* Obama, one of our greatest Presidents? So said a friend and reader. June, 2003, Obama said: I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program." But in 2009: I have not said that I was a single payer supporter." Obama, 1996: "I favor legalizing same sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." During the 2008 campaign he said, as a Christian, he felt that marriage was the sacred union of a man and a woman. Now, wanting to maintain his left-wing base, he favors same sex marriage again. Early on in the last campaign he favored public financing of elections and was committed to it. Until he wasn't.
* Obama has presided over the worst economy since the Great Depression. Over 8% unemployment his entire term except for the last two months (7.8% and now up to 7.9%). Higher than when he entered office. As a consequence, food stamp recipients up from 32 million to 47 million; and social security disability recipients now number 8.3 million. In 2008 Obama complained that Bush's adding 4 trillion dollars to the national debt in 8 years was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic." In 4 years Obama has added 5 trillion to the debt. Upon taking office in January, 2009 the price of gas was less than half of what it is today. But forget about drilling.
* Obama decided not to support a manned space program for NASA. Cutting the size of our Navy's ships to the lowest number since WWI. Air Force fighters will decrease by more than half - 3602 to 1512). Wants to reduce our 5000 nuclear weapons to 1500 and then 300. Opposes next generation nukes. Missed more than half of his national security briefings. (Not nearly as much fun as Letterman, the View, JayZ, golfing or trips with Michelle.) Cut or put on hold 50 different new weapon systems, including the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter.
* Obama promised the most open and transparent Presidency ever. All legislation would be posted online before any vote on it. Neither he nor the Dems in Congress even read the Affordable Care Act. Still refuses to answer questions about Benghazi. Our annual growth rate (GDP)? 2010 - 2.4%, 2011 - 1.8%, first nine months of 2012 - 1.7%. Anemic? No, pathetic! When Bush had 3.4% the Dems were apoplectic over it.
* Promises to be a unifying President of "all" the people. Ended up in one term managing to be the most divisive President in memory (ever?). Sides with the violent and ill-behaved "Occupy Wall Street" movement; talks about the 1% versus the 99%; constantly complains about the millionaires and billionaires; disrespects the religious; disrespects the very peaceful "Tea Party" movement; tells Republicans they will have no input into his healthcare bill because "I won the election;" and, of course, "you didn't build that (business), somebody else made that happen."
* Israel? Militarily, aid has continued, after an initial bump in the road. Politically? A disaster. Dislikes (despises?) Netanyahu. Has yet to visit Israel, although visited numerous Arab/Muslim countries. First phone call? To Palestinian leader Abbas. First speech? From Cairo (where he invites members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend, an insult to our then ally Hosni Mubarak, who was still in power) speaks to the Muslim world. Calls the West Bank "occupied" territory, the term used by the Palestinians. Says Israel must return to the indefensible 1967 borders. Says Israel must give up part of its Capital city, Jerusalem. Refuses to tell Palestinians they can not have a "right of return" to Israel, which would effectively make it yet another Muslim country. Does not object to the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank if Israel does agree to give up that land - even though Palestinians say no Jews would be allowed. Given the above, it is no surprise that Israeli Jews see Romney as more supportive (57.2% to 21.5%). Also not surprising, Israeli Arabs favor Obama by a 3 to 1 margin.
* The Muslims? In 2009, Obama says it is his responsibility to "fight against negative stereotypes of Islam." In one of his books, wrote that "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." The White House - an open door for radical Muslims. Abdurahman Alamoudi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader, publicly denounces terrorism. Then privately praises Hamas and Hezbollah, and expressed regret that more Americans were not killed in African embassy bombings. Says Muslims must turn US into a Muslim country, even if it takes 100 years. And, as we know, Huma Abedein, Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton, has family members in the Muslim Brotherhood. As noted in this blog, our defense establishment and other federal agencies have allowed the Brotherhood to eliminate what they deem to be offensive terms from our training manuals. Terms like "jihad." Of course, recall that Obama's National Intelligence Director described the Brotherhood as "secular." And remember what NASA's primary goal was? To make "Muslim nations feel good about their historic contribution to science...and math and engineering." Clearly, NASA's job is not space travel! And, in a sign that could easily make one suspicious that he is still a Muslim, he bows to the Saudi King.
* Benghazi? Were it not for Fox News, we would not know half of what we do now know. Fox News - the outlet that many on the left would like to see shut down. (As an aside, if Obama was the President during Watergate, with the current media, we would have never heard of "Watergate." We would not know it is a hotel in D.C. or the story behind the break-in. There would be no investigative journalism. No challenge to what government does or says. That would be - just like today. Today's LA Times? Not a single story in the first section on Benghazi. The NY Times? Puts the story on today's front page with the headline: "Libya Attack Shows Pentagon's Limits in Region." The entire gist of the article is to defend the Obama Administration's lack of action to save our Ambassador and other Americans. The article, quoting government sources, says: "An examination of these tumultuous events undercuts the criticism leveled by some Republicans that the Obama administration did not try to respond militarily to the crisis." But since when, in an incident of this significance, does the media simply accept at face value what government leaders are saying on the record? Only Fox News has dug deeper. But maybe you don't think it matters that Obama and his team lied for weeks about the attack occurring because people were upset by an anti-Muslim video. He said he would side with the Muslims. And calling it a terrorist attack did not fit with his narrative - Al Qaeda is done since Bin Laden is dead.
* So what did happen in Benghazi? According to Fox News, the CIA account that no request for aid was made until 9:40pm local time, has been disputed by others on the ground there. They also dispute the claims that there were no assets in the area - no armed drones, no F-18s, no AC-130 gunships. Fox says British sources said they had more people on the ground than the US did - but never got a call to assist. This was the anniversary of 9/11. Multiple requests were made beforehand for greater security. Al Qaeda and its affiliates were NOT dead, even though Bin Ladin was. And Obama will discuss none of this before the election. And the mainstream media will not ask. But we have not seen any photo-ops of everyone in the White House Situation Room that day coordinating a counter attack.
* A Marxist? Remember in 2008 Obama told Joe the plumber that "it's a good idea to spread the wealth around." More recently he said: "if you've got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen." Well, this is something he has believed for many years. In 1998, Obama said: "I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure everybody's got a shot." Except that the American way is to give everybody a shot - called "opportunity" - through economic growth; you know, capitalism! But Obama told us he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to our country. Think all the radical affiliations are an accident? Rev. Wright. Van Jones. Anita Dunn (remember Mao is her favorite political philosopher - none of the great (traditional) liberal democratic thinkers). Valerie Jarrett. Cass Sunstein. Samantha Power. And the list could go on and on.
* In 2008 Obama mostly hid his true agenda. He did mention, almost in passing as if testing the waters, things like "fundamental change" and "spreading the wealth around." Then, many people were tired of Bush and war. So they voted in the most radical President in our country's history. Four years later, overseeing one of the worst economies in history, I believe he will lose to Mitt Romney. While I will celebrate that victory, I take no joy in knowing that nearly 50% of the the American people are willing to vote for this obvious Marxist. While Thomas Friedman writes in today's NY Times about how far to the right the Republican party has moved, it is simply not true. The Republicans stand for what used to be considered fundamental American values: things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the Democrats who want to undermine every traditional institution in this country - including the very basic one of capitalism. A Pew poll reported that only 47% of Democrats viewed capitalism in a positive light, 53% did not. 44% of Democrats saw socialism as positive. Either we return to those fundamental values or we on the right will suffer the same consequences that those on the left unwittingly will bring upon themselves.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Debate II, and Considerations on the Middle East for the Final Debate
* The second debate format was favored by some, disliked by others. The "in your face, in your space" format was not ideal in this writer's opinion. I could not help but wonder if the obvious hostility between the two reflected the hostility between the two sides in the greater society.
* When asked what they would do about the cost of living, which has gone up the last four years, we saw two different views of what has happened over that time. Obama said he cut taxes to the middle class and small businesses. He said he ended the war in Iraq and got bin Laden. He passed healthcare reform, and what he said were the toughest Wall Street reforms since the 1930's. He said he was using the savings ending two wars to put people back to work.
* Romney said if you reelect Obama you will get a repeat of the last four years. He said Obama predicted 5.4% unemployment by now; if that were the case we would have 9 million more jobs. There was no immigration plan as promised. There was no fix of Social Security and Medicare. The deficit was not cut in half as promised. Health insurance premiums not down $2500. per year as we were told, but up $2500. per year. 23 million people unemployed, with one out of six in poverty. The food stamp rolls went up from 32 million to 47 million. The economy has been growing slower each year. Romney said Reagan inherited 10.8% unemployment but helped the economy create twice as many jobs as did Obama in the same time.
* So, obviously two different takes on the last four years. Which candidate has a more realistic view of the Middle East? Here are some considerations for the two candidates. Which one do you think has the more realistic view?
* Abbas, as the head of the Palestinian Authority, is Israel's supposed peace partner. Abbas' term of office actually ended four years ago; and no elections have been held since (although municipal elections were just held). Abbas' doctoral dissertation was a denial of the Holocaust. In 2008, Abbas rejected Olmert's offer for a two state solution (just like Arafat rejected Barak's offer in 2000). Abbas has refused to negotiate with Israel since Obama took office. Abbas is now asking the UN to upgrade the PA's status from "observer" to "non-member state." As a non-member state, the PA would be able to join the International Criminal Court and file a complaint against Israel. The vote is expected to take place in the General Assembly...AFTER the US general election. (Coincidence? Obama told Medvedev and Putin that he would have more "flexibility" after the election. Today, the NY Times reports that Obama plans on having one on one talks with Iran - after the election.)
* Abbas posted on his official Facebook page that Israel not only occupies Palestinian territory illegally, but "the point applies to all the territories Israel occupied before June, 1967." Abbas has also said that UN recognition of a PA state in the West Bank "proves that Palestinians have rights to all the land that is occupied." (From both Jewish Press, 10/17/12 and Caroline Glick, 10/18/12.) So, as this blog has noted before, Abbas is claiming the right to all the land of Israel. He does not believe Israel has a right to exist. The land occupied by Israel before June, 1967 was based on the boundary set by the 1949 Armistice - the same area that the PA tells the West will be the State of Israel in a two state solution. But they clearly don't mean it. It is all a lie.
* So what about the other Arabs? Won't they keep the Palestinians in line? Hezbollah and the head of Lebanon's Baath Party just called for the "eradication" of Israel yet again. (Per The Jerusalem Post, 10/12/12.) With Islamist states taking over in the Middle East, any hope for moderation is unwarranted and unrealistic. Mohamad Morsi, the new head of Egypt, has said: "there is no peace with the descendants of apes and pigs" (referring to the Jews). (Per Caroline Glick.) In Turkey, school books describe Darwin as a "big nosed Jew." They went on to explain that Darwin had two problems: "First, he was a Jew; second, he hated his prominent forehead, big nose, and misshapen teeth." As for Einstein, he is described as "filthy and slovenly" and ate soap. The textbook adds: "the sad part is during that time the Gestapo was putting Jews into ovens and making them into soap." So, it's just a shame to the Arabs that the same fate did not befall Einstein, perhaps the greatest scientific genius of all time.
* And how does the West view the "peace process?" Catherine Ashton, the European Union Foreign Policy Chief, said this: "settlements are illegal under international law and threaten to make a two state solution impossible." First, how can settlements be illegal when there has never been agreed upon borders? Second, only someone on the left is willing to ignore the obvious, so let me highlight it: ABBAS, THE PA, HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH AND MOST OTHER ARABS DO NOT ACCEPT ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST AS THE JEWISH STATE! So what two states did you have in mind, Ms. Ashton?
* How about the US though? Sadly, 15 different leaders of Christian churches have called on Congress to reconsider aid to Israel, accusing it of human rights violations. (As reported in the 10/21/12 NY Times.) These include the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the United Methodist Church, the National Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the American Friends Service Committee (described as a Quaker agency), the Mennonite Central Committee, and two Catholic leaders. Let me be clear: to single out Israel can only be due to anti-semitism. Israel has the best human rights record in the Middle East. Arabs serve in the government. Syria is murdering tens of thousands of its citizens. Many Arab countries deny basic civil rights to women and gays. Why aren't these Christian leaders OUTRAGED over hundreds of thousands of Christians having been kicked out of Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories; and persecuted like the Coptic Christians in Egypt? Why?
* So who better understands the realities of the Middle East, Obama or Romney? Who has the better relationship with the duly elected Prime Minister of Israel, Obama or Romney? (If you answered Obama please read my earlier posts concerning Obama and Israel.) Which candidate has a true affinity for Israel and the Jewish people; and which, by his own words, has aligned himself with the Muslims? Which candidate is most likely to believe in the words of our second President, John Adams, who said of the Jews: "They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a Bauble in comparison of the Jews. They have given religion to three quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily, than any other Nation ancient or modern."
* When asked what they would do about the cost of living, which has gone up the last four years, we saw two different views of what has happened over that time. Obama said he cut taxes to the middle class and small businesses. He said he ended the war in Iraq and got bin Laden. He passed healthcare reform, and what he said were the toughest Wall Street reforms since the 1930's. He said he was using the savings ending two wars to put people back to work.
* Romney said if you reelect Obama you will get a repeat of the last four years. He said Obama predicted 5.4% unemployment by now; if that were the case we would have 9 million more jobs. There was no immigration plan as promised. There was no fix of Social Security and Medicare. The deficit was not cut in half as promised. Health insurance premiums not down $2500. per year as we were told, but up $2500. per year. 23 million people unemployed, with one out of six in poverty. The food stamp rolls went up from 32 million to 47 million. The economy has been growing slower each year. Romney said Reagan inherited 10.8% unemployment but helped the economy create twice as many jobs as did Obama in the same time.
* So, obviously two different takes on the last four years. Which candidate has a more realistic view of the Middle East? Here are some considerations for the two candidates. Which one do you think has the more realistic view?
* Abbas, as the head of the Palestinian Authority, is Israel's supposed peace partner. Abbas' term of office actually ended four years ago; and no elections have been held since (although municipal elections were just held). Abbas' doctoral dissertation was a denial of the Holocaust. In 2008, Abbas rejected Olmert's offer for a two state solution (just like Arafat rejected Barak's offer in 2000). Abbas has refused to negotiate with Israel since Obama took office. Abbas is now asking the UN to upgrade the PA's status from "observer" to "non-member state." As a non-member state, the PA would be able to join the International Criminal Court and file a complaint against Israel. The vote is expected to take place in the General Assembly...AFTER the US general election. (Coincidence? Obama told Medvedev and Putin that he would have more "flexibility" after the election. Today, the NY Times reports that Obama plans on having one on one talks with Iran - after the election.)
* Abbas posted on his official Facebook page that Israel not only occupies Palestinian territory illegally, but "the point applies to all the territories Israel occupied before June, 1967." Abbas has also said that UN recognition of a PA state in the West Bank "proves that Palestinians have rights to all the land that is occupied." (From both Jewish Press, 10/17/12 and Caroline Glick, 10/18/12.) So, as this blog has noted before, Abbas is claiming the right to all the land of Israel. He does not believe Israel has a right to exist. The land occupied by Israel before June, 1967 was based on the boundary set by the 1949 Armistice - the same area that the PA tells the West will be the State of Israel in a two state solution. But they clearly don't mean it. It is all a lie.
* So what about the other Arabs? Won't they keep the Palestinians in line? Hezbollah and the head of Lebanon's Baath Party just called for the "eradication" of Israel yet again. (Per The Jerusalem Post, 10/12/12.) With Islamist states taking over in the Middle East, any hope for moderation is unwarranted and unrealistic. Mohamad Morsi, the new head of Egypt, has said: "there is no peace with the descendants of apes and pigs" (referring to the Jews). (Per Caroline Glick.) In Turkey, school books describe Darwin as a "big nosed Jew." They went on to explain that Darwin had two problems: "First, he was a Jew; second, he hated his prominent forehead, big nose, and misshapen teeth." As for Einstein, he is described as "filthy and slovenly" and ate soap. The textbook adds: "the sad part is during that time the Gestapo was putting Jews into ovens and making them into soap." So, it's just a shame to the Arabs that the same fate did not befall Einstein, perhaps the greatest scientific genius of all time.
* And how does the West view the "peace process?" Catherine Ashton, the European Union Foreign Policy Chief, said this: "settlements are illegal under international law and threaten to make a two state solution impossible." First, how can settlements be illegal when there has never been agreed upon borders? Second, only someone on the left is willing to ignore the obvious, so let me highlight it: ABBAS, THE PA, HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH AND MOST OTHER ARABS DO NOT ACCEPT ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST AS THE JEWISH STATE! So what two states did you have in mind, Ms. Ashton?
* How about the US though? Sadly, 15 different leaders of Christian churches have called on Congress to reconsider aid to Israel, accusing it of human rights violations. (As reported in the 10/21/12 NY Times.) These include the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the United Methodist Church, the National Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the American Friends Service Committee (described as a Quaker agency), the Mennonite Central Committee, and two Catholic leaders. Let me be clear: to single out Israel can only be due to anti-semitism. Israel has the best human rights record in the Middle East. Arabs serve in the government. Syria is murdering tens of thousands of its citizens. Many Arab countries deny basic civil rights to women and gays. Why aren't these Christian leaders OUTRAGED over hundreds of thousands of Christians having been kicked out of Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories; and persecuted like the Coptic Christians in Egypt? Why?
* So who better understands the realities of the Middle East, Obama or Romney? Who has the better relationship with the duly elected Prime Minister of Israel, Obama or Romney? (If you answered Obama please read my earlier posts concerning Obama and Israel.) Which candidate has a true affinity for Israel and the Jewish people; and which, by his own words, has aligned himself with the Muslims? Which candidate is most likely to believe in the words of our second President, John Adams, who said of the Jews: "They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a Bauble in comparison of the Jews. They have given religion to three quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily, than any other Nation ancient or modern."
Sunday, October 14, 2012
And the Winner of the V.P. Debate was...and Other Matters
* According to the post debate CNN poll the winner was Ryan by 48% to 44%. But one of the networks had Biden up by about 20%. Charles Krauthammer said if you just read a transcript of the debate it was a tie, if you heard it on the radio then Biden won, and if you saw it on TV then Ryan won. This writer did see it on TV and thought that Biden won. He was more aggressive and succeeded more in making his points. His facial antics, however, were inexplicable and reminiscent of a junior high school performance. It does not appear to have mattered to the voters. In a focus group on Hannity, Frank Luntz had 26 people, most of whom had voted for Obama in 2008, but were currently among the undecided. Not one said the debate would sway their vote. There were, however, some interesting comments.
* Said Biden: "We can't afford $800 billion going to the people making a minimum of $1 million. They do not need it..." The reference was to an extension of the "Bush" tax cuts (said cuts having been approved by Congress). So let's be clear. Obama said it's a good idea to spread the wealth around. Obama constantly talks about the millionaires and billionaires; that everyone needs to pay their fair share (the top 10% pay 70% of the Federal income taxes already). It was Obama who said that after a certain point you've made enough money. So when Obama and Biden say the wealthy "do not need" their money we are really talking about government confiscation of private property. Sadly, my friends on the left are able to justify this unwarranted taking of private property because they have followed Obama and the Democrat party to the path of tyranny and socialism. The ends justify the means; and principle varies with the need. Of course, "spreading the wealth around" has never worked. It does not matter; Obama and his followers are driven by ideology.
* Biden claimed that Iran was more isolated now than at any time since Obama took office. No doubt they have been affected by the sanctions. But sanctions do not have a good history of preventing a country that wants nukes from getting nukes. And Iran is not that isolated. They just recently hosted a meeting of the so-called "non-aligned" nations - 120 countries strong! When asked directly which is worse, another war in the Middle east or a nuclear armed Iran, Ryan answered directly and said a nuclear armed Iran. Biden did not answer at all, simply claiming that Iran is being crippled by sanctions. The moderator did not press him for an answer. But why did former defense secretary Gates say a strike on Iran would be catastrophic and haunting for generations? What about the Ayatollahs and "I'manutjob" having nukes?
* While much has been made over the last four years about whether or not Obama was born here, and whether he is truly a Christian or a Muslim, this blog has purposely avoided discussion of those issues. What I have said is that it is clear where Obama's allegiances lie - and that is with the Muslims. Whether it was his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo; his mistreatment of Bibi Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister; his bow to the Saudi King; his immediate siding with the Palestinians by calling the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) "occupied" territory; his refusal to visit Israel as President after visiting numerous Arab and Muslim countries; his latest refusal to meet with Netanyahu during the U.N. General Assembly, claiming his schedule did not permit it (although it did permit appearances on Letterman and The View); or his welcoming of the Muslim Brotherhood into the Egyptian government - it all points to one thing for those willing to see. And let's not forget that Obama's Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, somehow could not be bothered sitting through Netanyahu's speech to the General Assembly.
* In his latest insult to Israel and the Jewish world, the Obama Administration has appointed one Salaam al-Marayati to represent the United States of America at the annual meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation, described as a 10 day human rights conference. Al-Marayati is the founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Like others of his ilk, he says he just wants to uphold American values of freedom of religion. He speaks frequently on the subject of "Islamophobia." He knows how to sound reasonable and how to play to an American audience; and he knows how to play on their guilt. Unfortunately he is also a defender of Hamas and Hezbollah, mortal enemies of Israel, and I thought of this country. (Per Jihad Watch.)
* Following 9/11, Mr. al-Marayati had this to say: "If we're going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies." This is a man who complained about having the Holocaust "shoved down (his) throat. At a 2005 Conference of the Islamic Society of North America, he told his fellow Muslims not to cooperate with any FBI investigations, saying: "We reject any efforts, notion, suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one another." (As reported by the Jewish Press.)
* If you missed the recently discovered video of Obama from 2007 speaking to a black audience, you should watch it. He had a black accent that one did not hear during the 2008 campaign. He said the federal government cheats blacks in favor of whites. He said "our people" should be getting more federal money and jobs and housing. He said; "We don't need to build more highways out in the suburbs" where the white folks live. And he claimed that the federal government did not care about the blacks in New Orleans the way they did about New Yorkers after 9/11 or Floridians after hurricane Andrew. Why? Because the Feds did not waive the Stafford Act for New Orleans; an act that requires local communities to contribute 10% toward disaster relief, after receiving federal assistance. Except - it's all a lie! Not only did the Senate vote to waive the Stafford Act, but the Feds spent more money on New Orleans than on New York post 9/11 and Florida post hurricane Andrew combined. And here's the kicker - then Senator Obama voted AGAINST waiving the Act! (Information from article by Thomas Sowell in the 10/9/12 Investor's Business Daily.)
* This is nothing other than classic Obama. Play black against white, Hispanic against white, poor against rich, non-religious against religious. But the black actress Stacey Dash had it right when explaining why she was going to vote for Romney. "I chose him not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character."
* Lastly, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC, was on Piers Morgan on CNN on 10/10/12. The discussion centered on the murder of our Ambassador and others in Benghazi; with the Obama Administration, and especially our UN Ambassador Susan Rice, claiming it was all due to an anti-muslim video, rather than a well coordinated terrorist attack. Said Schultz: "it is irresponsible and un-American, quite frankly, for my Republican colleagues in Congress to be jumping on this immediately, as some political opportunity." After telling her she was flogging the wrong horse, Morgan said: "The important horse that should be flogged is the behavior and misstatements of those who are in positions of responsibility and we would assume knowledge; and it's pretty un-American to be putting out completely false statements before you know the facts." Schultz: "Piers, it is not okay for you to be saying (that)." The look of astonishment on Schultz's face said it all. It was clear that she must have been thinking: Wait a minute. I'm on CNN, right? Am I on FOX? What just happened here? What happened is that we are starting to see a few usually Democrat-leaning reporters and talk show hosts actually asking tough questions of our leaders. I only wish that it would spread, and that the rest of the mainstream media would remember what their job is.
* Said Biden: "We can't afford $800 billion going to the people making a minimum of $1 million. They do not need it..." The reference was to an extension of the "Bush" tax cuts (said cuts having been approved by Congress). So let's be clear. Obama said it's a good idea to spread the wealth around. Obama constantly talks about the millionaires and billionaires; that everyone needs to pay their fair share (the top 10% pay 70% of the Federal income taxes already). It was Obama who said that after a certain point you've made enough money. So when Obama and Biden say the wealthy "do not need" their money we are really talking about government confiscation of private property. Sadly, my friends on the left are able to justify this unwarranted taking of private property because they have followed Obama and the Democrat party to the path of tyranny and socialism. The ends justify the means; and principle varies with the need. Of course, "spreading the wealth around" has never worked. It does not matter; Obama and his followers are driven by ideology.
* Biden claimed that Iran was more isolated now than at any time since Obama took office. No doubt they have been affected by the sanctions. But sanctions do not have a good history of preventing a country that wants nukes from getting nukes. And Iran is not that isolated. They just recently hosted a meeting of the so-called "non-aligned" nations - 120 countries strong! When asked directly which is worse, another war in the Middle east or a nuclear armed Iran, Ryan answered directly and said a nuclear armed Iran. Biden did not answer at all, simply claiming that Iran is being crippled by sanctions. The moderator did not press him for an answer. But why did former defense secretary Gates say a strike on Iran would be catastrophic and haunting for generations? What about the Ayatollahs and "I'manutjob" having nukes?
* While much has been made over the last four years about whether or not Obama was born here, and whether he is truly a Christian or a Muslim, this blog has purposely avoided discussion of those issues. What I have said is that it is clear where Obama's allegiances lie - and that is with the Muslims. Whether it was his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo; his mistreatment of Bibi Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister; his bow to the Saudi King; his immediate siding with the Palestinians by calling the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) "occupied" territory; his refusal to visit Israel as President after visiting numerous Arab and Muslim countries; his latest refusal to meet with Netanyahu during the U.N. General Assembly, claiming his schedule did not permit it (although it did permit appearances on Letterman and The View); or his welcoming of the Muslim Brotherhood into the Egyptian government - it all points to one thing for those willing to see. And let's not forget that Obama's Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, somehow could not be bothered sitting through Netanyahu's speech to the General Assembly.
* In his latest insult to Israel and the Jewish world, the Obama Administration has appointed one Salaam al-Marayati to represent the United States of America at the annual meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation, described as a 10 day human rights conference. Al-Marayati is the founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Like others of his ilk, he says he just wants to uphold American values of freedom of religion. He speaks frequently on the subject of "Islamophobia." He knows how to sound reasonable and how to play to an American audience; and he knows how to play on their guilt. Unfortunately he is also a defender of Hamas and Hezbollah, mortal enemies of Israel, and I thought of this country. (Per Jihad Watch.)
* Following 9/11, Mr. al-Marayati had this to say: "If we're going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies." This is a man who complained about having the Holocaust "shoved down (his) throat. At a 2005 Conference of the Islamic Society of North America, he told his fellow Muslims not to cooperate with any FBI investigations, saying: "We reject any efforts, notion, suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one another." (As reported by the Jewish Press.)
* If you missed the recently discovered video of Obama from 2007 speaking to a black audience, you should watch it. He had a black accent that one did not hear during the 2008 campaign. He said the federal government cheats blacks in favor of whites. He said "our people" should be getting more federal money and jobs and housing. He said; "We don't need to build more highways out in the suburbs" where the white folks live. And he claimed that the federal government did not care about the blacks in New Orleans the way they did about New Yorkers after 9/11 or Floridians after hurricane Andrew. Why? Because the Feds did not waive the Stafford Act for New Orleans; an act that requires local communities to contribute 10% toward disaster relief, after receiving federal assistance. Except - it's all a lie! Not only did the Senate vote to waive the Stafford Act, but the Feds spent more money on New Orleans than on New York post 9/11 and Florida post hurricane Andrew combined. And here's the kicker - then Senator Obama voted AGAINST waiving the Act! (Information from article by Thomas Sowell in the 10/9/12 Investor's Business Daily.)
* This is nothing other than classic Obama. Play black against white, Hispanic against white, poor against rich, non-religious against religious. But the black actress Stacey Dash had it right when explaining why she was going to vote for Romney. "I chose him not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character."
* Lastly, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC, was on Piers Morgan on CNN on 10/10/12. The discussion centered on the murder of our Ambassador and others in Benghazi; with the Obama Administration, and especially our UN Ambassador Susan Rice, claiming it was all due to an anti-muslim video, rather than a well coordinated terrorist attack. Said Schultz: "it is irresponsible and un-American, quite frankly, for my Republican colleagues in Congress to be jumping on this immediately, as some political opportunity." After telling her she was flogging the wrong horse, Morgan said: "The important horse that should be flogged is the behavior and misstatements of those who are in positions of responsibility and we would assume knowledge; and it's pretty un-American to be putting out completely false statements before you know the facts." Schultz: "Piers, it is not okay for you to be saying (that)." The look of astonishment on Schultz's face said it all. It was clear that she must have been thinking: Wait a minute. I'm on CNN, right? Am I on FOX? What just happened here? What happened is that we are starting to see a few usually Democrat-leaning reporters and talk show hosts actually asking tough questions of our leaders. I only wish that it would spread, and that the rest of the mainstream media would remember what their job is.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Romney Wins First Debate!
* It certainly appeared as if President Obama wanted to be anywhere but at the debate. And Governor Romney was energetic, enthusiastic and engaged with both Obama and the audience. Romney also came prepared with facts and argument.
* One of the most telling topics for this writer was the discussion about cutting tax rates. Romney said he would cut tax rates but also said he would cut deductions, essentially making his proposal revenue neutral. Obama kept saying how the numbers don't add up. Per Obama, we cannot cut enough deductions to make up for the cut in rates. He completely missed one essential Romney point: government revenues will grow when more people are back to work and paying taxes again. Those same people will no longer need government handouts of either welfare, food stamps, unemployment or social security disability.
* Obama's policies have hurt the middle class. According to the 10/3/12 Investor's Business Daily, the middle 20% of households suffered a 4% drop in income since 2009. The poorest 20% dropped 7%. The IBD also cites a study by the National Employment Law Project which found that 60% of the jobs lost due to the recession were mid-wage, but just 22% of the newly created jobs paid well. As Biden recently said, the middle class "has been buried the last four years." (After being told that did not look good for Obama, Biden then blamed Bush.)
* Obama previously complained that the US has only 3% of the world's population, but consumes 25% of the resources. He just does not get it. It is all a zero sum game to him. If the rich have more, the only way to even things out is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. The US, as a wealthy nation, needs to consume less so others can consume more. In a nutshell, socialism. The last four years are proof enough to anyone willing to see that these policies do not work. (How many countries in Europe that have followed these policies are going under?) What works is a growing economy; the wealthy keep their money and the middle class grows. And many in the lower class can move up into the middle class because of good jobs.
* So the US should consume less? Maybe only our share of the world's population? How many jobs will be lost if we only buy 3% of the world's automobiles, for example. And only 3% of the world's cell phones and TVs and on and on. Millions of jobs would be lost as production dropped due to a lesser demand. It is NOT a zero sum game. When US consumers buy more, jobs are created all over the world. Would Obama also like us to only produce 3% of the world's food? Too bad for countries that depend on us?
* Obama just does not get it. It is time to put a man in the White House who understands that a growing economy benefits everyone.
* One of the most telling topics for this writer was the discussion about cutting tax rates. Romney said he would cut tax rates but also said he would cut deductions, essentially making his proposal revenue neutral. Obama kept saying how the numbers don't add up. Per Obama, we cannot cut enough deductions to make up for the cut in rates. He completely missed one essential Romney point: government revenues will grow when more people are back to work and paying taxes again. Those same people will no longer need government handouts of either welfare, food stamps, unemployment or social security disability.
* Obama's policies have hurt the middle class. According to the 10/3/12 Investor's Business Daily, the middle 20% of households suffered a 4% drop in income since 2009. The poorest 20% dropped 7%. The IBD also cites a study by the National Employment Law Project which found that 60% of the jobs lost due to the recession were mid-wage, but just 22% of the newly created jobs paid well. As Biden recently said, the middle class "has been buried the last four years." (After being told that did not look good for Obama, Biden then blamed Bush.)
* Obama previously complained that the US has only 3% of the world's population, but consumes 25% of the resources. He just does not get it. It is all a zero sum game to him. If the rich have more, the only way to even things out is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. The US, as a wealthy nation, needs to consume less so others can consume more. In a nutshell, socialism. The last four years are proof enough to anyone willing to see that these policies do not work. (How many countries in Europe that have followed these policies are going under?) What works is a growing economy; the wealthy keep their money and the middle class grows. And many in the lower class can move up into the middle class because of good jobs.
* So the US should consume less? Maybe only our share of the world's population? How many jobs will be lost if we only buy 3% of the world's automobiles, for example. And only 3% of the world's cell phones and TVs and on and on. Millions of jobs would be lost as production dropped due to a lesser demand. It is NOT a zero sum game. When US consumers buy more, jobs are created all over the world. Would Obama also like us to only produce 3% of the world's food? Too bad for countries that depend on us?
* Obama just does not get it. It is time to put a man in the White House who understands that a growing economy benefits everyone.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Are We at War With Islam? Part III
* For those readers who may be new to this blog, I previously wrote two posts entitled "Are We at War With Islam, Parts I and II," on 8/29/10 and 9/13/10. These posts can still be read by simply scrolling down and clicking on "older posts." In my latest post of 9/23/12 I discussed how the Organization of Islamic States wants to criminalize any insults to Islam. I also discussed how the U.S. military is sanitizing all references to radical Islam and Jihad.
* At this past week's meeting of the U.N. General Assembly various world leaders spoke. In light of the recent violence across the Middle East, and the alleged provocation caused by the trailer for the film "The Innocence of Muslims," the topic of "free speech" was frequently discussed. President Obama, while again criticizing the film, gave a strong defense of the right to free speech. This is what the Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, had to say: "We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not seek to impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us...Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are not acceptable. We will not allow anyone to do this by word or by deed." And exactly how will they "not allow" it? Here's a clue. While running for president of Egypt, Morsi said this: "The Quran is our Constitution. The Prophet Muhammad is our leader. Jihad is our path. And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration." So, prevent insults by causing deaths?
* The President of Yemen had this to say: "...there should be limits for the freedom of expression, especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures." So, maybe we should outlaw criticism of the leaders of these countries too? The President of Pakistan also said he wanted to see "incitement of hate" against Islam criminalized. Said the Secretary General of the Arab League: "If the international community has criminalized bodily harm, it must just as well criminalize psychological and spiritual harm." (All quotes from the 9/27/12 New York Times.)
* In his 2009 speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, Obama said that "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." When? Certainly not now. How come hundreds of thousands of Christians left Iraq? How come 100,000 Christians have left Egypt? How come Lebanon went from being a majority Christian country to an Islamic country? And why have Christians by the thousands left Gaza and the West Bank? How come you cannot even bring a bible into Saudi Arabia?
* You want to hear tolerance? Take a look at the Arab Muslim media. The highest ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world has referred to Jews as "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs." Morsi has concurred with that. This same cleric has called Jews "the scum of the earth." But they want to outlaw insults to Islam?
* Malmo, Sweden. It is Sweden's third largest city, with about 700 Jews but up to 100,000 Muslims, in this city of 300,000 people. In 2010 a group of Jews were attacked there by a group of Muslims. Earlier this year a Rabbi was assaulted. On 9/28/12, just a few days ago, there was an explosion at a Jewish Community Building. Malmo has been referred to as the "Baghdad" of Sweden with its increasing violence, explosions and murders, often caused by...take a guess.
* Think it is so much better here? At the Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan, Christians holding Christian signs were attacked. They had bottles, stones, eggs and other objects thrown at them. A video showed kids from the festival participating in the assaults. The Police were not inclined to actually protect the Christians; instead they ordered them to leave.
* Meanwhile, the 9/27/12 Investor's Business Daily reports that the ACLU now has at least eight Muslims on its executive staff. What's the result of that? Jameel Jaffer heads the ACLU's Center for Democracy, and is friends with one Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan was denied a visa in 2004 based upon claims that he raised funds for Hamas. Jaffer sued and got the ban lifted. Jaffer has lobbied the Justice department to remove CAIR and other front groups for Hamas and the Brotherhood removed from the blacklist of groups accused of raising money for terrorists. Jaffer has also tried to get suspected Muslim terrorists removed from the "no-fly" list. And Jaffer wants the Feds to stop freezing the assets of terrorist groups.
* I have said before that the failure to believe in free speech and freedom of religion presents a fundamental clash in values between the West and the Muslim world. And whether or not you agree with the opinions expressed in this blog, do you believe that these comments should be criminalized, because some may take them as an insult to Islam?
* At this past week's meeting of the U.N. General Assembly various world leaders spoke. In light of the recent violence across the Middle East, and the alleged provocation caused by the trailer for the film "The Innocence of Muslims," the topic of "free speech" was frequently discussed. President Obama, while again criticizing the film, gave a strong defense of the right to free speech. This is what the Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, had to say: "We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not seek to impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us...Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are not acceptable. We will not allow anyone to do this by word or by deed." And exactly how will they "not allow" it? Here's a clue. While running for president of Egypt, Morsi said this: "The Quran is our Constitution. The Prophet Muhammad is our leader. Jihad is our path. And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration." So, prevent insults by causing deaths?
* The President of Yemen had this to say: "...there should be limits for the freedom of expression, especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures." So, maybe we should outlaw criticism of the leaders of these countries too? The President of Pakistan also said he wanted to see "incitement of hate" against Islam criminalized. Said the Secretary General of the Arab League: "If the international community has criminalized bodily harm, it must just as well criminalize psychological and spiritual harm." (All quotes from the 9/27/12 New York Times.)
* In his 2009 speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, Obama said that "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." When? Certainly not now. How come hundreds of thousands of Christians left Iraq? How come 100,000 Christians have left Egypt? How come Lebanon went from being a majority Christian country to an Islamic country? And why have Christians by the thousands left Gaza and the West Bank? How come you cannot even bring a bible into Saudi Arabia?
* You want to hear tolerance? Take a look at the Arab Muslim media. The highest ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world has referred to Jews as "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs." Morsi has concurred with that. This same cleric has called Jews "the scum of the earth." But they want to outlaw insults to Islam?
* Malmo, Sweden. It is Sweden's third largest city, with about 700 Jews but up to 100,000 Muslims, in this city of 300,000 people. In 2010 a group of Jews were attacked there by a group of Muslims. Earlier this year a Rabbi was assaulted. On 9/28/12, just a few days ago, there was an explosion at a Jewish Community Building. Malmo has been referred to as the "Baghdad" of Sweden with its increasing violence, explosions and murders, often caused by...take a guess.
* Think it is so much better here? At the Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan, Christians holding Christian signs were attacked. They had bottles, stones, eggs and other objects thrown at them. A video showed kids from the festival participating in the assaults. The Police were not inclined to actually protect the Christians; instead they ordered them to leave.
* Meanwhile, the 9/27/12 Investor's Business Daily reports that the ACLU now has at least eight Muslims on its executive staff. What's the result of that? Jameel Jaffer heads the ACLU's Center for Democracy, and is friends with one Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan was denied a visa in 2004 based upon claims that he raised funds for Hamas. Jaffer sued and got the ban lifted. Jaffer has lobbied the Justice department to remove CAIR and other front groups for Hamas and the Brotherhood removed from the blacklist of groups accused of raising money for terrorists. Jaffer has also tried to get suspected Muslim terrorists removed from the "no-fly" list. And Jaffer wants the Feds to stop freezing the assets of terrorist groups.
* I have said before that the failure to believe in free speech and freedom of religion presents a fundamental clash in values between the West and the Muslim world. And whether or not you agree with the opinions expressed in this blog, do you believe that these comments should be criminalized, because some may take them as an insult to Islam?
Sunday, September 23, 2012
The Middle East.
* Recently, the U.S. sponsored a Global Counter-terrorism Forum, which was held in Istanbul. The European Union and 29 other countries were invited. One country, with perhaps the greatest expertise in fighting terrorism, was not invited - Israel. According to a State Department official: "...We were concerned that if the central issue from the outset was whether or not Israel should be a member, that it would be difficult to pivot away from the politicized discussions happening at the U.N. and elsewhere." (Information and quote from an article by David Suissa in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, 8/10-8/16/12.) In other words, let's not offend the Muslim countries who are invited. The actions by the U.S. lend credibility to the "boycott, divest and sanction" movement. After all, if the U.S. can boycott Israel, why can't every other country in the world? Worse, the Arab/Muslim world could read into this lack of invitation an agreement with one of their own beliefs: that the U.S. agrees that killing of innocent Israelis is not terrorism because Israel is an "occupying" power. But Obama has Israel's back, and he always stands by our allies, right?
* For a number of years the Organization of Islamic States has been trying to get a measure approved by the U.N. that would make it illegal in all member states to insult Islam. Clearly, such a measure conflicts with our First Amendment rights to free speech; a right which the courts have consistently held is not limited by the offensiveness of the speech. In fact, as the courts note, speech is often intended to provoke and even insult. But the U.S. would never agree to such a measure, right? Well, when Obama spoke to the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009, he said it was his responsibility to "fight against negative stereotypes of Islam." And Obama did write in "Audacity of Hope": "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
* According to the 9/14/12 Investor"s Business Daily, Hillary Clinton met with officials from various Muslim countries to discuss establishing "mechanisms" to fight "Islamophobia" in the U.S. and the West. According to the I.B.D., the Justice Department "has considered designating Islamophobia as a hate crime." I.B.D. also states that the FBI and Homeland Security have "purged thousands of counter-terrorism training materials that Muslim reviewers complained pushed "negative stereotypes" of Islam." Jihad will no longer be defined as "holy war." (Maybe defined as something that is Bush's fault?) TRADOC (which the I.B.D. says is the Army's elite training and doctrine command) has "scrubbed all classes dealing with radical Islam."
* So, was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, killed on 9/11/12, and did riots break out at 20 U.S. embassies in the Muslim world, because Muslims were offended by a movie trailer for a movie entitled "Innocence of Muslims?" That was the claim that the Obama Administration was pushing for the better part of a week. Strictly coincidental that a group of heavily armed terrorists, on 9/11, knew the location of our ambassador, killed him and three others at our consulate in Benghazi and dragged the ambassador's body through the streets. Our Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said: "...this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large, or at U.S. policy; this is in response to a video that is offensive." Obama, in an election year, did not want to admit that his entire Mideast/Muslim policy was a failure. So, acting like it was all about a movie, and even though it was our first ambassador to be murdered in over 30 years, Obama headed off to yet another fund raiser in Las Vegas. (Just imagine what the mainstream media would have written had Bush gone off on a fund raiser after such an attack on American interests. Wait, they already did that when they complained that Bush sat for a few minutes with kids after the 9/11 attack. Then, the press complained that the Secret Service kept him from immediately returning to Washington. But Obama - "Hey, good luck in Vegas Barack!")
* No, the media was upset that Mitt Romney complained that U.S. embassy officials in Cairo criticized the film trailer, instead of standing up for the First Amendment. Said our Secretary of State: "The U.S. Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject it's content and message." Said Obama: "We reject all efforts to denigrate the beliefs of others." Now, Obama and Clinton also it made it clear that there was still no justification for violence. But they once again passed on a teachable moment. They should have spent NO time criticizing the film and filmmaker. They should have spent all their time explaining why we have a First Amendment, that it contains two rights Americans hold most dear - freedom of speech and freedom to practice one's religion. They should have made it clear that speech often offends, but that comes as the price of having a free society; and that countries that do not respect these "fundamental" rights could not be expected to receive our financial aid. They should have made it clear that we have "fundamental" disagreements with countries that do not honor and respect these rights.
* Now, we have a Pakistani Minister offering $100,000 of his own money for the murder of the film's producer; suggesting that the Taliban or Al Qaeda should murder the producer. (The Pakistani Government has distanced itself from that Minister and his threat.) Will our President speak out against that minister? Does he now understand that he never should have criticized the filmmaker, or distanced the government from that individual? And if the producer is assassinated, especially if on U.S. soil, what will he do? This is why the principle must ALWAYS be the focus of what his Administration says.
* Israeli P.M. asked for a meeting with Obama this month. Netanyahu has been pushing the Obama Administration to set clear "red lines" which, if crossed by Iran, would result in military action by the U.S. Obama has refused - both the red lines and any meeting with Netanyahu. Between the Europeans, and now the U.S., the West has been negotiating with Iran over their nuclear program for almost a decade. Iran has inched ever closer to building a bomb, and may be there in a matter of months. As noted before, Obama must act in this country's interest - not Israel's or any other country's. What is unclear to this writer is why it is not in our interests to stop the Iranians from getting a nuke. An Iranian nuke threatens regional and world stability; with a nuke Iran can threaten to cut off Mideast oil supplies; they could commit yet another Holocaust of the Jewish people by bombing our ally Israel; and, they could give a suitcase nuke to some terrorists they support, who might then bring it here.
* We were told that Obama's schedule was too full to meet with Netanyahu. Thankfully, he did have time to go on the Letterman show; following that fundraiser in Vegas. The 9/18/12 I.B.D. reports that "Obama has skipped more than half of his intelligence briefings." What - has anything big been happening in the world lately? Hmmm - unemployment remains over 8%, our debt now exceeds $16 trillion, and an ambassador and three other Americans were just murdered, with rioting at 20 U.S. embassies. No, nothing big.
* Remember when Obama was caught on an open mic talking to Russian President Medvedev; telling him he would have more "flexibility" after the U.S. election? Flexibility to do what? Now, the I.B.D. is reporting that there has been pressure from the the new Egyptian President, and member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Morsi, to release the blind Sheik from U.S. prison. This Sheik was instrumental in the first attack on the World Trade Center, during Clinton's Presidency. According to the I.B.D., Congressman Peter King, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, reports that his staff was approached by federal agents complaining about the Sheik's possible release. Of course, the release would not occur until after the election, and would be on "humanitarian" grounds. After killing six people, injuring over a thousand, and causing over half a billion dollars in damage, the real question is why this Sheik did not receive the death penalty. There is no question that he should not be released.
* What will Egypt promise in return? Next time they will try to protect our embassy? Reports have since come out that the Brotherhood actually encouraged the attack on our embassy in Cairo in order to help facilitate the release of the Sheik. Morsi has also told the Obama administration that prior administrations "have taken a very clear biased approach against something that (has) very strong ties to the people of the region - that is the issue of Palestine." So exactly what did Egypt do for the "palestinians" when they controlled Gaza from 1948 through 1967? Nothing.
* If Obama wins reelection will he really have Israel's back? He will not have to worry about the pro-Israel members of his party in Congress. He can safely ignore any pressure from them to protect Israel. He will not have to worry about the "Jewish vote." But, maybe he has already told Morsi that after the election he will have more "flexibility" to deal with the creation of a palestinian state. And he can tell Israel that they can pound dirt because he will not be getting involved militarily with Iran. Oh wait, he already did that through his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. General Martin Dempsey recently said that the U.S. will not be "complicit" in any Israeli attack on Iran. If Obama wins we'll know all too soon whose back he really has.
* For a number of years the Organization of Islamic States has been trying to get a measure approved by the U.N. that would make it illegal in all member states to insult Islam. Clearly, such a measure conflicts with our First Amendment rights to free speech; a right which the courts have consistently held is not limited by the offensiveness of the speech. In fact, as the courts note, speech is often intended to provoke and even insult. But the U.S. would never agree to such a measure, right? Well, when Obama spoke to the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009, he said it was his responsibility to "fight against negative stereotypes of Islam." And Obama did write in "Audacity of Hope": "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
* According to the 9/14/12 Investor"s Business Daily, Hillary Clinton met with officials from various Muslim countries to discuss establishing "mechanisms" to fight "Islamophobia" in the U.S. and the West. According to the I.B.D., the Justice Department "has considered designating Islamophobia as a hate crime." I.B.D. also states that the FBI and Homeland Security have "purged thousands of counter-terrorism training materials that Muslim reviewers complained pushed "negative stereotypes" of Islam." Jihad will no longer be defined as "holy war." (Maybe defined as something that is Bush's fault?) TRADOC (which the I.B.D. says is the Army's elite training and doctrine command) has "scrubbed all classes dealing with radical Islam."
* So, was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, killed on 9/11/12, and did riots break out at 20 U.S. embassies in the Muslim world, because Muslims were offended by a movie trailer for a movie entitled "Innocence of Muslims?" That was the claim that the Obama Administration was pushing for the better part of a week. Strictly coincidental that a group of heavily armed terrorists, on 9/11, knew the location of our ambassador, killed him and three others at our consulate in Benghazi and dragged the ambassador's body through the streets. Our Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said: "...this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large, or at U.S. policy; this is in response to a video that is offensive." Obama, in an election year, did not want to admit that his entire Mideast/Muslim policy was a failure. So, acting like it was all about a movie, and even though it was our first ambassador to be murdered in over 30 years, Obama headed off to yet another fund raiser in Las Vegas. (Just imagine what the mainstream media would have written had Bush gone off on a fund raiser after such an attack on American interests. Wait, they already did that when they complained that Bush sat for a few minutes with kids after the 9/11 attack. Then, the press complained that the Secret Service kept him from immediately returning to Washington. But Obama - "Hey, good luck in Vegas Barack!")
* No, the media was upset that Mitt Romney complained that U.S. embassy officials in Cairo criticized the film trailer, instead of standing up for the First Amendment. Said our Secretary of State: "The U.S. Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject it's content and message." Said Obama: "We reject all efforts to denigrate the beliefs of others." Now, Obama and Clinton also it made it clear that there was still no justification for violence. But they once again passed on a teachable moment. They should have spent NO time criticizing the film and filmmaker. They should have spent all their time explaining why we have a First Amendment, that it contains two rights Americans hold most dear - freedom of speech and freedom to practice one's religion. They should have made it clear that speech often offends, but that comes as the price of having a free society; and that countries that do not respect these "fundamental" rights could not be expected to receive our financial aid. They should have made it clear that we have "fundamental" disagreements with countries that do not honor and respect these rights.
* Now, we have a Pakistani Minister offering $100,000 of his own money for the murder of the film's producer; suggesting that the Taliban or Al Qaeda should murder the producer. (The Pakistani Government has distanced itself from that Minister and his threat.) Will our President speak out against that minister? Does he now understand that he never should have criticized the filmmaker, or distanced the government from that individual? And if the producer is assassinated, especially if on U.S. soil, what will he do? This is why the principle must ALWAYS be the focus of what his Administration says.
* Israeli P.M. asked for a meeting with Obama this month. Netanyahu has been pushing the Obama Administration to set clear "red lines" which, if crossed by Iran, would result in military action by the U.S. Obama has refused - both the red lines and any meeting with Netanyahu. Between the Europeans, and now the U.S., the West has been negotiating with Iran over their nuclear program for almost a decade. Iran has inched ever closer to building a bomb, and may be there in a matter of months. As noted before, Obama must act in this country's interest - not Israel's or any other country's. What is unclear to this writer is why it is not in our interests to stop the Iranians from getting a nuke. An Iranian nuke threatens regional and world stability; with a nuke Iran can threaten to cut off Mideast oil supplies; they could commit yet another Holocaust of the Jewish people by bombing our ally Israel; and, they could give a suitcase nuke to some terrorists they support, who might then bring it here.
* We were told that Obama's schedule was too full to meet with Netanyahu. Thankfully, he did have time to go on the Letterman show; following that fundraiser in Vegas. The 9/18/12 I.B.D. reports that "Obama has skipped more than half of his intelligence briefings." What - has anything big been happening in the world lately? Hmmm - unemployment remains over 8%, our debt now exceeds $16 trillion, and an ambassador and three other Americans were just murdered, with rioting at 20 U.S. embassies. No, nothing big.
* Remember when Obama was caught on an open mic talking to Russian President Medvedev; telling him he would have more "flexibility" after the U.S. election? Flexibility to do what? Now, the I.B.D. is reporting that there has been pressure from the the new Egyptian President, and member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Morsi, to release the blind Sheik from U.S. prison. This Sheik was instrumental in the first attack on the World Trade Center, during Clinton's Presidency. According to the I.B.D., Congressman Peter King, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, reports that his staff was approached by federal agents complaining about the Sheik's possible release. Of course, the release would not occur until after the election, and would be on "humanitarian" grounds. After killing six people, injuring over a thousand, and causing over half a billion dollars in damage, the real question is why this Sheik did not receive the death penalty. There is no question that he should not be released.
* What will Egypt promise in return? Next time they will try to protect our embassy? Reports have since come out that the Brotherhood actually encouraged the attack on our embassy in Cairo in order to help facilitate the release of the Sheik. Morsi has also told the Obama administration that prior administrations "have taken a very clear biased approach against something that (has) very strong ties to the people of the region - that is the issue of Palestine." So exactly what did Egypt do for the "palestinians" when they controlled Gaza from 1948 through 1967? Nothing.
* If Obama wins reelection will he really have Israel's back? He will not have to worry about the pro-Israel members of his party in Congress. He can safely ignore any pressure from them to protect Israel. He will not have to worry about the "Jewish vote." But, maybe he has already told Morsi that after the election he will have more "flexibility" to deal with the creation of a palestinian state. And he can tell Israel that they can pound dirt because he will not be getting involved militarily with Iran. Oh wait, he already did that through his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. General Martin Dempsey recently said that the U.S. will not be "complicit" in any Israeli attack on Iran. If Obama wins we'll know all too soon whose back he really has.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Why the Democrats Hate Republicans, But Feel So Good About Themselves.
* I was recently asked for my opinion on why there seems to be more hostility and bitterness than ever before between the two parties. While I accept that there is a great deal of bitterness, the truth is that most of it emanates from the left/democrats and is directed at the right/republicans. The issue, then, is why the increased hostility? The answer is fairly straightforward: the democrats and republicans no longer share the same fundamental values. When there is agreement on the basics, then differences over particular issues are not as intense; as both sides feel they are still on the same team. But the left no longer shares the fundamental American values. (It was Obama who said that he wanted to bring "fundamental" change to this country.)
* If you have not had the opportunity to do so, look at the last posting entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat." The comments by the various democrat mayors quoted reflects that they no longer believe in free speech if it opposes their viewpoint; they no longer believe in freedom of religion if it is contrary to their viewpoint; they no longer believe business people who disagree with them have the right to make a living. When Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, said he believed in traditional marriage, the democrats did NOT say (a quote generally credited to Voltaire): "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The reason is that the democrats are solely issue-oriented. Whatever the issue - gay marriage, abortion, immigration - trumps the fundamentals of free speech or freedom of religion or other fundamental American values. The democrats do NOT believe that there can be an honest, good-faith disagreement on any of their issues. Those who disagree are labeled racists, bigots, ignorant, or haters, and on and on it goes. The main stream media joins in with the labeling. Once you have put those kinds of labels on your opposition it becomes difficult to give any respect to their opinions. In fact, it becomes difficult to respect them as fellow human beings. Hence, the hatred.
* A few examples. It was Obama who disrespected those whom he said "cling to their guns and religion" and dislike people not like them. (Who dislikes whom?) It was Obama who said: "The Republican plan...boils down to this...Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance." Biden, speaking to an audience with a large number of blacks, said Republicans are going to "put y'all back in chains." Maxine Waters: "And as far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to Hell." Former Rep. Alan Grayson, in reference to Fox News: "It is a threat to this country." Wanda Sykes: "(Rush Limbaugh) just wants the country to fail...I hope his kidneys fail." Cher recently expressed that she hoped Rep. Todd Akin would "get raped by a man with HIV/AIDS." (Akin recently made the ridiculous comment about "legitimate" rape, and that a woman's body can prevent a pregnancy in those cases. He immediately apologized, but the penalty for offending the left is, apparently, death. Something they seem to have in common with radical Muslims.) And my personal favorite, in terms of the venomous hatred for anyone daring to hold a contrary viewpoint, comes from Ellen Barkin, expressing her wish that Hurricane Isaac would "wash every pro-life, anti-education, anti-women, xenophobic, gay-bashing racist SOB right into the ocean."
* So maybe the democrats have given up on being the party of "tolerance." But aren't they still the compassionate party? Aren't they the party that cares about the average working guy? After all, it was the then head of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, who said: "Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night." And that sentence, my friends, pretty well sums up why so many vote democrat. They believe that they are being "compassionate." And because those same people let their beliefs dictate their reality, it does not matter to them that Republican policies are the ones that better protect the average person.
* Case in point. Is it more compassionate to provide welfare and food stamps, or a job? Which has a better chance of feeding hungry children: a parent with a good paying job, or welfare and food stamps? According to the Department of Labor, states with Republican Governors have, on average, a 7.6% unemployment rate. Those with Democrat Governors average 8.8% unemployment. When VA Governor Bob McDonnell spoke at the Republican convention he noted that 12 of the 15 states ranked best for doing business in were Republican lead. The bottom three states: Democrat lead and high unemployment (Illinois, 8.9% unemployment, New York, 9.1% unemployment, and California, with 10.7% unemployment). But Governor McDonnell cut spending, did not raise taxes, yet managed to balance the state budget, lower unemployment to 5.9%, and improve his state's standing in the best places to do business to 6th place. Oh, he was even able to create a budget SURPLUS of $448.5 million.
* But Governor McDonnell is not alone. Other Republican governors have obtained similar results: Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Chris Christie in New Jersey, John Kasich in Ohio, Mitch Daniels in Indiana, to name just a few. But the Democrat Governor of California, Jerry Brown, wants to pass a November ballot measure that will significantly raise taxes. It is hard to see where the compassion is for so many people out of work - when the Governor wants to raise the sales taxes on items they buy.
* But lowering taxes and balancing the budget and improving the business climate with resultant lower unemployment is not Obama's way. That is not the Democrat way. After all, it was Obama who said that after you've made a certain amount of money, he thinks you've made enough. It is Obama who creates class warfare by criticizing those who have achieved what used to be called the "American Dream" - success and wealth. Who thinks a society is healthier when it creates millions upon millions of people dependent upon government handouts? (According to the 8/15/12 Investor's Business Daily, we now have over 1/3 of Americans receiving some government welfare, not counting Medicare or Social Security.) Who thinks a society is healthier when the government plays a smaller role with less taxes and less regulations, and allows businesses large and small to thrive?
* There was an interesting piece on FoxNews.com from 8/20/12. A study by the Chronicle of Philanthropy found that states with greater religious participation, such as the South, tended to give a greater percent of their discretionary income to charity. The Northeast, with the lowest religious participation, was also the least generous in charitable giving. (The South tends toward Republican and the Northeast Democrat. But we already know that Republicans give more to charity.) The part I found to be particularly interesting was a comment by a Boston College professor, apparently defending his less than generous Northeast. He said that people in the less religious states give in a "different" way. How? They are more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute more to the poor. And that is how Democrats convince themselves that they are compassionate: by taking other peoples' money and redistributing it around. I would bet these same democrats do not voluntarily pay more than the law requires in taxes. No, their generosity consists of taking other peoples' money. I would also bet that the religious who live in the higher tax states give more of their after-tax income to charity than the liberal, non-religious.
* You see, the real difference between the "compassionate" Obama/today's Democrats and Republicans is this: Obama does not care if his policies bring everyone down to a lower standard of living, as long as it is more "equal." Republicans want to see an ever expanding economy with everyone having the "opportunity" to succeed, to become a millionaire, or even become the next Bill Gates. So, ending where I started, this basic American value of having the freedom to succeed economically and even amass huge wealth, is no longer shared by the Democrats. Unless American values are again taught in our schools and universities, the long term future for freedom and liberty in this country will be very much in doubt.
* If you have not had the opportunity to do so, look at the last posting entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat." The comments by the various democrat mayors quoted reflects that they no longer believe in free speech if it opposes their viewpoint; they no longer believe in freedom of religion if it is contrary to their viewpoint; they no longer believe business people who disagree with them have the right to make a living. When Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, said he believed in traditional marriage, the democrats did NOT say (a quote generally credited to Voltaire): "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The reason is that the democrats are solely issue-oriented. Whatever the issue - gay marriage, abortion, immigration - trumps the fundamentals of free speech or freedom of religion or other fundamental American values. The democrats do NOT believe that there can be an honest, good-faith disagreement on any of their issues. Those who disagree are labeled racists, bigots, ignorant, or haters, and on and on it goes. The main stream media joins in with the labeling. Once you have put those kinds of labels on your opposition it becomes difficult to give any respect to their opinions. In fact, it becomes difficult to respect them as fellow human beings. Hence, the hatred.
* A few examples. It was Obama who disrespected those whom he said "cling to their guns and religion" and dislike people not like them. (Who dislikes whom?) It was Obama who said: "The Republican plan...boils down to this...Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance." Biden, speaking to an audience with a large number of blacks, said Republicans are going to "put y'all back in chains." Maxine Waters: "And as far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to Hell." Former Rep. Alan Grayson, in reference to Fox News: "It is a threat to this country." Wanda Sykes: "(Rush Limbaugh) just wants the country to fail...I hope his kidneys fail." Cher recently expressed that she hoped Rep. Todd Akin would "get raped by a man with HIV/AIDS." (Akin recently made the ridiculous comment about "legitimate" rape, and that a woman's body can prevent a pregnancy in those cases. He immediately apologized, but the penalty for offending the left is, apparently, death. Something they seem to have in common with radical Muslims.) And my personal favorite, in terms of the venomous hatred for anyone daring to hold a contrary viewpoint, comes from Ellen Barkin, expressing her wish that Hurricane Isaac would "wash every pro-life, anti-education, anti-women, xenophobic, gay-bashing racist SOB right into the ocean."
* So maybe the democrats have given up on being the party of "tolerance." But aren't they still the compassionate party? Aren't they the party that cares about the average working guy? After all, it was the then head of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, who said: "Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night." And that sentence, my friends, pretty well sums up why so many vote democrat. They believe that they are being "compassionate." And because those same people let their beliefs dictate their reality, it does not matter to them that Republican policies are the ones that better protect the average person.
* Case in point. Is it more compassionate to provide welfare and food stamps, or a job? Which has a better chance of feeding hungry children: a parent with a good paying job, or welfare and food stamps? According to the Department of Labor, states with Republican Governors have, on average, a 7.6% unemployment rate. Those with Democrat Governors average 8.8% unemployment. When VA Governor Bob McDonnell spoke at the Republican convention he noted that 12 of the 15 states ranked best for doing business in were Republican lead. The bottom three states: Democrat lead and high unemployment (Illinois, 8.9% unemployment, New York, 9.1% unemployment, and California, with 10.7% unemployment). But Governor McDonnell cut spending, did not raise taxes, yet managed to balance the state budget, lower unemployment to 5.9%, and improve his state's standing in the best places to do business to 6th place. Oh, he was even able to create a budget SURPLUS of $448.5 million.
* But Governor McDonnell is not alone. Other Republican governors have obtained similar results: Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Chris Christie in New Jersey, John Kasich in Ohio, Mitch Daniels in Indiana, to name just a few. But the Democrat Governor of California, Jerry Brown, wants to pass a November ballot measure that will significantly raise taxes. It is hard to see where the compassion is for so many people out of work - when the Governor wants to raise the sales taxes on items they buy.
* But lowering taxes and balancing the budget and improving the business climate with resultant lower unemployment is not Obama's way. That is not the Democrat way. After all, it was Obama who said that after you've made a certain amount of money, he thinks you've made enough. It is Obama who creates class warfare by criticizing those who have achieved what used to be called the "American Dream" - success and wealth. Who thinks a society is healthier when it creates millions upon millions of people dependent upon government handouts? (According to the 8/15/12 Investor's Business Daily, we now have over 1/3 of Americans receiving some government welfare, not counting Medicare or Social Security.) Who thinks a society is healthier when the government plays a smaller role with less taxes and less regulations, and allows businesses large and small to thrive?
* There was an interesting piece on FoxNews.com from 8/20/12. A study by the Chronicle of Philanthropy found that states with greater religious participation, such as the South, tended to give a greater percent of their discretionary income to charity. The Northeast, with the lowest religious participation, was also the least generous in charitable giving. (The South tends toward Republican and the Northeast Democrat. But we already know that Republicans give more to charity.) The part I found to be particularly interesting was a comment by a Boston College professor, apparently defending his less than generous Northeast. He said that people in the less religious states give in a "different" way. How? They are more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute more to the poor. And that is how Democrats convince themselves that they are compassionate: by taking other peoples' money and redistributing it around. I would bet these same democrats do not voluntarily pay more than the law requires in taxes. No, their generosity consists of taking other peoples' money. I would also bet that the religious who live in the higher tax states give more of their after-tax income to charity than the liberal, non-religious.
* You see, the real difference between the "compassionate" Obama/today's Democrats and Republicans is this: Obama does not care if his policies bring everyone down to a lower standard of living, as long as it is more "equal." Republicans want to see an ever expanding economy with everyone having the "opportunity" to succeed, to become a millionaire, or even become the next Bill Gates. So, ending where I started, this basic American value of having the freedom to succeed economically and even amass huge wealth, is no longer shared by the Democrats. Unless American values are again taught in our schools and universities, the long term future for freedom and liberty in this country will be very much in doubt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)