* At the onset of the Great War (1914) the Jewish population of Europe was estimated to be about 10.5 million people. Currently, there are about 1.5 million Jews in Europe. (Statistics from the 6/6-6/12/14 Jewish Journal article by Rabbi Abraham Cooper and Harold Brackman.) Obviously, the Jewish population was decimated by the Holocaust. With the existence of the State of Israel, many Jews chose to relocate to the historic homeland of the Jewish people. And an increasing number are leaving Europe as anti-Semitism has been on the rise.
* European anti-Semitism has increasingly been a result of the growing Muslim population of Europe. At the end of May, a Muslim man was arrested for the killing of three people at the Jewish Museum in Brussels. He was born in France and fought with the "rebels" in Syria, before committing his murders. Recall that two years ago another Muslim man murdered three Jewish children and a Rabbi and three soldiers outside a French Jewish school. Jews in France are warned not to have identifying symbols on the outside of their synogogues and to remove their kippahs (skull caps) before leaving their temple.
* Also of great concern is the rising political influence of far right-wing parties with a past history of anti-Semitism. These parties are likely to get an increasing number of seats in the European Parliament.
* As the left joins with the Muslims in the effort to delegitimize Israel, anti-Semitism has been disguised as just being anti-Israel and anti-Israeli policies. When the tiny country of Israel is singled out by the BDS (boycott, divest and sanction) crowd it is due to Jew hatred. In the USA we have seen Israel singled out by an ex-President, Jimmy Carter, in his book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid," and in the book "The Israel Lobby," by Professors Walt and Mearsheimer. Now, the Presbyterian Church, USA has voted to join the BDS movement. The Church will be divesting from Caterpillar, Motorola and Hewlitt-Packard because of those companies participation in the "occupation" and, among other things, helping to build the security barrier that protects Israelis from being murdered by terrorists. (One wonders what the Church's stance is on Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Libya, to name a few; or what the Church has had to say about the displacement of about one million Christians from the Arab world.)
* Meanwhile, three Israeli teens (Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaar and Eyal Yifrach) were kidnapped over a week ago, with Israel claiming the kidnappers were from Hamas, still designated a terrorist organization by the USA. However, Obama has seen fit to continue US aid of $500,000,000. per year to the Palestinian Authority - even though they recently entered into a unity government with Hamas. On the PA's official site is a cartoon of the three teens pictured as mice on the hooks of a fishing rod. (From David Suissa in the 6/20-6/26/14 Jewish Journal.) Recall Obama saying "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon." And Obama saying he wishes he could "reach out and save those kids" with regards to the girls kidnapped in Nigeria and children suffering in Syria's civil war. But the three Israeli teens? Apparently it does not matter to Obama that one (Naftali Frenkel) also holds dual American citizenship. But Frenkel is neither black nor a Muslim, so...
* Jews in the USA do not always appreciate just how blessed we are to live in this great country. Israel is surrounded by enemies who seek her destruction. European Jews face an ever increasing and violent anti-Semitism. The vast majority of the Jewish world (less than 14 million people worldwide) currently resides in only two countries - Israel and the USA. And what will be when the Muslim population of this country continues to grow? How many will attend mosques with radical imams? How many will identify with the ever increasing number of Islamic terrorist groups worldwide? Is it possible that Israel, notwithstanding the dangerous neighborhood that surrounds it, will become the only safe haven for worldwide Jewry?
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Sunday, May 18, 2014
The Ever Growing Tyranny of the Left
* Recently, Sudan convicted 27 year Meriam Yehya Ibrahim of apostasy, and sentenced her to death by hanging. She has one young child and another on the way. Apparently, as is done, she was given three days to return to Islam. She claims she was raised a Christian and denies converting away from Islam. It is punishable by death to convert from Islam to another religion. Ms. Ibrahim refused to renounce her Christianity. A failure to conform to the religious orthodoxy of her country may result in this woman's death.
* So, how is Ms. Ibrahim's situation related to the topic of this post? It is related because the failure to adhere to liberal/leftist political orthodoxy in this country results in some very serious consequences to the offender, including death threats. This blog has written numerous posts concerning leftist tyranny. A very brief recap is in order before moving on to the latest developments.
* New York's Governor previously advised "extreme" conservatives (basically any true conservative) that "they have no place in the State of New York." When Chick-Fil-A's owner said he defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, he was viciously attacked, even by elected officials. SF Mayor Edwin Lee's comment was typical: "The closest Chick-Fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer." Liberals engaged in a boycott of the restaurant. Leftists and their liberal supporters do not believe in the idea of a "free" America. Go against their orthodoxy and they will try to prevent you from living where you want, or from running a business.
* Donald Sterling is set to lose his ownership of the Clippers in a forced sale, and pay a 2.5 million dollar fine because of private racist comments. While the comments were inappropriate, the punishment results from offending a group protected by the left. He probably could have gotten away with picking on black conservatives; and certainly could have gotten away with attacks on Sarah Palin. Just ask Bill Maher. Sterling went against liberal orthodoxy and will likely lose his business.
* More recently, Brendan Eich was ousted as CEO of Mozilla. His offense? It was discovered that he gave $1000. to the "Yes" on Prop. 8 initiative in California, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Prop. 8 was passed in 2008, but the fact that his "sin" occurred six years prior did not protect him from losing his job. Eich went against liberal orthodoxy and lost his job.
* Also recently, identical twins David and Jason Benham had a show scheduled to air on HGTV. Because of their religious beliefs (they are devout Christians) they are believers in traditional marriage - and have said so. That was enough for the blogosphere; HGTV cancelled their show. (From O'Reilly, 5/9/14.) It does not matter that, perhaps, the vast majority of potential viewers had an interest in seeing the show. The left shut them down because they went against liberal orthodoxy.
* Are you opposed to abortion? Better not say so publicly. The Center for Reproductive Rights was so upset by the Catholic Church's anti-abortion stance that they are seeking to get the United Nations to declare that anti-abortion advocacy is the equivalent of torture against women and girls. (From JPost online, 5/16/14.) Will the International Criminal Court prosecute the Pope for going against liberal orthodoxy?
* If you do not adhere to liberal orthodoxy there is NO chance of your being able to speak at a college commencement. Recall that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Christian woman who was born a Muslim, was uninvited to speak and receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University. A fierce advocate for women and girls, she also speaks the truth about how females are treated in much of the Muslim world. But liberal orthodoxy does not allow for that (notwithstanding the paragraph regarding Ms. Ibrahim above, nor the fact that the UN Women agency expressed their "serious concern" about an increase in "honor" killings in the West Bank).
* Condoleeza Rice was to speak at the Rutgers commencement. While the University President did not withdraw her invitation, a combination of faculty objection and student protests caused her to withdraw. Rice noted that the commencement was for the students and she did not want to be a distraction. Said one female Muslim student protester: "This woman has committed so many crimes, you know she has not even been put to trial, so how can we look up to someone who has been responsible for the deaths of so many?" I suspect many university professors would express the same attitude about Rice and the rest of the Bush Administration officials.
* Meanwhile, Angela Davis was to speak at UCLA and receive, among other honors, a $43,000. honorarium. (From the 5/12/14 Investor's Business Daily.) Davis' affiliation with the Communist Party was part of the reason she was fired from UCLA back in 1969. Does it matter that Communist ideology was responsible for the deaths of tens of million of people in the twentieth century? If conservatives were allowed to speak at universities, I would have no problem with radical leftists also doing so.
* But even liberals can run afoul of their own orthodoxy. Robert Birgeneau was chancellor at UC Berkeley, and was to give the commencement address at Haverford college. According to Daniel Henninger in the 5/15/14 Wall Street Journal, Birgeneau supported minority students, including the LGBT community and illegal aliens. However, "in 2011 the Berkeley police used "force" against (the) Occupy" Wall Street crowd, then demonstrating in Sproul Plaza on campus. Mr. Birgeneau was forced to withdraw.
* Do not question the liberal orthodoxy of climate change. The 5/19/14 IBD reports that Lennart Bengtsson is a Swedish climate scientist. Yet, a top academic journal has reportedly rejected a paper jointly submitted by Bengtsson and four others. The IBD quotes one peer reviewer as saying that the paper "is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate skeptics media side." In other words, do not go against the liberal orthodoxy of climate change. Said Bengtsson: "I had not expect(ed) such an enormous worldwide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life."
* I would like to be able to write that most liberals do not agree with any of the above threats to liberty and freedom. However, in my personal discussions with liberals, it is extremely rare to hear any criticism of their own. I would like to think they, too, can see the 'big picture' of what is occurring all around them. But they cannot. Having gone to schools and universities teaching liberal orthodoxy, reading newspapers and magazines that advocate liberal orthodoxy, listening and watching TV news and shows and movies that advocate for liberal orthodoxy, I can only conclude that they are too brainwashed to recognize the danger. Make no mistake, however. The danger is real, and the threats to our society will only increase unless liberals stand up and say "enough!"
* So, how is Ms. Ibrahim's situation related to the topic of this post? It is related because the failure to adhere to liberal/leftist political orthodoxy in this country results in some very serious consequences to the offender, including death threats. This blog has written numerous posts concerning leftist tyranny. A very brief recap is in order before moving on to the latest developments.
* New York's Governor previously advised "extreme" conservatives (basically any true conservative) that "they have no place in the State of New York." When Chick-Fil-A's owner said he defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, he was viciously attacked, even by elected officials. SF Mayor Edwin Lee's comment was typical: "The closest Chick-Fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer." Liberals engaged in a boycott of the restaurant. Leftists and their liberal supporters do not believe in the idea of a "free" America. Go against their orthodoxy and they will try to prevent you from living where you want, or from running a business.
* Donald Sterling is set to lose his ownership of the Clippers in a forced sale, and pay a 2.5 million dollar fine because of private racist comments. While the comments were inappropriate, the punishment results from offending a group protected by the left. He probably could have gotten away with picking on black conservatives; and certainly could have gotten away with attacks on Sarah Palin. Just ask Bill Maher. Sterling went against liberal orthodoxy and will likely lose his business.
* More recently, Brendan Eich was ousted as CEO of Mozilla. His offense? It was discovered that he gave $1000. to the "Yes" on Prop. 8 initiative in California, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Prop. 8 was passed in 2008, but the fact that his "sin" occurred six years prior did not protect him from losing his job. Eich went against liberal orthodoxy and lost his job.
* Also recently, identical twins David and Jason Benham had a show scheduled to air on HGTV. Because of their religious beliefs (they are devout Christians) they are believers in traditional marriage - and have said so. That was enough for the blogosphere; HGTV cancelled their show. (From O'Reilly, 5/9/14.) It does not matter that, perhaps, the vast majority of potential viewers had an interest in seeing the show. The left shut them down because they went against liberal orthodoxy.
* Are you opposed to abortion? Better not say so publicly. The Center for Reproductive Rights was so upset by the Catholic Church's anti-abortion stance that they are seeking to get the United Nations to declare that anti-abortion advocacy is the equivalent of torture against women and girls. (From JPost online, 5/16/14.) Will the International Criminal Court prosecute the Pope for going against liberal orthodoxy?
* If you do not adhere to liberal orthodoxy there is NO chance of your being able to speak at a college commencement. Recall that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Christian woman who was born a Muslim, was uninvited to speak and receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University. A fierce advocate for women and girls, she also speaks the truth about how females are treated in much of the Muslim world. But liberal orthodoxy does not allow for that (notwithstanding the paragraph regarding Ms. Ibrahim above, nor the fact that the UN Women agency expressed their "serious concern" about an increase in "honor" killings in the West Bank).
* Condoleeza Rice was to speak at the Rutgers commencement. While the University President did not withdraw her invitation, a combination of faculty objection and student protests caused her to withdraw. Rice noted that the commencement was for the students and she did not want to be a distraction. Said one female Muslim student protester: "This woman has committed so many crimes, you know she has not even been put to trial, so how can we look up to someone who has been responsible for the deaths of so many?" I suspect many university professors would express the same attitude about Rice and the rest of the Bush Administration officials.
* Meanwhile, Angela Davis was to speak at UCLA and receive, among other honors, a $43,000. honorarium. (From the 5/12/14 Investor's Business Daily.) Davis' affiliation with the Communist Party was part of the reason she was fired from UCLA back in 1969. Does it matter that Communist ideology was responsible for the deaths of tens of million of people in the twentieth century? If conservatives were allowed to speak at universities, I would have no problem with radical leftists also doing so.
* But even liberals can run afoul of their own orthodoxy. Robert Birgeneau was chancellor at UC Berkeley, and was to give the commencement address at Haverford college. According to Daniel Henninger in the 5/15/14 Wall Street Journal, Birgeneau supported minority students, including the LGBT community and illegal aliens. However, "in 2011 the Berkeley police used "force" against (the) Occupy" Wall Street crowd, then demonstrating in Sproul Plaza on campus. Mr. Birgeneau was forced to withdraw.
* Do not question the liberal orthodoxy of climate change. The 5/19/14 IBD reports that Lennart Bengtsson is a Swedish climate scientist. Yet, a top academic journal has reportedly rejected a paper jointly submitted by Bengtsson and four others. The IBD quotes one peer reviewer as saying that the paper "is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate skeptics media side." In other words, do not go against the liberal orthodoxy of climate change. Said Bengtsson: "I had not expect(ed) such an enormous worldwide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life."
* I would like to be able to write that most liberals do not agree with any of the above threats to liberty and freedom. However, in my personal discussions with liberals, it is extremely rare to hear any criticism of their own. I would like to think they, too, can see the 'big picture' of what is occurring all around them. But they cannot. Having gone to schools and universities teaching liberal orthodoxy, reading newspapers and magazines that advocate liberal orthodoxy, listening and watching TV news and shows and movies that advocate for liberal orthodoxy, I can only conclude that they are too brainwashed to recognize the danger. Make no mistake, however. The danger is real, and the threats to our society will only increase unless liberals stand up and say "enough!"
Sunday, May 4, 2014
The Benghazi Cover-Up
* A Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch (followed by a Court order) ended up in a release of some emails not previously released to Congress during Congress' investigation of Benghazi. On September 14, 2012, just three days after our Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed, Ben Rhodes sent an email to Susan Rice and others. Rhodes was then a deputy national security adviser and Rice was the US Ambassador to the UN. The email's subject was: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4p.m. ET." The next day Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows blaming the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi on an anti-Muslim video.
* Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, later claimed that the only modifications made by the White House to the "talking points" provided to Rice were stylistic. Keep in mind that the Presidential election was only two months away. It is now clear that politics carried the day over truth-telling on those five talk shows; and in subsequent comments by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and by Obama. In the email from Rhodes, he told Rice that one of the goals was "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."
* This is certainly not the first time that politics prevailed over truth in the White House. Recall the memos subsequently obtained by NBC News showing that Obama was advised by policy people in the White House back in 2010 that many would lose their insurance under the Affordable Care Act. However, the political advisers were not happy with the President giving such a message to the American people. Furthermore, it is likely that at least some Democrat Senators would not have voted for the ACA if they knew many of their constituents would lose their insurance coverage. So Obama went on to promise on countless occasions: "If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance."
* The Rhodes memo to Rice went on to say that she needed to "reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges." So let's be fair. There is nothing terribly unusual about any Administration wanting to put the best spin possible on events that may be politically damaging. But at a certain point in time one would hope that truth would prevail; that the American people would be told what they are entitled to know. This is especially true from a President who promised the most transparent presidency in history. Or was that just another lie?
* The former Deputy Intelligence Director for AfriCom, Retired Brigadier General Robert Lovell, has now testified before Congress as follows: "What we did know early on was that this was a hostile action. This was no demonstration gone terribly awry." Furthermore, the newly released emails reflect that on September 14, within an hour of Rhodes' email to Rice, there were still references to "Al-Qaida" and an "attack." Yet those two references did not make it into the final "talking points."
* Speaker of the House John Boehner has now called for the appointment of a select committee to further investigate Benghazi. It is true that there have been Congressional investigations already. It is also true, however, that those investigations did not have all the information that has now been disclosed through the Freedom Watch FOIA request and Court order.
* It is ironic that just two months before the 2012 Presidential election, Mr. Rhodes was concerned about the perception of a "broader failure of policy." Looking back on Obama's second term to date, it is difficult to see where any of Obama's foreign policy efforts have either enhanced America's standing in the world, furthered US interests, or resulted in a more stable, peaceful world. From the Arab Spring, to the appeasement of Iran, to the "reset button" with Russia (including Obama's "tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election"), it is difficult to see how any of these situations have been helped by Obama.
* I am disappointed that Speaker Boehner has not seen fit to appoint a select committee to investigate the White House use and abuse of the IRS in dealing with political opponents, and those who have suffered consequences for merely criticizing Obama. Between the lies, the cover-ups, and the abuse of power, I can only imagine how many democrats would be calling for such a President's impeachment - especially if his name was Bush. Can any reader point to a more corrupt Administration in our lifetimes?
* Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, later claimed that the only modifications made by the White House to the "talking points" provided to Rice were stylistic. Keep in mind that the Presidential election was only two months away. It is now clear that politics carried the day over truth-telling on those five talk shows; and in subsequent comments by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and by Obama. In the email from Rhodes, he told Rice that one of the goals was "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."
* This is certainly not the first time that politics prevailed over truth in the White House. Recall the memos subsequently obtained by NBC News showing that Obama was advised by policy people in the White House back in 2010 that many would lose their insurance under the Affordable Care Act. However, the political advisers were not happy with the President giving such a message to the American people. Furthermore, it is likely that at least some Democrat Senators would not have voted for the ACA if they knew many of their constituents would lose their insurance coverage. So Obama went on to promise on countless occasions: "If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance."
* The Rhodes memo to Rice went on to say that she needed to "reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges." So let's be fair. There is nothing terribly unusual about any Administration wanting to put the best spin possible on events that may be politically damaging. But at a certain point in time one would hope that truth would prevail; that the American people would be told what they are entitled to know. This is especially true from a President who promised the most transparent presidency in history. Or was that just another lie?
* The former Deputy Intelligence Director for AfriCom, Retired Brigadier General Robert Lovell, has now testified before Congress as follows: "What we did know early on was that this was a hostile action. This was no demonstration gone terribly awry." Furthermore, the newly released emails reflect that on September 14, within an hour of Rhodes' email to Rice, there were still references to "Al-Qaida" and an "attack." Yet those two references did not make it into the final "talking points."
* Speaker of the House John Boehner has now called for the appointment of a select committee to further investigate Benghazi. It is true that there have been Congressional investigations already. It is also true, however, that those investigations did not have all the information that has now been disclosed through the Freedom Watch FOIA request and Court order.
* It is ironic that just two months before the 2012 Presidential election, Mr. Rhodes was concerned about the perception of a "broader failure of policy." Looking back on Obama's second term to date, it is difficult to see where any of Obama's foreign policy efforts have either enhanced America's standing in the world, furthered US interests, or resulted in a more stable, peaceful world. From the Arab Spring, to the appeasement of Iran, to the "reset button" with Russia (including Obama's "tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election"), it is difficult to see how any of these situations have been helped by Obama.
* I am disappointed that Speaker Boehner has not seen fit to appoint a select committee to investigate the White House use and abuse of the IRS in dealing with political opponents, and those who have suffered consequences for merely criticizing Obama. Between the lies, the cover-ups, and the abuse of power, I can only imagine how many democrats would be calling for such a President's impeachment - especially if his name was Bush. Can any reader point to a more corrupt Administration in our lifetimes?
Saturday, May 3, 2014
More Limits on What You May Say or Hear
* Just one more example of the effort by the left and their allies to limit speech. The National September 11 Memorial Museum has one imam on its interfaith advisory group. However, he was unhappy with a seven minute video narrated by Brian Williams of NBC. Said the imam: "The screening of this film would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum." So, if it offends Muslims can we consider it to be "hate speech?" The imam went on: "Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between al-Qaida and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site." Another example of how - somehow - Muslims became the victims after 9/11. (Quotes and info from the 4/28/14 Investor's Business Daily.)
* As for possible assaults on Muslims, the FBI's statistics on "hate crimes" tell quite a different story. Going back three years (although one could go back further) hate crime statistics for attacks on Jews vs. Muslims are as follows. In 2011, 62.2% of the attacks were against Jews, 13.3% against Muslims. 2012: 56.7% against Jews, 12.8% against Muslims. 2013: 62.4% against Jews, 11.6 against Muslims. So how does this tie into speech? Well, if you say anything against Islam you are "islamophobic" and a "hater." But Jews? Professors Walt and Mearsheimer published an anti-Israel screed on "The Israel Lobby." Former Democrat President Jimmy Carter published his anti-semitic "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid." And current Democrat Secretary of State John Kerry suggested Israel could end up as an apartheid state.
* All of these anti-Israel comments and publications might be responsible for the significantly higher "hate crime" attacks on Jews vs. Muslims. As the imam said, these comments present a "prejudiced" view of Israel and Jews, and may have lead to all or some of these hate crime attacks. Will the imam criticize these Israel haters? One thing many of my fellow Jews do not understand is that their fellow leftists will attack them and Israel without any consequences. Just do not try to say similar things about Islam or Muslims.
* The two founders of Pink Floyd have asked that the Rolling Stones cancel a planned concert trip to Israel. Said Roger Waters: "Playing Israel now is the moral equivalent of playing Sun City at the height of South African apartheid." So Pink Floyd wants to limit what Israelis may hear. As these types of comments have spread across the country and the globe, the speakers suffer no consequences. And, for the most part, Jews do not suggest any consequences. Rather, Jews fight back with their own speech in an effort to rebut the many lies put out by these anti-semites.
* As an aside, I suspect Pink Floyd would have no concerns about the recent comment by the head of Hamas: "Our path is resistance and the rifle, and our choice is jihad." Would these Pink Floyd members lose any sleep if Israel were wiped off the map?
* Perhaps to the surprise of some readers, a number of states have laws banning false political advertising. A case out of Ohio was recently heard by the US Supreme Court. An Ohio law allows complaints to be made with the state's election commission. In the current case, an anti-abortion group claimed that a democrat Congressman's vote for Obamacare was a vote to fund abortions. But the Congressman in question actually opposes abortion. So is it a simple question of a misleading ad? Or, is there an argument to be made that the Affordable Care Act provides some support for abortion? If it comes down to a legal technicality, do we want a perhaps ambiguous provision in a statute determining when a statement or political ad is truthful? Who decides? My fear is the result will overwhelmingly be against conservative candidates and causes.
* If, however, we are going down this path can we please start with a prosecution against Harry Reid for his patently false and obnoxious lies? Remember Reid said from the Senate floor during the last election that Romney had not paid any federal income taxes. A lie that Reid knew was a lie, especially since he had no legal way of knowing what Romney paid. And let's not forget Reid's more recent lie, again from the Senate floor, that all the allegations about Obamacare making people pay more for their health insurance, or being denied treatment, were lies. Every single claim a lie. So I vote we start with a prosecution against Harry; we couldn't start with a worthier candidate.
* As for possible assaults on Muslims, the FBI's statistics on "hate crimes" tell quite a different story. Going back three years (although one could go back further) hate crime statistics for attacks on Jews vs. Muslims are as follows. In 2011, 62.2% of the attacks were against Jews, 13.3% against Muslims. 2012: 56.7% against Jews, 12.8% against Muslims. 2013: 62.4% against Jews, 11.6 against Muslims. So how does this tie into speech? Well, if you say anything against Islam you are "islamophobic" and a "hater." But Jews? Professors Walt and Mearsheimer published an anti-Israel screed on "The Israel Lobby." Former Democrat President Jimmy Carter published his anti-semitic "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid." And current Democrat Secretary of State John Kerry suggested Israel could end up as an apartheid state.
* All of these anti-Israel comments and publications might be responsible for the significantly higher "hate crime" attacks on Jews vs. Muslims. As the imam said, these comments present a "prejudiced" view of Israel and Jews, and may have lead to all or some of these hate crime attacks. Will the imam criticize these Israel haters? One thing many of my fellow Jews do not understand is that their fellow leftists will attack them and Israel without any consequences. Just do not try to say similar things about Islam or Muslims.
* The two founders of Pink Floyd have asked that the Rolling Stones cancel a planned concert trip to Israel. Said Roger Waters: "Playing Israel now is the moral equivalent of playing Sun City at the height of South African apartheid." So Pink Floyd wants to limit what Israelis may hear. As these types of comments have spread across the country and the globe, the speakers suffer no consequences. And, for the most part, Jews do not suggest any consequences. Rather, Jews fight back with their own speech in an effort to rebut the many lies put out by these anti-semites.
* As an aside, I suspect Pink Floyd would have no concerns about the recent comment by the head of Hamas: "Our path is resistance and the rifle, and our choice is jihad." Would these Pink Floyd members lose any sleep if Israel were wiped off the map?
* Perhaps to the surprise of some readers, a number of states have laws banning false political advertising. A case out of Ohio was recently heard by the US Supreme Court. An Ohio law allows complaints to be made with the state's election commission. In the current case, an anti-abortion group claimed that a democrat Congressman's vote for Obamacare was a vote to fund abortions. But the Congressman in question actually opposes abortion. So is it a simple question of a misleading ad? Or, is there an argument to be made that the Affordable Care Act provides some support for abortion? If it comes down to a legal technicality, do we want a perhaps ambiguous provision in a statute determining when a statement or political ad is truthful? Who decides? My fear is the result will overwhelmingly be against conservative candidates and causes.
* If, however, we are going down this path can we please start with a prosecution against Harry Reid for his patently false and obnoxious lies? Remember Reid said from the Senate floor during the last election that Romney had not paid any federal income taxes. A lie that Reid knew was a lie, especially since he had no legal way of knowing what Romney paid. And let's not forget Reid's more recent lie, again from the Senate floor, that all the allegations about Obamacare making people pay more for their health insurance, or being denied treatment, were lies. Every single claim a lie. So I vote we start with a prosecution against Harry; we couldn't start with a worthier candidate.
The Donald Sterling Controversy and Privacy
* World War III? You might think a story of that significance broke if you saw the front page headline in the April 30, 2014 LA Times. But the headline read: "BANNED FOR LIFE." All caps, across the entire page, with two subtitles also across the entire page. The story was about Donald Sterling, an 80 year old who made some private racist comments to his half-black girlfriend. Sterling told her not to bring blacks to Clipper games. He was one of the first NBA owners to hire a black general manager. He has a black coach and mostly black players - who get paid very well. And, of course, black fans do attend the games. For whatever reason, he did not want his girlfriend bringing blacks to the games. Racist comments? Sure. But meant to be private.
* Perhaps not surprisingly, our black President weighed in. After condemning Sterling's remarks (everyone did), Obama added this: "I will make just one larger comment about this. The United States continues to wrestle with the legacy of race, slavery and segregation." That's quite a generalization from a few words from a single individual. And where was the "wrestling?" Everyone condemned Sterling's remarks - not just blacks. I think Obama might consider wrestling with his own attitudes - "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon." And what about his inappropriate criticism of the Cambridge Police with regards to the incident with Professor Gates? Obama makes racial issues even when none exist.
* I wonder what we might hear as a fly on the wall in some NBA locker rooms; or in the privacy of the players' homes. Comments about women maybe, or gays, or other races? Or does any reader believe all NBA players are pure in thought and deed? I am not making excuses for Sterling's comments. I am, however, disturbed by the immediate and widespread attacks on him. The media had no interest in privacy issues. It was a juicy story, and as my brother likes to say, it sells papers. The main issue here is not a single 80 year old making a few racist remarks; the main issue is privacy.
* The NSA has the capability of monitoring all electronic communications - cell phone calls, emails, what have you. But that is not enough for some on the left. Recall the proposal, subsequently dropped, that the FCC monitor every TV and radio station and even newspapers (over which the FCC has no authority) for content. The idea was to see what stories are developed and which ones are not; amounting to the monitoring of speech for content. The proposal by the Obama Administration was an outrageous assault on the First Amendment. Now along comes US Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass) with a proposal to "examine the prevalence of hate crime and hate speech on the Internet, television, and radio to better address such crimes." Hate speech? Are we now making speech a crime?
* Who will do the monitoring and determine what speech qualifies as "hate speech?" There are any number of liberals who believe that criticisms of Obama are racist and "hateful." Many believe those who do not support gay marriage are bigots and "hateful." If you do not support abortion on demand you "hate" women. If you oppose amnesty for illegal aliens (or even dare to use the phrase "illegal alien") you "hate" Hispanics and others. And don't even think about criticizing Islam or anything or anyone Muslim. This blog would not last very long under leftist standards. Should the blog be shut down and should I be arrested for "hate speech?"
* You see, these attacks on "hate speech" all tend to be one-sided. And that was the downfall for Donald Sterling. If he had only attacked Republicans, this would have been a non-story. After all, Democrat leaders and pundits can say anything they want about Republicans with no consequences. They will even have the mainstream media back them up. Congresswoman Maxine Waters: "As far as I'm concerned - the Tea Party can go straight to hell." Howard Dean, when head of the DNC, said: "Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans, is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night." But let's not forget Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin the "C" word. How come he gets to keep his sponsors for his TV show? How come he gets to keep his ownership interest in the NY Mets?
* Have we arrived, a little belatedly, at "1984?" With today's technology, can we implant a chip into everyone's brain at birth to monitor their thoughts for "hate?" I could tell you who I hate...but I'd better not.
* Perhaps not surprisingly, our black President weighed in. After condemning Sterling's remarks (everyone did), Obama added this: "I will make just one larger comment about this. The United States continues to wrestle with the legacy of race, slavery and segregation." That's quite a generalization from a few words from a single individual. And where was the "wrestling?" Everyone condemned Sterling's remarks - not just blacks. I think Obama might consider wrestling with his own attitudes - "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon." And what about his inappropriate criticism of the Cambridge Police with regards to the incident with Professor Gates? Obama makes racial issues even when none exist.
* I wonder what we might hear as a fly on the wall in some NBA locker rooms; or in the privacy of the players' homes. Comments about women maybe, or gays, or other races? Or does any reader believe all NBA players are pure in thought and deed? I am not making excuses for Sterling's comments. I am, however, disturbed by the immediate and widespread attacks on him. The media had no interest in privacy issues. It was a juicy story, and as my brother likes to say, it sells papers. The main issue here is not a single 80 year old making a few racist remarks; the main issue is privacy.
* The NSA has the capability of monitoring all electronic communications - cell phone calls, emails, what have you. But that is not enough for some on the left. Recall the proposal, subsequently dropped, that the FCC monitor every TV and radio station and even newspapers (over which the FCC has no authority) for content. The idea was to see what stories are developed and which ones are not; amounting to the monitoring of speech for content. The proposal by the Obama Administration was an outrageous assault on the First Amendment. Now along comes US Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass) with a proposal to "examine the prevalence of hate crime and hate speech on the Internet, television, and radio to better address such crimes." Hate speech? Are we now making speech a crime?
* Who will do the monitoring and determine what speech qualifies as "hate speech?" There are any number of liberals who believe that criticisms of Obama are racist and "hateful." Many believe those who do not support gay marriage are bigots and "hateful." If you do not support abortion on demand you "hate" women. If you oppose amnesty for illegal aliens (or even dare to use the phrase "illegal alien") you "hate" Hispanics and others. And don't even think about criticizing Islam or anything or anyone Muslim. This blog would not last very long under leftist standards. Should the blog be shut down and should I be arrested for "hate speech?"
* You see, these attacks on "hate speech" all tend to be one-sided. And that was the downfall for Donald Sterling. If he had only attacked Republicans, this would have been a non-story. After all, Democrat leaders and pundits can say anything they want about Republicans with no consequences. They will even have the mainstream media back them up. Congresswoman Maxine Waters: "As far as I'm concerned - the Tea Party can go straight to hell." Howard Dean, when head of the DNC, said: "Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans, is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night." But let's not forget Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin the "C" word. How come he gets to keep his sponsors for his TV show? How come he gets to keep his ownership interest in the NY Mets?
* Have we arrived, a little belatedly, at "1984?" With today's technology, can we implant a chip into everyone's brain at birth to monitor their thoughts for "hate?" I could tell you who I hate...but I'd better not.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
The Left Controls What You Read, See and Hear
* I suspect my friends on the left would dispute the title of this post, or, in the alternative, think it is a good thing. If you hold one of those positions I would urge you to read on.
* Most Americans would undoubtedly believe that the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)is a positive check on abusive government power, giving the public access to previously undisclosed government action. Yet, the 3/21/14 Investor's Business Daily reports that the Center for Effective Government gives about 1/2 of federal agencies the grade of "F" for compliance with the FOIA. So why have we not heard more complaints from the mainstream media about their reduced access? The IBD also reported that Michelle Obama banned the press from her recent China trip, which happened to be at taxpayer expense. The IBD further reported that the US fell to 46th place in the rankings for press freedom. Where is the outcry?
* One does not do well to speak out against Obama. Remember how Dr. Ben Carson was audited by the IRS for the first time in his life, after criticizing the ACA at the National Prayer Breakfast? Or how about the attacks on Bob Woodward for daring to criticize Obama? Not to mention the mistreatment of the Tea Parties during the last election. And the 3/21/14 IBD article quotes a Baltimore Sun reporter, David Zurawik, about how he was treated for his criticisms of Obama. Said Zurawik: "I have been comparing Obama to Nixon in his disdain for the First Amendment and a free press since 2009, and mainly all I got was attacked - often from long-time colleagues in the media who couldn't believe the object of their political affection could have such contempt for them." (Were the attacks on Zurawik any different than the attacks on this writer by the two attorneys as discussed in my last post?) The mainstream media aids and abets in Obama's attack - on them!
* Sharyl Attkisson was, until recently, an investigative reporter at CBS. She recently told Bill O'Reilly: "As I felt we were beginning to scratch the surface (on Benghazi)...interest was largely lost on the part of the people that decide what goes on the news." Today on Fox, Attkisson said this: "There is pressure coming to bear on journalists for just doing their job in ways that have never come to bear before." Never before Obama - at least not during her career. Anybody remember Obama promising us the most "transparent" presidency ever? Just don't try to cross him. Nixon? Apparently small time compared to Obama. Part of the reason for that, of course, is the media grilled Nixon, and willfully ignores the sins of Obama.
* Attkisson went on to say, with regards to the tensions between the White House and the press, that the White House has been "particularly aggressive under the Obama Administration, and it's a campaign that's very well organized and it's designed to have sort of a chilling effect, and to some degree has been somewhat successful in getting broadcast producers who don't really want to deal with the headache of it." Imagine if Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post did not want to deal with the "headache" of Watergate, then being investigated by reporters Woodward and Bernstein.
* American universities are no better at assuring an open discussion of issues. Brandeis University had invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree at this year's commencement ceremonies. Following protests by faculty, students and others, Brandeis uninvited Ms. Ali. Ms. Ali was born a Muslim in Somalia. She is now an outspoken critic of Islam, and a vocal proponent of the rights of women and girls. Had she been allowed to speak, she would have mentioned "...that violence against women is also increasing. In Saudi Arabia, there has been a noticeable rise in the practice of female genital mutilation. In Egypt, 99% of women report being sexually harassed and up to 80 sexual assaults occur in a single day...In Iraq, a law is being proposed that lowers to nine the legal age at which a girl can be forced into marriage. That same law would give a husband the right to deny his wife permission to leave the house." (Quote from an article in the 4/11/14 Wall Street Journal by Ms. Ali discussing what she would have said at Brandeis.)
* Ordinarily, such a speech defending the rights of women and girls would be welcome at any college campus in this country - unless you happen to be criticizing anything Muslim. As this writer has previously noted, every favored left-wing group (whether it be women, blacks, Hispanic or others) falls by the wayside when held up against anything Islamic.
* And speaking of Islam, the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University thought it was important to put out a media guide entitled: "Islam for Journalists: A Primer on Covering Muslim Communities in the U.S." What? The mainstream media isn't sufficiently politically correct - they need a guide to make sure that they remain "pure," at least with regards to Islam. The guide tells journalists that "It is inaccurate to use the term (jihad) simply as a synonym for violence." Jihad is a "struggle for G-d." So how come we always hear about that struggle in connection with violent attacks, mostly on civilians? (Quotes from the 4/10/14 IBD.) According to the IBD, the guide tells journalists that Hamas opposes jihad (I suppose they mean the violent kind, but seriously?). The guide also says that "in the Quran, men and women are equal," and that "men are instructed to support their wives in all respects." I think we can agree that Ms. Ali would differ. I guess the Muslim countries of the world need no longer concern themselves with getting the UN to pass a resolution banning criticism of Islam worldwide (something they have been attempting to get passed). It looks like the West is happy to voluntarily forgo any and all criticism of Islam.
* The press, of course, just cannot tolerate political speech. As with the Citizens United case, they are upset by the Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission. The Court struck down the $123,200. contribution limit for a single election cycle. ($48,600. for federal candidates and $74,600. for other political committees.) Said John Roberts for the majority (it was a 5-4 decision): "There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our leaders." (The limits on contributing to any single candidate remain in effect.) The New York Times saw it differently, saying the decision was "...less about free speech than about giving those few people with the most money the loudest voice in politics." Ironic, is it not, that the NY Times does not equate "voice" with "speech." In any event, the Times does not mean it. All they are really concerned about is limiting conservative speech. Otherwise, they might complain about unions vast donations to Democrat candidates. Or the Open Society Foundation (George Soros' group) giving $58 million to left wing groups in 2011. Or that Soros gave over $10 billion over the last 30 years. That's $333 million per year. (Contribution figures from the 4/3/14 IBD.)
* Complained the NY Times: "Thanks to Wednesday's decision (in McCutcheon), the interests of the very few wealthiest Americans - which differ significantly from those of most Americans - will now get even more outsize consideration by legislators." So, remind me again, exactly who was going to all those $35,000. a plate dinners held by Obama during the last 6 or 7 years? I certainly was not attending those dinners; nor was anyone that I know. I guess it was a bunch of wealthy Americans whose interests differ from mine. Why wasn't that a problem for the NY Times?
* Most Americans would undoubtedly believe that the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)is a positive check on abusive government power, giving the public access to previously undisclosed government action. Yet, the 3/21/14 Investor's Business Daily reports that the Center for Effective Government gives about 1/2 of federal agencies the grade of "F" for compliance with the FOIA. So why have we not heard more complaints from the mainstream media about their reduced access? The IBD also reported that Michelle Obama banned the press from her recent China trip, which happened to be at taxpayer expense. The IBD further reported that the US fell to 46th place in the rankings for press freedom. Where is the outcry?
* One does not do well to speak out against Obama. Remember how Dr. Ben Carson was audited by the IRS for the first time in his life, after criticizing the ACA at the National Prayer Breakfast? Or how about the attacks on Bob Woodward for daring to criticize Obama? Not to mention the mistreatment of the Tea Parties during the last election. And the 3/21/14 IBD article quotes a Baltimore Sun reporter, David Zurawik, about how he was treated for his criticisms of Obama. Said Zurawik: "I have been comparing Obama to Nixon in his disdain for the First Amendment and a free press since 2009, and mainly all I got was attacked - often from long-time colleagues in the media who couldn't believe the object of their political affection could have such contempt for them." (Were the attacks on Zurawik any different than the attacks on this writer by the two attorneys as discussed in my last post?) The mainstream media aids and abets in Obama's attack - on them!
* Sharyl Attkisson was, until recently, an investigative reporter at CBS. She recently told Bill O'Reilly: "As I felt we were beginning to scratch the surface (on Benghazi)...interest was largely lost on the part of the people that decide what goes on the news." Today on Fox, Attkisson said this: "There is pressure coming to bear on journalists for just doing their job in ways that have never come to bear before." Never before Obama - at least not during her career. Anybody remember Obama promising us the most "transparent" presidency ever? Just don't try to cross him. Nixon? Apparently small time compared to Obama. Part of the reason for that, of course, is the media grilled Nixon, and willfully ignores the sins of Obama.
* Attkisson went on to say, with regards to the tensions between the White House and the press, that the White House has been "particularly aggressive under the Obama Administration, and it's a campaign that's very well organized and it's designed to have sort of a chilling effect, and to some degree has been somewhat successful in getting broadcast producers who don't really want to deal with the headache of it." Imagine if Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post did not want to deal with the "headache" of Watergate, then being investigated by reporters Woodward and Bernstein.
* American universities are no better at assuring an open discussion of issues. Brandeis University had invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree at this year's commencement ceremonies. Following protests by faculty, students and others, Brandeis uninvited Ms. Ali. Ms. Ali was born a Muslim in Somalia. She is now an outspoken critic of Islam, and a vocal proponent of the rights of women and girls. Had she been allowed to speak, she would have mentioned "...that violence against women is also increasing. In Saudi Arabia, there has been a noticeable rise in the practice of female genital mutilation. In Egypt, 99% of women report being sexually harassed and up to 80 sexual assaults occur in a single day...In Iraq, a law is being proposed that lowers to nine the legal age at which a girl can be forced into marriage. That same law would give a husband the right to deny his wife permission to leave the house." (Quote from an article in the 4/11/14 Wall Street Journal by Ms. Ali discussing what she would have said at Brandeis.)
* Ordinarily, such a speech defending the rights of women and girls would be welcome at any college campus in this country - unless you happen to be criticizing anything Muslim. As this writer has previously noted, every favored left-wing group (whether it be women, blacks, Hispanic or others) falls by the wayside when held up against anything Islamic.
* And speaking of Islam, the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University thought it was important to put out a media guide entitled: "Islam for Journalists: A Primer on Covering Muslim Communities in the U.S." What? The mainstream media isn't sufficiently politically correct - they need a guide to make sure that they remain "pure," at least with regards to Islam. The guide tells journalists that "It is inaccurate to use the term (jihad) simply as a synonym for violence." Jihad is a "struggle for G-d." So how come we always hear about that struggle in connection with violent attacks, mostly on civilians? (Quotes from the 4/10/14 IBD.) According to the IBD, the guide tells journalists that Hamas opposes jihad (I suppose they mean the violent kind, but seriously?). The guide also says that "in the Quran, men and women are equal," and that "men are instructed to support their wives in all respects." I think we can agree that Ms. Ali would differ. I guess the Muslim countries of the world need no longer concern themselves with getting the UN to pass a resolution banning criticism of Islam worldwide (something they have been attempting to get passed). It looks like the West is happy to voluntarily forgo any and all criticism of Islam.
* The press, of course, just cannot tolerate political speech. As with the Citizens United case, they are upset by the Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission. The Court struck down the $123,200. contribution limit for a single election cycle. ($48,600. for federal candidates and $74,600. for other political committees.) Said John Roberts for the majority (it was a 5-4 decision): "There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our leaders." (The limits on contributing to any single candidate remain in effect.) The New York Times saw it differently, saying the decision was "...less about free speech than about giving those few people with the most money the loudest voice in politics." Ironic, is it not, that the NY Times does not equate "voice" with "speech." In any event, the Times does not mean it. All they are really concerned about is limiting conservative speech. Otherwise, they might complain about unions vast donations to Democrat candidates. Or the Open Society Foundation (George Soros' group) giving $58 million to left wing groups in 2011. Or that Soros gave over $10 billion over the last 30 years. That's $333 million per year. (Contribution figures from the 4/3/14 IBD.)
* Complained the NY Times: "Thanks to Wednesday's decision (in McCutcheon), the interests of the very few wealthiest Americans - which differ significantly from those of most Americans - will now get even more outsize consideration by legislators." So, remind me again, exactly who was going to all those $35,000. a plate dinners held by Obama during the last 6 or 7 years? I certainly was not attending those dinners; nor was anyone that I know. I guess it was a bunch of wealthy Americans whose interests differ from mine. Why wasn't that a problem for the NY Times?
Sunday, March 30, 2014
"You Can't Face the Truth"
* The inability of some to face the truth is a topic that I have addressed quite often in this blog. I first discussed the issue in my second blog posting ("Some thoughts on world views and other matters"). I most recently discussed the issue in my last posting ("Odds and Ends," with reference to a quote from Proust). The issue has come up yet again; and as with my second posting, it involved a discussion with attorneys.
* I was speaking with two liberal (socialist?) attorneys about the ACA/Obamacare. I asked if they would at least agree that Obama lied about the ability to keep your own insurance. When they advised me that Obama did not lie (although everything he said did not pan out as predicted), I said that I could prove that he lied. The reaction was swift and severe. One started talking about Bush. The other, quite hostile and angry, insisted that I could not prove Obama lied. Furthermore, he took great offense when people falsely attacked his President. I was not given the opportunity to make my case.
* Attorneys, arguably, are part of the "intelligentsia" of society. But, as noted in the post "An Open Letter to Professor Stephen Hawking," intelligence is no match for liberal brainwashing. And what else would you call it really? After all, attorneys are taught to question. It is what attorneys do when cross-examining a witness. But questioning one's own beliefs - now that's a different ballgame altogether. Sadly, questioning the veracity of Obama is the equivalent of questioning their belief in G-d (or any other fundamental belief about the world) for these liberals. So, did Obama lie?
* Politifact called it the "lie of the year" for 2013. The Washington Post's fact checker gave Obama's promise about keeping your policy 4 pinocchios. (They have a 1 to 4 scale, with only the biggest lies getting 4 pinocchios.) Still not enough? NBC was told of internal White House memos from 2010, advising Obama that millions of Americans would lose their policies. However, Obama was not deterred and kept repeating his falsehood time after time after time. Finally, on November 4, Obama said "Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law, and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed." Of course, Obama said nothing of the sort. He did say: "If you like your policy you can keep your policy. Period. No one will take it away from you."
* Ordinarily, the two above-referenced attorneys would have no difficulty in cross-examining a witness who gave two such conflicting statements about whether or not people could keep their policies. Sooner or later they would be asking the witness: "Were you lying when you said you can keep your policy, period? Or were you lying when you claimed that you qualified that remark and added 'if no changes were made to the policy?' Because the first remark was an absolute assurance with no qualifiers."
* It is quite upsetting to speak with people who reject the use of analytical thinking in favor of dogma. Think of all the political movements throughout history where masses of people were brainwashed to accept their leader's ideology. Now think of all the tens of millions of people who were murdered during the 20th century in the name of various political dogmas. So this favoring of dogma over truth is quite serious business. It reflects a willingness to be led down any path, by any popular, eloquent speaker, who may express ideas with which you generally agree. So what if those two attorneys, again, were part of a larger mob, and I dared to insult their leader? Would I be turned in to the authorities for blasphemy? Injured? Killed? As I write these words I cannot honestly say that I would feel safe in a crowd of such similarly-minded people.
* In fact, of the various episodes of discrimination that I have experienced (as a result of my religion, one time, and as a result of my disability, two times), the worst by far has been the mistreatment received as a result of my being a conservative Republican. Some just make fun of me, others act as if there is something wrong with me, and others still have told me to my face - with some vitriol - that they "hate Republicans."
* No one should finish reading this post and think that I am just talking about two attorneys. Far from it. As noted above, just look at the 20th century. Also, take a look again at the 1/26/14 post entitled "Liberals' Views of Conservatives" (regarding remarks by the New York Democratic State Governor as to whether conservatives were welcome in New York State). Take another look at the 8/2/2012 post entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat" (concerning what four Democratic big city mayors had to say about the right of Chick-Fil-A to do business in their cities). So let me be clear - I am neither kidding nor intentionally overstating my fears and concerns about being cornered by a group of dogmatic people, similar in belief to the two attorneys discussed above.
* I have heard and read opinions by some about whether America should be divided into two countries - one "red" and one "blue." I am not in favor of that. I have even heard concerns expressed about whether America might be headed for a civil war. Needless to say, I am not in favor of that either. But just where are we headed when two otherwise bright attorneys would rather shout me down than hear the truth?
* I was speaking with two liberal (socialist?) attorneys about the ACA/Obamacare. I asked if they would at least agree that Obama lied about the ability to keep your own insurance. When they advised me that Obama did not lie (although everything he said did not pan out as predicted), I said that I could prove that he lied. The reaction was swift and severe. One started talking about Bush. The other, quite hostile and angry, insisted that I could not prove Obama lied. Furthermore, he took great offense when people falsely attacked his President. I was not given the opportunity to make my case.
* Attorneys, arguably, are part of the "intelligentsia" of society. But, as noted in the post "An Open Letter to Professor Stephen Hawking," intelligence is no match for liberal brainwashing. And what else would you call it really? After all, attorneys are taught to question. It is what attorneys do when cross-examining a witness. But questioning one's own beliefs - now that's a different ballgame altogether. Sadly, questioning the veracity of Obama is the equivalent of questioning their belief in G-d (or any other fundamental belief about the world) for these liberals. So, did Obama lie?
* Politifact called it the "lie of the year" for 2013. The Washington Post's fact checker gave Obama's promise about keeping your policy 4 pinocchios. (They have a 1 to 4 scale, with only the biggest lies getting 4 pinocchios.) Still not enough? NBC was told of internal White House memos from 2010, advising Obama that millions of Americans would lose their policies. However, Obama was not deterred and kept repeating his falsehood time after time after time. Finally, on November 4, Obama said "Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law, and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed." Of course, Obama said nothing of the sort. He did say: "If you like your policy you can keep your policy. Period. No one will take it away from you."
* Ordinarily, the two above-referenced attorneys would have no difficulty in cross-examining a witness who gave two such conflicting statements about whether or not people could keep their policies. Sooner or later they would be asking the witness: "Were you lying when you said you can keep your policy, period? Or were you lying when you claimed that you qualified that remark and added 'if no changes were made to the policy?' Because the first remark was an absolute assurance with no qualifiers."
* It is quite upsetting to speak with people who reject the use of analytical thinking in favor of dogma. Think of all the political movements throughout history where masses of people were brainwashed to accept their leader's ideology. Now think of all the tens of millions of people who were murdered during the 20th century in the name of various political dogmas. So this favoring of dogma over truth is quite serious business. It reflects a willingness to be led down any path, by any popular, eloquent speaker, who may express ideas with which you generally agree. So what if those two attorneys, again, were part of a larger mob, and I dared to insult their leader? Would I be turned in to the authorities for blasphemy? Injured? Killed? As I write these words I cannot honestly say that I would feel safe in a crowd of such similarly-minded people.
* In fact, of the various episodes of discrimination that I have experienced (as a result of my religion, one time, and as a result of my disability, two times), the worst by far has been the mistreatment received as a result of my being a conservative Republican. Some just make fun of me, others act as if there is something wrong with me, and others still have told me to my face - with some vitriol - that they "hate Republicans."
* No one should finish reading this post and think that I am just talking about two attorneys. Far from it. As noted above, just look at the 20th century. Also, take a look again at the 1/26/14 post entitled "Liberals' Views of Conservatives" (regarding remarks by the New York Democratic State Governor as to whether conservatives were welcome in New York State). Take another look at the 8/2/2012 post entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat" (concerning what four Democratic big city mayors had to say about the right of Chick-Fil-A to do business in their cities). So let me be clear - I am neither kidding nor intentionally overstating my fears and concerns about being cornered by a group of dogmatic people, similar in belief to the two attorneys discussed above.
* I have heard and read opinions by some about whether America should be divided into two countries - one "red" and one "blue." I am not in favor of that. I have even heard concerns expressed about whether America might be headed for a civil war. Needless to say, I am not in favor of that either. But just where are we headed when two otherwise bright attorneys would rather shout me down than hear the truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)