1. Obama's Jobs Speech. Yes, it was all political theater, with Obama knowing full well that a new $500 billion "stimulus" (he avoided the term) would never pass. Yes, he sounded child-like repeatedly telling Congress to "pass this bill, pass it now." And yes, even Democrats are not likely to go along with some of the tax increases included in the bill with elections around the corner.
But what I found to be most interesting was this line: "What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do." The only possible "rigid" ideas he could be referring to would be those found in our Constitution. A Constitution that set up a system of limited and enumerated powers in a federal government; which recognized the state's powers; and which prevented government infringement of individual liberties. Yet Obama, like many on the left, has little regard for a document that he views as ancient and outdated, with little relevance to the modern world.
Yet the geniuses behind the Constitution were all too aware of the possible abuses that might be imposed by a too powerful central government. So they gave us, among other provisions, the First Amendment, protecting our freedom of speech and religion. Think it's not important? In Europe, where most countries have no equivalent protection on speech, people are regularly prosecuted and sent to jail for violating certain speech norms. It does not take much of an imagination to think about what type of speech those on the left would not deem worthy of legal protection, absent our First Amendment. Want to give up the right to a jury trial, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to not testify against yourself, the right to keep and bear arms?
Obama's comment reflects a lack of respect/understanding of the fundamentals of this country (or maybe not as he said he wanted to bring "fundamental" change to this country). Recall that Pelosi's attitude was no different when, in reply to a reporter asking where in the Constitution the Congress was authorized to order people to buy health insurance, she said: "Are you kidding?" Remember, the party that you like will not always be in power. So ask yourself: when the opposing party is in power, what restraints, if any, do you want there to be on what laws they may choose to pass.
2. Obama's Tax the Rich Scheme. Next on his agenda is a measure to up the taxes on the rich; another proposal that is all political theater as Obama knows it will never pass. Worse, it perpetuates the idea of class warfare, and fails in its stated goal. As Thomas Sowell notes in the 9/19/11 Investor's Business Daily, Congress raised the top rate on income taxes in 1921 to 73%. In 1916, there were more than 1000 people with earnings of $300,000. or more. Quite a sum for that time. Yet, after the new tax rate passed, that number decreased to under 300. As Sowell points out, the wealthy simply redirected their money into tax-exempt securities (such as municipal bonds). It was a lose/lose proposition: less investment in the economy without the desired result of increased government revenue. But Congress subsequently gave in and lowered the rates to 24%, with the result being that: "Vast sums of money that had seemingly vanished into thin air suddenly reappeared in the economy, creating far more jobs and far more tax revenue for the government." (Quote from Sowell's article.) It is a sad commentary that Democrats today just do not understand that people react rationally to the laws that they pass.
Tell businesses with 50 full time employees or more that they will have to pay a $2000. fine for each employee if they do not provide health insurance, and guess what happens? Those businesses approaching 50 will make sure to only hire part-time workers. Those with over 50 will cut back their existing employees' hours. Why? Because business owners and individuals act rationally in order to lessen the negative impact of legislation. The end result is simply another measure that will retard economic growth and delay our economic recovery. Now this is not rocket science, so maybe someone can explain why the Democrats do not get it.
3. The UN Vote on a Palestinian State. So the time has arrived. The UN General Assembly opens a new session. A year has passed since Obama told the two sides that he wanted to see a Palestinian state at the UN by this session. But he has pressure from his own party to veto any measure brought to the Security Council that is not based upon an agreed resolution; and the Palestinians are seeking no such accord. But so what - the Palestinians just want to have their own state and live side by side with Israel in peace. Right?
"We support establishing a Palestinian state on any part of Palestinian land without giving up an inch of Palestine or recognizing Israel." Ismail Haniya, Prime Minister of Hamas, as reported in the 9/19/11 NY Times.
"We are going to complain that as Palestinians we have been under occupation for 63 years." Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority. Israel was established in 1948 - 63 years ago. But it did not control the West Bank or Gaza until after the 1967 war. So what is Abbas talking about? He is telling a deaf, dumb and blind world that the Palestinians consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestinian land. Doubt that?
"Even Palestinian refugees living in (refugee camps) inside the (new) state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens." Abdullah Abdullah, PLO Ambassador to Lebanon, as reported by Caroline Glick in the 9/15/11 Jerusalem Post online. They will not be considered citizens because the Palestinians want them to "return" to Israel with millions of the descendants of the original refugees; resulting in the end of Israel as the Jewish state. Remember, it is no coincidence that Abbas continues to refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. To do so would conflict with his virtually stated desire to control all the land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean.
But my "favorite" comment comes from the PLO representative here in Washington, who told the press that the new Palestinian state will ban Jews and homosexuals. As reported by Glick in the above-refenced article.
And according to the latest Pew Research Poll, 77% of Palestinians agree that "Palestinians' rights can't be taken care of if Israel exists." 79% of Jordanians agree, as do 80% of Egyptians. As reported in the 9/13/11 Investor's Business Daily.
As Glick concludes: "The Obama Administration, the EU bureacracy and most EU member states are obsessed with the Palestinians...their faith in the justice of the Palestinian cause is impermeable to contrary facts or rational interests."
Monday, September 19, 2011
Monday, September 5, 2011
Will the Creation of Palestine Mean the End of Israel?
As the UN General Assembly gets set to vote on the establishment of "Palestine," will it be the beginning of the end for Israel? The UN will undoubtedly approve the creation of a palestinian state along the 1949 armistice lines (often referred to as the pre-1967 lines). This will, incredibly, return much of Israel's capital city to Arab control. Even the Kotel (the Western Wall) would be beyond Israeli control. Of course, Israel will never voluntary cede control of Jerusalem or the "West Bank" to the Arabs.
Once it becomes a full member state at the UN, the new country of Palestine will demand sanctions against Israel for occupying its land. They will likely seek the involvement of UN troops as well. Failing that, this writer believes we can either expect the Arabs to start a war (or provoke one, and then blame Israel for responding); or, at the least, the beginning of a Third Intifada.
Think the Arabs are a true partner in peace? Think the Obama Administration cares about Israel? The rest of the world? Let's take a look:
Abbas: "Don't order us to recognize a Jewish state. We won't accept it." (Said on 8/27/11, per the LA Jewish Journal, 9/2-9/8/11 edition.)
Abbas: Said on 8/28/11 that he plans on demanding a "right of return" for millions of Arabs to Israel. (Per the 8/31/11 Jewish Press editorial.) This would mean the end of the two-state solution, as the entire area would come under Arab control. So much for the sincerity of Abbas. But let's give credit where it's due: to Obama! After all, he is the one who said we should decide the issues of borders and security first, and leave the "emotional issues" of refugees and Jerusalem until later. There is no way any Israeli leader could or would allow millions of Arabs into the country; nor would they ever give up Jerusalem. Of course, Obama knew this when he gave his speech. And that speech has undoubtedly encouraged Abbas. Still think Obama is on Israel's side?
Hillary Clinton, US Sec. of State: "Any unilateral action by the U.S. that would signal, symbolically or concretely, that it recognizes that Jerusalem is a city that is located within the sovereign territory of Israel would critically compromise the ability of the U.S. to work with Israelis, Palestinians and others in the region to further the peace process." (As reported in the 8/31/11 Jewish Press.) Got that? Jerusalem is NOT located in Israel! Still think Obama is a friend of Israel? If you do, can I assume that you think Ahmadinejad is a friend of Israel also?
Speaking of which: Ahmadinejad again said on 8/26/11 that "the goal of all believers and seekers of justice should be the disappearance of the Zionist regime." (Per the 8/30/11 JPost online.) And he recently said that the establishment of a Palestinian state is the first step to wiping Israel off the map.
From the European Union's Foreign Affairs Chief: the EU's support for the UN resolution will depend on the "content of the resolution." (As reported in the 9/2-9/8/11 edition of the LA Jewish Journal.) There you have it. If they word the resolution nicely, the EU will approve. Never mind the true intentions of the Arabs - as long as the resolution is...what?...politically correct? After that, we don't give a damn what they do to Israel.
And Turkey moves further away from Israel. As Turkey under Erdogan has tried to become a leader in the muslim world, it has ordered the Israeli ambassador to leave, because Israel will not apologize for defending itself against the flotilla that tried to enter Gaza. Recall that nine were killed during the Israeli commando operation. (Of course, it should be Turkey that apologizes to Israel for allowing the flotilla to organize in, and then depart from, a Turkish port.) Turkey has suspended military agreements with Israel; and is basically threatening naval war with Israel. (As reported by Caroline Glick in the 9/5/11 JPost online.)
But in a shocking development, 40 Israeli passengers were detained at the Ankara airport, their passports confiscated, forced to strip to their underwear, made to line up against a wall without being allowed to sit - for a total of 90 minutes. (Again, as reported by Glick in the above referenced article.) If the world and UN tolerates such behavior against Jews, what country does anyone think will support Israel in the next war? And, if war does break out after Palestine is established by the UN, will we now see a non-Arab muslim country actively join in a war against Israel for the very first time?
Once it becomes a full member state at the UN, the new country of Palestine will demand sanctions against Israel for occupying its land. They will likely seek the involvement of UN troops as well. Failing that, this writer believes we can either expect the Arabs to start a war (or provoke one, and then blame Israel for responding); or, at the least, the beginning of a Third Intifada.
Think the Arabs are a true partner in peace? Think the Obama Administration cares about Israel? The rest of the world? Let's take a look:
Abbas: "Don't order us to recognize a Jewish state. We won't accept it." (Said on 8/27/11, per the LA Jewish Journal, 9/2-9/8/11 edition.)
Abbas: Said on 8/28/11 that he plans on demanding a "right of return" for millions of Arabs to Israel. (Per the 8/31/11 Jewish Press editorial.) This would mean the end of the two-state solution, as the entire area would come under Arab control. So much for the sincerity of Abbas. But let's give credit where it's due: to Obama! After all, he is the one who said we should decide the issues of borders and security first, and leave the "emotional issues" of refugees and Jerusalem until later. There is no way any Israeli leader could or would allow millions of Arabs into the country; nor would they ever give up Jerusalem. Of course, Obama knew this when he gave his speech. And that speech has undoubtedly encouraged Abbas. Still think Obama is on Israel's side?
Hillary Clinton, US Sec. of State: "Any unilateral action by the U.S. that would signal, symbolically or concretely, that it recognizes that Jerusalem is a city that is located within the sovereign territory of Israel would critically compromise the ability of the U.S. to work with Israelis, Palestinians and others in the region to further the peace process." (As reported in the 8/31/11 Jewish Press.) Got that? Jerusalem is NOT located in Israel! Still think Obama is a friend of Israel? If you do, can I assume that you think Ahmadinejad is a friend of Israel also?
Speaking of which: Ahmadinejad again said on 8/26/11 that "the goal of all believers and seekers of justice should be the disappearance of the Zionist regime." (Per the 8/30/11 JPost online.) And he recently said that the establishment of a Palestinian state is the first step to wiping Israel off the map.
From the European Union's Foreign Affairs Chief: the EU's support for the UN resolution will depend on the "content of the resolution." (As reported in the 9/2-9/8/11 edition of the LA Jewish Journal.) There you have it. If they word the resolution nicely, the EU will approve. Never mind the true intentions of the Arabs - as long as the resolution is...what?...politically correct? After that, we don't give a damn what they do to Israel.
And Turkey moves further away from Israel. As Turkey under Erdogan has tried to become a leader in the muslim world, it has ordered the Israeli ambassador to leave, because Israel will not apologize for defending itself against the flotilla that tried to enter Gaza. Recall that nine were killed during the Israeli commando operation. (Of course, it should be Turkey that apologizes to Israel for allowing the flotilla to organize in, and then depart from, a Turkish port.) Turkey has suspended military agreements with Israel; and is basically threatening naval war with Israel. (As reported by Caroline Glick in the 9/5/11 JPost online.)
But in a shocking development, 40 Israeli passengers were detained at the Ankara airport, their passports confiscated, forced to strip to their underwear, made to line up against a wall without being allowed to sit - for a total of 90 minutes. (Again, as reported by Glick in the above referenced article.) If the world and UN tolerates such behavior against Jews, what country does anyone think will support Israel in the next war? And, if war does break out after Palestine is established by the UN, will we now see a non-Arab muslim country actively join in a war against Israel for the very first time?
Sunday, August 28, 2011
The LA Times Wastes no Time in Slamming the New Republican Front Runner.
It did not take very long. As soon as the polls showed Rick Perry to be the front runner for the Republican party nomination for president, the media arm of the Democrat party went into attack mode. The lead editorial in today's LA Times was entitled "The problem with Perry." The Sunday edition has the highest readership and they wasted no time whatsoever. (Remember how they blasted candidate Obama too? No? That's because he's a democrat.)
Their biggest beef with Perry is that he "loathes" the federal government. Assuming that to be true, I'll take that any day of the week over someone who loathes our country (that would be Obama who felt that the country was so bad it needed "fundamental change"). The Times asks why Perry would want to preside over a government he loathes. Why did Obama want to be president of a country he loathes? Remember, his wife was proud of this country for the FIRST time only after he got the Democrat nomination. Think he felt any differently? Ask Rev. Wright if you do.
Another major concern of the Times is that as Governor of Texas, they say Perry "rarely reached across the aisle;" that he would be "uncompromising." Would that be like Obama telling the Repubs "well I won." Or jamming Obamacare down the people's throat without a single Republican vote? That kind of uncompromising? We know that the Times (like their NY cousins) have no intellectual honesty; and that truth is not an issue - only their agenda is important. But one cannot help but wonder if they actually believe what they write.
Another problem with Perry is that he wants a strong national defense. We know the Dems only want to spend money on social programs in order to make an increasing number of people dependent on government; and thereby become permanent democratic voters. As for the numerous evil dictators and other bad actors in the world...well, the UN can deal with them, can't they? Or maybe Europe? Europe was on its way to defeating the Nazis without our intervention, right?
And horrors! Can you believe that Perry wants to repeal Obamacare? But wouldn't that put Perry in the same group as 2/3 of the country who opposed Obamacare. What do the people know, anyway? We, the elitists and superior intellectuals of the democrat party, know what is best for everyone even if they do not.
Did you know that, according to the Times, Perry has "disturbing connections to fringe religious groups?" Well, thank G-d that does not apply to our current President! He would never belong to a church where the reverend spewed hate speech, and anti-semitism, and said things like "G-d damn America." The Times would have been all over a story like that if candidate Obama belonged to such a church. Well, Hannity was all over it. It took the LA Times a year after Hannity broke that story for the Times to deem it newsworthy.
The Times says Perry wants to eliminate Social Security and replace it with private individual accounts. Like it or not, something is going to have to change for the system to survive. We simply do not have enough workers anymore to support all the retirees. It is time for the politicians to admit that social security withholding is simply another tax, and therefore people will have no automatic right to any return. So if we are going to keep the system for those who are disabled or have not planned for retirement, then maybe those worth $10 million or more should not receive any return. ($5million maybe?) And they will need to raise the retirement age. But what's wrong with telling people 50 and under to start planning for at least some of their own retirement? Maybe if middle income private employees did not have to fund full retirement benefits for public employees (even those making much more) then they could better fund their own retirements.
Finally, according to the Times, Perry "sees a utopia in which life is made better by unrestrained capitalism." I have some "news" for the LA Times (it's not their fault - news is not their business): American capitalism has created more wealth for more people than any country in the history of the world. And "unrestrained" capitalism? Good luck to any president attempting to abolish all business regulations. Still, unrestrained capitalism definitely beats socialism. Sooner or later, socialists run out of other people's money to give away. And in the interim they create millions of helpless individuals dependent on the government to survive. Obama's "redistribution"/stimulus approach to the economy has resulted in "the most prolonged economic recovery since the Great Depression." (As reported in the 8/29/11 Investor's Business Daily.) We are now in our 8th quarter of "recovery;" all the other recessions required only 1 to 3 quarters for recovery.
Thank goodness we can count on the LA Times for their fair and honest and intellectually consistent reporting. Then again, if you have a bird cage...
Their biggest beef with Perry is that he "loathes" the federal government. Assuming that to be true, I'll take that any day of the week over someone who loathes our country (that would be Obama who felt that the country was so bad it needed "fundamental change"). The Times asks why Perry would want to preside over a government he loathes. Why did Obama want to be president of a country he loathes? Remember, his wife was proud of this country for the FIRST time only after he got the Democrat nomination. Think he felt any differently? Ask Rev. Wright if you do.
Another major concern of the Times is that as Governor of Texas, they say Perry "rarely reached across the aisle;" that he would be "uncompromising." Would that be like Obama telling the Repubs "well I won." Or jamming Obamacare down the people's throat without a single Republican vote? That kind of uncompromising? We know that the Times (like their NY cousins) have no intellectual honesty; and that truth is not an issue - only their agenda is important. But one cannot help but wonder if they actually believe what they write.
Another problem with Perry is that he wants a strong national defense. We know the Dems only want to spend money on social programs in order to make an increasing number of people dependent on government; and thereby become permanent democratic voters. As for the numerous evil dictators and other bad actors in the world...well, the UN can deal with them, can't they? Or maybe Europe? Europe was on its way to defeating the Nazis without our intervention, right?
And horrors! Can you believe that Perry wants to repeal Obamacare? But wouldn't that put Perry in the same group as 2/3 of the country who opposed Obamacare. What do the people know, anyway? We, the elitists and superior intellectuals of the democrat party, know what is best for everyone even if they do not.
Did you know that, according to the Times, Perry has "disturbing connections to fringe religious groups?" Well, thank G-d that does not apply to our current President! He would never belong to a church where the reverend spewed hate speech, and anti-semitism, and said things like "G-d damn America." The Times would have been all over a story like that if candidate Obama belonged to such a church. Well, Hannity was all over it. It took the LA Times a year after Hannity broke that story for the Times to deem it newsworthy.
The Times says Perry wants to eliminate Social Security and replace it with private individual accounts. Like it or not, something is going to have to change for the system to survive. We simply do not have enough workers anymore to support all the retirees. It is time for the politicians to admit that social security withholding is simply another tax, and therefore people will have no automatic right to any return. So if we are going to keep the system for those who are disabled or have not planned for retirement, then maybe those worth $10 million or more should not receive any return. ($5million maybe?) And they will need to raise the retirement age. But what's wrong with telling people 50 and under to start planning for at least some of their own retirement? Maybe if middle income private employees did not have to fund full retirement benefits for public employees (even those making much more) then they could better fund their own retirements.
Finally, according to the Times, Perry "sees a utopia in which life is made better by unrestrained capitalism." I have some "news" for the LA Times (it's not their fault - news is not their business): American capitalism has created more wealth for more people than any country in the history of the world. And "unrestrained" capitalism? Good luck to any president attempting to abolish all business regulations. Still, unrestrained capitalism definitely beats socialism. Sooner or later, socialists run out of other people's money to give away. And in the interim they create millions of helpless individuals dependent on the government to survive. Obama's "redistribution"/stimulus approach to the economy has resulted in "the most prolonged economic recovery since the Great Depression." (As reported in the 8/29/11 Investor's Business Daily.) We are now in our 8th quarter of "recovery;" all the other recessions required only 1 to 3 quarters for recovery.
Thank goodness we can count on the LA Times for their fair and honest and intellectually consistent reporting. Then again, if you have a bird cage...
Friday, August 5, 2011
Letter to the Jewish Journal.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)