will be, if Obama vetoes what the Republicans pass, what spin will the mainstream media put on it to still blame the Republicans? We know they will not blame or criticize Obama. Tonight, however, it feels good to have the brakes put on Obama's far left agenda.
In the House, the Republicans have so far picked up 12 more seats, apparently nearing their all time high from about 70 years ago.
And for those who believe certain states are permanently locked in to one party or the other - not so fast. In the very blue states of Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois, Republicans have won the governorships.
The Democrat candidates who campaigned on the "war on women" fell flat. And a black Republican was elected to the US Senate from South Carolina, a very conservative state. According to one web site (Vox) Tim Scott is the first black to win a statewide office in South Carolina since Reconstruction; and the first black elected to the Senate from any Southern state.
While Democrat candidates from around the country ran away from Obama, Obama nevertheless said (to the Dems chagrin) that his policies were on the ballot. If so, the American people just expressed their huge disappointment with him and his policies. For those who will claim racism dictated tonight's result (Obama and Holder will certainly think that even if they do not say so), take a look at the above paragraph.
So what now? Obama has never been one to compromise. In fact, he does not care that much for governing, as his own party has complained about his lack of interest in even meeting with Democrat Senators and Congressmen. He likes to campaign; he likes to hang out with the rich and famous; and he prefers Executive Orders.
Republicans need to pass legislation that will help the economy. They need to pass bills that will eliminate the worst provisions of Obamacare. And they need to act as a bulwark against our dwindling military capabilities, and a disastrous foreign policy. I suspect the Israelis are breathing a little easier tonight, as Republicans have been staunch supporters.
If, however, the Republicans do not act wisely, my readers can count on me to say so. A reader commented on one of my last posts ("You Really Want to Elect These People") and basically said if the Republicans win they will get all the blame for Obama's last two years of failures. But, with only controlling the House, Republicans get all the blame from the mainstream media already - the "obstructionist" Republicans. Now, Republicans will actually be able to pass legislation that Harry Reid had prevented from coming to a vote in the Senate.
The question will be, if Obama vetoes what the Republicans pass, what spin will the mainstream media put on it to still blame the Republicans? We know they will not blame or criticize Obama. Tonight, however, it feels good to have the brakes put on Obama's far left agenda.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Anti-Semitism at Your Door
If you live in or near New York City you would have had the opportunity to attend a performance at the Metropolitan Opera of "The Death of Klinghoffer." Recall that Leon Klinghoffer was a 69 year old disabled American Jew who had taken a cruise with his wife Marilyn. In 1985 they were on the ship Achille Lauro when it was hijacked by members of the Palestine Liberation Front. These terrorists shot and killed Klinghoffer and then threw his body and his wheelchair overboard.
The October 22, 2014 New York Times had a review of the opera done by Anthony Tommasini. Said Tommasini: "This opera tries to explore what drove these Palestinians to take that ship and murder its most vulnerable passenger." Said Klinghoffer's two daughters, who issued their own statement regarding this opera: "It presents false moral equivalences without context, and offers no real insight into the historical reality and the senseless murder of an American Jew."
But that's the point. For the left there are always moral equivalencies - because they have no sense of good and evil. Those are religious concepts, and the left tends to lack a religious foundation. You want to know why the Palestinians do what they do? Because it is what they believe.
Go back to the 1920s when Arabs massacred Jews in the land of Palestine, then under the British Mandate. Or World War II when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem supported Hitler. Or to 1947 before the UN voted for partition of the Mandate area, creating a Jewish state and an Arab state - when the Arabs said they would never accept the existence of a Jewish State.
You want to know why such an opera is acceptable in polite society? Because the Palestinians are perceived to be the underdogs, and the underdogs are always right and can do no bad. Isn't that why Obama and Kerry ask nothing in return from the Palestinians when they give hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to people who murder and attempt to murder innocent Jews? Then the Palestinians reward the murderers with money, and name schools and parks after their "martyrs." And then Obama rewards them some more.
In her 10/24/14 column, Caroline Glick notes numerous incidents of anti-Semitism at AEPi frat houses across the country. AEPi is the Jewish fraternity. Swastikas were painted on the AEPi house at Emory University. Glick notes that recently AEPi members from across the country put up a video on You Tube documenting various assaults and batteries against their members. The University of Arizona AEPi president was violently attacked while trying to stop a large group from entering their house. He suffered a skull fracture and bleeding on the brain and a concussion.
The Jewish director of a community center had attended an exhibition game between the Brooklyn Nets and the Maccabi Tel Aviv team in Brooklyn. Afterwards, while walking with his two young sons, they were accosted by a group of people yelling "your people are murderers." The director was punched in the face and sustained a broken nose. There are plenty of other incidents mentioned in the Glick article, but you get the point.
At many colleges and universities across this country you will find groups such as The Muslim Student Association, Students for Justice in Palestine, Direct Action for Palestine and Adalah and others. Are we nearing a point in time when Jewish students need to hide their Jewishness in order to feel safe on campus? Should they not wear their kippah (skull cap) in public? Are we now like Europe where Jews in major cities are told exactly that? They are told not to wear any Jewish-identifying garments in public; and to not linger outside Jewish places of worship.
Glick notes how in September of this year hundreds of protestors interfered with longshoremen who were to offload cargo from an Israeli ship. The ship was forced to unload its cargo in Los Angeles. Glick notes that none of the protesters were arrested.
Glick suggests supporting groups that help students on campus, such as StandWithUs, CAMERA, and the Zionist Organization of America and other similar groups. She believes Jewish lawyers should start filing lawsuits against groups that interfere with the speech and religious rights of Jewish students. (Personally, I might suggest making a complaint to the office of the Attorney General Eric Holder, Civil Rights Division. But let's be honest, if you are not black he's not likely to care.)
I am proud of, and thankful for, my Christian friends (and the millions of Christians whom I do not know) who are extremely supportive of Israel. Because today, anti-Semitism often takes the form of anti-Zionism and anti-Israel advocacy. And I remind my fellow Jews of that famous quote from 2000 years ago by Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?...And if not now, when?"
The October 22, 2014 New York Times had a review of the opera done by Anthony Tommasini. Said Tommasini: "This opera tries to explore what drove these Palestinians to take that ship and murder its most vulnerable passenger." Said Klinghoffer's two daughters, who issued their own statement regarding this opera: "It presents false moral equivalences without context, and offers no real insight into the historical reality and the senseless murder of an American Jew."
But that's the point. For the left there are always moral equivalencies - because they have no sense of good and evil. Those are religious concepts, and the left tends to lack a religious foundation. You want to know why the Palestinians do what they do? Because it is what they believe.
Go back to the 1920s when Arabs massacred Jews in the land of Palestine, then under the British Mandate. Or World War II when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem supported Hitler. Or to 1947 before the UN voted for partition of the Mandate area, creating a Jewish state and an Arab state - when the Arabs said they would never accept the existence of a Jewish State.
You want to know why such an opera is acceptable in polite society? Because the Palestinians are perceived to be the underdogs, and the underdogs are always right and can do no bad. Isn't that why Obama and Kerry ask nothing in return from the Palestinians when they give hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to people who murder and attempt to murder innocent Jews? Then the Palestinians reward the murderers with money, and name schools and parks after their "martyrs." And then Obama rewards them some more.
In her 10/24/14 column, Caroline Glick notes numerous incidents of anti-Semitism at AEPi frat houses across the country. AEPi is the Jewish fraternity. Swastikas were painted on the AEPi house at Emory University. Glick notes that recently AEPi members from across the country put up a video on You Tube documenting various assaults and batteries against their members. The University of Arizona AEPi president was violently attacked while trying to stop a large group from entering their house. He suffered a skull fracture and bleeding on the brain and a concussion.
The Jewish director of a community center had attended an exhibition game between the Brooklyn Nets and the Maccabi Tel Aviv team in Brooklyn. Afterwards, while walking with his two young sons, they were accosted by a group of people yelling "your people are murderers." The director was punched in the face and sustained a broken nose. There are plenty of other incidents mentioned in the Glick article, but you get the point.
At many colleges and universities across this country you will find groups such as The Muslim Student Association, Students for Justice in Palestine, Direct Action for Palestine and Adalah and others. Are we nearing a point in time when Jewish students need to hide their Jewishness in order to feel safe on campus? Should they not wear their kippah (skull cap) in public? Are we now like Europe where Jews in major cities are told exactly that? They are told not to wear any Jewish-identifying garments in public; and to not linger outside Jewish places of worship.
Glick notes how in September of this year hundreds of protestors interfered with longshoremen who were to offload cargo from an Israeli ship. The ship was forced to unload its cargo in Los Angeles. Glick notes that none of the protesters were arrested.
Glick suggests supporting groups that help students on campus, such as StandWithUs, CAMERA, and the Zionist Organization of America and other similar groups. She believes Jewish lawyers should start filing lawsuits against groups that interfere with the speech and religious rights of Jewish students. (Personally, I might suggest making a complaint to the office of the Attorney General Eric Holder, Civil Rights Division. But let's be honest, if you are not black he's not likely to care.)
I am proud of, and thankful for, my Christian friends (and the millions of Christians whom I do not know) who are extremely supportive of Israel. Because today, anti-Semitism often takes the form of anti-Zionism and anti-Israel advocacy. And I remind my fellow Jews of that famous quote from 2000 years ago by Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?...And if not now, when?"
You Really Want to Elect These People?
With the election only two days away, here are just a few democrat viewpoints you should know. For my friends and readers who are democrats, are these the ideas and policies you want to see promulgated by your government?
Recently, Hillary Clinton said this: "Don't let anybody tell you it's corporations and businesses (that) create jobs." After getting some push back she subsequently backpedaled on that; but do not think for one minute it was just a slip of the tongue. It reflects leftist thinking that the government creates jobs. And it tracks Obama's comment from a couple of years ago: "If you've got a business - you didn't build that - somebody else made that happen."
Attorney General Eric Holder said this: "I think it's pretty clear that the need for wholesale change in that department (referring to the Ferguson P.D.) is appropriate." A white police officer shot Michael Brown, a black youth. Has the officer been charged with any crime? No. Is he likely to be charged with any crime? Not in this writer's opinion. But so what? Obama and Holder can only see race - not right and wrong.
You think Al Sharpton should be an adviser or confidante to the President of the United States? The same guy who supported the lies of young Tawana Brawley, who claimed she was raped by white men. It turned out to be a hoax, but Sharpton had already accused a white prosecutor of the crime. The prosecutor sued and won - but Sharpton refused to pay the judgment.
The same guy who did his best to raise tensions after a young man who was Hasidic accidentally drove his car into - and killed - a 7 year old black child. Al was there yelling "No justice, no peace," over a car accident. After 3 days of riots a young rabbinical student was murdered - beaten to death. Did that even the score for Al?
Or how about Al owing millions in back taxes? I think it's fairly clear that the IRS chooses who to go after - that would be Republicans and Tea Partiers under Obama. (Information in this paragraph and above two from an article in the WSJ of 10/25-26/14 by Heather MacDonald.)
None of the above keeps Al from being a host on one of MSNBC's shows, or having his own radio show, or being close to the President. Only 72 hours after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Sharpton was at the White House. "There's a trust factor with the Rev from the Oval Office on down," as told by a White House aide to Politico (and reported in Newsmax on 8/22/14). Which explains why Obama appeared with Sharpton at a rally in April, and also recently called into his radio show.
On the other hand, Obama does not have the same warm feelings for the leader of our closest Mid-East ally, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Someone in the Obama Administration said this: "The thing about Bibi (Netanyahu's nickname) is, he's a chickenshit." Several years ago Netanyahu was at the White House and had to tell Obama directly that the 1967 borders (proposed by Obama and Kerry as the borders for a Palestinian state) were out of the question, because those borders could not be defended and would threaten the very existence of Israel.
But no fear. In his relentless pursuit of making deals - any deals - just so long as he can be the one who gets the credit, Obama is again sending Kerry to the Mid-East. He's got two years left in office to be the one to create "peace" between Israel and the Arabs. Because Obama believes that a piece of paper is all it takes for there to be peace.
Recall that Abbas wants to present the UN Security Council with a resolution establishing the state of "Palestine" based upon the 1967 borders. If such a resolution got the necessary 9 of 15 votes it would pass - unless it was vetoed by one of the five permanent members (the US, England, France, Russia and China). The question is - would Obama exercise the veto? According to my son (who is fluent in Hebrew) some of the Israeli press is reporting that Obama has threatened Netanyahu with the withholding of a veto. If that is true, it certainly sounds like an ultimatum - make "peace" with the Palestinians on Obama's terms or suffer defeat at the UN on the Palestinian's terms. Frankly, I am not sure that I can tell the difference.
On a positive note, I have heard from two moderate to liberal Jewish friends, indicating they are pretty much done with Obama, especially with regards to his mistreatment of Netanyahu and Israel. They seem to be willing to give the Republicans a chance. If the Republicans keep the House and take the Senate, Obama will still be in office for two more years. However, a Republican Congress may be able to lessen the harm that Obama might do during that time. Vote carefully my friends.
Recently, Hillary Clinton said this: "Don't let anybody tell you it's corporations and businesses (that) create jobs." After getting some push back she subsequently backpedaled on that; but do not think for one minute it was just a slip of the tongue. It reflects leftist thinking that the government creates jobs. And it tracks Obama's comment from a couple of years ago: "If you've got a business - you didn't build that - somebody else made that happen."
Attorney General Eric Holder said this: "I think it's pretty clear that the need for wholesale change in that department (referring to the Ferguson P.D.) is appropriate." A white police officer shot Michael Brown, a black youth. Has the officer been charged with any crime? No. Is he likely to be charged with any crime? Not in this writer's opinion. But so what? Obama and Holder can only see race - not right and wrong.
You think Al Sharpton should be an adviser or confidante to the President of the United States? The same guy who supported the lies of young Tawana Brawley, who claimed she was raped by white men. It turned out to be a hoax, but Sharpton had already accused a white prosecutor of the crime. The prosecutor sued and won - but Sharpton refused to pay the judgment.
The same guy who did his best to raise tensions after a young man who was Hasidic accidentally drove his car into - and killed - a 7 year old black child. Al was there yelling "No justice, no peace," over a car accident. After 3 days of riots a young rabbinical student was murdered - beaten to death. Did that even the score for Al?
Or how about Al owing millions in back taxes? I think it's fairly clear that the IRS chooses who to go after - that would be Republicans and Tea Partiers under Obama. (Information in this paragraph and above two from an article in the WSJ of 10/25-26/14 by Heather MacDonald.)
None of the above keeps Al from being a host on one of MSNBC's shows, or having his own radio show, or being close to the President. Only 72 hours after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Sharpton was at the White House. "There's a trust factor with the Rev from the Oval Office on down," as told by a White House aide to Politico (and reported in Newsmax on 8/22/14). Which explains why Obama appeared with Sharpton at a rally in April, and also recently called into his radio show.
On the other hand, Obama does not have the same warm feelings for the leader of our closest Mid-East ally, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Someone in the Obama Administration said this: "The thing about Bibi (Netanyahu's nickname) is, he's a chickenshit." Several years ago Netanyahu was at the White House and had to tell Obama directly that the 1967 borders (proposed by Obama and Kerry as the borders for a Palestinian state) were out of the question, because those borders could not be defended and would threaten the very existence of Israel.
But no fear. In his relentless pursuit of making deals - any deals - just so long as he can be the one who gets the credit, Obama is again sending Kerry to the Mid-East. He's got two years left in office to be the one to create "peace" between Israel and the Arabs. Because Obama believes that a piece of paper is all it takes for there to be peace.
Recall that Abbas wants to present the UN Security Council with a resolution establishing the state of "Palestine" based upon the 1967 borders. If such a resolution got the necessary 9 of 15 votes it would pass - unless it was vetoed by one of the five permanent members (the US, England, France, Russia and China). The question is - would Obama exercise the veto? According to my son (who is fluent in Hebrew) some of the Israeli press is reporting that Obama has threatened Netanyahu with the withholding of a veto. If that is true, it certainly sounds like an ultimatum - make "peace" with the Palestinians on Obama's terms or suffer defeat at the UN on the Palestinian's terms. Frankly, I am not sure that I can tell the difference.
On a positive note, I have heard from two moderate to liberal Jewish friends, indicating they are pretty much done with Obama, especially with regards to his mistreatment of Netanyahu and Israel. They seem to be willing to give the Republicans a chance. If the Republicans keep the House and take the Senate, Obama will still be in office for two more years. However, a Republican Congress may be able to lessen the harm that Obama might do during that time. Vote carefully my friends.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Democracy and the Constitution
In announcing the 10/5/14 post in my email, I gave a quote from James Madison. It read, in pertinent part: "In framing a government which is to administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." Where do we stand with respect to our belief in the American system of democratic and limited government as based on our Constitution?
On the one hand, the conservative majority of the Jefferson County School Board tried to change the history curriculum to reflect the "benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights," and not having classes that support or condone "civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law." Protests by teachers, students and others ensued immediately.
No doubt legitimate objections can be made to that policy. To give just one example, segregation was the law of the land for quite some time. Are we to discourage or denigrate the advances made by the civil rights movement? Of course not. However, I believe the School Board was on to something nonetheless. Clearly, they understood the assault on America and American values that occurs on a daily basis in our schools and universities.
There was an interesting opinion piece in the 9/27-9/28/14 weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal. In article entitled "Democracy Requires a Patriotic Education," Professor Emeritus Donald Kagan of Yale notes that: "We live in a time when civic devotion has been undermined and national unity is under attack." In this writer's opinion, we suffer at times a failure to teach the basics of American Civics and Government; at other times we see the assault on American values by left wing teachers.
For those of you who watched Jay Leno on the "Tonight" show, you saw him speaking to people on the street. The lack of appreciation for - and basic understanding of - how our government works was astounding. Many could not name the three branches of government, or the names of the Vice President and top cabinet officials. President Obama was in Los Angeles recently at a fundraiser hosted by Gwyneth Paltrow. Reflecting a complete lack of appreciation for, and understanding of how our government works, Ms. Paltrow said: "It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man (Obama) all of the power that he needs to pass the things he needs to pass."
I do understand Ms. Paltrow's viewpoint. What she is really saying, like so many on the left believe, is: 'I believe in a dictatorship, as long as it is a dictatorship of the left.' Ms. Paltrow suffers not only from a lack of education, but also from the leftist ideology which holds all leftist viewpoints supreme - over truth, democracy and the US Constitution.
Lest you think Ms. Paltrow is alone in her dangerous and idiotic viewpoint, we have this story out of Houston. The City Council and Mayor approved the "Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (H.E.R.O.)." It sounds good enough, as it bars discrimination based on various group identities: "sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy." However, this ordinance apparently allows men to use women's restrooms, and vice versa. Some Houston Pastors objected, and raised enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot. Or so they thought. The City declared that there were "irregularities" in the signatures and threw out the petition.
Thereafter, the Pastors filed a lawsuit in order to get the their petition approved and the measure put on the ballot. Then the City did this - they issued subpoenas to various Pastors asking for copies of "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to H.E.R.O., the petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession." It is difficult to imagine a greater attack on, and less appreciation for, the First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects both speech and religion. After initially defending the subpoenas, the City Attorney then seemed to say if the subpoenas were over broad they were issued by outside counsel, acting on behalf of the City Attorney's office.
It should be noted that Mayor Parker is the first openly lesbian mayor of Houston. It should also be noted that subpoenas were served on Pastors who did not even join in the lawsuit. If the subpoenas had simply inquired into the signature collection process, as that is the legal issue, fine. But Mayor Parker tweeted this: "If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermon are fair game." Really? At this point I wonder who has less understanding of our system of government - Parker or Paltrow?
I am curious, Madam Mayor, how the content of sermons is relevant to the legitimacy of the signatures obtained. And I am greatly concerned that because you believe some of the sermons might have "political" content, that that means you are entitled to copies. For what purpose? Do you intend to prosecute those Pastors for "hate speech" because they are advocating their religious views? Let's be clear; certain religious sermons can also be considered to contain political content - such as sermons on abortion or gay marriage. These are both religious and political issues. So what? Or is it your intent to suppress religious speech with which you disagree, giving us yet another example of leftist ideology trumping our American values, including the most basic values of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
So maybe Professor Kagan and the Jefferson County School Board have good points. Maybe it is not just Hollywood morons like Gwyneth Paltrow who need an education, but elected officials like Mayor Parker as well. Maybe, in fact, it is a systemic problem in our society that needs to be addressed - before it is too late.
My Dad graduated from high school in 1929. They had large and beautiful diplomas, listing all the high school subjects as well as the number of units each student took in each subject. Not surprisingly, he had the most units in English, with 20. But he also had 5 in Latin. And, most significantly, he not only had 2 1/2 in American History, but another 2 1/2 in "Community Civics" and yet another 2 1/2 in "Democracy." Sometimes older, not change, is better.
On the one hand, the conservative majority of the Jefferson County School Board tried to change the history curriculum to reflect the "benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights," and not having classes that support or condone "civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law." Protests by teachers, students and others ensued immediately.
No doubt legitimate objections can be made to that policy. To give just one example, segregation was the law of the land for quite some time. Are we to discourage or denigrate the advances made by the civil rights movement? Of course not. However, I believe the School Board was on to something nonetheless. Clearly, they understood the assault on America and American values that occurs on a daily basis in our schools and universities.
There was an interesting opinion piece in the 9/27-9/28/14 weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal. In article entitled "Democracy Requires a Patriotic Education," Professor Emeritus Donald Kagan of Yale notes that: "We live in a time when civic devotion has been undermined and national unity is under attack." In this writer's opinion, we suffer at times a failure to teach the basics of American Civics and Government; at other times we see the assault on American values by left wing teachers.
For those of you who watched Jay Leno on the "Tonight" show, you saw him speaking to people on the street. The lack of appreciation for - and basic understanding of - how our government works was astounding. Many could not name the three branches of government, or the names of the Vice President and top cabinet officials. President Obama was in Los Angeles recently at a fundraiser hosted by Gwyneth Paltrow. Reflecting a complete lack of appreciation for, and understanding of how our government works, Ms. Paltrow said: "It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man (Obama) all of the power that he needs to pass the things he needs to pass."
I do understand Ms. Paltrow's viewpoint. What she is really saying, like so many on the left believe, is: 'I believe in a dictatorship, as long as it is a dictatorship of the left.' Ms. Paltrow suffers not only from a lack of education, but also from the leftist ideology which holds all leftist viewpoints supreme - over truth, democracy and the US Constitution.
Lest you think Ms. Paltrow is alone in her dangerous and idiotic viewpoint, we have this story out of Houston. The City Council and Mayor approved the "Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (H.E.R.O.)." It sounds good enough, as it bars discrimination based on various group identities: "sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy." However, this ordinance apparently allows men to use women's restrooms, and vice versa. Some Houston Pastors objected, and raised enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot. Or so they thought. The City declared that there were "irregularities" in the signatures and threw out the petition.
Thereafter, the Pastors filed a lawsuit in order to get the their petition approved and the measure put on the ballot. Then the City did this - they issued subpoenas to various Pastors asking for copies of "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to H.E.R.O., the petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession." It is difficult to imagine a greater attack on, and less appreciation for, the First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects both speech and religion. After initially defending the subpoenas, the City Attorney then seemed to say if the subpoenas were over broad they were issued by outside counsel, acting on behalf of the City Attorney's office.
It should be noted that Mayor Parker is the first openly lesbian mayor of Houston. It should also be noted that subpoenas were served on Pastors who did not even join in the lawsuit. If the subpoenas had simply inquired into the signature collection process, as that is the legal issue, fine. But Mayor Parker tweeted this: "If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermon are fair game." Really? At this point I wonder who has less understanding of our system of government - Parker or Paltrow?
I am curious, Madam Mayor, how the content of sermons is relevant to the legitimacy of the signatures obtained. And I am greatly concerned that because you believe some of the sermons might have "political" content, that that means you are entitled to copies. For what purpose? Do you intend to prosecute those Pastors for "hate speech" because they are advocating their religious views? Let's be clear; certain religious sermons can also be considered to contain political content - such as sermons on abortion or gay marriage. These are both religious and political issues. So what? Or is it your intent to suppress religious speech with which you disagree, giving us yet another example of leftist ideology trumping our American values, including the most basic values of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
So maybe Professor Kagan and the Jefferson County School Board have good points. Maybe it is not just Hollywood morons like Gwyneth Paltrow who need an education, but elected officials like Mayor Parker as well. Maybe, in fact, it is a systemic problem in our society that needs to be addressed - before it is too late.
My Dad graduated from high school in 1929. They had large and beautiful diplomas, listing all the high school subjects as well as the number of units each student took in each subject. Not surprisingly, he had the most units in English, with 20. But he also had 5 in Latin. And, most significantly, he not only had 2 1/2 in American History, but another 2 1/2 in "Community Civics" and yet another 2 1/2 in "Democracy." Sometimes older, not change, is better.
My Ex-Son and Ex-Daughters
(For those readers new to this blog please note that I previously wrote about "My Ex-Wife" on July 20, 2014. This post covers the latest news on this topic.)
Out of Lincoln, Nebraska comes this story, as reported by Todd Starnes on FoxNews.com. The assault on gender distinctions continues - even in the Heartland. A memo was apparently sent to teachers advising them "Don't use phrases such as 'boys and girls,' 'you guys,' 'ladies and gentlemen' and similarly gendered expressions to get kids' attention."
Let's recap. In California, the terms "husband" and "wife" are eliminated from the law because of their inherent bias. In California public schools, boys who feel like girls can use the girls' restrooms and play on girls' sports teams, and vice versa. Although, I am not quite sure why there still exists separate teams or restrooms for boys and girls, given that boys and girls don't exist. In Houston, a city ordinance passed allowing adults to use any restroom they feel best suits their gender identity. Opponents refer to the ordinance as the "Sexual Predators Protection" act, or something to that effect. (More on other issues related to the Houston ordinance in the next post.)
So, back to Lincoln. Brenda Leggiardo, described as the school district's "coordinator of social workers and counselors," defended the memo: "The agenda we're promoting is to help all kids succeed." I'm confused. Exactly how does the elimination of distinctions help kids succeed? I thought things like a good education and good work ethics and good values helped kids succeed. But, if we are eliminating distinctions, how do we make sure some kids are not taller than others, or heavier, or more athletic, or smarter, and on and on. We can make sure that everyone is blond, however, assuming that is a worthy goal.
What if a teacher wants to divide the class into two groups? The memo suggests asking kids who likes milk and who likes juice; or who like skateboards and who likes bikes? When it reaches this level of absurdity there is nothing more to say. Or is there? While suggesting teachers do not use the words "boys" or "girls" they do have a possible replacement: "purple penguins!" Okay, now we've hit the maximum level of absurdity.
Maybe my readers can help me out. What should I call my adult son and two adult daughters? Yes, I can use their actual names, of course. And I can use "child" or "children," but those terms seem much less personal. I still use "my son" or "my boy" when speaking to or emailing my son. I still use "my girls" or (horrors!) "ladies" when speaking to or emailing my daughters.
What is prompting all this politically correct nonsense? As I have stated before, once we start changing definitions, then we are headed down a path for which the ultimate outcome remains unknown. Yes, it started with redefining "marriage." I would love to know how many in favor of that change support all the other predictable changes to our language. I only hope that it will never reach the point in my lifetime where my boy and girls stop calling me "Dad."
Out of Lincoln, Nebraska comes this story, as reported by Todd Starnes on FoxNews.com. The assault on gender distinctions continues - even in the Heartland. A memo was apparently sent to teachers advising them "Don't use phrases such as 'boys and girls,' 'you guys,' 'ladies and gentlemen' and similarly gendered expressions to get kids' attention."
Let's recap. In California, the terms "husband" and "wife" are eliminated from the law because of their inherent bias. In California public schools, boys who feel like girls can use the girls' restrooms and play on girls' sports teams, and vice versa. Although, I am not quite sure why there still exists separate teams or restrooms for boys and girls, given that boys and girls don't exist. In Houston, a city ordinance passed allowing adults to use any restroom they feel best suits their gender identity. Opponents refer to the ordinance as the "Sexual Predators Protection" act, or something to that effect. (More on other issues related to the Houston ordinance in the next post.)
So, back to Lincoln. Brenda Leggiardo, described as the school district's "coordinator of social workers and counselors," defended the memo: "The agenda we're promoting is to help all kids succeed." I'm confused. Exactly how does the elimination of distinctions help kids succeed? I thought things like a good education and good work ethics and good values helped kids succeed. But, if we are eliminating distinctions, how do we make sure some kids are not taller than others, or heavier, or more athletic, or smarter, and on and on. We can make sure that everyone is blond, however, assuming that is a worthy goal.
What if a teacher wants to divide the class into two groups? The memo suggests asking kids who likes milk and who likes juice; or who like skateboards and who likes bikes? When it reaches this level of absurdity there is nothing more to say. Or is there? While suggesting teachers do not use the words "boys" or "girls" they do have a possible replacement: "purple penguins!" Okay, now we've hit the maximum level of absurdity.
Maybe my readers can help me out. What should I call my adult son and two adult daughters? Yes, I can use their actual names, of course. And I can use "child" or "children," but those terms seem much less personal. I still use "my son" or "my boy" when speaking to or emailing my son. I still use "my girls" or (horrors!) "ladies" when speaking to or emailing my daughters.
What is prompting all this politically correct nonsense? As I have stated before, once we start changing definitions, then we are headed down a path for which the ultimate outcome remains unknown. Yes, it started with redefining "marriage." I would love to know how many in favor of that change support all the other predictable changes to our language. I only hope that it will never reach the point in my lifetime where my boy and girls stop calling me "Dad."
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Israel's Closest Allies?
In September both PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to the U.N. General Assembly at its annual meeting. It is worthwhile to read what these leaders said.
Once again Abbas referred to the establishment of the State of Israel as "Al-Nakba," the "catastrophe." He referred to Israel's defensive war over the summer with Hamas as "genocide," which was "unmatched in modern times." In reply, Netanyahu said: "Genocide? In what moral universe does genocide include warning the enemy's civilian population to get out of harm's way? Or ensuring that they receive tons, tons of humanitarian aid each day, even as thousands of rockets are being fired at us? Or setting up a field hospital to aid for their wounded?" You probably never read/heard in the mainstream media about the ongoing humanitarian aid or the field hospital during the war.
Genocide unmatched in modern times? Abbas is very good at the Big Lie. He never heard of the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda, Iraq, Syria or others. No, 2000 Palestinian deaths, substantially caused by Hamas putting their own people in harm's way, is "unmatched." Abbas repeatedly referred to Israel as "racist," forgetting that he has declared that no Jew may live in a future state of Palestine.
Abbas is good at propaganda. He knows the words the West wants to hear, so he engaged in other Big Lies. Abbas said the state of Palestine will be "living in peace and building bridges of mutual cooperation with its neighbors...(and) strengthen(s) the values of citizenship, equality, non-discrimination, the rule of law, (and) human rights and pluralism." Does he not know that his partner (Hamas) in their unity government summarily executed about 19 Palestinians based on allegations of aiding Israel during the recent war. The rule of law? These people were given no trial.
"Building bridges...with its neighbors." So how should we account for this comment: "...I affirm here today: we will not forget and we will not forgive." Does that sound like building bridges? Abbas also referred to "Palestinian enlightened traditions of tolerance, coexistence and non-exclusion." Who buys this nonsense? Tolerance? Not for Jews or Christians. Coexistence? The Palestinians had an opportunity for co-existence for 66 years - the same length of time that Israel has again existed. They passed it up in favor of war after war, intifada after intifada, and relentless suicide bombers and rockets and mortars. More recently, they refused a state offered by Israeli P.M. Barak in 2000, and again by Israeli P.M. Olmert in 2008 during Bush's Administration. Non-exclusion? See above comment about no Jews being allowed in any future Palestinian state.
Netanyahu rightly compared Hamas to ISIS, quoting the leaders of each with their expressed desires to rule the world. He went on to say that all the Islamic terrorist groups are branches of the same poisonous tree. Said Netanyahu: "The Nazis believed in a master race. The militant Islamists believe in a master faith."
President Obama also spoke at the U.N., stating that "the world will be more just with two states living side by side, in peace and security." Last week Obama met with Netanyahu. At the same time, those opposed to any building by Israel in their Capital city of Jerusalem, revealed that Israel had planned on authorizing over 2500 housing units in Jerusalem. The reaction by the Obama Administration and European Union was swift and harsh. Said State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki: "This development will only draw condemnation from the international community, distance Israel from even its closest allies," and poison its relations with the Palestinians and other Arab countries.
Josh Earnest on behalf of Obama was nearly identical in these coordinated comments: "This development will only draw condemnation from the international community." Both Psaki and Earnest claimed such a development would call into question Israel's commitment to peace. The European Union also questioned "Israel's commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement." Want to know what might call into question the Palestinians commitment to peace? NOTHING!
Not thousands of rockets and mortars aimed at Israeli cities this summer. Not tunnels built into Israel from Gaza for the sole purposes of killing/kidnapping Israelis. Not Hamas calling for Israel's destruction. Not Abbas saying no Jew may live in a state of Palestine. The list is endless - and that's the point here. There really is nothing whatsoever that the Palestinians can do or say that will lessen the West's commitment to their statehood.
There remains one leader willing to speak the truth; one who understands what is going on in the Middle East. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu. Said Netanyahu at the U.N.: "The Middle East is in chaos. States are disintegrating. Militant Islamists are filling the void. Israel cannot have territories from which it withdraws taken over by Islamic militants yet again, as happened in Gaza and Lebanon. That would place the likes of ISIS within mortar range - a few miles - of 80% of our population." He observed that the suburbs of Tel Aviv would be as close as Times Square is from the UN!
Next month the Palestinians will be able to get a resolution introduced at the UN Security Council calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders (Gaza, the West Bank and so called East Jerusalem). The measure will also seek some resolution of the "refugee" problem. Will Obama have the U.S. veto such a resolution? The State Department will not say. It will be after the midterm elections. He will not need Jewish votes or money anymore. A similar measure passed the General Assembly in 2012. However, the G.A. has no enforcement power; the Security Council does. The Security Council could send in U.N. troops in an effort to evict Israel from those lands. Would the the U.S. send in troops against Israel?
Let's be clear. Israel will never give up any part of Jerusalem. "East" Jerusalem contains the Old City - with the Western Wall (Kotel) and the Temple Mount, the holiest sites in Judaism. Biblically and historically Jerusalem is the home and focal point of the Jews. When Jordan controlled those Holy sites from 1949 to 1967 no Jews were allowed access. Under Jewish rule, all religions have access. The obvious outcome of such a resolution passing the U.N. Security Council will be war.
Said Netanyahu: "...as Prime Minister of Israel, I am entrusted with the awesome responsibility of ensuring the future of the Jewish people and the future of the Jewish state. And no matter what pressure is brought to bear, I will never waiver in fulfilling that responsibility."
Once again Abbas referred to the establishment of the State of Israel as "Al-Nakba," the "catastrophe." He referred to Israel's defensive war over the summer with Hamas as "genocide," which was "unmatched in modern times." In reply, Netanyahu said: "Genocide? In what moral universe does genocide include warning the enemy's civilian population to get out of harm's way? Or ensuring that they receive tons, tons of humanitarian aid each day, even as thousands of rockets are being fired at us? Or setting up a field hospital to aid for their wounded?" You probably never read/heard in the mainstream media about the ongoing humanitarian aid or the field hospital during the war.
Genocide unmatched in modern times? Abbas is very good at the Big Lie. He never heard of the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda, Iraq, Syria or others. No, 2000 Palestinian deaths, substantially caused by Hamas putting their own people in harm's way, is "unmatched." Abbas repeatedly referred to Israel as "racist," forgetting that he has declared that no Jew may live in a future state of Palestine.
Abbas is good at propaganda. He knows the words the West wants to hear, so he engaged in other Big Lies. Abbas said the state of Palestine will be "living in peace and building bridges of mutual cooperation with its neighbors...(and) strengthen(s) the values of citizenship, equality, non-discrimination, the rule of law, (and) human rights and pluralism." Does he not know that his partner (Hamas) in their unity government summarily executed about 19 Palestinians based on allegations of aiding Israel during the recent war. The rule of law? These people were given no trial.
"Building bridges...with its neighbors." So how should we account for this comment: "...I affirm here today: we will not forget and we will not forgive." Does that sound like building bridges? Abbas also referred to "Palestinian enlightened traditions of tolerance, coexistence and non-exclusion." Who buys this nonsense? Tolerance? Not for Jews or Christians. Coexistence? The Palestinians had an opportunity for co-existence for 66 years - the same length of time that Israel has again existed. They passed it up in favor of war after war, intifada after intifada, and relentless suicide bombers and rockets and mortars. More recently, they refused a state offered by Israeli P.M. Barak in 2000, and again by Israeli P.M. Olmert in 2008 during Bush's Administration. Non-exclusion? See above comment about no Jews being allowed in any future Palestinian state.
Netanyahu rightly compared Hamas to ISIS, quoting the leaders of each with their expressed desires to rule the world. He went on to say that all the Islamic terrorist groups are branches of the same poisonous tree. Said Netanyahu: "The Nazis believed in a master race. The militant Islamists believe in a master faith."
President Obama also spoke at the U.N., stating that "the world will be more just with two states living side by side, in peace and security." Last week Obama met with Netanyahu. At the same time, those opposed to any building by Israel in their Capital city of Jerusalem, revealed that Israel had planned on authorizing over 2500 housing units in Jerusalem. The reaction by the Obama Administration and European Union was swift and harsh. Said State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki: "This development will only draw condemnation from the international community, distance Israel from even its closest allies," and poison its relations with the Palestinians and other Arab countries.
Josh Earnest on behalf of Obama was nearly identical in these coordinated comments: "This development will only draw condemnation from the international community." Both Psaki and Earnest claimed such a development would call into question Israel's commitment to peace. The European Union also questioned "Israel's commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement." Want to know what might call into question the Palestinians commitment to peace? NOTHING!
Not thousands of rockets and mortars aimed at Israeli cities this summer. Not tunnels built into Israel from Gaza for the sole purposes of killing/kidnapping Israelis. Not Hamas calling for Israel's destruction. Not Abbas saying no Jew may live in a state of Palestine. The list is endless - and that's the point here. There really is nothing whatsoever that the Palestinians can do or say that will lessen the West's commitment to their statehood.
There remains one leader willing to speak the truth; one who understands what is going on in the Middle East. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu. Said Netanyahu at the U.N.: "The Middle East is in chaos. States are disintegrating. Militant Islamists are filling the void. Israel cannot have territories from which it withdraws taken over by Islamic militants yet again, as happened in Gaza and Lebanon. That would place the likes of ISIS within mortar range - a few miles - of 80% of our population." He observed that the suburbs of Tel Aviv would be as close as Times Square is from the UN!
Next month the Palestinians will be able to get a resolution introduced at the UN Security Council calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders (Gaza, the West Bank and so called East Jerusalem). The measure will also seek some resolution of the "refugee" problem. Will Obama have the U.S. veto such a resolution? The State Department will not say. It will be after the midterm elections. He will not need Jewish votes or money anymore. A similar measure passed the General Assembly in 2012. However, the G.A. has no enforcement power; the Security Council does. The Security Council could send in U.N. troops in an effort to evict Israel from those lands. Would the the U.S. send in troops against Israel?
Let's be clear. Israel will never give up any part of Jerusalem. "East" Jerusalem contains the Old City - with the Western Wall (Kotel) and the Temple Mount, the holiest sites in Judaism. Biblically and historically Jerusalem is the home and focal point of the Jews. When Jordan controlled those Holy sites from 1949 to 1967 no Jews were allowed access. Under Jewish rule, all religions have access. The obvious outcome of such a resolution passing the U.N. Security Council will be war.
Said Netanyahu: "...as Prime Minister of Israel, I am entrusted with the awesome responsibility of ensuring the future of the Jewish people and the future of the Jewish state. And no matter what pressure is brought to bear, I will never waiver in fulfilling that responsibility."
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Death Panels?
It's not enough that only 35% of the people think favorably about The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). (Statistic from the 9/11/14 Investor's Business Daily, citing a Kaiser Family Foundation poll.) Or that premiums will be going up significantly higher for those still paying for their own insurance. (Mine has already gone up $400. per month.) Once the government stops subsidizing the insurance industry (which, of course, will not happen before the midterm elections) those paying for their own insurance are likely to see a further price increase. In the meantime, many insurers are limiting the size of their networks for covered hospitals and doctors in order to keep their costs down.
Nor is it enough that many doctors having a solo private practice will not be able to continue on their own much longer. Some of my doctors have told me that the private practice of medicine in single doctor offices will be a thing of the past in two to three years. An opinion piece in the 9/12/14 Wall Street Journal by a Dr. Mark Sklar discusses this problem. Dr. Sklar notes that he must use the new electronic system dictated by Medicare. If he does not show "meaningful use" of the system he will be penalized in his reimbursements. He says he spends 90 minutes per day entering "mostly meaningless data" into the system.
My own primary care physician has cut back on the number of patients seen daily - in order to accommodate the electronic system. Just one example of medical care taking a back seat to government dictates. Another doctor friend confirmed the reduction in appointments. Says Dr. Sklar: "The practice of medicine in the current environment is unsustainable." Or, as I have been told by some of my doctors, soon all doctors will be employed by an HMO or large clinic in order to survive economically.
Nor is it enough to ponder all the negative impacts on our job market and economy. Recall that employers with 50 or more employees who are full time (30 hours or more per week) must offer health insurance - or pay a fine. Hence, the new "29 hour work week." And what about the disincentives to people "on the edge," who do not qualify for Obamacare subsidies, but who also cannot afford to pay the premiums on their own? How many will voluntarily move down the economic ladder in order to qualify for subsidies? That will result in a lose/lose scenario - lower income and therefore less tax revenue, and greater taxpayer payouts to more seeking subsidies. As the saying goes, when you subsidize something you get more of it, and when you penalize something you get less of it. Obamacare gives all the wrong incentives.
But all of the above may be seen as mere annoyances in comparison to the idea put out by one of the main architects of The Affordable Care Act. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother to Obama's first Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) recently gave an interview to the Atlantic magazine. Said Dr. Emanuel: "Seventy-five. That's how long I want to live. I am sure of my position...living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived." Wow! This is one of the most evil comments I have seen in quite some time.
I have a few questions for Dr. Emanuel. Let's start with this one - who made you G-d? I know people in their eighties who work and are productive. Why should they be dead? Can I assume that you are not religious, that you do not believe that life is a gift from G-d, and do not believe that everyone's life may be a blessing to themselves and others? You say that old age may may render people "if not disabled, then faltering and declining." Can we assume then, if "faltering and declining" is enough to warrant a death sentence, but is not as bad as disabled, that you have no use for disabled people whatsoever? Do you agree that one person's quality of life at age 80 may be better than another's at age 70? Should we then kill the 70 year old? One more question, when Jews raise a glass to toast it is to L'Chaim - to life. Do you not think enough of our enemies have tried to eliminate us?
Do not think for even a minute that this is just one doctor's opinion. Dr. Emanuel is the Director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the National Institute of Health. His opinion matters. Obamacare has a 15 member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Their job - to save money in Medicare. So maybe once you are 75 years of age you don't need that medication, treatment or surgery (or fill in the blank). As the mainstream media and left always does, they made fun of conservatives, such as Sarah Palin, who warned of "death panels." Still think it's funny?
I am not a big believer in coincidences. Some time in the recent past there was a discussion in the media about whether or not mammograms were being over utilized. Now, in the 9/15/14 Wall Street Journal was an article about downgrading the use of the term "cancer" for slow growing tumors and instead referring to them as "indolent lesions of epithelial origin." Dr. Laura Esserman says "we're not finding enough of the really lethal cancers, and we're finding too many of the slow-moving ones that probably don't need to be found." Again, do not think this is just one doctor's opinion; Dr. Esserman is described as the chair of an advisory panel to the National Cancer Institute.
There is not complete agreement. For example, some dermatologists say it is wrong to refer to non-melanomas as "indolent lesions of epithelial origin." They state that deaths from squamous cells are on the rise, and even basal cells can do great harm and result in death.
So you tell me. Combine the role of the IPAB with Dr. Emauel's ideas and with the ideas of Dr. Esserman. Is the result "death panels?"
Nor is it enough that many doctors having a solo private practice will not be able to continue on their own much longer. Some of my doctors have told me that the private practice of medicine in single doctor offices will be a thing of the past in two to three years. An opinion piece in the 9/12/14 Wall Street Journal by a Dr. Mark Sklar discusses this problem. Dr. Sklar notes that he must use the new electronic system dictated by Medicare. If he does not show "meaningful use" of the system he will be penalized in his reimbursements. He says he spends 90 minutes per day entering "mostly meaningless data" into the system.
My own primary care physician has cut back on the number of patients seen daily - in order to accommodate the electronic system. Just one example of medical care taking a back seat to government dictates. Another doctor friend confirmed the reduction in appointments. Says Dr. Sklar: "The practice of medicine in the current environment is unsustainable." Or, as I have been told by some of my doctors, soon all doctors will be employed by an HMO or large clinic in order to survive economically.
Nor is it enough to ponder all the negative impacts on our job market and economy. Recall that employers with 50 or more employees who are full time (30 hours or more per week) must offer health insurance - or pay a fine. Hence, the new "29 hour work week." And what about the disincentives to people "on the edge," who do not qualify for Obamacare subsidies, but who also cannot afford to pay the premiums on their own? How many will voluntarily move down the economic ladder in order to qualify for subsidies? That will result in a lose/lose scenario - lower income and therefore less tax revenue, and greater taxpayer payouts to more seeking subsidies. As the saying goes, when you subsidize something you get more of it, and when you penalize something you get less of it. Obamacare gives all the wrong incentives.
But all of the above may be seen as mere annoyances in comparison to the idea put out by one of the main architects of The Affordable Care Act. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother to Obama's first Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) recently gave an interview to the Atlantic magazine. Said Dr. Emanuel: "Seventy-five. That's how long I want to live. I am sure of my position...living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived." Wow! This is one of the most evil comments I have seen in quite some time.
I have a few questions for Dr. Emanuel. Let's start with this one - who made you G-d? I know people in their eighties who work and are productive. Why should they be dead? Can I assume that you are not religious, that you do not believe that life is a gift from G-d, and do not believe that everyone's life may be a blessing to themselves and others? You say that old age may may render people "if not disabled, then faltering and declining." Can we assume then, if "faltering and declining" is enough to warrant a death sentence, but is not as bad as disabled, that you have no use for disabled people whatsoever? Do you agree that one person's quality of life at age 80 may be better than another's at age 70? Should we then kill the 70 year old? One more question, when Jews raise a glass to toast it is to L'Chaim - to life. Do you not think enough of our enemies have tried to eliminate us?
Do not think for even a minute that this is just one doctor's opinion. Dr. Emanuel is the Director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the National Institute of Health. His opinion matters. Obamacare has a 15 member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Their job - to save money in Medicare. So maybe once you are 75 years of age you don't need that medication, treatment or surgery (or fill in the blank). As the mainstream media and left always does, they made fun of conservatives, such as Sarah Palin, who warned of "death panels." Still think it's funny?
I am not a big believer in coincidences. Some time in the recent past there was a discussion in the media about whether or not mammograms were being over utilized. Now, in the 9/15/14 Wall Street Journal was an article about downgrading the use of the term "cancer" for slow growing tumors and instead referring to them as "indolent lesions of epithelial origin." Dr. Laura Esserman says "we're not finding enough of the really lethal cancers, and we're finding too many of the slow-moving ones that probably don't need to be found." Again, do not think this is just one doctor's opinion; Dr. Esserman is described as the chair of an advisory panel to the National Cancer Institute.
There is not complete agreement. For example, some dermatologists say it is wrong to refer to non-melanomas as "indolent lesions of epithelial origin." They state that deaths from squamous cells are on the rise, and even basal cells can do great harm and result in death.
So you tell me. Combine the role of the IPAB with Dr. Emauel's ideas and with the ideas of Dr. Esserman. Is the result "death panels?"
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Well That's a Relief!
I have to say I feel a lot better now. President Obama just told us that "ISIL is not Islamic." He added: "No religion condones the killing of innocents." And this: "ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. It has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way."
Boy, was I wrong. I thought ISIS (ISIL, IS) was named the ISLAMIC State. I thought Islam today had a problem with large numbers of radical terrorist groups, all committing their acts in the name of Islam. Groups like Al Qaeda, Boko Harem, Hamas (which just summarily executed a whole bunch of people without any trial based on an allegation of providing intelligence to Israel in the recent Gaza war), Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, ISIS, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and many others.
Is every single Muslim a radical who wants to see non-Muslims killed? Of course not. But what good does it do to not admit the truth and acknowledge that Islam today has a very serious problem? How can Obama say "ISIL is not Islamic"? How can Obama say ISIL has no vision "other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way," when it tells the world it wants to establish an ISLAMIC Caliphate under Shariah law?
Obama also said this: "At this moment the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL." Yes, and what do we have throughout the Middle East and North Africa - all Muslim countries! (With the exception of Israel which fights some of these same Islamic terrorist groups.) No religion condones the killing of innocents? So why do so many Imams do that? Perhaps they define "innocents" differently.
It was extremely disappointing to hear Republican Senator Rand Paul on Fox after Obama's speech. Said Paul: "...this is not a true form of Islam. This is an aberrant form that should not represent most of the civilized Islamic world."
So what is the "true form" of Islam today? We are told it's not the numerous Islamic terrorist groups, such as ISIS. And it's not all those Muslim countries who have in place one form of Shariah law or another; countries where free speech and freedom of religion don't exist. And it's not in countries where Christians and Jews are persecuted or killed. And it's not in countries where gays are persecuted or killed. And it's not in countries where women are less than second class citizens, and are subject to "honor killings."
Hopefully politicians like Obama and Paul will get back to us soon on where to find "true" Islam.
Boy, was I wrong. I thought ISIS (ISIL, IS) was named the ISLAMIC State. I thought Islam today had a problem with large numbers of radical terrorist groups, all committing their acts in the name of Islam. Groups like Al Qaeda, Boko Harem, Hamas (which just summarily executed a whole bunch of people without any trial based on an allegation of providing intelligence to Israel in the recent Gaza war), Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, ISIS, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and many others.
Is every single Muslim a radical who wants to see non-Muslims killed? Of course not. But what good does it do to not admit the truth and acknowledge that Islam today has a very serious problem? How can Obama say "ISIL is not Islamic"? How can Obama say ISIL has no vision "other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way," when it tells the world it wants to establish an ISLAMIC Caliphate under Shariah law?
Obama also said this: "At this moment the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL." Yes, and what do we have throughout the Middle East and North Africa - all Muslim countries! (With the exception of Israel which fights some of these same Islamic terrorist groups.) No religion condones the killing of innocents? So why do so many Imams do that? Perhaps they define "innocents" differently.
It was extremely disappointing to hear Republican Senator Rand Paul on Fox after Obama's speech. Said Paul: "...this is not a true form of Islam. This is an aberrant form that should not represent most of the civilized Islamic world."
So what is the "true form" of Islam today? We are told it's not the numerous Islamic terrorist groups, such as ISIS. And it's not all those Muslim countries who have in place one form of Shariah law or another; countries where free speech and freedom of religion don't exist. And it's not in countries where Christians and Jews are persecuted or killed. And it's not in countries where gays are persecuted or killed. And it's not in countries where women are less than second class citizens, and are subject to "honor killings."
Hopefully politicians like Obama and Paul will get back to us soon on where to find "true" Islam.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Wait...What?!
Out of Rotherham, England comes a report regarding the sexual abuse (rape) of children and teenagers, mostly girls. 1400 young people between 1997 and 2013 were apparently trafficked around the country. While the victims were described as working class white, the perpetrators were described as Pakistani Muslims. (As reported by Brendan O'Neill in the 9/3/14 Wall Street Journal, referencing a report by Alexis Jay, public policy professor and former social worker.) So why didn't the authorities act quicker to put a stop to this sex trade of minors? According to Mr. Jay, Rotherdam officials did not want to appear racist. Wait...What?! We need to let these bastards rape our young girls so we don't appear racist? It would be difficult to find a better example of Michael Savage's maxim: "Liberalism is a mental disorder."
In the city of Wuppertal, Germany, the police have been patrolling the nightlife area of town. They seek to discourage people from the use of alcohol and drugs, and from gambling and attending concerts. What?! Oh, these are not the regular police, these are radical Salafist Muslims. Notwithstanding their lack of actual authority, they have not been deterred, and even wear brightly colored orange vests with the words "Shariah Police" on the back. And there are reports of Salafists doing the same in Bonn. (As reported in the 9/7/14 Jewish Press online.) Think it's a good idea to not control the number of Muslims entering this country?
Our Secretary of State recently spoke at a ceremony appointing a Muslim attorney to serve as a special representative to Muslim communities. What?! In any event, Kerry said "our faiths are inextricably linked on any number of things that we must confront and deal with in policy concepts today. Our faiths are inextricably linked on the environment." Kerry went on: "Confronting climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges that we face, and you can see this duty or responsibility laid out in scriptures early, beginning in Genesis. And Muslim-majority countries are the most vulnerable." What?! Kerry believes his biggest issue is climate change? Don't we have more immediate threats - radical Islam, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea? And we have to take care of the Muslim-majority countries? Is that like the head of NASA previously saying NASA needed to reach out to the Muslim world? Did NASA's then Director and Kerry have the same boss? Hmmm. And just what are the oil rich Muslim countries doing to help the environment? (Quotes from the Washington Free Beacon.)
Obama has a plan for dealing with ISIS (or as he calls them, ISIL). At first, he did not have a plan: "We don't have a strategy yet." Then, he said: "The bottom line is this - our objective is clear and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL..." But then: "...if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL's sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its military capability to the point where it is a manageable problem." What?! People not being exactly clear on his message, Obama said today: "The next phase is us going on the offensive." I guess - as long as he doesn't draw any red lines.
Bill O'Reilly had the audacity to go after State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki. Said he: "With all due respect - that woman looked way out of her depth over there. Just the way she delivers...it just doesn't look like she has the gravitas for that job." (That's been my feeling about Ms. Psaki.) However, another spokesperson, Marie Harf, just could not take it, O'Reilly attacking her colleague like that. Said Harf: "When the anchor of a leading cable news show uses, quite frankly sexist, personally offensive language, I have an obligation and I think it's important to step up and say that's not okay." Wait...What?! Sexist? How? O'Reilly has gone after both male press secretaries to the President; and pretty much everybody on both sides of the fence.
But let's be honest. Those democrats cannot tolerate criticism. Because they engage in personal attacks, they have to equate all comments by conservatives to be personal attacks on them. (Criticize Obama and you are a racist.) Notice some similarity between Harf's comments and the fear of officials in Rotherham? Act against rapists who are Muslim and you are a racist. Speak against a woman in high office and you are a sexist. Still, the democrats just love dishing it out - even though they cannot take it.
And let's not forget this comment: "Mr. Obama's coterie of foreign policy advisers does not command anything like the international respect that is needed." Oh, that wasn't O'Reilly; that was the 9/3/14 editorial in the Financial Times, a paper that twice supported Obama for President. What?! Are they sexist too? I guess they're racist too, in light of this comment about Obama: "...Mr. Obama has been curiously passive. Fixing the strongest coalitions, and the best strategies, to push back Mr. Putin, ISIS and others will require the sustained engagement of America's friends and allies. But it will first require genuine leadership."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the head of the Democratic National Committee, is trying to get Scott Walker's democrat opponent in the Wisconsin governor's race elected to that office. Said Schultz of Walker: "Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand." She then equated Republicans like Walker with "grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back." What?! But this is the way it works for Democrats - ignore the issues and engage in demagoguery. So what if it's intellectually dishonest - it works. Ms. Schultz got a little feed back on those comments, equating Walker's policies with domestic abuse. But in her subsequent non-apology, she simply said she should not have used the words - but Walker is still bad for women.
Remember those poor Palestinians, the ones Israel beat up so badly in Gaza? Well, a poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research just found that 79% of Palestinians think they won that war, and 72% think the West Bank Palestinians should engage in similar attacks on Israel. Wait...What?! Weren't those people in Gaza just innocent civilians who wanted nothing to do with Hamas and the war? 61% in the West Bank and Gaza said they would vote for the Hamas leader over PA leader Abbas for President, if the election were held now. (Stats from the 9/3/14 Investor's Business Daily.)
We can't end this post without mention of former President Jimmy Carter. Carter recently spoke to the convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA, the largest Muslim advocacy group in the US). ISNA has alternately been linked with the Wahabi brand of radical Islam sponsored by Saudi Arabia, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. Said Carter: "I look forward to continued cooperation between ISNA and the Carter Center because we share so many things in common. We're all Americans, wanting to insist upon basic human rights, peace, freedom, justice, and the treatment of each other as equals." Wait...What?! Whom are we talking about, exactly? Carter went on: "I hope that all of you will use the principles of Allah and our G-d to bring peace and justice to all." You know what, Jimmy? Let them direct the principles of Allah at you. I'll pass.
In the city of Wuppertal, Germany, the police have been patrolling the nightlife area of town. They seek to discourage people from the use of alcohol and drugs, and from gambling and attending concerts. What?! Oh, these are not the regular police, these are radical Salafist Muslims. Notwithstanding their lack of actual authority, they have not been deterred, and even wear brightly colored orange vests with the words "Shariah Police" on the back. And there are reports of Salafists doing the same in Bonn. (As reported in the 9/7/14 Jewish Press online.) Think it's a good idea to not control the number of Muslims entering this country?
Our Secretary of State recently spoke at a ceremony appointing a Muslim attorney to serve as a special representative to Muslim communities. What?! In any event, Kerry said "our faiths are inextricably linked on any number of things that we must confront and deal with in policy concepts today. Our faiths are inextricably linked on the environment." Kerry went on: "Confronting climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges that we face, and you can see this duty or responsibility laid out in scriptures early, beginning in Genesis. And Muslim-majority countries are the most vulnerable." What?! Kerry believes his biggest issue is climate change? Don't we have more immediate threats - radical Islam, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea? And we have to take care of the Muslim-majority countries? Is that like the head of NASA previously saying NASA needed to reach out to the Muslim world? Did NASA's then Director and Kerry have the same boss? Hmmm. And just what are the oil rich Muslim countries doing to help the environment? (Quotes from the Washington Free Beacon.)
Obama has a plan for dealing with ISIS (or as he calls them, ISIL). At first, he did not have a plan: "We don't have a strategy yet." Then, he said: "The bottom line is this - our objective is clear and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL..." But then: "...if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL's sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its military capability to the point where it is a manageable problem." What?! People not being exactly clear on his message, Obama said today: "The next phase is us going on the offensive." I guess - as long as he doesn't draw any red lines.
Bill O'Reilly had the audacity to go after State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki. Said he: "With all due respect - that woman looked way out of her depth over there. Just the way she delivers...it just doesn't look like she has the gravitas for that job." (That's been my feeling about Ms. Psaki.) However, another spokesperson, Marie Harf, just could not take it, O'Reilly attacking her colleague like that. Said Harf: "When the anchor of a leading cable news show uses, quite frankly sexist, personally offensive language, I have an obligation and I think it's important to step up and say that's not okay." Wait...What?! Sexist? How? O'Reilly has gone after both male press secretaries to the President; and pretty much everybody on both sides of the fence.
But let's be honest. Those democrats cannot tolerate criticism. Because they engage in personal attacks, they have to equate all comments by conservatives to be personal attacks on them. (Criticize Obama and you are a racist.) Notice some similarity between Harf's comments and the fear of officials in Rotherham? Act against rapists who are Muslim and you are a racist. Speak against a woman in high office and you are a sexist. Still, the democrats just love dishing it out - even though they cannot take it.
And let's not forget this comment: "Mr. Obama's coterie of foreign policy advisers does not command anything like the international respect that is needed." Oh, that wasn't O'Reilly; that was the 9/3/14 editorial in the Financial Times, a paper that twice supported Obama for President. What?! Are they sexist too? I guess they're racist too, in light of this comment about Obama: "...Mr. Obama has been curiously passive. Fixing the strongest coalitions, and the best strategies, to push back Mr. Putin, ISIS and others will require the sustained engagement of America's friends and allies. But it will first require genuine leadership."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the head of the Democratic National Committee, is trying to get Scott Walker's democrat opponent in the Wisconsin governor's race elected to that office. Said Schultz of Walker: "Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand." She then equated Republicans like Walker with "grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back." What?! But this is the way it works for Democrats - ignore the issues and engage in demagoguery. So what if it's intellectually dishonest - it works. Ms. Schultz got a little feed back on those comments, equating Walker's policies with domestic abuse. But in her subsequent non-apology, she simply said she should not have used the words - but Walker is still bad for women.
Remember those poor Palestinians, the ones Israel beat up so badly in Gaza? Well, a poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research just found that 79% of Palestinians think they won that war, and 72% think the West Bank Palestinians should engage in similar attacks on Israel. Wait...What?! Weren't those people in Gaza just innocent civilians who wanted nothing to do with Hamas and the war? 61% in the West Bank and Gaza said they would vote for the Hamas leader over PA leader Abbas for President, if the election were held now. (Stats from the 9/3/14 Investor's Business Daily.)
We can't end this post without mention of former President Jimmy Carter. Carter recently spoke to the convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA, the largest Muslim advocacy group in the US). ISNA has alternately been linked with the Wahabi brand of radical Islam sponsored by Saudi Arabia, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. Said Carter: "I look forward to continued cooperation between ISNA and the Carter Center because we share so many things in common. We're all Americans, wanting to insist upon basic human rights, peace, freedom, justice, and the treatment of each other as equals." Wait...What?! Whom are we talking about, exactly? Carter went on: "I hope that all of you will use the principles of Allah and our G-d to bring peace and justice to all." You know what, Jimmy? Let them direct the principles of Allah at you. I'll pass.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
A Failure of Leadership, Part II
On 8/20/14, President Obama managed to break away for a few minutes from his golf game while on vacation in Martha's Vineyard, in order to speak about the beheading of US citizen and reporter James Foley. If you did not have an opportunity to see this short speech I will tell you it was passionless - and in stark contrast to Obama's smiling and having good time on the golf course only minutes later. I have often noted, however, that Obama has no class.
Said Obama: "So ISIL (aka ISIS & IS) speaks for no religion...their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents." You see, it is just a coincidence that there are dozens (hundreds?) of Islamic terror groups around the world who just happen to all say they are killing in the name of Islam. So how can Obama actually make such a naively absurd comment?
Part of the answer, no doubt, is his affinity for - and reluctance to criticize - anything Islamic. The words "Islamic terrorism" were banned from use in his Administration. Recall "overseas contingency operations" in its place. Recall the murderer Major Nidal Hassan who acknowledged his Islamic motivation in murdering fellow soldiers - but the White House calling his actions an act of "workplace violence." Obama's affinity for Islam and the Muslim world has been apparent from day one - overstating the contributions of Muslims to the United States and to the world. He constantly mentions the shared values that Islam has with the West - omitting the overwhelming lack of freedom and democracy in almost every Muslim state.
However, one cannot fully understand Obama's naivete without also noting his fundamental belief in leftism and even Marxism. At the end of July, Obama (Fundraisers R Us) spoke to contributors and said this: "Part of people's concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn't holding and we're not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that's based on a different set of principles, that's based on a sense of common humanity, that's based on economies that work for all people." His leftism tells him that we all share the same values - a "common humanity." But tens (if not hundreds) of millions Muslims believe in being governed by Shariah law. There is nothing in Shariah law that reflects common values with Western style democracies.
Obama's leftism also tells him that American power has been primarily a source of harm in the world - hence the need for a "new set of principles." But his Marxism tells him that economics ("economies that work for all people") is what motivates people, a Marxist idea lacking in its ability to explain radical Islam. These Muslims are, in fact, motivated by their understanding of Islam. They do not say they are poor people seeking a redistribution of wealth. (Neither was economics motivating the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan or many other murderous operators.)
Obama is proud of the fact that he "ended" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says he was not elected to start another war; and will not rush into another war - comparing himself to Bush. The problem is (even if one disagrees with the Iraq war) Obama acknowledged in 2011 that "...we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people." That does not mean that it was wise on Obama's part to not insist on a status-of-forces agreement, and not leave 10,000 - 15,000 troops in Iraq. 62 years later we still have troops in Korea. 69 years later we have troops still in Japan and Germany. Given the complete turmoil in the Middle East, would it not have been a good idea to leave a stabilizing force?
So now we have ISIS having taken over parts of Iraq and Syria. As noted by the USA Today (8/22-8/24/14), ISIS is better funded, better at the use of social media and propaganda, more experienced, and in control of far more land than Al Qaeda. Obama also said on 8/20/14: "People like this (ISIL) ultimately fail. They fail because the future is won by those who build and not destroy." Not exactly. As is frequently said - all that is required for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing. When Afghanistan was a failed state run by the Taliban, Al Qaeda was allowed to operate their bases and plan attacks on the US and others. ISIS controls large areas of land that will allow them and other terrorists to plan future attacks. Yet, only days ago Obama acknowledged a lack of US strategy for dealing with ISIS.
CIA Director John Brennan recently told Congress that he believes ISIS is a real threat to the United States of America. According to the latest Pew Research Poll (8/20-8/24/14), 54% of Americans believe Obama is not tough enough when it comes to foreign policy and national security. It appears that British Prime Minister David Cameron has a different approach. Said Cameron: "...the ambition to create an extremist Caliphate in the heart of Iraq and Syria is a threat to our own security here in the U.K...We can't appease this ideology. We have to confront it at home and abroad." And we in the US have to first elect a President willing to acknowledge the worldwide threat of radical Islam; a threat by not only those who engage in violence, but the tens of millions (or more) who support them. For the next 2 years and 5 months we will have to suffer a leader unwilling and/or unable to recognize the nature and seriousness of that threat.
Said Obama: "So ISIL (aka ISIS & IS) speaks for no religion...their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents." You see, it is just a coincidence that there are dozens (hundreds?) of Islamic terror groups around the world who just happen to all say they are killing in the name of Islam. So how can Obama actually make such a naively absurd comment?
Part of the answer, no doubt, is his affinity for - and reluctance to criticize - anything Islamic. The words "Islamic terrorism" were banned from use in his Administration. Recall "overseas contingency operations" in its place. Recall the murderer Major Nidal Hassan who acknowledged his Islamic motivation in murdering fellow soldiers - but the White House calling his actions an act of "workplace violence." Obama's affinity for Islam and the Muslim world has been apparent from day one - overstating the contributions of Muslims to the United States and to the world. He constantly mentions the shared values that Islam has with the West - omitting the overwhelming lack of freedom and democracy in almost every Muslim state.
However, one cannot fully understand Obama's naivete without also noting his fundamental belief in leftism and even Marxism. At the end of July, Obama (Fundraisers R Us) spoke to contributors and said this: "Part of people's concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn't holding and we're not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that's based on a different set of principles, that's based on a sense of common humanity, that's based on economies that work for all people." His leftism tells him that we all share the same values - a "common humanity." But tens (if not hundreds) of millions Muslims believe in being governed by Shariah law. There is nothing in Shariah law that reflects common values with Western style democracies.
Obama's leftism also tells him that American power has been primarily a source of harm in the world - hence the need for a "new set of principles." But his Marxism tells him that economics ("economies that work for all people") is what motivates people, a Marxist idea lacking in its ability to explain radical Islam. These Muslims are, in fact, motivated by their understanding of Islam. They do not say they are poor people seeking a redistribution of wealth. (Neither was economics motivating the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan or many other murderous operators.)
Obama is proud of the fact that he "ended" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says he was not elected to start another war; and will not rush into another war - comparing himself to Bush. The problem is (even if one disagrees with the Iraq war) Obama acknowledged in 2011 that "...we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people." That does not mean that it was wise on Obama's part to not insist on a status-of-forces agreement, and not leave 10,000 - 15,000 troops in Iraq. 62 years later we still have troops in Korea. 69 years later we have troops still in Japan and Germany. Given the complete turmoil in the Middle East, would it not have been a good idea to leave a stabilizing force?
So now we have ISIS having taken over parts of Iraq and Syria. As noted by the USA Today (8/22-8/24/14), ISIS is better funded, better at the use of social media and propaganda, more experienced, and in control of far more land than Al Qaeda. Obama also said on 8/20/14: "People like this (ISIL) ultimately fail. They fail because the future is won by those who build and not destroy." Not exactly. As is frequently said - all that is required for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing. When Afghanistan was a failed state run by the Taliban, Al Qaeda was allowed to operate their bases and plan attacks on the US and others. ISIS controls large areas of land that will allow them and other terrorists to plan future attacks. Yet, only days ago Obama acknowledged a lack of US strategy for dealing with ISIS.
CIA Director John Brennan recently told Congress that he believes ISIS is a real threat to the United States of America. According to the latest Pew Research Poll (8/20-8/24/14), 54% of Americans believe Obama is not tough enough when it comes to foreign policy and national security. It appears that British Prime Minister David Cameron has a different approach. Said Cameron: "...the ambition to create an extremist Caliphate in the heart of Iraq and Syria is a threat to our own security here in the U.K...We can't appease this ideology. We have to confront it at home and abroad." And we in the US have to first elect a President willing to acknowledge the worldwide threat of radical Islam; a threat by not only those who engage in violence, but the tens of millions (or more) who support them. For the next 2 years and 5 months we will have to suffer a leader unwilling and/or unable to recognize the nature and seriousness of that threat.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
A Failure of Leadership, Part I
With regards to the shooting of Michael Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon had this to say: "a vigorous prosecution must now be pursued." Such a comment is completely contrary to the way our legal system works. An investigation into the facts must be done before any decision is even made as to whether or not to prosecute. Does the Governor not know this? Of course he does - he was the Attorney General of Missouri for 16 years before becoming Governor. So what is going on here?
The Governor made some other equally ridiculous comments, such as the fact that the shooting occurred in "broad daylight." The relevance of that is what exactly? Police officers may only fear for their lives after the sun sets? The Governor added: "We have a responsibility to come together, and do everything we can to achieve justice for (Brown's) family." No justice is anticipated for the police officer - he has already been tried and convicted by the Democrat politicians and the mainstream media. What the Governor should have said: NOTHING!
These comments reflect the worst type of pandering - not just to the Democrats' black base (Nixon is a democrat), but to a mob. Obama was not to be outdone as he sent the US Attorney General Eric Holder to Ferguson. Holder added to the race baiting by saying he did not come to Ferguson just as the Attorney General, but as "a black man." He should have stayed in DC. It was entirely premature for the feds to be involved; yet Holder said he brought the most experienced team of investigators and prosecutors with him. These comments by these democrat politicians serve only to enhance the notion of 'victimhood' in the black community.
As it turns out blacks are victims, but mostly of other blacks. As reported in the 8/22/14 IBD (article by Brent Bozell and Tim Graham) blacks are only 13% of the population but are 50% of the homicide victims. That is a disturbing number. But it's not white police officers who are responsible for most of those deaths - 90% of those homicide victims are killed by other blacks.
The City of Chicago has been experiencing a terrible jump in violent crimes. The same IBD article notes 89 homicides in Chicago so far this summer. It is reprehensible that Holder did not go to Chicago with his best investigators and prosecutors. But I guess the life of a single black man killed by a white cop is worth far more than the many blacks killed by other blacks.
The black family in America has been hurting ever since the Democrats decided that blacks needed the government's help - with welfare. The 8/20/14 IBD reported that in 1950 only 9% of black families were headed by a single parent. But today, 72% of black births are outside of marriage. Jason Riley, a black man, has a book out entitled "Please Stop Helping Us!". In an interview with Forbes, a Mr. Peter Greer (described by Wikipedia as a Christian advocate for the poor, and who said that Church foreign aid programs make things worse) referenced a Bob Lupton, who said something to this effect: when you give something the first time there is gratitude, the second time there is anticipation, the third time there is expectation, the fourth time there is entitlement, and the fifth time there is dependency.
I am not going to say that no police officer has negative racial attitudes. But which problems are affecting the most blacks? A culture of dependency that has negatively impacted the black family? An extremely high rate of homicide by blacks on blacks? Or the white police officer?
The media has been despicable in this matter, with the likes of CNN actually showing the home and street address of Officer Wilson. Are they trying to take over where Charles Manson left off - trying to start a race war? All for the purpose of ratings and selling papers? You see, the evidence is not as cut and dry as Governor Nixon and the media would have you believe. The autopsy suggests that Mr. Brown was not shot in the back while running away, as originally suggested. The video from the local market taken prior to the shooting showed Mr. Brown and his friend stealing. Because force was then used (Brown was seen grabbing and then pushing the store clerk) it became a felony. While Officer Wilson may have been unaware of that, Mr. Brown was very much aware of what he had done, and may have thought he was being stopped for that reason.
While one media outlet was reporting that Officer Wilson's eye socket was fractured in the altercation with Brown, others are reporting no fracture, but apparent swelling of the face resulting in the officer going to the hospital. It is unclear as to why the Ferguson Police Department was so slow in releasing accurate information. The withholding of important information may be important for the investigation; unfortunately, it also gives those predisposed to thinking the worst about the police an opportunity to do so. I have little doubt that many blacks cringed at the site of looting and destruction by other blacks. Others (Al Sharpton?) tried to justify it.
So what now? What if there is no indictment coming from the grand jury? What if there is, and the officer is found not guilty at trial? What if Obama, Holder, Nixon and the mainstream media stop the race baiting and start advocating for the criminal justice system - it's not a perfect system, but it's what we've got. And you are not likely to find a better one.
The Governor made some other equally ridiculous comments, such as the fact that the shooting occurred in "broad daylight." The relevance of that is what exactly? Police officers may only fear for their lives after the sun sets? The Governor added: "We have a responsibility to come together, and do everything we can to achieve justice for (Brown's) family." No justice is anticipated for the police officer - he has already been tried and convicted by the Democrat politicians and the mainstream media. What the Governor should have said: NOTHING!
These comments reflect the worst type of pandering - not just to the Democrats' black base (Nixon is a democrat), but to a mob. Obama was not to be outdone as he sent the US Attorney General Eric Holder to Ferguson. Holder added to the race baiting by saying he did not come to Ferguson just as the Attorney General, but as "a black man." He should have stayed in DC. It was entirely premature for the feds to be involved; yet Holder said he brought the most experienced team of investigators and prosecutors with him. These comments by these democrat politicians serve only to enhance the notion of 'victimhood' in the black community.
As it turns out blacks are victims, but mostly of other blacks. As reported in the 8/22/14 IBD (article by Brent Bozell and Tim Graham) blacks are only 13% of the population but are 50% of the homicide victims. That is a disturbing number. But it's not white police officers who are responsible for most of those deaths - 90% of those homicide victims are killed by other blacks.
The City of Chicago has been experiencing a terrible jump in violent crimes. The same IBD article notes 89 homicides in Chicago so far this summer. It is reprehensible that Holder did not go to Chicago with his best investigators and prosecutors. But I guess the life of a single black man killed by a white cop is worth far more than the many blacks killed by other blacks.
The black family in America has been hurting ever since the Democrats decided that blacks needed the government's help - with welfare. The 8/20/14 IBD reported that in 1950 only 9% of black families were headed by a single parent. But today, 72% of black births are outside of marriage. Jason Riley, a black man, has a book out entitled "Please Stop Helping Us!". In an interview with Forbes, a Mr. Peter Greer (described by Wikipedia as a Christian advocate for the poor, and who said that Church foreign aid programs make things worse) referenced a Bob Lupton, who said something to this effect: when you give something the first time there is gratitude, the second time there is anticipation, the third time there is expectation, the fourth time there is entitlement, and the fifth time there is dependency.
I am not going to say that no police officer has negative racial attitudes. But which problems are affecting the most blacks? A culture of dependency that has negatively impacted the black family? An extremely high rate of homicide by blacks on blacks? Or the white police officer?
The media has been despicable in this matter, with the likes of CNN actually showing the home and street address of Officer Wilson. Are they trying to take over where Charles Manson left off - trying to start a race war? All for the purpose of ratings and selling papers? You see, the evidence is not as cut and dry as Governor Nixon and the media would have you believe. The autopsy suggests that Mr. Brown was not shot in the back while running away, as originally suggested. The video from the local market taken prior to the shooting showed Mr. Brown and his friend stealing. Because force was then used (Brown was seen grabbing and then pushing the store clerk) it became a felony. While Officer Wilson may have been unaware of that, Mr. Brown was very much aware of what he had done, and may have thought he was being stopped for that reason.
While one media outlet was reporting that Officer Wilson's eye socket was fractured in the altercation with Brown, others are reporting no fracture, but apparent swelling of the face resulting in the officer going to the hospital. It is unclear as to why the Ferguson Police Department was so slow in releasing accurate information. The withholding of important information may be important for the investigation; unfortunately, it also gives those predisposed to thinking the worst about the police an opportunity to do so. I have little doubt that many blacks cringed at the site of looting and destruction by other blacks. Others (Al Sharpton?) tried to justify it.
So what now? What if there is no indictment coming from the grand jury? What if there is, and the officer is found not guilty at trial? What if Obama, Holder, Nixon and the mainstream media stop the race baiting and start advocating for the criminal justice system - it's not a perfect system, but it's what we've got. And you are not likely to find a better one.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Did You Hear That...
Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, of the Palestinian National Initiative, said: "We are ready even to be completely demilitarized if Israel also accepts to be demilitarized, and we will all live in peace and coexistence. What's the problem?" ("We are the world, we are the children..." Does this guy actually believe the BS he's peddling? I know the UN does. Does Obama?) (Quote from Fox News, 8/9/14.)
At a special session of the UN General Assembly, the EU's representative said: "We condemn the terrible loss of almost 2000 lives," referring to the war between Israel and Hamas. (So, their representative condemns the loss of even the Hamas terrorists who started the war? Who, exactly, was Israel allowed to target in this war? Oh, no one.)
The US representative, Rosemary DiCarlo, said: the Obama Administration was "horrified at the strikes that hit UNRWA schools..." (How about standing up for Israel and acknowledging Hamas hides their weapons and terrorist fighters in and around schools, mosques, homes, etc.?)
The Canadian representative to this special session said: "The responsibility for the death and destruction that we have witnessed in recent weeks are attributable solely to Hamas." (Thank you Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who personally dressed down other Western leaders, including Obama, with this: "Failure by the international community to condemn these reprehensible actions (of Hamas) will encourage these terrorists to continue their appalling actions...solidarity with Israel is the best way of stopping the conflict." "O Canada..."!) (Last 4 quotes from the 8/9/14 JPost online.)
California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein actually said this: "It takes an army to defeat an army, and I believe that we either confront (ISIS) now or we will be forced to deal with an even stronger enemy in the future. Inaction is no longer an option." (So take that, Obama! Obama sounds like Kerry - remember his "unbelievably small" response to Syria; which turned out to be no response. Feinstein sounds like an earlier democrat who said: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." RIP JFK; hopefully we will have a stronger President in 2 1/2 years.)
Bill O'Reilly made this astute observation: "I don't think President Obama looks at the world in terms of good and evil. For the President, there is always a political solution, a consensus, a discussion." (Yes, because for Obama everybody is the same, sharing the same values. Recall Obama's speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, when he said: "...America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." Um, somebody did not get that memo. "Hey, who's in charge of memo distribution?")
The Foreign Press Association in Israel and Palestine was not too happy with Hamas. They issued this statement, "protest(ing) in the strongest terms the blatant, incessant, forceful and unorthodox methods employed by the Hamas authorities and their representatives against visiting international journalists in GAZA over the past month." (They mean like threatening reporters for telling the truth about from where rockets and missiles are actually fired at Israel? The US mainstream media seems to be a pretty reliable partner for Hamas' propaganda, even accepting their count of civilian casualties. Would Hamas lie?)
Today's Wall Street Journal reported that Obama held back a shipment of air-to-surface missiles from Israel during the recent war with Hamas. The transfer was apparently going to be made by the Pentagon in a routine transaction, when the White House stepped in. An official was quoted as saying that the Administration became "increasingly disturbed by what they saw as heavy-handed battlefield tactics that they believed risked a humanitarian catastrophe." (As the Truth-Uncensored has indicated previously, Obama gives lip service to Israel's right to defend itself, but does not really mean it. As for "humanitarian catastrophes," Obama does not seem all that interested in Syria, Iraq, and Nigeria. But those places have Muslims killing people; Jews killing people when defending themselves - we gotta stop that! Now!)
The British newspaper, The Guardian, wrote an editorial about rising anti-Semitism in Europe. Said the editorial: "...during the course of a single July week, eight synagogues in France were attacked, one of them firebombed by a 400-strong crowd, whose chants, and banners included 'Death to Jews' and 'Slit Jews Throats'." They went on to say that molotov cocktails were thrown at synagogues in Germany, with people shouting such slogans as 'Hamas, Hamas Jews to the gas.' (Run that by me again President Obama - something about "shared principles", was it not? Principles like "tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." Let's be honest; when the real world conflicts with Obama's leftist and naive view of the world - well, there's always golf.)
In today's Jerusalem Post online Natan Sharansky, head of the Jewish Agency, wrote in the British paper the Jewish Chronicle, that "we are seeing the beginning of the end of Jewish history in Europe." (My friends, we are living through times of historic population shifts. Very few Christians are left in the Middle Eastern Arab and Muslim countries. Now, with increasing emigration of European Jews to Israel, referred to as Aliyah (going up), will this other major population shift result in Europe being 'judenrein' - free of Jews? I do not think the secular, leftist, anti-Semitic Europeans will be too happy living under Sharia law. But they just might get the opportunity to find out. Maybe then they will regret displacing Jews in favor of Muslims.)
At a special session of the UN General Assembly, the EU's representative said: "We condemn the terrible loss of almost 2000 lives," referring to the war between Israel and Hamas. (So, their representative condemns the loss of even the Hamas terrorists who started the war? Who, exactly, was Israel allowed to target in this war? Oh, no one.)
The US representative, Rosemary DiCarlo, said: the Obama Administration was "horrified at the strikes that hit UNRWA schools..." (How about standing up for Israel and acknowledging Hamas hides their weapons and terrorist fighters in and around schools, mosques, homes, etc.?)
The Canadian representative to this special session said: "The responsibility for the death and destruction that we have witnessed in recent weeks are attributable solely to Hamas." (Thank you Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who personally dressed down other Western leaders, including Obama, with this: "Failure by the international community to condemn these reprehensible actions (of Hamas) will encourage these terrorists to continue their appalling actions...solidarity with Israel is the best way of stopping the conflict." "O Canada..."!) (Last 4 quotes from the 8/9/14 JPost online.)
California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein actually said this: "It takes an army to defeat an army, and I believe that we either confront (ISIS) now or we will be forced to deal with an even stronger enemy in the future. Inaction is no longer an option." (So take that, Obama! Obama sounds like Kerry - remember his "unbelievably small" response to Syria; which turned out to be no response. Feinstein sounds like an earlier democrat who said: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." RIP JFK; hopefully we will have a stronger President in 2 1/2 years.)
Bill O'Reilly made this astute observation: "I don't think President Obama looks at the world in terms of good and evil. For the President, there is always a political solution, a consensus, a discussion." (Yes, because for Obama everybody is the same, sharing the same values. Recall Obama's speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, when he said: "...America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." Um, somebody did not get that memo. "Hey, who's in charge of memo distribution?")
The Foreign Press Association in Israel and Palestine was not too happy with Hamas. They issued this statement, "protest(ing) in the strongest terms the blatant, incessant, forceful and unorthodox methods employed by the Hamas authorities and their representatives against visiting international journalists in GAZA over the past month." (They mean like threatening reporters for telling the truth about from where rockets and missiles are actually fired at Israel? The US mainstream media seems to be a pretty reliable partner for Hamas' propaganda, even accepting their count of civilian casualties. Would Hamas lie?)
Today's Wall Street Journal reported that Obama held back a shipment of air-to-surface missiles from Israel during the recent war with Hamas. The transfer was apparently going to be made by the Pentagon in a routine transaction, when the White House stepped in. An official was quoted as saying that the Administration became "increasingly disturbed by what they saw as heavy-handed battlefield tactics that they believed risked a humanitarian catastrophe." (As the Truth-Uncensored has indicated previously, Obama gives lip service to Israel's right to defend itself, but does not really mean it. As for "humanitarian catastrophes," Obama does not seem all that interested in Syria, Iraq, and Nigeria. But those places have Muslims killing people; Jews killing people when defending themselves - we gotta stop that! Now!)
The British newspaper, The Guardian, wrote an editorial about rising anti-Semitism in Europe. Said the editorial: "...during the course of a single July week, eight synagogues in France were attacked, one of them firebombed by a 400-strong crowd, whose chants, and banners included 'Death to Jews' and 'Slit Jews Throats'." They went on to say that molotov cocktails were thrown at synagogues in Germany, with people shouting such slogans as 'Hamas, Hamas Jews to the gas.' (Run that by me again President Obama - something about "shared principles", was it not? Principles like "tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." Let's be honest; when the real world conflicts with Obama's leftist and naive view of the world - well, there's always golf.)
In today's Jerusalem Post online Natan Sharansky, head of the Jewish Agency, wrote in the British paper the Jewish Chronicle, that "we are seeing the beginning of the end of Jewish history in Europe." (My friends, we are living through times of historic population shifts. Very few Christians are left in the Middle Eastern Arab and Muslim countries. Now, with increasing emigration of European Jews to Israel, referred to as Aliyah (going up), will this other major population shift result in Europe being 'judenrein' - free of Jews? I do not think the secular, leftist, anti-Semitic Europeans will be too happy living under Sharia law. But they just might get the opportunity to find out. Maybe then they will regret displacing Jews in favor of Muslims.)
Sunday, August 3, 2014
You Claim You Support Israel?
I am often told how much smarter the Democrats are in comparison with the Republicans. Obama, Hillary, Kerry and Pelosi vs. Bush, Romney, Reagan and, of course, Palin. So let's take a look at these brilliant democrats.
Nancy Pelosi was recently being interviewed on CNN by Candy Crowley. Said Pelosi: "...we have to confer with the Qataris who have told me over and over again that Hamas is a humanitarian organization, maybe they could use their influence..." At this point Pelosi was interrupted by Crowley, asking if she knew that the US thinks Hamas is a terrorist organization. With a blank stare on her face Pelosi was only able to get out "hmm hmm." This woman was Speaker of the House, and was next in line to the Presidency after Joe Biden. The Qataris are funding Hamas's terrorist activities; activities that kill Jews. And Pelosi does not know that. And why is she speaking "over and over again" with the Qataris?
Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. This is what she recently said: "The problem is, this is something - I'm not a military planner - but Hamas puts its missiles, its rockets in civilian areas, part of it is that Gaza's pretty small and it's very densely populated; they put their command and control of Hamas military leaders in those civilian areas..." Why does everyone but Clinton (and probably Pelosi) know that Hamas intentionally puts their weapons in civilian areas, using their people as human shields, hoping that Israel will not then attack those areas. If Israel does attack, Hamas has the "bonus" of displaying their civilian casualties to a world lacking moral clarity. As for the size of Gaza, it is over 6 times larger than Manhattan, which has a comparable number of people.
John Kerry is the current Secretary of State. He is very busy in the Middle East and elsewhere - trying to accomplish all the wrong things. Egypt had early on proposed an unconditional cease fire, which Israel agreed to. Hamas did not. So Kerry decided it would be a good idea to meet with Qatar and Turkey to work out the terms of a different cease fire. Qatar and Turkey are the two regional players supporting Hamas. So, of course, the plan is to give Hamas everything they want - resulting in victory for them and defeat for Israel. On top of that, Kerry does not invite Egypt or the PA (Abbas) to those discussions, insulting both. Brilliant!
Given Hamas's aggression, given their terrorism, given their dictatorial rule over Gaza, one might think that the proper approach here would be to insist on a surrender and laying down of arms by Hamas - regardless of what Hamas might want. Instead, the plan was to reward Hamas for attacking Israel.
Said retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters of Kerry: "The real problem we have on a practical level is that Secretary Kerry just doesn't seem to have the sort of supple dynamic incisive intelligence you have to have to play in the Middle East..." And, I might add, he is too easily swayed by Palestinian propaganda.
Recall Obama's speech to the Muslim world from Cairo? Mubarek was then President of Egypt and as a slap in the face to Mubarek Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood to hear his speech. Mubarek had outlawed the Brotherhood. Hamas is simply an offshoot of the Brotherhood. After Mubarek was deposed, the Muslim Botherhood took over, and immediately started talking about ending the peace agreement with Israel.
Meanwhile, Obama recently offered $47 million to Hamas for "humanitarian" purposes. When Israel was persuaded to allow large amounts of concrete into Gaza for the humanitarian purpose of allowing the Gazans to build infrastructure, that never happened. Now, however, we know where the concrete went - into very deep and sophisticated tunnels leading from Gaza into Israel, all for the purpose of killing and kidnapping Jews. So I wonder what Hamas will do with that $47 million that Obama wishes to reward them with.
Another UN facility was bombed by Israel. It is already known that Hamas hides rockets and missiles in UN complexes. Nevertheless, children were killed. Kerry's spokesperson (Jen Psaki) said the bombing was "disgraceful," and that "the United States is appalled." While the Obama Administration gives lip service to Israeli's right to defend themselves, they really don't mean it. Said Psaki: "The suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians." But, as noted, that is what Hamas does - they operate in and near civilian areas. Using the Obama Administration's logic then, Israel would never be allowed to defend itself and fight back.
Around the world, and throughout the USA, there have been anti-Israel demonstrations. These demonstrations, often attended by Muslims, quickly turn into anti-Semitic attacks. Said one in Miami: "We are all jihad." And this: "I'm going to kill you m.....f....., you and all the Israelis." Synagogues had swastikas put on them. In one Belgian town a store owner put up a sign "Dogs are allowed in this establishment, but Jews are not under any circumstances." (Quotes from the 7/29/14 and 7/30/14 Investor's Business Daily. I could give more quotes, but you get the point.)
On the CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) website they urged US Muslims to "tell the president and Congress to demand Israel immediately halt its brutal campaign of collective punishment in Gaza and seek justice for the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians." Actually, less than 2000 were killed, but why let truth be an issue. (Quote from the 7/30/14 IBD.) Guess how Muslims tend to vote? 89% voted for Obama in 2008 (per Wikipedia). In other words, liberal Jews vote in a similar manner to those who either would like to see Israel destroyed and Jews killed, or support those who would.
So, if you are a liberal Jew and you voted for Obama and will continue to vote Democrat (because of gay marriage or abortion or some government benefit) then please do not tell me you support Israel. Unless, of course, you believe that any of the above demonstrates support for Israel. What would a President Romney be doing and saying with regards to this war between Israel and Hamas? We cannot know for sure, of course, but recall what Romney said in the 2012 debates about Russia - that Russia was our "number one geopolitical foe." Obama mocked him, saying Romney was taking us back decades to the Cold War. Since then, Hillary had her "reset button" with Russia; and Obama told Medvedev to "tell Vladimir (Putin) I'll have more flexibility after the election." Well, that worked out well.
As a reminder, and as noted in my 7/20/14 post (The Moral Compass), conservative Republicans sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians, with 77% favoring Israel. Liberal Democrats - only 39% favored Israel. My fellow Jews have a decision to make - do you support Democrats or do you support Israel?
Nancy Pelosi was recently being interviewed on CNN by Candy Crowley. Said Pelosi: "...we have to confer with the Qataris who have told me over and over again that Hamas is a humanitarian organization, maybe they could use their influence..." At this point Pelosi was interrupted by Crowley, asking if she knew that the US thinks Hamas is a terrorist organization. With a blank stare on her face Pelosi was only able to get out "hmm hmm." This woman was Speaker of the House, and was next in line to the Presidency after Joe Biden. The Qataris are funding Hamas's terrorist activities; activities that kill Jews. And Pelosi does not know that. And why is she speaking "over and over again" with the Qataris?
Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. This is what she recently said: "The problem is, this is something - I'm not a military planner - but Hamas puts its missiles, its rockets in civilian areas, part of it is that Gaza's pretty small and it's very densely populated; they put their command and control of Hamas military leaders in those civilian areas..." Why does everyone but Clinton (and probably Pelosi) know that Hamas intentionally puts their weapons in civilian areas, using their people as human shields, hoping that Israel will not then attack those areas. If Israel does attack, Hamas has the "bonus" of displaying their civilian casualties to a world lacking moral clarity. As for the size of Gaza, it is over 6 times larger than Manhattan, which has a comparable number of people.
John Kerry is the current Secretary of State. He is very busy in the Middle East and elsewhere - trying to accomplish all the wrong things. Egypt had early on proposed an unconditional cease fire, which Israel agreed to. Hamas did not. So Kerry decided it would be a good idea to meet with Qatar and Turkey to work out the terms of a different cease fire. Qatar and Turkey are the two regional players supporting Hamas. So, of course, the plan is to give Hamas everything they want - resulting in victory for them and defeat for Israel. On top of that, Kerry does not invite Egypt or the PA (Abbas) to those discussions, insulting both. Brilliant!
Given Hamas's aggression, given their terrorism, given their dictatorial rule over Gaza, one might think that the proper approach here would be to insist on a surrender and laying down of arms by Hamas - regardless of what Hamas might want. Instead, the plan was to reward Hamas for attacking Israel.
Said retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters of Kerry: "The real problem we have on a practical level is that Secretary Kerry just doesn't seem to have the sort of supple dynamic incisive intelligence you have to have to play in the Middle East..." And, I might add, he is too easily swayed by Palestinian propaganda.
Recall Obama's speech to the Muslim world from Cairo? Mubarek was then President of Egypt and as a slap in the face to Mubarek Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood to hear his speech. Mubarek had outlawed the Brotherhood. Hamas is simply an offshoot of the Brotherhood. After Mubarek was deposed, the Muslim Botherhood took over, and immediately started talking about ending the peace agreement with Israel.
Meanwhile, Obama recently offered $47 million to Hamas for "humanitarian" purposes. When Israel was persuaded to allow large amounts of concrete into Gaza for the humanitarian purpose of allowing the Gazans to build infrastructure, that never happened. Now, however, we know where the concrete went - into very deep and sophisticated tunnels leading from Gaza into Israel, all for the purpose of killing and kidnapping Jews. So I wonder what Hamas will do with that $47 million that Obama wishes to reward them with.
Another UN facility was bombed by Israel. It is already known that Hamas hides rockets and missiles in UN complexes. Nevertheless, children were killed. Kerry's spokesperson (Jen Psaki) said the bombing was "disgraceful," and that "the United States is appalled." While the Obama Administration gives lip service to Israeli's right to defend themselves, they really don't mean it. Said Psaki: "The suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians." But, as noted, that is what Hamas does - they operate in and near civilian areas. Using the Obama Administration's logic then, Israel would never be allowed to defend itself and fight back.
Around the world, and throughout the USA, there have been anti-Israel demonstrations. These demonstrations, often attended by Muslims, quickly turn into anti-Semitic attacks. Said one in Miami: "We are all jihad." And this: "I'm going to kill you m.....f....., you and all the Israelis." Synagogues had swastikas put on them. In one Belgian town a store owner put up a sign "Dogs are allowed in this establishment, but Jews are not under any circumstances." (Quotes from the 7/29/14 and 7/30/14 Investor's Business Daily. I could give more quotes, but you get the point.)
On the CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) website they urged US Muslims to "tell the president and Congress to demand Israel immediately halt its brutal campaign of collective punishment in Gaza and seek justice for the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians." Actually, less than 2000 were killed, but why let truth be an issue. (Quote from the 7/30/14 IBD.) Guess how Muslims tend to vote? 89% voted for Obama in 2008 (per Wikipedia). In other words, liberal Jews vote in a similar manner to those who either would like to see Israel destroyed and Jews killed, or support those who would.
So, if you are a liberal Jew and you voted for Obama and will continue to vote Democrat (because of gay marriage or abortion or some government benefit) then please do not tell me you support Israel. Unless, of course, you believe that any of the above demonstrates support for Israel. What would a President Romney be doing and saying with regards to this war between Israel and Hamas? We cannot know for sure, of course, but recall what Romney said in the 2012 debates about Russia - that Russia was our "number one geopolitical foe." Obama mocked him, saying Romney was taking us back decades to the Cold War. Since then, Hillary had her "reset button" with Russia; and Obama told Medvedev to "tell Vladimir (Putin) I'll have more flexibility after the election." Well, that worked out well.
As a reminder, and as noted in my 7/20/14 post (The Moral Compass), conservative Republicans sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians, with 77% favoring Israel. Liberal Democrats - only 39% favored Israel. My fellow Jews have a decision to make - do you support Democrats or do you support Israel?
Sunday, July 27, 2014
What They Should Have Said
Incredibly (I guess not for any of the following quotes), Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser, Ben Rhodes, said this to CNN's Wolf Blitzer on 7/23/14: "We've been heartbroken at the loss of Palestinian life, the loss of children, so we do believe that Israel has to take greater care to avoid those types of civilian casualties." What he should have said: "The United States condemns Hamas for intentionally placing their own people, including children, in harms way during this war. Israel places phone calls, sends text messages, drops leaflets and sends warning shots - all with the hope of avoiding civilian casualties. The Hamas leaders should be captured and tried for war crimes."
Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General, said this on 7/20/14: "...dozens more civilians, including children, have been killed in Israeli military strikes in the Shuja'iyya neighborhood in Gaza. I condemn this atrocious action. Israel must exercise maximum restraint and do more to protect civilians." What he should have said: "The UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs found that Israel sent text messages to about 600,000 people in Ash Shuja'iyya and Gaza City warning them to leave; and Israel also placed phone calls and dropped leaflets. However, the Palestinian Ministry of the Interior told people not to leave - so most stayed. We condemn Hamas and the Palestinian leadership for targeting civilians in Israeli cities with missiles fired from Gaza; and we condemn the Palestinians for putting their civilians in harms way by telling them to stay in a war zone." (Information on Shuja'iyya from JPost article of 7/22/14 by Anne Bayefsky.)
The New York Times, in their lead editorial of 7/25/14, noted the death of 750 Gazans, and then opined: "What really matters now is that some way be found to stop this carnage." Then: "It is fair to ask whether Israel is doing enough to prevent that." As an afterthought they threw in: "Hamas also deserves scrutiny..." What they should have said: "Hamas and the Palestinians in Gaza have launched well over 10,000 rockets, mortars and missiles into Israel - all aimed at Israeli cities - since Israel vacated Gaza in 2005. When the Israelis finally retaliate, Hamas has no shelters built for the protection of their civilians. They have expended great sums of money on tunnels for their terrorist groups to use in attacks on Israelis. Israel has no choice but to attack in an effort to stop the onslaught of missiles into their cities, with 5 million people having to run for bomb shelters at various times. It is intolerable, and the world must condemn and punish Hamas and the other terrorist perpetrators."
On the first page of the 7/21/14 New York Times was an article about the propaganda war between Hamas and Israel. The Times notes how propaganda has been a part of wars for generations. They give examples of various propaganda tools used by both sides. What they should have said: "The real problem is that even in times of relative peace, the Palestinians and larger Arab world relentlessly fill their media and inculcate their children with their hate filled propaganda against Israel and the Jews. Jews and Israel are described in the most vile terms. Until this stops, and until they finally acknowledge Israel's right to exist as the Jewish state, this war will never end. And the responsibility for any future deaths will lie squarely with the Palestinians."
Secretary of State John Kerry was unaware that he was speaking into an open microphone, when he sarcastically criticized Israel's military operation with this: "It's a hell of a pinpoint operation. It's a hell of a pinpoint operation." What he should have said: "The Israelis have enough firepower to flatten Gaza, which some countries might have been tempted to do after suffering from thousands of rocket and missile attacks. Yet, the Israelis send their own troops in on the ground, knowing some will be killed, in order to limit the number of civilian casualties on the other side. Rarely, if ever, in the history of warfare, has any country acted with such restraint and in such a manner."
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said this: "It is not in the interest of either side for this violence to continue and even to escalate." What he should have said: "Hamas has chosen to use violence against Israel ever since the people of Gaza made the mistake of electing them as the leaders of Gaza. Hamas and the other Palestinian groups in Gaza launch terrorist attacks, send suicide bombers, engage in kidnapping and non-stop rocket and missile attacks - all against Israel. Israel needs to destroy Gaza's existing military infrastructure, and then the world needs to see to it that Gaza permanently becomes a demilitarized zone."
On 7/27/14, President Barack Hussain Obama placed a telephone call to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In that call, Obama called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire; a ceasefire "...that both allows Palestinians in Gaza to lead normal lives and addresses Gaza's long-term development and economic needs, while strengthening the PA."
What Obama should have said - not in a phone call to Netanyahu - but in a speech to the world: "The Arabs have been fighting Israel's right to exist as the Jewish State ever since modern day Israel's founding in 1948. Surrounded on all sides by enemies who want them dead, and having had to cope with numerous wars and intifadas in their short history, Israel has nevertheless thrived, and is one of the truly great success stories of the 20th and 21st centuries. Israel has been a world leader in technology and medicine. Now, let me be clear. The United States wants to see peace. The Israelis yearn for peace. It is past time for the Arabs and Palestinians to recognize Israel as the Jewish State."
"Hamas and the other terror groups in Gaza have used millions of dollars in aid in order to turn Gaza into a permanent military base. This stops now. Hamas and all terror groups in Gaza are on notice - you have one month to turn over all your rockets, missiles and other weapons to the United States. We will then destroy those weapons. In addition, Gaza will hold new elections, with only those interested in running a civil society being qualified to run. Once you have done this, you can expect complete cooperation and assistance from the United States in building the institutions and infrastructure required to run a civil society. I have no doubt that the Israelis will help you as well - once you have accepted the above terms."
"But make no mistake. If you choose to subject your people to another century of war, then Israel will have our full support - and you will have none. We will provide Israel with all means necessary to protect their country. Let other actors in the region know this - an all- out assault on Israel will treated as an all-out on the United States of America. The United States will use its military might to protect Israel's existence. Do not think for one minute you will be able to use the UN against Israel. We will block all actions against Israel in the Security Council. As for other UN agencies over which the US has no veto, any sanctions placed against Israel for defending themselves from you will be treated as an action against the United States."
"Now, let the peace begin, and let's start building a civil society for the Palestinian people."
Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General, said this on 7/20/14: "...dozens more civilians, including children, have been killed in Israeli military strikes in the Shuja'iyya neighborhood in Gaza. I condemn this atrocious action. Israel must exercise maximum restraint and do more to protect civilians." What he should have said: "The UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs found that Israel sent text messages to about 600,000 people in Ash Shuja'iyya and Gaza City warning them to leave; and Israel also placed phone calls and dropped leaflets. However, the Palestinian Ministry of the Interior told people not to leave - so most stayed. We condemn Hamas and the Palestinian leadership for targeting civilians in Israeli cities with missiles fired from Gaza; and we condemn the Palestinians for putting their civilians in harms way by telling them to stay in a war zone." (Information on Shuja'iyya from JPost article of 7/22/14 by Anne Bayefsky.)
The New York Times, in their lead editorial of 7/25/14, noted the death of 750 Gazans, and then opined: "What really matters now is that some way be found to stop this carnage." Then: "It is fair to ask whether Israel is doing enough to prevent that." As an afterthought they threw in: "Hamas also deserves scrutiny..." What they should have said: "Hamas and the Palestinians in Gaza have launched well over 10,000 rockets, mortars and missiles into Israel - all aimed at Israeli cities - since Israel vacated Gaza in 2005. When the Israelis finally retaliate, Hamas has no shelters built for the protection of their civilians. They have expended great sums of money on tunnels for their terrorist groups to use in attacks on Israelis. Israel has no choice but to attack in an effort to stop the onslaught of missiles into their cities, with 5 million people having to run for bomb shelters at various times. It is intolerable, and the world must condemn and punish Hamas and the other terrorist perpetrators."
On the first page of the 7/21/14 New York Times was an article about the propaganda war between Hamas and Israel. The Times notes how propaganda has been a part of wars for generations. They give examples of various propaganda tools used by both sides. What they should have said: "The real problem is that even in times of relative peace, the Palestinians and larger Arab world relentlessly fill their media and inculcate their children with their hate filled propaganda against Israel and the Jews. Jews and Israel are described in the most vile terms. Until this stops, and until they finally acknowledge Israel's right to exist as the Jewish state, this war will never end. And the responsibility for any future deaths will lie squarely with the Palestinians."
Secretary of State John Kerry was unaware that he was speaking into an open microphone, when he sarcastically criticized Israel's military operation with this: "It's a hell of a pinpoint operation. It's a hell of a pinpoint operation." What he should have said: "The Israelis have enough firepower to flatten Gaza, which some countries might have been tempted to do after suffering from thousands of rocket and missile attacks. Yet, the Israelis send their own troops in on the ground, knowing some will be killed, in order to limit the number of civilian casualties on the other side. Rarely, if ever, in the history of warfare, has any country acted with such restraint and in such a manner."
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said this: "It is not in the interest of either side for this violence to continue and even to escalate." What he should have said: "Hamas has chosen to use violence against Israel ever since the people of Gaza made the mistake of electing them as the leaders of Gaza. Hamas and the other Palestinian groups in Gaza launch terrorist attacks, send suicide bombers, engage in kidnapping and non-stop rocket and missile attacks - all against Israel. Israel needs to destroy Gaza's existing military infrastructure, and then the world needs to see to it that Gaza permanently becomes a demilitarized zone."
On 7/27/14, President Barack Hussain Obama placed a telephone call to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In that call, Obama called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire; a ceasefire "...that both allows Palestinians in Gaza to lead normal lives and addresses Gaza's long-term development and economic needs, while strengthening the PA."
What Obama should have said - not in a phone call to Netanyahu - but in a speech to the world: "The Arabs have been fighting Israel's right to exist as the Jewish State ever since modern day Israel's founding in 1948. Surrounded on all sides by enemies who want them dead, and having had to cope with numerous wars and intifadas in their short history, Israel has nevertheless thrived, and is one of the truly great success stories of the 20th and 21st centuries. Israel has been a world leader in technology and medicine. Now, let me be clear. The United States wants to see peace. The Israelis yearn for peace. It is past time for the Arabs and Palestinians to recognize Israel as the Jewish State."
"Hamas and the other terror groups in Gaza have used millions of dollars in aid in order to turn Gaza into a permanent military base. This stops now. Hamas and all terror groups in Gaza are on notice - you have one month to turn over all your rockets, missiles and other weapons to the United States. We will then destroy those weapons. In addition, Gaza will hold new elections, with only those interested in running a civil society being qualified to run. Once you have done this, you can expect complete cooperation and assistance from the United States in building the institutions and infrastructure required to run a civil society. I have no doubt that the Israelis will help you as well - once you have accepted the above terms."
"But make no mistake. If you choose to subject your people to another century of war, then Israel will have our full support - and you will have none. We will provide Israel with all means necessary to protect their country. Let other actors in the region know this - an all- out assault on Israel will treated as an all-out on the United States of America. The United States will use its military might to protect Israel's existence. Do not think for one minute you will be able to use the UN against Israel. We will block all actions against Israel in the Security Council. As for other UN agencies over which the US has no veto, any sanctions placed against Israel for defending themselves from you will be treated as an action against the United States."
"Now, let the peace begin, and let's start building a civil society for the Palestinian people."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)