* We all recall how the Democrats told us that Obama would restore America's standing in the world, allegedly diminished during Bush's presidency. So perhaps one of my liberal readers can name just one country with whom we have better relations under Obama? The latest poll has Obama's overall approval rating down to 38%. In terms of improving the United States' image around the world, only 33% believe Obama has succeeded, with 59% believing he has failed.
* Russia. Remember the 2008 campaign when the Republicans nominated Sarah Palin for the V.P. slot. She was so ignorant, so unready for prime time. Said Palin during the campaign: "After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next." Yep, quite stupid.
* Then we had Romney vs. Obama in the 2012 election. During one of their debates Romney spoke of the "geopolitical" threat from Russia. Obama mocked him and said: "You said Russia. Not Al Qaeda...The 1980's are now calling for their foreign policy back because...the cold war's been over for 20 years." Romney replied: "I'm not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin." Dumb Republicans.
* Obama told Russia he was going to "reset" U.S.-Russian relations. Then Secretary of State Clinton gave her Russian counterpart a "reset" button, meant to symbolize the change in relations. Previously, Obama refused to deploy defensive missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama told Medvedev to tell Vladimir (Putin) that he, Obama, would have "more flexibility" after the (2012) election. In return, Russia gave safe harbor to Edward Snowden, and suffered no consequences. Obama drew a red line on Syrian use of chemical weapons. After Assad ignored the red line, Obama did nothing and allowed Russia to step in and control the situation.
* As noted by Bret Stephens in the 3/4/14 WSJ: "Give the Russian president this much: He pursues Russia's national interests, baldly and expediently, as he sees them. The American president, by contrast, does nothing more than patronizingly lecture other countries about where their respective interests should lie." Which now brings us to another country.
* Israel. Obama recently gave an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of Bloomberg News. Obama was not just patronizing; his comments were a not so subtle threat to Israel if they do not make a peace deal with the Palestinians. (As an aside, the burden is always on Israel to do something, the Palestinians need do nothing.) Said Obama: The United States' ability to "manage the international fallout is going to be limited" without a peace deal..."And that has consequences." So, Obama will cease protecting Israel at the UN and other forums when Israel is threatened with trade embargoes or sanctions?
* Here's a thought - tell the Palestinians they will get no more aid until they stop supporting terrorism; they will not get any part of Jerusalem, which is Israel's capital; and they will not get a "right of return" to Israel proper. Obama's failure to speak these truths has emboldened the Palestinians; just as his failure to act in other instances has emboldened Russia. As this blog has frequently noted, when the U.S. withdraws from the world, others will step in to fill the void. And those others do not perceive the world as naively as does Obama.
Obama claimed that the window of opportunity for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is closing due, in part, to Abbas' age: "We do not know what a successor to Abbas will look like." So if Abbas' successor cannot be trusted to make peace, why should that successor be trusted to keep the peace, if a deal is made now? In the meantime, Obama has not only told Israel not to attack Iran's nuclear facilities; he also told the Israelis to stop their targeted killings of Iranian nuclear scientists. (Although Israel has never acknowledged responsibility for those killings, it is widely assumed that Israel is behind the killings.)
* Obama frequently says he has Israel's back. The Israelis know better. The rest of the world does not believe what Obama says either. And why should they? A U.S. ambassador and three other brave Americans were murdered. Obama blamed it on a movie trailer, but did nothing. Syria crossed the "red line" that Obama drew, and he did nothing. It was actually worse than nothing - he let the Russians step in and take the lead. Obama said Iran would not be allowed to get nukes, but then made a deal with Iran with no teeth. So Iran continues their nuclear program. While I would not expect an armed conflict with Russia over the Crimea, it was as clear to Putin as it was to the rest of the world that Obama is a weak president.
* So if Obama has Israel's back why did he just cut $200 million from joint U.S.-Israeli military and missile defense programs? Last year, why did the U.S. State Department refuse hundreds of visas to members of Israel's security services? And why did he insist that Israel release hundreds of terrorists responsible for the deaths of Israelis, as a sign of good faith to the Palestinians, when the U.S. subsequently complained about Afghanistan releasing terrorists responsible for the killing of American soldiers?
* Come sometime in April we will be at the deadline given by Obama and Kerry for agreement on the Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. Obama wants to be the president to get credit for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Whether that is good for our ally Israel or the Middle East is of no consequence. If Obama comes down hard on Israel when there is no peace deal, will my liberal friends still blame Bush?
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Sunday, February 23, 2014
"We Are Going To Fundamentally Change America"
* So said President Obama when campaigning in 2008. What original ideas upon which our country was founded do you believe in? Let's take a look at just how drastically our country has changed - both before and during Obama's term in office.
* The First Amendment to the Constitution starts as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The Founders wanted no official federal religion. But a number of states did in fact have their own official state religion. Nevertheless, each individual was still free to practice their own religion. But our freedom to practice our religion has come to be interpreted by the Courts to be a freedom from religion. Thus, we see courts regularly barring religious displays from the public square, and prayers at public high school sporting events and graduations, and other public ceremonies. Is this removal of religion from public life a positive or a negative? It is always good to consider what will replace religion in its absence.
* Washington was thinking just that when he said: "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
* What should be the purpose of government? Our Founders understood that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the basis of our laws, came from G-d. Starting with the Progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s, that idea was felt to be discredited. The Founders drafted a Constitution intended to protect the individual and his property from their own government. They understood the nature of man. Therefore, they provided for a federal government of limited, enumerated powers. Even so, they provided for a system of checks and balances to assure that no single branch, especially the executive, should become too powerful. And they gave us the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to make it clear that the federal government was not the repository upon which our rights rested.
* But the Progressives felt differently. One progressive put it this way: "...the most fundamental and indispensable mark of statehood (was) the original, absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual subject, and all associations of subjects." (Quote by John Burgess.) This belief in the power of the state manifested itself in the idea that a few select leaders, along with a burgeoning bureaucracy, could best run society in an increasingly complex world. While history is filled with examples of the state being elevated over the individual, with often the most horrific consequences, today's left still accepts the premise. That is why Obama (and the Occupy Wall Street movement) are able to demonize the millionaires and billionaires. It is why Obama is able to say that "if you've got a business you didn't build that, somebody else (he meant the government) made that happen." Obama has also said that at a certain point you have made enough money. That means the government gets to decide just how much money you can earn and keep; another example of the primacy of the state over the individual.
* This blog has previously addressed the idea that the concept of property rights has drastically changed from the days of our founders. The taking of private property for public use (as discussed in the Fifth Amendment) was always understood to mean an actual public use - such as for a public school or highway. But in 2005, the US Supreme Court allowed the taking of private property for a commercial use - because it would generate more tax dollars for the City of New London. (Kelo vs. City of New London, Connecticut, et. al.) That decision was a reflection of the Court valuing the primacy of the state over the individual.
* An earlier president, Teddy Roosevelt, was a leading proponent of the Progressive Movement. He is well known for his "trust-busting" days. Said Roosevelt: "We demand that big business give people a square deal..." But some of his other beliefs are so far removed from today's liberal thinking that it behooves us to take a look at just how much liberal thinking has changed from the Progressive Era.
* The following are quotes from Roosevelt. "The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight." "If a man stumbles, it is a good thing to help him to his feet. Every one of us needs a helping hand now and then. But if a man lies down, it is a waste of time to try to carry him; and it is a very bad thing for every one if we make men feel that the same reward will come to those who shirk their work and to those who do it." Compare that with today's welfare society.
* Does character make the man? When voting for president, some vote party lines. Others feel the office is too important to ignore character issues. My friends on the left frequently say how smart our current President is. Is that enough? Said Roosevelt: "And character is far more important than intellect in making a man a good citizen or successful at his calling - meaning by character not only such qualities as honesty and truthfulness, but courage, perseverance, and self-reliance." Sadly, no amount of lying by our current president, nor other demonstrations of bad character, would deter my liberal friends from voting for Obama again if he could run for a third term.
* In these few short paragraphs we took a look at founding principles and how the progressive movement challenged those principles and how today's left has completely abandoned our founding principles. If the Constitution is outdated and therefore not to be followed, or is seen as a "living breathing document," then we have no Constitution. We have whatever our leaders tell us we have. Thus, we can have a president writing the laws (as Obama regularly does with the ACA), even though Congress is tasked with law making. We then have a President who does not see his job as "faithfully executing" the laws passed by Congress. My friends on the left have abandoned principle in favor of their causes. What, then, are the limits of government power? If our liberty comes from the state, and is no longer seen as coming from G-d, then what liberty do we really have?
* A friend and reader of this blog believes that today's liberals need to watch the movie "Dr. Zhivago." After the good doctor goes off to tend to soldiers during the Russian Revolution, he comes back to his rather spacious home to find thirteen other families residing in his home. The "people" decided no one family should have such a large home. There is, of course, more to the movie; and a little history lesson now and then can be quite illuminating.
* The First Amendment to the Constitution starts as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The Founders wanted no official federal religion. But a number of states did in fact have their own official state religion. Nevertheless, each individual was still free to practice their own religion. But our freedom to practice our religion has come to be interpreted by the Courts to be a freedom from religion. Thus, we see courts regularly barring religious displays from the public square, and prayers at public high school sporting events and graduations, and other public ceremonies. Is this removal of religion from public life a positive or a negative? It is always good to consider what will replace religion in its absence.
* Washington was thinking just that when he said: "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
* What should be the purpose of government? Our Founders understood that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the basis of our laws, came from G-d. Starting with the Progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s, that idea was felt to be discredited. The Founders drafted a Constitution intended to protect the individual and his property from their own government. They understood the nature of man. Therefore, they provided for a federal government of limited, enumerated powers. Even so, they provided for a system of checks and balances to assure that no single branch, especially the executive, should become too powerful. And they gave us the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to make it clear that the federal government was not the repository upon which our rights rested.
* But the Progressives felt differently. One progressive put it this way: "...the most fundamental and indispensable mark of statehood (was) the original, absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual subject, and all associations of subjects." (Quote by John Burgess.) This belief in the power of the state manifested itself in the idea that a few select leaders, along with a burgeoning bureaucracy, could best run society in an increasingly complex world. While history is filled with examples of the state being elevated over the individual, with often the most horrific consequences, today's left still accepts the premise. That is why Obama (and the Occupy Wall Street movement) are able to demonize the millionaires and billionaires. It is why Obama is able to say that "if you've got a business you didn't build that, somebody else (he meant the government) made that happen." Obama has also said that at a certain point you have made enough money. That means the government gets to decide just how much money you can earn and keep; another example of the primacy of the state over the individual.
* This blog has previously addressed the idea that the concept of property rights has drastically changed from the days of our founders. The taking of private property for public use (as discussed in the Fifth Amendment) was always understood to mean an actual public use - such as for a public school or highway. But in 2005, the US Supreme Court allowed the taking of private property for a commercial use - because it would generate more tax dollars for the City of New London. (Kelo vs. City of New London, Connecticut, et. al.) That decision was a reflection of the Court valuing the primacy of the state over the individual.
* An earlier president, Teddy Roosevelt, was a leading proponent of the Progressive Movement. He is well known for his "trust-busting" days. Said Roosevelt: "We demand that big business give people a square deal..." But some of his other beliefs are so far removed from today's liberal thinking that it behooves us to take a look at just how much liberal thinking has changed from the Progressive Era.
* The following are quotes from Roosevelt. "The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight." "If a man stumbles, it is a good thing to help him to his feet. Every one of us needs a helping hand now and then. But if a man lies down, it is a waste of time to try to carry him; and it is a very bad thing for every one if we make men feel that the same reward will come to those who shirk their work and to those who do it." Compare that with today's welfare society.
* Does character make the man? When voting for president, some vote party lines. Others feel the office is too important to ignore character issues. My friends on the left frequently say how smart our current President is. Is that enough? Said Roosevelt: "And character is far more important than intellect in making a man a good citizen or successful at his calling - meaning by character not only such qualities as honesty and truthfulness, but courage, perseverance, and self-reliance." Sadly, no amount of lying by our current president, nor other demonstrations of bad character, would deter my liberal friends from voting for Obama again if he could run for a third term.
* In these few short paragraphs we took a look at founding principles and how the progressive movement challenged those principles and how today's left has completely abandoned our founding principles. If the Constitution is outdated and therefore not to be followed, or is seen as a "living breathing document," then we have no Constitution. We have whatever our leaders tell us we have. Thus, we can have a president writing the laws (as Obama regularly does with the ACA), even though Congress is tasked with law making. We then have a President who does not see his job as "faithfully executing" the laws passed by Congress. My friends on the left have abandoned principle in favor of their causes. What, then, are the limits of government power? If our liberty comes from the state, and is no longer seen as coming from G-d, then what liberty do we really have?
* A friend and reader of this blog believes that today's liberals need to watch the movie "Dr. Zhivago." After the good doctor goes off to tend to soldiers during the Russian Revolution, he comes back to his rather spacious home to find thirteen other families residing in his home. The "people" decided no one family should have such a large home. There is, of course, more to the movie; and a little history lesson now and then can be quite illuminating.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
The Intellectual Dishonesty of the Left
* No, I am not referring to all the obvious lies. Lies such as: "If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance. Period. No one will take it away from you." Or: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period." Or even that Obamacare will save the average American $2500. per year in insurance premiums. The $2500. number may be correct - but in the opposite direction. No, I want to discuss how those on the left never understand that the actions that they take have real world, often negative, consequences. When challenged on it...well, there's the blog.
* When the Congressional Budget Office just came out with their estimate of the Affordable Care Act costing the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs lost (based upon a reduction in work hours) in the next decade, it was hard for the Democrats to ignore. Again, I am not referring to the obvious lie of the Dems who claimed that 4 million new jobs would be created. We know that the Dems told one lie after the next to get the ACA passed. After all, the ends justify the means; and truth as an ultimate end is not particularly valued.
* How were the Dems to explain such awful job numbers - 6 1/2 million less jobs than they projected. How to deal with the head of the CBO stating that the ACA's disincentives for work are "the central factor in slowing economic growth...later in this decade and beyond." (Quote from the 2/6/14 Investor's Business Daily.) No fear - never underestimate the intellectual dishonesty of the left.
* Jason Furman is the chief economist for the White House. He explained that it was not the ACA causing the reduction in work hours and jobs. After all, the law does not force people to work less. No, it was "a choice on the part of workers." You see, workers will make their own rational decision as to whether to cut their hours (and still qualify for the ACA subsidy), or drop out of the labor market altogether (no longer needing an employer to provide health insurance). Such decisions, per Furman, "might be a better choice and a better option than what they had before." Don't bother asking him about people who want MORE hours to work so they can earn more to support their family and get ahead.
* What if the government passed a law saying that everyone would be paid $3000. per month by the Feds - whether or not you worked; and, if you did work, you could not earn more than the same $3000. When tens of millions of people stopped working it would not be because the law forced them to stop working. No, it would just be people making their own rational decisions about what option is best for them. See? No real world negative consequences.
* Think we should extend unemployment benefits for another three months (or ad infinitum)? Why? Many of those people made their own rational decision to give up on looking for work, did they not? Almost every business owner will tell you that Obama's constant threats to raise taxes, along with all the increasing regulations (15,000 to 20,000 pages from Obamacare alone) have discouraged them from expanding their businesses and increasing hiring. So people gave up looking. And some decided that it was not worth the effort. No one forced them to stop working.
* I have asserted for years that the left never understands that their actions and laws have negative consequences. When forced to face those consequences they engage in intellectual dishonesty. After all, if you have no problem with outright lies, what is the problem with some disingenuousness? So when California raises taxes and increases regulations causing businesses and people to move to Texas (no income tax and low regulations) the reaction was: "Who needs them here anyway?" The Dems in California would never blame themselves or their policies for the exodus of people. It was not the unfriendly business climate responsible for lost jobs. No one forced those people to move. It was just people deciding that they did not want to live in California anymore.
* When Democrat controlled cities declared themselves to be "sanctuary" cities for illegal aliens, and states awarded welfare benefits and free medical care at hospital ERs, and even gave driver's licenses to illegals, none of that forced them to move here. They were just leaving a poor country. Obviously, that's true, but who created the climate to make the choice of coming here both attractive and available? Not the Dems, because their policies do not have negative consequences.
* When the Dems raise income taxes and LESS money flows into the Treasury, it is because of those evil millionaires and billionaires. But why? They just make rational decisions to lower their tax liability by taking advantage of every legal deduction and tax-exempt investment that they can. When Dems say every student gets a free lunch at school, guess what? Parents stop giving their kids lunches. No one forces them to stop sending their kids to school without a lunch. It's not the fault of the policy.
* It was just two weeks ago that Obama gave his state of the union address. He spoke about everyone having a shot, an opportunity to succeed. And the best path to that success, to that American Dream? A good job. Said Obama: "The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by - let alone get ahead." So, Mr. President, how does a reduction in hours equivalent to 2.5 million jobs help those struggling to get by. When your law penalizes employers with more than 50 employees, or who have employees working more than 30 hours per week, what rational decisions do you expect those employers to make? Want to raise the minimum wage to make up for those lost hours? What rational decisions will employers make about coping with that burden?
* The most intellectually dishonest comment about the negative effects on jobs from the ACA came, not surprisingly, from the White House: "Individuals will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods." No they won't! The choice will be made for them. They will not be able to get that full time job. They will continue to be lucky to get any job. If you buy into the 6.6% unemployment rate, let me put that in perspective for you. They do not count the long term unemployed. The actual labor participation rate is the lowest it has been since 1978. But maybe we do have a new breed of Americans - ones that choose not to work. Or maybe Obama's policies are in fact creating the lowest labor participation rate in over 35 years.
* If you actually buy into the liberal argument about giving people "choices," ask yourself this question. Is society healthier when it creates incentives for businesses to grow and hire people, or when it creates disincentives for work?
* When the Congressional Budget Office just came out with their estimate of the Affordable Care Act costing the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs lost (based upon a reduction in work hours) in the next decade, it was hard for the Democrats to ignore. Again, I am not referring to the obvious lie of the Dems who claimed that 4 million new jobs would be created. We know that the Dems told one lie after the next to get the ACA passed. After all, the ends justify the means; and truth as an ultimate end is not particularly valued.
* How were the Dems to explain such awful job numbers - 6 1/2 million less jobs than they projected. How to deal with the head of the CBO stating that the ACA's disincentives for work are "the central factor in slowing economic growth...later in this decade and beyond." (Quote from the 2/6/14 Investor's Business Daily.) No fear - never underestimate the intellectual dishonesty of the left.
* Jason Furman is the chief economist for the White House. He explained that it was not the ACA causing the reduction in work hours and jobs. After all, the law does not force people to work less. No, it was "a choice on the part of workers." You see, workers will make their own rational decision as to whether to cut their hours (and still qualify for the ACA subsidy), or drop out of the labor market altogether (no longer needing an employer to provide health insurance). Such decisions, per Furman, "might be a better choice and a better option than what they had before." Don't bother asking him about people who want MORE hours to work so they can earn more to support their family and get ahead.
* What if the government passed a law saying that everyone would be paid $3000. per month by the Feds - whether or not you worked; and, if you did work, you could not earn more than the same $3000. When tens of millions of people stopped working it would not be because the law forced them to stop working. No, it would just be people making their own rational decisions about what option is best for them. See? No real world negative consequences.
* Think we should extend unemployment benefits for another three months (or ad infinitum)? Why? Many of those people made their own rational decision to give up on looking for work, did they not? Almost every business owner will tell you that Obama's constant threats to raise taxes, along with all the increasing regulations (15,000 to 20,000 pages from Obamacare alone) have discouraged them from expanding their businesses and increasing hiring. So people gave up looking. And some decided that it was not worth the effort. No one forced them to stop working.
* I have asserted for years that the left never understands that their actions and laws have negative consequences. When forced to face those consequences they engage in intellectual dishonesty. After all, if you have no problem with outright lies, what is the problem with some disingenuousness? So when California raises taxes and increases regulations causing businesses and people to move to Texas (no income tax and low regulations) the reaction was: "Who needs them here anyway?" The Dems in California would never blame themselves or their policies for the exodus of people. It was not the unfriendly business climate responsible for lost jobs. No one forced those people to move. It was just people deciding that they did not want to live in California anymore.
* When Democrat controlled cities declared themselves to be "sanctuary" cities for illegal aliens, and states awarded welfare benefits and free medical care at hospital ERs, and even gave driver's licenses to illegals, none of that forced them to move here. They were just leaving a poor country. Obviously, that's true, but who created the climate to make the choice of coming here both attractive and available? Not the Dems, because their policies do not have negative consequences.
* When the Dems raise income taxes and LESS money flows into the Treasury, it is because of those evil millionaires and billionaires. But why? They just make rational decisions to lower their tax liability by taking advantage of every legal deduction and tax-exempt investment that they can. When Dems say every student gets a free lunch at school, guess what? Parents stop giving their kids lunches. No one forces them to stop sending their kids to school without a lunch. It's not the fault of the policy.
* It was just two weeks ago that Obama gave his state of the union address. He spoke about everyone having a shot, an opportunity to succeed. And the best path to that success, to that American Dream? A good job. Said Obama: "The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by - let alone get ahead." So, Mr. President, how does a reduction in hours equivalent to 2.5 million jobs help those struggling to get by. When your law penalizes employers with more than 50 employees, or who have employees working more than 30 hours per week, what rational decisions do you expect those employers to make? Want to raise the minimum wage to make up for those lost hours? What rational decisions will employers make about coping with that burden?
* The most intellectually dishonest comment about the negative effects on jobs from the ACA came, not surprisingly, from the White House: "Individuals will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods." No they won't! The choice will be made for them. They will not be able to get that full time job. They will continue to be lucky to get any job. If you buy into the 6.6% unemployment rate, let me put that in perspective for you. They do not count the long term unemployed. The actual labor participation rate is the lowest it has been since 1978. But maybe we do have a new breed of Americans - ones that choose not to work. Or maybe Obama's policies are in fact creating the lowest labor participation rate in over 35 years.
* If you actually buy into the liberal argument about giving people "choices," ask yourself this question. Is society healthier when it creates incentives for businesses to grow and hire people, or when it creates disincentives for work?
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Liberals' Views of Conservatives
* The Democrat Governor of New York had some choice words for conservatives. Speaking of a split between moderate and conservative Republicans, Andrew Cuomo expressed his disdain for conservatives. "Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that's who they are and they're the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the State of New York because that's not who New Yorkers are." We need to very clear about the significance of these comments.
* First, these are not isolated comments. See my earlier blog post of 8/2/12 entitled "Why I Am No Longer A Democrat." That post discusses how the Democrat mayors of four big cities (Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and D.C.) said that Chick-fil-A was not welcome in their cities because the owner believed in the traditional definition of marriage. So you need to understand that mainstream liberals have no respect for, nor tolerance of, opposing political beliefs.
* Second, you see how what might be considered traditional American values are now labeled as being "extreme." If you oppose the killing of babies, you are extreme. Yet, public support for abortion on demand and at all stages of pregnancy, is on the decline. If you support the Second Amendment, you are extreme. If you oppose gay marriage, and believe in the thousands of years old definition of marriage, you are extreme. There is absolutely no respect for your viewpoints - if they are contrary to leftist ideology.
* Third, these leftists would be the first to remind everyone of the attack on freedom of speech and freedom of belief during the McCarthy era. When the House Un-American Activities Committee was investigating Communists in the 1950s, the question was: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" These same people, however, are the first to ask: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a conservative?" This is dangerous ground upon which these leftists tread; and I can only imagine what they would be willing to do to conservatives if they had such power. At the very least, it appears they would be perfectly willing to limit where conservatives could live and conduct business. If you are a democrat and this does not frighten you, then you need to ask yourself when you gave up on freedom in favor of tyranny.
* Maria Conchita Alonso is an actress and was scheduled to star in a production of "The Vagina Monologues." The production was being put on by a San Francisco arts group. However, Ms. Alonso committed a horrible offense against the left; she appeared in an ad on behalf of Tim Donnelly, a member of the California State Assembly. Oh, and he is a Tea Party member. Said the producer: "We really can't have her in the show, unfortunately." What the producer meant was: 'We really can't tolerate anybody with opinions that are contrary to ours.' So it's no surprise that conservatives in Hollywood often stay "in the closet."
* Melissa Harris-Perry has her own show on MSNBC. For what soon became an obvious reason, she showed a family picture of the Romneys. Sitting on Mitt's lap was his grandchild, who is black. One of Ms. Harris-Perry's guests started singing, "One of these things is not like the other..." Another guest compared the photo to the "diversity of the Republican Party," because there was just "one black person." It is difficult to imagine a more mean-spirited segment. Black children are in desperate need of adoption. But no credit went to the Romneys. When the left can only see race at all times and in all circumstances, they are blinded to the goodness and humanity that should have been the focus of the conversation.
* New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow recently had a column entitled "Indoctrinating Religious Warriors." In it, he cited a Pew Research poll that made the startling comment that most "staunch conservatives" "agree with the Tea Party, and even more very strongly disapprove of Barack Obama's job performance." Most such "staunch conservatives" were also regular viewers of Fox News. (I am just shocked by that!) I have not conducted a poll on this, but I would be willing to bet that most "staunch leftists" agree with the Occupy Wall Street movement, very strongly approve of Barack Obama's job performance, and watch MSNBC. (Okay, maybe not the last one; not that many people watch MSNBC.) Mr. Blow concludes that Republicans rile up the rank-and-file "to divert their attention from areas of common sense and the common good. After all, infidels are deserving of your enmity, not your empathy." Perhaps Mr. Blow could read the above and tell me how democrats show their empathy to those with whom they disagree and perceive to be "infidels."
* Paul Krugman, another leftist columnist for the New York Times, recently had a column about income inequality. He opined that "American capitalism as currently constituted is undermining the foundations of middle-class society..." Lots of assumptions there. Assuming the middle-class is dying, can this award-winning economist think of no other explanations? What about the globalization of the economy, and treaties like NAFTA, that sent American jobs south and overseas? What about high taxes, excessive regulation and the burdens of Obamacare? About 400 businesses have announced their intentions on cutting employees' hours in order to avoid the mandate/penalty of Obamacare. Think that helps with income inequality?
* During Obama's time in office income inequality has worsened. Median Income is down from $55,958.00 to $52,163. The number in poverty has increased from 46.5 million to 67 million. And the participation in the labor force has dwindled to 62.8% from 65.7%. (Data from Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.)
* One could learn a lot from looking at how people vote - with their feet. The top three states for net interstate migration for the 12 month period ending 7/1/13 were Texas (up 113,528), Florida (up 91,484), and North Carolina (up 37,240). The big losers are what may be described as the Big Three of Liberal Government: California (down 49,259), Illinois (down 67,313), and New York (down 104,470). (Data from the 1/24/14 USA Today.) The IBD reported that the US lost 1.8 million jobs from 9/07 to 11/13. On the other hand, Texas gained 1.1 million jobs during that same time frame. People went to Texas for jobs. So why did Texas succeed in growing jobs at a time when the country was losing jobs? Lower taxes and less regulation.
Again, I would bet that most people care more about having a job for themselves, than care about incomes at the top rising. The evidence is right there - people left the high tax, high regulation, high unemployment liberal states for jobs. Something that democrats are not particularly good at growing. However, democrats remain quite talented at demonizing conservatives.
* First, these are not isolated comments. See my earlier blog post of 8/2/12 entitled "Why I Am No Longer A Democrat." That post discusses how the Democrat mayors of four big cities (Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and D.C.) said that Chick-fil-A was not welcome in their cities because the owner believed in the traditional definition of marriage. So you need to understand that mainstream liberals have no respect for, nor tolerance of, opposing political beliefs.
* Second, you see how what might be considered traditional American values are now labeled as being "extreme." If you oppose the killing of babies, you are extreme. Yet, public support for abortion on demand and at all stages of pregnancy, is on the decline. If you support the Second Amendment, you are extreme. If you oppose gay marriage, and believe in the thousands of years old definition of marriage, you are extreme. There is absolutely no respect for your viewpoints - if they are contrary to leftist ideology.
* Third, these leftists would be the first to remind everyone of the attack on freedom of speech and freedom of belief during the McCarthy era. When the House Un-American Activities Committee was investigating Communists in the 1950s, the question was: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" These same people, however, are the first to ask: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a conservative?" This is dangerous ground upon which these leftists tread; and I can only imagine what they would be willing to do to conservatives if they had such power. At the very least, it appears they would be perfectly willing to limit where conservatives could live and conduct business. If you are a democrat and this does not frighten you, then you need to ask yourself when you gave up on freedom in favor of tyranny.
* Maria Conchita Alonso is an actress and was scheduled to star in a production of "The Vagina Monologues." The production was being put on by a San Francisco arts group. However, Ms. Alonso committed a horrible offense against the left; she appeared in an ad on behalf of Tim Donnelly, a member of the California State Assembly. Oh, and he is a Tea Party member. Said the producer: "We really can't have her in the show, unfortunately." What the producer meant was: 'We really can't tolerate anybody with opinions that are contrary to ours.' So it's no surprise that conservatives in Hollywood often stay "in the closet."
* Melissa Harris-Perry has her own show on MSNBC. For what soon became an obvious reason, she showed a family picture of the Romneys. Sitting on Mitt's lap was his grandchild, who is black. One of Ms. Harris-Perry's guests started singing, "One of these things is not like the other..." Another guest compared the photo to the "diversity of the Republican Party," because there was just "one black person." It is difficult to imagine a more mean-spirited segment. Black children are in desperate need of adoption. But no credit went to the Romneys. When the left can only see race at all times and in all circumstances, they are blinded to the goodness and humanity that should have been the focus of the conversation.
* New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow recently had a column entitled "Indoctrinating Religious Warriors." In it, he cited a Pew Research poll that made the startling comment that most "staunch conservatives" "agree with the Tea Party, and even more very strongly disapprove of Barack Obama's job performance." Most such "staunch conservatives" were also regular viewers of Fox News. (I am just shocked by that!) I have not conducted a poll on this, but I would be willing to bet that most "staunch leftists" agree with the Occupy Wall Street movement, very strongly approve of Barack Obama's job performance, and watch MSNBC. (Okay, maybe not the last one; not that many people watch MSNBC.) Mr. Blow concludes that Republicans rile up the rank-and-file "to divert their attention from areas of common sense and the common good. After all, infidels are deserving of your enmity, not your empathy." Perhaps Mr. Blow could read the above and tell me how democrats show their empathy to those with whom they disagree and perceive to be "infidels."
* Paul Krugman, another leftist columnist for the New York Times, recently had a column about income inequality. He opined that "American capitalism as currently constituted is undermining the foundations of middle-class society..." Lots of assumptions there. Assuming the middle-class is dying, can this award-winning economist think of no other explanations? What about the globalization of the economy, and treaties like NAFTA, that sent American jobs south and overseas? What about high taxes, excessive regulation and the burdens of Obamacare? About 400 businesses have announced their intentions on cutting employees' hours in order to avoid the mandate/penalty of Obamacare. Think that helps with income inequality?
* During Obama's time in office income inequality has worsened. Median Income is down from $55,958.00 to $52,163. The number in poverty has increased from 46.5 million to 67 million. And the participation in the labor force has dwindled to 62.8% from 65.7%. (Data from Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.)
* One could learn a lot from looking at how people vote - with their feet. The top three states for net interstate migration for the 12 month period ending 7/1/13 were Texas (up 113,528), Florida (up 91,484), and North Carolina (up 37,240). The big losers are what may be described as the Big Three of Liberal Government: California (down 49,259), Illinois (down 67,313), and New York (down 104,470). (Data from the 1/24/14 USA Today.) The IBD reported that the US lost 1.8 million jobs from 9/07 to 11/13. On the other hand, Texas gained 1.1 million jobs during that same time frame. People went to Texas for jobs. So why did Texas succeed in growing jobs at a time when the country was losing jobs? Lower taxes and less regulation.
Again, I would bet that most people care more about having a job for themselves, than care about incomes at the top rising. The evidence is right there - people left the high tax, high regulation, high unemployment liberal states for jobs. Something that democrats are not particularly good at growing. However, democrats remain quite talented at demonizing conservatives.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Say What? Comments By, And About, Liberals
* In light of the recent record cold temperatures around much of the U.S., as a result of the "polar vortex," the Obama Administration was anxious to let everyone know that such temps did not mean the end of global warming. Said John Holdren, Obama's science adviser: "...a growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues." Did he go to school? I see no point in debating the issue of "global warming" with believers. After all, if it gets too hot - global warming is the culprit. Too cold? Global warming. Too much rain? Global warming. No rain? Global warming. Severe storms? Global warming. No severe storms? Global warming. So, what's to debate?
* The newly elected socialist Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, is determined to bring "income equality" to New York. But wealthy people are not the only targets he's going after. No, he is going to bring an end to that evil institution of...the horse drawn carriage! It is a joy to ride them through Central Park. Well, it was. Says de Blasio: "We are going to get rid of the horse drawn carriages. Period. They are not humane, they are not appropriate for the year 2014. It's over. So, just watch us do it." Not appropriate? Why? Who knows? Maybe the cynics are right; maybe it's all about rewarding a big donor by giving him the opportunity to purchase the land upon which the no longer needed horse stables sit. Either way, it will bring an end to a wonderful tradition.
* We know that Obama will only speak on local criminal matters if he perceives there is a black victim. Well, the Attorney General just found some black victims that might not be apparent to the rest of us. Said Holder: "Schools...violate federal law when they evenhandedly implement facially neutral policies and practices that, although not adopted with the intent to discriminate, nonetheless have an unjustified effect of discriminating against students on the basis of race." Some of the policies referred to include "...being late to class, being in possession of a cellular phone, being found insubordinate, acting out, or not wearing the proper school uniform." Any reader of this blog knows that I am not in favor of "zero tolerance" policies. But what's the message here? That black students should be excused from their misconduct because they are black? That ought to prepare them well for the real world.
* Do liberal "feel good" policies ever work? Let's take a look at some of the cities that have already applied Holder's approach. Baltimore: "...as student suspensions have plunged, assaults on school staffers have more than doubled." Portland: "Even more black kids are acting out." Oakland: "There have been serious threats against teachers." One teacher, after ending up in the ER following an assault by a black student, was advised by the vice principal not to press charges; it is too hard for young blacks to overcome a criminal record. So, rather than encourage black youth to actually behave properly, Holder praised the Oakland and Baltimore approach, and wants to prosecute schools if they discipline black students. (Information from the 1/10/14 Investor's Business Daily.) Don't ask me why liberals consistently seek to appease those engaged in bad behavior. But here is yet another example of such behavior.
* Obama and Kerry are determined to create a state that never existed alongside Israel - the state of Palestine. It matters not that Abbas (whose term as President of the PA expired long ago, with no elections since) says he will not ever recognize Israel as the Jewish State. He says he will not allow a single Jew to reside in his new state. Then there's the little matter of terrorism and honoring those who carry out terrorist attacks and kill innocents. Doesn't matter. Obama and Kerry said Israel had to release Arab (Palestinian) terrorists from their prisons as a sign of "good faith." Of course, the press never inquires why it shows "good faith" to release convicted terrorists and criminals. It is simply the same approach of rewarding bad behavior that liberals favor.
* I have long maintained that Obama and Kerry maybe have 1/10 of the knowledge of the Middle East that I have. Does not matter. They have a goal. But here is what one senior Israeli official had to say about Kerry: "Kerry visits here a lot, but he does not display any understanding of what is happening here. The U.S. plans are superficial and not serious. There is no connection between what is said in public about the progress of the negotiations and what is actually happening. It seems that Kerry is just not in touch with reality. He is not an expert, to say the least, on the roots of the conflict, he does not know how to create real solutions and does not even demonstrate proficiency in reading maps that are presented to him." (From the 1/9/14 Jerusalem Post on line.)
* Michael Hiltzik is a columnist for the LA Times. In his 12/22/13 column he said that "Obama is right to put (a) spotlight on economic inequality." Says Hiltzik: "Virtually every economic problem we have today - slow growth, high unemployment, low social mobility among the underclass - is both a manifestation and a cause of economic inequality." It's easy being a liberal. Like Obama's science adviser, one theory explains everything. In this case, Hiltzik happens to opt for Marxist theory - proven wrong time and again. It could not possibly be that the added taxes, regulations and the burdens of Obamacare have had a negative impact on job growth. Hiltzik favorably cites Berkeley economist, J. Bradford Delong.
* Said Delong: "Tell me if you can do so with a straight face, that any aspect of the large upward leap in inequality we have experienced has paid any benefits at all in terms of true...human material welfare-enhancing economic growth." Another socialist/Marxist viewpoint. The money earned by the wealthy should not belong to them. It should belong to the government to redistribute as it sees fit. See how easily notions of individual freedom and liberty can be lost? As Mayor de Blasio has said: "I believe in the heavy hand of government." Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, who said: "Are you entitled to the fruits of your own labor or does government have some presumptive right to spend and spend and spend?"
* As the IBD notes in a 1/7/14 editorial, progressivism "is a system of compulsion and threats." You see, a handful of government bureaucrats and elected officials are so much smarter than the other 300 million of us, that they need to dictate our every decision, and how we should live. However, as Reagan also said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
* Reagan also said: "As government expands, liberty contracts." I have yet to see any liberal Democrat express concern about the contraction of liberty under this president, and under the "progressive" agenda.
* The newly elected socialist Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, is determined to bring "income equality" to New York. But wealthy people are not the only targets he's going after. No, he is going to bring an end to that evil institution of...the horse drawn carriage! It is a joy to ride them through Central Park. Well, it was. Says de Blasio: "We are going to get rid of the horse drawn carriages. Period. They are not humane, they are not appropriate for the year 2014. It's over. So, just watch us do it." Not appropriate? Why? Who knows? Maybe the cynics are right; maybe it's all about rewarding a big donor by giving him the opportunity to purchase the land upon which the no longer needed horse stables sit. Either way, it will bring an end to a wonderful tradition.
* We know that Obama will only speak on local criminal matters if he perceives there is a black victim. Well, the Attorney General just found some black victims that might not be apparent to the rest of us. Said Holder: "Schools...violate federal law when they evenhandedly implement facially neutral policies and practices that, although not adopted with the intent to discriminate, nonetheless have an unjustified effect of discriminating against students on the basis of race." Some of the policies referred to include "...being late to class, being in possession of a cellular phone, being found insubordinate, acting out, or not wearing the proper school uniform." Any reader of this blog knows that I am not in favor of "zero tolerance" policies. But what's the message here? That black students should be excused from their misconduct because they are black? That ought to prepare them well for the real world.
* Do liberal "feel good" policies ever work? Let's take a look at some of the cities that have already applied Holder's approach. Baltimore: "...as student suspensions have plunged, assaults on school staffers have more than doubled." Portland: "Even more black kids are acting out." Oakland: "There have been serious threats against teachers." One teacher, after ending up in the ER following an assault by a black student, was advised by the vice principal not to press charges; it is too hard for young blacks to overcome a criminal record. So, rather than encourage black youth to actually behave properly, Holder praised the Oakland and Baltimore approach, and wants to prosecute schools if they discipline black students. (Information from the 1/10/14 Investor's Business Daily.) Don't ask me why liberals consistently seek to appease those engaged in bad behavior. But here is yet another example of such behavior.
* Obama and Kerry are determined to create a state that never existed alongside Israel - the state of Palestine. It matters not that Abbas (whose term as President of the PA expired long ago, with no elections since) says he will not ever recognize Israel as the Jewish State. He says he will not allow a single Jew to reside in his new state. Then there's the little matter of terrorism and honoring those who carry out terrorist attacks and kill innocents. Doesn't matter. Obama and Kerry said Israel had to release Arab (Palestinian) terrorists from their prisons as a sign of "good faith." Of course, the press never inquires why it shows "good faith" to release convicted terrorists and criminals. It is simply the same approach of rewarding bad behavior that liberals favor.
* I have long maintained that Obama and Kerry maybe have 1/10 of the knowledge of the Middle East that I have. Does not matter. They have a goal. But here is what one senior Israeli official had to say about Kerry: "Kerry visits here a lot, but he does not display any understanding of what is happening here. The U.S. plans are superficial and not serious. There is no connection between what is said in public about the progress of the negotiations and what is actually happening. It seems that Kerry is just not in touch with reality. He is not an expert, to say the least, on the roots of the conflict, he does not know how to create real solutions and does not even demonstrate proficiency in reading maps that are presented to him." (From the 1/9/14 Jerusalem Post on line.)
* Michael Hiltzik is a columnist for the LA Times. In his 12/22/13 column he said that "Obama is right to put (a) spotlight on economic inequality." Says Hiltzik: "Virtually every economic problem we have today - slow growth, high unemployment, low social mobility among the underclass - is both a manifestation and a cause of economic inequality." It's easy being a liberal. Like Obama's science adviser, one theory explains everything. In this case, Hiltzik happens to opt for Marxist theory - proven wrong time and again. It could not possibly be that the added taxes, regulations and the burdens of Obamacare have had a negative impact on job growth. Hiltzik favorably cites Berkeley economist, J. Bradford Delong.
* Said Delong: "Tell me if you can do so with a straight face, that any aspect of the large upward leap in inequality we have experienced has paid any benefits at all in terms of true...human material welfare-enhancing economic growth." Another socialist/Marxist viewpoint. The money earned by the wealthy should not belong to them. It should belong to the government to redistribute as it sees fit. See how easily notions of individual freedom and liberty can be lost? As Mayor de Blasio has said: "I believe in the heavy hand of government." Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, who said: "Are you entitled to the fruits of your own labor or does government have some presumptive right to spend and spend and spend?"
* As the IBD notes in a 1/7/14 editorial, progressivism "is a system of compulsion and threats." You see, a handful of government bureaucrats and elected officials are so much smarter than the other 300 million of us, that they need to dictate our every decision, and how we should live. However, as Reagan also said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
* Reagan also said: "As government expands, liberty contracts." I have yet to see any liberal Democrat express concern about the contraction of liberty under this president, and under the "progressive" agenda.
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
The Meaning of Christmas
* As a Jew, I certainly do not mean to be presumptuous about this topic. However, an editorial in today's New York Times has prompted this post. The editorial is rather short, and is entitled "This Day of Good Cheer."
* Said the editorial writers of the Times: "Christmas is, for many of us, our only glimpse of what tradition really means. Our lives are, by and large, not the least bit traditional. If it feels sometimes as though Christmas is another country, that's because it is." I have absolutely no idea what that last sentence even means. Is the idea of Christmas now so alien to the New York Times, so passe, that it no longer fits with their view of today's America?
* As for the lack of tradition, I assume the Times is referring, at least in part, to their favorite news topic - gay marriage. No surprise that today's edition has yet another front page story on gay marriage, entitled: "Indiana Finds It's Not So Easy To Buck Gay Marriage Trend." Nor does the Times much care for the tradition regarding the sanctity of human life. And they seem to be more enamored with socialism than that outdated, traditional concept of capitalism. As for G-d and religion in the public square? Not a chance.
* The Times editorial continues with: "There is no need to draw a lesson from Christmas. Life offers lessons aplenty." So much for what the New York Times thinks of Christmas. You know, maybe some people need a lesson still, about things like "peace on earth, good will to their fellow man." News item today: two bombs exploded in Iraq, with the aim of killing Christians. One exploded near a church and killed at least 26, and wounded 38. Another exploded in an outdoor market in a Christian section of a town, killing 11 and wounding 21. Think the perpetrators might do well to take a lesson from Christmas?
* I, for one, prefer one of the "traditional" messages as stated in an 1897 New York Sun editorial, in reply to a letter from young Virginia O'Hanlon. It read, in part, as follows: "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy." Perhaps we can bring back the Sun and have it replace the Times.
* Said the editorial writers of the Times: "Christmas is, for many of us, our only glimpse of what tradition really means. Our lives are, by and large, not the least bit traditional. If it feels sometimes as though Christmas is another country, that's because it is." I have absolutely no idea what that last sentence even means. Is the idea of Christmas now so alien to the New York Times, so passe, that it no longer fits with their view of today's America?
* As for the lack of tradition, I assume the Times is referring, at least in part, to their favorite news topic - gay marriage. No surprise that today's edition has yet another front page story on gay marriage, entitled: "Indiana Finds It's Not So Easy To Buck Gay Marriage Trend." Nor does the Times much care for the tradition regarding the sanctity of human life. And they seem to be more enamored with socialism than that outdated, traditional concept of capitalism. As for G-d and religion in the public square? Not a chance.
* The Times editorial continues with: "There is no need to draw a lesson from Christmas. Life offers lessons aplenty." So much for what the New York Times thinks of Christmas. You know, maybe some people need a lesson still, about things like "peace on earth, good will to their fellow man." News item today: two bombs exploded in Iraq, with the aim of killing Christians. One exploded near a church and killed at least 26, and wounded 38. Another exploded in an outdoor market in a Christian section of a town, killing 11 and wounding 21. Think the perpetrators might do well to take a lesson from Christmas?
* I, for one, prefer one of the "traditional" messages as stated in an 1897 New York Sun editorial, in reply to a letter from young Virginia O'Hanlon. It read, in part, as follows: "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy." Perhaps we can bring back the Sun and have it replace the Times.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
A Difference in Values
* I recently repeated my assertion that Republicans and Democrats in Congress can rarely reach compromise because they no longer share the same fundamental values. When the two sides understand that they share the same basic values, it is far easier to then reach agreement on specific issues. I further indicated that the liberal/Democrat position had moved so far to the left, and so far away from basic American values, that the problem was mostly the result of Democrat radicalism. Needless to say, the liberals hearing my opinion objected. So let's take a look.
* The Pew Research Center did an extensive poll of Americans in April, 2012 regarding their values. One question asked was why people are poor; was it due to "circumstance" or "lack of effort." Republicans answered 28% due to circumstance and 57% due to lack of effort. However, 61% of Democrats said circumstance was to blame, versus 24% who blamed lack of effort. This belief reflects the underlying belief of those on the left that people are mostly "victims" of something or other. This belief also helps to explain the results of a Gallup Poll reported in November, 2012. Asked if they had a favorable view of socialism, 53% of Democrats/and those leaning Democrat did, but only 23% of Republicans/and those leaning Republican did. For a majority of Democrats it just does not matter that the US system of capitalism has created more wealth for more people than any other country in the history of the world. Facts just do not matter. Ideology is what counts.
* It also then follows that Democrats are more likely to have a favorable view of the federal government than do Republicans: 75% to 27%. (From the Gallup poll.) After all, if people are victims of "circumstance," then the government needs to step in and take care of them. It also follows that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to favor "preferential" treatment of minorities, and they do by 52% to 12%. Again, minorities are viewed as "victims." (From the Pew Research Center poll.)
* Prior to the 2012 election people were asked if government does more harm than good. It comes as no surprise that 85% of likely Romney voters agreed, compared to only 32% of likely Obama voters. With Obamacare still a big issue for the public, 91% of likely Romney voters said government was becoming too involved in healthcare, compared to only 29% of likely Obama voters. When broken down by party, 88% of Republicans agreed government was too involved in healthcare, compared to 37% of Democrats. (From the Pew Research Center.)
* People were asked, once government does get involved, is it usually inefficient and wasteful. A full 77% of Republicans agreed with that assertion, compared to only 41% of Democrats. Even Independents agreed with 63% in the affirmative.
* One interesting self-assessment asked people if they had "old-fashioned" values. A full 88% of Republicans said they did, whereas only 60% of Democrats agreed. Of significance, however, is the fact that 86% of Democrats agreed only 16 years ago, in 1987. (Data from the Pew Research poll.) Such a large shift, while stunning, is also not surprising to anyone paying attention to how far the Democrats have moved to the left.
* With regards to foreign policy and the military, 73% of Republicans agreed that the best way to insure peace is through military strength. Such an opinion is, of course, consistent with the views of two prior Presidents: Democrat John Kennedy and Republican Ronald Reagan. However, only 44% of Democrats agreed with the proposition. (From the Pew Research poll.) Nearly 4 in 5 Republicans (77%) favor Israel over the Palestinians, compared to only 55% of Democrats. (From a Gallup poll.) I was pleased to see an increase in Democrats support for Israel. The prior poll numbers I saw had Democrats at only 49%.
* While many on the left have an unfavorable view of this country, that view is not shared by the rest of the world. In a Gallup poll of foreigners, 640 million people said they would like to move to another country. To which country? The USA came in first with 23%. Second was the UK - with only 7%. Canada was third with 6%. Many university professors would undoubtedly be shocked by the above numbers, as they regularly blame the US for all the ills in the world. One example is Hawaii professor Haunani-Kay Trask, who said this to her students: "We need to think very, very clearly about who the enemy is. The enemy is the United States of America and everyone who supports it."
* The evil of political correctness, begun by the left, has, under Obama, also infiltrated our military. According to the military manual used by its Equal Opportunity officers: "Simply put, a healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian male receives many unearned advantages of social privilege, whereas a black, homosexual, atheist female in poor health receives many unearned disadvantages of social privilege." Not only does the military do a tremendous disservice to those minorities; I suspect that liberals reading this will not even see any problem with it. At every turn, the left tells people they are victims, and the alleged "victims" then act accordingly.
* I am reminded of the inspiring movie "Stand and Deliver," in which math teacher Jaime Escalante tells his inner-city students just the opposite - that they are not victims. He tells them that they can take and pass the AP calculus exam. And that is exactly what they do. When minorities come from other countries they often become successful - because they have not been exposed to decades of hearing that they are victims, that the system is rigged against them, that only whites can succeed, and therefore they are unable to accomplish anything on their own. Yet, that evil message of victimhood is, ironically, the message that is regularly perpetrated by a black man elected to the highest office in the land - by a majority white country.
* The Pew Research Center did an extensive poll of Americans in April, 2012 regarding their values. One question asked was why people are poor; was it due to "circumstance" or "lack of effort." Republicans answered 28% due to circumstance and 57% due to lack of effort. However, 61% of Democrats said circumstance was to blame, versus 24% who blamed lack of effort. This belief reflects the underlying belief of those on the left that people are mostly "victims" of something or other. This belief also helps to explain the results of a Gallup Poll reported in November, 2012. Asked if they had a favorable view of socialism, 53% of Democrats/and those leaning Democrat did, but only 23% of Republicans/and those leaning Republican did. For a majority of Democrats it just does not matter that the US system of capitalism has created more wealth for more people than any other country in the history of the world. Facts just do not matter. Ideology is what counts.
* It also then follows that Democrats are more likely to have a favorable view of the federal government than do Republicans: 75% to 27%. (From the Gallup poll.) After all, if people are victims of "circumstance," then the government needs to step in and take care of them. It also follows that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to favor "preferential" treatment of minorities, and they do by 52% to 12%. Again, minorities are viewed as "victims." (From the Pew Research Center poll.)
* Prior to the 2012 election people were asked if government does more harm than good. It comes as no surprise that 85% of likely Romney voters agreed, compared to only 32% of likely Obama voters. With Obamacare still a big issue for the public, 91% of likely Romney voters said government was becoming too involved in healthcare, compared to only 29% of likely Obama voters. When broken down by party, 88% of Republicans agreed government was too involved in healthcare, compared to 37% of Democrats. (From the Pew Research Center.)
* People were asked, once government does get involved, is it usually inefficient and wasteful. A full 77% of Republicans agreed with that assertion, compared to only 41% of Democrats. Even Independents agreed with 63% in the affirmative.
* One interesting self-assessment asked people if they had "old-fashioned" values. A full 88% of Republicans said they did, whereas only 60% of Democrats agreed. Of significance, however, is the fact that 86% of Democrats agreed only 16 years ago, in 1987. (Data from the Pew Research poll.) Such a large shift, while stunning, is also not surprising to anyone paying attention to how far the Democrats have moved to the left.
* With regards to foreign policy and the military, 73% of Republicans agreed that the best way to insure peace is through military strength. Such an opinion is, of course, consistent with the views of two prior Presidents: Democrat John Kennedy and Republican Ronald Reagan. However, only 44% of Democrats agreed with the proposition. (From the Pew Research poll.) Nearly 4 in 5 Republicans (77%) favor Israel over the Palestinians, compared to only 55% of Democrats. (From a Gallup poll.) I was pleased to see an increase in Democrats support for Israel. The prior poll numbers I saw had Democrats at only 49%.
* While many on the left have an unfavorable view of this country, that view is not shared by the rest of the world. In a Gallup poll of foreigners, 640 million people said they would like to move to another country. To which country? The USA came in first with 23%. Second was the UK - with only 7%. Canada was third with 6%. Many university professors would undoubtedly be shocked by the above numbers, as they regularly blame the US for all the ills in the world. One example is Hawaii professor Haunani-Kay Trask, who said this to her students: "We need to think very, very clearly about who the enemy is. The enemy is the United States of America and everyone who supports it."
* The evil of political correctness, begun by the left, has, under Obama, also infiltrated our military. According to the military manual used by its Equal Opportunity officers: "Simply put, a healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian male receives many unearned advantages of social privilege, whereas a black, homosexual, atheist female in poor health receives many unearned disadvantages of social privilege." Not only does the military do a tremendous disservice to those minorities; I suspect that liberals reading this will not even see any problem with it. At every turn, the left tells people they are victims, and the alleged "victims" then act accordingly.
* I am reminded of the inspiring movie "Stand and Deliver," in which math teacher Jaime Escalante tells his inner-city students just the opposite - that they are not victims. He tells them that they can take and pass the AP calculus exam. And that is exactly what they do. When minorities come from other countries they often become successful - because they have not been exposed to decades of hearing that they are victims, that the system is rigged against them, that only whites can succeed, and therefore they are unable to accomplish anything on their own. Yet, that evil message of victimhood is, ironically, the message that is regularly perpetrated by a black man elected to the highest office in the land - by a majority white country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)