1. Growing up in the White House. Guantanamo Bay was to be closed in Obama's first year in office. Two and a half years later, still open. Iraq, U.S. troops still there. Afghanistan, not only still there, but with a surge to boot. A surge, the same action Obama condemned when Bush opted for one in Iraq. Drone attacks on terrorist targets in the sovereign nation of Pakistan? Increased under Obama. No "due process" for the recipients of those attacks. And now, the death of Osama bin Laden. When he was shot dead he was unarmed. He was not given any Miranda warnings nor read any rights. He was not captured so that he could have a civilian (or even military) trial. No - just shot dead. According to Obama's counter-terrorism chief, John Brennan, bin Laden would be allowed to surrender only "if he did not pose any type of threat whatsoever," and if our troops "were confident of that," and if bin Laden had no hidden weapons, such as an IED. Or as one congressional staffer put it: "he would have had to have been naked" to avoid being eliminated.
So kudos to the Navy Seals for a well executed mission; and to the President for being willing to order the hit (that's what it was and clearly what it was intended to be). Although, it is curious that Obama was willing to use intelligence gathered in what he believes was an illegal manner, in order to accomplish his goal of killing bin Laden. If Bush had ordered the hit, we have had calls for his impeachment and trial as a war criminal. And while a few on the left have indeed criticized Obama, overall the criticism has been rather muted. The very liberal Maureen Dowd made no excuses for the killing of bin Laden in a piece in the 5/8/11 NY Times. Said Ms. Dowd: "The really insane assumption behind some of the second-guessing is that killing Osama somehow makes us like Osama, as if all killing is the same." Indeed.
2. Is it always about Obama? In listening to Obama's Sunday night announcement of bin Laden's death, I was struck by the number of times he used "I" in his speech (9, 10 if you include "my"). "I can report..." "I directed Leon Panetta..." "I was briefed on a possible lead..." "I met repeatedly with my national security team..." "I determined that we had enough intelligence..." You get the picture.
So I went back and read Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech: 7 "I"s, 8 if you include "my" at the beginning of his speech: "My fellow Americans..." What was striking was the way in which he was demonstrating his own humility and appreciation of our troops when he used "I". "I have a special word for (the military)...America is grateful." It was not about him. In one sentence he used "I" three times - and still it was not about him: "When I look at the members of the U.S. military, I see the best of our country, and I am honored to be your commander in chief." It was about the military, and his humility in knowing that he is their leader. Quite a difference in both tone and attitude.
3. Still some growing up to do. Unfortunately, Obama still has much to learn. He remains hell bent on forcing the creation of a "Palestinian" state. This requires him to ignore the current instability in the Arab world. A leading contender for Egypt's presidency is already discussing the possibility of backing out of the peace deal made with Israel after the 1973 war. And now we have the "unity agreement" between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (the Fatah group). Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by our State Department. Yet the P.A. receives $550 million per year in aid from the U.S. Will we continue to give such aid when it is illegal to give financial support to a terrorist organization? Under this deal Hamas is now part of the Palestinian government.
In 2007 the "Quartet" (the US, the UN, the EU, and Russia) said Hamas could only gain legitimacy by: recognizing Israel's right to exist, agreeing to respect existing agreements, and renouncing terrorism. Yet Hamas has not suffered any international repurcussions as a result of their murderous activities, so why would they adhere to any demands now? Hamas has killed more Israelis than al Qaeda has killed Americans, as a proportion of the overall population (according to Caroline Glick's 5/13/11 article on the Jerusalem Post online). Yet I do not hear Obama calling for a peace deal with al Qaeda (nor did bin Laden get any such overture). No; instead we are continuing our efforts to kill them and destroy their organization. So what's the difference Mr. President?
And just what did the Hamas Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh, have to say about our killing of bin Laden? "We condemn the assassination of an Arab Holy Warrior." The one that orchestrated the killing of over 3000 Americans! So let's reward Hamas with a State. And the leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshal, not only refuses to renounce violence or recognize Israel's right to exist, but says the fight against Israel will continue even after they get their state. Abbas is no better as one of his senior aides, Nabil Shaath, said that demands that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist and renounce violence are "unfair, unworkable and do not make sense." What does not make sense is that Obama is continuing on his quest to force Israel to commit suicide by giving up the West Bank and part of Jerusalem to create a terrorist state (along with Gaza) that will now likely be controlled by Hamas.
Israel celebrated its 63rd birthday today. The "palestinians" demonstrated against what they call the "Nabka;" (the "catastrophe" that they call the creation of Israel.) Israel today had to defend its borders from an attempted invasion by "palestinians" and their supporters at the Golan Heights, Israel's northern border with Lebanon, at Gaza and in the West Bank and Jerusalem. This was obviously a well-coordinated attack against the State of Israel. Look for tomorrow's editions of the main stream media to condemn Israel.
Just how much does Obama hate Israel? We will find out soon enough. Speaker of the House John Boehner invited Israeli P.M. Netanyahu to speak to Congress this week. Obama, however, decided it would not be a good idea to let Netanyahu set the agenda for any Middle East accord. So Obama plans on giving his speech on the Middle East first. Stay tuned.
4. More on Obamacare. As reported in the 5/9/11 Weekly Standard, Obamacare creates the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Only there is nothing "advisory" about it. The Board will consist of 15 Presidential appointees (bureacrats) whose job is to reduce Medicare spending, beginning in 2014. The statute creating Obamacare gives the force of "law" to IPAB's decisions; not administrative regulations - but law. In fact, the statute provides that IPAB decisions can only be reversed by a super-majority vote (3/5) in the Senate. The IPAB "laws" require no congressional approval nor presidential signature. Constitutional? A case is pending.
So just how will IPAB go about reducing Medicare spending? In other words, what procedures and tests will be denied? Britain faces the same problem with spending by its National Health Service. They need to save $33 billion by
2015. So certain "routine" operations are being put on hold; those considered a "low priority." What might that be? Knee and hip replacements. (From the 4/7/11 Investors Business Daily.) This writer had bilateral hip replacements in 1992 and 1993 (six months apart). After walking with a cane for ten years, the pain had become unbearable. After my recovery, my quality of life improved immeasureably. No more cane. Minimal discomfort. Not something I would consider a "low priority" as I would have long since ended up in a wheelchair. But I guess under Obamacare some things will just have to go. After all, there are 45 million Medicare beneficiaries; and Medicare is expected to have $31 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years. (From the 4/7/11 Wall Street Journal.)
One way to save some money is to make wealthier Americans pay more for their Medicare. Democrats are opposed. Yes, Democrats. They say it's unfair; as if taxing the "rich" was ever considered to be unfair by them. No, they want as many people as possible getting government handouts. The more people that get government benefits, the greater support there is for government involvement and control in our lives - just what the Dems ordered.
5. And if you do not trust the government, you will like this. This writer has a P.O Box at the local U.S. Postal Service branch. In April, I received a letter from the USPS advising that $44.00 was due by 4/30/11 to renew the box for a year. A check was dutifully sent. A call was received from the same USPS on May 5 indicating that I owed $2.00 more. The price had gone up and I better pay by 5/10/11or my box would be closed. Wow - 4 business days notice to comply. Not being that trusting of our government on matters such as this, I went to the branch on 5/7/11. I was already locked out of my box! I complained to one of the postal clerks that I was billed $44.00 and I paid $44.00 so why I was locked out? The USPS decided to raise the cost of my size box by $2.00 per year AFTER the $44.00 bills were already prepared, and which they allowed to go out. They had not accepted my check because I was $2.00 short, and had no way of knowing this. I suggested that no private business would operate like this for fear of losing customers; and if they did, they would probably be prosecuted by the government for false and misleading advertising.
In any event, I handed over the additional $2.00 with two singles. The system, however, did not accept it because it did not show the prior $44.00 payment, having refused my check. And where did they return my check to? To the locked box that I could not access! I am so happy that these people will now be controlling my healthcare.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Obama's Budget Speech: Fundamental Obama
Our President gave his much anticipated budget speech today. If you were expecting any real change from his leftist ideology, usual themes, and lack of truthfulness, then you were sorely disappointed. The following are some of the "highlights" from his speech - starting with one of Obama's themes, Obama in quotes, and my comments on each issue follows thereafter.
LIE NO. 1. "As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally borne a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate; everybody pays, but the wealthier have borne a little more." A LITTLE MORE? Lie! Over 40% of the lowest wage earners pay zero in income taxes; with a relatively small percentage paying half the taxes.
BLAME BUSH - STILL. "But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990's, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program, but we didn't pay for any of this new spending." See how he blames Bush without mentioning his name - it's just the "decade" that followed. So who spent more without paying for it: Bush in 8 years or Obama in 2?
CLASS WARFARE. "...we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts; tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country." If all the millionaires and billionaires left this country where would that leave the economy? In the toilet, that's where. So stop already with the class warfare.
I'M THE VICTIM. "...by the time I took office, we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a baby boom retirement that is now starting to take place." We were so much in debt that Obama had to make it far worse. It was the only way. Poor Obama.
LET'S RAISE TAXES! "By 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, and the interest we owe on our debt...every other national priority - education, transportation, even our national security - will have to be paid for with borrowed money." Or, you can keep printing more money Mr. President. Or - wait - you can raise taxes. 'Nuf said.
LIE NO. 2. "...all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike..." Undoubtedly, much spending is popular with both sides. But ALL spending is EQUALLY popular? Pleeeaaase! How come it took Republicans to even start the discussion about what government (the taxpayers) should be spending money on.
LIE NO. 3. The Republican plan would lead to a "fundamentally different (America) than what we've known throughout our history." You remember? When those early Americans all went to college on Pell grants. What - most people did not go to college? Well, they all had health care. What - they didn't? Oh well, this little comment by Obama had the added benefit of utilizing one of his other themes: THOSE EVIL REPUBLICANS.
LIE NO. 4. Referring to the Ryan plan to replace Medicare with vouchers for those under age 55: "...if that voucher isn't worth enough to buy the insurance that's available in the open marketplace, well, tough luck; you're on your own." Wait a minute. I know Obama did not come up with that line - he never heard of an "open marketplace." And when Medicare runs out of money, who benefits then? Anybody? Besides, Ryan would allow for higher vouchers based on need. But let's repeat: THOSE EVIL REPUBLICANS.
RATIONING OF HEALTH CARE. "Their (Republicans') plan essentially lowers the government's health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government's health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself." Every time Obama talks about reducing health care costs, he is talking about some bureacrat in D.C. deciding you don't need that MRI or X-ray or therapy or surgery. And just how does the government (taxpayers) pay for your healthcare when they've run out of money?
LET'S CUT DEFENSE SPENDING. Always a Democrat favorite, Obama says he wants "a fundamental review of America's missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world." Now, this might even sound reasonable coming from a President who believes in American exceptionalism; an America that should remain the strongest country on earth. But Obama talked about bringing "fundamental change" to this country during the campaign. The result is the making of the USA into a European socialist country. All in favor of our becoming a European level military power raise your hands.
DID HE REALLY AGREE WITH THE REPUBLICANS HERE? Obama wants to "reduce spending in the tax code, so-called tax expenditures." What is a "tax expenditure"? A deduction. Deductions can be viewed as subsidies (hence, expenditures) to whomever benefits (homeowners, farmers, etc.). But Ryan wants to lower the maximum rate significantly while reducing deductions; essentially a revenue-neutral measure that will bring some simplicity to the tax code. Obama wants to eliminate the deductions alright, but when his party won't go along with the lower rates? SORRY!
LIE NO. 1. "As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally borne a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate; everybody pays, but the wealthier have borne a little more." A LITTLE MORE? Lie! Over 40% of the lowest wage earners pay zero in income taxes; with a relatively small percentage paying half the taxes.
BLAME BUSH - STILL. "But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990's, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program, but we didn't pay for any of this new spending." See how he blames Bush without mentioning his name - it's just the "decade" that followed. So who spent more without paying for it: Bush in 8 years or Obama in 2?
CLASS WARFARE. "...we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts; tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country." If all the millionaires and billionaires left this country where would that leave the economy? In the toilet, that's where. So stop already with the class warfare.
I'M THE VICTIM. "...by the time I took office, we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a baby boom retirement that is now starting to take place." We were so much in debt that Obama had to make it far worse. It was the only way. Poor Obama.
LET'S RAISE TAXES! "By 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, and the interest we owe on our debt...every other national priority - education, transportation, even our national security - will have to be paid for with borrowed money." Or, you can keep printing more money Mr. President. Or - wait - you can raise taxes. 'Nuf said.
LIE NO. 2. "...all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike..." Undoubtedly, much spending is popular with both sides. But ALL spending is EQUALLY popular? Pleeeaaase! How come it took Republicans to even start the discussion about what government (the taxpayers) should be spending money on.
LIE NO. 3. The Republican plan would lead to a "fundamentally different (America) than what we've known throughout our history." You remember? When those early Americans all went to college on Pell grants. What - most people did not go to college? Well, they all had health care. What - they didn't? Oh well, this little comment by Obama had the added benefit of utilizing one of his other themes: THOSE EVIL REPUBLICANS.
LIE NO. 4. Referring to the Ryan plan to replace Medicare with vouchers for those under age 55: "...if that voucher isn't worth enough to buy the insurance that's available in the open marketplace, well, tough luck; you're on your own." Wait a minute. I know Obama did not come up with that line - he never heard of an "open marketplace." And when Medicare runs out of money, who benefits then? Anybody? Besides, Ryan would allow for higher vouchers based on need. But let's repeat: THOSE EVIL REPUBLICANS.
RATIONING OF HEALTH CARE. "Their (Republicans') plan essentially lowers the government's health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government's health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself." Every time Obama talks about reducing health care costs, he is talking about some bureacrat in D.C. deciding you don't need that MRI or X-ray or therapy or surgery. And just how does the government (taxpayers) pay for your healthcare when they've run out of money?
LET'S CUT DEFENSE SPENDING. Always a Democrat favorite, Obama says he wants "a fundamental review of America's missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world." Now, this might even sound reasonable coming from a President who believes in American exceptionalism; an America that should remain the strongest country on earth. But Obama talked about bringing "fundamental change" to this country during the campaign. The result is the making of the USA into a European socialist country. All in favor of our becoming a European level military power raise your hands.
DID HE REALLY AGREE WITH THE REPUBLICANS HERE? Obama wants to "reduce spending in the tax code, so-called tax expenditures." What is a "tax expenditure"? A deduction. Deductions can be viewed as subsidies (hence, expenditures) to whomever benefits (homeowners, farmers, etc.). But Ryan wants to lower the maximum rate significantly while reducing deductions; essentially a revenue-neutral measure that will bring some simplicity to the tax code. Obama wants to eliminate the deductions alright, but when his party won't go along with the lower rates? SORRY!
Friday, March 25, 2011
Letter to a College Student
One of my readers forwarded my last blog to a college student who had recently made a trip to Israel. The student was quite upset by what they saw: unjust treatment of "palestinians," a "disgusting wall" that Israel had built more or less along the "Green Line," and armed soldiers who were just "kids" carrying rifles and tormenting even the students. The student felt that my blog was one-sided and ignored the various "injustices." My reply to the student is below:
I used to be a liberal democrat. Then the 2000 intifada had a huge impact on me. Day after day I was watching Jews get blown up on buses (like happened today), in cafes, in malls, and even at a Passover Seder. I felt like I was watching the beginning of another Holocaust. Not knowing that much about the history of the area, I decided to do some reading. A lot of reading.
I like to put things in some perspective. There are under 14 million Jews in the entire world! Under 6 million in Israel. There are over 300 million Arabs. And there are 1.6 BILLION muslims. Israel is about the size of New Jersey. The Arab world: 50 times bigger? 100 times? 200 times? No. 625 times bigger than Israel. So one question reasonable people might ask, is why are 300 million Arabs and 1.6 billion muslims unable to accept the presence of 6 million Jews living on a tiny sliver of land (half of which is desert - the Negev)?
Some history. The only country to exist on the land was and is Israel: 2000 years ago, and again since 1948. Before World War I the Ottoman Empire controlled most of what is the Middle East, and did so for about 400 years. After the Ottoman defeat in WWI, England and France controlled most of the area. Syria, for example, got their independence from France in 1946. Palestine was under the "British Mandate." It consisted of Jordan (then Trans-Jordan), Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank (Judea and Sumaria). To make a long story short, Britain was reluctant to allow Jewish refugees from Europe after WWII to emigrate to Palestine. (If you have never watched the movie "Exodus" with Paul Newman, I recommend that you do so.) Under pressure from Jews and others, Britain turned over their Mandate to the UN General Assembly. The UN then approved a measure partitioning the land between the Jews and the Arabs. (I should point out that the Brits had already given 2/3 of the land in the Mandate to the Hashemite King in Jordan.) That left very little to be divided yet again between the Jews and remaining Arabs. Before the measure passed, the Arabs made it clear that they would never accept partition. (In the 1920's Jews were slaughtered by Arabs. In WWII, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem sided with Hitler and had a great interest in Hitler's "Final Solution." Muslim anti-semitism was quite prevalent before Israel existed.)
So, the UN voted partition in 1947; and on May 14, 1948 the tiny country of Israel declared their independence. The very next day, five Arab countries attacked; the first effort to wipe Israel off the map. The Israeli forces were outnumbered and lacking in weapons. Yet, the underdogs (yes, Israel was the weaker party and clearly the underdog) won. When the war ended in 1949, 6000 Israelis had been killed - one percent of the entire Jewish population. The boundaries that were set in the 1949 "armistice" were not final boundaries based upon any treaty. There was no treaty and no agreement other than a cessation of hostilities. (Which is why Obama does not call the "settlements" illegal but rather "illegitimate." Because they are not illegal.) Israel had to fight for its survival again in 1956 and again in the Six Day War of 1967. In 1967, Israel captured the West Bank, including Jerusalem, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Sinai. An amazing accomplishment for such a tiny country. Just so we are clear, from 1949 to 1967, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank. During that time the Jordanians allowed the destruction of numerous Jewish holy sights. When Israel captured Jerusalem in 1967, it turned over control of the Temple Mount (arguably the holiest site in Judaism, and where the Al Aksa mosque is) to the muslims. (We could debate why the muslims chose to build on top of the the site where the two Great Jewish Temples stood, but that is another matter.)
In 1973, on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for Jews, the Arabs attacked again. The Jews were totally caught off guard, and but for the intervention of Richard Nixon supplying war materiel to the Jews, Israel might very well have been wiped off the map. Since then there have been other wars, including the Lebanon war, the war with Hezbollah, the war with Hamas, and the two intifadas (1987-1992 and 2000-2006). But Israel is never at peace. Since 2000, and mostly since vacating Gaza, the "palestinians" there/Hamas have launched over 10,000 rockets and missiles into Israel. Can you imagine what the US would do if Mexico had launched even 100 rockets and missiles into San Diego? The public would have demanded massive retaliation. But Israel, now a powerful country militarily, acts with great restraint. They do so because they do not want to kill innocents; and because the world demands it. The world demands that Israel take more hits than any other country would tolerate. Israel could flatten Gaza - they do not. The Israeli army operates under what are probably the strictest rules of engagement for any military.
So now to your comments. No, I have never been to Israel. But my three kids have (one spent a year there), as have friends. I do not need to be there to have an opinion. I do not need to see animal abuse to know that it is wrong. I do not need to see spousal abuse to know that it is wrong. I can form those opinions without seeing it or speaking to the victims.
I put "palestine" and "palestnians" in quotes because the Jews were also "palestinians" before the state of Israel existed. Palestine was our homeland. I believe the Arabs of palestine (a more accurate description) use the term "palestinian" for propaganda purposes; it is something they are very good at. You were disturbed by kids with guns slung over their back. Military service is mandatory in Israel, and yes, kids, enter the service after high school and before college. They are 18, just like you can be here. Are you upset that there are armed soldiers everywhere? Israel lives in a very dangerous neighborhood, surrounded by enemies on all sides. Do you know why that "disgusting wall" as you put it was built? It was begun after the second intifada to prevent terrorists from slipping across the green line and blowing up Jews. It is a wall that has undoubtedly saved many Jewish lives. If you agree that the first obligation of any government is to protect the lives of its citizens, then you understand why that wall was built. If you believe the inconvenience of the Arabs is more important than Jewish lives, then I think you might have some soul-searching to do.
You said that the Jews would not have their state but for Christian fundamentalists, who you obviously have a great deal of disdain for. That, of course, is incorrect (see the history above). But it sounds like you believe the Jews should NOT have a state. Do you believe that? Are you okay with 57 muslim countries in the world but not one Jewish state? In what country do Arabs have the most political and economic freedoms? ISRAEL! That's right. There are over 1 million Arabs in Israel who live there as citizens. (Which is interesting because when they talk about a Palestinian state they always say the "settlements" have to go. Notice how ethnic cleansing of the proposed country of Palestine is never objected to by the media, our President, or the UN? It's only the Jews being kicked out.) You equate Christian fundamentalism with Islamic fundamentalism. Really? I would estimate that over 90% of the terrorist acts of the last four decades have been carried out by Islamic fundamentalists. I do not see, hear, or read about Christians trying to kill Jews ever. But you can get it daily from the Arab and muslim world. Read or listen to their media. Look at their schools where Israel does not exist on their maps. All the land is Palestine. Look how they teach their kids to hate, and to be homicide bombers and jihadists. They may be coming after the Jews now, but don't think for one minute it won't be the Christians next.
And let's be clear. I am not referring to the ever dwindling number of Christians who still live in the "palestinian" areas. The problem is with the muslims. Iraq lost over 600,000 Christians. Lebanon went from being a Christian country to now being a muslim country. Christians are treated very badly in Gaza. In each case it was muslims who kicked them out or made it so unpleasant that the Christians left. (Between 1948 and 1998 the Christian population of Israel quadrupled.) If all the lands were occupied by only Christians and Jews there would have been peace for decades already. You said there are real people on both sides. Did you talk to the families of Jews who have been killed by terrorists? Did you talk to any Jews other than soldiers at checkpoints? Can you tell me why Yassir Arafat walked out on Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak after being offered a state? Can you tell me why Abbas did not accept a state from George Bush and Olmert? Are you familiar with the three "no's" issued by the Arab League in Khartoum: no peace, no negotiations, no recognition of Israel. Do you know that both the Hamas Charter and the PA's charter call for the destruction of Israel?
Do you understand the significance of Israel to the Jews? It is not just their Biblical homeland, which is significant in itself. The world has often been a hostile place for Jews throughout history. When terrorists hijacked a French airplane loaded with Jews and took it to Idi Amin's Uganda, who rescued those Jews? Not the French. Not the USA. It was the tiny country of Israel. It was not an Israeli plane that was hijacked. But Jewish lives don't always mean that much to the rest of the world; and Israel sees itself as the protector of Jews worldwide.
You say you have to sympathize with people who react in a violent way. Did your fellow Christians evicted from Iraq and Lebanon and the palestinian areas react with violence? No. They moved on to other places where they could live in peace. Do you support what happened to the Fogel family? You sympathize with someone who stabs a family to death in their beds; even a 3 month old child? Do you support homicide bombers who blow up people on buses, in restaurants, in malls? Did you support the terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center? After all, they had a beef with us and the way they were treated. There is one group of people in the world who believe any actions taken against "infidels" is legitimate. Did you support the bastards who cut off the head of the journalist Daniel Perl? There is something very wrong with people who behave in this manner, and it saddens me to think that you would sympathize with such animals.
I do agree with you that it is a complicated situation. And, yes, innocents on both sides can be unfairly affected. And, yes, I even agree that some Israelis can be very tough people. But I do not have to sleep with an automatic weapon at my side every night for fear of an attack. I do not have to have a bomb shelter in my house, like all Israelis do. But when you think about that wall, ask yourself this: you walk over to your best friend's house and there is the father with a gun in his hand standing over a dead man on the floor who had just been shot. So you immediately conclude your friend's father is a murderer! Or, wait, did he act in self-defense? I hope we can agree that the moral difference is profound.
Sincerely,
I used to be a liberal democrat. Then the 2000 intifada had a huge impact on me. Day after day I was watching Jews get blown up on buses (like happened today), in cafes, in malls, and even at a Passover Seder. I felt like I was watching the beginning of another Holocaust. Not knowing that much about the history of the area, I decided to do some reading. A lot of reading.
I like to put things in some perspective. There are under 14 million Jews in the entire world! Under 6 million in Israel. There are over 300 million Arabs. And there are 1.6 BILLION muslims. Israel is about the size of New Jersey. The Arab world: 50 times bigger? 100 times? 200 times? No. 625 times bigger than Israel. So one question reasonable people might ask, is why are 300 million Arabs and 1.6 billion muslims unable to accept the presence of 6 million Jews living on a tiny sliver of land (half of which is desert - the Negev)?
Some history. The only country to exist on the land was and is Israel: 2000 years ago, and again since 1948. Before World War I the Ottoman Empire controlled most of what is the Middle East, and did so for about 400 years. After the Ottoman defeat in WWI, England and France controlled most of the area. Syria, for example, got their independence from France in 1946. Palestine was under the "British Mandate." It consisted of Jordan (then Trans-Jordan), Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank (Judea and Sumaria). To make a long story short, Britain was reluctant to allow Jewish refugees from Europe after WWII to emigrate to Palestine. (If you have never watched the movie "Exodus" with Paul Newman, I recommend that you do so.) Under pressure from Jews and others, Britain turned over their Mandate to the UN General Assembly. The UN then approved a measure partitioning the land between the Jews and the Arabs. (I should point out that the Brits had already given 2/3 of the land in the Mandate to the Hashemite King in Jordan.) That left very little to be divided yet again between the Jews and remaining Arabs. Before the measure passed, the Arabs made it clear that they would never accept partition. (In the 1920's Jews were slaughtered by Arabs. In WWII, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem sided with Hitler and had a great interest in Hitler's "Final Solution." Muslim anti-semitism was quite prevalent before Israel existed.)
So, the UN voted partition in 1947; and on May 14, 1948 the tiny country of Israel declared their independence. The very next day, five Arab countries attacked; the first effort to wipe Israel off the map. The Israeli forces were outnumbered and lacking in weapons. Yet, the underdogs (yes, Israel was the weaker party and clearly the underdog) won. When the war ended in 1949, 6000 Israelis had been killed - one percent of the entire Jewish population. The boundaries that were set in the 1949 "armistice" were not final boundaries based upon any treaty. There was no treaty and no agreement other than a cessation of hostilities. (Which is why Obama does not call the "settlements" illegal but rather "illegitimate." Because they are not illegal.) Israel had to fight for its survival again in 1956 and again in the Six Day War of 1967. In 1967, Israel captured the West Bank, including Jerusalem, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Sinai. An amazing accomplishment for such a tiny country. Just so we are clear, from 1949 to 1967, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank. During that time the Jordanians allowed the destruction of numerous Jewish holy sights. When Israel captured Jerusalem in 1967, it turned over control of the Temple Mount (arguably the holiest site in Judaism, and where the Al Aksa mosque is) to the muslims. (We could debate why the muslims chose to build on top of the the site where the two Great Jewish Temples stood, but that is another matter.)
In 1973, on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for Jews, the Arabs attacked again. The Jews were totally caught off guard, and but for the intervention of Richard Nixon supplying war materiel to the Jews, Israel might very well have been wiped off the map. Since then there have been other wars, including the Lebanon war, the war with Hezbollah, the war with Hamas, and the two intifadas (1987-1992 and 2000-2006). But Israel is never at peace. Since 2000, and mostly since vacating Gaza, the "palestinians" there/Hamas have launched over 10,000 rockets and missiles into Israel. Can you imagine what the US would do if Mexico had launched even 100 rockets and missiles into San Diego? The public would have demanded massive retaliation. But Israel, now a powerful country militarily, acts with great restraint. They do so because they do not want to kill innocents; and because the world demands it. The world demands that Israel take more hits than any other country would tolerate. Israel could flatten Gaza - they do not. The Israeli army operates under what are probably the strictest rules of engagement for any military.
So now to your comments. No, I have never been to Israel. But my three kids have (one spent a year there), as have friends. I do not need to be there to have an opinion. I do not need to see animal abuse to know that it is wrong. I do not need to see spousal abuse to know that it is wrong. I can form those opinions without seeing it or speaking to the victims.
I put "palestine" and "palestnians" in quotes because the Jews were also "palestinians" before the state of Israel existed. Palestine was our homeland. I believe the Arabs of palestine (a more accurate description) use the term "palestinian" for propaganda purposes; it is something they are very good at. You were disturbed by kids with guns slung over their back. Military service is mandatory in Israel, and yes, kids, enter the service after high school and before college. They are 18, just like you can be here. Are you upset that there are armed soldiers everywhere? Israel lives in a very dangerous neighborhood, surrounded by enemies on all sides. Do you know why that "disgusting wall" as you put it was built? It was begun after the second intifada to prevent terrorists from slipping across the green line and blowing up Jews. It is a wall that has undoubtedly saved many Jewish lives. If you agree that the first obligation of any government is to protect the lives of its citizens, then you understand why that wall was built. If you believe the inconvenience of the Arabs is more important than Jewish lives, then I think you might have some soul-searching to do.
You said that the Jews would not have their state but for Christian fundamentalists, who you obviously have a great deal of disdain for. That, of course, is incorrect (see the history above). But it sounds like you believe the Jews should NOT have a state. Do you believe that? Are you okay with 57 muslim countries in the world but not one Jewish state? In what country do Arabs have the most political and economic freedoms? ISRAEL! That's right. There are over 1 million Arabs in Israel who live there as citizens. (Which is interesting because when they talk about a Palestinian state they always say the "settlements" have to go. Notice how ethnic cleansing of the proposed country of Palestine is never objected to by the media, our President, or the UN? It's only the Jews being kicked out.) You equate Christian fundamentalism with Islamic fundamentalism. Really? I would estimate that over 90% of the terrorist acts of the last four decades have been carried out by Islamic fundamentalists. I do not see, hear, or read about Christians trying to kill Jews ever. But you can get it daily from the Arab and muslim world. Read or listen to their media. Look at their schools where Israel does not exist on their maps. All the land is Palestine. Look how they teach their kids to hate, and to be homicide bombers and jihadists. They may be coming after the Jews now, but don't think for one minute it won't be the Christians next.
And let's be clear. I am not referring to the ever dwindling number of Christians who still live in the "palestinian" areas. The problem is with the muslims. Iraq lost over 600,000 Christians. Lebanon went from being a Christian country to now being a muslim country. Christians are treated very badly in Gaza. In each case it was muslims who kicked them out or made it so unpleasant that the Christians left. (Between 1948 and 1998 the Christian population of Israel quadrupled.) If all the lands were occupied by only Christians and Jews there would have been peace for decades already. You said there are real people on both sides. Did you talk to the families of Jews who have been killed by terrorists? Did you talk to any Jews other than soldiers at checkpoints? Can you tell me why Yassir Arafat walked out on Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak after being offered a state? Can you tell me why Abbas did not accept a state from George Bush and Olmert? Are you familiar with the three "no's" issued by the Arab League in Khartoum: no peace, no negotiations, no recognition of Israel. Do you know that both the Hamas Charter and the PA's charter call for the destruction of Israel?
Do you understand the significance of Israel to the Jews? It is not just their Biblical homeland, which is significant in itself. The world has often been a hostile place for Jews throughout history. When terrorists hijacked a French airplane loaded with Jews and took it to Idi Amin's Uganda, who rescued those Jews? Not the French. Not the USA. It was the tiny country of Israel. It was not an Israeli plane that was hijacked. But Jewish lives don't always mean that much to the rest of the world; and Israel sees itself as the protector of Jews worldwide.
You say you have to sympathize with people who react in a violent way. Did your fellow Christians evicted from Iraq and Lebanon and the palestinian areas react with violence? No. They moved on to other places where they could live in peace. Do you support what happened to the Fogel family? You sympathize with someone who stabs a family to death in their beds; even a 3 month old child? Do you support homicide bombers who blow up people on buses, in restaurants, in malls? Did you support the terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center? After all, they had a beef with us and the way they were treated. There is one group of people in the world who believe any actions taken against "infidels" is legitimate. Did you support the bastards who cut off the head of the journalist Daniel Perl? There is something very wrong with people who behave in this manner, and it saddens me to think that you would sympathize with such animals.
I do agree with you that it is a complicated situation. And, yes, innocents on both sides can be unfairly affected. And, yes, I even agree that some Israelis can be very tough people. But I do not have to sleep with an automatic weapon at my side every night for fear of an attack. I do not have to have a bomb shelter in my house, like all Israelis do. But when you think about that wall, ask yourself this: you walk over to your best friend's house and there is the father with a gun in his hand standing over a dead man on the floor who had just been shot. So you immediately conclude your friend's father is a murderer! Or, wait, did he act in self-defense? I hope we can agree that the moral difference is profound.
Sincerely,
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Half the Distance to the Goal.
In September, 2010, Obama indicated that he was giving the Israelis and "palestinians" one year to reach a resolution to their long-standing conflict on their own. Recently, the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli "settlements" as "illegitimate." While saying the issue should be resolved between the parties, the US nevertheless also condemned the "settlements." Meanwhile, the US and the Europeans have put "intense pressure" on Netanyahu to give the Palestinian Authority full control over West Bank cities, with the ultimate goal being the State of Palestine in what is now Gaza, the West Bank, and even part of Jerusalem. (Per Aaron Klein in the 3/9/11 Jewish Press.) Obama clearly prefers a "negotiated" (forced) resolution to one dictated by the UN, as the former would be one for which he could take credit. It would be his major foreign policy achievement, much the same way that Obamacare is his major domestic policy achievement. And it would come before the next presidential election.
So what's wrong with Obama's plan? EVERYTHING! First, the Arab Middle East is in turmoil. While there is no telling where things might end up, there is enough concern about the influences of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood that it should give Obama pause. With what could easily be an increasingly hostile Arab world surrounding Israel, is this the time to create a terrorist state right on Israel's borders; a state that may act as a noose around Israel's neck? Just how far does he think Ben Gurion airport will be from the border of the new "palestinian" state? Maybe five to six miles - not too far for a shoulder held rocket to start taking down Israeli commercial planes.
Second, while Bush pursued the same goal of a "palestinian" state, he did have certain preconditions. Stop the violence. Recognize Israel's right to exist as the home of the Jewish people. Obama, however, took sides the minute he took office. By immediately condemning the Israeli "settlements" as illegitimate, it encouraged the "palestinians" to simply walk away from the bargaining table. So now we are half the distance to Obama's goal, and with no negotiations taking place, Obama is putting all the pressure on Israel to create a new state on its border that will be dedicated to the destruction of Israel. As Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal recently said: "The first step (to liberating Jerusalem from Israeli occupation) is refusal to negotiate with Israel...and to establish a new, reconciled palestinian position based on jihad." (From AIPAC.)
Third, Obama's push for his goal requires him to ignore both past and current reality. It requires Obama to see Israel as the biggest threat to the United States - not Iran. On March 15, the Israeli Navy intercepted a weapons carrying ship 125 miles off its coast. The ship was German owned, under a Liberian flag, sailing out of Turkey. It made a stop in Syria - not coincidentally at the same port that 2 Iranian warships docked at after being allowed to pass through the Suez Canal in January. The ship was carrying 250 mortar shells, 67,000 bullets, and six C-704 sophisticated anti-ship missiles, along with the needed radar systems and hydraulic mounting cases. The ship was bound for Egypt, likely the Sinai; or Gaza. Hamas smuggles large amounts of weapons through tunnels between the Sinai and Gaza. On March 13, Egyptian security forces stopped 5 trucks from Sudan headed towards Gaza with rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, rifles and explosives. Iran anyone? Recently both Senegal and Gambia invited the Iranian ambassadors to their countries to leave. Senegal did so after finding Iranian made weapons in the hands of insurgents there; and Gambia finding Iranian arms on the way there. And while we know that Iran arms the Taliban with weapons that kill American troops, and the same for the insurgents in Iraq; we can only speculate as to how many Iranian munitions have been shipped to Hugo Chavez and other Central and South American countries. And Iranian nukes? Apparently not that big a deal to Obama.
Obama must ignore the terrorist actions of the "palestinians" to feel good about his goal. Israel was just hit with over 50 mortar shells from Gaza. Hamas took responsibility for at least some of those attacks. Thankfully no one was killed, but 2 Israelis were injured. And then there is the Fogel family. Udi and Ruth Fogel and three of their children, Yoav, 11 years old, Elad, 4 years old and Hadas, 3months old, were brutally stabbed and murdered in their beds in Itamar, one of those "settlements" condemned by the US and UN. So what type of person is able to stab children - and even a three month old - to death? The type that Obama must ignore in order to feel good about his goal. We know that the "palestinians" name schools, parks, streets, community centers, camps and other things after terrorists who have murdered innocent civilians. We know that Abbas takes part in the naming ceremonies honoring these bastards (Abbas, the "moderate") and even gives PA money to the families of the terrorists. We do not know what honors Abbas will give to the brutal murderers of the Fogel family. However, Obama will have to ignore the murders and honoring of terrorists to feel good about his goal.
Obama must ignore the words of the "palestinians" - from their leaders, from their media, and as taught in their schools. Leaders and a media and schools that teach hatred of Israel, of Jews, and of the US and the West. Schools that do not even show Israel on their maps; rather, all the land between the Jordan river and Mediterranean is "Palestine." It is a non-stop incitement that allows terrorists to think that a 3 month old child is worthy of being stabbed to death. Palestinian leaders who say one thing in English in order to gain the sympathy of the US and Western world; but who continue to preach violence and jihad to their people in Arabic. But Obama must ignore all of this in order to feel good about his goal.
So is Obama's goal "peace"? Not likely. It appears to this writer that Obama seeks Israeli concession after Israeli concession. If the "palestinians" get their state in Gaza, the West Bank and "east" Jerusalem, they will soon want all of Jerusalem, and bits and pieces of what is left of Israel until the Jews leave or are killed. And with Iranian nukes, and Iranian weapons going to Syria, Hezbollah, the "palestinians" and other Arab countries, Israel's next war could very well be its last. I wish that there was even a hint that Obama gives a damn.
So what's wrong with Obama's plan? EVERYTHING! First, the Arab Middle East is in turmoil. While there is no telling where things might end up, there is enough concern about the influences of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood that it should give Obama pause. With what could easily be an increasingly hostile Arab world surrounding Israel, is this the time to create a terrorist state right on Israel's borders; a state that may act as a noose around Israel's neck? Just how far does he think Ben Gurion airport will be from the border of the new "palestinian" state? Maybe five to six miles - not too far for a shoulder held rocket to start taking down Israeli commercial planes.
Second, while Bush pursued the same goal of a "palestinian" state, he did have certain preconditions. Stop the violence. Recognize Israel's right to exist as the home of the Jewish people. Obama, however, took sides the minute he took office. By immediately condemning the Israeli "settlements" as illegitimate, it encouraged the "palestinians" to simply walk away from the bargaining table. So now we are half the distance to Obama's goal, and with no negotiations taking place, Obama is putting all the pressure on Israel to create a new state on its border that will be dedicated to the destruction of Israel. As Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal recently said: "The first step (to liberating Jerusalem from Israeli occupation) is refusal to negotiate with Israel...and to establish a new, reconciled palestinian position based on jihad." (From AIPAC.)
Third, Obama's push for his goal requires him to ignore both past and current reality. It requires Obama to see Israel as the biggest threat to the United States - not Iran. On March 15, the Israeli Navy intercepted a weapons carrying ship 125 miles off its coast. The ship was German owned, under a Liberian flag, sailing out of Turkey. It made a stop in Syria - not coincidentally at the same port that 2 Iranian warships docked at after being allowed to pass through the Suez Canal in January. The ship was carrying 250 mortar shells, 67,000 bullets, and six C-704 sophisticated anti-ship missiles, along with the needed radar systems and hydraulic mounting cases. The ship was bound for Egypt, likely the Sinai; or Gaza. Hamas smuggles large amounts of weapons through tunnels between the Sinai and Gaza. On March 13, Egyptian security forces stopped 5 trucks from Sudan headed towards Gaza with rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, rifles and explosives. Iran anyone? Recently both Senegal and Gambia invited the Iranian ambassadors to their countries to leave. Senegal did so after finding Iranian made weapons in the hands of insurgents there; and Gambia finding Iranian arms on the way there. And while we know that Iran arms the Taliban with weapons that kill American troops, and the same for the insurgents in Iraq; we can only speculate as to how many Iranian munitions have been shipped to Hugo Chavez and other Central and South American countries. And Iranian nukes? Apparently not that big a deal to Obama.
Obama must ignore the terrorist actions of the "palestinians" to feel good about his goal. Israel was just hit with over 50 mortar shells from Gaza. Hamas took responsibility for at least some of those attacks. Thankfully no one was killed, but 2 Israelis were injured. And then there is the Fogel family. Udi and Ruth Fogel and three of their children, Yoav, 11 years old, Elad, 4 years old and Hadas, 3months old, were brutally stabbed and murdered in their beds in Itamar, one of those "settlements" condemned by the US and UN. So what type of person is able to stab children - and even a three month old - to death? The type that Obama must ignore in order to feel good about his goal. We know that the "palestinians" name schools, parks, streets, community centers, camps and other things after terrorists who have murdered innocent civilians. We know that Abbas takes part in the naming ceremonies honoring these bastards (Abbas, the "moderate") and even gives PA money to the families of the terrorists. We do not know what honors Abbas will give to the brutal murderers of the Fogel family. However, Obama will have to ignore the murders and honoring of terrorists to feel good about his goal.
Obama must ignore the words of the "palestinians" - from their leaders, from their media, and as taught in their schools. Leaders and a media and schools that teach hatred of Israel, of Jews, and of the US and the West. Schools that do not even show Israel on their maps; rather, all the land between the Jordan river and Mediterranean is "Palestine." It is a non-stop incitement that allows terrorists to think that a 3 month old child is worthy of being stabbed to death. Palestinian leaders who say one thing in English in order to gain the sympathy of the US and Western world; but who continue to preach violence and jihad to their people in Arabic. But Obama must ignore all of this in order to feel good about his goal.
So is Obama's goal "peace"? Not likely. It appears to this writer that Obama seeks Israeli concession after Israeli concession. If the "palestinians" get their state in Gaza, the West Bank and "east" Jerusalem, they will soon want all of Jerusalem, and bits and pieces of what is left of Israel until the Jews leave or are killed. And with Iranian nukes, and Iranian weapons going to Syria, Hezbollah, the "palestinians" and other Arab countries, Israel's next war could very well be its last. I wish that there was even a hint that Obama gives a damn.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Republican Governors Take on the Unions; and More on the Middle East.
1. Republican Governors versus Public Employee Unions. In a battle begun by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and N.J. Gov. Chris Christie, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ohio Gov. John Kasich are reminding the people of their states of that old truism: there are no free lunches. When Christie wanted the N.J. teachers to increase their share of health insurance premiums by 1.5%, he got death threats. Now, in Wisconsin, teachers and other public employees have been out en masse protesting Gov. Walker's proposal that they contribute 5.8% to their pensions and 12.6% to their health insurance. The Unions say they have conceded the issues, and are now fighting over the right to maintain collective bargaining for themselves. Putting aside for a moment the issue of whether or not public employees, as public servants paid by the taxpayers, should even have that right, let's see what collective bargaining has wrought.
According to the Wall Street Journal (Feb. 19-20, 2011) the following reflects the differences in public vs. private employment (with the figures for public employees first): $26.25 per hour on average vs. $19.68; 99% get some retirement benefits vs. 74%; 99% get medical benefits vs. 86%; 98% get sick leave vs. 74%; 11 paid holidays vs. 8; and 11% paid to their own insurance premiums vs. 20%. So the question is: what makes public employees more important than those in the private sector? Why should a person who works in the private sector, already making on average less than public employees, pay either wholly or in part for their own retirement and health insurance, and then have to pay for the public employees' as well? Why isn't everyone on a level playing field? The answer is CORRUPTION!
The unions, especially the public employee ones, have become the fund raising arm of the Democratic Party. The unions contribute millions to help democrats get elected; and the Dems return the favor by granting big salaries and huge benefits in return. Only they do it with taxpayer money. (If they did this in the private sector, people would be going to jail.) While Wisconsin's state pension plan provides that the state will contribute 6.8%, and employees contribute 6.2%, that does not necessarily happen. The reason is that through COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (more properly referred to as collusion) some districts (like Milwaukee) pay the entire 13%.
And while lifetime medical care often accompanies pensions in the public sector, it is rare indeed in the private sector.
So what will Jerry Brown do in California? His first proposed budget does not even address the pension issue. California's projected budget deficit is $25.4 billion, far and away the highest in the nation. And what do we have to show for our spending spree? "12.6% unemployment; public schools ranking near the bottom in math and science; a business climate ranked by CEOs as last for jobs and business growth; the highest gasoline tax and combined sales, local and state income taxes that are among the nation's steepest." (According to Victor Davis Hanson in the 2/14/11 Investor's Business Daily.) Although Mr. Hanson notes that we do have "30% of the national welfare load" with only 12% of the population.
Even the LA Times, in their lead editorial of 2/26/11, notes that many state and local government employees were promised pensions that the public could not afford (citing a report just issued by the Little Hoover Commission). According to the Commission: "pension costs will crush government." The Times recognizes that "the more tax dollars governments have to devote to pensions, the more they'll have to take from other programs or from taxpayers. That means more layoffs or pay cuts for public employees, higher taxes, fewer services, or all of the above." But the Times is part of the problem as they consistently support democrat candidates for the legislature, the same party that has gotten us into this mess. They even note that in 1999 the Legislature reduced the public employees' retirement age, and increased their pensions - retroactively. Yet it is almost guaranteed that the Times will endorse more democrats for the Legislature in 2012.
Meanwhile, an increasing number of governors are asking the Feds for waivers from some of the requirements of Medicaid (Medical in California). According to Peter Suderman, in an article in the 2/15/11 Wall Street Journal, Medicaid now takes about 21% of total state expenditures. He states that Medicaid covers a whopping 53 million people and costs $373.9 billion per year - with states expected to pay one-half of the tab. The states need the waivers because of their increasing budgetary problems. Of course, the Feds have no money either, with a $14 TRILLION debt.
Yet, Obama's proposed budget does nothing to address the major issues of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Even Erksine Bowles, Democrat appointed to be co-chair of Obama's fiscal commission, said Obama's budget goes "nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare." (Per Michael Barone in the 2/17/11 Wall Street Journal.) I think Obama is playing politics and waiting to see if the Republicans' proposed cuts are supported by the public. If not, he will make it a big campaign issue in 2012. So much for a new way of doing business in D.C. So much for Hope and Change. So I say: Let's hear it for the Republican Governors! They are the only ones giving us real Hope and Change.
2. The Middle East. It appears one Middle Eastern dictator after the next may be falling. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and others. While the left hails these developments as a blow for freedom, we on the right (and the more sensible ones on the left) know that we must be cautiously optimistic. Citing a Pew Research poll, the 2/11/11 IBD lead editorial gives some frightening statistics regarding Egyptians: 95% prefer that Islam "play a large role in politics;" "84% favor the death penalty for people who leave the muslim faith; 82% support stoning adulterers; 77% think thieves should have their hands cut off; 54% support a law segregating women from men in the workplace; 54% believe suicide bombings that kill civilians can be justified; and nearly half support the terrorist group Hamas."
As seems typical now in the area of foreign affairs, the Obama Administration is either way over their heads, totally incompetent, or simply on the wrong side. Take your pick. As noted by Bret Stephens in the 2/15/11 Wall Street Journal, our Director of National Intelligence told the Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood was "largely secular." What a moron! This is the man that heads all of our "intelligence" agencies. This is what happens when Obama puts politics, political correctness, and his naive and distorted view of the world ahead of realty. It explains why the head of NASA would say NASA's mission is outreach to the Muslim World. It explains why Obama said all Israeli "settlements" in the West Bank - even part of Jerusalem - are "illegitimate."
So what does the Muslim Brotherhood really have to say? Per Mr. Stephens, Kamal al-Hilbawi, one of the leaders, said he "thinks highly of a country...that confronts Western hegemony, and is scientifically and technologically advanced. Unfortunately, these characteristics can be found only in The ISLAMIC Republic of Iran." (Emphasis added.) And then we have this comment from Muhammad Badie, supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood: "Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny. The improvement and change that the (Muslim) nation seeks can only be attained...by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death as the enemies pursue life." DEATH OVER LIFE!
It is fair to ask just where this President's sensibilities lie. Why did Obama have the then president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) give a prayer as part of his inauguration cermonies? The ISNA is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, itself an offshoot of the Brotherhood. Why did Obama send his close friend and top adviser Valerie Jarrett to be keynote speaker at the ISNA's 2009 convention? If Obama's goal was to win hearts and minds, it did not work. Even though he spoke to the muslim world from Cairo, 82% of Egyptians dislike the USA, per the above-referenced Pew poll. So maybe Obama is just letting us know which side he is on.
The early signs in Egypt are certainly not all positive. For the first time in decades Iranian warships have been allowed to pass through the Suez Canal. Clearly, the proximity of these ships to Israel poses a direct threat to that country. (Does Obama, with all of the unrest in the Arab world, even now understand that Israel is our closest and best ally in the region?) Hamas, perhaps feeling emboldened, launched a missile attack on Beersheva, a city considerably further from the Gaza border than previous targets.
Meanwhile, the palestinians say the "peace talks" are dead, and will be pushing for a UN resolution granting them statehood. Undoubtedly, they see they can use the push for "democracy" in the region to their advantage. They have lined up eight Latin American countries, and are now wooing the European countries for their support. Needless to say, they will have the support of the 57 muslim countries in the world. It will not be difficult for them to get the UN to support them. After all, 155 out of the total of 192 member countries at the UN voted just last year to elect Libya to the Human Rights Council. Did those 155 countries think Qaddafi actually supported human rights until he started killing his fellow countrymen in the streets? How many would make the same vote today?
It would behoove the O. team to remember that "democracy" is simply a process. The real goal is liberty. Democracy may be the best process to ensure liberty, but it is far from being a guarantee.
According to the Wall Street Journal (Feb. 19-20, 2011) the following reflects the differences in public vs. private employment (with the figures for public employees first): $26.25 per hour on average vs. $19.68; 99% get some retirement benefits vs. 74%; 99% get medical benefits vs. 86%; 98% get sick leave vs. 74%; 11 paid holidays vs. 8; and 11% paid to their own insurance premiums vs. 20%. So the question is: what makes public employees more important than those in the private sector? Why should a person who works in the private sector, already making on average less than public employees, pay either wholly or in part for their own retirement and health insurance, and then have to pay for the public employees' as well? Why isn't everyone on a level playing field? The answer is CORRUPTION!
The unions, especially the public employee ones, have become the fund raising arm of the Democratic Party. The unions contribute millions to help democrats get elected; and the Dems return the favor by granting big salaries and huge benefits in return. Only they do it with taxpayer money. (If they did this in the private sector, people would be going to jail.) While Wisconsin's state pension plan provides that the state will contribute 6.8%, and employees contribute 6.2%, that does not necessarily happen. The reason is that through COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (more properly referred to as collusion) some districts (like Milwaukee) pay the entire 13%.
And while lifetime medical care often accompanies pensions in the public sector, it is rare indeed in the private sector.
So what will Jerry Brown do in California? His first proposed budget does not even address the pension issue. California's projected budget deficit is $25.4 billion, far and away the highest in the nation. And what do we have to show for our spending spree? "12.6% unemployment; public schools ranking near the bottom in math and science; a business climate ranked by CEOs as last for jobs and business growth; the highest gasoline tax and combined sales, local and state income taxes that are among the nation's steepest." (According to Victor Davis Hanson in the 2/14/11 Investor's Business Daily.) Although Mr. Hanson notes that we do have "30% of the national welfare load" with only 12% of the population.
Even the LA Times, in their lead editorial of 2/26/11, notes that many state and local government employees were promised pensions that the public could not afford (citing a report just issued by the Little Hoover Commission). According to the Commission: "pension costs will crush government." The Times recognizes that "the more tax dollars governments have to devote to pensions, the more they'll have to take from other programs or from taxpayers. That means more layoffs or pay cuts for public employees, higher taxes, fewer services, or all of the above." But the Times is part of the problem as they consistently support democrat candidates for the legislature, the same party that has gotten us into this mess. They even note that in 1999 the Legislature reduced the public employees' retirement age, and increased their pensions - retroactively. Yet it is almost guaranteed that the Times will endorse more democrats for the Legislature in 2012.
Meanwhile, an increasing number of governors are asking the Feds for waivers from some of the requirements of Medicaid (Medical in California). According to Peter Suderman, in an article in the 2/15/11 Wall Street Journal, Medicaid now takes about 21% of total state expenditures. He states that Medicaid covers a whopping 53 million people and costs $373.9 billion per year - with states expected to pay one-half of the tab. The states need the waivers because of their increasing budgetary problems. Of course, the Feds have no money either, with a $14 TRILLION debt.
Yet, Obama's proposed budget does nothing to address the major issues of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Even Erksine Bowles, Democrat appointed to be co-chair of Obama's fiscal commission, said Obama's budget goes "nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare." (Per Michael Barone in the 2/17/11 Wall Street Journal.) I think Obama is playing politics and waiting to see if the Republicans' proposed cuts are supported by the public. If not, he will make it a big campaign issue in 2012. So much for a new way of doing business in D.C. So much for Hope and Change. So I say: Let's hear it for the Republican Governors! They are the only ones giving us real Hope and Change.
2. The Middle East. It appears one Middle Eastern dictator after the next may be falling. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and others. While the left hails these developments as a blow for freedom, we on the right (and the more sensible ones on the left) know that we must be cautiously optimistic. Citing a Pew Research poll, the 2/11/11 IBD lead editorial gives some frightening statistics regarding Egyptians: 95% prefer that Islam "play a large role in politics;" "84% favor the death penalty for people who leave the muslim faith; 82% support stoning adulterers; 77% think thieves should have their hands cut off; 54% support a law segregating women from men in the workplace; 54% believe suicide bombings that kill civilians can be justified; and nearly half support the terrorist group Hamas."
As seems typical now in the area of foreign affairs, the Obama Administration is either way over their heads, totally incompetent, or simply on the wrong side. Take your pick. As noted by Bret Stephens in the 2/15/11 Wall Street Journal, our Director of National Intelligence told the Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood was "largely secular." What a moron! This is the man that heads all of our "intelligence" agencies. This is what happens when Obama puts politics, political correctness, and his naive and distorted view of the world ahead of realty. It explains why the head of NASA would say NASA's mission is outreach to the Muslim World. It explains why Obama said all Israeli "settlements" in the West Bank - even part of Jerusalem - are "illegitimate."
So what does the Muslim Brotherhood really have to say? Per Mr. Stephens, Kamal al-Hilbawi, one of the leaders, said he "thinks highly of a country...that confronts Western hegemony, and is scientifically and technologically advanced. Unfortunately, these characteristics can be found only in The ISLAMIC Republic of Iran." (Emphasis added.) And then we have this comment from Muhammad Badie, supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood: "Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny. The improvement and change that the (Muslim) nation seeks can only be attained...by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death as the enemies pursue life." DEATH OVER LIFE!
It is fair to ask just where this President's sensibilities lie. Why did Obama have the then president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) give a prayer as part of his inauguration cermonies? The ISNA is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, itself an offshoot of the Brotherhood. Why did Obama send his close friend and top adviser Valerie Jarrett to be keynote speaker at the ISNA's 2009 convention? If Obama's goal was to win hearts and minds, it did not work. Even though he spoke to the muslim world from Cairo, 82% of Egyptians dislike the USA, per the above-referenced Pew poll. So maybe Obama is just letting us know which side he is on.
The early signs in Egypt are certainly not all positive. For the first time in decades Iranian warships have been allowed to pass through the Suez Canal. Clearly, the proximity of these ships to Israel poses a direct threat to that country. (Does Obama, with all of the unrest in the Arab world, even now understand that Israel is our closest and best ally in the region?) Hamas, perhaps feeling emboldened, launched a missile attack on Beersheva, a city considerably further from the Gaza border than previous targets.
Meanwhile, the palestinians say the "peace talks" are dead, and will be pushing for a UN resolution granting them statehood. Undoubtedly, they see they can use the push for "democracy" in the region to their advantage. They have lined up eight Latin American countries, and are now wooing the European countries for their support. Needless to say, they will have the support of the 57 muslim countries in the world. It will not be difficult for them to get the UN to support them. After all, 155 out of the total of 192 member countries at the UN voted just last year to elect Libya to the Human Rights Council. Did those 155 countries think Qaddafi actually supported human rights until he started killing his fellow countrymen in the streets? How many would make the same vote today?
It would behoove the O. team to remember that "democracy" is simply a process. The real goal is liberty. Democracy may be the best process to ensure liberty, but it is far from being a guarantee.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Turmoil in the Middle East and What We Can Learn From it.
In Tunisia, a country of over 10 million people, President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali was forced out of office after a popular uprising. Ben Ali has ruled as a dictator for 23 years. The uprising began after the self-immolation of a college graduate who was working as a street vendor and was dissatisfied with the lack of economic opportunities. Tunisia has one of the more educated Arab populations, has been a secular country, and has suppressed Islamist groups. The new Provisional Government is promising elections in six months and says it is seeking to build a democracy.
Meanwhile, with the Prime Minister of Lebanon visiting the US, Hezbollah effectively took over that government and garnered enough support to elect their hand picked candidate as the new prime minister. This puts an Iranian backed regime on Israel's northern border.
Then we turn to Egypt where there have been demonstrations for a week now. Egypt, with a population of over 80 million people, has been the leading Arab country. Mubarak has been dictator for 30 years, and has also suppressed Islamist groups, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is an offshoot of the Brotherhood. While Mubarak has far more support from his military than Ben Ali had from his, it is not guaranteed that Mubarak survives this uprising. Even if he does, his age makes it likely that it will not be for long. The Muslim Brotherhood, while outlawed in Egypt, nevertheless remains the key opposition group. And while the demonstrations were prompted by the same desire of the people for freedom and economic opportunity - as in Tunisia - the chances of Egypt becoming an Islamist state are uncomfortably high.
Under Mubarak, the peace treaty with Israel was strained at best. As an Islamist country the treaty with Israel would be dead. Egypt's military is significantly stronger than the last time it faced Israel in a war. It has about 300 F-16 fighter jets, the M1A1 tank, a large navy and double the size of Israel's army. (As reported by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post online.)
Yet, as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, Obama is still pursuing the establishment of yet another Islamist regime on Israel's border - "Palestine." Obama, having made a recess appointment of an ambassador to Syria, is also seeking to have Israel return the strategic Golan Heights to Syria. Obama and those in his Administration have repeated on numerous occassions that the failure of Israel to make a deal with the palestinians has been the main obstacle to overall peace and stability in the Middle East. Now we can see just what a Big Lie that has been. The uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have NOTHING to do with Israel and the palestinians; and everything to do with a desire by the people for freedom and economic opportunity. However, while the cause of these uprisings is unrelated to Israel, the effects can and likely will have a significant impact on Israel. Israel is surrounded on all sides by hostile neighbors. How much greater will the threat to peace be if the neighbors are Islamic fundalmentalist regimes and/or tied to the Iranian/Syrian/Hezbollah/Hamas (and now Turkey perhaps) axis. Clearly, the influence of the US and its main Arab allies - Egypt and Saudi Arabia - has already dwindled; while Iran, Syria and Turkey are playing far greater roles in Muddle East affairs.
So what lessons can we in the US learn about our own democracy from the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East? As expressed in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, we have a historical belief in the primacy of the individual over the state. It is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as well as all the rights enumerated in our Constitution. These individual rights are of vital necessity to a free and democratic society. Mere elections are not enough. Mere elections resulted in Hamas winning in Gaza, with their resultant iron-fisted rule and denial of basic human rights. Mere elections resulted in Hezbollah winning many seats in the Lebanese Parliament, speeding its way to what now may be total control. Mere elections may result in the Muslim Brotherhood controlling Egypt.
Here in the US there has been much disagreement between the Left and the Right over the significance to be given to our Constitution. Liberals have accused conservatives of treating the Constitution as a holy document; rather than a living and breathing document that should carry no more weight than any other law. As the Federal Government takes on an ever expanding role in our day to day lives, there seems to be little appreciation for the incredible system established by the Constitution - dividing power between a Federal Government, State Governments, and the People. A government that moves away from the Constitution sees itself as able to enact any laws it sees fit.
Obamacare passed with the Big Lie that the people demanded it when nearly 2/3 of the people opposed it. More importantly, there was little consideration given to how the Congress had the authority to order people to buy health insurance. Then Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave her now famous reply to a reporter's question about where in the Constitution Congress was given the power to order such a mandate by stating: "Are you kidding me?" Her assumption, like many in Congress assume, is that there is no limit on Federal power. What makes her belief different than that of the leaders of Hamas or Hezbollah or other dictators? Yes, I know she undoubtedly believes in some of the freedoms we hold dear. But what about "net neutrality?" What about a return of the "fairness doctrine?" What about a Congress that sees no impediment to forcing government control of healthcare down the people's throats? Without a core belief in the significance of our founding documents, just where is the limit on Federal power? What about a Supreme Court that interprets, for the first time in our history, the Fifth Amendment provision that says the government may take private property for public use, when that public use is nothing more than a better tax rate if your home is converted to a commercial use? When the Congress and the Courts view the State as having greater significance than the individual, then our country is lost. So that is why conservatives want to defend the Constitution and its division of powers between the People, the States and the Feds; and why we insist that it is more important than any other law that Congress may pass.
So whither the Arab Middle East? More secular dictatorships? More Islamic Fundamentalist dictatorships? Or free societies where those elected respect individual rights as being more significant than the State or Islam? I am not optimistic about the last option prevailing.
Meanwhile, with the Prime Minister of Lebanon visiting the US, Hezbollah effectively took over that government and garnered enough support to elect their hand picked candidate as the new prime minister. This puts an Iranian backed regime on Israel's northern border.
Then we turn to Egypt where there have been demonstrations for a week now. Egypt, with a population of over 80 million people, has been the leading Arab country. Mubarak has been dictator for 30 years, and has also suppressed Islamist groups, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is an offshoot of the Brotherhood. While Mubarak has far more support from his military than Ben Ali had from his, it is not guaranteed that Mubarak survives this uprising. Even if he does, his age makes it likely that it will not be for long. The Muslim Brotherhood, while outlawed in Egypt, nevertheless remains the key opposition group. And while the demonstrations were prompted by the same desire of the people for freedom and economic opportunity - as in Tunisia - the chances of Egypt becoming an Islamist state are uncomfortably high.
Under Mubarak, the peace treaty with Israel was strained at best. As an Islamist country the treaty with Israel would be dead. Egypt's military is significantly stronger than the last time it faced Israel in a war. It has about 300 F-16 fighter jets, the M1A1 tank, a large navy and double the size of Israel's army. (As reported by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post online.)
Yet, as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, Obama is still pursuing the establishment of yet another Islamist regime on Israel's border - "Palestine." Obama, having made a recess appointment of an ambassador to Syria, is also seeking to have Israel return the strategic Golan Heights to Syria. Obama and those in his Administration have repeated on numerous occassions that the failure of Israel to make a deal with the palestinians has been the main obstacle to overall peace and stability in the Middle East. Now we can see just what a Big Lie that has been. The uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have NOTHING to do with Israel and the palestinians; and everything to do with a desire by the people for freedom and economic opportunity. However, while the cause of these uprisings is unrelated to Israel, the effects can and likely will have a significant impact on Israel. Israel is surrounded on all sides by hostile neighbors. How much greater will the threat to peace be if the neighbors are Islamic fundalmentalist regimes and/or tied to the Iranian/Syrian/Hezbollah/Hamas (and now Turkey perhaps) axis. Clearly, the influence of the US and its main Arab allies - Egypt and Saudi Arabia - has already dwindled; while Iran, Syria and Turkey are playing far greater roles in Muddle East affairs.
So what lessons can we in the US learn about our own democracy from the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East? As expressed in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, we have a historical belief in the primacy of the individual over the state. It is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as well as all the rights enumerated in our Constitution. These individual rights are of vital necessity to a free and democratic society. Mere elections are not enough. Mere elections resulted in Hamas winning in Gaza, with their resultant iron-fisted rule and denial of basic human rights. Mere elections resulted in Hezbollah winning many seats in the Lebanese Parliament, speeding its way to what now may be total control. Mere elections may result in the Muslim Brotherhood controlling Egypt.
Here in the US there has been much disagreement between the Left and the Right over the significance to be given to our Constitution. Liberals have accused conservatives of treating the Constitution as a holy document; rather than a living and breathing document that should carry no more weight than any other law. As the Federal Government takes on an ever expanding role in our day to day lives, there seems to be little appreciation for the incredible system established by the Constitution - dividing power between a Federal Government, State Governments, and the People. A government that moves away from the Constitution sees itself as able to enact any laws it sees fit.
Obamacare passed with the Big Lie that the people demanded it when nearly 2/3 of the people opposed it. More importantly, there was little consideration given to how the Congress had the authority to order people to buy health insurance. Then Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave her now famous reply to a reporter's question about where in the Constitution Congress was given the power to order such a mandate by stating: "Are you kidding me?" Her assumption, like many in Congress assume, is that there is no limit on Federal power. What makes her belief different than that of the leaders of Hamas or Hezbollah or other dictators? Yes, I know she undoubtedly believes in some of the freedoms we hold dear. But what about "net neutrality?" What about a return of the "fairness doctrine?" What about a Congress that sees no impediment to forcing government control of healthcare down the people's throats? Without a core belief in the significance of our founding documents, just where is the limit on Federal power? What about a Supreme Court that interprets, for the first time in our history, the Fifth Amendment provision that says the government may take private property for public use, when that public use is nothing more than a better tax rate if your home is converted to a commercial use? When the Congress and the Courts view the State as having greater significance than the individual, then our country is lost. So that is why conservatives want to defend the Constitution and its division of powers between the People, the States and the Feds; and why we insist that it is more important than any other law that Congress may pass.
So whither the Arab Middle East? More secular dictatorships? More Islamic Fundamentalist dictatorships? Or free societies where those elected respect individual rights as being more significant than the State or Islam? I am not optimistic about the last option prevailing.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Abandonment of Truth.
On January 8, a single gunman named Jared Loughner, with murderous intent carried out a horrific attack at a Congressional meet and greet in Tucson, Arizona. By now we have all heard or read many of the commentators discussing the vitriolic nature of political discourse in this country, with most of the blame being pointed at the Right (including Republicans, the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, among others).
In their 1/10/11 lead editorial, the NY Times acknowledged that Loughner was probably mentally ill, and that his internet rantings "place him well beyond usual ideological categories." But that did not deter them from blaming talk radio for the death threats received by Federal Judge John Roll (killed by Loughner) after the Judge allowed a case to proceed against a rancher accused of assaulting 16 Mexicans while crossing his land. It did not deter the editorial writers at the Times from this bold assertion: "But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge." (I wonder who they think is responsible for the sudden increase in death threats being received by Sarah Palin since this incident, as reported by Fox News.)
The LA Times in their 1/11/11 editorial was not much different. After saying it is not fair to blame Sarah Palin (or others) for the massacre, they do exactly that. "The real problem is that a former vice presidential candidate and possible 2012 presidential hopeful thinks violent imagery directed at political opponents is acceptable, and her supporters see nothing wrong with it." They go on: "The right bears the brunt of responsibility for this poisoned atmosphere..." but then concede they do not have a "monopoly on hate-inspiring speech." Somehow, they cannot bring themselves to tell us who else they think might engage in hate speech. (Maybe the Left, Keith Olbermann, Mike Malloy, former Florida Congressman Grayson, Howard Dean, and Ed Schultz, to name just a few.) Somehow, they cannot bring themselves to tell us that the Democrats had their own map, with bulls-eyes on the congressional districts held by Republicans.
Somehow, they cannot bring themselves to tell us that it was the current President of the United States who said, in reference to Republicans: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." Somehow, they manage to overlook the fact that the Tea Party movement is one of the most peaceful political movements to ever come along.
So what is going on here? Do the LA and NY Times really not know all the facts stated above? They do, but it no longer matters to them. Their own left-wing agenda is now more important than the truth. In their world, the ends justify the means. So if an incident like the one in Tucson can be used to their political advantage, with an opportunity to take a shot at some of their favorite targets, then so be it; and the truth be damned. The agenda matters far more than the truth. The problem is, most of the people don't buy it. While many factors have been affecting newspaper circulation over the last decade or more, one big factor is the people know they can no longer rely on the truthfulness of these mainstream institutions.
The approval rating of Congress is abysmally low. Maybe the people don't like being lied to. However, many in Congress have the same belief that their agenda is the first and only priority; that the ends justify the means. Truth takes a back seat, if it is even considered at all. The people don't believe, for example, that we can add 30 to 40 million people to the healthcare system without it costing a dime. Yet Obama, Reid and Pelosi told us exactly that. The people voted overwhelmingly Republican in 2010, not because of talk radio, but because they knew they were lied to, and did not agree with the policies being promoted. People do not like being lied to, and yes, it makes them angry.
Not surprisingly, these mainstream papers take absolutely none of the blame for the vitriolic level of discourse they describe. So when the LA Times called all those opposed to gay marriage "bigots," they made it clear that there was no honorable disagreement with their position. If you disagreed you were a hater. They constantly referred to the war in Iraq as "Bush's war." Imagine that. A war approved of by Congress, with American soldiers in harms way, yet they saw no divisiveness in their description. The LA Times has been so obsessed with their agenda, that they also lost another forgotten value - common decency. The day after Terri Schivo died, their editorial blasted the parents for trying to keep their daughter alive. Imagine that - they could not even allow the family one day to bury their daughter and grieve without their vicious attacks on them. For the LA Times, decency went the way of truth.
Of course, truth has not just been abandoned in the political arena. We often see it in sports. During baseball's "steroid era" many players were cheating (another form of lying) while using these drugs. Few were able to admit what they were doing - they just magically grew in size and strength and speed, even though they were getting older; even though the normal aging process should have caused the opposite effects. And Major League Baseball did not care; attendance and revenue were way up with all the home runs being hit. So the ends (money in this case) justified the means. We see football players trying to convince the ref they caught a ball when they know full well it hit the ground first. Basketball players fall backwards onto the court when lightly brushed by another player in an effort to get a foul called on the opposing team. Now, many commentators refer to such antics as "heads-up" playing. So has winning become more important than honesty and integrity?
Back in the political arena, public employees do not want to hear that their unions have obtained salary and pension benefits that are bankrupting many cities and states. Their agenda is more important than the truth.
So where does this all end? We, the People, have to insist on truth and honesty at every turn. We can do it by shunning media sources that lie to us, and that refuse to give us a balanced viewpoint. We can do it by voting out of office politicians who lie to us. We can do it by teaching our kids and grandkids that winning is NOT everything. And we can insist on it in our own lives. Because the more we allow the lies, the more we are likely to be on the receiving end of them.
In their 1/10/11 lead editorial, the NY Times acknowledged that Loughner was probably mentally ill, and that his internet rantings "place him well beyond usual ideological categories." But that did not deter them from blaming talk radio for the death threats received by Federal Judge John Roll (killed by Loughner) after the Judge allowed a case to proceed against a rancher accused of assaulting 16 Mexicans while crossing his land. It did not deter the editorial writers at the Times from this bold assertion: "But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge." (I wonder who they think is responsible for the sudden increase in death threats being received by Sarah Palin since this incident, as reported by Fox News.)
The LA Times in their 1/11/11 editorial was not much different. After saying it is not fair to blame Sarah Palin (or others) for the massacre, they do exactly that. "The real problem is that a former vice presidential candidate and possible 2012 presidential hopeful thinks violent imagery directed at political opponents is acceptable, and her supporters see nothing wrong with it." They go on: "The right bears the brunt of responsibility for this poisoned atmosphere..." but then concede they do not have a "monopoly on hate-inspiring speech." Somehow, they cannot bring themselves to tell us who else they think might engage in hate speech. (Maybe the Left, Keith Olbermann, Mike Malloy, former Florida Congressman Grayson, Howard Dean, and Ed Schultz, to name just a few.) Somehow, they cannot bring themselves to tell us that the Democrats had their own map, with bulls-eyes on the congressional districts held by Republicans.
Somehow, they cannot bring themselves to tell us that it was the current President of the United States who said, in reference to Republicans: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." Somehow, they manage to overlook the fact that the Tea Party movement is one of the most peaceful political movements to ever come along.
So what is going on here? Do the LA and NY Times really not know all the facts stated above? They do, but it no longer matters to them. Their own left-wing agenda is now more important than the truth. In their world, the ends justify the means. So if an incident like the one in Tucson can be used to their political advantage, with an opportunity to take a shot at some of their favorite targets, then so be it; and the truth be damned. The agenda matters far more than the truth. The problem is, most of the people don't buy it. While many factors have been affecting newspaper circulation over the last decade or more, one big factor is the people know they can no longer rely on the truthfulness of these mainstream institutions.
The approval rating of Congress is abysmally low. Maybe the people don't like being lied to. However, many in Congress have the same belief that their agenda is the first and only priority; that the ends justify the means. Truth takes a back seat, if it is even considered at all. The people don't believe, for example, that we can add 30 to 40 million people to the healthcare system without it costing a dime. Yet Obama, Reid and Pelosi told us exactly that. The people voted overwhelmingly Republican in 2010, not because of talk radio, but because they knew they were lied to, and did not agree with the policies being promoted. People do not like being lied to, and yes, it makes them angry.
Not surprisingly, these mainstream papers take absolutely none of the blame for the vitriolic level of discourse they describe. So when the LA Times called all those opposed to gay marriage "bigots," they made it clear that there was no honorable disagreement with their position. If you disagreed you were a hater. They constantly referred to the war in Iraq as "Bush's war." Imagine that. A war approved of by Congress, with American soldiers in harms way, yet they saw no divisiveness in their description. The LA Times has been so obsessed with their agenda, that they also lost another forgotten value - common decency. The day after Terri Schivo died, their editorial blasted the parents for trying to keep their daughter alive. Imagine that - they could not even allow the family one day to bury their daughter and grieve without their vicious attacks on them. For the LA Times, decency went the way of truth.
Of course, truth has not just been abandoned in the political arena. We often see it in sports. During baseball's "steroid era" many players were cheating (another form of lying) while using these drugs. Few were able to admit what they were doing - they just magically grew in size and strength and speed, even though they were getting older; even though the normal aging process should have caused the opposite effects. And Major League Baseball did not care; attendance and revenue were way up with all the home runs being hit. So the ends (money in this case) justified the means. We see football players trying to convince the ref they caught a ball when they know full well it hit the ground first. Basketball players fall backwards onto the court when lightly brushed by another player in an effort to get a foul called on the opposing team. Now, many commentators refer to such antics as "heads-up" playing. So has winning become more important than honesty and integrity?
Back in the political arena, public employees do not want to hear that their unions have obtained salary and pension benefits that are bankrupting many cities and states. Their agenda is more important than the truth.
So where does this all end? We, the People, have to insist on truth and honesty at every turn. We can do it by shunning media sources that lie to us, and that refuse to give us a balanced viewpoint. We can do it by voting out of office politicians who lie to us. We can do it by teaching our kids and grandkids that winning is NOT everything. And we can insist on it in our own lives. Because the more we allow the lies, the more we are likely to be on the receiving end of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)