The July/August issue of Commentary magazine has an interesting article by two former undersecretaries in the defense department, Douglas Feith and Seth Cropsey. Entitled "The Obama Doctrine Defined," they posit two central themes to Obama's foreign policy. "The first is that America's role in world affairs for more than a century has has been, more often than not, aggressive rather than constrained, wasteful rather than communal, and arrogant in promoting democracy, despite our own democratic shortcomings." They explain that this belief reveals much about Obama's need to apologize for America's past actions. "The second idea is that multilateral institutions offer the best hope for restraining U.S. power and moderating our national assertiveness." Hence, the Obama Administration's affinity for institutions such as the United Nations.
The first proposition helps explain many of Obama's comments and actions and appointments. Obama's statement that "any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail," can now be understood in light of the first theme of the Obama Doctrine. The same can be said about his reply, when asked if he believed in American exceptionalism, that he does - just like the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. The first prong of the theory helps put in context his apology tour, especially his speech to the muslim world from Cairo.
The first part of the theory helps explain why Samantha Power is one of his senior advisors. This comment from Power: "...Instituting a doctrine of mea culpa would enhance our credibility by showing that American decision-makers do not endorse the sins of their predecessors." And then we have these comments from Anne-Marie Slaughter, another top advisor: "It will be time for a new president to show humility rather than just talk about it. The president must ask Americans to acknowledge to ourselves and to the world that we have made serious, even tragic, mistakes in the aftermath of September 11..." And this: "The more that America is respected and admired in the world, the greater our diplomatic powers will be." This theory also helps to explain Obama reaching out to our enemies, and apologizing for past transgressions, while ignoring our allies, who apparently have much of their own apologizing to do.
As one group of people is not to be elevated above any other, we now have diplomats in the State Department being allowed to deal directly with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (as reported in the 7/7/11 Investor's Business Daily). (We also have an ambassador in Syria now, even though the Syrian government ignores him.) The Botherhood is the same group banned by Mubarak, and whose motto is: "Jihad is our way, and dying in the cause of Allah is our highest hope." (Why is dying the highest goal?)The same article presents a frightening timeline of Obama's involvement with radical muslim groups: 2009 - the president of the Islamic Society of North America (a group with terrorist ties) is invited to the inauguration; 2009 - Obama invites the Brotherhood, a group banned by then President Mubarak, to his Cairo speech; 2009 - Obama appoints an Islamist to be our envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference; 2010 - after meeting with Egypt's foreign minister, the minister states Obama revealed he is a muslim; 2011 - James Clapper, the intelligence czar, tells Congress that the Brotherhood is a moderate, "largely secular" organization (one of the most moronic comments since Pelosi's "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it"); 2011 - the Brotherhood threatens to end Egypt's 30 year peace with Israel, and Obama gives his Mideast speech telling Israel to create what would likely be an islamic state on its new, and indefensible, borders; 2011 - the Justice Department decides not to pursue further prosecutions against Brotherhood front groups in the U.S. which send money to the terrorist group Hamas. (Which is made all the more frightening in light of research by the Center for Security Policy, reporting that 81% of U.S. mosques have Islamic literature advocating violence, and 85% of the imams recommend these reading materials; as reported in the 6/21/11 I.B.D.)
The theory also explains Obama's lack of discomfort in listening for twenty years to the sermons of Reverend Wright, including his most well known line of: "G-d bless America? No, G-d damn America." Obama's "mentor" was in the news again recently with this gem: "The State of Israel is an illegal, genocidal...place. To equate Judaism with the State of Israel is to equate Christianity with Flavor Flav (a rapper)." (As reported by Caroline Glick in the 6/24/11 Jerusalem Post online.) Recall that Obama only broke ties with Wright when it became politically untenable during the campaign to maintain the relationship.
And as we understand that Obama believes the U.S. has more often been a force for evil than good, the reduction in defense spending under this president makes perfect sense. The weaker the U.S. is, the less harm it can cause the world. Defense spending has been falling in real terms, and as a percentage of the federal budget, and as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. Furthermore, the U.S. Navy, which allows us to project strength around the world as needed, is the smallest it has been since 1916! (As reported by former U.S. Senator James Talent and Mackenzie Eaglen in the Spring/Summer, 2011 edition of The Journal of International Security Affairs.) Others, however, are not following the U.S.lead. Iran is moving ahead with its nuclear production, and is now considered the leading sponsor of terrorism worldwide. China has a new stealth fighter; and, according to the Pentagon, "China has the most active land-based ballistic and cruise-missile program in the world." (Again, as reported by Talent and Eaglen.) And while America reduces its military strength, other forces remain real and credible threats: Russia, Venezuela, the drug cartels, and, of course, islamofascism.
The second prong of the Obama Doctrine is the deference given to international organizations, such as the U.N. We have heard Obama and others in his administration speak highly of the U.N. on numerous occassions. Most recently, he deferred to the U.N., rather than the U.S. Congress, in deciding what action to take against Libya. He appointed Harold Koh, former dean of Yale Law School, to be the top attorney in the State Department. Koh is a believer in transnationalism; essentially less U.S. autonomy and more reliance on international law and international institutions. (As reported in the Commentary article referenced above.)
Only an ideologue, or ivory tower academic, can believe that the U.N. can be a source for good. Iran recently hosted a "World Without Terroism Conference." The U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, lauded Iran for "holding this very important conference." (Just how important can it be when the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world is the host? And just what outcomes could be expected - other than the usual condemnations of the U.S. and Israel?) A featured speaker at the conference was Omar al-Bashir, the genocidal leader of Sudan. Meanwhile, North Korea heads the U.N.'s Conference on Disarmament. North Korea has developed nuclear weapons, has threatened to use those weapons, secretly helped Syria build a nuclear facility (subsequently taken out by the Israelis), and provided ballistic missile technology to Iran. A perfect choice to lead a conference on disarmament. (All as reported by Catoline Glick in the 7/1/11 Jerusalem Post online.)
I believe Ms. Glick said it best in describing the U.N. as: "...wholly and completely corrupt. It is morally bankrupt. It is controlled by the most repressive regimes in the world..." Unfortunately, that description seems to fit the Obama Administration's thinking about the U.S.A.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
How Leftist Ideology is Ruining the World.
1. Congressman Anthony Weiner. After inviting the press to interview him and then lying to them for over a week, the Congressman finally admitted he had been lying. By any measure he had been engaging in some rather strange behavior. Not being that well liked in the first place, it was no surprise that his fellow democrats (including the leadership of Obama, Reid and Pelosi)all moved away from supporting him. But the lamestream media could not bear to see him go. Somehow, the LATimes saw fit to say that Republicans know no shame either because they deny global warning, and said Obamacare would create "death panels." Huh? Only in the twisted thinking of their editorial writers could those topics come up in an editorial about Weiner. Somehow, the LASlimes had to blame the Republicans. After acknowledging that Weiner is married, that his behavior was creepy, and that he lied about it - they still could not bring themselves to say he should go. Of course, they left out the part about Weiner letting the press excoriate Andrew Breitbart, as if he made it all up. The NYSlimes said Weiner's behavior raised "serious questions about his judgment and character." But still, they say he broke no law and there was no evidence he used a government computer or blackberry. So that's it? Did he actually break a law? The Times has no other moral or ethical standards that they believe a United States Representative must adhere to?
2. Obamacare. Said our President: "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep (it)." Really? Not even close according to the 4th study now investigating employer reactions to Obamacare. The latest study was conducted by McKinsey & Co. Their results indicate that as many as 78 million Americans will lose their coverage because employers will drop their private plans. The reason, as reported by Karl Rove in the 6/16/11 Wall Street Journal, is quite simple - and predictable. Rather than pay on average $4150. for a single employee, and $9773. for a family of four, employers will only have to pay a "fine" of $2000. per employee for not offering insurance. And small businesses pay no fine for the first 50 employees they drop. Democrats have never understood that their legislation results in "unintended" consequences, because they do not understand how the world works: that in the real world people act logically and in their self-interest. Needless to say, these tens of millions of people forced into the government run "exchanges" will result in the government being forced to come up with a lot more money (more taxes) to pay for all these people. The CBO originally predicted "only" 9-10 million people would lose their coverage; still making a liar out of Obama.
3. Obama vs. Boeing. In yet another example of how democrats either hate business, or do not understand how the world operates, the Obama administration is going after Boeing Aircraft. Their offense? Suggesting that the new plant they have built for their new plane (the 787 Dreamliner) was built in South Carolina in part because of prior costly strikes in Washington State. So Obama has the NLRB trying to prevent Boeing from opening and operating their plant in So. Carolina - a right to work state. Most likely, the Administration's behavior also represents a payback to unions, the Dems' biggest supporters. How outrageous for the US Government dictating to a private business where in the US they may locate! What's next - telling us where we may live? You think that's far-fetched? Obama already has an opinion about how much people should be allowed to earn. So maybe Boeing will open a new plant out of the country altogether, and take even more jobs with them.
As noted by Charles Krauthammer in the 6/17/11 Investor's Business Daily, the Obama Administration has also stalled free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and So. Korea - all because of union objections.
4. Durban piles on. Dick Durban, D-Ill., has proposed letting states collect sales taxes whether or not the seller has an actual physical presence in the state. (As reported in the 6/15/11 IBD.) The intent, of course, is to go after internet sales, because we know that NOTHING can change hands in this country without the government taking a part of it. Again, however, the Dems (and some Repubs) never foresee consequences. So when Amazon.com was hit with a $269 million bill from the Texas State Controller for "unpaid" sales taxes, they simply moved their distribution center out of Texas. And if every state pursues such taxes, the next stop for yet another company could be out of the country.
5. The Dems continue to be unable to perceive reality. In an IBD/TIPP poll (as reported in the 6/15/11 IBD) there is a huge difference reported between Dems and Repubs. When asked if the relationship between the US and Israel has strengthened under Obama, 12% of the Dems agreed, 48% said no change and 31% said weakened. So overall, 60% of Dems said no change or strengthened. As for the Repubs, only 3% said strengthened, 22% said no change and 69% said weakened. Overall, 25% saying strengthened or no change. But 69% Repubs vs. only 31% Dems saying weakened. This study is important not just because of the difference in opinion that we could expect betweem Dems and Repubs. Rather, it relects their very differing perceptions of reality. Without going into all the facts and events that demonstrate how Obama is the most hostile President ever in his attitude towards Israel, it should be noted that even the mainstream media has reported on the deteriorating relations between the two nations. Yet, such reporting has apparently had minimal impact on the perceptions of Democrats. This study is a perfect example of how Dems/the left let their beliefs dictate their reality; while Repubs/the right let reality dictate their beliefs.
The same study also asked if the respondent favored the 1967 borders as a starting point for negotiations, as suggested by Obama. Of the Dems, 56% agreed, 24% opposed and 21% had no answer. For the Repubs, only 17% agreed, 71% opposed and 12% had no answer. So over 2/3of the Repubs understand that Israel cannot survive with those borders, but well over 1/2 of the Dems think its a great idea.
As we know, many liberal Jews are Dems, and as such, their responses are reflected in the Democratic responses above. So the only question is: after the coming war between Israel and the "palestinians," which will have been precipitated in large part by Obama's words and deeds, just what excuses will these liberal Jews make for Obama after the resultant death of many Israelis; or, G-d forbid, Israel's destruction?
6. The end of Western Civilization? An interesting piece appeared in the 6/4-6/5/11 Wall Street Journal, authored by Frits Bolkestein. He notes how Christianity has mostly gone out of favor in Europe. (And, I would note, replaced by secularism, political correctness, and, of course, Islam.) In Oxford, England they have chosen to replace Christmas with a "Winter Light Festival." He reports that after a right wing politician was assassinated in the Netherlands, a leading Dutch newspaper wrote this: "The pride of the Netherlands is precisely that we do not find one culture better than the other." Holy Moron Batman! As stated by Mr. Bolkestein, the editor who wrote that blurb was in fact exalting the culture of the Netherlands over others - for their tolerance. (Actually for their ignorance in suggesting all cultures are equal, while saying the Netherlands is better.) And at Utrecht University, theologian Pieter van der Horst had a valedictory address on "The Islamization of European Anti-Semitism." Only the University never let him give that address because we cannot offend - you know who - the Muslims. Free speech? Like here, replaced by politically correct speech.
And while Mr. Bolkestein reports that Christianity is still alive in Poland and Ireland, it is not necessarily alive "and well." As reported by Caroline Glick in the 5/27/11 Jerusalem Post online, a recent poll reflected that 22.2% of the Irish population would bar Israelis from becoming citizens. But 11.5% would prevent all Jews from becoming citizens. And just how many Jews are there in Ireland? Only 2000 out of 4.5 million people. Looks like the Irish could do well hearing the above-mentioned valedictory address.
7. Who's the most evil? So as the world prepares to condemn Israel yet again in the September meeting of the UN General Assembly, and vote to establish a "palestinian" state, this might be a good time to remind everyone that 400,000 people have been killed in Darfur, with 3 million displaced. (As reported by David Suissa, commenting on a Jewish World Watch report, in the June 10-16, 2011 LA Jewish Journal.) As Mr. Suissa notes, Obama spent a good deal of his speech on the Middle East telling Israel what it had to do, but the genocide in Darfur? Nothing! As Mr. Suissa states: "Imagine how it must feel to see that your genocide is being virtually ignored, while the Palestinian cause has become the darling mission of the world and a media and UN obsession." Maybe Suissa is right when he says: "Are the bad guys (in Darfur) not bad enough because they're not Jews or Israelis?" What about it Mr. President?
2. Obamacare. Said our President: "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep (it)." Really? Not even close according to the 4th study now investigating employer reactions to Obamacare. The latest study was conducted by McKinsey & Co. Their results indicate that as many as 78 million Americans will lose their coverage because employers will drop their private plans. The reason, as reported by Karl Rove in the 6/16/11 Wall Street Journal, is quite simple - and predictable. Rather than pay on average $4150. for a single employee, and $9773. for a family of four, employers will only have to pay a "fine" of $2000. per employee for not offering insurance. And small businesses pay no fine for the first 50 employees they drop. Democrats have never understood that their legislation results in "unintended" consequences, because they do not understand how the world works: that in the real world people act logically and in their self-interest. Needless to say, these tens of millions of people forced into the government run "exchanges" will result in the government being forced to come up with a lot more money (more taxes) to pay for all these people. The CBO originally predicted "only" 9-10 million people would lose their coverage; still making a liar out of Obama.
3. Obama vs. Boeing. In yet another example of how democrats either hate business, or do not understand how the world operates, the Obama administration is going after Boeing Aircraft. Their offense? Suggesting that the new plant they have built for their new plane (the 787 Dreamliner) was built in South Carolina in part because of prior costly strikes in Washington State. So Obama has the NLRB trying to prevent Boeing from opening and operating their plant in So. Carolina - a right to work state. Most likely, the Administration's behavior also represents a payback to unions, the Dems' biggest supporters. How outrageous for the US Government dictating to a private business where in the US they may locate! What's next - telling us where we may live? You think that's far-fetched? Obama already has an opinion about how much people should be allowed to earn. So maybe Boeing will open a new plant out of the country altogether, and take even more jobs with them.
As noted by Charles Krauthammer in the 6/17/11 Investor's Business Daily, the Obama Administration has also stalled free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and So. Korea - all because of union objections.
4. Durban piles on. Dick Durban, D-Ill., has proposed letting states collect sales taxes whether or not the seller has an actual physical presence in the state. (As reported in the 6/15/11 IBD.) The intent, of course, is to go after internet sales, because we know that NOTHING can change hands in this country without the government taking a part of it. Again, however, the Dems (and some Repubs) never foresee consequences. So when Amazon.com was hit with a $269 million bill from the Texas State Controller for "unpaid" sales taxes, they simply moved their distribution center out of Texas. And if every state pursues such taxes, the next stop for yet another company could be out of the country.
5. The Dems continue to be unable to perceive reality. In an IBD/TIPP poll (as reported in the 6/15/11 IBD) there is a huge difference reported between Dems and Repubs. When asked if the relationship between the US and Israel has strengthened under Obama, 12% of the Dems agreed, 48% said no change and 31% said weakened. So overall, 60% of Dems said no change or strengthened. As for the Repubs, only 3% said strengthened, 22% said no change and 69% said weakened. Overall, 25% saying strengthened or no change. But 69% Repubs vs. only 31% Dems saying weakened. This study is important not just because of the difference in opinion that we could expect betweem Dems and Repubs. Rather, it relects their very differing perceptions of reality. Without going into all the facts and events that demonstrate how Obama is the most hostile President ever in his attitude towards Israel, it should be noted that even the mainstream media has reported on the deteriorating relations between the two nations. Yet, such reporting has apparently had minimal impact on the perceptions of Democrats. This study is a perfect example of how Dems/the left let their beliefs dictate their reality; while Repubs/the right let reality dictate their beliefs.
The same study also asked if the respondent favored the 1967 borders as a starting point for negotiations, as suggested by Obama. Of the Dems, 56% agreed, 24% opposed and 21% had no answer. For the Repubs, only 17% agreed, 71% opposed and 12% had no answer. So over 2/3of the Repubs understand that Israel cannot survive with those borders, but well over 1/2 of the Dems think its a great idea.
As we know, many liberal Jews are Dems, and as such, their responses are reflected in the Democratic responses above. So the only question is: after the coming war between Israel and the "palestinians," which will have been precipitated in large part by Obama's words and deeds, just what excuses will these liberal Jews make for Obama after the resultant death of many Israelis; or, G-d forbid, Israel's destruction?
6. The end of Western Civilization? An interesting piece appeared in the 6/4-6/5/11 Wall Street Journal, authored by Frits Bolkestein. He notes how Christianity has mostly gone out of favor in Europe. (And, I would note, replaced by secularism, political correctness, and, of course, Islam.) In Oxford, England they have chosen to replace Christmas with a "Winter Light Festival." He reports that after a right wing politician was assassinated in the Netherlands, a leading Dutch newspaper wrote this: "The pride of the Netherlands is precisely that we do not find one culture better than the other." Holy Moron Batman! As stated by Mr. Bolkestein, the editor who wrote that blurb was in fact exalting the culture of the Netherlands over others - for their tolerance. (Actually for their ignorance in suggesting all cultures are equal, while saying the Netherlands is better.) And at Utrecht University, theologian Pieter van der Horst had a valedictory address on "The Islamization of European Anti-Semitism." Only the University never let him give that address because we cannot offend - you know who - the Muslims. Free speech? Like here, replaced by politically correct speech.
And while Mr. Bolkestein reports that Christianity is still alive in Poland and Ireland, it is not necessarily alive "and well." As reported by Caroline Glick in the 5/27/11 Jerusalem Post online, a recent poll reflected that 22.2% of the Irish population would bar Israelis from becoming citizens. But 11.5% would prevent all Jews from becoming citizens. And just how many Jews are there in Ireland? Only 2000 out of 4.5 million people. Looks like the Irish could do well hearing the above-mentioned valedictory address.
7. Who's the most evil? So as the world prepares to condemn Israel yet again in the September meeting of the UN General Assembly, and vote to establish a "palestinian" state, this might be a good time to remind everyone that 400,000 people have been killed in Darfur, with 3 million displaced. (As reported by David Suissa, commenting on a Jewish World Watch report, in the June 10-16, 2011 LA Jewish Journal.) As Mr. Suissa notes, Obama spent a good deal of his speech on the Middle East telling Israel what it had to do, but the genocide in Darfur? Nothing! As Mr. Suissa states: "Imagine how it must feel to see that your genocide is being virtually ignored, while the Palestinian cause has become the darling mission of the world and a media and UN obsession." Maybe Suissa is right when he says: "Are the bad guys (in Darfur) not bad enough because they're not Jews or Israelis?" What about it Mr. President?
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Obama vs. Netanyahu
In my last blog I posed this question: "Just how much does Obama hate Israel?" We now have Obama's speech on the Middle East, given at the State Department; as well as his subsequent speech given at the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) convention. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also spoke to AIPAC; as well to a joint meeting of Congress, at the invitation of Speaker Boehner.
Obama said that the "borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." The "1967 borders" of which Obama speaks, are the borders as they were before the six day war, when Israel won and got control of Gaza, the Sinai, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). Those pre-war lines in 1967 were nothing other than the armistice lines from 1949, after the Arab world tried to annihilate Israel. No treaty exists defining those lines as an agreed upon border. That border, at its narrowest point, is less than 9 miles wide, and as Netanyahu said, is "indefensible." Obama tried to soften this position by saying the borders would be adjusted by "mutually agreed swaps." However, reference to the 1967 lines is nothing other than adopting the palestinians' position; not unlike his continued use of the word "occupation," which also tracks the palestinians' position. Furthermore, the Arabs have already indicated they would not agree to any swaps.
Obama suggested that the two sides reach agreement on borders and security, and put off the "emotional issues" of refugees and Jerusalem. This was more of Obama contributing to the liklihood of war in September or shortly thereafter. First, last September, Obama said he would give the parties one year to reach an agreement - until this September. Having already adopted the palestinians' positions last year, including an end to "settlements," the palestinians saw no reason to return to the bargaining table. Second, Obama blew an opportunity to announce to the world that any palestinian "refugees" would only be able to return to a palestinian state. Millions of Arabs (descendants of the original refugees) moving into Israel would end that country as the Jewish State. Obama knows this. If the President of the United States announced this reality to the world, then maybe the peace process could have moved forward. If an agreement is to be made, it must end all issues. Instead, the palestinians have announced their intent to get a state from the UN Security Council in September; with Abbas announcing the goal of "internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter..." In other words, continue the conflict beyond the military, political, boycott, divestiture, and deligitimization tactics, into the legal arena as well. Some peace partner!
As for Jerusalem, Netanyahu said it best: "...the only time that Jews, Christians and Muslims could worship freely, could have unfettered access to their holy sites, has been during Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem." When Jordan controlled the West Bank, including Jerusalem, from 1948 through 1967, Jewish holy sites were destroyed. Jews were denied access to the Kotel (Western Wall). When Israel captured Jerusalem, they turned over control of the Temple Mount to the Muslims. The Temple Mount sits above the Wall, is where the Al Aksa Mosque is, and is holy land to the Jews. IT WAS TURNED OVER TO THE MUSLIMS! It would would have been nice to have our President state these truths. The eastern part of Jerusalem, which Obama wants Israel to give up, is where the Old City is located; where the Wall is located. Jerusalem has been the heart of the Jewish homeland for thousands of years. The palestinians can have their capital in Ramallah or Jenin.
Obama said that the palestinians must have a "contiguous" state. How is that possible? Israel sits between Gaza and the West Bank. Does Israel have to give up having a contiguous state?
And what exactly did Obama ask of the palestinians? That they give up terror and accept Israel's right to exist. Good; but they need to accept Israel's right to exist as the Jewish State. If "Palestine" is created, it becomes the 58th muslim state. And the P.A. just entered a unity government with Hamas. After asking how Israel could be expected to negotiate with a party that is unwilling to recognize their right to exist, Obama says: "...Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question." That's it? That is all the toughness he can muster against a group that criticized the killing of bin Laden, describing him as an Arab warrior. Netanyahu said: "Congratulations, Mr. President. You got bin Laden. Good riddance." As Netanyahu said, the Hamas Charter says "kill the Jews everywhere you find them." Netanyahu also asked how Israel could be expected to negotiate with "...the Palestinian version of Al Qaida."
But the most important comment by Netanyahu, by far, was this: "You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it. This is what this conflict is about." If you have any doubt about the truth of this comment, look at history. The Arabs announced their refusal to accept partition by the UN in 1947, even before the vote. The Arabs attacked Israel the day after they declared their independence. Wars followed in 1967 and 1973. More wars followed with Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as intifadas and constant rocket and missile attacks. All with one goal - the goal stated in both the Hamas and Fatah charters - the destruction of Israel and killing of the Jews. As Netanyahu said, there will not be peace if the palestinians continue to "educate their children to hate." There will not be peace until Abbas (and I would add Hamas) say to their people: "I will accept a Jewish state."
In the 66 years since the end of World War II, only the palestinians, of all the millions of refugees, still retain their status as "refugees." This, of course, is absurd. Millions had to move on to new homelands, often with nothing but the clothes they were wearing. But the palestinians are good at propaganda. And the West continues their deplorable fascination with, and attempted appeasement of, murderers and dictators. Netanyahu said: "Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty." But liberty is not a place where "women are stoned, gays are hanged, (and) Christians are persecuted;" again, quoting from P.M. Netanyahu. As Netanyahu also said: "...less than one-half of one percent (of the 300 million Arabs) are truly free and they're all citizens of Israel." Mr. President, there is a world of difference between fostering liberty and appeasing those who would deny life and liberty to others.
So does our President hate Israel? Or given his initial upbringing in the muslim world, does he just naturally stand with the muslims, as he said he would in one of his books? Or, as Dinesh D'souza has suggested in his new book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," has Obama simply adopted the anti-colonial and anti-West values of the father he never knew? His father, from Africa, opposed the Western European powers colonization of Africa. But French control of North Africa, Belgian control of the Congo, Dutch control of South Africa all differ from Israeli control of the West Bank. The area known as Judea and Samaria was the Jewish homeland, and it came under Israeli rule in modern times because the Arabs chose war and lost. The Israelis did not go looking for foreign lands to capture and control, as the Europeans did. Can Obama tell the difference? I don't know.
It is said that G-d selected the Jewish people to be His "Chosen" people. Jews do not understand this to mean that they are in any way better or superior to others, as we are all G-d's children. Rather, Jews brought to the world "monotheism," the belief and understanding that there is but one G-d. The role of Jews, as the "chosen" people is to be a "light unto the nations." In other words, it is a burden placed on the Jews by G-d. And if Netanyahu is correct that "Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty," then that too is a burden. May our President understand this, and see the difference between those that support liberty and those that seek to destroy it.
Obama said that the "borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." The "1967 borders" of which Obama speaks, are the borders as they were before the six day war, when Israel won and got control of Gaza, the Sinai, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). Those pre-war lines in 1967 were nothing other than the armistice lines from 1949, after the Arab world tried to annihilate Israel. No treaty exists defining those lines as an agreed upon border. That border, at its narrowest point, is less than 9 miles wide, and as Netanyahu said, is "indefensible." Obama tried to soften this position by saying the borders would be adjusted by "mutually agreed swaps." However, reference to the 1967 lines is nothing other than adopting the palestinians' position; not unlike his continued use of the word "occupation," which also tracks the palestinians' position. Furthermore, the Arabs have already indicated they would not agree to any swaps.
Obama suggested that the two sides reach agreement on borders and security, and put off the "emotional issues" of refugees and Jerusalem. This was more of Obama contributing to the liklihood of war in September or shortly thereafter. First, last September, Obama said he would give the parties one year to reach an agreement - until this September. Having already adopted the palestinians' positions last year, including an end to "settlements," the palestinians saw no reason to return to the bargaining table. Second, Obama blew an opportunity to announce to the world that any palestinian "refugees" would only be able to return to a palestinian state. Millions of Arabs (descendants of the original refugees) moving into Israel would end that country as the Jewish State. Obama knows this. If the President of the United States announced this reality to the world, then maybe the peace process could have moved forward. If an agreement is to be made, it must end all issues. Instead, the palestinians have announced their intent to get a state from the UN Security Council in September; with Abbas announcing the goal of "internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter..." In other words, continue the conflict beyond the military, political, boycott, divestiture, and deligitimization tactics, into the legal arena as well. Some peace partner!
As for Jerusalem, Netanyahu said it best: "...the only time that Jews, Christians and Muslims could worship freely, could have unfettered access to their holy sites, has been during Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem." When Jordan controlled the West Bank, including Jerusalem, from 1948 through 1967, Jewish holy sites were destroyed. Jews were denied access to the Kotel (Western Wall). When Israel captured Jerusalem, they turned over control of the Temple Mount to the Muslims. The Temple Mount sits above the Wall, is where the Al Aksa Mosque is, and is holy land to the Jews. IT WAS TURNED OVER TO THE MUSLIMS! It would would have been nice to have our President state these truths. The eastern part of Jerusalem, which Obama wants Israel to give up, is where the Old City is located; where the Wall is located. Jerusalem has been the heart of the Jewish homeland for thousands of years. The palestinians can have their capital in Ramallah or Jenin.
Obama said that the palestinians must have a "contiguous" state. How is that possible? Israel sits between Gaza and the West Bank. Does Israel have to give up having a contiguous state?
And what exactly did Obama ask of the palestinians? That they give up terror and accept Israel's right to exist. Good; but they need to accept Israel's right to exist as the Jewish State. If "Palestine" is created, it becomes the 58th muslim state. And the P.A. just entered a unity government with Hamas. After asking how Israel could be expected to negotiate with a party that is unwilling to recognize their right to exist, Obama says: "...Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question." That's it? That is all the toughness he can muster against a group that criticized the killing of bin Laden, describing him as an Arab warrior. Netanyahu said: "Congratulations, Mr. President. You got bin Laden. Good riddance." As Netanyahu said, the Hamas Charter says "kill the Jews everywhere you find them." Netanyahu also asked how Israel could be expected to negotiate with "...the Palestinian version of Al Qaida."
But the most important comment by Netanyahu, by far, was this: "You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it. This is what this conflict is about." If you have any doubt about the truth of this comment, look at history. The Arabs announced their refusal to accept partition by the UN in 1947, even before the vote. The Arabs attacked Israel the day after they declared their independence. Wars followed in 1967 and 1973. More wars followed with Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as intifadas and constant rocket and missile attacks. All with one goal - the goal stated in both the Hamas and Fatah charters - the destruction of Israel and killing of the Jews. As Netanyahu said, there will not be peace if the palestinians continue to "educate their children to hate." There will not be peace until Abbas (and I would add Hamas) say to their people: "I will accept a Jewish state."
In the 66 years since the end of World War II, only the palestinians, of all the millions of refugees, still retain their status as "refugees." This, of course, is absurd. Millions had to move on to new homelands, often with nothing but the clothes they were wearing. But the palestinians are good at propaganda. And the West continues their deplorable fascination with, and attempted appeasement of, murderers and dictators. Netanyahu said: "Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty." But liberty is not a place where "women are stoned, gays are hanged, (and) Christians are persecuted;" again, quoting from P.M. Netanyahu. As Netanyahu also said: "...less than one-half of one percent (of the 300 million Arabs) are truly free and they're all citizens of Israel." Mr. President, there is a world of difference between fostering liberty and appeasing those who would deny life and liberty to others.
So does our President hate Israel? Or given his initial upbringing in the muslim world, does he just naturally stand with the muslims, as he said he would in one of his books? Or, as Dinesh D'souza has suggested in his new book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," has Obama simply adopted the anti-colonial and anti-West values of the father he never knew? His father, from Africa, opposed the Western European powers colonization of Africa. But French control of North Africa, Belgian control of the Congo, Dutch control of South Africa all differ from Israeli control of the West Bank. The area known as Judea and Samaria was the Jewish homeland, and it came under Israeli rule in modern times because the Arabs chose war and lost. The Israelis did not go looking for foreign lands to capture and control, as the Europeans did. Can Obama tell the difference? I don't know.
It is said that G-d selected the Jewish people to be His "Chosen" people. Jews do not understand this to mean that they are in any way better or superior to others, as we are all G-d's children. Rather, Jews brought to the world "monotheism," the belief and understanding that there is but one G-d. The role of Jews, as the "chosen" people is to be a "light unto the nations." In other words, it is a burden placed on the Jews by G-d. And if Netanyahu is correct that "Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty," then that too is a burden. May our President understand this, and see the difference between those that support liberty and those that seek to destroy it.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Growing Up in the White House, and Other Matters.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)