* "Values:" "Important and lasting beliefs or ideals shared by the members of a culture about what is good or bad and desirable or undesirable. Values have a major influence on a person's behavior and attitude and serve as broad guidelines in all situations." (Definition from the Business Dictionary on line.)
* "Issues:" Topics for discussion or debate.
* Now, before any liberals give up on me, please allow me to explain. I am not suggesting that all liberals have no set of values by which they live. What I am suggesting is that whereas many liberals will comport themselves in their personal lives, often according to what might be considered a conservative set of values, they do not view public policy issues through the same lens. The result is that my fellow conservatives are often perplexed by what appears to be liberal illogic, inconsistency and even hypocrisy. A few examples.
* Abortion. As the killing of an unborn baby makes liberals uncomfortable, they have come to call abortion "a woman's right to choose." Once this became a "feminist issue" liberals jumped on the bandwagon. California Penal Code Section 187(a) defines "murder" as "the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." It is not murder, however, if "the act was solicited,aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus." In no other instance of unlawful killing is the crime of murder negated by the giving of consent by a third person. Illogical? Inconsistent? Hypocritical?
* Al Gore sells Current TV to Al Jazeera. Like President Obama, Gore was fond of saying the rich should pay more in taxes. Except he apparently had the sale go through on December 31, 2012 in order to avoid the higher capital gains taxes effective January 1, 2013. Current TV was said not to take ads from oil companies, given Gore's concern for the environment. But Al Jazeera is owned by the emir of Qatar, a country known for its oil production. But $100 million dollars, Gore's share of the sale proceeds, can apparently minimize the environmental impact.
* And, as the left believes all cultures, and hence all media outlets regardless of their origin, are equal, so no problem in selling to Al Jazeera. As the co-founder of Current TV said: "...Al Jazeera was founded with the same goals we had...to give voice to those voices...not typically heard; to speak truth to power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the important stories that no one else is telling." Maybe that would be like the show "Sharia and Life," in which the host said "Oh, Allah, take this oppressive Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers and kill them, down to the very last one." So Gore wanted to give voice to this hate speech? Did I mention $100 million? So, again, inconsistency? Hypocrisy?
* School vouchers. Liberals, like conservatives, believe in education. They want their kids to get the best education possible. In order to get that excellent education many liberals will send their own children to private schools. But are they in favor of school vouchers so that poor people can also send their own kids to the best schools? No. We have to protect public schools, not to mention the teachers. Inconsistent? Hypocritical?
* Welfare and food stamps. Many liberals have worked very hard for everything they have in life. They could not even conceive of being on the public dole. Work hard and you can enjoy life's rewards. But that's not "fair." It's not "equal." So under Obama food stamp recipients grew from 34 million to 47 million. Do liberals object? Do they suggest that creating dependency on government destroys an individual's desire and motivation to work and succeed on their own? Inconsistency?
* Overpopulation? On one occasion I was told by a liberal that the US is overpopulated, putting too much strain on the environment. So, I was advised that my kids should only have one child each. I then inquired if that same individual would be in favor of some type of barrier at our southern border. After all, millions have come here illegally. And they tend to produce multiple offspring themselves, adding millions more to the population. But I did not get agreement. There was no interest in limiting illegal immigration to the US. Inconsistent? You bet. Even my liberal friend admitted the inconsistency. But he still adhered to his inconsistent positions because he favored illegal immigration. The "issue" prevailed over all else, including logic, consistency and common sense.
* Guns. Gun control has been a favorite issue for the left, especially since Sandy Hook. Does it matter that gun control does not work? No. Look at Chicago and Washington, D.C. Very high murder rates with very strict gun control laws. Does it matter that many liberals are themselves protected by armed security, including our top public officials, and many in the entertainment world? No. Those very same people will propose stricter gun controls. Senator Diane Feinstein wants to bring back the so-called "assault weapons ban." But she is on record saying that she had a permit to carry and would take out anyone trying to kill her. Inconsistency? Hypocrisy?
* Because liberals are "issue" driven in the public policy arena, the "values" that they may live by do not come into play in the policy positions they take. This often results in illogical inconsistencies and apparent hypocrisy. Conservatives, however, do not detach their personal value system from the way they view the world. There is no collision between what Prager would call the macro and the micro for conservatives. If liberals voted the way they live (on their values) rather than on issues, Republicans would hold most elected offices in the country. But good luck to my conservative friends in trying to get a liberal to see the inconsistency between their conduct and their policy positions.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Guns.
* I learned a lot from my father. Hard work never hurt anybody. If you want to succeed in this world you must work hard. There is no shame in doing any honest job (he had no tolerance for criminal activity, however). Do not expect any handouts; if you want something you have to work for it. My father lived by those words. His relaxation was in watching sports - almost any sport; and he liked to go target shooting. A gun was in the house when my brother and I were growing up. He kept it locked away, and made it quite clear to the two of us that guns were not toys. We were not allowed to go near the locked container. If we even pointed our toy pistols at him or our Mom we heard about it.
* In the 12/19/12 Investor's Business Daily, Dennis Prager wrote: "...when American schools emphasized character development, and when nearly all Americans believed that there is a G-d who forbids and punishes murder, such massacres rarely took place." Prager goes on: "...until the contemporary period, religion and/or conscience development were ubiquitous. Instead of teaching young Americans self-control, thanks to leftist influence, we now teach them self-esteem - which has been worse than morally useless." Citing a leading criminologist, Prager notes that "few Americans have the high self-esteem that violent criminals have." Some of us might conclude that bad, evil, immoral people do bad, evil and immoral things. But today's schools teach all cultures are equal; it is wrong to make value judgments like right and wrong or good and evil.
* Following the horrible shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA said "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." The simple logic of that statement seems irrefutable. But not for the left. So what succeeded in stopping the Nazis? Good guys yelling "Stop it now!" or good guys with guns? If your home is being burglarized while you are at home (and assuming you neither own a gun nor have armed security) do you want the police to come with their guns or without their guns? The President and his family are protected by a small army with quite a bit of firepower. According to Mark Levin, Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein owns a firearm, and said: If somebody tries to take me out, I'm going to take them with me."
* In the 12/21/12 IBD, Ann Coulter wrote of a study by two professors who examined how changes in gun laws from 1977 to 1995 affected public shootings with multiple victims. Coulter notes that the study looked at "waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun." Only one policy seemed to work - the increasing number of states allowing the carrying of a concealed weapon. Coulter points out that the mass shootings of late seem to occur at locations where guns are prohibited - such as schools, movie theaters, malls and even churches. The 12/28/12 IBD points out that 25 years ago only a small number of states allowed concealed weapons. Now 41 states have such laws. Yet, "major crimes, except in gun-controlled major cities, have shown a continuing decline that has paralleled the rise in the number of right-to-carry-states."
* The 12/31/12 IBD, citing FBI data, reports that "In 2007, there were 1,817 homicides committed with 'knives or cutting instruments; 'blunt objects' killed 674; while 'personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)' were the choices in 869 homicides." Of course, if the concern is simply senseless deaths, then the automobile ought to be the first thing to go, with 32,367 deaths in 2011. That amounts to an astonishing 88+ people killed each and every day in the US by cars.
* Reflecting the perspective of the left is an opinion piece in the 1/6/13 NY Times by Elisabeth Rosenthal, described as a physician and science reporter for the paper. The headline of the piece is "More Guns = More Killing." In what she believes refutes the NRA approach, she says "Despite the ubiquitous presence of 'good guys' with guns, countries like Guatamala, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia and Venezuela have some of the highest homicide rates in the world." Aside from whether or not it is appropriate to make comparisons of the US with these Central and South American countries, Dr. Rosenthal does not tell us the actual rate of gun ownership in these countries, simply averring that gun ownership there is "ubiquitous." She goes on to note that, per a 2011 UN report, "Honduras led the world in homicides, with 91.6 per 100,000 people. The other countries' rates: "El Salvador (69.1), Jamaica (40.9), Colombia (31.4), and Guatamala (38.5).
* But according to a site called "gunpolicy.org" the the number of lawfully owned guns in Honduras was 500,000, or 6.2 per 100,000 people. (And recall, a homicide rate of 91.6 per 100,000.) As for the US, according to justfacts.com, the population in 2009 was 307 million, with an estimated 300 million guns in 2010. That amounts to a gun ownership rate of 97%! Yet, what does Dr. Rosenthal say the US homicide rate is? About 5 per 100,000. So just how does any of this data prove the point of the article, "More Guns = More Killing"? In fact, it seems to prove the opposite.
* The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Ambiguous? Perhaps. But we know that the militia in revolutionary times consisted of individuals who owned guns. And we know that the US Supreme Court held in 2010 that the Second Amendment does protect an individual's right to gun ownership; at least in the home. (McDonald vs. City of Chicago, holding that the Second Amendment protection applies to states and municipalities as well as the federal government.) I have read letters to the editor advocating the abolition of gun ownership. I suspect a good many on the left would favor that. But did Prohibition stop the consumption of alcohol? Has making drugs illegal stopped the sale and trafficking of drugs? If guns were to be banned, the criminals, who by definition do not respect the law, would still obtain guns on the black market. Why should any individual (who is not a criminal or mentally disturbed) not be allowed to defend themselves and their families?
* A professor at the University of Rhode Island Tweeted: "Looks like the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children." And this: "F... the NRA. Wayne LaPierre should be in prison." And this: "Can we define NRA membership dues as contributing to a terrorist organization?" And from Joyce Carol Oates: "Another NRA-sponsored massacre for Christmas 2012." (Quotes from article by Michelle Malkin in 12/20/12 IBD.) Malkin states that Oates "mused hopefully for mass shootings against the NRA." Marg Helgenberger of CSI chimed in with: "One can only hope, but sadly I don't think anything would change." And from a Texas Democrat party official: "Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?" As noted in my post entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat," one cannot disagree with the Left without being accused of being evil.
* The Sandy Hook shootings were horrific. It is impossible to comprehend why anyone would want to kill 6 and 7 year olds. The American people's hearts were broken that day. Some have suggested tougher penalties for possessing guns on or near school campuses. But these school shooters do not care about the punishment. They fully expect to die the day of their shootings. Often, they kill themselves. Tougher penalties would not stop them. So what then? Amend the Constitution to ban gun ownership? Again, the criminals will get guns anyway. Yet, the movement afoot coming from Obama and Biden seeks that utopian world that the left always seeks. But evil and killers have been with us long before there were guns; since the time of Cain and Abel.
* As one of our former politicians said: "Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms...The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." From one of our founders? No. A Republican? No. Former Vice President of the United States Hubert Horatio Humphrey, a Democrat.
* In the 12/19/12 Investor's Business Daily, Dennis Prager wrote: "...when American schools emphasized character development, and when nearly all Americans believed that there is a G-d who forbids and punishes murder, such massacres rarely took place." Prager goes on: "...until the contemporary period, religion and/or conscience development were ubiquitous. Instead of teaching young Americans self-control, thanks to leftist influence, we now teach them self-esteem - which has been worse than morally useless." Citing a leading criminologist, Prager notes that "few Americans have the high self-esteem that violent criminals have." Some of us might conclude that bad, evil, immoral people do bad, evil and immoral things. But today's schools teach all cultures are equal; it is wrong to make value judgments like right and wrong or good and evil.
* Following the horrible shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA said "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." The simple logic of that statement seems irrefutable. But not for the left. So what succeeded in stopping the Nazis? Good guys yelling "Stop it now!" or good guys with guns? If your home is being burglarized while you are at home (and assuming you neither own a gun nor have armed security) do you want the police to come with their guns or without their guns? The President and his family are protected by a small army with quite a bit of firepower. According to Mark Levin, Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein owns a firearm, and said: If somebody tries to take me out, I'm going to take them with me."
* In the 12/21/12 IBD, Ann Coulter wrote of a study by two professors who examined how changes in gun laws from 1977 to 1995 affected public shootings with multiple victims. Coulter notes that the study looked at "waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun." Only one policy seemed to work - the increasing number of states allowing the carrying of a concealed weapon. Coulter points out that the mass shootings of late seem to occur at locations where guns are prohibited - such as schools, movie theaters, malls and even churches. The 12/28/12 IBD points out that 25 years ago only a small number of states allowed concealed weapons. Now 41 states have such laws. Yet, "major crimes, except in gun-controlled major cities, have shown a continuing decline that has paralleled the rise in the number of right-to-carry-states."
* The 12/31/12 IBD, citing FBI data, reports that "In 2007, there were 1,817 homicides committed with 'knives or cutting instruments; 'blunt objects' killed 674; while 'personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)' were the choices in 869 homicides." Of course, if the concern is simply senseless deaths, then the automobile ought to be the first thing to go, with 32,367 deaths in 2011. That amounts to an astonishing 88+ people killed each and every day in the US by cars.
* Reflecting the perspective of the left is an opinion piece in the 1/6/13 NY Times by Elisabeth Rosenthal, described as a physician and science reporter for the paper. The headline of the piece is "More Guns = More Killing." In what she believes refutes the NRA approach, she says "Despite the ubiquitous presence of 'good guys' with guns, countries like Guatamala, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia and Venezuela have some of the highest homicide rates in the world." Aside from whether or not it is appropriate to make comparisons of the US with these Central and South American countries, Dr. Rosenthal does not tell us the actual rate of gun ownership in these countries, simply averring that gun ownership there is "ubiquitous." She goes on to note that, per a 2011 UN report, "Honduras led the world in homicides, with 91.6 per 100,000 people. The other countries' rates: "El Salvador (69.1), Jamaica (40.9), Colombia (31.4), and Guatamala (38.5).
* But according to a site called "gunpolicy.org" the the number of lawfully owned guns in Honduras was 500,000, or 6.2 per 100,000 people. (And recall, a homicide rate of 91.6 per 100,000.) As for the US, according to justfacts.com, the population in 2009 was 307 million, with an estimated 300 million guns in 2010. That amounts to a gun ownership rate of 97%! Yet, what does Dr. Rosenthal say the US homicide rate is? About 5 per 100,000. So just how does any of this data prove the point of the article, "More Guns = More Killing"? In fact, it seems to prove the opposite.
* The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Ambiguous? Perhaps. But we know that the militia in revolutionary times consisted of individuals who owned guns. And we know that the US Supreme Court held in 2010 that the Second Amendment does protect an individual's right to gun ownership; at least in the home. (McDonald vs. City of Chicago, holding that the Second Amendment protection applies to states and municipalities as well as the federal government.) I have read letters to the editor advocating the abolition of gun ownership. I suspect a good many on the left would favor that. But did Prohibition stop the consumption of alcohol? Has making drugs illegal stopped the sale and trafficking of drugs? If guns were to be banned, the criminals, who by definition do not respect the law, would still obtain guns on the black market. Why should any individual (who is not a criminal or mentally disturbed) not be allowed to defend themselves and their families?
* A professor at the University of Rhode Island Tweeted: "Looks like the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children." And this: "F... the NRA. Wayne LaPierre should be in prison." And this: "Can we define NRA membership dues as contributing to a terrorist organization?" And from Joyce Carol Oates: "Another NRA-sponsored massacre for Christmas 2012." (Quotes from article by Michelle Malkin in 12/20/12 IBD.) Malkin states that Oates "mused hopefully for mass shootings against the NRA." Marg Helgenberger of CSI chimed in with: "One can only hope, but sadly I don't think anything would change." And from a Texas Democrat party official: "Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?" As noted in my post entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat," one cannot disagree with the Left without being accused of being evil.
* The Sandy Hook shootings were horrific. It is impossible to comprehend why anyone would want to kill 6 and 7 year olds. The American people's hearts were broken that day. Some have suggested tougher penalties for possessing guns on or near school campuses. But these school shooters do not care about the punishment. They fully expect to die the day of their shootings. Often, they kill themselves. Tougher penalties would not stop them. So what then? Amend the Constitution to ban gun ownership? Again, the criminals will get guns anyway. Yet, the movement afoot coming from Obama and Biden seeks that utopian world that the left always seeks. But evil and killers have been with us long before there were guns; since the time of Cain and Abel.
* As one of our former politicians said: "Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms...The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." From one of our founders? No. A Republican? No. Former Vice President of the United States Hubert Horatio Humphrey, a Democrat.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
The Liberal Mind; Texas vs. California; and The UN Recognizes Palestine.
* The Liberal Mind. In my last post I cited a CNN poll finding that Republicans overwhelmingly supported Israel's recent actions in Gaza (74% to 12%), whereas Democrats could not even muster majority support (41% to 36%). In an email to readers on my list I noted that readers who were Democrats might be surprised by their party's dwindling support of Israel. I also noted that I was not surprised. Sure enough, one Democrat reader disagreed with those stats. What follows is an exchange (given with his permission) between the reader (R) and Truth-Uncensored (TU):
TU: "So unless you think either I or CNN made up those stats, what is your explanation for the far greater GOP support? If you just don't buy it, then you have not been paying attention the last 10-20 years. Await your explanation."
R: "I live in a sheltered social circle. I have never met an anti-Israel person or a pro-Arab person. Just hard for me to believe, or perhaps accept, any numbers regardless of parties. I must be in denial as I have no reason to challenge you or your source. Where does CNN find these people I have never met or heard of?"
TU: "Let me correct you. You INTENTIONALLY live in a sheltered social circle. The evidence is all around you. I did NOT need that poll to tell me that Repubs overwhelmingly support Israel and Dems don't. Your inability to accept reality reflects two things: 1. You only read the mainstream media, and 2. As I often say, liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality. In this case, you BELIEVE all Dems support Israel, so you are UNABLE to process REALITY when it conflicts with that belief."
This exchange was with a reader whom I personally know. He is very bright and analytical in his job. So what's the problem? He is right about one thing - of course he is in denial. He only "knows" what he gets from the mainstream papers and mainstream/liberal talk shows. But like so many liberals I have come across, what they "know" is simply not true. Sadly, a combination of his "beliefs" and lack of exposure to other viewpoints and information, results in this liberal Jew not even recognizing how far his party has moved against Israel. Yet, this decreasing support for Israel among democrats has been going on for years, if not decades. These same limitations prevent these liberals from seeing how far their party has moved to the left on economic issues and social issues. And what incredible naivete to say these anti-Israel Dems don't exist because he never met them or heard of them. Will this same reader have to see an Iranian nuke go off in Israel or the US before he "knows" Iran has acquired nukes? The liberal mind.
* Texas vs. California. The growth rate in Texas the last two years: 3.3% and 5.2%. California: 2.0% and 1.7%. Texas' unemployment rate: 6.8% vs. California's whopping 10.2%. From 2008 to 2011 median hourly wages in Texas rose 8% vs. 5.7% in California. California's poverty rate of 23.5% is the highest in the US; Texas has a rate of 16.5%. Texas students do better in math and reading, even though Texas spends less on education. (Think about all the politically correct nonsense that California School Boards worry about over actual education.) From 2007 to 2010 about 500,000 people left California; Texas gained nearly 400,000 people. Not surprising as Texas has created more than double the number of jobs that California has created since June, 2009. (All stats and information from the 11/23/12 Investor's Business Daily.)
Texas regularly ranks in the top five of business friendly states. I suspect states like California, New York and Illinois are in the bottom five. Notwithstanding California's awful economic situation, they continue to raise taxes (Prop. 30 being the latest example), and will undoubtedly continue to increase regulations. Now that Californians have given super majorities in both legislative houses to the Democrats, they can pass whatever additional tax and spending measures they want.
So here's the question: Is Obama going to take us down California's path or the path of Texas? Yes, it's just a rhetorical question as we know Obama prefers the California path. In Obama's current fight with the Republicans in the House over the "fiscal cliff" and ending of the so-called Bush tax cuts, Obama continues to insist on raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Such a tax increase does almost nothing to pay down the debt or deficit. But as Obama told Charlie Gibson four years ago, he would consider raising the capital gains taxes out of a "sense of fairness," even though historically increasing the rates resulted in less revenue to the government. That's what his current fight is all about. Obama the ideologue, wants to raise taxes on the top 2%, even if it means impeding job growth; while at the same time making it look like it is the Republicans who are the extremist ideologues. (Here's a question: Who do you think creates more jobs, the top 2% or the bottom 2%? Or the top 2% vs. the bottom 50% for that matter.)
And, just to add insult to injury, if you want to rent a U-Haul to move from San Francisco to San Antonio, it will cost you $1693. If you want to go from San Antonio to San Francisco - that's only $983. Far less demand! (Data from the 11/23/12 IBD article.)
* The UN Recognizes Palestine. On November 29, the UN voted to upgrade the Palestinian Authority from non-member observer to non-member state. This new "state" consists of Gaza, the West Bank and "East Jerusalem," based upon the 1967 borders. The vote was 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions. The US, Canada, and Israel voted against, as did one European country - the Czech Republic. Voting for, among others, were France, Italy, Spain, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland. Britain and Germany "abstained;" such brave votes.
So what could be wrong with this picture? Well, Abbas has NO legitimacy as his term of office expired three years ago. Undoubtedly, he was reluctant to hold new elections fearing that Hamas would win, as they did in Gaza. This new "state" has two different governments: the terrorist group Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Here's a small matter: how does the UN have any jurisdiction to make this decision? When the UN General Assembly voted partition of the British Mandate in 1947, their jurisdiction was clear. Britain voluntarily turned over the Mandate area to the UN General Assembly to decide its' fate. Sixty-five years later they think they still have jurisdiction? While they are feeling so generous, they ought to recognize Tibet (too bad China), Chechnya (sorry Russia), Kurdistan (too bad Turkey, Syria and Iraq), just to name a few. And while they are at it, shouldn't they recognize Mexico's borders as including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California?
How many lies did Abbas tell in his speech to the General Assembly before the vote? He noted that 65 years prior the UNGA "partitioned the land of historic Palestine into two states and became the birth certificate for Israel." Actually, it would have been a birth certificate for an Arab country as well but for the fact that the Arabs announced before partition that they would NEVER accept a Jewish state; and, oh yeah, they attacked Israel the day after Israel declared their independence in 1948. So, the partition was not Israel's birth certificate; it was the defeat of the Arab world's multiple armies that assured the existence of a Jewish state. Abbas: "In those dark days, our people had looked to the United Nations as a beacon of hope and appealed for ending the injustice..." Wow! There's a whopper. Again, the Arabs announced BEFORE the 1947 UN vote that they would NEVER accept a Jewish state there. That is why the war ensued. So Abbas claims they looked to the UN when the truth is they denounced the UN vote.
Otherwise, Abbas' speech was filled with the usual accusations showing his true attitude towards Israel. He referred to Israel's creation as the Nabka (catastrophe) as the Arabs regularly do. He accused Israel of war crimes for their retaliation against thousands of rockets and mortars from Gaza; and hinted that as a "state" now they would file a complaint with the International Criminal Court against Israel. We know how that would end up. He referred to Israel's "racist, colonial occupation" of lands Israel has controlled since 1967 because the ARABS LOST THAT WAR! We know, of course, that the Arabs are the real racists as they have said no Jew may live in their country, whereas over one million Arabs live in Israel. And, I might add, enjoy greater civil rights than Arabs do in Arab run countries.
The same liberal reader referred to above believes in the legitimacy of the UN. See how the UN protects the Syrian people from being murdered by their own government? They can't - because Russia would veto any resolution. The UN had a peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon after Israel's war with Hezbollah. That UN force sat idly by while Hezbollah rearmed with tens of thousands of missiles from Iran and Syria. By maintaining our membership in the UN we only give credibility to the votes of dictators, thugs and islamofascists. The US ought to withdraw and establish a new UN of democratic and free countries. Countries wishing to join must not only have democratically elected leaders, but provide for basic civil freedoms for their citizens (such as free speech and freedom to choose one's religion). The UN as currently constituted allows for countries like Iran and Syria to be on the Human Rights Council. What a joke! Not only does the UN not promote peace, it arguably enables mass murder and genocide as in Syria. The Security Council is unable to act because dictatorships like Russia and China prevent action. Therefore, unless the US acts on its' own, nothing happens.
And let us not forget that the UN has voted more resolutions against the tiny country of Israel than the rest of the member states combined. Anyone who believes in the legitimacy of the UN has, quite simply, lost their moral compass.
TU: "So unless you think either I or CNN made up those stats, what is your explanation for the far greater GOP support? If you just don't buy it, then you have not been paying attention the last 10-20 years. Await your explanation."
R: "I live in a sheltered social circle. I have never met an anti-Israel person or a pro-Arab person. Just hard for me to believe, or perhaps accept, any numbers regardless of parties. I must be in denial as I have no reason to challenge you or your source. Where does CNN find these people I have never met or heard of?"
TU: "Let me correct you. You INTENTIONALLY live in a sheltered social circle. The evidence is all around you. I did NOT need that poll to tell me that Repubs overwhelmingly support Israel and Dems don't. Your inability to accept reality reflects two things: 1. You only read the mainstream media, and 2. As I often say, liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality. In this case, you BELIEVE all Dems support Israel, so you are UNABLE to process REALITY when it conflicts with that belief."
This exchange was with a reader whom I personally know. He is very bright and analytical in his job. So what's the problem? He is right about one thing - of course he is in denial. He only "knows" what he gets from the mainstream papers and mainstream/liberal talk shows. But like so many liberals I have come across, what they "know" is simply not true. Sadly, a combination of his "beliefs" and lack of exposure to other viewpoints and information, results in this liberal Jew not even recognizing how far his party has moved against Israel. Yet, this decreasing support for Israel among democrats has been going on for years, if not decades. These same limitations prevent these liberals from seeing how far their party has moved to the left on economic issues and social issues. And what incredible naivete to say these anti-Israel Dems don't exist because he never met them or heard of them. Will this same reader have to see an Iranian nuke go off in Israel or the US before he "knows" Iran has acquired nukes? The liberal mind.
* Texas vs. California. The growth rate in Texas the last two years: 3.3% and 5.2%. California: 2.0% and 1.7%. Texas' unemployment rate: 6.8% vs. California's whopping 10.2%. From 2008 to 2011 median hourly wages in Texas rose 8% vs. 5.7% in California. California's poverty rate of 23.5% is the highest in the US; Texas has a rate of 16.5%. Texas students do better in math and reading, even though Texas spends less on education. (Think about all the politically correct nonsense that California School Boards worry about over actual education.) From 2007 to 2010 about 500,000 people left California; Texas gained nearly 400,000 people. Not surprising as Texas has created more than double the number of jobs that California has created since June, 2009. (All stats and information from the 11/23/12 Investor's Business Daily.)
Texas regularly ranks in the top five of business friendly states. I suspect states like California, New York and Illinois are in the bottom five. Notwithstanding California's awful economic situation, they continue to raise taxes (Prop. 30 being the latest example), and will undoubtedly continue to increase regulations. Now that Californians have given super majorities in both legislative houses to the Democrats, they can pass whatever additional tax and spending measures they want.
So here's the question: Is Obama going to take us down California's path or the path of Texas? Yes, it's just a rhetorical question as we know Obama prefers the California path. In Obama's current fight with the Republicans in the House over the "fiscal cliff" and ending of the so-called Bush tax cuts, Obama continues to insist on raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Such a tax increase does almost nothing to pay down the debt or deficit. But as Obama told Charlie Gibson four years ago, he would consider raising the capital gains taxes out of a "sense of fairness," even though historically increasing the rates resulted in less revenue to the government. That's what his current fight is all about. Obama the ideologue, wants to raise taxes on the top 2%, even if it means impeding job growth; while at the same time making it look like it is the Republicans who are the extremist ideologues. (Here's a question: Who do you think creates more jobs, the top 2% or the bottom 2%? Or the top 2% vs. the bottom 50% for that matter.)
And, just to add insult to injury, if you want to rent a U-Haul to move from San Francisco to San Antonio, it will cost you $1693. If you want to go from San Antonio to San Francisco - that's only $983. Far less demand! (Data from the 11/23/12 IBD article.)
* The UN Recognizes Palestine. On November 29, the UN voted to upgrade the Palestinian Authority from non-member observer to non-member state. This new "state" consists of Gaza, the West Bank and "East Jerusalem," based upon the 1967 borders. The vote was 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions. The US, Canada, and Israel voted against, as did one European country - the Czech Republic. Voting for, among others, were France, Italy, Spain, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland. Britain and Germany "abstained;" such brave votes.
So what could be wrong with this picture? Well, Abbas has NO legitimacy as his term of office expired three years ago. Undoubtedly, he was reluctant to hold new elections fearing that Hamas would win, as they did in Gaza. This new "state" has two different governments: the terrorist group Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Here's a small matter: how does the UN have any jurisdiction to make this decision? When the UN General Assembly voted partition of the British Mandate in 1947, their jurisdiction was clear. Britain voluntarily turned over the Mandate area to the UN General Assembly to decide its' fate. Sixty-five years later they think they still have jurisdiction? While they are feeling so generous, they ought to recognize Tibet (too bad China), Chechnya (sorry Russia), Kurdistan (too bad Turkey, Syria and Iraq), just to name a few. And while they are at it, shouldn't they recognize Mexico's borders as including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California?
How many lies did Abbas tell in his speech to the General Assembly before the vote? He noted that 65 years prior the UNGA "partitioned the land of historic Palestine into two states and became the birth certificate for Israel." Actually, it would have been a birth certificate for an Arab country as well but for the fact that the Arabs announced before partition that they would NEVER accept a Jewish state; and, oh yeah, they attacked Israel the day after Israel declared their independence in 1948. So, the partition was not Israel's birth certificate; it was the defeat of the Arab world's multiple armies that assured the existence of a Jewish state. Abbas: "In those dark days, our people had looked to the United Nations as a beacon of hope and appealed for ending the injustice..." Wow! There's a whopper. Again, the Arabs announced BEFORE the 1947 UN vote that they would NEVER accept a Jewish state there. That is why the war ensued. So Abbas claims they looked to the UN when the truth is they denounced the UN vote.
Otherwise, Abbas' speech was filled with the usual accusations showing his true attitude towards Israel. He referred to Israel's creation as the Nabka (catastrophe) as the Arabs regularly do. He accused Israel of war crimes for their retaliation against thousands of rockets and mortars from Gaza; and hinted that as a "state" now they would file a complaint with the International Criminal Court against Israel. We know how that would end up. He referred to Israel's "racist, colonial occupation" of lands Israel has controlled since 1967 because the ARABS LOST THAT WAR! We know, of course, that the Arabs are the real racists as they have said no Jew may live in their country, whereas over one million Arabs live in Israel. And, I might add, enjoy greater civil rights than Arabs do in Arab run countries.
The same liberal reader referred to above believes in the legitimacy of the UN. See how the UN protects the Syrian people from being murdered by their own government? They can't - because Russia would veto any resolution. The UN had a peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon after Israel's war with Hezbollah. That UN force sat idly by while Hezbollah rearmed with tens of thousands of missiles from Iran and Syria. By maintaining our membership in the UN we only give credibility to the votes of dictators, thugs and islamofascists. The US ought to withdraw and establish a new UN of democratic and free countries. Countries wishing to join must not only have democratically elected leaders, but provide for basic civil freedoms for their citizens (such as free speech and freedom to choose one's religion). The UN as currently constituted allows for countries like Iran and Syria to be on the Human Rights Council. What a joke! Not only does the UN not promote peace, it arguably enables mass murder and genocide as in Syria. The Security Council is unable to act because dictatorships like Russia and China prevent action. Therefore, unless the US acts on its' own, nothing happens.
And let us not forget that the UN has voted more resolutions against the tiny country of Israel than the rest of the member states combined. Anyone who believes in the legitimacy of the UN has, quite simply, lost their moral compass.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
More on Israel and the Palestinians; and Benghazi
* Before Israeli jets attack Gaza, the Israelis do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. They drop leaflets in advance. They make phone calls into the soon to be targeted area. And strikes are even called off at the last minute when live feed shows civilians in the area. And what does Hamas do? They put their rockets on the rooftops of residential buildings, or near schools and mosques. Hamas P.M. Ismael Haniya said: "We desire death more than you desire life." A Hamas TV campaign urged: "bombs are more precious than children." Any wonder why Israel has a prosperous society while Hamas prides itself on death and destruction - and having tens of thousands of rockets and mortars. And let's not forget that after an Israeli bus full of civilians was blown up the Palestinians praised the attack and celebrated. Then again, the Arabs living in New York and New Jersey celebrated after our 9/11 attack.
* According to the Jerusalem Post, 1506 rockets were fired into Israel during the past week. 421 were intercepted by Iron Dome, the Israeli anti-missile system. Given that they only target rockets likely to hit civilian areas, it was quite an impressive display of the first functioning anti-missile system to ever be deployed.
* Cease-fire now in effect. As the LA Times described it in their lead article on 11/19/12: "An Israeli missile kills nine family members, increasing global pressure on both sides to end the hostilities." Can you imagine if these idiots were writing the news during WWII? Imagine the headlines: "Ike declares thousands died on Omaha beach, therefore U.S. should cease all hostilities." Or: "London devastated, Churchill needs to surrender!" Given that the mainstream media has completely lost their moral compass, it all becomes a numbers game. "Israel, you only have five dead, so make sure that you do not kill more than five Palestinians." The foolish leaders in the West are no better. This from the EU: Israel "must act proportionately and ensure the protection of civilians at all times..." Meanwhile, Assad's Syria can murder over 30,000 of its people, but...
* Meanwhile, masked gunmen in Gaza shot dead six people suspected of collaborating with Israel. They then dragged one of the bodies through the streets as Palestinians spit upon it. No indictment, no trial, just execution. Don't look for the mainstream media to be outraged. Anybody else think it's disgusting that Egypt's Morsi gets to be the "peacemaker"? Hamas' rockets and mortars come through Egypt via the Sudan or Libya. Morsi says he want to see the destruction of Israel and all Jews killed - but he is the peacemaker? Outrageous. Outrageous for Israel to agree on a cease-fire yet again. The only result is that Hamas will continue to fire rockets and mortars and missiles until a few years down the road when Israel decides they can no longer tolerate it and launches another attack. Here's the proof - the Jerusalem Post says 20 rockets have already been launched into Israel after the cease-fire took effect.
* Who supports Israel? A CNN poll found significant Republican support for Israel's defensive measures in Gaza - 74% in favor with 12% opposed. Democrats? Not even one-half in favor - 41% agreed, 36% disagreed. Sad, is it not? Thank G-d that most Congressional Democrats are supportive of Israel, notwithstanding the ever dwindling support amongst the rank and file. As the Democrat party goes further and further to the left this is not surprising - every major leftist group is anti-Israel (and often anti-semitic). And Obama? Anybody else tiring of his "violent extremists" phrase? When will he start telling the truth and call it radical Islam?
* More on Benghazi. The question in the past week has been who changed the original "talking points" used by Susan Rice when she went on the five Sunday talk shows. Specifically, who removed the references to terrorism and Al Qaeda? Originally, the intelligence agencies denied making any such deletions. Now, a spokesman for National Intelligence Director James Clapper said the intelligence community was SOLELY responsible for "substantive" changes to the talking points. So here's a question or two. Who authorized the changes? Was any pressure brought to bear by the White House or others? As noted above, Obama avoids use of the terms "terrorism" and "radical Islam." I would sure like to know how those changes came about. Whether or not the media cares (other than to try to prove that the White House was not behind it) I certainly hope Congress continues to investigate.
* According to the Jerusalem Post, 1506 rockets were fired into Israel during the past week. 421 were intercepted by Iron Dome, the Israeli anti-missile system. Given that they only target rockets likely to hit civilian areas, it was quite an impressive display of the first functioning anti-missile system to ever be deployed.
* Cease-fire now in effect. As the LA Times described it in their lead article on 11/19/12: "An Israeli missile kills nine family members, increasing global pressure on both sides to end the hostilities." Can you imagine if these idiots were writing the news during WWII? Imagine the headlines: "Ike declares thousands died on Omaha beach, therefore U.S. should cease all hostilities." Or: "London devastated, Churchill needs to surrender!" Given that the mainstream media has completely lost their moral compass, it all becomes a numbers game. "Israel, you only have five dead, so make sure that you do not kill more than five Palestinians." The foolish leaders in the West are no better. This from the EU: Israel "must act proportionately and ensure the protection of civilians at all times..." Meanwhile, Assad's Syria can murder over 30,000 of its people, but...
* Meanwhile, masked gunmen in Gaza shot dead six people suspected of collaborating with Israel. They then dragged one of the bodies through the streets as Palestinians spit upon it. No indictment, no trial, just execution. Don't look for the mainstream media to be outraged. Anybody else think it's disgusting that Egypt's Morsi gets to be the "peacemaker"? Hamas' rockets and mortars come through Egypt via the Sudan or Libya. Morsi says he want to see the destruction of Israel and all Jews killed - but he is the peacemaker? Outrageous. Outrageous for Israel to agree on a cease-fire yet again. The only result is that Hamas will continue to fire rockets and mortars and missiles until a few years down the road when Israel decides they can no longer tolerate it and launches another attack. Here's the proof - the Jerusalem Post says 20 rockets have already been launched into Israel after the cease-fire took effect.
* Who supports Israel? A CNN poll found significant Republican support for Israel's defensive measures in Gaza - 74% in favor with 12% opposed. Democrats? Not even one-half in favor - 41% agreed, 36% disagreed. Sad, is it not? Thank G-d that most Congressional Democrats are supportive of Israel, notwithstanding the ever dwindling support amongst the rank and file. As the Democrat party goes further and further to the left this is not surprising - every major leftist group is anti-Israel (and often anti-semitic). And Obama? Anybody else tiring of his "violent extremists" phrase? When will he start telling the truth and call it radical Islam?
* More on Benghazi. The question in the past week has been who changed the original "talking points" used by Susan Rice when she went on the five Sunday talk shows. Specifically, who removed the references to terrorism and Al Qaeda? Originally, the intelligence agencies denied making any such deletions. Now, a spokesman for National Intelligence Director James Clapper said the intelligence community was SOLELY responsible for "substantive" changes to the talking points. So here's a question or two. Who authorized the changes? Was any pressure brought to bear by the White House or others? As noted above, Obama avoids use of the terms "terrorism" and "radical Islam." I would sure like to know how those changes came about. Whether or not the media cares (other than to try to prove that the White House was not behind it) I certainly hope Congress continues to investigate.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Israel and the Palestinians; GOP Blues; and More on Benghazi
* Israel and the Palestinians. Why the increase in hostilities? Who started it? If one just reads the mainstream media, you may not know that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have launched thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel from Gaza since 2005, when Israel vacated Gaza. Over one thousand were launched into Israel just this year up to Friday. Here is what everyone needs to know about the conflict: "We are sending a short and simple message: there is no security for any Zionist on any single inch of Palestine..." So said Abu Obeida, spokesman for the Hamas military. Inasmuch as Israel left Gaza years ago, and the rockets and mortars are falling on Israel, Obeida is telling the world that the Jews who live in Israel are actually living in "Palestine." As they do not recognize Israel's legitimacy, and say they never will, what else do you need to know?
* While the motivation of the Palestinians is clear, things do get more complicated by the involvement of others. Hamas has launched longer range Fajr-5 missiles at Tel Aviv. These missiles are supplied by Iran, proving that Iran is not just a threat if they get nukes. Meanwhile, the new Islamist leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as the now Islamist leader in Turkey, have expressed their solidarity with the Palestinians. Does that mean they would get involved in a ground war with Israel if Israel sends troops into Gaza? Not likely, given their own internal problems, but it cannot be ruled out. And what about the U.S.? Two former military men (Col. Oliver North and 4 star General Jack Keane, former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army) believe that the Islamists, like Hamas, have felt emboldened since the 9/11/12 attack on Benghazi, killing the U.S. Ambassador and others. Obama blamed the attack on an anti-muslim video, and has taken no action against the terrorists. The U.S. has been perceived as being weak, resulting in a significant increase in anti-U.S. and anti-Israel "chatter." Nevertheless, I credit Obama for stating that "Israel has the right to defend itself," not something that every country acknowledges.
* As noted in the last post, Obama seems intent on presiding over a seriously diminished U.S. military force. A weakened U.S. always emboldens the enemies of peace and freedom. The mainstream media never gets it. In a 11/15/12 editorial, the New York Times opined: "The group (Hamas) has mostly adhered to an informal cease-fire with Israel after the war there in the winter of 2008-09." I suppose if you don't count a few thousand rockets and mortars raining down on Israel then they are correct. The Times continues: "Israel has a right to defend itself, but it's hard to see how Wednesday's operation could be the most effective way of advancing its long-term interests." If rockets were falling all around and in the NY Times' offices, would they want the NYPD and Homeland Security to stop it, or would they say fighting back would not be "an effective way of advancing the Times' long-term interests?" What a bunch of morons! One million Israelis have had to live in bomb shelters the last several days. Israel's long-term interests are in destroying the ability of Hamas to attack; not to worry about "new waves of condemnation against Israel in Arab countries," as the Times suggests. As if the Arabs would otherwise support Israel. The Times then concludes with their usual blaming of Israel - suggesting more countries would support Israel if they made peace with Abbas' Palestinian Authority. The dreamers of the left forever eschewing reality.
* GOP Blues. Numerous post-mortems have been written and verbalized about the GOP and what it needs to do since the election. Here are just a few suggestions that have been mentioned by commentators: back off on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, fix the immigration problem, learn to use social media, stop putting up Mr. Nice Guys to run, become more moderate, be better advocates of the free market, and select a more charismatic candidate. Having three young adults in my family, there seemed to be a general consensus that it was more "cool" and "in" to vote Democrat. My conservative son suggested the GOP stop talking about abortion and gay marriage. Abortion has been legal for 40 years, and gay marriage appears to be headed in the same direction. Mike Pence, a conservative Congressman, won the governorship in Indiana by avoiding discussion of the social issues. My older, more liberal daughter explained that Obama was more likeable, younger, cool, does Twitter, has a stylish wife and more easily relates to people.
* What seems clear from that daughter's analysis is that not a single substantive, policy issue was mentioned. And yet, she may be on to something. An exit poll asked people who was more "in touch with you," with 53% saying Obama to Romney's 43%. That ability to relate to people may trump substantive issues. If people sense that you understand them, they may feel that they can trust you to do the "right" thing on any policy issue. Some Republican governors are not happy with Romney saying Obama won with "financial gifts" from the government. Gov. Bobby Jindal says the GOP needs to campaign for every vote, and not insult people. Jindal says not to let demographics be destiny. As Gov. Scott Walker says, the Republican message works for everyone.
* The Investor's Business Daily suggests that the GOP "narrow the media gap." They want to see the GOP going on the mainstream media TV talk shows and fighting back. Of course, we need articulate conservatives doing so. I would add that conservatives should increasingly speak on college campuses, while acknowledging that even university presidents may hinder that effort. Fordham's president criticized the College Republicans for inviting Ann Coulter to speak, which ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of the invitation. Nevertheless, the effort must be made. When so many people hear only one viewpoint, it is incumbent upon Republicans to get the message out.
* We on the right should not be too discouraged. Of course, we felt extreme disappointment on the re-election of such a divisive, leftist ideologue. But, as noted by Don Campbell in the 11/14/12 USA Today, the GOP holds 30 of 50 governorships. Republicans also hold 27 of 49 state Houses/Assemblies, and 28 of 49 state Senates. (Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral legislature.) The GOP also has a 40 seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and 45 seats in the U.S. Senate. So let's not take the gas pipe just yet. Can we expect Obama to now work with the Republican House? No, he remains an ideologue. He has said he wants to bring "fundamental change" to this country and that "elections have consequences." He wants to be a significant President, like a Roosevelt or a Reagan. So House Republicans will need to pick and choose their battles carefully.
* More on Benghazi. Now former CIA Director Gen. Petraeus claimed that the CIA "talking points" after the 9/11 attack in Benghazi made it clear that the attack was an act of terrorism, likely linked to Al-Qaeda in Africa. Yet, the "talking points" given to UN Ambassador Susan Rice contained no such statement. We are supposed to believe that that is how she ended up on five Sunday talk shows after the attack blaming it all on an anti-muslim video. Said Obama: Amb. Rice had "nothing to do with Benghazi." Then why was she selected to speak for the Administration on all the Sunday shows. Why not the Sec. of State or Sec. of Defense? Might it be that Rice, a longtime political ally of Obama's, could be counted on to lie for the Administration? Or, did they simply keep her in the dark and allow her to tell a story that had no basis in truth?
* Who are the racists and sexists? After Rice received heaps of criticism from Senators McCain and Graham, Obama said if they "want to go after somebody, they should go after me." Is Obama suggesting that, as a woman at the highest level of government, Rice still needs the protection of a man? And how about Congresswoman Marcia Fudge of Ohio, in line to be next chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Fudge: "It is a shame that anytime something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities." And this by Fudge: "There is clear sexism and racism that goes with these comments" by McCain and Graham. Sorry Congresswoman, if you can't take the heat, don't hold political office. According to Fudge's "logic," only white males may be criticized. THAT is racist and sexist. It is also typical of the left's constant focus on race and sex. As we on the right know, criticism of Obama is likely to result in a charge of racism. It is divisive, and a child-like reaction to legitimate criticism. Let's not forget why they do it though; they believe that the ends (supporting the Obama Administration in this case) justify the means (lying about McCain and Graham being racists and sexists). And they know the mainstream media will never call them on it.
* While the motivation of the Palestinians is clear, things do get more complicated by the involvement of others. Hamas has launched longer range Fajr-5 missiles at Tel Aviv. These missiles are supplied by Iran, proving that Iran is not just a threat if they get nukes. Meanwhile, the new Islamist leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as the now Islamist leader in Turkey, have expressed their solidarity with the Palestinians. Does that mean they would get involved in a ground war with Israel if Israel sends troops into Gaza? Not likely, given their own internal problems, but it cannot be ruled out. And what about the U.S.? Two former military men (Col. Oliver North and 4 star General Jack Keane, former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army) believe that the Islamists, like Hamas, have felt emboldened since the 9/11/12 attack on Benghazi, killing the U.S. Ambassador and others. Obama blamed the attack on an anti-muslim video, and has taken no action against the terrorists. The U.S. has been perceived as being weak, resulting in a significant increase in anti-U.S. and anti-Israel "chatter." Nevertheless, I credit Obama for stating that "Israel has the right to defend itself," not something that every country acknowledges.
* As noted in the last post, Obama seems intent on presiding over a seriously diminished U.S. military force. A weakened U.S. always emboldens the enemies of peace and freedom. The mainstream media never gets it. In a 11/15/12 editorial, the New York Times opined: "The group (Hamas) has mostly adhered to an informal cease-fire with Israel after the war there in the winter of 2008-09." I suppose if you don't count a few thousand rockets and mortars raining down on Israel then they are correct. The Times continues: "Israel has a right to defend itself, but it's hard to see how Wednesday's operation could be the most effective way of advancing its long-term interests." If rockets were falling all around and in the NY Times' offices, would they want the NYPD and Homeland Security to stop it, or would they say fighting back would not be "an effective way of advancing the Times' long-term interests?" What a bunch of morons! One million Israelis have had to live in bomb shelters the last several days. Israel's long-term interests are in destroying the ability of Hamas to attack; not to worry about "new waves of condemnation against Israel in Arab countries," as the Times suggests. As if the Arabs would otherwise support Israel. The Times then concludes with their usual blaming of Israel - suggesting more countries would support Israel if they made peace with Abbas' Palestinian Authority. The dreamers of the left forever eschewing reality.
* GOP Blues. Numerous post-mortems have been written and verbalized about the GOP and what it needs to do since the election. Here are just a few suggestions that have been mentioned by commentators: back off on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, fix the immigration problem, learn to use social media, stop putting up Mr. Nice Guys to run, become more moderate, be better advocates of the free market, and select a more charismatic candidate. Having three young adults in my family, there seemed to be a general consensus that it was more "cool" and "in" to vote Democrat. My conservative son suggested the GOP stop talking about abortion and gay marriage. Abortion has been legal for 40 years, and gay marriage appears to be headed in the same direction. Mike Pence, a conservative Congressman, won the governorship in Indiana by avoiding discussion of the social issues. My older, more liberal daughter explained that Obama was more likeable, younger, cool, does Twitter, has a stylish wife and more easily relates to people.
* What seems clear from that daughter's analysis is that not a single substantive, policy issue was mentioned. And yet, she may be on to something. An exit poll asked people who was more "in touch with you," with 53% saying Obama to Romney's 43%. That ability to relate to people may trump substantive issues. If people sense that you understand them, they may feel that they can trust you to do the "right" thing on any policy issue. Some Republican governors are not happy with Romney saying Obama won with "financial gifts" from the government. Gov. Bobby Jindal says the GOP needs to campaign for every vote, and not insult people. Jindal says not to let demographics be destiny. As Gov. Scott Walker says, the Republican message works for everyone.
* The Investor's Business Daily suggests that the GOP "narrow the media gap." They want to see the GOP going on the mainstream media TV talk shows and fighting back. Of course, we need articulate conservatives doing so. I would add that conservatives should increasingly speak on college campuses, while acknowledging that even university presidents may hinder that effort. Fordham's president criticized the College Republicans for inviting Ann Coulter to speak, which ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of the invitation. Nevertheless, the effort must be made. When so many people hear only one viewpoint, it is incumbent upon Republicans to get the message out.
* We on the right should not be too discouraged. Of course, we felt extreme disappointment on the re-election of such a divisive, leftist ideologue. But, as noted by Don Campbell in the 11/14/12 USA Today, the GOP holds 30 of 50 governorships. Republicans also hold 27 of 49 state Houses/Assemblies, and 28 of 49 state Senates. (Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral legislature.) The GOP also has a 40 seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and 45 seats in the U.S. Senate. So let's not take the gas pipe just yet. Can we expect Obama to now work with the Republican House? No, he remains an ideologue. He has said he wants to bring "fundamental change" to this country and that "elections have consequences." He wants to be a significant President, like a Roosevelt or a Reagan. So House Republicans will need to pick and choose their battles carefully.
* More on Benghazi. Now former CIA Director Gen. Petraeus claimed that the CIA "talking points" after the 9/11 attack in Benghazi made it clear that the attack was an act of terrorism, likely linked to Al-Qaeda in Africa. Yet, the "talking points" given to UN Ambassador Susan Rice contained no such statement. We are supposed to believe that that is how she ended up on five Sunday talk shows after the attack blaming it all on an anti-muslim video. Said Obama: Amb. Rice had "nothing to do with Benghazi." Then why was she selected to speak for the Administration on all the Sunday shows. Why not the Sec. of State or Sec. of Defense? Might it be that Rice, a longtime political ally of Obama's, could be counted on to lie for the Administration? Or, did they simply keep her in the dark and allow her to tell a story that had no basis in truth?
* Who are the racists and sexists? After Rice received heaps of criticism from Senators McCain and Graham, Obama said if they "want to go after somebody, they should go after me." Is Obama suggesting that, as a woman at the highest level of government, Rice still needs the protection of a man? And how about Congresswoman Marcia Fudge of Ohio, in line to be next chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Fudge: "It is a shame that anytime something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities." And this by Fudge: "There is clear sexism and racism that goes with these comments" by McCain and Graham. Sorry Congresswoman, if you can't take the heat, don't hold political office. According to Fudge's "logic," only white males may be criticized. THAT is racist and sexist. It is also typical of the left's constant focus on race and sex. As we on the right know, criticism of Obama is likely to result in a charge of racism. It is divisive, and a child-like reaction to legitimate criticism. Let's not forget why they do it though; they believe that the ends (supporting the Obama Administration in this case) justify the means (lying about McCain and Graham being racists and sexists). And they know the mainstream media will never call them on it.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
The Worst President Ever? Certainly the Most Radical.
* 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.
* 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, 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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)