Rob Eshman is the liberal Editor-in-Chief of the Los Angeles Jewish Journal. As such, he has a column in each week's edition of the paper. Like the rest of the mainstream media, he was attacking Republicans, and Tea Partiers in particular, for the drawn out budget/debt ceiling process. At least he did not refer to the Tea Partiers as "terrorists," as some in the media (and our Vice President) have done. It is a sad commentary that most of the mainstream writings again reflect the liberal democratic belief that Republicans are not just wrong, but evil. We are "terrorists" and "jihadists" according to the left. We conservatives believe that Democrats are wrongheaded, with an ideology that will harm this country. But it is rare to see reference to the Democrats as evil. The following is my letter to the Editor.
Re: Good Leaders.
Mr. Eshman says that for Republicans to garner Jewish votes they need to, among other things, not “let ideology trump common sense.” Yet in that one short paragraph that is exactly what he does. First, he calls those Republicans holding out for the best deal possible “extremists.” Many Americans viewed them as congress members actually watching out for the people’s money. How often does that happen? Then, he says that they held our credit rating hostage to “a hurried, gun-to –the-head negotiation” in order to get what they want. Hurried? Again, a left wing talking point. The Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency for two years before this January. Yet, they were somehow unable to pass a budget; even though they had the ability to raise the debt ceiling to whatever level they wanted they failed to do so. But, as Harry Reid said, “let the Republicans have some buy-in on the debt.”
Then Mr. Eshman concludes the paragraph by saying that linking of the debt ceiling to a debate over future spending defies logic. Another leftist talking point. The average American understands the connection very well, even if Mr. Eshman’s ideology prevents him from seeing it. If we keep passing budgets with large deficits every year then the debt ceiling will have to go up. So the Republicans were essentially saying: If we raise the debt limit now, we want to do our best to prevent it from happening again and again and again. Defies logic? Actually, common sense.
Mr. Eshman ends his piece with this advice to Republicans if they want to attract a large number of Jewish voters: “…find candidates who promote strong, effective and fiscally sound government that provides security for the nation, opportunity to the entrepreneur and help to the needy.” He cites FDR as his ideal. Ironic that he does not refer to Obama. Is Mr. Eshman conceding that Obama is neither strong nor effective nor fiscally sound; and that he fails to provide security for the nation? Obviously, the amount of our national debt is not an issue for our President. And like the two democratic presidents before him, he is doing his best to slash defense spending. As for FDR, he was not exactly fiscally sound. It has been argued by many that government spending under FDR prolonged the depression. I can only conclude that if Mr. Eshman were serious about these issues, and not just making another leftist talking point, he would be a registered Republican.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
The Tea Party Forces a Real Discussion.
In the November,2010 elections the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. Prior to that, the Democrats held large majorities in the House and Senate, and, of course, held the Presidency. Yet, somehow, they could not get a budget passed. They could and did spend money like there was no tomorrow (and no limit to taxpayer money): a nearly 1 trillion dollar stimulus, cash for clunkers, bail-outs of the banking and auto industry, and, of course, Obamacare. As all of these measures were passing, any time Republicans objected the mainstream media called them the "party of no." After the Republicans took the house I posted a blog in November, 2010. I asked if the now Republican controlled House passed measures that the Democrats balked at, would the media call the Democrats the "party of no?" Of course not. I predicted that they would still find a way to blame the Republicans.
And that is exactly what the mainstream media is doing now with the budget and debt ceiling "crisis." The House passed two measures to deal with these issues and Harry Reid refused to let the Senate vote on them. Incredibly, at a press conference yesterday, he chastised the Republicans who he said were filibustering to prevent his proposal from getting a straight "up or down" vote. You know, a vote like he refused to give Boehner's proposals. And then the media piles on and and says those awful Republicans are bringing us to the brink and will be responsible for the federal debt getting a downgrading from the credit agencies and for the U.S. defaulting on its' debt. Wow! Welcome to Alice in Wonderland!
In an Op-Ed in the July 28, 2011 LA Times, the liberal commentator Doyle McManus had this to say: "Raising the debt ceiling was once a routine piece of fiscal management, but now, for many in the GOP, it's become a matter of principle..." Well, thank G-d for the Tea Party. When was the last time we the people had representatives in Congress actually watching out for our money. Obama proposed a plan earlier in the year with NO spending cuts. It failed in the Senate 97 to 0.
The Democrats do not/will not/can not comprehend that we have a vast and rapidly growing entitlement society with an ever shrinking number of workers (proportionally) to pay for all of this. According to the Wall Street Journal, we now have 50.5 million Americans on Medicaid, 46.5 million on Medicare, 52 million on Social Security, 7.5 million on unemployment, and 44.6 million on food stamps or other nutrition programs.
LBJ established Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Back then, the above entitlement payments constituted 28% of the federal budget. In 2010 - 66%! That's 2/3 of the federal budget. And here come the baby boomers, the largest cohort ever to hit the entitlement bonanza. Think it will last? Think it will crash? Or do you think that your taxes will have to be raised significantly to pay for all of this?
But the debt is no problem for Obama. It is a non-issue. If he still had both houses of Congress we would have continued unlimited spending and lots of new and higher taxes. And just what has Obama done for the economy? Did we get the under 8% unemployment he promised with his stimulus? No, still over 9% (and, of course, higher in California and LA). Did we get an economy booming from the "stimulus?" No, less than a 2% growth rate. Abysmal. Yet, after Reagan took over a horrendous economy from Jimmy Carter, the country was experiencing a 7% growth rate by this point. Under Obama, businesses are sitting on their money. Under Obama they do not know what new taxes and burdens they may face, in addition to the enormous unknown of Obamacare. They see the NLRB telling Boeing where they may open a new plant. They see an EPA ready to impose costly new regulations. So they are taking a "wait and see" approach instead of expanding and hiring new workers.
In addition, the business community hears a strong anti-business message from Obama. He never worked in the private sector, and has neither respect for, nor understanding of it. Just how many times has Obama complained about the "millionaires and billionaires?" I do not have a count, but I would be willing to bet he complains about those people more than any past President. Is it now illegal to be a millionaire or billionaire? Why this class warfare as if we were in Europe? Because Obama believes in a European style socialist society. After all, "it's a good idea to spread the wealth around." Except we already do that. According to the Heritage Foundation, the top 1% of wage earners pays 38% of all federal income taxes. The top 5% pays 59% of federal income taxes. And the top 10% pays a whopping 70% of all federal income taxes! We already have the most "progressive" income tax schedule in the world.
But why would the amount of the federal debt be an issue for Obama? It is estimated that on our current path we will have a debt load of 22 to 24 trillion dollars by
2021. Increasing debt means greater dependence on foreign lenders (like China) and a weakening of the U.S. economy. Why should America have so much of the world's wealth anyway? Besides, when we are weakened economically we are also weakened militarily, another plus for Obama. And for those who think the real budgetary problem is the defense budget and those 2 wars known by the media as "Bush's wars" - wrong again. First, as noted above, the entitlements are already 2/3 of the budget. Second, defense spending is only 4.8% of GDP, compared to 7.4% in 1965.
Think you will recognize this country if Obama gets another four years? If he does you should start reading up on European societies because they will be us: with permanent higher unemployment, an ever increasing number of people dependent on the government, and, of course, permanent higher taxes to pay for it all. Even worse, however, if we lose the American spirit of entrepreneurship, of rugged individualism, of starting life from the most humble beginnings and becoming the next Bill Gates. Of course, by then they may outlaw being a billionaire.
And that is exactly what the mainstream media is doing now with the budget and debt ceiling "crisis." The House passed two measures to deal with these issues and Harry Reid refused to let the Senate vote on them. Incredibly, at a press conference yesterday, he chastised the Republicans who he said were filibustering to prevent his proposal from getting a straight "up or down" vote. You know, a vote like he refused to give Boehner's proposals. And then the media piles on and and says those awful Republicans are bringing us to the brink and will be responsible for the federal debt getting a downgrading from the credit agencies and for the U.S. defaulting on its' debt. Wow! Welcome to Alice in Wonderland!
In an Op-Ed in the July 28, 2011 LA Times, the liberal commentator Doyle McManus had this to say: "Raising the debt ceiling was once a routine piece of fiscal management, but now, for many in the GOP, it's become a matter of principle..." Well, thank G-d for the Tea Party. When was the last time we the people had representatives in Congress actually watching out for our money. Obama proposed a plan earlier in the year with NO spending cuts. It failed in the Senate 97 to 0.
The Democrats do not/will not/can not comprehend that we have a vast and rapidly growing entitlement society with an ever shrinking number of workers (proportionally) to pay for all of this. According to the Wall Street Journal, we now have 50.5 million Americans on Medicaid, 46.5 million on Medicare, 52 million on Social Security, 7.5 million on unemployment, and 44.6 million on food stamps or other nutrition programs.
LBJ established Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Back then, the above entitlement payments constituted 28% of the federal budget. In 2010 - 66%! That's 2/3 of the federal budget. And here come the baby boomers, the largest cohort ever to hit the entitlement bonanza. Think it will last? Think it will crash? Or do you think that your taxes will have to be raised significantly to pay for all of this?
But the debt is no problem for Obama. It is a non-issue. If he still had both houses of Congress we would have continued unlimited spending and lots of new and higher taxes. And just what has Obama done for the economy? Did we get the under 8% unemployment he promised with his stimulus? No, still over 9% (and, of course, higher in California and LA). Did we get an economy booming from the "stimulus?" No, less than a 2% growth rate. Abysmal. Yet, after Reagan took over a horrendous economy from Jimmy Carter, the country was experiencing a 7% growth rate by this point. Under Obama, businesses are sitting on their money. Under Obama they do not know what new taxes and burdens they may face, in addition to the enormous unknown of Obamacare. They see the NLRB telling Boeing where they may open a new plant. They see an EPA ready to impose costly new regulations. So they are taking a "wait and see" approach instead of expanding and hiring new workers.
In addition, the business community hears a strong anti-business message from Obama. He never worked in the private sector, and has neither respect for, nor understanding of it. Just how many times has Obama complained about the "millionaires and billionaires?" I do not have a count, but I would be willing to bet he complains about those people more than any past President. Is it now illegal to be a millionaire or billionaire? Why this class warfare as if we were in Europe? Because Obama believes in a European style socialist society. After all, "it's a good idea to spread the wealth around." Except we already do that. According to the Heritage Foundation, the top 1% of wage earners pays 38% of all federal income taxes. The top 5% pays 59% of federal income taxes. And the top 10% pays a whopping 70% of all federal income taxes! We already have the most "progressive" income tax schedule in the world.
But why would the amount of the federal debt be an issue for Obama? It is estimated that on our current path we will have a debt load of 22 to 24 trillion dollars by
2021. Increasing debt means greater dependence on foreign lenders (like China) and a weakening of the U.S. economy. Why should America have so much of the world's wealth anyway? Besides, when we are weakened economically we are also weakened militarily, another plus for Obama. And for those who think the real budgetary problem is the defense budget and those 2 wars known by the media as "Bush's wars" - wrong again. First, as noted above, the entitlements are already 2/3 of the budget. Second, defense spending is only 4.8% of GDP, compared to 7.4% in 1965.
Think you will recognize this country if Obama gets another four years? If he does you should start reading up on European societies because they will be us: with permanent higher unemployment, an ever increasing number of people dependent on the government, and, of course, permanent higher taxes to pay for it all. Even worse, however, if we lose the American spirit of entrepreneurship, of rugged individualism, of starting life from the most humble beginnings and becoming the next Bill Gates. Of course, by then they may outlaw being a billionaire.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The LA Times' Anti-Israel Bias
Some time ago, I gave up my subscription to the LA Times because of their leftist and anti-Israel bias. They just love printing opinion pieces by anti-Israel Arabs, intellectuals and leftists in general; but they really love it when they get a liberal/leftist Jew to rant against Israel. The latest anti-Israel piece was this past Sunday (7/17/11) on the op-ed pages entitled "'Delegitimization' is just a distraction." It is written by M.J. Rosenberg, described as a senior foreign policy fellow at (the far left) Media Matters Action Network. In browsing through his web page it became apparent that he supports virtually every far left policy position and greatly admires Obama.
The thrust of the article is that Israel makes up the seriousness of the delegitimization efforts in order to distract from the "real" issues: the "settlements" and the need for a palestinian state. The truth, however, gets left behind. Here are a few examples:
1. "...the Palestinians who intend to go to the United Nations are seeking establishment of a state alongside Israel." I agree. The problem is that as soon as they get their state they plan on continuing their political, economic and military attacks on Israel until they get all of the land between the Jordan River and Mediterranean. Everything Hamas and even Abbas say supports that proposition. Curious how a "media expert" is unaware of all threats made by the Arabs against Israel's continued existence.
2. "That state (a new palestinian state) would encompass 22% of the British mandate for Palestine, approved by the League of Nations in 1922, with Israel possessing
78%." Hardly. The original British Mandate included what is now the country of Jordan. The idea was to split the Mandate into an Arab state and a Jewish state. But Britain reneged and rewarded an Arab ally (the Hashemite King) with the territory that became Trans-Jordan (now known as Jordan). Jordan occupies 34,495 square miles. Israel occupies only 8,550 square miles. The West Bank and Gaza occupy 2,183 square miles. So the reality is that Israel would occupy only 18.9% of the original Mandate if a new palestinian state is created. The other reality is that, contrary to the original intentions, there would be two Arab states and only one Jewish state created from the Mandate territory.
3. After noting that the UN recognized Israel (not quite accurate), and referring to Israel's military might, Rosenberg says: "...the whole idea of delegitimizing Israel sounds silly. Israel can't be deligitimized." This is from a foreign policy and media expert? What country does not have either a governmental or private organization(s) that does not have an anti-Israel divest, boycott and deligitimization movement? Iran. 57 muslim countries. Turkey. Venezuela. England. France. And lots of private groups in this country and throughout the world. Not to mention the efforts by Abbas, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Maybe Mr. Rosenberg should read some of my earlier blogs as he seems to be unaware of just how significant the anti-Israel and (let's be honest) anti-semitic bias is in the world.
4. "If the Israeli-Palestinian discussion is about Israel's right to defend itself, Israel wins the argument. But if it is about the occupation - which is, in fact, what the conflict has been about since 1993, when the Palestinian Liberation Organization recognized Israel - it loses." The reference to 1993 is to the Oslo Accords. But the palestinians will not renounce violence. They will not recognize Israel as the Jewish state. They insist on a "right of return" for millions of descendants of the original "refugees"- not to the new Palestinian state, but to Israel, resulting in the destruction of Israel as the Jewish state. And if the settlements ("occupation") were really the issue, why did the Arabs attack the new Jewish state in 1948 when Israel did not yet control the West Bank or Gaza? Why did they make war again in 1967, when Israel did not yet control the West Bank or Gaza?
5. After stating that Netanyahu received what he calls an "embarrassing" number of standing ovations from Congress, he goes on: "It is doubtful that Netanyahu would get a single standing ovation in any other parliament in the world - and that includes Israel's." Israel's is easily explained by the internal politics of that country (as would happen in any free country). But how ironic and revealing that Rosenberg is embarrassed by the warm reception Netanyahu received from Congress. And what does it say about the rest of the world if he is right; if Netanyahu were to be shunned by other world leaders - as if Israel were the most evil country in the world? Or, without even realizing it, is Rosenberg actually acknowledging that Israel has in fact been delegitimized by every country around the world - except for the USA?
The thrust of the article is that Israel makes up the seriousness of the delegitimization efforts in order to distract from the "real" issues: the "settlements" and the need for a palestinian state. The truth, however, gets left behind. Here are a few examples:
1. "...the Palestinians who intend to go to the United Nations are seeking establishment of a state alongside Israel." I agree. The problem is that as soon as they get their state they plan on continuing their political, economic and military attacks on Israel until they get all of the land between the Jordan River and Mediterranean. Everything Hamas and even Abbas say supports that proposition. Curious how a "media expert" is unaware of all threats made by the Arabs against Israel's continued existence.
2. "That state (a new palestinian state) would encompass 22% of the British mandate for Palestine, approved by the League of Nations in 1922, with Israel possessing
78%." Hardly. The original British Mandate included what is now the country of Jordan. The idea was to split the Mandate into an Arab state and a Jewish state. But Britain reneged and rewarded an Arab ally (the Hashemite King) with the territory that became Trans-Jordan (now known as Jordan). Jordan occupies 34,495 square miles. Israel occupies only 8,550 square miles. The West Bank and Gaza occupy 2,183 square miles. So the reality is that Israel would occupy only 18.9% of the original Mandate if a new palestinian state is created. The other reality is that, contrary to the original intentions, there would be two Arab states and only one Jewish state created from the Mandate territory.
3. After noting that the UN recognized Israel (not quite accurate), and referring to Israel's military might, Rosenberg says: "...the whole idea of delegitimizing Israel sounds silly. Israel can't be deligitimized." This is from a foreign policy and media expert? What country does not have either a governmental or private organization(s) that does not have an anti-Israel divest, boycott and deligitimization movement? Iran. 57 muslim countries. Turkey. Venezuela. England. France. And lots of private groups in this country and throughout the world. Not to mention the efforts by Abbas, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Maybe Mr. Rosenberg should read some of my earlier blogs as he seems to be unaware of just how significant the anti-Israel and (let's be honest) anti-semitic bias is in the world.
4. "If the Israeli-Palestinian discussion is about Israel's right to defend itself, Israel wins the argument. But if it is about the occupation - which is, in fact, what the conflict has been about since 1993, when the Palestinian Liberation Organization recognized Israel - it loses." The reference to 1993 is to the Oslo Accords. But the palestinians will not renounce violence. They will not recognize Israel as the Jewish state. They insist on a "right of return" for millions of descendants of the original "refugees"- not to the new Palestinian state, but to Israel, resulting in the destruction of Israel as the Jewish state. And if the settlements ("occupation") were really the issue, why did the Arabs attack the new Jewish state in 1948 when Israel did not yet control the West Bank or Gaza? Why did they make war again in 1967, when Israel did not yet control the West Bank or Gaza?
5. After stating that Netanyahu received what he calls an "embarrassing" number of standing ovations from Congress, he goes on: "It is doubtful that Netanyahu would get a single standing ovation in any other parliament in the world - and that includes Israel's." Israel's is easily explained by the internal politics of that country (as would happen in any free country). But how ironic and revealing that Rosenberg is embarrassed by the warm reception Netanyahu received from Congress. And what does it say about the rest of the world if he is right; if Netanyahu were to be shunned by other world leaders - as if Israel were the most evil country in the world? Or, without even realizing it, is Rosenberg actually acknowledging that Israel has in fact been delegitimized by every country around the world - except for the USA?
Sunday, July 17, 2011
The Obama Doctrine
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)