* There were some memorable lines from the Supreme Court hearings on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. (The law will neither protect patients nor make health care affordable, but that is another matter.) Justice Kennedy had what may be the best line, indicating that the mandate "changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way." Indeed, for the first time the feds would be ordering everyone to purchase a product from a private company or state run exchange. Yes, I know the States require the purchase of various things: car insurance, motorcycle helmets, and on and on. But if you do not drive a car or motorcycle, you need not make those purchases. And it goes to the very nature of our republic as to whether or not the constitution limits the federal government to enumerated powers, with plenary power reserved to the states; and whether the power of the states and the rights of the individual are superseded by an all powerful central government.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.: "Virtually everybody in society is in this market," explaining why ordering people to buy insurance is different than other products. But there were so many assumptions made in these hearings. Even if virtually everyone does enter the market at some point in their lives, there are studies that have suggested that about 20% of the population uses about 80% of the healthcare services. If so, should this unequal distribution be a factor in assessing costs?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "The people who don't participate in this market are making it much more expensive for the people who do...and the result is that everybody else's premiums get raised." Even if she is right, do we confer constitutionality on a statute just because it might control costs? Can Congress pass laws limiting what any product can cost, or order the purchase of products by all, to keep the prices down? And is the Justice right, or is it just another assumption? Mark Levin a couple of weeks ago was discussing how government interference in the healthcare market is what is keeping prices high. States, and now the feds with Obamacare, have had certain requirements of what every health insurance policy must provide, regardless of whether the purchaser wants or will ever use that service. The insurance companies then pass along the costs of those services. And what about Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) and Medicare? Doctors and hospitals are limited in what they are paid by those two programs, regardless of the doctor's or hospital's actual cost. So the rest of us get to make up the difference in higher prices.
Justice Antonin Scalia: "Everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli." Maybe, maybe not. But does anyone have any doubt that once the door is opened to the feds to allow them to order you to buy one thing, it is now wide open for whatever a future Congress and President see fit to order you to purchase or to do? And why not broccoli, if it can be shown that the beneficial health effects help cut down on the use of healthcare services?
* The LA Times. In their 3/26/12 editorial they say that the mandate "is a key piece of a broad effort to fix a healthcare system that is too expensive, inefficient and inaccessible to too many Americans." For this reason, they say, the mandate should be upheld. This does not address the constitutionality issue at all. Rather, it reflects typical leftist thinking that the ends justify the means. They believe Obamacare is a good idea and therefore it should be upheld. They do argue that government orders the purchase of car insurance and motorcylce helmets - but see the discussion in the first paragraph explaining the nature of our Republic, which the Times does not seem to get.
* The New York Times. In their 4/1/12 editorial they say, in reference to the Roberts Court: "There has been no court less restrained in signaling its willingness to replace law made by Congress with law made by justices." Except they don't really mean it - it's a lie. They would be fine with the court overturning The Defense of Marriage Act, as well as numerous other laws passed by Congress. And they would not call it "replacing law made by Congress with law made by justices." Rather, they would be lauding the justices for their "courage." In any event, their basic supposition about the Roberts Court is a lie. Roe vs. Wade found a right to abortion based on a right to privacy. Except that the Constitution mentions neither privacy nor abortion. Was the court deciding Roe engaging in "law made by justices?" Did the Roe court feel itself constrained by laws duly made by legislative bodies?
* The Investor's Business Daily. In their 3/28/12 editorial, the IBD notes that Obama ridiculed Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries when she argued for a healthcare "mandate." Said candidate Obama, if a mandate was a solution then "we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house..." Except, the mandate became imperative for him a year later, so which time was he lying? The IBD cites a report by two professors concluding that Obamacare's "combination of high taxes, large subsidies and extensive mandatory contractual terms seems likely to eventually drive most private insurance plans out of business." I always thought that the goal of Obamacare was to destroy the private health insurance market, thereby making it mandatory for Congress to put in a "public option." Only by then, it would not be an option - it would be the only coverage available.
* The Investor's Business Daily. In their 4/3/12 editorial, the paper discusses the costs of Obamacare. Originally, it was projected to cost $940 billion dollars in its first ten years. Except, the first two years had virtually no costs; so the CBO now projects costs for the next ten years to be $1.76 trillion dollars. Almost double. There's a shocker - a government program that costs far more than original projections. Are your insurance rates up? Obama originally said that families would save $2500. per year. But a Kaiser Family Foundation study has found that average costs are already up $2200. per year. Notes the IBD: "Increased health insurance coverage is not the same as better health, nor does wider coverage guarantee lower medical costs."
* President Obama. "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." Wow. Not bad - Obama managed two lies in one sentence. Congress barely passed Obamacare; 219 to 212 in the House, with quite a few democrats voting against it. It passed in the Senate when Harry Reid bribed certain senators in order to get their vote. Not a single Republican in either house voted for it. So, no, it did not pass by a "strong majority." And "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" if the Court overturns the law? Not only incorrect, but as Obama taught constitutional law, he knew full well it was an untruth. For 209 years, since Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury vs. Madison, the Court has the inherent power of "judicial review." Were it otherwise, then any Congress could pass any law contrary to the Constitution and that law would stand, effectively negating the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution would just be the first "law" passed, and could be superseded any time Congress passed a contrary law. No need for Amendments.
* My take. Sadly missing from much commentary favoring Obamacare, even by lawyers and law professors, is whether or not the use of the Commerce Clause to justify this legislation is good for the country. Those on the left point to the use of the Commerce Clause for at least seven decades (if not ten or more) to justify expansion of federal power. In 1942 the case of Wickard vs. Filburn came before the U.S. Supreme Court. Filburn was a farmer in Ohio who grew wheat for himself and his family and his farm animals. But the Department of Agriculture fined him for growing more wheat than he was allowed by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Congress said the act was authorized by their power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court upheld the fine saying that Filburn's use of his own wheat meant he did not have to purchase wheat in commerce - thereby affecting commerce. Also, he "might" decide to sell the wheat in commerce. This was an awful decision. The Court was allowing the feds to fine a citizen for growing wheat on his own farm. It was a sad day for the rights of property owners, and for individual liberty. So without questioning whether or not this was a wise decision, the left uses this as a basis for arguing for almost any expansion of federal power under the Commerce Clause.
And the left is right in that regard. If the Court believes Filburn was rightly decided, they could easily then uphold Obamacare. After all, healthcare affects interstate commerce. And not buying insurance can affect the market like not buying wheat (because Filburn grew his own). If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, it will be by a 5-4 vote, as the four liberal justices believe as the LA Times (see above) and those on the left often do - that the ends justify the means. If Obamacare is upheld, it could by a 5-4 vote (with Kennedy being the swing vote either way), but it could also be a 6-3 vote. The Chief Justice votes last. If he sees that Kennedy is siding with the four liberals he could decide to go with the majority. The reason would be that when the Chief Justice is in the majority he can assign the writing of the majority opinion to whomever he wants to, including himself. Therefore, the decision can be as broad or as limited as the Chief wants.
So what's with Obama? How could he make such a bold statement about the Court's power that was so wrong? He taught constitutional law, after all. Lots of excuses and explanations were made by the White House and Obama's supporters in the mainstream media. Of course, all the explanations were nonsensical because, again, Obama taught constitutional law. The criticisms from the right mostly suggested that Obama was trying to bully the Court into upholding the law. But missing from the analysis is a simple explanation: as someone on the left Obama believes that the ends justify the means. Looked at from this perspective it explains why it would be a non-issue for Obama to so blatantly lie about the size of the majority vote, and the Court's power to overturn the law. It explains why, in my opinion, Obama lies far more often than other Presidents have, and feels comfortable doing it. Even when the lies are so obviously and transparently wrong, he "knows" he is defending a "just" cause. That is why he can go out there and say what he does with a straight face, and undoubtedly sound convincing to the uninformed. And given that the mainstream media will never call him on any of his lies (remember "Bush lied, people died") Obama knows he is safe in continuing with his intellectual dishonesty.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
More on Iran; Trayvon Martin; Jews Murdered In Toulouse; and Other Matters
1. More on Iran. Former Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, was on Fox News and reported that the Obama administration may have leaked sensitive information about a possible Israeli attack on Iran. Israel has been developing a close relationship with Azerbaijan, a country that sits on Iran's northern border. According to Bolton, "government sources" told Foreign Policy magazine that Azerbaijan may allow Israeli forces to use their airfields in a strike against Iran. Such close access to Iranian targets would make a strike easier, and would allow for multiple waves of attack.
If Obama intentionally had this information released, it would be consistent with his efforts to prevent an Israeli attack. In February, our Defense Secretary said if Israel strikes, it will most likely be in April, May or June; essentially announcing to the Iranians when they need to be prepared. Now, they are telling the Iranians the direction from which the attacks may occur. Per Bolton: "It's just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies." Obama recently said he had Israel's back. It seems like Obama has Iran's back.
2. The Nanny State and the Food Police. In an example of how leftist interference supersedes common sense, New York City will no longer allow charitable groups like churches and synagogues to donate left-over food to homeless shelters. As reported in the 3/27/12 IBD, the concern did not appear to be over lawsuits. Rather, the IBD says: "A new document from the bureaucracy dictates serving sizes, as well as salt, fat and calorie limits, fiber minimums and condiment recommendations." Think they won't dictate what you can eat if Obamacare is upheld? Apparently they are willing to let the homeless starve.
3. Trayvon Martin. One cannot help but feel for the overwhelming grief of the parents of Trayvon Martin over the death of their son. The shooter is apparently half hispanic, and spent time tutoring young minority and black kids (according to Hannity on Fox). But the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton must have been concerned that they would not have anything to do after the country elected a black president. It is certainly feasible that George Zimmerman had engaged in some racial profiling when he saw Martin walking through his neighborhood. But that is not the same as saying that he was out to kill a black person. And it's a far cry to leap the conclusion of one woman who brought her 10 year old to a rally because "it's important for them to learn from this incident - that it's not equal treatment, that (this country) is not as rose-colored as people think, even though we have a black president." (Quote from 3/27/12 LA Times.)
Is that the proper lesson for children? One shooting and the entire non-black population of the US wants to kill all the blacks? I cannot help but wonder if these same people are out in force every time there is a black on black killing, often by gangs. Do those innocent victims deserve any less attention? The head of the New Black Panther Party apparently put a bounty on the head of George Zimmerman. And Spike Lee Twitted what he thought was Zimmerman's address. (He got it wrong, unfortunately for an older couple.) So do these blacks want to return to mob rule? Have they already forgotten that mob rule resulted in lynchings of blacks? I would ask why the Attorney General is not seeking to prosecute Spike Lee and the head of the Panthers, but we already know the answer - blacks don't get prosecuted under this Administration.
4. No More Christian or Jewish Holidays Off. The State University of New York at Stony Brook has decided that classes will not be cancelled any longer for major Christian or Jewish holidays. Easter is on a Sunday anyway, and Christmas is during the winter break, so that leaves Good Friday. For Jews, it's Rosh Hashanah (2 days for the more observant) and Yom Kippur (and Passover and other days for the more observant). But the High Holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are almost universally observed. According to the Vice Provost of undergraduate education: "...the reality is it's a relatively small number of people who are upset." Maybe; but my guess would be that it was even a smaller number of people who objected. My only question is: was it the atheists or the Muslim Student Association that objected? (Story from Foxnews.com, 3/25/12.)
5. Jews Murdered in Toulouse, France. One Mohamed Merah (may he rot in hell forever) murdered a Rabbi and his two small children, along with another child, at a Jewish school in Toulouse, France. He actually grabbed one of the children by her hair and then shot her in the head. A number of media outlets apparently reported that Merah claimed he acted to "avenge the deaths of Palestinian children." But NPR reported it as avenging "slain" Palestinian children. (As reported by Vic Rosenthal in the 3/23/12 Jewish Press online.) So let's be clear about a few things. First, these people were murdered for one reason - they were Jews. Second, Merah's rationalization is no different than what we see from the mainstream media day in and day out. They talk about the "violence" in the Middle East; or that today some Palestinians were killed and tomorrow some Israelis were killed. It's all the same because the mainstream media and the Western leaders make no moral distinctions. The Palestinians launch thousands and thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel, not caring who is killed or injured. Israel then targets only the terrorists, and yes, innocents do get killed. Yet the media and Western leaders make no distinction.
When Obama spoke to the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009, he talked about the death of six million Jews in the Holocaust. But he followed that up with his statement that "...the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable." Except their situation is of their own doing. But when we in the West do not make any moral distinctions, how surprising can it be that the terrorists use the same justifications. We (the terrorists) are just avenging "slain" Palestinian children. Except that Israel does not target children or other innocents. If that was their intent, the Israelis could flatten Gaza and the West Bank.
6. London as a "Beacon" of Islam. The former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, is running again for Mayor. The fact that this anti-semitic radical leftist won twice already is bad enough. The thought of him getting a third term is shocking. More shocking is his desire to turn London, the capital of England, into a "beacon" of Islam. (As reported in the 3/23/12 Jewish Press.) Livingstone spoke at the North London Central Mosque, known for its radical brand of Islam. One group, Muslims Against Crusades, wants to turn 12 cities in Britain into Islamic Emirates, governed by Sharia law, and not English law. There are approximately one million Muslims in London. We can only speculate about where London, England and all of Europe is headed. And are we next?
It brings to mind what I wrote in my 11/15/09 blog (The Liberal Mind) discussing all the excuses the mainstream media was making for Major Hassan (another who should rot in hell) after he murdered US soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas: "It is much easier to write him off as a nut case, than accept the reality of a world-wide effort by islamofascists to dominate the planet and establish sharia law everywhere."
If Obama intentionally had this information released, it would be consistent with his efforts to prevent an Israeli attack. In February, our Defense Secretary said if Israel strikes, it will most likely be in April, May or June; essentially announcing to the Iranians when they need to be prepared. Now, they are telling the Iranians the direction from which the attacks may occur. Per Bolton: "It's just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies." Obama recently said he had Israel's back. It seems like Obama has Iran's back.
2. The Nanny State and the Food Police. In an example of how leftist interference supersedes common sense, New York City will no longer allow charitable groups like churches and synagogues to donate left-over food to homeless shelters. As reported in the 3/27/12 IBD, the concern did not appear to be over lawsuits. Rather, the IBD says: "A new document from the bureaucracy dictates serving sizes, as well as salt, fat and calorie limits, fiber minimums and condiment recommendations." Think they won't dictate what you can eat if Obamacare is upheld? Apparently they are willing to let the homeless starve.
3. Trayvon Martin. One cannot help but feel for the overwhelming grief of the parents of Trayvon Martin over the death of their son. The shooter is apparently half hispanic, and spent time tutoring young minority and black kids (according to Hannity on Fox). But the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton must have been concerned that they would not have anything to do after the country elected a black president. It is certainly feasible that George Zimmerman had engaged in some racial profiling when he saw Martin walking through his neighborhood. But that is not the same as saying that he was out to kill a black person. And it's a far cry to leap the conclusion of one woman who brought her 10 year old to a rally because "it's important for them to learn from this incident - that it's not equal treatment, that (this country) is not as rose-colored as people think, even though we have a black president." (Quote from 3/27/12 LA Times.)
Is that the proper lesson for children? One shooting and the entire non-black population of the US wants to kill all the blacks? I cannot help but wonder if these same people are out in force every time there is a black on black killing, often by gangs. Do those innocent victims deserve any less attention? The head of the New Black Panther Party apparently put a bounty on the head of George Zimmerman. And Spike Lee Twitted what he thought was Zimmerman's address. (He got it wrong, unfortunately for an older couple.) So do these blacks want to return to mob rule? Have they already forgotten that mob rule resulted in lynchings of blacks? I would ask why the Attorney General is not seeking to prosecute Spike Lee and the head of the Panthers, but we already know the answer - blacks don't get prosecuted under this Administration.
4. No More Christian or Jewish Holidays Off. The State University of New York at Stony Brook has decided that classes will not be cancelled any longer for major Christian or Jewish holidays. Easter is on a Sunday anyway, and Christmas is during the winter break, so that leaves Good Friday. For Jews, it's Rosh Hashanah (2 days for the more observant) and Yom Kippur (and Passover and other days for the more observant). But the High Holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are almost universally observed. According to the Vice Provost of undergraduate education: "...the reality is it's a relatively small number of people who are upset." Maybe; but my guess would be that it was even a smaller number of people who objected. My only question is: was it the atheists or the Muslim Student Association that objected? (Story from Foxnews.com, 3/25/12.)
5. Jews Murdered in Toulouse, France. One Mohamed Merah (may he rot in hell forever) murdered a Rabbi and his two small children, along with another child, at a Jewish school in Toulouse, France. He actually grabbed one of the children by her hair and then shot her in the head. A number of media outlets apparently reported that Merah claimed he acted to "avenge the deaths of Palestinian children." But NPR reported it as avenging "slain" Palestinian children. (As reported by Vic Rosenthal in the 3/23/12 Jewish Press online.) So let's be clear about a few things. First, these people were murdered for one reason - they were Jews. Second, Merah's rationalization is no different than what we see from the mainstream media day in and day out. They talk about the "violence" in the Middle East; or that today some Palestinians were killed and tomorrow some Israelis were killed. It's all the same because the mainstream media and the Western leaders make no moral distinctions. The Palestinians launch thousands and thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel, not caring who is killed or injured. Israel then targets only the terrorists, and yes, innocents do get killed. Yet the media and Western leaders make no distinction.
When Obama spoke to the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009, he talked about the death of six million Jews in the Holocaust. But he followed that up with his statement that "...the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable." Except their situation is of their own doing. But when we in the West do not make any moral distinctions, how surprising can it be that the terrorists use the same justifications. We (the terrorists) are just avenging "slain" Palestinian children. Except that Israel does not target children or other innocents. If that was their intent, the Israelis could flatten Gaza and the West Bank.
6. London as a "Beacon" of Islam. The former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, is running again for Mayor. The fact that this anti-semitic radical leftist won twice already is bad enough. The thought of him getting a third term is shocking. More shocking is his desire to turn London, the capital of England, into a "beacon" of Islam. (As reported in the 3/23/12 Jewish Press.) Livingstone spoke at the North London Central Mosque, known for its radical brand of Islam. One group, Muslims Against Crusades, wants to turn 12 cities in Britain into Islamic Emirates, governed by Sharia law, and not English law. There are approximately one million Muslims in London. We can only speculate about where London, England and all of Europe is headed. And are we next?
It brings to mind what I wrote in my 11/15/09 blog (The Liberal Mind) discussing all the excuses the mainstream media was making for Major Hassan (another who should rot in hell) after he murdered US soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas: "It is much easier to write him off as a nut case, than accept the reality of a world-wide effort by islamofascists to dominate the planet and establish sharia law everywhere."
Sunday, March 11, 2012
What To Do About Iran?
The topic of whether or not to bomb Iran's nuclear sites has been much in the news of late. Both President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu recently addressed the annual AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) convention. Since then, there have been numerous editorials and opinion pieces in the newspapers. The purpose of this blog is to give you various viewpoints, with, of course, my own commentary along the way.
* In making a legal argument against a preemptive strike, Bruce Ackerman cites the UN Charter which allows self-defense against an armed attack. The right to a preemptive strike, however, goes back to the reasoning put forward by Daniel Webster. Webster said that such a strike could only be justified if there was a "necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." Ackerman (described as a professor of law and political science at Yale) goes on to suggest that the UN Security Council should approve aggressive use of military force. (From an opinion piece in the 3/5/12 LA Times.)
The problem that I have with Ackerman is that the UN is not simply made up of democracies. It includes dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. I am hard pressed to understand why a democracy should be constrained by such a body. Russia and China are permanent members of the Security Council. They would never approve of military action against Iran. And the Human Rights Council of UNESCO (the UN's Educational, Scientific and Cultural organization) recently decided to keep Syria on the Council. A country that is presently murdering thousands of its own citizens is kept on the Human Rights Council. Hence, my lack of respect for, and confidence in, the United Nations. (From Foxnews.com, 3/9/12.)
* In a 3/6/12 editorial, the New York Times said that "Iran's nuclear appetites are undeniable, as is its malign intent toward Israel (and) America..." They go on: "We don't know if there is any mix of sanctions and diplomacy that can persuade the mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions." But, "Tehran's recent offer to return to the negotiations is almost certainly a feint, but must be tested." They conclude: "...Israel should not doubt this president's mettle..."
So, after acknowledging Iran's indisputable nuclear ambitions, their animosity toward Israel and the U.S., and even that Iran's new move to negotiations is likely a ploy, what do they conclude? Let's just wait. This, to me, is nothing other than typical leftist refusal to live in the real world. It is letting their beliefs (in Obama, in the peace process, in whatever) dictate their reality. Diplomacy has been tried for the last eight years or more. Iran feigns interest, all the while building up a significant nuclear program, and enriching uranium beyond the level needed for peaceful purposes. But let's talk some more?
* The 3/6/12 editorial of the IBD (Investor's Business Daily) was rather more blunt: "...Netanyahu shouldn't trust Obama's rhetoric..." They point out that Obama wants to give diplomacy a chance. (Obama said: "...I firmly believe that an opportunity still remains for diplomacy..." at AIPAC.) The IBD goes on to say that Obama failed to tell Abbas that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state for the peace process to move forward. Obama also kept quiet during the Iranian uprising of 2009. Yet he supported the Arab Spring, resulting in Islamic run states in Egypt and Libya. The IBD questions whether Obama's tough talk at AIPAC was "something other than an election-year sop to Obama's faltering Jewish support."
* Obama did give some tough talk at AIPAC. He said his policy was not one of containment (of a nuclear-armed Iran) but rather was one of preventing Iran from getting a nuke. He made this very important comment: "No Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel's destruction. And so I understand the profound historical obligation that weighs on the shoulders of Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak (Israel's defense minister) and all of Israel's leaders."
* Charles Krauthammer, in the 3/9/12 IBD, quotes an Obama Administration official as saying this: "We're trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel." Krauthammer notes that Israel would look bad to the U.S. and the world if they attacked while the U.S. was engaged in negotiations. (And, I would add, the constant comments by Administration officials about why an attack would not be prudent at this time all have the same purpose.) Per Krauthammer: "...Obama wants to get past Nov. 6 without any untoward action that might threaten his re-election." (Which might explain why Obama sees no need to take action this year, while the Israelis fear that Iran will have a nuke by year's end.)
* Thomas Sowell agrees that Israel should not trust Obama. He notes how Obama spoke of "shovel-ready" jobs with the stimulus, and when they failed to materialize Obama then made a joke and laughed about it a year later. Obama promised transparency in his Administration. Remember how all proposed legislation would first be posted online? Yet massive pieces of legislation were passed without even the Congress reading it. (A la Pelosi's "we have to pass the bill (Obamacare) to see what's in it.) Obama promised higher ethical standards, except if he wanted someone in his cabinet (such as the Treasury Secretary who failed to pay taxes for a number of years). (And I would point out that Obama promised to end partisanship and be a uniter. But when Republicans made some proposals for "Obamacare," Obama refused, and said: "I won the election." Sowell goes on: "If you were an Israeli, how willing would you be to risk your national survival on Obama's promise to stand by your country?" Sowell concludes with a quote from Churchill: "Do not let us take the course of allowing events to drift along until it is too late." (Sowell's comments from a 3/7/12 opinion piece in the IBD.)
* Netanyahu's speech to AIPAC was classic Netanyahu - direct and to the point. "Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself." "The Jewish State will not allow those who seek our destruction the means to achieve that goal." Netanyahu talked about how some still argue that maybe Iran is not a seeking a weapon; and that it is better to accept an Iran with nukes than start a war. (That would be the dreamers on the left.) Netanyahu pointed out that years of diplomacy and sanctions have done nothing to even slow Iran's nuclear development. In acknowledging the concern that an attack would prompt retaliation by Iran, Netanyahu referred to a letter from the World Jewish Congress to the U.S. government in 1944. The Jews were pleading for the U.S. to bomb Auschwitz. The reply was that such an operation would divert too many resources, was of doubtful efficacy and "might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans." These are the same arguments being made by many today in arguing against an attack on Iran. And what could have been more vindictive towards the Jewish people than the Holocaust? Netanyahu: "As Prime Minister of Israel I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation."
* My take. First, let's acknowledge that the decision to bomb or not bomb does not necessarily involve the same analysis for the U.S. as for Israel. Even Obama expressed his understanding of "the profound historical obligation" that weighs on Israel's leaders. If "Never Again" means anything, it must mean that no country expressing a desire to wipe Israel off the map can ever be allowed the means and opportunity to do so. Two well placed nukes could essentially destroy Israel and annihilate half the Jewish population of the world. One or two nukes on American soil would be devastating, but it would guarantee the end of Iran. It is not a calculus that Israel can make.
Obama said to AIPAC that "Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat." So, the second issue is whether or not the U.S. will supply the necessary weaponry (such as bunker-busting bombs) to Israel to do just that. Only Obama knows the answer to that.
As Netanyahu pointed out at AIPAC, the issue cannot simply be framed in terms of possible retaliatory acts by Iran, and whether or not an attack is worth the cost. We must also ask what the cost will be if nothing is done to stop Iran. It has been pointed out that if Iran gets the bomb, other countries in the Middle East have already indicated that they would feel a need to do so; countries such as Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Is a nuclear arms race in the Middle East good for world peace and security, or does it enhance the likelihood of nuclear war or terror? And isn't it interesting how Israel's open secret of having nukes does not provoke the same desire of other Middle Eastern countries to get their own nukes? This is because those countries recognize Israel obtained those weapons for defensive purposes, and as a deterrent; and Israel has never threatened, or expressed a desire, to wipe any other country off the map.
It does not seem likely that Israel will be willing to wait until next year (after the U.S. election) to attack. The question, therefore, is what will the U.S. do? Earlier in the Obama Administration, with lots of U.S. troops still in Iraq, Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested that if Israel flew over Iraq to attack Iran, U.S. fighter jets should shoot the Israelis down. (Brzezinski was also Carter's National Security Adviser.) I guess that's one option, although I do not see Obama doing that. So then, will Obama supply Israel with the necessary weaponry? Will Obama have the U.S. participate or even take the lead? Or will Obama simply wait until the election is over, at which time it might be too late?
No one can reasonably deny that there are consequences to both action and inaction. But the burden clearly is greater on Netanyahu than on Obama. His country, while strong militarily, cannot compare to the strength of the U.S.A. No Israeli leader can sit by and watch the destruction of the Jewish people. As the IAEA recently noted, Iran is enriching uranium at a rapid pace, and to a level more than is needed for civilian use. Iran has missiles that can reach Israel, and parts of Europe. (Once again, I am not holding my breath waiting to see if the Europeans will do anything.) Diplomacy and sanctions have been tried and have failed. Iran will not be deterred from obtaining a nuclear weapon short of military action. As Netanyahu said at AIPAC: "The purpose of the Jewish State is to defend Jewish lives and to secure the Jewish future." Netanyahu concluded: "In every generation there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. In this generation we are blessed to live in a time when there is a Jewish State capable of defending the Jewish people."
* In making a legal argument against a preemptive strike, Bruce Ackerman cites the UN Charter which allows self-defense against an armed attack. The right to a preemptive strike, however, goes back to the reasoning put forward by Daniel Webster. Webster said that such a strike could only be justified if there was a "necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." Ackerman (described as a professor of law and political science at Yale) goes on to suggest that the UN Security Council should approve aggressive use of military force. (From an opinion piece in the 3/5/12 LA Times.)
The problem that I have with Ackerman is that the UN is not simply made up of democracies. It includes dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. I am hard pressed to understand why a democracy should be constrained by such a body. Russia and China are permanent members of the Security Council. They would never approve of military action against Iran. And the Human Rights Council of UNESCO (the UN's Educational, Scientific and Cultural organization) recently decided to keep Syria on the Council. A country that is presently murdering thousands of its own citizens is kept on the Human Rights Council. Hence, my lack of respect for, and confidence in, the United Nations. (From Foxnews.com, 3/9/12.)
* In a 3/6/12 editorial, the New York Times said that "Iran's nuclear appetites are undeniable, as is its malign intent toward Israel (and) America..." They go on: "We don't know if there is any mix of sanctions and diplomacy that can persuade the mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions." But, "Tehran's recent offer to return to the negotiations is almost certainly a feint, but must be tested." They conclude: "...Israel should not doubt this president's mettle..."
So, after acknowledging Iran's indisputable nuclear ambitions, their animosity toward Israel and the U.S., and even that Iran's new move to negotiations is likely a ploy, what do they conclude? Let's just wait. This, to me, is nothing other than typical leftist refusal to live in the real world. It is letting their beliefs (in Obama, in the peace process, in whatever) dictate their reality. Diplomacy has been tried for the last eight years or more. Iran feigns interest, all the while building up a significant nuclear program, and enriching uranium beyond the level needed for peaceful purposes. But let's talk some more?
* The 3/6/12 editorial of the IBD (Investor's Business Daily) was rather more blunt: "...Netanyahu shouldn't trust Obama's rhetoric..." They point out that Obama wants to give diplomacy a chance. (Obama said: "...I firmly believe that an opportunity still remains for diplomacy..." at AIPAC.) The IBD goes on to say that Obama failed to tell Abbas that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state for the peace process to move forward. Obama also kept quiet during the Iranian uprising of 2009. Yet he supported the Arab Spring, resulting in Islamic run states in Egypt and Libya. The IBD questions whether Obama's tough talk at AIPAC was "something other than an election-year sop to Obama's faltering Jewish support."
* Obama did give some tough talk at AIPAC. He said his policy was not one of containment (of a nuclear-armed Iran) but rather was one of preventing Iran from getting a nuke. He made this very important comment: "No Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel's destruction. And so I understand the profound historical obligation that weighs on the shoulders of Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak (Israel's defense minister) and all of Israel's leaders."
* Charles Krauthammer, in the 3/9/12 IBD, quotes an Obama Administration official as saying this: "We're trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel." Krauthammer notes that Israel would look bad to the U.S. and the world if they attacked while the U.S. was engaged in negotiations. (And, I would add, the constant comments by Administration officials about why an attack would not be prudent at this time all have the same purpose.) Per Krauthammer: "...Obama wants to get past Nov. 6 without any untoward action that might threaten his re-election." (Which might explain why Obama sees no need to take action this year, while the Israelis fear that Iran will have a nuke by year's end.)
* Thomas Sowell agrees that Israel should not trust Obama. He notes how Obama spoke of "shovel-ready" jobs with the stimulus, and when they failed to materialize Obama then made a joke and laughed about it a year later. Obama promised transparency in his Administration. Remember how all proposed legislation would first be posted online? Yet massive pieces of legislation were passed without even the Congress reading it. (A la Pelosi's "we have to pass the bill (Obamacare) to see what's in it.) Obama promised higher ethical standards, except if he wanted someone in his cabinet (such as the Treasury Secretary who failed to pay taxes for a number of years). (And I would point out that Obama promised to end partisanship and be a uniter. But when Republicans made some proposals for "Obamacare," Obama refused, and said: "I won the election." Sowell goes on: "If you were an Israeli, how willing would you be to risk your national survival on Obama's promise to stand by your country?" Sowell concludes with a quote from Churchill: "Do not let us take the course of allowing events to drift along until it is too late." (Sowell's comments from a 3/7/12 opinion piece in the IBD.)
* Netanyahu's speech to AIPAC was classic Netanyahu - direct and to the point. "Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself." "The Jewish State will not allow those who seek our destruction the means to achieve that goal." Netanyahu talked about how some still argue that maybe Iran is not a seeking a weapon; and that it is better to accept an Iran with nukes than start a war. (That would be the dreamers on the left.) Netanyahu pointed out that years of diplomacy and sanctions have done nothing to even slow Iran's nuclear development. In acknowledging the concern that an attack would prompt retaliation by Iran, Netanyahu referred to a letter from the World Jewish Congress to the U.S. government in 1944. The Jews were pleading for the U.S. to bomb Auschwitz. The reply was that such an operation would divert too many resources, was of doubtful efficacy and "might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans." These are the same arguments being made by many today in arguing against an attack on Iran. And what could have been more vindictive towards the Jewish people than the Holocaust? Netanyahu: "As Prime Minister of Israel I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation."
* My take. First, let's acknowledge that the decision to bomb or not bomb does not necessarily involve the same analysis for the U.S. as for Israel. Even Obama expressed his understanding of "the profound historical obligation" that weighs on Israel's leaders. If "Never Again" means anything, it must mean that no country expressing a desire to wipe Israel off the map can ever be allowed the means and opportunity to do so. Two well placed nukes could essentially destroy Israel and annihilate half the Jewish population of the world. One or two nukes on American soil would be devastating, but it would guarantee the end of Iran. It is not a calculus that Israel can make.
Obama said to AIPAC that "Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat." So, the second issue is whether or not the U.S. will supply the necessary weaponry (such as bunker-busting bombs) to Israel to do just that. Only Obama knows the answer to that.
As Netanyahu pointed out at AIPAC, the issue cannot simply be framed in terms of possible retaliatory acts by Iran, and whether or not an attack is worth the cost. We must also ask what the cost will be if nothing is done to stop Iran. It has been pointed out that if Iran gets the bomb, other countries in the Middle East have already indicated that they would feel a need to do so; countries such as Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Is a nuclear arms race in the Middle East good for world peace and security, or does it enhance the likelihood of nuclear war or terror? And isn't it interesting how Israel's open secret of having nukes does not provoke the same desire of other Middle Eastern countries to get their own nukes? This is because those countries recognize Israel obtained those weapons for defensive purposes, and as a deterrent; and Israel has never threatened, or expressed a desire, to wipe any other country off the map.
It does not seem likely that Israel will be willing to wait until next year (after the U.S. election) to attack. The question, therefore, is what will the U.S. do? Earlier in the Obama Administration, with lots of U.S. troops still in Iraq, Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested that if Israel flew over Iraq to attack Iran, U.S. fighter jets should shoot the Israelis down. (Brzezinski was also Carter's National Security Adviser.) I guess that's one option, although I do not see Obama doing that. So then, will Obama supply Israel with the necessary weaponry? Will Obama have the U.S. participate or even take the lead? Or will Obama simply wait until the election is over, at which time it might be too late?
No one can reasonably deny that there are consequences to both action and inaction. But the burden clearly is greater on Netanyahu than on Obama. His country, while strong militarily, cannot compare to the strength of the U.S.A. No Israeli leader can sit by and watch the destruction of the Jewish people. As the IAEA recently noted, Iran is enriching uranium at a rapid pace, and to a level more than is needed for civilian use. Iran has missiles that can reach Israel, and parts of Europe. (Once again, I am not holding my breath waiting to see if the Europeans will do anything.) Diplomacy and sanctions have been tried and have failed. Iran will not be deterred from obtaining a nuclear weapon short of military action. As Netanyahu said at AIPAC: "The purpose of the Jewish State is to defend Jewish lives and to secure the Jewish future." Netanyahu concluded: "In every generation there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. In this generation we are blessed to live in a time when there is a Jewish State capable of defending the Jewish people."
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Can Our Country Be Saved From...
1. ...the Nanny State? So what is wrong with sending your pre-schooler off to school with a lunch box filled with a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips? Lots apparently. At the West Hoke Elementary School (in North Carolina), a state agent determined that the lunch did not meet the Department of Health and Human Services/USDA guidelines. Therefore, the offending lunch was apparently confiscated and the child was given a chicken nuggets lunch. And the mom was billed $1.25 for the substitute lunch. (Story from Foxnews.com, 2/15/12.) Is this child now on a "watch" list that results in getting her lunch box checked regularly? And if the lunch "fails" another two or three times, then what? Is the Department of Child Services called? Do they try to have the child taken out of the home for bad parenting (abuse by turkey and cheese sandwich with banana, chips and apple juice)? And what is so healthy about chicken nuggets? Are they fried? Fatty? How have we allowed the Federal Government to be involved in actually inspecting our children's lunch boxes? Where in the Constitution is this nonsense allowed - other than Congress again abusing its power under the Commerce Clause; with a Supreme Court that consistently upholds almost every expansion of Congress' power.
2. ...the Courts? And speaking of the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg recently spoke on Egyptian television. As Egypt's new government may be pursuing their own constitution, what does this Supreme Court Justice recommend as a model? You might think the U.S. Constitution would come to mind. You know, the oldest existing constitution still in use; one that arguably has guaranteed more freedom and liberty for the people governed by it than any other constitution on the planet. Not a chance. Instead, our Supreme Court Justice had this to say: "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa..." Also,: "Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Canada's Charter actually tracks much of what is in our own Bill of Rights. It is always a good idea to periodically read the Bill of Rights. Our founders were concerned about putting limits on the power of government. What a liberal Justice like Ginsberg undoubtedly finds lacking is a distinct absence of "entitlements" anywhere in our Constitution.
3. ...Islamic Propaganda? Apparently, CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) is developing a practice of sending their representatives to speak to high school students across the country. One school district (Tampa) objected, noting that CAIR had been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism case brought by the Federal Government. CAIR representative Lovey Saylor called it "fear-mongering" by the school district. Hassan Shibly of CAIR had this to say: "This hatred and animosity only shows the importance of reaching out to the community...It's insulting to the school and the students to think that one person can influence their beliefs. It's misleading." (Story from Foxnews.com, 2/15/12.) Well Mr. Shibly, if the students cannot be influenced by your group, why do you want to bother speaking to them? And notice how every time anyone raises a legitimate objection to anything islamic, it is called "fear-mongering" or "hatred." Our children's textbooks are already influenced by Saudi Arabian rewriting of history through the Saudi's pouring millions of dollars into textbook publishers.
In Mesa County, Colorado, a high school student quit the choir because of his objection to a song put into their repertoire, which he did not want to sing. But School District officials supported the choir director, who chose an Islamic song that said: "There is no other truth except Allah." (I wish I was making this up, but it was on Foxnews.com, 2/18/12.) Said the District spokesperson: "This is about bringing diversity to the students and showing them other things that are out there." Really? Did this district let them know that one Islamic country, Iran, has sentenced to death a young father of two for the "crime" of converting from Islam to Christianity? How's that diversity thing working out in the Muslim world? And what if the song had this line: "There is no other truth except Jesus (or Moses)?" Oh no! Then we need separation of Church and State.
4. ...Our Commander-in-Chief? Recently, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified before Congress. When asked about the huge cut in defense spending under the Obama Administration (which this Congress foolishly went along with), Panetta had this to say: "You can't take 1/2 trillion dollars out of the defense budget and not incur additional risks." That was probably a "no - duh" moment. But, as Panetta works for Obama, he hastened to add: "...but we believe they are acceptable risks." (Quotes from Hannity on Fox, 2/15/12.) And that was a "who are you kidding" moment. Having just celebrated the 50th anniversary of John Glenn's 3 orbits around the earth, I find it very interesting that, for what may be the first time since Glenn's journey, the United States of America is unable to launch an astronaut into space. We have to rely on the Russians. My guess is, that is exactly where Obama wants the U.S. to be; no longer the world leader in space, nor militarily, nor economically nor diplomatically. As I have said before, there will be no vacuum in leadership in the world; it will either be Russia or China or Brazil or Iran and North Korea.
Meanwhile, the IBD (2/21/12) reports that the U.S. Navy is down to 278 active ships. To be fair, the downward trend post-Reagan accelerated under Clinton and Bush as well. But is this really the time to have a weakened Navy? It is through our Navy that the U.S. is able to make its presence known around the world, and prevent Iran from following through on its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. Our Naval presence lets allies know we are there for them, and lets our enemies know the same. The IBD notes that 10 new ships are projected to be built in 2013; but that is down from the originally proposed 13. Reagan reversed a downward slide that began under Carter; and it appears our next president will have to reverse the cutbacks under Obama. As Reagan said: "Peace through strength."
5. ...an Iranian Nuke in the Hands of the Ayatollahs? What a surprise! The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) just reported that Iran is accelerating its uranium enrichment. IAEA inspectors were denied complete access to all sites by the Iranians. Yet, they were able to report that Iran is enriching uranium beyond levels needed for civilian use. And really, if the purpose is civilian use only, why are so many of their facilities buried deep underground? Does anybody still believe the Iranian's lies? Well, apparently Obama does. He and his administration continue to tell the Israelis not to attack Iran. Obama believes sanctions are working. And I believe the moon is made out of green cheese. Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, was on CNN explaining why it would not be prudent for the Israelis to attack - maybe Iran really is not trying to build a nuke, it would only set them back a few years, it would be destabilizing, and there would be retaliation. Well, except for Iran maybe not building a nuke, the rest may very well be true. But if the goal is to deter Iran from going ahead and getting a nuke, then the weakness displayed by our top military commander will have the exact opposite effect. He has basically signaled the Iranians that there will be no military action so they are free to develop their nuke.
Obama has made this same type of error time and again. He thought he would be the President to bring peace to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by telling the Israelis they needed to stop building "settlements." The result, of course, was a signal to the Palestinians that they could stay away from the peace talks until Israel stopped building. He sent exactly the wrong message. He either does this intentionally, or has absolutely no idea how the real world operates. You tell the Iranians there will be no military consequences to their getting a nuke, and guess what - they will build a nuke. You tell the Palestinians that Israel has to stop building, and guess what - the Palestinians say Israel has to stop building or they won't engage in talks. Netanyahu will be meeting in D.C. next week with Obama. As Israel has always done, I suspect they will do what is necessary for their survival, regardless of the pressure put on Netanyahu by Obama. While the world publicly criticized them for their attacks on Iraq's and Syria's nuclear facilities, the reality is that much of the world privately thanked Israel. This time it will be far more difficult - given the flying distance, the number of Iranian facilities, and the greater strength of the Iranian military. A shame that the leaders of the U.S., U.K., France and Germany will stand idly by while Israel protects the entire world from the Ayatollahs.
2. ...the Courts? And speaking of the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg recently spoke on Egyptian television. As Egypt's new government may be pursuing their own constitution, what does this Supreme Court Justice recommend as a model? You might think the U.S. Constitution would come to mind. You know, the oldest existing constitution still in use; one that arguably has guaranteed more freedom and liberty for the people governed by it than any other constitution on the planet. Not a chance. Instead, our Supreme Court Justice had this to say: "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa..." Also,: "Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Canada's Charter actually tracks much of what is in our own Bill of Rights. It is always a good idea to periodically read the Bill of Rights. Our founders were concerned about putting limits on the power of government. What a liberal Justice like Ginsberg undoubtedly finds lacking is a distinct absence of "entitlements" anywhere in our Constitution.
3. ...Islamic Propaganda? Apparently, CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) is developing a practice of sending their representatives to speak to high school students across the country. One school district (Tampa) objected, noting that CAIR had been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism case brought by the Federal Government. CAIR representative Lovey Saylor called it "fear-mongering" by the school district. Hassan Shibly of CAIR had this to say: "This hatred and animosity only shows the importance of reaching out to the community...It's insulting to the school and the students to think that one person can influence their beliefs. It's misleading." (Story from Foxnews.com, 2/15/12.) Well Mr. Shibly, if the students cannot be influenced by your group, why do you want to bother speaking to them? And notice how every time anyone raises a legitimate objection to anything islamic, it is called "fear-mongering" or "hatred." Our children's textbooks are already influenced by Saudi Arabian rewriting of history through the Saudi's pouring millions of dollars into textbook publishers.
In Mesa County, Colorado, a high school student quit the choir because of his objection to a song put into their repertoire, which he did not want to sing. But School District officials supported the choir director, who chose an Islamic song that said: "There is no other truth except Allah." (I wish I was making this up, but it was on Foxnews.com, 2/18/12.) Said the District spokesperson: "This is about bringing diversity to the students and showing them other things that are out there." Really? Did this district let them know that one Islamic country, Iran, has sentenced to death a young father of two for the "crime" of converting from Islam to Christianity? How's that diversity thing working out in the Muslim world? And what if the song had this line: "There is no other truth except Jesus (or Moses)?" Oh no! Then we need separation of Church and State.
4. ...Our Commander-in-Chief? Recently, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified before Congress. When asked about the huge cut in defense spending under the Obama Administration (which this Congress foolishly went along with), Panetta had this to say: "You can't take 1/2 trillion dollars out of the defense budget and not incur additional risks." That was probably a "no - duh" moment. But, as Panetta works for Obama, he hastened to add: "...but we believe they are acceptable risks." (Quotes from Hannity on Fox, 2/15/12.) And that was a "who are you kidding" moment. Having just celebrated the 50th anniversary of John Glenn's 3 orbits around the earth, I find it very interesting that, for what may be the first time since Glenn's journey, the United States of America is unable to launch an astronaut into space. We have to rely on the Russians. My guess is, that is exactly where Obama wants the U.S. to be; no longer the world leader in space, nor militarily, nor economically nor diplomatically. As I have said before, there will be no vacuum in leadership in the world; it will either be Russia or China or Brazil or Iran and North Korea.
Meanwhile, the IBD (2/21/12) reports that the U.S. Navy is down to 278 active ships. To be fair, the downward trend post-Reagan accelerated under Clinton and Bush as well. But is this really the time to have a weakened Navy? It is through our Navy that the U.S. is able to make its presence known around the world, and prevent Iran from following through on its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. Our Naval presence lets allies know we are there for them, and lets our enemies know the same. The IBD notes that 10 new ships are projected to be built in 2013; but that is down from the originally proposed 13. Reagan reversed a downward slide that began under Carter; and it appears our next president will have to reverse the cutbacks under Obama. As Reagan said: "Peace through strength."
5. ...an Iranian Nuke in the Hands of the Ayatollahs? What a surprise! The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) just reported that Iran is accelerating its uranium enrichment. IAEA inspectors were denied complete access to all sites by the Iranians. Yet, they were able to report that Iran is enriching uranium beyond levels needed for civilian use. And really, if the purpose is civilian use only, why are so many of their facilities buried deep underground? Does anybody still believe the Iranian's lies? Well, apparently Obama does. He and his administration continue to tell the Israelis not to attack Iran. Obama believes sanctions are working. And I believe the moon is made out of green cheese. Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, was on CNN explaining why it would not be prudent for the Israelis to attack - maybe Iran really is not trying to build a nuke, it would only set them back a few years, it would be destabilizing, and there would be retaliation. Well, except for Iran maybe not building a nuke, the rest may very well be true. But if the goal is to deter Iran from going ahead and getting a nuke, then the weakness displayed by our top military commander will have the exact opposite effect. He has basically signaled the Iranians that there will be no military action so they are free to develop their nuke.
Obama has made this same type of error time and again. He thought he would be the President to bring peace to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by telling the Israelis they needed to stop building "settlements." The result, of course, was a signal to the Palestinians that they could stay away from the peace talks until Israel stopped building. He sent exactly the wrong message. He either does this intentionally, or has absolutely no idea how the real world operates. You tell the Iranians there will be no military consequences to their getting a nuke, and guess what - they will build a nuke. You tell the Palestinians that Israel has to stop building, and guess what - the Palestinians say Israel has to stop building or they won't engage in talks. Netanyahu will be meeting in D.C. next week with Obama. As Israel has always done, I suspect they will do what is necessary for their survival, regardless of the pressure put on Netanyahu by Obama. While the world publicly criticized them for their attacks on Iraq's and Syria's nuclear facilities, the reality is that much of the world privately thanked Israel. This time it will be far more difficult - given the flying distance, the number of Iranian facilities, and the greater strength of the Iranian military. A shame that the leaders of the U.S., U.K., France and Germany will stand idly by while Israel protects the entire world from the Ayatollahs.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
News From the Middle East
Much has been happening in the Middle East; and much of it you will not likely find in the mainstream media. So, the following is for your consideration.
* On 1/19/12 the Azerbaijan National Security Ministry was able to capture a Hezbollah cell in Baku. The terrorists had planned attacks on the Israeli emabassy there, as well as attacks on the Chief Rabbi, the former Chief of Staff of the IDF and local officials in Baku. Azerbaijan has good relations with Israel and the US; and apparently Iran fears use of that country's bases in a possible attack against Iranian nukes. Remember, Hezbollah acts at the behest of Iran. (As reported on 1/24/12 in Debkafile, which claims to have sources in the Israeli military and government.) Debka reports that a week prior a joint Thai-Israeli counter-terrorism team broke up a Hezbollah cell planning an attack on the Chabad House in Bangkok. As I have said before, Israel sees itself as the protector of Jews around the world. it is amazing how such a tiny country is able to accomplish so much.
* Goodbye Egypt! This from the Muslim Brotherhood, beneficiary of that wonderful Arab Spring turned nightmare: "..we do not recognize Israel at all. It's an occupying criminal enemy." And this: "The Brotherhood rejects international conventions, but we will take legal action against the peace treaty with the Zionist entity." (As reported in the 1/26/12 Jerusalem Post online.)
* The US is not faring any better with the new Egyptian/Brotherhood government. It appears that 19 Americans are going to be tried on charges of receiving foregn funds illegally and engaging in banned activity. One of the Americans is the son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. (As reported by Fox News online, 1/5/12.) The real crime of these Americans is their effort to promote democracy through their involvement with certain NGO's operating in Egypt. So, can someone tell me why the US gives billions of dollars in aid to Egypt? Thankfully, some Congressmen are threatening to cut off the aid.
* So much for the previous commitment of the US to help maintain Israel's military superiority in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is purchasing 84 advanced F-15SA fighter bombers from the US, as well as 72 advanced Eurofighter Typhoon fighter bombers. Saudi Arabia, which refuses to make a peace treaty with Israel, is also probably the second largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, after Iran (which the US lists as the main state sponsor of terrorism). Oil anyone?
* "The PA leadership last week held Israel fully responsible for the failure of the Amman talks because of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's refusal to freeze settlement construction and recognize the pre-1967 lines as the basis for a two-state solution." (As reported by JPost online.) As Caroline Glick noted on Jpost on 1/30/12: "Since its inception in 1993, the peace process has been predicated on Israeli concessions to the Palestinians." What has Obama asked of the Palestinians? Nothing. But neither has the UN. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called on Netanyahu to make some "goodwill gestures" to the Palestinians so the talks can continue. And what does the Secretary General expect from the Palestinians? "Of course, it will also be required that the Palestinian Authority come to (the) dialogue table." As Glick said, the Palestinians are required to do nothing except get one Israeli concession after the next. Not recognize Israel as the Jewish State, not promise an end to the fighting and deligitimization efforts, and not promise to normalize relations. Although, really, what good would such promises do once the Islamist group Hamas takes over completely. Look at Egypt announcing the end of their peace treaty with Israel under their Islamist regime.
* Is Iran about to be attacked? According to the Jewish Press online (2/1/12) our Defense Secreatry Leon Panetta told "60 Minutes" that the US would take "whatever steps are necessary" to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. And Debka (2/4/12) reports "...a steady flow of many thousands of US troops for some weeks to 2 strategic islands within reach of Iran: Oman's Masirah just south of the Strait of Hormuz, and Socotra, between Yemen and the Horn of Africa." According to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius: "Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June." (As reported on FoxNews.com on 2/2/12.)
So what is going on here? If the Israelis are going to attack, why would Panetta announce it publicly? Is it an effort by Obama to discourage the Israelis? After all, both Bush and Obama have tried to prevent such an attack. But why would the US want the country it describes as the leading state sponsor of terrorism to have nuclear weapons? And if Debka is correct, why are we massing thousands of troops in the area? It is already known that we have enhanced our naval presence in the Gulf. And Iran is not taking any of this lightly. They have already threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz in an effort to block the flow of oil to the West. Now, their Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Iran's allies "would be involved in any confrontation with Israel as a prime target." Between Hezbollah and Hamas and Syria it is estimated that tiny Israel has well over 100,000 missiles and rockets aimed at the country. And that is not counting whatever capabilities the Iranian missiles and air force may have. The Ayatollah went on: "The war itself will be ten times as detrimental to the U.S." (Ayatollah quotes from Debka, 2/4/12.)
I have a theory, which may surprise some of you. Obama made overtures to the Iranians early on, and was rebuffed. I do not believe he takes such snubs lightly. Additionally, we are in an election year. His poll numbers are low. His record (Obamacare, the stimulus, bailouts, etc.) is something he virtually ignored in his recent State of the Union speech. And that is understandable; while he remains a likeable figure to many Americans, his policies have not been well received. So just what would an attack on Iran do for him? It would prove to many that he is not weak on defense. His poll numbers could be expected to rise astronomically. And if the attack comes just before the two partys' summer conventions? Better yet; he would be a hero on the national stage. Notwithstanding earlier comments, Obama wants to be re-elected in order to complete his socialist agenda. Would an attack on Iran put him over the top in November?
* On 1/19/12 the Azerbaijan National Security Ministry was able to capture a Hezbollah cell in Baku. The terrorists had planned attacks on the Israeli emabassy there, as well as attacks on the Chief Rabbi, the former Chief of Staff of the IDF and local officials in Baku. Azerbaijan has good relations with Israel and the US; and apparently Iran fears use of that country's bases in a possible attack against Iranian nukes. Remember, Hezbollah acts at the behest of Iran. (As reported on 1/24/12 in Debkafile, which claims to have sources in the Israeli military and government.) Debka reports that a week prior a joint Thai-Israeli counter-terrorism team broke up a Hezbollah cell planning an attack on the Chabad House in Bangkok. As I have said before, Israel sees itself as the protector of Jews around the world. it is amazing how such a tiny country is able to accomplish so much.
* Goodbye Egypt! This from the Muslim Brotherhood, beneficiary of that wonderful Arab Spring turned nightmare: "..we do not recognize Israel at all. It's an occupying criminal enemy." And this: "The Brotherhood rejects international conventions, but we will take legal action against the peace treaty with the Zionist entity." (As reported in the 1/26/12 Jerusalem Post online.)
* The US is not faring any better with the new Egyptian/Brotherhood government. It appears that 19 Americans are going to be tried on charges of receiving foregn funds illegally and engaging in banned activity. One of the Americans is the son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. (As reported by Fox News online, 1/5/12.) The real crime of these Americans is their effort to promote democracy through their involvement with certain NGO's operating in Egypt. So, can someone tell me why the US gives billions of dollars in aid to Egypt? Thankfully, some Congressmen are threatening to cut off the aid.
* So much for the previous commitment of the US to help maintain Israel's military superiority in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is purchasing 84 advanced F-15SA fighter bombers from the US, as well as 72 advanced Eurofighter Typhoon fighter bombers. Saudi Arabia, which refuses to make a peace treaty with Israel, is also probably the second largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, after Iran (which the US lists as the main state sponsor of terrorism). Oil anyone?
* "The PA leadership last week held Israel fully responsible for the failure of the Amman talks because of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's refusal to freeze settlement construction and recognize the pre-1967 lines as the basis for a two-state solution." (As reported by JPost online.) As Caroline Glick noted on Jpost on 1/30/12: "Since its inception in 1993, the peace process has been predicated on Israeli concessions to the Palestinians." What has Obama asked of the Palestinians? Nothing. But neither has the UN. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called on Netanyahu to make some "goodwill gestures" to the Palestinians so the talks can continue. And what does the Secretary General expect from the Palestinians? "Of course, it will also be required that the Palestinian Authority come to (the) dialogue table." As Glick said, the Palestinians are required to do nothing except get one Israeli concession after the next. Not recognize Israel as the Jewish State, not promise an end to the fighting and deligitimization efforts, and not promise to normalize relations. Although, really, what good would such promises do once the Islamist group Hamas takes over completely. Look at Egypt announcing the end of their peace treaty with Israel under their Islamist regime.
* Is Iran about to be attacked? According to the Jewish Press online (2/1/12) our Defense Secreatry Leon Panetta told "60 Minutes" that the US would take "whatever steps are necessary" to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. And Debka (2/4/12) reports "...a steady flow of many thousands of US troops for some weeks to 2 strategic islands within reach of Iran: Oman's Masirah just south of the Strait of Hormuz, and Socotra, between Yemen and the Horn of Africa." According to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius: "Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June." (As reported on FoxNews.com on 2/2/12.)
So what is going on here? If the Israelis are going to attack, why would Panetta announce it publicly? Is it an effort by Obama to discourage the Israelis? After all, both Bush and Obama have tried to prevent such an attack. But why would the US want the country it describes as the leading state sponsor of terrorism to have nuclear weapons? And if Debka is correct, why are we massing thousands of troops in the area? It is already known that we have enhanced our naval presence in the Gulf. And Iran is not taking any of this lightly. They have already threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz in an effort to block the flow of oil to the West. Now, their Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Iran's allies "would be involved in any confrontation with Israel as a prime target." Between Hezbollah and Hamas and Syria it is estimated that tiny Israel has well over 100,000 missiles and rockets aimed at the country. And that is not counting whatever capabilities the Iranian missiles and air force may have. The Ayatollah went on: "The war itself will be ten times as detrimental to the U.S." (Ayatollah quotes from Debka, 2/4/12.)
I have a theory, which may surprise some of you. Obama made overtures to the Iranians early on, and was rebuffed. I do not believe he takes such snubs lightly. Additionally, we are in an election year. His poll numbers are low. His record (Obamacare, the stimulus, bailouts, etc.) is something he virtually ignored in his recent State of the Union speech. And that is understandable; while he remains a likeable figure to many Americans, his policies have not been well received. So just what would an attack on Iran do for him? It would prove to many that he is not weak on defense. His poll numbers could be expected to rise astronomically. And if the attack comes just before the two partys' summer conventions? Better yet; he would be a hero on the national stage. Notwithstanding earlier comments, Obama wants to be re-elected in order to complete his socialist agenda. Would an attack on Iran put him over the top in November?
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Media Bias, Part III
Following my last two postings on Media Bias I have been engaging in a give and take with the the Public Editor of the New York Times on the very subject of the postings: media bias. As a number of my readers have expressed an interest in viewing this conversation I am posting the emails between myself and Art
Brisbane, the Times' Public Editor. His job is to comment on journalistic
standards. What follows is our exchange.
TRUTH-UNCENSORED: I regularly read the Times, although I am not a subscriber. I usually pick it up at a newstand, and occasionally online. In how to approach certain stories, discussed on 1/8/12, I felt much was omitted. Admittedly, I am a Republican. I find myself truly disappointed in the way institutions such as the Times and others have lowered their level of discourse.
I write a conservative blog. If you are so inclined, I would appreciate if you would take a look at my last two postings (entitled "Media Bias" and "Media Bias, Part II). I would truly like to know if you perceive that the Times has put a left wing agenda ahead of accuracy in their reporting as well as factual accuracy in the opinions they publish, as well as in their editorials. My blog is at http://www.truth-uncensored.blogspot.com. Most of Part II involves the Times, as does much of Part I. If you wish to refer to any of it and respond in a future column, you have my permission, with or without my name. You will see that one thing that particularly disturbed me was that the editors at the Times seem to believe there can be no good faith basis for disagreeing with them. Disagree, and you are labeled a bigot, racist or extremist. Do you find that disturbing? I thank you for your courtesy and time.
NY TIMES: I appreciate your response. My view is that The Times, in part because it has such a liberal editorial page, should feel an obligation to work especially hard to ensure that its straight news coverage is balanced and does not embrace the left. This poses a constant challenge and there are occasions when the paper falls short. Re your blog, I found your observation about filtering to be particularly worthwhile. You wrote:
But how can the mainstream media be expected to screen submissions for factual accuracy, when their own articles and editorials have long abandoned the idea of accuracy in favor of propaganda?
As it happens, I plan to write next week on fact-checking in news articles. It appears your quote refers to submissions of op-ed articles, right? What is your view, specifically, on whether you can trust The Times to screen newsmakers statements for factual accuracy in regular news articles?
Please let me know your thoughts -- and please send to my personal email address in the cc line.
TRUTH-UNCENSORED: I appreciate your taking the time to read my postings on "Media Bias," and for replying so promptly. I will be more than happy to review the paper's news articles over the next couple of weeks and then provide my comments.
However, I still have a few issues for your consideration. First, as raised in my prior email, do you find it acceptable that the Times, in their editorials, demeans readers such as myself for simply disagreeing with their very liberal positions? Second, do you believe that even editorials and op-ed pieces should be as factually accurate as possible? I can tell you that when I write a legal brief, I am required to fairly and accurately state the facts. If the facts are disputed, I am required to state the evidence that supports my version of the facts as well as the evidence in support of the opposing party's position. I can then argue how I believe the facts should be interpreted and how the law should be applied. However, a failure to accurately state the facts can, and often does, result in sanctions. I do look forward to your comments on these issues.
As for the news articles, I have concerns beyond that of factual accuracy. Bias can be reflected in numerous other ways: what stories get reported, where they are placed in the paper, what headlines to give, and how the story is told (the spin, if any).
Again, I hope to get back to you within the next couple of weeks with regards to the news articles. Thank you for your continued courtesy and attention.
NY TIMES: No, I don't like to see demeaning argument anywhere. Yes, I do believe editorials and Op-Eds should be factually accurate. It is much harder to police it, though, in part because deploying facts to support argument tends very often toward coloring them right to the very boundary between accuracy and distortion. It is different than writing a brief, of course, because brevity is a virtue in editorial and op-ed writing (though I fully understand your point). Looking forward to your future email.
TRUTH-UNCENSORED: Thank you again for your reply. Before commenting on the news articles, I do have a few issues concerning your latest reply. First, have you ever suggested to the Times' editorial writers that they refrain from suggesting that those who disagree are somehow evil (bigots, racists or extremists)? If not, why not? If yes, what replies did you get?
With regards to brevity being a virtue in editorials and op-ed pieces, I trust that you are not suggesting that such brevity precludes intellectual honesty. You suggest that op-ed writers, in deploying facts, often "color them right to the boundary between accuracy and distortion." So the question is: Is the New York Times willingly allowing itself to be used as a propaganda arm of the left (and others whose opinions they favor) when they print op-ed pieces without so much as an "Editor's note" at the bottom, indicating that the "facts" stated are not supported historically or are at least very much in dispute?
Case in point - last year's op-ed by Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, referenced in my first blog on Media Bias. Abbas wrote about Israel's 1948 war for independence, and the Times printed without comment, "Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued." The truth is that the Arabs announced before the UN vote on partition that they would never accept the existence of a Jewish state. They tried to prove their point when five Arab armies attacked Israel the day after Israel declared their independence. Peace does not exist and has not existed because the Arabs STILL refuse to accept the existence of a Jewish state. Abbas says so publicly.
Of course, your editorial writers agree with Abbas, so they often write that that there is no peace because of the "settlements" and the "hard-liner" Netanyahu. Never mind that were no "settlements" in 1948 when the Arabs attacked; or in 1967 when Israel again had to fight for its survival. Not only were there no "settlements" in 1967, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan the West Bank. As for the "hard-liner" Netanyahu, if he is the problem, why did Arafat walk out on Clinton after Clinton got Ehud Barak to offer virtually all of Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians? Arafat walked out on the President of the United States without so much as a reply. And when Olmert offered Abbas a state? Again, no reply. Yet the editorial writers at the Times insist on repeating the lie (sorry, but it is a lie) that the problems are the "settlements" and Netanyahu.
I would now like to address the January 20, 2012 edition of the paper. (By the way, I read your posting entitled "Should the Times be a Truth Vigilante?" I give a few comments on that below.) The first page had an article entitled "For Gingrich, Rival's Gift and Wife's Allegation." Frankly, I had a difficult time understanding the point of the article, other than to make Gingrich look bad. On the first page it states "a red-faced Mr. Gingrich forcefully responded to the comments from his ex-wife, saying, 'The story is false.' " I did not notice that Gingrich was "red-faced." Was he allegedly "red-faced" with embarrassment or with anger? What are the writers suggesting?
Buried deep within the article, which continued on page 16, was this: "...much of the sentiment (of the ex-Mrs. Gingrich) was contained last year in an article in Esquire..." The interview with Mrs. Gingrich was set to air on "Nightline" after the debate. ABC decided to air some of it in the morning, with the obvious intent of affecting the debate. So, some journalists might have pointed out that this was old news, and even included excerpts from the prior story. The IBD also noted a similar interview she previously gave with the Washington Post. Some journalists might have questioned the timing of the interview, with the contents being released by ABC just before the last debate in South Carolina.
So, if the main news of the day was about Gingrich's ex-wife's allegations, and how it might affect his candidacy, then it seems to me that that the front page story should have been the one that ended up on page 14: "As Soon as Debate Begins, Questions for Gingrich on His Marriages." This is the story that truly tells how Gingrich dealt with the issue in the debate and how the audience responded - with "roars of applause." Yet the other story claimed that Gingrich "did not directly respond to the account from his former wife," even though both articles acknowledge that he said "the story is false." So, as noted, Gingrich questioned the motives of ABC by saying: "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans." Virtually every Republican I know feels the same way about the mainstream media. If I recall correctly, it took the mainstream media about a year after Fox News broke the story about Rev. Wright for them to print anything about him.
The type of bias seen in news organizations such as the Times is the inherent left-wing bias. I suspect at least some of your journalists and editors may not even be aware of their own assumptions about the world. And without a real conservative viewpoint, things are not likely to improve. At the moment I cannot recall which conservative writer the Times had on contract for a year doing op-ed pieces. (Was it Bill Kristol?) In any event, the contract was not renewed. I was astounded by all the letters to the editor reflecting an inability to tolerate even seeing another viewpoint being expressed. A shame that the "paper of record" cannot have a regular column by an actual conservative.
As to the issue of whether the Times should be a Truth Vigilante, I can think of many approaches that might be valid. However, I have said much already, and will leave further remarks to another email, if you would like. In case you were not copied with it, one Marty Kaplan, a regular columnist for The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, was quite critical of you even asking the question. He is a far leftist, and states that journalists should correct factual allegations that are false. Being on the far left, the only examples of misrepresentation he can think of are all comments coming from the right. The Journal describes Mr. Kaplan as a professor of entertainment, media and society at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. That is a major problem. When professors like Kaplan believe that the right is always wrong and the left is always right, I can only imagine what type of propaganda he teaches to his students, some of whom, perhaps, end up working at the New York Times.
TRUTH-UNCENSORED: I regularly read the Times, although I am not a subscriber. I usually pick it up at a newstand, and occasionally online. In how to approach certain stories, discussed on 1/8/12, I felt much was omitted. Admittedly, I am a Republican. I find myself truly disappointed in the way institutions such as the Times and others have lowered their level of discourse.
I write a conservative blog. If you are so inclined, I would appreciate if you would take a look at my last two postings (entitled "Media Bias" and "Media Bias, Part II). I would truly like to know if you perceive that the Times has put a left wing agenda ahead of accuracy in their reporting as well as factual accuracy in the opinions they publish, as well as in their editorials. My blog is at http://www.truth-uncensored.blogspot.com. Most of Part II involves the Times, as does much of Part I. If you wish to refer to any of it and respond in a future column, you have my permission, with or without my name. You will see that one thing that particularly disturbed me was that the editors at the Times seem to believe there can be no good faith basis for disagreeing with them. Disagree, and you are labeled a bigot, racist or extremist. Do you find that disturbing? I thank you for your courtesy and time.
NY TIMES: I appreciate your response. My view is that The Times, in part because it has such a liberal editorial page, should feel an obligation to work especially hard to ensure that its straight news coverage is balanced and does not embrace the left. This poses a constant challenge and there are occasions when the paper falls short. Re your blog, I found your observation about filtering to be particularly worthwhile. You wrote:
But how can the mainstream media be expected to screen submissions for factual accuracy, when their own articles and editorials have long abandoned the idea of accuracy in favor of propaganda?
As it happens, I plan to write next week on fact-checking in news articles. It appears your quote refers to submissions of op-ed articles, right? What is your view, specifically, on whether you can trust The Times to screen newsmakers statements for factual accuracy in regular news articles?
Please let me know your thoughts -- and please send to my personal email address in the cc line.
TRUTH-UNCENSORED: I appreciate your taking the time to read my postings on "Media Bias," and for replying so promptly. I will be more than happy to review the paper's news articles over the next couple of weeks and then provide my comments.
However, I still have a few issues for your consideration. First, as raised in my prior email, do you find it acceptable that the Times, in their editorials, demeans readers such as myself for simply disagreeing with their very liberal positions? Second, do you believe that even editorials and op-ed pieces should be as factually accurate as possible? I can tell you that when I write a legal brief, I am required to fairly and accurately state the facts. If the facts are disputed, I am required to state the evidence that supports my version of the facts as well as the evidence in support of the opposing party's position. I can then argue how I believe the facts should be interpreted and how the law should be applied. However, a failure to accurately state the facts can, and often does, result in sanctions. I do look forward to your comments on these issues.
As for the news articles, I have concerns beyond that of factual accuracy. Bias can be reflected in numerous other ways: what stories get reported, where they are placed in the paper, what headlines to give, and how the story is told (the spin, if any).
Again, I hope to get back to you within the next couple of weeks with regards to the news articles. Thank you for your continued courtesy and attention.
NY TIMES: No, I don't like to see demeaning argument anywhere. Yes, I do believe editorials and Op-Eds should be factually accurate. It is much harder to police it, though, in part because deploying facts to support argument tends very often toward coloring them right to the very boundary between accuracy and distortion. It is different than writing a brief, of course, because brevity is a virtue in editorial and op-ed writing (though I fully understand your point). Looking forward to your future email.
TRUTH-UNCENSORED: Thank you again for your reply. Before commenting on the news articles, I do have a few issues concerning your latest reply. First, have you ever suggested to the Times' editorial writers that they refrain from suggesting that those who disagree are somehow evil (bigots, racists or extremists)? If not, why not? If yes, what replies did you get?
With regards to brevity being a virtue in editorials and op-ed pieces, I trust that you are not suggesting that such brevity precludes intellectual honesty. You suggest that op-ed writers, in deploying facts, often "color them right to the boundary between accuracy and distortion." So the question is: Is the New York Times willingly allowing itself to be used as a propaganda arm of the left (and others whose opinions they favor) when they print op-ed pieces without so much as an "Editor's note" at the bottom, indicating that the "facts" stated are not supported historically or are at least very much in dispute?
Case in point - last year's op-ed by Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, referenced in my first blog on Media Bias. Abbas wrote about Israel's 1948 war for independence, and the Times printed without comment, "Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued." The truth is that the Arabs announced before the UN vote on partition that they would never accept the existence of a Jewish state. They tried to prove their point when five Arab armies attacked Israel the day after Israel declared their independence. Peace does not exist and has not existed because the Arabs STILL refuse to accept the existence of a Jewish state. Abbas says so publicly.
Of course, your editorial writers agree with Abbas, so they often write that that there is no peace because of the "settlements" and the "hard-liner" Netanyahu. Never mind that were no "settlements" in 1948 when the Arabs attacked; or in 1967 when Israel again had to fight for its survival. Not only were there no "settlements" in 1967, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan the West Bank. As for the "hard-liner" Netanyahu, if he is the problem, why did Arafat walk out on Clinton after Clinton got Ehud Barak to offer virtually all of Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians? Arafat walked out on the President of the United States without so much as a reply. And when Olmert offered Abbas a state? Again, no reply. Yet the editorial writers at the Times insist on repeating the lie (sorry, but it is a lie) that the problems are the "settlements" and Netanyahu.
I would now like to address the January 20, 2012 edition of the paper. (By the way, I read your posting entitled "Should the Times be a Truth Vigilante?" I give a few comments on that below.) The first page had an article entitled "For Gingrich, Rival's Gift and Wife's Allegation." Frankly, I had a difficult time understanding the point of the article, other than to make Gingrich look bad. On the first page it states "a red-faced Mr. Gingrich forcefully responded to the comments from his ex-wife, saying, 'The story is false.' " I did not notice that Gingrich was "red-faced." Was he allegedly "red-faced" with embarrassment or with anger? What are the writers suggesting?
Buried deep within the article, which continued on page 16, was this: "...much of the sentiment (of the ex-Mrs. Gingrich) was contained last year in an article in Esquire..." The interview with Mrs. Gingrich was set to air on "Nightline" after the debate. ABC decided to air some of it in the morning, with the obvious intent of affecting the debate. So, some journalists might have pointed out that this was old news, and even included excerpts from the prior story. The IBD also noted a similar interview she previously gave with the Washington Post. Some journalists might have questioned the timing of the interview, with the contents being released by ABC just before the last debate in South Carolina.
So, if the main news of the day was about Gingrich's ex-wife's allegations, and how it might affect his candidacy, then it seems to me that that the front page story should have been the one that ended up on page 14: "As Soon as Debate Begins, Questions for Gingrich on His Marriages." This is the story that truly tells how Gingrich dealt with the issue in the debate and how the audience responded - with "roars of applause." Yet the other story claimed that Gingrich "did not directly respond to the account from his former wife," even though both articles acknowledge that he said "the story is false." So, as noted, Gingrich questioned the motives of ABC by saying: "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans." Virtually every Republican I know feels the same way about the mainstream media. If I recall correctly, it took the mainstream media about a year after Fox News broke the story about Rev. Wright for them to print anything about him.
The type of bias seen in news organizations such as the Times is the inherent left-wing bias. I suspect at least some of your journalists and editors may not even be aware of their own assumptions about the world. And without a real conservative viewpoint, things are not likely to improve. At the moment I cannot recall which conservative writer the Times had on contract for a year doing op-ed pieces. (Was it Bill Kristol?) In any event, the contract was not renewed. I was astounded by all the letters to the editor reflecting an inability to tolerate even seeing another viewpoint being expressed. A shame that the "paper of record" cannot have a regular column by an actual conservative.
As to the issue of whether the Times should be a Truth Vigilante, I can think of many approaches that might be valid. However, I have said much already, and will leave further remarks to another email, if you would like. In case you were not copied with it, one Marty Kaplan, a regular columnist for The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, was quite critical of you even asking the question. He is a far leftist, and states that journalists should correct factual allegations that are false. Being on the far left, the only examples of misrepresentation he can think of are all comments coming from the right. The Journal describes Mr. Kaplan as a professor of entertainment, media and society at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. That is a major problem. When professors like Kaplan believe that the right is always wrong and the left is always right, I can only imagine what type of propaganda he teaches to his students, some of whom, perhaps, end up working at the New York Times.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Media Bias, Part II
It did not take any time. The day after the primary season opened with the Iowa caucuses, the New York Times lead editorial referred to "unforced errors and a chilling view of extremism." (January 4, 2012 Editorial.)
So their first concern had to do with the "errors" and "absurd misstatements" made by Republican candidates. The Times notes these mistakes were not made in the pressure of an interview or a debate, but simply on the campaign trail. Now, I personally adhere to the proposition that the more words that leave your mouth, the more likely you are to make misstatements. Generally understandable; and generally no big deal except for maybe a good laugh. The Times gives no examples of the misstatements made by any of the candidates. We all recall, though, how the mainstream media made a big deal of every gaffe made by Bush.
Did the mainstream media ever editorialize about any "Obamaisms?" Don't bother checking. But here are a few (which can easily be found online under "Obamaisms"). "We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." (Said 9/22/11.) Was that the railroad between North America and Europe? Or this one: "The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries." (Said 1/28/10.) Say what? Or, thinking he was arguing in support of government run health care, Obama said: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." (Said 8/11/09.) I could not have said it better myself.
Probably the two favorite "Obamaisms" are these. On 2/5/10, Obama referred to a Navy Corpseman, pronouncing the term as if he was speaking of a dead body. And my personal favorite: "I've now been in 57 states - I think one left to go," explaining that he was not referring to Alaska and Hawaii, where his staff did not want him to go.
(Said 5/14/08.) Who can name all 60 states?
So fine. The Times (and undoubtedly others in the mainstream media) want to make fun of the Republican candidates. Hardly a surprise. Any Republican President they did not think was stupid or dangerous or extreme since Eisenhower? More serious is what they consider to be "a chilling view of extremism." One example: opposing a "woman's right to choose." Now I get that people on both sides support a right to abortion. But even if you are "pro-choice," do you not find it disheartening that the media would refer to anyone who believes in the sanctity of human life to be described as expressing "chilling...extremism?" You will see what they think of human life under Obamacare when they start telling people that they have lived long enough and therefore it is not cost-effective to give them that hip replacement or life-saving cancer treatment.
Needless to say, a belief in traditional marriage also makes for "a chilling view of extremism." The point here, is that traditional marriage was virtually universally accepted a couple of decades ago. Bill Clinton believed in it. Even Obama believed in it. Now it is "chilling extremism" to support it. So let's be clear - you can not in good faith disagree with The New York Times. Disagree and you are a bigot and extremist.
The Times goes on to say that we can now expect the candidates to focus more on economic issues and engage in "class warfare." What? Obama is the one constantly referring to those evil millionaires and billionaires. The 99% versus the 1%. How could the Times make such a comment about the Republicans when it is Obama who plays off the middle class against the wealthy? It is a tried and true tactic of dictators and totalitarian regimes: accuse your opponents of saying and doing what you are saying and doing. And as the mainstream media acts as the media arm of the democrat party, they do so on behalf of Obama.
Not to be outdone by their east coast brethren, the Los Angeles Times posted this online commentary on 1/6/12: "I will say this for Rick Santorum - He's one of the more well-spoken bigots I've heard in a while."
And this from one Andrea Mitchell at NBC, denigrating Iowa voters by saying that "critics" say that Iowa is "too white, too evangelical, too rural." By inserting "critics say" it is a convenient mechanism for expressing your true viewpoint but attributing it to unnamed "critics." (Sort of like: I don't think you are ugly and stupid, but others have said that. I would never say that.) (Quote from an article by Michelle Malkin in the 1/5/12 Investor's Business Daily.) Or how about this doosy from The Hispanic News website: "In Diverse and Urban Nation, Time to Kick Iowa White, Racist Farmers to Curb." (Also from the Malkin article.) Was the mainstream media (which should really be called the left-wing media) complaining about Iowa being "too white, too evangelical, too rural" in 2008, when Iowans voted 828,940 for Obama and 682,379 for McCain? Was The Hipanic News complaining about racist Iowa when Iowans voted by such a large margin for Obama in 2008? Again, don't waste your time looking for it.
If you share the left-wing media's views, you are a good guy. If not, you are a bigoted, racist extremist. If you are Obama, your friends can be real racists and extremists - like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayres. If you are Obama, you can be a "community organizer" and use Saul Alinsky's radical handbook "Rules for Radicals." If you are Obama you can say that you want to bring "fundamental change" to the best country on earth (not improve it, mind you, but fundamentally change it) and not be called an extremist by the left-wing media. If you are Obama you can talk and act like a socialist and not be called an extremist. ("It's a good idea to spread the wealth around;" and pass Obamacare against the country's wishes.)
And if you are Obama you can appoint countless czars outside of Senate and Congressional oversight. Obama can safely ignore Senate Rules on when a "recess" occurs in order to make appointments without the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate, and not be called on it. And the Constitution Obama swore to "preserve, protect and defend" can be referred to as "some rigid idea about what government could or could not do." As Obama said (after appointing Richard Cordray head of the consumer protection bureau without Senate approval): "...I refuse to take no for an answer." Did we elect a President or a King?
Finally, if you are still not convinced of the left-wing media's bias, just replace "Obama" with "Bush" in the last two paragraphs and imagine what a field day the media would have had with all of these stories.
So their first concern had to do with the "errors" and "absurd misstatements" made by Republican candidates. The Times notes these mistakes were not made in the pressure of an interview or a debate, but simply on the campaign trail. Now, I personally adhere to the proposition that the more words that leave your mouth, the more likely you are to make misstatements. Generally understandable; and generally no big deal except for maybe a good laugh. The Times gives no examples of the misstatements made by any of the candidates. We all recall, though, how the mainstream media made a big deal of every gaffe made by Bush.
Did the mainstream media ever editorialize about any "Obamaisms?" Don't bother checking. But here are a few (which can easily be found online under "Obamaisms"). "We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." (Said 9/22/11.) Was that the railroad between North America and Europe? Or this one: "The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries." (Said 1/28/10.) Say what? Or, thinking he was arguing in support of government run health care, Obama said: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." (Said 8/11/09.) I could not have said it better myself.
Probably the two favorite "Obamaisms" are these. On 2/5/10, Obama referred to a Navy Corpseman, pronouncing the term as if he was speaking of a dead body. And my personal favorite: "I've now been in 57 states - I think one left to go," explaining that he was not referring to Alaska and Hawaii, where his staff did not want him to go.
(Said 5/14/08.) Who can name all 60 states?
So fine. The Times (and undoubtedly others in the mainstream media) want to make fun of the Republican candidates. Hardly a surprise. Any Republican President they did not think was stupid or dangerous or extreme since Eisenhower? More serious is what they consider to be "a chilling view of extremism." One example: opposing a "woman's right to choose." Now I get that people on both sides support a right to abortion. But even if you are "pro-choice," do you not find it disheartening that the media would refer to anyone who believes in the sanctity of human life to be described as expressing "chilling...extremism?" You will see what they think of human life under Obamacare when they start telling people that they have lived long enough and therefore it is not cost-effective to give them that hip replacement or life-saving cancer treatment.
Needless to say, a belief in traditional marriage also makes for "a chilling view of extremism." The point here, is that traditional marriage was virtually universally accepted a couple of decades ago. Bill Clinton believed in it. Even Obama believed in it. Now it is "chilling extremism" to support it. So let's be clear - you can not in good faith disagree with The New York Times. Disagree and you are a bigot and extremist.
The Times goes on to say that we can now expect the candidates to focus more on economic issues and engage in "class warfare." What? Obama is the one constantly referring to those evil millionaires and billionaires. The 99% versus the 1%. How could the Times make such a comment about the Republicans when it is Obama who plays off the middle class against the wealthy? It is a tried and true tactic of dictators and totalitarian regimes: accuse your opponents of saying and doing what you are saying and doing. And as the mainstream media acts as the media arm of the democrat party, they do so on behalf of Obama.
Not to be outdone by their east coast brethren, the Los Angeles Times posted this online commentary on 1/6/12: "I will say this for Rick Santorum - He's one of the more well-spoken bigots I've heard in a while."
And this from one Andrea Mitchell at NBC, denigrating Iowa voters by saying that "critics" say that Iowa is "too white, too evangelical, too rural." By inserting "critics say" it is a convenient mechanism for expressing your true viewpoint but attributing it to unnamed "critics." (Sort of like: I don't think you are ugly and stupid, but others have said that. I would never say that.) (Quote from an article by Michelle Malkin in the 1/5/12 Investor's Business Daily.) Or how about this doosy from The Hispanic News website: "In Diverse and Urban Nation, Time to Kick Iowa White, Racist Farmers to Curb." (Also from the Malkin article.) Was the mainstream media (which should really be called the left-wing media) complaining about Iowa being "too white, too evangelical, too rural" in 2008, when Iowans voted 828,940 for Obama and 682,379 for McCain? Was The Hipanic News complaining about racist Iowa when Iowans voted by such a large margin for Obama in 2008? Again, don't waste your time looking for it.
If you share the left-wing media's views, you are a good guy. If not, you are a bigoted, racist extremist. If you are Obama, your friends can be real racists and extremists - like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayres. If you are Obama, you can be a "community organizer" and use Saul Alinsky's radical handbook "Rules for Radicals." If you are Obama you can say that you want to bring "fundamental change" to the best country on earth (not improve it, mind you, but fundamentally change it) and not be called an extremist by the left-wing media. If you are Obama you can talk and act like a socialist and not be called an extremist. ("It's a good idea to spread the wealth around;" and pass Obamacare against the country's wishes.)
And if you are Obama you can appoint countless czars outside of Senate and Congressional oversight. Obama can safely ignore Senate Rules on when a "recess" occurs in order to make appointments without the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate, and not be called on it. And the Constitution Obama swore to "preserve, protect and defend" can be referred to as "some rigid idea about what government could or could not do." As Obama said (after appointing Richard Cordray head of the consumer protection bureau without Senate approval): "...I refuse to take no for an answer." Did we elect a President or a King?
Finally, if you are still not convinced of the left-wing media's bias, just replace "Obama" with "Bush" in the last two paragraphs and imagine what a field day the media would have had with all of these stories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)