You have to hand it to the Europeans. Home of the appeasers. The European Court of Justice ruled that Hamas should be taken off the EU's list of terrorist organizations. So what if they are responsible for numerous terrorist attacks on civilians in Israel, and the firing of thousands of rockets and mortars into Israeli cities in the hopes of killing civilians? The Europeans love them - just like Jimmy Carter does. Next, let's remove Hezbollah, ISIS, Al Qaeda from the list. Hell, let's just do away with the list. It's so judgmental.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said this: "Hamas is a murderous terrorist organization whose charter says that its aim is to destroy Israel." I need to tell Netanyahu a little secret - the Europeans do not give a damn if Israel is destroyed!
The great "moderate" leader of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas, recently said this: "We cannot recognize a Jewish State...because it contradicts our interests." Yes, their interest in destroying Israel. There was some honesty out of Abbas; just don't expect to see it in the mainstream media.
While the palestinians have been pushing for a return to the 1967 borders, there has also been talk of some land swaps. But the "moderate" Abbas would have none of it, as he said: "I will not allow, or force, any Arab to relinquish his Israeli citizenship...as far as I'm concerned, Arabs remaining citizens of Israel is a sacred matter." Sacred matter? What a bunch of...
What he really means is he wants Arabs and Jews living in Israel, but only Arabs in a new state of Palestine (he already has said no Jews will be allowed) and then eventually merge the two into a single Arab state.
Meanwhile, liberal commentator Roger Cohen, wrote a piece in the 12/21/14 New York Times entitled: "What Will Israel Become?" Mr. Cohen was agonizing over growing numbers of "settlements" in the West Bank, and a growing wave of nationalism that has resulted in a proposed law to remove Arabic as an official language of Israel.
As do others, he frets over whether Israel will remain a democracy or not. In his support, Cohen refers to Israel's founding charter of 1948, indicating that the new state was to be based "on freedom, justice, and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, or sex."
Very nice. But let me remind Mr. Cohen that the palestinian's charters (of Hamas and Fatah) call for Israel's DESTRUCTION! The nice thing about being a liberal is that you need not concern yourself with either facts or reality. As I have stated before, liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs.
Just the other day a man in France drove his car directly into a crowd of 12 pedestrians. Two were reported to have been badly injured. I should point out that the man was heard to yell "Allahu Akhbar!" He also apparently claimed to act on behalf of the children of Palestine. Would I be that far off if I said here is the European mentality - if we let them kill the Jews maybe they will leave us alone? After all, the largely secular Europeans have not shown much interest in the plight of Christians throughout the Arab world, so why would they concern themselves with the Jews?
Interestingly, the Jerusalem Post reports that Secretary of State Kerry recently said Arab leaders are willing to make peace with Israel and stand up against the likes of Hamas and Boko Haram. Now wouldn't that be something - the Arabs tiring of the terrorists in their midst while the Europeans seek to empower them.
Monday, December 22, 2014
Year End Reflections - Part I
Two NYPD officers were shot and killed by a lunatic who had already shot his girlfriend. However, he felt a need to take revenge on the police for the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. The Mayor of New York, after the killing of Eric Garner, said this on 12/3/14: "People need to know that black lives and brown lives matter as much as white lives." After saying he had to warn his mixed race son about how to deal with the police, he also said this: "...we are dealing with centuries of racism that have brought us to this day."
Actually, we are dealing with leftist elected officials - morons - who, while not responsible for these deaths, did not help. Mayor DiBlasio sees fit to accuse the officers involved in the death of Eric Garner, and really the entire police department, of racism. Where was his evidence for that? Are all the black and Hispanic and Asian cops racist also? Or was the Mayor taking his cue from much higher elected officials? Recall Obama calling the Cambridge P.D. officers stupid for arresting Professor Gates, a black man. Had it been a white professor, we never would have heard from the media or the President about it.
But if Obama had a son, he would look like Trayvon. And the Attorney General of the United States saw fit to go to Ferguson and announce that he was there not just as the A.G., but as a black man. Holder also said: "I think it's pretty clear that the need for wholesale change in the Ferguson police department is appropriate"; but deferred on what changes would be needed "until we complete our inquiry." Then how did he conclude "wholesale change" was even necessary before the inquiry was completed?
The great thinkers in the mainstream media piled on. Ezra Klein did not believe officer Wilson's account of the Michael Brown shooting. He wrote on Vox asking why Michael Brown, described as an 18 year old headed to college, would refuse an order to get out of the road, or would curse at a police officer, or would attack a police officer, and so on. He concluded that "none of this fits with what we know of Michael Brown."
I would bet Mr. Klein saw the video of Brown robbing the convenience store and shoving the store clerk. Did he know that Mr. Brown was headed for a trade school, not a college? Or that his mother said she relied on family and friends to help mentor him, presumably because his father was not around? Did he know Brown's parents were just teenagers when Brown was born? But why add any complexity to the story when it's so much easier to go with the lying, racist police officer.
The Eric Garner case brings up some interesting political issues. Garner was selling individual cigarettes - loosies - on the street. Apparently, shop owners were not happy, especially since they have to collect and pay the taxes on the cigarette sales. Garner, undoubtedly, had an all cash business; and we can assume he was not concerned about taxes. Garner had been arrested many times before. He was resisting arrest. Yet no one with whom I have spoken feels the same way about Eric Garner's death as they did about Michael Brown's death. What if Garner was a 10 year old kid selling lemonade? Would the police "take the kid down?"
Yes, I know that local authorities have in fact stopped kids from selling lemonade in some communities. And there is the issue - just how much government control and involvement do we need in every single aspect of our lives? Secondly, if selling loosies is bad, does that mean it requires police involvement in the first instance? What if a civil employee, or someone equivalent to a traffic cop, simply gave him a citation? What if there were no police involvement unless a judge ordered his arrest for failing to pay the fine or appear in court?
Do I believe the police are always right in everything they do? No. I thought they hit Rodney King too many times. And it was fairly shocking when the police shot, and thankfully did not kill, 2 small Hispanic women they somehow mistook for Christopher Dorner. But I'm not a politician. I'm not going to make wholesale charges of racism and widespread police misconduct in order to satisfy an agenda or please a base. So rest in peace Officer Rafael Ramos and Officer Wenjian Liu. May your lives be an inspiration to others who want to protect and serve.
Actually, we are dealing with leftist elected officials - morons - who, while not responsible for these deaths, did not help. Mayor DiBlasio sees fit to accuse the officers involved in the death of Eric Garner, and really the entire police department, of racism. Where was his evidence for that? Are all the black and Hispanic and Asian cops racist also? Or was the Mayor taking his cue from much higher elected officials? Recall Obama calling the Cambridge P.D. officers stupid for arresting Professor Gates, a black man. Had it been a white professor, we never would have heard from the media or the President about it.
But if Obama had a son, he would look like Trayvon. And the Attorney General of the United States saw fit to go to Ferguson and announce that he was there not just as the A.G., but as a black man. Holder also said: "I think it's pretty clear that the need for wholesale change in the Ferguson police department is appropriate"; but deferred on what changes would be needed "until we complete our inquiry." Then how did he conclude "wholesale change" was even necessary before the inquiry was completed?
The great thinkers in the mainstream media piled on. Ezra Klein did not believe officer Wilson's account of the Michael Brown shooting. He wrote on Vox asking why Michael Brown, described as an 18 year old headed to college, would refuse an order to get out of the road, or would curse at a police officer, or would attack a police officer, and so on. He concluded that "none of this fits with what we know of Michael Brown."
I would bet Mr. Klein saw the video of Brown robbing the convenience store and shoving the store clerk. Did he know that Mr. Brown was headed for a trade school, not a college? Or that his mother said she relied on family and friends to help mentor him, presumably because his father was not around? Did he know Brown's parents were just teenagers when Brown was born? But why add any complexity to the story when it's so much easier to go with the lying, racist police officer.
The Eric Garner case brings up some interesting political issues. Garner was selling individual cigarettes - loosies - on the street. Apparently, shop owners were not happy, especially since they have to collect and pay the taxes on the cigarette sales. Garner, undoubtedly, had an all cash business; and we can assume he was not concerned about taxes. Garner had been arrested many times before. He was resisting arrest. Yet no one with whom I have spoken feels the same way about Eric Garner's death as they did about Michael Brown's death. What if Garner was a 10 year old kid selling lemonade? Would the police "take the kid down?"
Yes, I know that local authorities have in fact stopped kids from selling lemonade in some communities. And there is the issue - just how much government control and involvement do we need in every single aspect of our lives? Secondly, if selling loosies is bad, does that mean it requires police involvement in the first instance? What if a civil employee, or someone equivalent to a traffic cop, simply gave him a citation? What if there were no police involvement unless a judge ordered his arrest for failing to pay the fine or appear in court?
Do I believe the police are always right in everything they do? No. I thought they hit Rodney King too many times. And it was fairly shocking when the police shot, and thankfully did not kill, 2 small Hispanic women they somehow mistook for Christopher Dorner. But I'm not a politician. I'm not going to make wholesale charges of racism and widespread police misconduct in order to satisfy an agenda or please a base. So rest in peace Officer Rafael Ramos and Officer Wenjian Liu. May your lives be an inspiration to others who want to protect and serve.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Obama's Take on His World
Like many on the left, President Obama was undoubtedly dumbfounded by the outcome of the midterm election. After all, if people vote their pocketbooks, then with the unemployment rate being way down and the stock market being way up - what happened? Are the American people just stupid? (We'll get to Jonathan Gruber soon enough.) Said Obama at his 11/5/14 post-election press conference: "On almost every measure we are better off economically than when I took office." Let's see.
When Obama took office in January, 2009, the median household income was $55,871; in July, 2014 it was $54,045. Other than gas prices, inflation has caused the dollar to shrink, requiring Americans to take home more - not less - to keep up.
In January, 2009, 31,983,716 Americans were on food stamps. In July, 2014, that number soared to 46,486,434. Who thinks that huge increase speaks to a healthy economy? No surprise that the number of Americans living in poverty also increased from 2009 to 2013 - from 43.6 million to 45.3 million. Similarly, the poverty rate increased for women and blacks, although only slightly for Hispanics.
While the UNemployment rate is down, the employment rate (a more accurate reflection of the labor market) shrunk from 65.7% in January, 2009 to 62.7% in September, 2014. That is the lowest it has been since 1968. The unemployment rate does not count the chronically unemployed, and therefore can result in a misleading number. Obama, again, has done no favors for blacks as their labor participation rate is down from 63.2% to 61.7%. Women are down from 59.4% to 56.7%. Hispanics are also down - from 67.9% to 65.7%.
Homeownership rate? In the fourth quarter of 2008 it was 67.5% compared to the second quarter of 2014 when it was down to 64.7%. And those promised reductions in health insurance premiums? Up from $13,375 in 2008 to $16,351 in 2013. (All of the above stats from Fox/Hannity, 11/6/14.)
Obama was asked at the press conference if it was a mistake not to have developed closer relations with Congress. Obama's reply: "I'm certainly going to be spending a lot more time with them (Boehner and McConnell) now because that's the only way we're gonna be able to get some stuff done." Translation: "I haven't bothered meeting with those guys for 6 years; I'm not going to start now. You ever hear of an executive order?"
Obama also said this: "I'm gonna wake up every single day doing my absolute best to deliver for them (the American people)." Translation: "Screw the people. They clearly do not appreciate all that I've done for them, voting in a Republican Congress. A majority still don't even approve of the ACA. I'm gonna focus on foreign policy and make a deal with Iran about their nukes. When they get nuclear weapons it won't be on my watch. And I'm gonna make sure Kerry gets me a peace deal between the Arabs and Israelis. And if none of that works out, there's always golf, fund raising and hanging out with my buds in Hollywood and the music biz."
And while the following is unrelated to the election results, it also reflects on Obama's perception of his world. Said Obama: "My own experience tells me race relations continue to improve." Wrong again Mr. President. According to the latest IBD/TIPP poll, 46% of Americans think race relations are either much worse (24%) or somewhat worse (22%). Only 18% of Americans think race relations are either much better (4%) or somewhat better (14%). This is no surprise as Obama injects race into almost everything - from Professor Gates to Trayvon Martin to Ferguson, Missouri to the disciplining of black students by schools to the attacks on bankers, and on and on.
Therefore, it is not terribly surprising that Obama would count Al Sharpton as one of his trusted advisers. Obama and his minion are race baiters. Recall Biden saying to a black audience that Romney's policies would "put all you back in chains." And recall Harry Reid saying: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?"
But didn't Obama attend Rev. Wright's church for 20 years? Didn't he call Rev. Wright his mentor? Need I say more?
When Obama took office in January, 2009, the median household income was $55,871; in July, 2014 it was $54,045. Other than gas prices, inflation has caused the dollar to shrink, requiring Americans to take home more - not less - to keep up.
In January, 2009, 31,983,716 Americans were on food stamps. In July, 2014, that number soared to 46,486,434. Who thinks that huge increase speaks to a healthy economy? No surprise that the number of Americans living in poverty also increased from 2009 to 2013 - from 43.6 million to 45.3 million. Similarly, the poverty rate increased for women and blacks, although only slightly for Hispanics.
While the UNemployment rate is down, the employment rate (a more accurate reflection of the labor market) shrunk from 65.7% in January, 2009 to 62.7% in September, 2014. That is the lowest it has been since 1968. The unemployment rate does not count the chronically unemployed, and therefore can result in a misleading number. Obama, again, has done no favors for blacks as their labor participation rate is down from 63.2% to 61.7%. Women are down from 59.4% to 56.7%. Hispanics are also down - from 67.9% to 65.7%.
Homeownership rate? In the fourth quarter of 2008 it was 67.5% compared to the second quarter of 2014 when it was down to 64.7%. And those promised reductions in health insurance premiums? Up from $13,375 in 2008 to $16,351 in 2013. (All of the above stats from Fox/Hannity, 11/6/14.)
Obama was asked at the press conference if it was a mistake not to have developed closer relations with Congress. Obama's reply: "I'm certainly going to be spending a lot more time with them (Boehner and McConnell) now because that's the only way we're gonna be able to get some stuff done." Translation: "I haven't bothered meeting with those guys for 6 years; I'm not going to start now. You ever hear of an executive order?"
Obama also said this: "I'm gonna wake up every single day doing my absolute best to deliver for them (the American people)." Translation: "Screw the people. They clearly do not appreciate all that I've done for them, voting in a Republican Congress. A majority still don't even approve of the ACA. I'm gonna focus on foreign policy and make a deal with Iran about their nukes. When they get nuclear weapons it won't be on my watch. And I'm gonna make sure Kerry gets me a peace deal between the Arabs and Israelis. And if none of that works out, there's always golf, fund raising and hanging out with my buds in Hollywood and the music biz."
And while the following is unrelated to the election results, it also reflects on Obama's perception of his world. Said Obama: "My own experience tells me race relations continue to improve." Wrong again Mr. President. According to the latest IBD/TIPP poll, 46% of Americans think race relations are either much worse (24%) or somewhat worse (22%). Only 18% of Americans think race relations are either much better (4%) or somewhat better (14%). This is no surprise as Obama injects race into almost everything - from Professor Gates to Trayvon Martin to Ferguson, Missouri to the disciplining of black students by schools to the attacks on bankers, and on and on.
Therefore, it is not terribly surprising that Obama would count Al Sharpton as one of his trusted advisers. Obama and his minion are race baiters. Recall Biden saying to a black audience that Romney's policies would "put all you back in chains." And recall Harry Reid saying: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?"
But didn't Obama attend Rev. Wright's church for 20 years? Didn't he call Rev. Wright his mentor? Need I say more?
Massacre in Jerusalem
This past Tuesday, November 18, two Arabs entered a synogogue in the Har Nof neighborhood in the west side of Jerusalem and brutally murdered at least three rabbis and one other worshiper during morning prayers. It was reported that at least seven others were hospitalized, and that a Druze police officer was also killed. Israeli police killed the two murderers. This savage attack, using a gun and meat cleavers, did not occur in the area of eastern Jerusalem, an area to which the Arabs are claiming entitlement. During the attack the murderers shouted "Allahu Akbar," ("God is great").
This attack follows other attacks on Jews in Jerusalem, some of which used vehicles to drive directly into crowds of people. Hamas, of course, praised the attack. The same Hamas that calls for Israel's destruction; and that would likely win any election for control of the West Bank should the Arabs get a state there. (Abbas is in the 10th year of a 4 year term. You read that correctly.)
President Obama condemned the attack, noting that three of those killed also held American citizenship. Obama does not get particularly worked up when Americans are murdered by Muslims. Obama took the usual leftist equivalency approach in stating: "too many Israelis have died and too many Palestinians have died." And he again claimed another attack was due to "extremism," rather than any particular ideology. Finally, and typically, he concluded with a platitude - a lie - that Palestinians and Israelis just want to raise their families and live in peace. No. That is what the Jews want. As the Arabs frequently tell us, they value death whereas we value life.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister of Jordan reportedly sent a condolence letter to the families of the two murderers, saying: "I ask God to envelope them with mercy and to grant you with patience, comfort and recovery from your grief." The Jordanian Parliament held a minute of silence in memory of the two murderers.
Let me be clear. The immediate responsibility for these savage murders lies with the attackers. However, and contrary to leftist beliefs, our government's policies have consequences. Obama refuses to acknowledge Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel. Obama repeatedly calls for Jerusalem to be divided, giving the eastern part of the city to the Arabs for the capital of a Palestinian state. As if that makes any sense. And as if Israel will ever divide Jerusalem. But Obama and other Western leaders are also responsible for these deaths. Knowing that nearly the entire Western world is on their side, the Arabs are using these violent tactics to intimidate the Israelis, in the hopes that they will give up. These Arabs know that the only consequence they will suffer are some words of condemnation from Western leaders. While the Arabs were busy murdering Jews, Spain's parliament was busy joining other European countries in recognizing a Palestinian state.
In a similar fashion, Obama wants to force a "peace" deal on the Israelis - regardless of the consequences. It's not enough that Israel has Hezbollah on their north, Hamas on their south, Al Qaeda and ISIS in the bordering Sinai, and an increasingly hostile Jordan to the east. No, Israel needs to put a Palestinian state - which everyone knows will end up being controlled by Hamas - right on the doorstep of their major cities.
As Yuval Steinitz, Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister, said before this latest attack: "Someone has to explain to the Americans that after what happened in Gaza, we are not planning to commit suicide here. We will not allow what happened in Gaza to be repeated in Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank).
Amen.
This attack follows other attacks on Jews in Jerusalem, some of which used vehicles to drive directly into crowds of people. Hamas, of course, praised the attack. The same Hamas that calls for Israel's destruction; and that would likely win any election for control of the West Bank should the Arabs get a state there. (Abbas is in the 10th year of a 4 year term. You read that correctly.)
President Obama condemned the attack, noting that three of those killed also held American citizenship. Obama does not get particularly worked up when Americans are murdered by Muslims. Obama took the usual leftist equivalency approach in stating: "too many Israelis have died and too many Palestinians have died." And he again claimed another attack was due to "extremism," rather than any particular ideology. Finally, and typically, he concluded with a platitude - a lie - that Palestinians and Israelis just want to raise their families and live in peace. No. That is what the Jews want. As the Arabs frequently tell us, they value death whereas we value life.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister of Jordan reportedly sent a condolence letter to the families of the two murderers, saying: "I ask God to envelope them with mercy and to grant you with patience, comfort and recovery from your grief." The Jordanian Parliament held a minute of silence in memory of the two murderers.
Let me be clear. The immediate responsibility for these savage murders lies with the attackers. However, and contrary to leftist beliefs, our government's policies have consequences. Obama refuses to acknowledge Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel. Obama repeatedly calls for Jerusalem to be divided, giving the eastern part of the city to the Arabs for the capital of a Palestinian state. As if that makes any sense. And as if Israel will ever divide Jerusalem. But Obama and other Western leaders are also responsible for these deaths. Knowing that nearly the entire Western world is on their side, the Arabs are using these violent tactics to intimidate the Israelis, in the hopes that they will give up. These Arabs know that the only consequence they will suffer are some words of condemnation from Western leaders. While the Arabs were busy murdering Jews, Spain's parliament was busy joining other European countries in recognizing a Palestinian state.
In a similar fashion, Obama wants to force a "peace" deal on the Israelis - regardless of the consequences. It's not enough that Israel has Hezbollah on their north, Hamas on their south, Al Qaeda and ISIS in the bordering Sinai, and an increasingly hostile Jordan to the east. No, Israel needs to put a Palestinian state - which everyone knows will end up being controlled by Hamas - right on the doorstep of their major cities.
As Yuval Steinitz, Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister, said before this latest attack: "Someone has to explain to the Americans that after what happened in Gaza, we are not planning to commit suicide here. We will not allow what happened in Gaza to be repeated in Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank).
Amen.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Major Republican Victory!
As of this writing the Republicans have taken back the US Senate, with 52 seats to 45 for the Democrats, and three still pending. Of those three it is believed that the Republicans have a chance to pick up two more.
In the House, the Republicans have so far picked up 12 more seats, apparently nearing their all time high from about 70 years ago.
And for those who believe certain states are permanently locked in to one party or the other - not so fast. In the very blue states of Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois, Republicans have won the governorships.
The Democrat candidates who campaigned on the "war on women" fell flat. And a black Republican was elected to the US Senate from South Carolina, a very conservative state. According to one web site (Vox) Tim Scott is the first black to win a statewide office in South Carolina since Reconstruction; and the first black elected to the Senate from any Southern state.
While Democrat candidates from around the country ran away from Obama, Obama nevertheless said (to the Dems chagrin) that his policies were on the ballot. If so, the American people just expressed their huge disappointment with him and his policies. For those who will claim racism dictated tonight's result (Obama and Holder will certainly think that even if they do not say so), take a look at the above paragraph.
So what now? Obama has never been one to compromise. In fact, he does not care that much for governing, as his own party has complained about his lack of interest in even meeting with Democrat Senators and Congressmen. He likes to campaign; he likes to hang out with the rich and famous; and he prefers Executive Orders.
Republicans need to pass legislation that will help the economy. They need to pass bills that will eliminate the worst provisions of Obamacare. And they need to act as a bulwark against our dwindling military capabilities, and a disastrous foreign policy. I suspect the Israelis are breathing a little easier tonight, as Republicans have been staunch supporters.
If, however, the Republicans do not act wisely, my readers can count on me to say so. A reader commented on one of my last posts ("You Really Want to Elect These People") and basically said if the Republicans win they will get all the blame for Obama's last two years of failures. But, with only controlling the House, Republicans get all the blame from the mainstream media already - the "obstructionist" Republicans. Now, Republicans will actually be able to pass legislation that Harry Reid had prevented from coming to a vote in the Senate.
The question will be, if Obama vetoes what the Republicans pass, what spin will the mainstream media put on it to still blame the Republicans? We know they will not blame or criticize Obama. Tonight, however, it feels good to have the brakes put on Obama's far left agenda.
In the House, the Republicans have so far picked up 12 more seats, apparently nearing their all time high from about 70 years ago.
And for those who believe certain states are permanently locked in to one party or the other - not so fast. In the very blue states of Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois, Republicans have won the governorships.
The Democrat candidates who campaigned on the "war on women" fell flat. And a black Republican was elected to the US Senate from South Carolina, a very conservative state. According to one web site (Vox) Tim Scott is the first black to win a statewide office in South Carolina since Reconstruction; and the first black elected to the Senate from any Southern state.
While Democrat candidates from around the country ran away from Obama, Obama nevertheless said (to the Dems chagrin) that his policies were on the ballot. If so, the American people just expressed their huge disappointment with him and his policies. For those who will claim racism dictated tonight's result (Obama and Holder will certainly think that even if they do not say so), take a look at the above paragraph.
So what now? Obama has never been one to compromise. In fact, he does not care that much for governing, as his own party has complained about his lack of interest in even meeting with Democrat Senators and Congressmen. He likes to campaign; he likes to hang out with the rich and famous; and he prefers Executive Orders.
Republicans need to pass legislation that will help the economy. They need to pass bills that will eliminate the worst provisions of Obamacare. And they need to act as a bulwark against our dwindling military capabilities, and a disastrous foreign policy. I suspect the Israelis are breathing a little easier tonight, as Republicans have been staunch supporters.
If, however, the Republicans do not act wisely, my readers can count on me to say so. A reader commented on one of my last posts ("You Really Want to Elect These People") and basically said if the Republicans win they will get all the blame for Obama's last two years of failures. But, with only controlling the House, Republicans get all the blame from the mainstream media already - the "obstructionist" Republicans. Now, Republicans will actually be able to pass legislation that Harry Reid had prevented from coming to a vote in the Senate.
The question will be, if Obama vetoes what the Republicans pass, what spin will the mainstream media put on it to still blame the Republicans? We know they will not blame or criticize Obama. Tonight, however, it feels good to have the brakes put on Obama's far left agenda.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Anti-Semitism at Your Door
If you live in or near New York City you would have had the opportunity to attend a performance at the Metropolitan Opera of "The Death of Klinghoffer." Recall that Leon Klinghoffer was a 69 year old disabled American Jew who had taken a cruise with his wife Marilyn. In 1985 they were on the ship Achille Lauro when it was hijacked by members of the Palestine Liberation Front. These terrorists shot and killed Klinghoffer and then threw his body and his wheelchair overboard.
The October 22, 2014 New York Times had a review of the opera done by Anthony Tommasini. Said Tommasini: "This opera tries to explore what drove these Palestinians to take that ship and murder its most vulnerable passenger." Said Klinghoffer's two daughters, who issued their own statement regarding this opera: "It presents false moral equivalences without context, and offers no real insight into the historical reality and the senseless murder of an American Jew."
But that's the point. For the left there are always moral equivalencies - because they have no sense of good and evil. Those are religious concepts, and the left tends to lack a religious foundation. You want to know why the Palestinians do what they do? Because it is what they believe.
Go back to the 1920s when Arabs massacred Jews in the land of Palestine, then under the British Mandate. Or World War II when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem supported Hitler. Or to 1947 before the UN voted for partition of the Mandate area, creating a Jewish state and an Arab state - when the Arabs said they would never accept the existence of a Jewish State.
You want to know why such an opera is acceptable in polite society? Because the Palestinians are perceived to be the underdogs, and the underdogs are always right and can do no bad. Isn't that why Obama and Kerry ask nothing in return from the Palestinians when they give hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to people who murder and attempt to murder innocent Jews? Then the Palestinians reward the murderers with money, and name schools and parks after their "martyrs." And then Obama rewards them some more.
In her 10/24/14 column, Caroline Glick notes numerous incidents of anti-Semitism at AEPi frat houses across the country. AEPi is the Jewish fraternity. Swastikas were painted on the AEPi house at Emory University. Glick notes that recently AEPi members from across the country put up a video on You Tube documenting various assaults and batteries against their members. The University of Arizona AEPi president was violently attacked while trying to stop a large group from entering their house. He suffered a skull fracture and bleeding on the brain and a concussion.
The Jewish director of a community center had attended an exhibition game between the Brooklyn Nets and the Maccabi Tel Aviv team in Brooklyn. Afterwards, while walking with his two young sons, they were accosted by a group of people yelling "your people are murderers." The director was punched in the face and sustained a broken nose. There are plenty of other incidents mentioned in the Glick article, but you get the point.
At many colleges and universities across this country you will find groups such as The Muslim Student Association, Students for Justice in Palestine, Direct Action for Palestine and Adalah and others. Are we nearing a point in time when Jewish students need to hide their Jewishness in order to feel safe on campus? Should they not wear their kippah (skull cap) in public? Are we now like Europe where Jews in major cities are told exactly that? They are told not to wear any Jewish-identifying garments in public; and to not linger outside Jewish places of worship.
Glick notes how in September of this year hundreds of protestors interfered with longshoremen who were to offload cargo from an Israeli ship. The ship was forced to unload its cargo in Los Angeles. Glick notes that none of the protesters were arrested.
Glick suggests supporting groups that help students on campus, such as StandWithUs, CAMERA, and the Zionist Organization of America and other similar groups. She believes Jewish lawyers should start filing lawsuits against groups that interfere with the speech and religious rights of Jewish students. (Personally, I might suggest making a complaint to the office of the Attorney General Eric Holder, Civil Rights Division. But let's be honest, if you are not black he's not likely to care.)
I am proud of, and thankful for, my Christian friends (and the millions of Christians whom I do not know) who are extremely supportive of Israel. Because today, anti-Semitism often takes the form of anti-Zionism and anti-Israel advocacy. And I remind my fellow Jews of that famous quote from 2000 years ago by Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?...And if not now, when?"
The October 22, 2014 New York Times had a review of the opera done by Anthony Tommasini. Said Tommasini: "This opera tries to explore what drove these Palestinians to take that ship and murder its most vulnerable passenger." Said Klinghoffer's two daughters, who issued their own statement regarding this opera: "It presents false moral equivalences without context, and offers no real insight into the historical reality and the senseless murder of an American Jew."
But that's the point. For the left there are always moral equivalencies - because they have no sense of good and evil. Those are religious concepts, and the left tends to lack a religious foundation. You want to know why the Palestinians do what they do? Because it is what they believe.
Go back to the 1920s when Arabs massacred Jews in the land of Palestine, then under the British Mandate. Or World War II when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem supported Hitler. Or to 1947 before the UN voted for partition of the Mandate area, creating a Jewish state and an Arab state - when the Arabs said they would never accept the existence of a Jewish State.
You want to know why such an opera is acceptable in polite society? Because the Palestinians are perceived to be the underdogs, and the underdogs are always right and can do no bad. Isn't that why Obama and Kerry ask nothing in return from the Palestinians when they give hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to people who murder and attempt to murder innocent Jews? Then the Palestinians reward the murderers with money, and name schools and parks after their "martyrs." And then Obama rewards them some more.
In her 10/24/14 column, Caroline Glick notes numerous incidents of anti-Semitism at AEPi frat houses across the country. AEPi is the Jewish fraternity. Swastikas were painted on the AEPi house at Emory University. Glick notes that recently AEPi members from across the country put up a video on You Tube documenting various assaults and batteries against their members. The University of Arizona AEPi president was violently attacked while trying to stop a large group from entering their house. He suffered a skull fracture and bleeding on the brain and a concussion.
The Jewish director of a community center had attended an exhibition game between the Brooklyn Nets and the Maccabi Tel Aviv team in Brooklyn. Afterwards, while walking with his two young sons, they were accosted by a group of people yelling "your people are murderers." The director was punched in the face and sustained a broken nose. There are plenty of other incidents mentioned in the Glick article, but you get the point.
At many colleges and universities across this country you will find groups such as The Muslim Student Association, Students for Justice in Palestine, Direct Action for Palestine and Adalah and others. Are we nearing a point in time when Jewish students need to hide their Jewishness in order to feel safe on campus? Should they not wear their kippah (skull cap) in public? Are we now like Europe where Jews in major cities are told exactly that? They are told not to wear any Jewish-identifying garments in public; and to not linger outside Jewish places of worship.
Glick notes how in September of this year hundreds of protestors interfered with longshoremen who were to offload cargo from an Israeli ship. The ship was forced to unload its cargo in Los Angeles. Glick notes that none of the protesters were arrested.
Glick suggests supporting groups that help students on campus, such as StandWithUs, CAMERA, and the Zionist Organization of America and other similar groups. She believes Jewish lawyers should start filing lawsuits against groups that interfere with the speech and religious rights of Jewish students. (Personally, I might suggest making a complaint to the office of the Attorney General Eric Holder, Civil Rights Division. But let's be honest, if you are not black he's not likely to care.)
I am proud of, and thankful for, my Christian friends (and the millions of Christians whom I do not know) who are extremely supportive of Israel. Because today, anti-Semitism often takes the form of anti-Zionism and anti-Israel advocacy. And I remind my fellow Jews of that famous quote from 2000 years ago by Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?...And if not now, when?"
You Really Want to Elect These People?
With the election only two days away, here are just a few democrat viewpoints you should know. For my friends and readers who are democrats, are these the ideas and policies you want to see promulgated by your government?
Recently, Hillary Clinton said this: "Don't let anybody tell you it's corporations and businesses (that) create jobs." After getting some push back she subsequently backpedaled on that; but do not think for one minute it was just a slip of the tongue. It reflects leftist thinking that the government creates jobs. And it tracks Obama's comment from a couple of years ago: "If you've got a business - you didn't build that - somebody else made that happen."
Attorney General Eric Holder said this: "I think it's pretty clear that the need for wholesale change in that department (referring to the Ferguson P.D.) is appropriate." A white police officer shot Michael Brown, a black youth. Has the officer been charged with any crime? No. Is he likely to be charged with any crime? Not in this writer's opinion. But so what? Obama and Holder can only see race - not right and wrong.
You think Al Sharpton should be an adviser or confidante to the President of the United States? The same guy who supported the lies of young Tawana Brawley, who claimed she was raped by white men. It turned out to be a hoax, but Sharpton had already accused a white prosecutor of the crime. The prosecutor sued and won - but Sharpton refused to pay the judgment.
The same guy who did his best to raise tensions after a young man who was Hasidic accidentally drove his car into - and killed - a 7 year old black child. Al was there yelling "No justice, no peace," over a car accident. After 3 days of riots a young rabbinical student was murdered - beaten to death. Did that even the score for Al?
Or how about Al owing millions in back taxes? I think it's fairly clear that the IRS chooses who to go after - that would be Republicans and Tea Partiers under Obama. (Information in this paragraph and above two from an article in the WSJ of 10/25-26/14 by Heather MacDonald.)
None of the above keeps Al from being a host on one of MSNBC's shows, or having his own radio show, or being close to the President. Only 72 hours after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Sharpton was at the White House. "There's a trust factor with the Rev from the Oval Office on down," as told by a White House aide to Politico (and reported in Newsmax on 8/22/14). Which explains why Obama appeared with Sharpton at a rally in April, and also recently called into his radio show.
On the other hand, Obama does not have the same warm feelings for the leader of our closest Mid-East ally, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Someone in the Obama Administration said this: "The thing about Bibi (Netanyahu's nickname) is, he's a chickenshit." Several years ago Netanyahu was at the White House and had to tell Obama directly that the 1967 borders (proposed by Obama and Kerry as the borders for a Palestinian state) were out of the question, because those borders could not be defended and would threaten the very existence of Israel.
But no fear. In his relentless pursuit of making deals - any deals - just so long as he can be the one who gets the credit, Obama is again sending Kerry to the Mid-East. He's got two years left in office to be the one to create "peace" between Israel and the Arabs. Because Obama believes that a piece of paper is all it takes for there to be peace.
Recall that Abbas wants to present the UN Security Council with a resolution establishing the state of "Palestine" based upon the 1967 borders. If such a resolution got the necessary 9 of 15 votes it would pass - unless it was vetoed by one of the five permanent members (the US, England, France, Russia and China). The question is - would Obama exercise the veto? According to my son (who is fluent in Hebrew) some of the Israeli press is reporting that Obama has threatened Netanyahu with the withholding of a veto. If that is true, it certainly sounds like an ultimatum - make "peace" with the Palestinians on Obama's terms or suffer defeat at the UN on the Palestinian's terms. Frankly, I am not sure that I can tell the difference.
On a positive note, I have heard from two moderate to liberal Jewish friends, indicating they are pretty much done with Obama, especially with regards to his mistreatment of Netanyahu and Israel. They seem to be willing to give the Republicans a chance. If the Republicans keep the House and take the Senate, Obama will still be in office for two more years. However, a Republican Congress may be able to lessen the harm that Obama might do during that time. Vote carefully my friends.
Recently, Hillary Clinton said this: "Don't let anybody tell you it's corporations and businesses (that) create jobs." After getting some push back she subsequently backpedaled on that; but do not think for one minute it was just a slip of the tongue. It reflects leftist thinking that the government creates jobs. And it tracks Obama's comment from a couple of years ago: "If you've got a business - you didn't build that - somebody else made that happen."
Attorney General Eric Holder said this: "I think it's pretty clear that the need for wholesale change in that department (referring to the Ferguson P.D.) is appropriate." A white police officer shot Michael Brown, a black youth. Has the officer been charged with any crime? No. Is he likely to be charged with any crime? Not in this writer's opinion. But so what? Obama and Holder can only see race - not right and wrong.
You think Al Sharpton should be an adviser or confidante to the President of the United States? The same guy who supported the lies of young Tawana Brawley, who claimed she was raped by white men. It turned out to be a hoax, but Sharpton had already accused a white prosecutor of the crime. The prosecutor sued and won - but Sharpton refused to pay the judgment.
The same guy who did his best to raise tensions after a young man who was Hasidic accidentally drove his car into - and killed - a 7 year old black child. Al was there yelling "No justice, no peace," over a car accident. After 3 days of riots a young rabbinical student was murdered - beaten to death. Did that even the score for Al?
Or how about Al owing millions in back taxes? I think it's fairly clear that the IRS chooses who to go after - that would be Republicans and Tea Partiers under Obama. (Information in this paragraph and above two from an article in the WSJ of 10/25-26/14 by Heather MacDonald.)
None of the above keeps Al from being a host on one of MSNBC's shows, or having his own radio show, or being close to the President. Only 72 hours after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Sharpton was at the White House. "There's a trust factor with the Rev from the Oval Office on down," as told by a White House aide to Politico (and reported in Newsmax on 8/22/14). Which explains why Obama appeared with Sharpton at a rally in April, and also recently called into his radio show.
On the other hand, Obama does not have the same warm feelings for the leader of our closest Mid-East ally, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Someone in the Obama Administration said this: "The thing about Bibi (Netanyahu's nickname) is, he's a chickenshit." Several years ago Netanyahu was at the White House and had to tell Obama directly that the 1967 borders (proposed by Obama and Kerry as the borders for a Palestinian state) were out of the question, because those borders could not be defended and would threaten the very existence of Israel.
But no fear. In his relentless pursuit of making deals - any deals - just so long as he can be the one who gets the credit, Obama is again sending Kerry to the Mid-East. He's got two years left in office to be the one to create "peace" between Israel and the Arabs. Because Obama believes that a piece of paper is all it takes for there to be peace.
Recall that Abbas wants to present the UN Security Council with a resolution establishing the state of "Palestine" based upon the 1967 borders. If such a resolution got the necessary 9 of 15 votes it would pass - unless it was vetoed by one of the five permanent members (the US, England, France, Russia and China). The question is - would Obama exercise the veto? According to my son (who is fluent in Hebrew) some of the Israeli press is reporting that Obama has threatened Netanyahu with the withholding of a veto. If that is true, it certainly sounds like an ultimatum - make "peace" with the Palestinians on Obama's terms or suffer defeat at the UN on the Palestinian's terms. Frankly, I am not sure that I can tell the difference.
On a positive note, I have heard from two moderate to liberal Jewish friends, indicating they are pretty much done with Obama, especially with regards to his mistreatment of Netanyahu and Israel. They seem to be willing to give the Republicans a chance. If the Republicans keep the House and take the Senate, Obama will still be in office for two more years. However, a Republican Congress may be able to lessen the harm that Obama might do during that time. Vote carefully my friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)