This past Sunday, 44 world leaders joined 1.5 million French citizens in a march through Paris in support of free speech and against the Islamic terrorists. Another 1.5 million French citizens were said to have marched in other cities throughout France. It was quite an impressive showing. But the leader of the free world? He could not make it.
We've heard all the excuses. It takes a lot of planning for the President to travel somewhere. There are security concerns, and so on. And I am sure he did not want to miss the NFL divisional playoffs. Democrat strategist Doug Schoen was so upset by Obama's absence, that he said that Obama "morally abdicated his place as the leader of the free world." So, really, why didn't Obama just go? Let's start at the very beginning - a very good place to start.
Recall Obama's father was a Muslim who hated the European colonial powers. Obama's first call from the White House in 2009 - to Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority. His first speech? To the Muslim world from Cairo, after inviting the then-banned Muslim Brotherhood to attend. Remember Obama bowing to the Saudi King?
Obama has banned the use of the words "radical Islam," "Islamic terror" and so on from use in his Administration. When a radical Islamic soldier murdered 13 people and wounded dozens of others at Fort Hood in 2009, remember what Obama called it? An act of "workplace violence." And one of my favorites among the many Obama lies: "ISIL (aka ISIS) is not Islamic." And notice he is full steam ahead in releasing the terrorists held at Guantanamo.
Still not convinced about where Obama has his allegiances? Here is what he said at the UN General Assembly in September, 2012: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." And what did Charlie Hebdo do? Make fun of the prophet of Islam. Anyone think Obama would stand up and defend that? You think some notion of "free speech" is more important to him than his ideology? Then you are dreaming.
So, what's to be done about the threat of radical Islam? It is a two-pronged approach. One approach must come from within Islam, and was recently expressed by none other than Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. "It's inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma (Muslim world) to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world...Is it possible that 1.6 billion (Muslims) should want to kill the rest of the world's inhabitants - that is 7 billion - so that they themselves may live?" Obama is no fan of al-Sisi, as he overthrew the radical terror group that had been elected to lead Egypt - the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Sisi went on to say that Islam needed a "religious revolution." Important words; and let's hope we hear more of the same from other Muslim leaders.
What else should be done? I think Retired Colonel Ralph Peters, a Fox News commentator, got this part right. He said that we need to kill radical Islamic extremists everywhere around the world. Of course, no such action will be taken by this President. Rather, this President has the US in retreat. Retreat from Iraq, retreat from Afghanistan, closing Guantanamo, reducing the size and strength of our military. The result is that ISIS, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and Boko Haram and the like, are taking over ever growing swaths of land. This is land from which they will train terrorists to be able to go to Western countries - including the US - and carry out further attacks.
Some of my liberal Jewish friends, having voted for Obama, are now sick of him. But how will they vote next time? Will gay marriage, abortion, immigration and the environment carry the day over self-survival? Because we need to be honest. While there is no guarantee that a Republican President will restore our military and do what is needed to go on the offensive and defeat radical Islam, we do know that no Democrat (Hillary or any other) is up to the task.
One last point. Is it time? Is it time for the Jews of France, in particular, and of Europe in general, to leave? This is a difficult subject. But at what point did some Jews in Germany see the proverbial handwriting on the wall - and leave to save their families. Yes, there are differences. No country is engaging in genocide as Germany did during the Holocaust. The Times of Israel reported that 45% of Jews in Britain fear they have no future in that country; and 58% are concerned there is no long-term future for the Jews anywhere in Europe. In a related poll, it was found that 45% of Britains held at least one anti-Semitic view. (Poll results from the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.)
Was Netanyahu right in calling for Jews to come home to Israel? Please let me hear from you.
Friday, January 16, 2015
The Paris Massacre - Part I
On January 7, 2015, three Islamic terrorists murdered 17 people in Paris - at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, at a kosher market and on the street where a French policewoman was killed. As outrageous as these attacks were, they were - sadly - not a new occurrence. However, much can be learned about others perceptions of what occurred and why.
Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic National Committee, had this to say: "I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists. They're about as Muslim as I am." And: "I think ISIS is a cult. Not an Islamic Cult." The lengths to which liberals will go to avoid telling the truth is more than just sad and moronic. It is dangerous. The whole world knows about radical Islamic terror. But Dean and Obama will not say it. Were the Germans Nazis? Hitler said he was. Hmmm.
The USA Today recently had this headline: "Terror attack sparks fears among French Muslims." Once again, the liberal need to make victims out of the same group that gave us the perpetrators. The liberal media did the same thing after the 9/11 attacks here. The USA Today quoted a 31 year old Muslim who said he disagreed with what the terrorists did. But then he added this: "But I also feel that freedom of speech can't justify everything and I was hurt when Charlie Hebdo published drawings of the prophet Mohammed." You know what, I was more hurt by the brutal murders of fellow Jews and other fellow human beings. Hurt by drawings? Grow up, grow a pair, and learn to cope with it. That should be the worst that life throws your way.
It was both amusing and disturbing to watch Obama's spokesperson Josh Earnest discuss what occurred in Paris. He was tripping over words in a convoluted fashion given his boss's instructions to never say "Islamic terror" or "radical Islamic terrorists." Rather, he told the White House press corps that it was "individual extremists" who use Islam to justify their actions. If Josh Earnest had any personal integrity he would have quit before spewing such blatant nonsense. I will say, though, what a coincidence that tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of "individuals" all over the world have taken the same murderous path using the same ideology and terminology to describe their actions and words. The odds must be one in a trillion. Amazing.
The New York Times opined in an editorial: "Perhaps the greatest danger in the wake of the massacres is that more Europeans will come to the conclusion that all Muslim immigrants on the continent are carriers of a great and mortal threat." The greatest danger? How about the greatest morons? The greatest danger is that Europe again becomes/remains complacent in the face of an ever growing danger to its people from radical Islamists.
One Saudi cleric said this: "No sane person, regardless of doctrine, religion or faith, accepts his beliefs being ridiculed." Really? Try being a conservative/Republican in the USA and picking up almost any mainstream newspaper - if you really want to see ridicule. The cleric's words tell you all you need to know about the idea of "free speech" in the Muslim world.
And, once again we heard from the former worst President (now second worst thanks to Obama) Jimmy Carter. In speaking with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, Carter was asked what may have prompted the Paris massacre. "Well, one of the origins for it is the Palestinian problem. And this aggravates people who are affiliated in any way with the Arab people who live in the West Bank and Gaza, what they are doing now - what's being done to them. So I think that's a part of it."
So, Jimmy, first let's blame the Jews. Can't go wrong there, can you - you anti-Semitic bastard. Second, let's excuse these murders because, if the Islamic terrorists are in fact mad at the Israelis, that gives them every reason to kill Frenchmen and Jews in France who have absolutely nothing to do with Israeli policy.
Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic National Committee, had this to say: "I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists. They're about as Muslim as I am." And: "I think ISIS is a cult. Not an Islamic Cult." The lengths to which liberals will go to avoid telling the truth is more than just sad and moronic. It is dangerous. The whole world knows about radical Islamic terror. But Dean and Obama will not say it. Were the Germans Nazis? Hitler said he was. Hmmm.
The USA Today recently had this headline: "Terror attack sparks fears among French Muslims." Once again, the liberal need to make victims out of the same group that gave us the perpetrators. The liberal media did the same thing after the 9/11 attacks here. The USA Today quoted a 31 year old Muslim who said he disagreed with what the terrorists did. But then he added this: "But I also feel that freedom of speech can't justify everything and I was hurt when Charlie Hebdo published drawings of the prophet Mohammed." You know what, I was more hurt by the brutal murders of fellow Jews and other fellow human beings. Hurt by drawings? Grow up, grow a pair, and learn to cope with it. That should be the worst that life throws your way.
It was both amusing and disturbing to watch Obama's spokesperson Josh Earnest discuss what occurred in Paris. He was tripping over words in a convoluted fashion given his boss's instructions to never say "Islamic terror" or "radical Islamic terrorists." Rather, he told the White House press corps that it was "individual extremists" who use Islam to justify their actions. If Josh Earnest had any personal integrity he would have quit before spewing such blatant nonsense. I will say, though, what a coincidence that tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of "individuals" all over the world have taken the same murderous path using the same ideology and terminology to describe their actions and words. The odds must be one in a trillion. Amazing.
The New York Times opined in an editorial: "Perhaps the greatest danger in the wake of the massacres is that more Europeans will come to the conclusion that all Muslim immigrants on the continent are carriers of a great and mortal threat." The greatest danger? How about the greatest morons? The greatest danger is that Europe again becomes/remains complacent in the face of an ever growing danger to its people from radical Islamists.
One Saudi cleric said this: "No sane person, regardless of doctrine, religion or faith, accepts his beliefs being ridiculed." Really? Try being a conservative/Republican in the USA and picking up almost any mainstream newspaper - if you really want to see ridicule. The cleric's words tell you all you need to know about the idea of "free speech" in the Muslim world.
And, once again we heard from the former worst President (now second worst thanks to Obama) Jimmy Carter. In speaking with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, Carter was asked what may have prompted the Paris massacre. "Well, one of the origins for it is the Palestinian problem. And this aggravates people who are affiliated in any way with the Arab people who live in the West Bank and Gaza, what they are doing now - what's being done to them. So I think that's a part of it."
So, Jimmy, first let's blame the Jews. Can't go wrong there, can you - you anti-Semitic bastard. Second, let's excuse these murders because, if the Islamic terrorists are in fact mad at the Israelis, that gives them every reason to kill Frenchmen and Jews in France who have absolutely nothing to do with Israeli policy.
Sunday, January 4, 2015
New Year Reflections
The UN Security Council failed to pass Jordan's resolution establishing a Palestinian state based on the so-called 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as the capital. Passage requires 9 of the 15 members to vote in the affirmative, with none of the 5 permanent members having a veto power voting no. The measure received 8 votes in favor: France, Russia, China, Chile, Argentina, Jordan, Chad and Luxembourg. The 2 no votes were by the US and Australia. There were 5 abstentions: Great Britain, Lithuania, Nigeria, South Korea and Rwanda. The US vote was not technically a veto because the measure failed to garner the 9 votes needed for passage.
However, it is not likely that Obama will have much breathing room if he wishes to avoid use of the veto. As of January 1, 2015, Australia, Argentina, Luxembourg, South Korea and Rwanda are off the Council. Replacing them will be Spain, New Zealand, Venezuela, Angola and Malaysia. The newly constituted Council should easily come up with the 9 votes required for passage. Will Obama then exercise the veto?
The Jewish Agency of Israel reports that Israel had 26,500 new immigrants in 2014. That is a 32% increase from 2013, and a 10 year high. Of the 8640 that came from Western Europe, 7000 were from France. France, with their ever-growing Muslim population has become increasingly anti-Semitic, and too often violently so. The same France hoping to appease their Muslim population with their vote in favor a Palestinian state. The second largest group of immigrants came from the Ukraine, numbering 5840, which is also not surprising in light of what has been occurring there.
So I ask my fellow Jews who have no particular affinity for Israel: Where would all of these Jews find a safe haven if Israel did not exist?
Again, out of academia, another bizarre story. Apparently the President of Smith College said that "all lives matter;" the context being the recent controversial police killings of civilians. But, the politically correct slogan is "black lives matter." According to Thomas Sowell in the 1/2/14 IBD, the Smith President had to apologize for saying such a dastardly thing.
New York is no longer the third most populous state, after California and Texas. That distinction goes to Florida, with New York falling to fourth. I wonder if it has anything to do with the way New Yorkers are taxed. Their state income tax has a maximum 13.3% rate. Florida: no income tax. New York has the second highest corporate tax rate. Florida: "well below average." (From the 12/31/14 IBD.) And New York is a "forced union state," while Florida is a right to work state. But it would be wrong to blame liberal policies in New York for their loss of the number 3 spot. Remember, liberal policies never have negative consequences. They can't - because they feel so good.
Could it be? Did John Holdren, Obama's science and technology czar, really say that global warming caused by humans is helping to prevent us from having another ice age? That is what the 12/26/14 IBD has reported. After having a couple of weeks of morning temperatures in the 30s and even 20s, all I can say is bring back my global warming please!
So now we find out what Jonathan Gruber really thought about the ACA/Obamacare actually cutting costs. In yet another one of his comments that have come to light following passage of the ACA, Gruber said he wished that "President Obama could have stood up and said, 'You know, I don't know if this bill is going to control costs. It might, it might not.'" Well, Mr. Gruber, the President most certainly could have said that. But it would have required something neither you nor he is prone to do - tell the truth.
Who has not imagined that, given the billions of stars in the billions of galaxies in the universe, there must be some planets in some other solar systems supporting life. If a system has the right kind of star with a planet the right distance from that star - life! Or so it was thought. But then other factors were deemed necessary for life; at least 200 other factors, writes Eric Metaxas in the 12/26/14 Wall Street Journal.
Metaxas then quotes deceased British astronomer Fred Hoyle, who came up with the expression "Big Bang." But Hoyle later disapproved of his own theory, and notwithstanding his atheism said this: "...a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology...the numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Intelligent design? Something to think about in this new year.
However, it is not likely that Obama will have much breathing room if he wishes to avoid use of the veto. As of January 1, 2015, Australia, Argentina, Luxembourg, South Korea and Rwanda are off the Council. Replacing them will be Spain, New Zealand, Venezuela, Angola and Malaysia. The newly constituted Council should easily come up with the 9 votes required for passage. Will Obama then exercise the veto?
The Jewish Agency of Israel reports that Israel had 26,500 new immigrants in 2014. That is a 32% increase from 2013, and a 10 year high. Of the 8640 that came from Western Europe, 7000 were from France. France, with their ever-growing Muslim population has become increasingly anti-Semitic, and too often violently so. The same France hoping to appease their Muslim population with their vote in favor a Palestinian state. The second largest group of immigrants came from the Ukraine, numbering 5840, which is also not surprising in light of what has been occurring there.
So I ask my fellow Jews who have no particular affinity for Israel: Where would all of these Jews find a safe haven if Israel did not exist?
Again, out of academia, another bizarre story. Apparently the President of Smith College said that "all lives matter;" the context being the recent controversial police killings of civilians. But, the politically correct slogan is "black lives matter." According to Thomas Sowell in the 1/2/14 IBD, the Smith President had to apologize for saying such a dastardly thing.
New York is no longer the third most populous state, after California and Texas. That distinction goes to Florida, with New York falling to fourth. I wonder if it has anything to do with the way New Yorkers are taxed. Their state income tax has a maximum 13.3% rate. Florida: no income tax. New York has the second highest corporate tax rate. Florida: "well below average." (From the 12/31/14 IBD.) And New York is a "forced union state," while Florida is a right to work state. But it would be wrong to blame liberal policies in New York for their loss of the number 3 spot. Remember, liberal policies never have negative consequences. They can't - because they feel so good.
Could it be? Did John Holdren, Obama's science and technology czar, really say that global warming caused by humans is helping to prevent us from having another ice age? That is what the 12/26/14 IBD has reported. After having a couple of weeks of morning temperatures in the 30s and even 20s, all I can say is bring back my global warming please!
So now we find out what Jonathan Gruber really thought about the ACA/Obamacare actually cutting costs. In yet another one of his comments that have come to light following passage of the ACA, Gruber said he wished that "President Obama could have stood up and said, 'You know, I don't know if this bill is going to control costs. It might, it might not.'" Well, Mr. Gruber, the President most certainly could have said that. But it would have required something neither you nor he is prone to do - tell the truth.
Who has not imagined that, given the billions of stars in the billions of galaxies in the universe, there must be some planets in some other solar systems supporting life. If a system has the right kind of star with a planet the right distance from that star - life! Or so it was thought. But then other factors were deemed necessary for life; at least 200 other factors, writes Eric Metaxas in the 12/26/14 Wall Street Journal.
Metaxas then quotes deceased British astronomer Fred Hoyle, who came up with the expression "Big Bang." But Hoyle later disapproved of his own theory, and notwithstanding his atheism said this: "...a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology...the numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Intelligent design? Something to think about in this new year.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Year End Reflections - Part IV
A University of Michigan professor, who is the head of the communications department, wrote an article in which she announced: "I hate Republicans." Very professional, and very nice for any Republicans who might be enrolled in any of her classes. She also wrote this: "I can't stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehnor, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legion of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal 'personhood.'"
She left out gay marriage as one of the big issues for the left. And certainly no mention of the ongoing threats from Islamic terrorist groups or North Korea or Russia or China. No concern about Iran getting Nukes. No worries about the left's assault on the Constitution. And certainly no concern over jobs.
In California, the labor force participation rate, those working or actively seeking work, is down to 62.3%. That is the lowest it's been since the 1970s. In December, 2007 - pre-Obama - it was 65.9%. (Stats from the 12/4/14 LA Times.)
And I do not know how distraught Professor Douglas was over the recent brutal murders of 148 people, of which 132 were children, by the Taliban in Pakistan. Of course, the list of atrocities recently committed by Islamic terror groups could take up several paragraphs. Are these of concern to Professor Douglas?
Professor Susan Douglas must be just beside herself. Imagine, the Republicans control the Senate and have the largest Republican majority in the House since the WWII era. Republicans control 31 governor mansions. And Republicans control 67 of the 98 state houses in the country. (Nebraska has a nonpartisan unicameral legislature.) I think it's fair to say that the predictions of the Republican Party's demise were a tad premature. And I suspect Professor Douglas may not be getting much sleep during the next two years.
Out of Macalester College in Minnesota comes this story - the college is banning the use of words that may be hurtful to others and have an oppressive impact on culture. Words like "wuss" and "you guys." How about "swell" and "so's your old man?" (See "The Music Man.") It seems to me that we are raising a generation of fragile wusses. Oops.
Speaking of which, Columbia Law School announced that students could defer taking their finals if they were too traumatized by the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, and the lack of indictments of the police officers involved. That would be appropriate for family members or close friends of the Brown and Garner families. But everyone?
Getting back to Professor Douglas, it is clear she is in touch with the issues that people care about. Or is she? The 12/22/14 Investor's Business Daily reported on a poll conducted by the UN about what issues are of most concern to people worldwide. The top three - no, not climate change or abortion or immigration. The top three were: A good education, better health care and better job opportunities. Protection from crime and violence came in at number 6. Climate change was number 16.
Maybe Democrats took the shellacking they did because they focused on the wrong issues. "...Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them...and put all of our focus on the wrong problem - healthcare reform." That's not from me. That's from liberal Senator Charles Schumer. Something for Professor Douglas and other liberals to think about.
She left out gay marriage as one of the big issues for the left. And certainly no mention of the ongoing threats from Islamic terrorist groups or North Korea or Russia or China. No concern about Iran getting Nukes. No worries about the left's assault on the Constitution. And certainly no concern over jobs.
In California, the labor force participation rate, those working or actively seeking work, is down to 62.3%. That is the lowest it's been since the 1970s. In December, 2007 - pre-Obama - it was 65.9%. (Stats from the 12/4/14 LA Times.)
And I do not know how distraught Professor Douglas was over the recent brutal murders of 148 people, of which 132 were children, by the Taliban in Pakistan. Of course, the list of atrocities recently committed by Islamic terror groups could take up several paragraphs. Are these of concern to Professor Douglas?
Professor Susan Douglas must be just beside herself. Imagine, the Republicans control the Senate and have the largest Republican majority in the House since the WWII era. Republicans control 31 governor mansions. And Republicans control 67 of the 98 state houses in the country. (Nebraska has a nonpartisan unicameral legislature.) I think it's fair to say that the predictions of the Republican Party's demise were a tad premature. And I suspect Professor Douglas may not be getting much sleep during the next two years.
Out of Macalester College in Minnesota comes this story - the college is banning the use of words that may be hurtful to others and have an oppressive impact on culture. Words like "wuss" and "you guys." How about "swell" and "so's your old man?" (See "The Music Man.") It seems to me that we are raising a generation of fragile wusses. Oops.
Speaking of which, Columbia Law School announced that students could defer taking their finals if they were too traumatized by the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, and the lack of indictments of the police officers involved. That would be appropriate for family members or close friends of the Brown and Garner families. But everyone?
Getting back to Professor Douglas, it is clear she is in touch with the issues that people care about. Or is she? The 12/22/14 Investor's Business Daily reported on a poll conducted by the UN about what issues are of most concern to people worldwide. The top three - no, not climate change or abortion or immigration. The top three were: A good education, better health care and better job opportunities. Protection from crime and violence came in at number 6. Climate change was number 16.
Maybe Democrats took the shellacking they did because they focused on the wrong issues. "...Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them...and put all of our focus on the wrong problem - healthcare reform." That's not from me. That's from liberal Senator Charles Schumer. Something for Professor Douglas and other liberals to think about.
Year End Reflections - Part III
The very liberal state of Vermont had what they thought was a good idea - a single payer healthcare system. However, Governor Peter Shumlin recently put an end to those plans. Said the Governor: "It was clear to me that the taxes required to replace health-care premiums with a publicly financed plan that would best serve Vermont are, in a word, enormous."
The higher taxes would have hurt the citizens and businesses in Vermont. The Governor was unable to justify the negative impact on his state's economy. But notice what else he said, a "plan that would best serve Vermont." Could it be that he realized that not only would the taxes be enormous in order to provide quality healthcare to the people; but that if he lessened the tax impact it would result in a lower standard of care, with long waits for treatment and less choices. Did the Governor have a conservative moment? Did he actually let reality dictate his beliefs and policy? Good for him!
Meanwhile, SCOTUS will be hearing a case next year on an issue that could have a major impact on the ACA. The issue is whether or not the subsidies available to Obamacare enrollees are only available to those who enroll through a state exchange; or can those who enrolled through the federal exchange (because their states did not set up a state run exchange) also be eligible for the subsidies? As most states did not set up their own exchange, the impact on Obamacare could be enormous.
Paul Krugman, the award winning far-left columnist for the New York Times, said in his 11/10/14 opinion piece that it was all much ado about nothing. The drafters merely made a typo in referring to "state" run exchanges. Anyway, he said you could ask them. Okay, let's ask Jonathan Gruber, one of the main architects of Obamacare. Gruber: "If you're a state and you don't set up an exchange that means your citizens don't get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill." (Comments by Gruber on 1/18/12.)
Recall that SCOTUS upheld the ACA by calling the penalty/fine a "tax." (See 7/1/12 post discussing the Supreme Court decision.) The statute said it was a fine, Obama said it was a fine. So now we have a challenge to the law as to whether "state exchange" also means "federal exchange."
Will the Chief Justice be all in? It was Chief Justice John Roberts who voted with the four liberal Justices to uphold the ACA by rewriting the statute and calling the "fine" a "tax." It seems to this writer that it will be just as easy for Roberts to rewrite the statute yet again in order to define "state" as also meaning "federal" with regards to the exchanges. The Court has no power to write or rewrite legislation. But we know the four liberals on the Court will put their agenda ahead of the law. Will Roberts?
Gruber also said the bill was intentionally written with a lack of transparency. Said Gruber: "Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass." Because Gruber believed the ACA was an important piece of legislation, and as a typical left-wing elitist also believed he knew what was best for the American people, he had no compunction about the lies and lack of transparency surrounding the ACA. But Gruber was not an elected official. Our top leaders, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, also had no compunction about lying. After all, the ends always justify the means to these people. Truth is not a value in and of itself.
So will Roberts be all in? I hope not; but if the past is any indication, he will allow the enrollees in the federal exchanges to get the same subsidies as those in the state exchanges. He will be all in.
The higher taxes would have hurt the citizens and businesses in Vermont. The Governor was unable to justify the negative impact on his state's economy. But notice what else he said, a "plan that would best serve Vermont." Could it be that he realized that not only would the taxes be enormous in order to provide quality healthcare to the people; but that if he lessened the tax impact it would result in a lower standard of care, with long waits for treatment and less choices. Did the Governor have a conservative moment? Did he actually let reality dictate his beliefs and policy? Good for him!
Meanwhile, SCOTUS will be hearing a case next year on an issue that could have a major impact on the ACA. The issue is whether or not the subsidies available to Obamacare enrollees are only available to those who enroll through a state exchange; or can those who enrolled through the federal exchange (because their states did not set up a state run exchange) also be eligible for the subsidies? As most states did not set up their own exchange, the impact on Obamacare could be enormous.
Paul Krugman, the award winning far-left columnist for the New York Times, said in his 11/10/14 opinion piece that it was all much ado about nothing. The drafters merely made a typo in referring to "state" run exchanges. Anyway, he said you could ask them. Okay, let's ask Jonathan Gruber, one of the main architects of Obamacare. Gruber: "If you're a state and you don't set up an exchange that means your citizens don't get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill." (Comments by Gruber on 1/18/12.)
Recall that SCOTUS upheld the ACA by calling the penalty/fine a "tax." (See 7/1/12 post discussing the Supreme Court decision.) The statute said it was a fine, Obama said it was a fine. So now we have a challenge to the law as to whether "state exchange" also means "federal exchange."
Will the Chief Justice be all in? It was Chief Justice John Roberts who voted with the four liberal Justices to uphold the ACA by rewriting the statute and calling the "fine" a "tax." It seems to this writer that it will be just as easy for Roberts to rewrite the statute yet again in order to define "state" as also meaning "federal" with regards to the exchanges. The Court has no power to write or rewrite legislation. But we know the four liberals on the Court will put their agenda ahead of the law. Will Roberts?
Gruber also said the bill was intentionally written with a lack of transparency. Said Gruber: "Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass." Because Gruber believed the ACA was an important piece of legislation, and as a typical left-wing elitist also believed he knew what was best for the American people, he had no compunction about the lies and lack of transparency surrounding the ACA. But Gruber was not an elected official. Our top leaders, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, also had no compunction about lying. After all, the ends always justify the means to these people. Truth is not a value in and of itself.
So will Roberts be all in? I hope not; but if the past is any indication, he will allow the enrollees in the federal exchanges to get the same subsidies as those in the state exchanges. He will be all in.
Monday, December 22, 2014
Year End Reflections - Part II
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)