Republican Scott Brown won the U.S. Senate seat that had been occupied by democrats for nearly six decades - in the most liberal of states. President Obama went to Massachusetts over the weekend to help support Martha Coakley, the democrat's candidate. And once again, as happened in November in New Jersey and Virginia, it was to no avail. But the spin began before the final results were in - with the O. team already blaming Coakley for running a weak campaign and just not being a good candidate. In other words, THEY STILL DON'T GET IT!
When Obama was in Massachusetts campaigning with Coakley, he resorted to what he always seems to rely upon: Blame Bush! Guess what? You have been in office for a year Mr. President. The people don't want a whiner for president. The people don't want unrestrained government spending. The people don't want higher taxes. The people don't want government control of their healthcare. The people expect you to put greater emphasis on job creation by stimulating the economy through tax cuts, not by spending us deeper into debt. And the people expect a greater emphasis on keeping us safe.
It took "W" eight years to lose the support of independents and even some republicans. It's taken Obama only one year to lose the support of the independents and republicans who voted for him, and even the support of some democrats.
So it's time to stop the corruption (with special favors to Nebraska and Louisiana and union health plans); and provide the transparency you so frequently promised during your campaign. Stop the back room deals. Stop the express train of Obamacare now.
You have now been told time and again that the people don't want Obamacare. You heard it at the townhall meetings, at the tea parties, in N.J., in Virginia, and now in Massachusetts. So will you concede the issue? Or does your arrogance and disdain for the American people know no bounds? And will you try to ram it through the Congress before Brown can be seated? Will the democrats look for reasons to delay the seating of Brown? What the democrats do now could very well determine their fate in the November elections. But as of now, it certainly appears that they just don't get it.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Quick Hits II
1. President Obama's September,2009 speech to the UN General Assembly included this: "It is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 - more than at any point in human history - the interests of nations and peoples are shared."
News item: "Islamists looted and burned a Protestant church in Algeria." They also "set fire to a pile of Bibles and religious textbooks, and desecrated Christian crosses."
News item: "Nine churches have also been recently burned down amid violence against the country's (Malaysia) Christian minority." (News items from the 1/11/10 Jerusalem Post online.)
Everybody see those "shared interests?"
2. Obama, in 4/09, when asked if he believes in American exceptionalism: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." So, Mr. President, after you reduce the size of our military and take away our nukes, and do all you can to negate American values, who would you like to see take America's place in the world? The U.N.? Russia? China? Iran? The islamofascists?
3. Jimmy Carter recently, with great publicity, "apologized" to the Jewish community for any offense caused by his remarks about Israel. Except, on the same day as his apology, he opined in the London Guardian that the terrorist organization Hamas should be recognized as a legitimate organization. The same Hamas that routinely calls for the destruction of Israel. So Carter remains an anti-semite. Or maybe it's just a coincidence that his "apology" comes at a time when his grandson may be running for state senate in Dekalb County, Georgia - which has a "substantial Jewish population." (From the 12/25/09 Jewish Press.)
4. Global cooling continues. Britain was in its "longest cold spell in nearly 30 years." In France "snow piled up from Normandy to Marseilles on the Mediterranean shore." Norway had its "lowest temperatures in more than two decades." (From the 1/8/10 Verizon News online.) And in Florida, USA, temperatures there broke 80 year old records for low temperatures. (From Fox News, 1/11/10.)
5. Dems are calling it quits. Senators Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Byron Dorgan (No. Dak.) will not be running for re-election. In the November, 2009 elections, two significant gubernatorial races went to the Republicans. Chris Christie won in N.J. and Bob McDonnell won in Virginia. Now, we have an election on Tuesday for the Senate seat in Massachusetts that became vacant upon the death of Ted Kennedy. A seat held by the dems/Kennedys for decades. But democrat state Attorney General Martha Coakley has been slipping in the polls to republican state Senator Scott Brown. Obama plans on making a last minute trip to Mass. to help bolster Coakley. Hopefully, it will be with the same ineffectiveness that he brought to the N.J. and Virginia races.
6. As previously discussed here, Iran has been given deadlines with regards to their nuclear program. October, 2009. December 31, 2009. So the U.S. is now working with Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany to try to come up with some new sanctions. The U.N. Security Council has already imposed three sets of sanctions on Iran. I wonder how many more sets of sanctions it will take until Iran finally has a nuke. Am I missing something here?
7. Israel had to cancel plans to send a delegation of IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) officers to Britain. Like other European countries, Britain has a "universal jurisdiction law" allowing them to decide cases in which Britain has no actual interest. Israeli civilian leaders have also had to avoid even diplomatic visits to Britain for fear of arrest. All this because of alleged war crimes committed by Israel in defending itself against Hamas rocket and missile attacks.
And for those who may think the above has no effect on the U.S., think again. Unlike President Bush, the Obama administration is pushing to get the U.S. to sign on to the Rome Statute, which created the International Criminal Court. Secretary Clinton expressed her "great regret but it is a fact we are not yet a signatory" to the Rome Statute. This, of course, would subject U.S. military personnel - and civilian leaders - to the jurisdiction of that court.
Given our President's lack of enthusiasm for "American exceptionalism," it should be no surprise that he would be willing to give up American autonomy and sovereignty to international organizations. As John Bolton discusses in the January, 2010 issue of Commentary, Obama is the first "post-American" president.
8. From George Mitchell, Obama's Middle East Czar, explaining why the U.S. may have to punish Israel and withhold loan guarantees: "We think the way to approach this is to try to persuade the parties what is in their self-interest." (From the 1/15/10Jewish Press.)
This sounds strangely similar to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, democratic Congress member from Florida. On Fox, she was asked why the democrats are pushing a health care bill the American people do not want. She felt it was her job, as part of the leadership, to explain to the American people why the health care bill is good for them.
Given the extreme arrogance of the "elite" in D.C. - Obama, et. al. - anyone doubt that the dems will attempt to rush through their health care plan if Scott Brown wins and the dems no longer have a filibuster-proof Senate?
Or maybe they can set up re-programming camps for those of us who have not accepted the party line and just do not know what is in our best interest.
News item: "Islamists looted and burned a Protestant church in Algeria." They also "set fire to a pile of Bibles and religious textbooks, and desecrated Christian crosses."
News item: "Nine churches have also been recently burned down amid violence against the country's (Malaysia) Christian minority." (News items from the 1/11/10 Jerusalem Post online.)
Everybody see those "shared interests?"
2. Obama, in 4/09, when asked if he believes in American exceptionalism: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." So, Mr. President, after you reduce the size of our military and take away our nukes, and do all you can to negate American values, who would you like to see take America's place in the world? The U.N.? Russia? China? Iran? The islamofascists?
3. Jimmy Carter recently, with great publicity, "apologized" to the Jewish community for any offense caused by his remarks about Israel. Except, on the same day as his apology, he opined in the London Guardian that the terrorist organization Hamas should be recognized as a legitimate organization. The same Hamas that routinely calls for the destruction of Israel. So Carter remains an anti-semite. Or maybe it's just a coincidence that his "apology" comes at a time when his grandson may be running for state senate in Dekalb County, Georgia - which has a "substantial Jewish population." (From the 12/25/09 Jewish Press.)
4. Global cooling continues. Britain was in its "longest cold spell in nearly 30 years." In France "snow piled up from Normandy to Marseilles on the Mediterranean shore." Norway had its "lowest temperatures in more than two decades." (From the 1/8/10 Verizon News online.) And in Florida, USA, temperatures there broke 80 year old records for low temperatures. (From Fox News, 1/11/10.)
5. Dems are calling it quits. Senators Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Byron Dorgan (No. Dak.) will not be running for re-election. In the November, 2009 elections, two significant gubernatorial races went to the Republicans. Chris Christie won in N.J. and Bob McDonnell won in Virginia. Now, we have an election on Tuesday for the Senate seat in Massachusetts that became vacant upon the death of Ted Kennedy. A seat held by the dems/Kennedys for decades. But democrat state Attorney General Martha Coakley has been slipping in the polls to republican state Senator Scott Brown. Obama plans on making a last minute trip to Mass. to help bolster Coakley. Hopefully, it will be with the same ineffectiveness that he brought to the N.J. and Virginia races.
6. As previously discussed here, Iran has been given deadlines with regards to their nuclear program. October, 2009. December 31, 2009. So the U.S. is now working with Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany to try to come up with some new sanctions. The U.N. Security Council has already imposed three sets of sanctions on Iran. I wonder how many more sets of sanctions it will take until Iran finally has a nuke. Am I missing something here?
7. Israel had to cancel plans to send a delegation of IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) officers to Britain. Like other European countries, Britain has a "universal jurisdiction law" allowing them to decide cases in which Britain has no actual interest. Israeli civilian leaders have also had to avoid even diplomatic visits to Britain for fear of arrest. All this because of alleged war crimes committed by Israel in defending itself against Hamas rocket and missile attacks.
And for those who may think the above has no effect on the U.S., think again. Unlike President Bush, the Obama administration is pushing to get the U.S. to sign on to the Rome Statute, which created the International Criminal Court. Secretary Clinton expressed her "great regret but it is a fact we are not yet a signatory" to the Rome Statute. This, of course, would subject U.S. military personnel - and civilian leaders - to the jurisdiction of that court.
Given our President's lack of enthusiasm for "American exceptionalism," it should be no surprise that he would be willing to give up American autonomy and sovereignty to international organizations. As John Bolton discusses in the January, 2010 issue of Commentary, Obama is the first "post-American" president.
8. From George Mitchell, Obama's Middle East Czar, explaining why the U.S. may have to punish Israel and withhold loan guarantees: "We think the way to approach this is to try to persuade the parties what is in their self-interest." (From the 1/15/10Jewish Press.)
This sounds strangely similar to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, democratic Congress member from Florida. On Fox, she was asked why the democrats are pushing a health care bill the American people do not want. She felt it was her job, as part of the leadership, to explain to the American people why the health care bill is good for them.
Given the extreme arrogance of the "elite" in D.C. - Obama, et. al. - anyone doubt that the dems will attempt to rush through their health care plan if Scott Brown wins and the dems no longer have a filibuster-proof Senate?
Or maybe they can set up re-programming camps for those of us who have not accepted the party line and just do not know what is in our best interest.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Terrorism; and the Big Chill
1. The Global War Against...um..."man made disasters"...er..."networks." One Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas day. Abdulmutallab, a muslim from Nigeria, apparently was able to buy a one-way ticket for cash. His father had warned the US embassy about his extremist tendencies. By sheer luck, and the impatience of this terrorist in waiting sufficiently long for the chemicals to mix to be able to explode, the bomb never went off.
On the direction of our President, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano previously told us that we have a fight with "man made disasters." That is the kind of spin that they put on the logical, understandable expression of "war on terror." But "terror" was too closely associated with radical islam; and was definitely too closely associated with our former President Bush. Then, after the attempted blowing up of Flight 253, Secretary Napolitano tells us that the system worked like it should - because the bomb did not go off. Even the lamestream media could not tolerate that one; and she had to retract her statement a day later.
When we heard from our President we were told that: "Our nation is at war against a far reaching network of violence and hatred." That's it - we are at war against a "network." Is that like ABC or CBS or NBC? Is that the network? Obama WILL NOT say "terrorism" or "radical Islam" or "jihadists." He continues his stupid appeasement of the muslim world; even though a year later he has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to show for his approach. Well, not nothing. Foreign leaders seem to think he is weak and indecisive. I wonder why! (On the other hand, Reagan called the Soviet Union the "evil empire." He was not afraid of insulting the Russians; and maybe even encouraged the dissidents. Obama gives great deference to a regime like Iran, which strengthens the Ayatollahs and fails to give needed moral support to the dissidents there. Reagan was feared. Bush was feared. Obama wants to be everyone's BFF - but no one fears him. A little fear in the right people is a good thing. You know, "talk softly, but carry a big stick." Too bad our President does not get that.) So what formerly antagonistic muslim country has warmed up to the US because of the Great Obama? Iran? No. Syria? No. The palestinians? No. Of course, the same applies to the formerly - and still - antagonistic non-muslim countries - No. Korea, Russia, Venezuela. I feel so much safer now!
Consistent with his appeasement and anti-Bush approach, he immediately decided to try Abdulmutallab in criminal court rather than as an enemy combatant. That, of course, gives him the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. Although some might think that we might actually want to find out what he knows about others who may be planning further attacks. But no.
Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan, had this to say: "There was no single piece of intelligence or smoking gun if you will that said Mr. Abdulmutallab was going to carry out an attack against that aircraft." Well, you have a young muslim male (OMG - profiling!) whose father reported to US authorities that he had been influenced by extremists, who buys a one way ticket for cash, and was apparently known to the CIA before.
Now I recall after 9/11 some of the criticisms of Bush. He was on vacation in August and should have been in D.C. coordinating intelligence efforts - because when the head guy is away, people do not work as hard. Although I find that suggestion to be silly, this time Obama was away - and clearly did not rush back from his Hawaiian vacation after the Christmas day terrorist act. Also, Bush was blamed because our intelligence agencies were not sharing information in a way that would have allowed someone to connect all the dots. So Congress did what it always does to solve a problem - it created new bureaucracies. We got a new National Intelligence Director, the Department of Homeland Security and a new Counter terrorism unit. Personally, I thought it was ridiculous to think that creating new levels of bureaucracy would help improve our intelligence gathering and counter terrorism efforts. And clearly, those additional bureaucracies did NOTHING to prevent this current act of terrorism. Brennan had this to say: "There is no indication whatsoever that any agency or department was not trying to share information." Which, of course, misses the point entirely! So if everyone was cooperating and the system FAILED anyway - then maybe the problem was never the "system" in the first place. Maybe the problem is a failed mind-set.
My son just returned from a trip to Israel. He flew El Al - probably the No. 1 target for terrorists - yet the safest airline to fly. My son indicated the questioning by the El Al agents was more intense than ever. Yes, they do not just rely on x-ray screening or metal detectors. They ask questions - and they PROFILE! Why are you going to Israel? What's your Jewish background? What holidays do you celebrate? Where will you be staying? And the questions are often repeated to check for inconsistencies in the answers. Is the United States of America incapable of that same type of screening? Do we not have enough people that can be trained to do this type of screening? Or, does political correctness prevent us from doing what should be done (just like it prevented the Army from kicking out another murderous islamist terrorist - Major Hasan). So we will continue to give the same attention to elderly grandmothers and six year old girls that we should be giving to young men from muslim countries.
2. The Big Chill! Forget global warming. CNN reported today that "dangerously cold weather had much of the United States in its grip early Monday morning, with no relief in sight for the rest of the week." The cold temps went all the way down to Florida which had a hard freeze warning in effect. Parts of Louisiana and Florida were expecting temperature readings in the 20's; with possible new record lows being set there and in southern Georgia and Texas. Maybe that's why the left stopped referring to "global warming" and in its place put "climate change." Now, they just need to come up with an explanation as to how man's activities are causing the "global cooling." Problems, problems.
On the direction of our President, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano previously told us that we have a fight with "man made disasters." That is the kind of spin that they put on the logical, understandable expression of "war on terror." But "terror" was too closely associated with radical islam; and was definitely too closely associated with our former President Bush. Then, after the attempted blowing up of Flight 253, Secretary Napolitano tells us that the system worked like it should - because the bomb did not go off. Even the lamestream media could not tolerate that one; and she had to retract her statement a day later.
When we heard from our President we were told that: "Our nation is at war against a far reaching network of violence and hatred." That's it - we are at war against a "network." Is that like ABC or CBS or NBC? Is that the network? Obama WILL NOT say "terrorism" or "radical Islam" or "jihadists." He continues his stupid appeasement of the muslim world; even though a year later he has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to show for his approach. Well, not nothing. Foreign leaders seem to think he is weak and indecisive. I wonder why! (On the other hand, Reagan called the Soviet Union the "evil empire." He was not afraid of insulting the Russians; and maybe even encouraged the dissidents. Obama gives great deference to a regime like Iran, which strengthens the Ayatollahs and fails to give needed moral support to the dissidents there. Reagan was feared. Bush was feared. Obama wants to be everyone's BFF - but no one fears him. A little fear in the right people is a good thing. You know, "talk softly, but carry a big stick." Too bad our President does not get that.) So what formerly antagonistic muslim country has warmed up to the US because of the Great Obama? Iran? No. Syria? No. The palestinians? No. Of course, the same applies to the formerly - and still - antagonistic non-muslim countries - No. Korea, Russia, Venezuela. I feel so much safer now!
Consistent with his appeasement and anti-Bush approach, he immediately decided to try Abdulmutallab in criminal court rather than as an enemy combatant. That, of course, gives him the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. Although some might think that we might actually want to find out what he knows about others who may be planning further attacks. But no.
Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan, had this to say: "There was no single piece of intelligence or smoking gun if you will that said Mr. Abdulmutallab was going to carry out an attack against that aircraft." Well, you have a young muslim male (OMG - profiling!) whose father reported to US authorities that he had been influenced by extremists, who buys a one way ticket for cash, and was apparently known to the CIA before.
Now I recall after 9/11 some of the criticisms of Bush. He was on vacation in August and should have been in D.C. coordinating intelligence efforts - because when the head guy is away, people do not work as hard. Although I find that suggestion to be silly, this time Obama was away - and clearly did not rush back from his Hawaiian vacation after the Christmas day terrorist act. Also, Bush was blamed because our intelligence agencies were not sharing information in a way that would have allowed someone to connect all the dots. So Congress did what it always does to solve a problem - it created new bureaucracies. We got a new National Intelligence Director, the Department of Homeland Security and a new Counter terrorism unit. Personally, I thought it was ridiculous to think that creating new levels of bureaucracy would help improve our intelligence gathering and counter terrorism efforts. And clearly, those additional bureaucracies did NOTHING to prevent this current act of terrorism. Brennan had this to say: "There is no indication whatsoever that any agency or department was not trying to share information." Which, of course, misses the point entirely! So if everyone was cooperating and the system FAILED anyway - then maybe the problem was never the "system" in the first place. Maybe the problem is a failed mind-set.
My son just returned from a trip to Israel. He flew El Al - probably the No. 1 target for terrorists - yet the safest airline to fly. My son indicated the questioning by the El Al agents was more intense than ever. Yes, they do not just rely on x-ray screening or metal detectors. They ask questions - and they PROFILE! Why are you going to Israel? What's your Jewish background? What holidays do you celebrate? Where will you be staying? And the questions are often repeated to check for inconsistencies in the answers. Is the United States of America incapable of that same type of screening? Do we not have enough people that can be trained to do this type of screening? Or, does political correctness prevent us from doing what should be done (just like it prevented the Army from kicking out another murderous islamist terrorist - Major Hasan). So we will continue to give the same attention to elderly grandmothers and six year old girls that we should be giving to young men from muslim countries.
2. The Big Chill! Forget global warming. CNN reported today that "dangerously cold weather had much of the United States in its grip early Monday morning, with no relief in sight for the rest of the week." The cold temps went all the way down to Florida which had a hard freeze warning in effect. Parts of Louisiana and Florida were expecting temperature readings in the 20's; with possible new record lows being set there and in southern Georgia and Texas. Maybe that's why the left stopped referring to "global warming" and in its place put "climate change." Now, they just need to come up with an explanation as to how man's activities are causing the "global cooling." Problems, problems.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Reid and Obamacare, a Conservative's View of Healthcare "Reform"
1. THE SELLING OF THE SENATE. The Senate needed sixty votes to get their health care bill passed - all 58 democrats and the 2 independents. However, there was much dissension in the dems ranks, so Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had to BUY votes. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska objected to the language on abortion. But somehow, he ended up getting Nebraska PERMANENTLY exempt from the payment for ANY Medicaid expenses for future Medicaid recipients in Nebraska. Currently, each state pays a share of Medicaid and the Feds also pay a share for each state. Now, the taxpayers in the other 49 states will pay for their own Medicaid (Medi-Cal in CA.) recipients and for a share of Nebraska's as well!
Perhaps George Will said it best: "Reid was buying the votes of senators whose understanding of the duties of representation does not rise above the looting of the nation for local benefits. And Reid had two advantages - the spending, taxing and borrowing powers of the federal leviathan, and an almost gorgeous absence of scruples or principles." (From the 12/22/09 Ventura County Star.) Of course, Nelson was not alone in accepting bribes (is there any other word for it?). Senator Mary Landrieu managed to get an extra $300,000,000. for her state by holding out.
And how harsh was the mainstream media about this vote buying and bribery in the United States Senate? The 12/22/09 Ventura County was emblematic in their editorial: "...in the end, he (Reid) held together his 58 fractious fellow democrats and plus two independents..." Held together? Don't they mean bribed? Let's be realistic. If this type of bribery occurred in any city council in the country, the participants would be going to JAIL! In fact, if this type of bribery occurred in any state legislature in the country, the participants would be going to jail. But when it happens in the highest deliberative political body in the country they call it "deal making," or "horse trading," or "earmarks." But make no mistake; Reid was giving away taxpayers' dollars (YOUR MONEY) to buy votes.
Obama came into office promising transparency in government; trying to put an end to "earmarks;" bipartisanship; and a new way of doing business in Washington. Transparency? Reid engaged in one back room deal after the next. An end to earmarks? See above giveaways! Bipartisanship? No bill of this magnitude has EVER passed on a single party vote. New way of doing business in Washington? Really? So the question is, do any of these politicians even SEE a problem here, the way the rest of America does. Mary Landrieu: "Nothing could make me vote for a bill if I didn't think it was the right thing to do for my state and for the nation." Really Mary? Did $300 million help you come to the conclusion that it was the "right" thing to do? Reid: "A number of states are treated differently than other states. That's what legislation's all about: compromise." (Quotes from the 12/21/09 USA Today.) I think Harry's a little too easy on himself - "bribery" fits a lot better than "compromise." And Obama? He was so impressed with the fact that the Senate was "working" so hard he delayed his holiday trip to Hawaii. "If they're making these sacrifices to provide healthcare to all Americans, then the least I can do is to be around and to provide them any encouragement and last minute help if necessary." (From the 12/23/09 LA Times.) So it appears that mister "Hope and Change" does not see any problem.
So to my readers who support the proposed healthcare legislation: do you agree that the ends justify the means, as the dems in the Senate do? Or do you agree that people like Reid and Nelson and Landrieu should be prosecuted and go to jail? Is anyone NOT totally disgusted by the behavior of these senators?
2. NO NEW TAXES? Obama said the healthcare bill should not increase the deficit or raise taxes. LIE! Seriously, just how did you think they were going to pay for all of this? Obama also said that "the federal government will go bankrupt" if the healthcare bill fails. (From 12/16/09 Verizon News online.) ANOTHER LIE! Where's the proof for that? And how does spending trillions more PREVENT bankruptcy? One of the biggest proposed taxes in the Senate bill is on "Cadillac" health insurance plans costing more than $8500. per year. This writer pays $2053 per month or $24636 per year. The tax would be on the amount over $8500 which is $16136. 40% of that is $6454.40! That's my new tax. Millions of people across the country pay more than $8500. per year for their premiums. So the Dems tell us we have a health care crisis that is making insurance too costly for an increasing number of Americans. So it would be fair to ask: why is the government making it MORE costly? (More on this below.) (Correction on 12/28/09: I am told by my insurance agent that his understanding is that the $8500. tax free limit is per PERSON and not per POLICY. If that is the case, my apologies to my readers.)
All Americans will be required to buy health insurance. If you cannot afford it, the taxpayers will pay it for you. If you can afford it and refuse, you pay a 2.5% income tax surcharge under the House bill; and "fines" (read "taxes") under the Senate bill (up to $750. in 2016, $350. in 2015 and $95. in 2014). However, higher earners pay 2% of their income up to $2250. per family. And businesses get to pay separate taxes: under the House bill up to 8% of payroll for companies with $500,000. or more total payroll; and under the Senate bill a "fine" (read "tax") of $750. for each qualified full time employee with companies employing 50 or more people. (Data from the 12/21/09 USA Today.)
3. CONSTITUTIONALITY? Hopefully, republicans will be challenging the constitutionality of some of the soon to be law's new provisions. Can the feds mandate that people actually buy a particular good or service; in this case, health insurance. As Orrin Hatch noted, the Congress has previously "regulated" activities that people voluntarily engaged in; and not mandated that they actually do an activity. But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says Congress' power comes from Article 1, Section 8, which allows Congress to provide for the "general welfare." (Quotes from the 12/24/09 Investor's Business Daily) If that becomes the standard, then there is absolutely no limit on what Congress can do, from requiring you to buy certain cars, buy certain foods, participate in government run/supervised exercise programs and on and on and on; all for the purpose of the "general welfare." Clearly, the dems have no understanding or respect for the Constitution, which was intended to create a government of limited powers.
Apparently, the Senate also put a provision in their bill that future Congresses would NOT be allowed to amend or change certain parts of this proposed law. That hardly seems constitutional. That would allow this Congress to pass legislation in every major area that could never be changed. Why would we need future Congresses?
4. WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALFIE? Clearly, the dems did not get everything they wanted in the current senate bill. No public option. No Medicare buy-in at age 55. Employers will have to pay fines or subsidize their employees health benefits; or, as seems likely, lay people off. Individuals will have to become law-breakers or buy their own insurance if their employers do not come under the mandate. Small businesses and the self-insured, as usual, will be very hard hit. I think the socialist senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, is on to something: "government run health insurance will return when the realization dawns that private insurance companies are no longer needed." I think the dems intend to revisit the issue down the road when enough people and businesses complain about the new costs and taxes. Then the dems will step in as the saviors, presenting the people with a fully nationalized healthcare system that will forever eliminate private insurance company involvement in healthcare. As Sanders says, his approach "eliminates the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, administrative costs, bureaucracy and profiteering that is engendered by the private insurance companies." (Quotes from the 12/16/09 Verizon News online.) Billions in waste? Administrative costs? Bureaucracy? Profiteering? Funny - I thought he was talking about the federal government!
Perhaps George Will said it best: "Reid was buying the votes of senators whose understanding of the duties of representation does not rise above the looting of the nation for local benefits. And Reid had two advantages - the spending, taxing and borrowing powers of the federal leviathan, and an almost gorgeous absence of scruples or principles." (From the 12/22/09 Ventura County Star.) Of course, Nelson was not alone in accepting bribes (is there any other word for it?). Senator Mary Landrieu managed to get an extra $300,000,000. for her state by holding out.
And how harsh was the mainstream media about this vote buying and bribery in the United States Senate? The 12/22/09 Ventura County was emblematic in their editorial: "...in the end, he (Reid) held together his 58 fractious fellow democrats and plus two independents..." Held together? Don't they mean bribed? Let's be realistic. If this type of bribery occurred in any city council in the country, the participants would be going to JAIL! In fact, if this type of bribery occurred in any state legislature in the country, the participants would be going to jail. But when it happens in the highest deliberative political body in the country they call it "deal making," or "horse trading," or "earmarks." But make no mistake; Reid was giving away taxpayers' dollars (YOUR MONEY) to buy votes.
Obama came into office promising transparency in government; trying to put an end to "earmarks;" bipartisanship; and a new way of doing business in Washington. Transparency? Reid engaged in one back room deal after the next. An end to earmarks? See above giveaways! Bipartisanship? No bill of this magnitude has EVER passed on a single party vote. New way of doing business in Washington? Really? So the question is, do any of these politicians even SEE a problem here, the way the rest of America does. Mary Landrieu: "Nothing could make me vote for a bill if I didn't think it was the right thing to do for my state and for the nation." Really Mary? Did $300 million help you come to the conclusion that it was the "right" thing to do? Reid: "A number of states are treated differently than other states. That's what legislation's all about: compromise." (Quotes from the 12/21/09 USA Today.) I think Harry's a little too easy on himself - "bribery" fits a lot better than "compromise." And Obama? He was so impressed with the fact that the Senate was "working" so hard he delayed his holiday trip to Hawaii. "If they're making these sacrifices to provide healthcare to all Americans, then the least I can do is to be around and to provide them any encouragement and last minute help if necessary." (From the 12/23/09 LA Times.) So it appears that mister "Hope and Change" does not see any problem.
So to my readers who support the proposed healthcare legislation: do you agree that the ends justify the means, as the dems in the Senate do? Or do you agree that people like Reid and Nelson and Landrieu should be prosecuted and go to jail? Is anyone NOT totally disgusted by the behavior of these senators?
2. NO NEW TAXES? Obama said the healthcare bill should not increase the deficit or raise taxes. LIE! Seriously, just how did you think they were going to pay for all of this? Obama also said that "the federal government will go bankrupt" if the healthcare bill fails. (From 12/16/09 Verizon News online.) ANOTHER LIE! Where's the proof for that? And how does spending trillions more PREVENT bankruptcy? One of the biggest proposed taxes in the Senate bill is on "Cadillac" health insurance plans costing more than $8500. per year. This writer pays $2053 per month or $24636 per year. The tax would be on the amount over $8500 which is $16136. 40% of that is $6454.40! That's my new tax. Millions of people across the country pay more than $8500. per year for their premiums. So the Dems tell us we have a health care crisis that is making insurance too costly for an increasing number of Americans. So it would be fair to ask: why is the government making it MORE costly? (More on this below.) (Correction on 12/28/09: I am told by my insurance agent that his understanding is that the $8500. tax free limit is per PERSON and not per POLICY. If that is the case, my apologies to my readers.)
All Americans will be required to buy health insurance. If you cannot afford it, the taxpayers will pay it for you. If you can afford it and refuse, you pay a 2.5% income tax surcharge under the House bill; and "fines" (read "taxes") under the Senate bill (up to $750. in 2016, $350. in 2015 and $95. in 2014). However, higher earners pay 2% of their income up to $2250. per family. And businesses get to pay separate taxes: under the House bill up to 8% of payroll for companies with $500,000. or more total payroll; and under the Senate bill a "fine" (read "tax") of $750. for each qualified full time employee with companies employing 50 or more people. (Data from the 12/21/09 USA Today.)
3. CONSTITUTIONALITY? Hopefully, republicans will be challenging the constitutionality of some of the soon to be law's new provisions. Can the feds mandate that people actually buy a particular good or service; in this case, health insurance. As Orrin Hatch noted, the Congress has previously "regulated" activities that people voluntarily engaged in; and not mandated that they actually do an activity. But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says Congress' power comes from Article 1, Section 8, which allows Congress to provide for the "general welfare." (Quotes from the 12/24/09 Investor's Business Daily) If that becomes the standard, then there is absolutely no limit on what Congress can do, from requiring you to buy certain cars, buy certain foods, participate in government run/supervised exercise programs and on and on and on; all for the purpose of the "general welfare." Clearly, the dems have no understanding or respect for the Constitution, which was intended to create a government of limited powers.
Apparently, the Senate also put a provision in their bill that future Congresses would NOT be allowed to amend or change certain parts of this proposed law. That hardly seems constitutional. That would allow this Congress to pass legislation in every major area that could never be changed. Why would we need future Congresses?
4. WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALFIE? Clearly, the dems did not get everything they wanted in the current senate bill. No public option. No Medicare buy-in at age 55. Employers will have to pay fines or subsidize their employees health benefits; or, as seems likely, lay people off. Individuals will have to become law-breakers or buy their own insurance if their employers do not come under the mandate. Small businesses and the self-insured, as usual, will be very hard hit. I think the socialist senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, is on to something: "government run health insurance will return when the realization dawns that private insurance companies are no longer needed." I think the dems intend to revisit the issue down the road when enough people and businesses complain about the new costs and taxes. Then the dems will step in as the saviors, presenting the people with a fully nationalized healthcare system that will forever eliminate private insurance company involvement in healthcare. As Sanders says, his approach "eliminates the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, administrative costs, bureaucracy and profiteering that is engendered by the private insurance companies." (Quotes from the 12/16/09 Verizon News online.) Billions in waste? Administrative costs? Bureaucracy? Profiteering? Funny - I thought he was talking about the federal government!
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Fools, Liars and Thieves
1. Fools. This prize goes to Jimmy Carter. The 12/09/09 USA Today had an article about the four Presidents who have received the Nobel Peace Prize: Obama, Carter, Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. The paper gave a quote by each of the four about war and peace.
Carter: "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children." Carter has no moral compass. War is always an evil. Really? The Allies in WWII had to fight the truly evil Nazi regime; it was the only way to defeat them. But if the Allies engaged in the evil activity of war, doesn't that make them evil? So following Carter's logic (or lack thereof), are the Allies and Nazis equally evil for engaging in war? This is not unlike the liberal writer of the letter to the editor expressing how the use of bullets would upset her, so she would presumably let herself and her family be killed rather than use a gun in self defense. Because guns and bullets - and war - are all evil! As for me, when guns are used to protect the innocent and kill the bad guys - I'm all for them. Same for war.
Contrast T.R.'s comment: "Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy." So while Carter foolishly declares all war "evil," Roosevelt understood that peace itself could be evil if it was imposed to further evil ends. Roosevelt clearly understood the nuances - even peace is not always a "good." And undoubtedly, he would not have called all war "evil." Because war with righteousness, just like peace with righteousness, can not ever be evil.
In the 12/04/09 Jewish Press, Professor Paul Eidelberg coincidentally discusses this very issue, albeit in reference to the Middle East. "Politicians and pundits fail to see that to seek peace with tyrants is to arm the wicked and disarm the virtuous (as Churchill warned in 'The Gathering Storm')...But 'Woe unto them,' warns Isaiah, 'that call evil good and good evil.' Seeking peace with evil men is tantamount to calling evil good." Needless to say, Professor Eidelberg is referring to today's left-leaning, politically correct politicians and pundits. He would not have had to worry about Teddy Roosevelt.
2. Liars. This prize goes to Senate Moronic (sorry, Majority) Leader Harry Reid. As discussed by Michelle Malkin in the 12/10/09 Investor's Business Daily, Reid was accusing Republicans of standing in the way of Obama's healthcare plan. He compared today's Republicans to others who have stood in the way of history: "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'Slow down. It's too early. Things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted 'Slow down...' When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."
So you see, Reid suggested that Republicans are always on the wrong side of history. Or, maybe Reid is a liar. Or, maybe it's just that he has as much knowledge of history as the period at the end of this sentence. But it was the Republican Abraham Lincoln that freed the slaves. It was the democratic south that strongly fought against civil rights for blacks. That was in Reid's lifetime. So not likely he forgot, especially something that historic. George Wallace - democrat. Lester Maddox - democrat. And as Michelle Malkin points out: "It was then Democrat Strom Thurmond who led the civil rights filibuster that Reid tried to lay on the Republicans. And it's the Democratic Party, not the GOP, that boasts ex-Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd among its leaders." And it was the "progressive's" pushing women's right to vote.
So what's the message here? The democrats, as usual, get to engage in unlimited amounts of demagoguery and name calling based on outright lies, without ever being called on it by the mainstream media. With the Far Left in charge of the House, Senate, White House and the Fourth Estate, we have no checks and no balances. Nothing to stop or even slowdown the onslaught of government tyranny - except the American people.
3. Thieves. The last prize goes to: the Feds. According to the 12/11-13/09 USA Today, "Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months - and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted." And let's not forget all the paid holidays, great benefits and virtually lifetime job guarantees! The article goes on: "Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time - in pay and hiring - during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector." So we can clearly see that Congress takes care of their own. And anyone still have any doubt about whether they think they work for us or we work for them?
Now, one might think that if Congress had normal, rational people they might understand the fact that the average American doesn't get this. When 7.3 million have lost their livelihoods - their ability to support their families, this kind of salary inflation might appear, shall we say, somewhat unseemly? But apparently not. So who still believes that a government willing to stick it in your face with these unconscionable taxpayer-funded salary grabs is looking out for you? But one thing is for certain: there will be lots of new government jobs in all the new bureaucracies about to be created - and at least 19% of them will apparently pay $100,000 or more!
Honorable mention for the "thief" prize goes to: Medicare. As discussed previously, workers comp cases require a Medicare Set Aside Trust in the lump sum settlement documents in certain cases. The purpose is to set aside some of the settlement money to cover future medical expenses so that Medicare does not have to pay for work related injuries. So Medicare actually approves the amount to be set aside in a separate account. Once that money is used up then (what they say is that) Medicare will cover the industrial injury thereafter. It turns out to be a big lie!
It is up to the individual to keep an accounting and to make sure that the money is used only to pay medical bills related to the injury, and only for treatment that Medicare would otherwise cover, and only at the Medicare rate. This writer had an opportunity to speak with an attorney intimately familiar with the process and who has important contacts at Medicare. He asked one of his contacts: How do you expect the average person to follow all the rules and pay properly and keep an accurate accounting? The reply: WE DON'T! AND WE DON'T CARE! They have no expectation that people will be able to follow all their technical rules. They even expect that many people will improperly use the money for personal items, and not for medical bills.
So then what gives? It's simple. A beautiful scam really. Medicare, knowing that people will make mistakes, will simply deny future Medicare coverage for any body part involved in the industrial injury - FOR LIFE! No matter at all to them that many of these people have paid into Medicare over a lifetime. No matter that they are told that after the "trust account" money is used up, Medicare will cover them. The Government looking out for you!
Carter: "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children." Carter has no moral compass. War is always an evil. Really? The Allies in WWII had to fight the truly evil Nazi regime; it was the only way to defeat them. But if the Allies engaged in the evil activity of war, doesn't that make them evil? So following Carter's logic (or lack thereof), are the Allies and Nazis equally evil for engaging in war? This is not unlike the liberal writer of the letter to the editor expressing how the use of bullets would upset her, so she would presumably let herself and her family be killed rather than use a gun in self defense. Because guns and bullets - and war - are all evil! As for me, when guns are used to protect the innocent and kill the bad guys - I'm all for them. Same for war.
Contrast T.R.'s comment: "Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy." So while Carter foolishly declares all war "evil," Roosevelt understood that peace itself could be evil if it was imposed to further evil ends. Roosevelt clearly understood the nuances - even peace is not always a "good." And undoubtedly, he would not have called all war "evil." Because war with righteousness, just like peace with righteousness, can not ever be evil.
In the 12/04/09 Jewish Press, Professor Paul Eidelberg coincidentally discusses this very issue, albeit in reference to the Middle East. "Politicians and pundits fail to see that to seek peace with tyrants is to arm the wicked and disarm the virtuous (as Churchill warned in 'The Gathering Storm')...But 'Woe unto them,' warns Isaiah, 'that call evil good and good evil.' Seeking peace with evil men is tantamount to calling evil good." Needless to say, Professor Eidelberg is referring to today's left-leaning, politically correct politicians and pundits. He would not have had to worry about Teddy Roosevelt.
2. Liars. This prize goes to Senate Moronic (sorry, Majority) Leader Harry Reid. As discussed by Michelle Malkin in the 12/10/09 Investor's Business Daily, Reid was accusing Republicans of standing in the way of Obama's healthcare plan. He compared today's Republicans to others who have stood in the way of history: "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'Slow down. It's too early. Things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted 'Slow down...' When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."
So you see, Reid suggested that Republicans are always on the wrong side of history. Or, maybe Reid is a liar. Or, maybe it's just that he has as much knowledge of history as the period at the end of this sentence. But it was the Republican Abraham Lincoln that freed the slaves. It was the democratic south that strongly fought against civil rights for blacks. That was in Reid's lifetime. So not likely he forgot, especially something that historic. George Wallace - democrat. Lester Maddox - democrat. And as Michelle Malkin points out: "It was then Democrat Strom Thurmond who led the civil rights filibuster that Reid tried to lay on the Republicans. And it's the Democratic Party, not the GOP, that boasts ex-Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd among its leaders." And it was the "progressive's" pushing women's right to vote.
So what's the message here? The democrats, as usual, get to engage in unlimited amounts of demagoguery and name calling based on outright lies, without ever being called on it by the mainstream media. With the Far Left in charge of the House, Senate, White House and the Fourth Estate, we have no checks and no balances. Nothing to stop or even slowdown the onslaught of government tyranny - except the American people.
3. Thieves. The last prize goes to: the Feds. According to the 12/11-13/09 USA Today, "Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months - and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted." And let's not forget all the paid holidays, great benefits and virtually lifetime job guarantees! The article goes on: "Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time - in pay and hiring - during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector." So we can clearly see that Congress takes care of their own. And anyone still have any doubt about whether they think they work for us or we work for them?
Now, one might think that if Congress had normal, rational people they might understand the fact that the average American doesn't get this. When 7.3 million have lost their livelihoods - their ability to support their families, this kind of salary inflation might appear, shall we say, somewhat unseemly? But apparently not. So who still believes that a government willing to stick it in your face with these unconscionable taxpayer-funded salary grabs is looking out for you? But one thing is for certain: there will be lots of new government jobs in all the new bureaucracies about to be created - and at least 19% of them will apparently pay $100,000 or more!
Honorable mention for the "thief" prize goes to: Medicare. As discussed previously, workers comp cases require a Medicare Set Aside Trust in the lump sum settlement documents in certain cases. The purpose is to set aside some of the settlement money to cover future medical expenses so that Medicare does not have to pay for work related injuries. So Medicare actually approves the amount to be set aside in a separate account. Once that money is used up then (what they say is that) Medicare will cover the industrial injury thereafter. It turns out to be a big lie!
It is up to the individual to keep an accounting and to make sure that the money is used only to pay medical bills related to the injury, and only for treatment that Medicare would otherwise cover, and only at the Medicare rate. This writer had an opportunity to speak with an attorney intimately familiar with the process and who has important contacts at Medicare. He asked one of his contacts: How do you expect the average person to follow all the rules and pay properly and keep an accurate accounting? The reply: WE DON'T! AND WE DON'T CARE! They have no expectation that people will be able to follow all their technical rules. They even expect that many people will improperly use the money for personal items, and not for medical bills.
So then what gives? It's simple. A beautiful scam really. Medicare, knowing that people will make mistakes, will simply deny future Medicare coverage for any body part involved in the industrial injury - FOR LIFE! No matter at all to them that many of these people have paid into Medicare over a lifetime. No matter that they are told that after the "trust account" money is used up, Medicare will cover them. The Government looking out for you!
Saturday, December 5, 2009
A Conservative View (Misc. Musings VI)
1. The Swiss vote on minarets. The people of Switzerland recently voted to ban any new minarets (not mosques) in their country. It was felt that the minarets were tied to radical islam and/or reflected islamic tolerance. Of course, there was much hand-wringing throughout the liberal EU, condemning the Swiss action. But the most "interesting" quote was from one Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. He referred to the ban as an "example of growing anti-Islamic incitement in Europe by the extremist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, scare-mongering ultra-right politicians, who reign over common sense, wisdom and universal values." (From the Verizon News online, 11/30/09.)
This is a beautiful piece of propaganda. Look at how much they cover in one sentence. Are there any more demonizing terms they left out about this politically incorrect ban of minarets? And never mind that the measure passed with 58% approval. And look at how they appeal to "universal values." It is truly a work of art as far as propaganda goes (a topic I have commented on extensively). So here are a few questions I would ask Mr. Ihsanoglu:
1. Hundreds of mosques have been built throughout the Western world in
maybe the last 10 to 20 years. How many churches have the muslim
countries of the world allowed to be built in the same time frame? How
many synagogues?
2. Any Christian missionaries allowed in muslim countries? In how many
muslim countries is it illegal to try to convert a muslim? In how many
muslim countries is it illegal to even enter with a copy of the Old or New
Testament? In how many muslim countries is the punishment death for
a muslim converting to another religion?
3. Why do Muslim countries seem to lose large numbers of their Christian
populations after Islamists take over? Think Iraq, Lebanon, the
"Palestinian" territories.
4. So what about those "universal values?" Not only does this all work one
way, in favor of the muslims, but (as I said many times before) the
liberal, guilt-ridden, politically-correct West falls for it every time!
So just when I despair of no liberals getting any of this, along comes Thomas Friedman, liberal author and columnist for the NYTimes. In his 11/29/09 column, he discusses what he calls "The Narrative." He defines The Narrative as a "cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11...that America has declared war on Islam, as part of a grand "American-Crusader-Zionist conspiracy" to keep Muslims down." Pretty good coming from a liberal - even though this "Narrative" actually started well before 9/11 and applies to the entire Western world, not just the U.S.
He points out, as if it will matter to the muslim world, that America has helped free muslims in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan. He points out that most muslims being killed in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Indonesia are killed by OTHER MUSLIMS! He points out that "for every Abu Ghraib, (not such a scandal to this writer) our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders." (And although he does not say so, George Bush would actually get some of the credit for that - OMG!)
And then Mr. Friedman puts them to the test. If major Hasan is not an example of true Islam, then "you need to tell us what ... is and show us how its positive interpretations are being promoted in your schools and mosques." And why will millions of muslims protest cartoons but not suicide (homicide) bombers blowing up real people? WHY INDEED?
2. Climategate - Scandal at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. (Or how Liberals learned to hate the truth and love their ideologies.) Some hackers (not to be condoned, but who are not the real criminals here; and why wasn't this data made public in the first place) obtained thousands of emails to and from scientists at East Anglia, a clearinghouse for climate data. Phil Jones, director of CRU was rather reluctant to release data based on FOI (freedom of information) requests. From Mr. Jones: "When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half-hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise." (Quote from Investors Business Daily, 12/01/09.) Mr. Jones to a professor Mann at Penn State: "If they ever hear there's a Freedom of Information Act in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." (Quote from the same IBD article.)
You see, it would be totally unacceptable to let people know about the global COOLING of the last decade. But, as noted here on a frequent basis, liberals do not let FACTS determine their REALITY. So one Andrew Revkin of the NYTimes reported on 11/21/09 that "the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument." (Quote from the 12/02/09 IBD.) The IBD article goes on to quote The Washington Post of 11/25/09: "None of it seriously undercuts the scientific consensus on climate change." Really? Fraudulently reporting higher temperatures when they were declining has no effect on anyone's opinion? So I guess we just reach the conclusion first, then conduct the "studies." "Off with her head" said the Queen, of Alice. Alice: "What about the trial?" The Queen: "We'll have the trial afterwards!" So welcome to the Alice in Wonderland of the liberal mentality!
But a Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, in an article on 11/27/09, explains what "global warming/climate change" really means to the liberal/statist: "Most Americans are convinced that climate change is real - a necessary prerequisite for the kinds of huge economic and behavioral adjustments we would have to make." (Quote from the 12/02/09 IBD.) That one sentence pretty much says it all; the liberal mentality is all about CONTROL! So the world economy can lay out trillions of dollars (coming from YOU - the TAXPAYER) to further their agenda of having the government dictate every aspect of our lives. This is truly no different than Obamacare, allowing the government to raise our taxes and "redistribute" the wealth and otherwise control our behavior. Nor is it different from the left's desire to bring back the "fairness doctrine" or bring "net neutrality" to the internet. This is all about government control over you! And while liberals were all in a tizzy over "W" authorizing wiretapping of foreign terrorists who communicated with Americans, they are more than willing to give up so much more at the altar of Big Government.
This is a beautiful piece of propaganda. Look at how much they cover in one sentence. Are there any more demonizing terms they left out about this politically incorrect ban of minarets? And never mind that the measure passed with 58% approval. And look at how they appeal to "universal values." It is truly a work of art as far as propaganda goes (a topic I have commented on extensively). So here are a few questions I would ask Mr. Ihsanoglu:
1. Hundreds of mosques have been built throughout the Western world in
maybe the last 10 to 20 years. How many churches have the muslim
countries of the world allowed to be built in the same time frame? How
many synagogues?
2. Any Christian missionaries allowed in muslim countries? In how many
muslim countries is it illegal to try to convert a muslim? In how many
muslim countries is it illegal to even enter with a copy of the Old or New
Testament? In how many muslim countries is the punishment death for
a muslim converting to another religion?
3. Why do Muslim countries seem to lose large numbers of their Christian
populations after Islamists take over? Think Iraq, Lebanon, the
"Palestinian" territories.
4. So what about those "universal values?" Not only does this all work one
way, in favor of the muslims, but (as I said many times before) the
liberal, guilt-ridden, politically-correct West falls for it every time!
So just when I despair of no liberals getting any of this, along comes Thomas Friedman, liberal author and columnist for the NYTimes. In his 11/29/09 column, he discusses what he calls "The Narrative." He defines The Narrative as a "cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11...that America has declared war on Islam, as part of a grand "American-Crusader-Zionist conspiracy" to keep Muslims down." Pretty good coming from a liberal - even though this "Narrative" actually started well before 9/11 and applies to the entire Western world, not just the U.S.
He points out, as if it will matter to the muslim world, that America has helped free muslims in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan. He points out that most muslims being killed in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Indonesia are killed by OTHER MUSLIMS! He points out that "for every Abu Ghraib, (not such a scandal to this writer) our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders." (And although he does not say so, George Bush would actually get some of the credit for that - OMG!)
And then Mr. Friedman puts them to the test. If major Hasan is not an example of true Islam, then "you need to tell us what ... is and show us how its positive interpretations are being promoted in your schools and mosques." And why will millions of muslims protest cartoons but not suicide (homicide) bombers blowing up real people? WHY INDEED?
2. Climategate - Scandal at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. (Or how Liberals learned to hate the truth and love their ideologies.) Some hackers (not to be condoned, but who are not the real criminals here; and why wasn't this data made public in the first place) obtained thousands of emails to and from scientists at East Anglia, a clearinghouse for climate data. Phil Jones, director of CRU was rather reluctant to release data based on FOI (freedom of information) requests. From Mr. Jones: "When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half-hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise." (Quote from Investors Business Daily, 12/01/09.) Mr. Jones to a professor Mann at Penn State: "If they ever hear there's a Freedom of Information Act in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." (Quote from the same IBD article.)
You see, it would be totally unacceptable to let people know about the global COOLING of the last decade. But, as noted here on a frequent basis, liberals do not let FACTS determine their REALITY. So one Andrew Revkin of the NYTimes reported on 11/21/09 that "the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument." (Quote from the 12/02/09 IBD.) The IBD article goes on to quote The Washington Post of 11/25/09: "None of it seriously undercuts the scientific consensus on climate change." Really? Fraudulently reporting higher temperatures when they were declining has no effect on anyone's opinion? So I guess we just reach the conclusion first, then conduct the "studies." "Off with her head" said the Queen, of Alice. Alice: "What about the trial?" The Queen: "We'll have the trial afterwards!" So welcome to the Alice in Wonderland of the liberal mentality!
But a Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, in an article on 11/27/09, explains what "global warming/climate change" really means to the liberal/statist: "Most Americans are convinced that climate change is real - a necessary prerequisite for the kinds of huge economic and behavioral adjustments we would have to make." (Quote from the 12/02/09 IBD.) That one sentence pretty much says it all; the liberal mentality is all about CONTROL! So the world economy can lay out trillions of dollars (coming from YOU - the TAXPAYER) to further their agenda of having the government dictate every aspect of our lives. This is truly no different than Obamacare, allowing the government to raise our taxes and "redistribute" the wealth and otherwise control our behavior. Nor is it different from the left's desire to bring back the "fairness doctrine" or bring "net neutrality" to the internet. This is all about government control over you! And while liberals were all in a tizzy over "W" authorizing wiretapping of foreign terrorists who communicated with Americans, they are more than willing to give up so much more at the altar of Big Government.
Monday, November 30, 2009
A Conservative View (Misc. Musings V)
1. From the 11/26/09 LA Times. Their lead editorial expresses what they are thankful for on Thanksgiving. Not surprisingly, they are grateful for Barack Obama. Why? Because he has "greatly improved the United States' relations with the rest of the world" among other things. Really? I'm wondering where that might be. With Israel? No; only 4% of Israelis feel Obama supports them. With the "palestinians?" No; since he opined on the "settlements" the "palestinians" have refused to return to the bargaining table. With Iran? No; as previously reported here, the Ayatollah Khamenei had this to say about Obama reaching out to them: talks with the U.S. would be "naive and perverted." In fact, the Iranians are thinking about developing 10 new uranium enrichment facilities. With the EU? Maybe, since a weakened dollar bodes well for their euro. But greater respect for the U.S.? As previously reported here, even the French think Obama is in over his head. Russia and China? Well, they did just vote to express their disappointment with Iran over their nuclear program. And to "urge" Iran to reconsider; but no sanctions. Japan? According to the 11/27/09 Jewish Press (and notwithstanding Obama's bow to the Emperor) Japan is "backing off" its deal with the U.S. to allow refueling of warhips in the Indian Ocean. Hugo Chavez? At yet another meeting with Ahmadinejad, he accused Israel of engaging in "genocide" against the "palestinians" with the support of the U.S. Brazil? Their leader also just met with Ahmadidnejad; which, of course, only enhances his credibility as a world leader. But the Times says Obama has not only improved our relations with the world, but GREATLY improved those relations. Could this be yet another example of liberals letting their beliefs (in Obama in this case) dictating their reality (a world with much improved global relations)?
2. In their same editorial, the Times first expresses their thanks to our troops. Anybody really buy this? They did not support the Iraq war. They do not support winning in Afghanistan. But they know it is the right thing to say because the American people DO support their troops. But after displaying picture after picture from Abu Graib, one might think that the Times believed our troops engaged in horrible "atrocities;" worse, even than 9/11 and certainly worse than the beheadings engaged in by the radical muslims. And in the same editorial, they refer to the detention facility at Guananamo Bay as being "disgraceful." Gitmo, where prisoners who killed our troops are given three meals a day, copies of the Koran, and time for prayers. So, the only question really is: does the Times believe their own b.s.?
3. While we are on the subject, and in the interest of fairness, former Judge Andrew Napolitano, and current Fox News commentator, had an opinion in the 11/29/09 LA Times. He indicated that Pres. Bush never got a declaration of war from Congress. Rather, Congress authorized the use of military force to hunt down terrorists wherever they may be. He states that without a declaration of war, the Constitution does not allow the government to use the "tools of war," such as military tribunals. He indicates that Federal Court is in fact the proper venue for trying the bastards (the last word is mine, not his).
4. Again, another example of the editorial writers at the LA Times letting their beliefs dictate their reality. In their 11/29/09 editorial, after blaming the problems with Iran on Bush, they conclude that any "solution must be negotiated by political leaders." Are they paying any attention at all? Do they read the news? Has there been any indication anywhere of a sincere effort by Iran to negotiate on their nuclear production? Or, as previously written here, do they continue to play the West for fools while moving full speed ahead on their nuclear development!
5. "Free" health care. Obama says he will not sign health care legislation if people will have their taxes raised. So the obvious questions are : 1. how much will it cost? 2. just who is going to pay for it? According to the 11/27/09 Investor's Business Daily, most real spending under the proposed legislation does not begin until 2014. The cost over the next ten years after that is an astounding 1.5 trillion dollars! But the next five years after that comes in at a truly amazing 1.7 trillion. So we are well over 3 trillion dollars for the first fifteen years. And whereas the Dems project spending 848 billion dollars for the ten years beginning 2010, IBD says the Cato Institute estimates 2.5 trillion dollars for that decade. And again, per the IBD, most of the real expense begins in 2014. And when has a government estimate come in under budget? But no new taxes! Well, they won't call the requirement to buy health insurance a "tax." They won't call the slashing of Medicare benefits a "tax." I wonder just how many new taxes the Dems will pass to pay for all of this - but just not call it a "tax." And the future of the dollar? Look out below!
6. Recently, our President gave an interview on Fox News. He described the building within existing Israeli "settlements" as "embittering" the "palestinians" and that such building could end up "being very dangerous." (From the 11/27/09 Jewish Press.) Does that mean the "palestinians" will engage in further violence? Does it mean that Obama is excusing any such violence in advance as being justified? Would such violence somehow be unlike their past behavior, regardless of what Israel does? Is Obama familiar with the Hamas Charter: "I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah. I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill." (From an article by Prof. Louis Rene Beres, in the 11/27/09 Jewish Press.) Does this help Obama understand the "palestinians" bloodlust; in which they not only torture and kill civilians, but then celebrate those deaths. Does this help Obama get the fact that the "palestinians" do not want a state side by side with Israel, but, as Prof. Beres says, "upon the corpse of Israel"? Is it possible that we have another case of a liberal (Obama) letting his belief in the peace process dictate his reality (that the "palestinians" were a peace-loving, non-violent people before Israel built the "settlements")?
2. In their same editorial, the Times first expresses their thanks to our troops. Anybody really buy this? They did not support the Iraq war. They do not support winning in Afghanistan. But they know it is the right thing to say because the American people DO support their troops. But after displaying picture after picture from Abu Graib, one might think that the Times believed our troops engaged in horrible "atrocities;" worse, even than 9/11 and certainly worse than the beheadings engaged in by the radical muslims. And in the same editorial, they refer to the detention facility at Guananamo Bay as being "disgraceful." Gitmo, where prisoners who killed our troops are given three meals a day, copies of the Koran, and time for prayers. So, the only question really is: does the Times believe their own b.s.?
3. While we are on the subject, and in the interest of fairness, former Judge Andrew Napolitano, and current Fox News commentator, had an opinion in the 11/29/09 LA Times. He indicated that Pres. Bush never got a declaration of war from Congress. Rather, Congress authorized the use of military force to hunt down terrorists wherever they may be. He states that without a declaration of war, the Constitution does not allow the government to use the "tools of war," such as military tribunals. He indicates that Federal Court is in fact the proper venue for trying the bastards (the last word is mine, not his).
4. Again, another example of the editorial writers at the LA Times letting their beliefs dictate their reality. In their 11/29/09 editorial, after blaming the problems with Iran on Bush, they conclude that any "solution must be negotiated by political leaders." Are they paying any attention at all? Do they read the news? Has there been any indication anywhere of a sincere effort by Iran to negotiate on their nuclear production? Or, as previously written here, do they continue to play the West for fools while moving full speed ahead on their nuclear development!
5. "Free" health care. Obama says he will not sign health care legislation if people will have their taxes raised. So the obvious questions are : 1. how much will it cost? 2. just who is going to pay for it? According to the 11/27/09 Investor's Business Daily, most real spending under the proposed legislation does not begin until 2014. The cost over the next ten years after that is an astounding 1.5 trillion dollars! But the next five years after that comes in at a truly amazing 1.7 trillion. So we are well over 3 trillion dollars for the first fifteen years. And whereas the Dems project spending 848 billion dollars for the ten years beginning 2010, IBD says the Cato Institute estimates 2.5 trillion dollars for that decade. And again, per the IBD, most of the real expense begins in 2014. And when has a government estimate come in under budget? But no new taxes! Well, they won't call the requirement to buy health insurance a "tax." They won't call the slashing of Medicare benefits a "tax." I wonder just how many new taxes the Dems will pass to pay for all of this - but just not call it a "tax." And the future of the dollar? Look out below!
6. Recently, our President gave an interview on Fox News. He described the building within existing Israeli "settlements" as "embittering" the "palestinians" and that such building could end up "being very dangerous." (From the 11/27/09 Jewish Press.) Does that mean the "palestinians" will engage in further violence? Does it mean that Obama is excusing any such violence in advance as being justified? Would such violence somehow be unlike their past behavior, regardless of what Israel does? Is Obama familiar with the Hamas Charter: "I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah. I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill." (From an article by Prof. Louis Rene Beres, in the 11/27/09 Jewish Press.) Does this help Obama understand the "palestinians" bloodlust; in which they not only torture and kill civilians, but then celebrate those deaths. Does this help Obama get the fact that the "palestinians" do not want a state side by side with Israel, but, as Prof. Beres says, "upon the corpse of Israel"? Is it possible that we have another case of a liberal (Obama) letting his belief in the peace process dictate his reality (that the "palestinians" were a peace-loving, non-violent people before Israel built the "settlements")?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)