This word "hate" played a prominent role in the reporting of the shooting by the mainstream media. The weekend edition (6/19-6/21/15) of USA Today had the word "HATE" in very large letters on their front page, followed by in slightly smaller letters the words "IN AMERICA." The front page of the 6/23/15 LA Times had this headline: "Hate may bring down a flag." And the lead editorial of the 6/23/15 NY Times read: "Take Down a Symbol of Hatred."
As for the USA Today, were they suggesting that the evil killer in South Carolina was emblematic of America as a whole? And what is wrong with hate - in the right places. It is completely wrong to hate someone because of their race, ethnicity or religion, for example. But why is it wrong to hate evil and the perpetrators of evil? I am not a Christian, so I found it difficult to hear some of the victims' family members say they forgave the perpetrator. I do not.
But while we are on the topic, I could easily understand family members saying they hated the perpetrator. And should we not hate the worst mass murderers in history? I hate Hitler and what he did. Is it going to cause me to want to kill today's Germans? Of course not. I hate those who brought down the Twin Towers and murdered 3000 fellow Americans on 9/11, one of whom I personally knew and grew up with. Why shouldn't I hate them?
Yet, with all this talk of racism and hate, the front page of the 6/22/15 NY Times actually had it right with this headline: "Defiant Show of Unity in Church That Lost 9 to Racial Violence." Unity. The Times reported that at this past Sunday's church service, there were "whites sitting next to blacks, locals next to visitors." They also noted that hundreds were at a nearby memorial at a town square - and that most of those people were white.
Yet, besides Obama, there were others seeking to divide. Said one Reverend: "There's a consciousness around the country. I think they were, not embarrassed, but feel responsible. This was a serious wake-up call for white people."
It is difficult to get consistent statistics showing the number of homicides in the US. Different sites give different numbers. However, if we extrapolate, it is reasonable to say that in the year 2013 there were somewhere between about 12,000 and 14,000 murders in the US. A Bureau of Justice Statistics report from 2007 showed not only were blacks the victims of homicides 49% of the time, but blacks were the perpetrators of homicides 93% of the time. More recently, Chicago, Obama's home town, was noted to have a serious murder problem - again, with many of the victims and perpetrators being black.
So I remain confused. I would ask the above referenced Reverend when there will be a "serious wake-up call for black people?"
I cannot end this post without commenting on an article in the 6/22/15 NY Times. I could not believe it when the first sentence of the second paragraph used the complete "n" word. So Obama, who I have accused on multiple occasions of having no class, uses the "n" word - and now the NY Times feel free to do it? What? In the mainstream media's never-ending effort to support Obama, they copied him, and quoted others to explain why Obama said it. If the President of the United States says it, and the leading mainstream media outlet says it, is it now okay to use the "n" word? Low class and foolish on both their parts.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
HATE, Part I
Americans mourned the cold-blooded murder of 9 fellow citizens last week at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina. An evil, white, 21 year old sat and prayed for an hour with parishioners before opening fire on them. Despicable, and one can only hope that he gets the death penalty.
As we have come to expect from this president, Obama passed up the opportunity to give an inspiring and unifying speech; but, rather, spoke as the Divider in Chief. Obama: "The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives, you know, casts a long shadow, and that's still part of our DNA that's passed on. We're not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say n..... in public." (For the record, Obama used the full "n" word, which this writer chooses not to do.)
Obama typically starts such a speech by noting that race relations and racial equality have improved dramatically in this country. However, he never seems to mean it as it is always followed by a "but," after which he makes it sound as if we are still in the first half of the last century. Exactly what is passed on in our DNA? Racism? A desire to kill blacks? Where does such nonsense come from? Worse, what does he think of white Americans, so many of whom voted for him twice?
Somehow, the main stream media decided that the real problem must be the Confederate flag, flying above various buildings in the south. (Guns, of course, were the other culprit.) Missing from much of the discussion was that evil exists. A check of US census data revealed that, as of 2014, there were an estimated 4,832,482 people in South Carolina. 68.3% were said to be white. That amounts to 3,300,585 white people. Has the sight of the Confederate flag thrown those 3 million white people into a murderous frenzy? Of course not. This was an evil young man who used certain symbols to demonstrate to others, and perhaps to himself, his feelings about race.
Do not misunderstand. I believe there are legitimate arguments that can be made about the flying of the Confederate flag - by both sides. But it is absurd to suggest that the flying of that flag was the cause of the perpetrator's murderous actions. It is ironic, is it not, that Obama links this killing to widespread racism, but is unable to see any connection between Islam and the killing of tens of thousands around the world. He will not say - nor allow anyone in his Administration to utter the words - "radical Islam." No, Islam is a religion of peace, but whites are a bunch of murdering scoundrels, I guess.
What was also of interest was how the Confederate flag was seen as a Republican issue only. Said the 6/23/15 front page of the LA Times: "...Republican presidential candidates struggled to keep from becoming embroiled in a long and potentially damaging debate over the painful legacy of racism from some in their party's ranks." Excuse me? Did the Times miss the fact that the Republican Abraham Lincoln was the president who fought a war to end slavery? Did they miss Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Clearly, they missed all the Democrats that fought the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, while Republicans made sure there enough votes to pass these landmark pieces of legislation.
In his recent interview, Obama once again managed to go after Fox News. It must really burn him that Fox easily draws more viewers than MSNBC and CNN. Obama: "...if you watch Fox News you inhabit a completely different world with different facts than if you read the New York Times." Of course, he was holding out the NY Times as the standard for the mainstream media. I agree with Obama's assessment. It is a different world. If you only read the NY Times or LA Times or other mainstream papers, you miss much of what is actually going on in your country and the world. Just look at the quote from the LA Times in the above paragraph. Are the Times writers and editors, perhaps, more interested in presenting the news within a left wing framework, or are they completely ignorant of history - you know, morons? It's one or the other. Maybe both.
As we have come to expect from this president, Obama passed up the opportunity to give an inspiring and unifying speech; but, rather, spoke as the Divider in Chief. Obama: "The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives, you know, casts a long shadow, and that's still part of our DNA that's passed on. We're not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say n..... in public." (For the record, Obama used the full "n" word, which this writer chooses not to do.)
Obama typically starts such a speech by noting that race relations and racial equality have improved dramatically in this country. However, he never seems to mean it as it is always followed by a "but," after which he makes it sound as if we are still in the first half of the last century. Exactly what is passed on in our DNA? Racism? A desire to kill blacks? Where does such nonsense come from? Worse, what does he think of white Americans, so many of whom voted for him twice?
Somehow, the main stream media decided that the real problem must be the Confederate flag, flying above various buildings in the south. (Guns, of course, were the other culprit.) Missing from much of the discussion was that evil exists. A check of US census data revealed that, as of 2014, there were an estimated 4,832,482 people in South Carolina. 68.3% were said to be white. That amounts to 3,300,585 white people. Has the sight of the Confederate flag thrown those 3 million white people into a murderous frenzy? Of course not. This was an evil young man who used certain symbols to demonstrate to others, and perhaps to himself, his feelings about race.
Do not misunderstand. I believe there are legitimate arguments that can be made about the flying of the Confederate flag - by both sides. But it is absurd to suggest that the flying of that flag was the cause of the perpetrator's murderous actions. It is ironic, is it not, that Obama links this killing to widespread racism, but is unable to see any connection between Islam and the killing of tens of thousands around the world. He will not say - nor allow anyone in his Administration to utter the words - "radical Islam." No, Islam is a religion of peace, but whites are a bunch of murdering scoundrels, I guess.
What was also of interest was how the Confederate flag was seen as a Republican issue only. Said the 6/23/15 front page of the LA Times: "...Republican presidential candidates struggled to keep from becoming embroiled in a long and potentially damaging debate over the painful legacy of racism from some in their party's ranks." Excuse me? Did the Times miss the fact that the Republican Abraham Lincoln was the president who fought a war to end slavery? Did they miss Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Clearly, they missed all the Democrats that fought the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, while Republicans made sure there enough votes to pass these landmark pieces of legislation.
In his recent interview, Obama once again managed to go after Fox News. It must really burn him that Fox easily draws more viewers than MSNBC and CNN. Obama: "...if you watch Fox News you inhabit a completely different world with different facts than if you read the New York Times." Of course, he was holding out the NY Times as the standard for the mainstream media. I agree with Obama's assessment. It is a different world. If you only read the NY Times or LA Times or other mainstream papers, you miss much of what is actually going on in your country and the world. Just look at the quote from the LA Times in the above paragraph. Are the Times writers and editors, perhaps, more interested in presenting the news within a left wing framework, or are they completely ignorant of history - you know, morons? It's one or the other. Maybe both.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
In Case You Missed It
Last week the Secretary of Health and Human Service, Sylvia Mathews, testified on Capitol Hill before the House Ways and Means Committee. She was there to warn Congress, on behalf of Obama, that the Administration had no "Plan B" in the event the Supreme Court this month disallows subsidies to those in the federal exchange - which would be most enrollees in Obamacare. (The pending case is King vs. Burwell.)
Said Ms. Mathews: "If the court says that we do not have the authority to give subsidies, the critical decisions will sit with the Congress and states and governors to determine if those subsidies are available." Well, Ms. Mathews, that happens to be exactly how our system is supposed to work. Congress can amend the ACA; and failing that, states without exchanges can decide to establish one in order to get the subsidies for their residents.
Meanwhile, Ms. Mathews' boss was busy warning the Supreme Court to "play it straight" in interpreting the law. Said Obama: "This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn't even have been taken up" by the court. So, what is all this warning of the other two branches of government by the Executive branch really all about?
First, it is pure Obama, showing once again his contempt for our system of government, and his contempt for the other two branches. Recall his berating of the Justices while they sat in front of him at an earlier State of the Union address, following the Court's decision in Citizens United. Second, is the political element. Obama and his people are making it clear who they will blame - the Republicans - if the Court does not rule as he has decided they should. The Republicans not only control Congress, but most states without an exchange are run by Republican governors.
The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Ret. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, also testified before Congress last week. According to Flynn, the pending Iranian nuke deal "only makes sense" if there is a "wider reconciliation" with Iran - which he called "wishful thinking" absent a regime change.
Said Flynn: "Iran has not once - not once - contributed to the greater good of the security of the region." Although he did note that Iran did aid in the killing of Americans in Iraq. Further, Flynn added that Iran has "every intention" of building a nuke; and he called the frequently verbalized threat to destroy Israel "very real."
Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, speaking for Obama, said this: "We are deeply troubled by the politically motivated sentences that have been handed down against former President Morsi and several others by an Egyptian court today." Morsi, of course, won the Egyptian election after Mubarek was thrown out. After engaging in his own dictatorial rule, and threatening to end Egypt's longstanding peace agreement with Israel, Morsi was himself thrown out and replaced by military leader al-Sisi.
Obama supported Morsi, the former head of the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood, in turn, supports Hamas, the Muslim Student Association in this country, and other nefarious groups. Now Morsi has been given the death penalty for crimes against the Egyptian people. Obama is "deeply troubled" by this. When did we last hear how "deeply troubled" he was by the deaths of countless Christians throughout the Middle East at the hands of radical Muslims? When was he "deeply troubled" by P.A. leader Abbas saying that not one single Jew may live in any new Palestinian state?
Which brings me to my next topic. France once again has a UN Security Council proposal to create a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders. (See many earlier posts regarding the absurdity of such a proposal.) In any event, the French proposal would also recognize Israel as a Jewish state. And there's the rub. Abbas says he will have nothing to do with it. In the past, the US has vetoed such resolutions. Now, however, Obama has such intense dislike of Netanyahu and Israel, that he is threatening to withhold a veto.
So Abbas has shown yet again that the Palestinians have no desire for a peaceful two-state solution. Rather, as they have said repeatedly, they want a single Muslim state - and preferably with all the Jews either kicked out or killed.
I almost cannot wait to see how Obama is going to blame Netanyahu and Israel for yet another refusal by the Palestinians to make peace.
Said Ms. Mathews: "If the court says that we do not have the authority to give subsidies, the critical decisions will sit with the Congress and states and governors to determine if those subsidies are available." Well, Ms. Mathews, that happens to be exactly how our system is supposed to work. Congress can amend the ACA; and failing that, states without exchanges can decide to establish one in order to get the subsidies for their residents.
Meanwhile, Ms. Mathews' boss was busy warning the Supreme Court to "play it straight" in interpreting the law. Said Obama: "This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn't even have been taken up" by the court. So, what is all this warning of the other two branches of government by the Executive branch really all about?
First, it is pure Obama, showing once again his contempt for our system of government, and his contempt for the other two branches. Recall his berating of the Justices while they sat in front of him at an earlier State of the Union address, following the Court's decision in Citizens United. Second, is the political element. Obama and his people are making it clear who they will blame - the Republicans - if the Court does not rule as he has decided they should. The Republicans not only control Congress, but most states without an exchange are run by Republican governors.
The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Ret. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, also testified before Congress last week. According to Flynn, the pending Iranian nuke deal "only makes sense" if there is a "wider reconciliation" with Iran - which he called "wishful thinking" absent a regime change.
Said Flynn: "Iran has not once - not once - contributed to the greater good of the security of the region." Although he did note that Iran did aid in the killing of Americans in Iraq. Further, Flynn added that Iran has "every intention" of building a nuke; and he called the frequently verbalized threat to destroy Israel "very real."
Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, speaking for Obama, said this: "We are deeply troubled by the politically motivated sentences that have been handed down against former President Morsi and several others by an Egyptian court today." Morsi, of course, won the Egyptian election after Mubarek was thrown out. After engaging in his own dictatorial rule, and threatening to end Egypt's longstanding peace agreement with Israel, Morsi was himself thrown out and replaced by military leader al-Sisi.
Obama supported Morsi, the former head of the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood, in turn, supports Hamas, the Muslim Student Association in this country, and other nefarious groups. Now Morsi has been given the death penalty for crimes against the Egyptian people. Obama is "deeply troubled" by this. When did we last hear how "deeply troubled" he was by the deaths of countless Christians throughout the Middle East at the hands of radical Muslims? When was he "deeply troubled" by P.A. leader Abbas saying that not one single Jew may live in any new Palestinian state?
Which brings me to my next topic. France once again has a UN Security Council proposal to create a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders. (See many earlier posts regarding the absurdity of such a proposal.) In any event, the French proposal would also recognize Israel as a Jewish state. And there's the rub. Abbas says he will have nothing to do with it. In the past, the US has vetoed such resolutions. Now, however, Obama has such intense dislike of Netanyahu and Israel, that he is threatening to withhold a veto.
So Abbas has shown yet again that the Palestinians have no desire for a peaceful two-state solution. Rather, as they have said repeatedly, they want a single Muslim state - and preferably with all the Jews either kicked out or killed.
I almost cannot wait to see how Obama is going to blame Netanyahu and Israel for yet another refusal by the Palestinians to make peace.
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Obama on Israel, Part II
Obama: "And the challenge I think that I have when it comes to these issues is that I do think part of my obligation of being a friend of Israel's is to speak the truth as I see it. And the truth as I see it is that the very moral imperatives that led to the founding of Israel - the belief that all of us share a basic humanity and dignity and rights that make it important for us to speak out against anti-Semitism - those things also require me from my perspective to say clearly that a Palestinian youth in Ramallah who feels their possibilities constrained by the status quo, that they have a claim on us, that they have a claim not just on Palestinian leaders, that they have a claim on Israeli leaders. They have a claim on U.S. leaders in the same way that children around the world who are locked out of opportunity have those claims."
Where to begin? First, let's dispense with the liberal nonsense that "all of us share a basic humanity." Tell that to all the people who have been beheaded or otherwise murdered by ISIS. Second, if you were a true friend of Israel's, Mr. Obama, you would not make such a lousy deal with Iran - allowing them to keep enriched uranium, thousands of centrifuges, continue their support of world-wide terrorism, and say that recognition of Israel's right to exist is unrelated to a country which constantly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. As a true friend you would not require Israel to reduce itself down to indefensible borders. But maybe we define "friend" differently.
You suggest, Mr. Obama, that you care about all the "children around the world who are locked out of opportunity." What are you doing about the children in all of the other Middle Eastern countries suffering through war and violence - Syria, Yemen, Iraq or Libya to name just a few. What are you doing for children who are truly oppressed in Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Cuba, to name just a few.
Mr. Obama, you seem to really only want to talk about children in the West Bank. Why is that? You refer to a "Palestinian youth who feels their possibilities constrained." So, let's talk about that. Allow me to give you some data from Carolyn Glick's book: "From 1967 to 2000, Israeli investment in the local (West Bank) economy enabled the local GDP to grow 5.5 percent each year on average - nearly a full point more than Israel's own economy's average growth rate of 4.2 percent. Literacy rates among the Palestinians rose from 52.5 percent in 1967 to 84.2 percent in 1995. Israel opened six universities in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and two in Gaza...Life expectancy increased sharply, from forty-eight in 1967 to seventy-two in 2000. Infant mortality plummeted by three-quarters, from 60 per thousand live births to 15, as Israel built more than a hundred clinics, offered comprehensive health insurance, and modernized and expanded sewage and electrical infrastructures." (From the Israeli Solution, pages 113-114.)
No, if you were a true friend of Israel's Mr. Obama you would stop enabling the Palestinians sense of victimhood and entitlement. You would tell them that there will never be a right of return for millions of descendants of the original refugees. You will tell them that Jerusalem will forever remain the undivided capital of Israel - and you will move the US embassy there to prove that point. And you will them - no, force them - to lay down their arms and recognize Israel as the sole Jewish state in the world. But as I said, maybe you and I define friendship differently.
Where to begin? First, let's dispense with the liberal nonsense that "all of us share a basic humanity." Tell that to all the people who have been beheaded or otherwise murdered by ISIS. Second, if you were a true friend of Israel's, Mr. Obama, you would not make such a lousy deal with Iran - allowing them to keep enriched uranium, thousands of centrifuges, continue their support of world-wide terrorism, and say that recognition of Israel's right to exist is unrelated to a country which constantly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. As a true friend you would not require Israel to reduce itself down to indefensible borders. But maybe we define "friend" differently.
You suggest, Mr. Obama, that you care about all the "children around the world who are locked out of opportunity." What are you doing about the children in all of the other Middle Eastern countries suffering through war and violence - Syria, Yemen, Iraq or Libya to name just a few. What are you doing for children who are truly oppressed in Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Cuba, to name just a few.
Mr. Obama, you seem to really only want to talk about children in the West Bank. Why is that? You refer to a "Palestinian youth who feels their possibilities constrained." So, let's talk about that. Allow me to give you some data from Carolyn Glick's book: "From 1967 to 2000, Israeli investment in the local (West Bank) economy enabled the local GDP to grow 5.5 percent each year on average - nearly a full point more than Israel's own economy's average growth rate of 4.2 percent. Literacy rates among the Palestinians rose from 52.5 percent in 1967 to 84.2 percent in 1995. Israel opened six universities in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and two in Gaza...Life expectancy increased sharply, from forty-eight in 1967 to seventy-two in 2000. Infant mortality plummeted by three-quarters, from 60 per thousand live births to 15, as Israel built more than a hundred clinics, offered comprehensive health insurance, and modernized and expanded sewage and electrical infrastructures." (From the Israeli Solution, pages 113-114.)
No, if you were a true friend of Israel's Mr. Obama you would stop enabling the Palestinians sense of victimhood and entitlement. You would tell them that there will never be a right of return for millions of descendants of the original refugees. You will tell them that Jerusalem will forever remain the undivided capital of Israel - and you will move the US embassy there to prove that point. And you will them - no, force them - to lay down their arms and recognize Israel as the sole Jewish state in the world. But as I said, maybe you and I define friendship differently.
Obama On Israel, Part I
Recently, President Obama gave an interview to Channel 2 TV of Israel. Here is some of what he had to say; followed, of course, with my comments.
Obama: "And I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is somebody who's predisposed to think of security first; to think perhaps that peace is naive; to see the worst possibilities as opposed to the best possibilities in Arab partners or Palestinian partners."
Why would an Israeli P.M. think of security first? Maybe because the Middle East is aflame in turmoil and violence. Maybe because the Palestinians are sworn to Israel's destruction; and even now Abbas says he will never recognize Israel as the Jewish state. And maybe because you, Mr. Obama, seem intent on letting the Iranian Ayatollahs get a bomb - and fulfill their desire to wipe Israel off the map. And how, Mr. Obama, do you account for the fact that it has been reported that Israel is in secret negotiations with Saudi Arabia, if Netanyahu is unable to see all the possibilities?
Obama: "Already the international community does not believe that Israel is serious about a two-state solution." You mean the international anti-Semitic community? The 57 Muslim countries who will always be openly against Israel? The Western Europeans who never learn anything from history? Or maybe the UN, whose Human Rights Council has a standing subject - Israel - on their agenda. Not Iran or Saudi Arabia or China or North Korea or Cuba or Russia. No, Israel is the biggest problem at the UN - you know, the "international community" that you are so concerned about Mr. Obama.
Obama: "Well, when I said after the election that we would have to evaluate our policy, and I was referring to something very specific, and that is how we approach defending Israel on the international stage around the Palestinian issue." The truth comes out Mr. Obama. This writer suspected from day one that notwithstanding whatever military assistance was provided to Israel, you would ultimately sell Israel out at the UN. I said you would allow the imposition of a Palestinian state on the the so-called 1967 borders, which are nothing more than the 1949 armistice lines following the Arabs first attempt to wipe Israel off the map. Those borders are indefensible, being less than 9 miles wide at one point.
Under President Johnson, and following the 1967 war, the Joint Chiefs here were directed to prepare a map that would outline all the land Israel would need to keep - forever - in order to protect itself from further attacks. That map showed Israel keeping much of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), as well as Gaza, the Golan Heights and other areas. (As reported by Carolyn Glick in her book "The Israeli Solution," 2014 by Crown Forum Publishing.) After the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israel did return the Sinai to Egypt. Under Ariel Sharon Israel gave up the Gaza strip - only to suffer constant rocket attacks ever since from Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza.
Obama: "And I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is somebody who's predisposed to think of security first; to think perhaps that peace is naive; to see the worst possibilities as opposed to the best possibilities in Arab partners or Palestinian partners."
Why would an Israeli P.M. think of security first? Maybe because the Middle East is aflame in turmoil and violence. Maybe because the Palestinians are sworn to Israel's destruction; and even now Abbas says he will never recognize Israel as the Jewish state. And maybe because you, Mr. Obama, seem intent on letting the Iranian Ayatollahs get a bomb - and fulfill their desire to wipe Israel off the map. And how, Mr. Obama, do you account for the fact that it has been reported that Israel is in secret negotiations with Saudi Arabia, if Netanyahu is unable to see all the possibilities?
Obama: "Already the international community does not believe that Israel is serious about a two-state solution." You mean the international anti-Semitic community? The 57 Muslim countries who will always be openly against Israel? The Western Europeans who never learn anything from history? Or maybe the UN, whose Human Rights Council has a standing subject - Israel - on their agenda. Not Iran or Saudi Arabia or China or North Korea or Cuba or Russia. No, Israel is the biggest problem at the UN - you know, the "international community" that you are so concerned about Mr. Obama.
Obama: "Well, when I said after the election that we would have to evaluate our policy, and I was referring to something very specific, and that is how we approach defending Israel on the international stage around the Palestinian issue." The truth comes out Mr. Obama. This writer suspected from day one that notwithstanding whatever military assistance was provided to Israel, you would ultimately sell Israel out at the UN. I said you would allow the imposition of a Palestinian state on the the so-called 1967 borders, which are nothing more than the 1949 armistice lines following the Arabs first attempt to wipe Israel off the map. Those borders are indefensible, being less than 9 miles wide at one point.
Under President Johnson, and following the 1967 war, the Joint Chiefs here were directed to prepare a map that would outline all the land Israel would need to keep - forever - in order to protect itself from further attacks. That map showed Israel keeping much of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), as well as Gaza, the Golan Heights and other areas. (As reported by Carolyn Glick in her book "The Israeli Solution," 2014 by Crown Forum Publishing.) After the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israel did return the Sinai to Egypt. Under Ariel Sharon Israel gave up the Gaza strip - only to suffer constant rocket attacks ever since from Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza.
Saturday, June 6, 2015
Who Needs Cops?
Under President Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder the police became the enemy. Obama was the first to criticize the police anytime they interacted with a black man in a way that made headlines. Not one to wait for the facts - nor to let local authorities handle local matters - Obama and Holder were always quick to step in. From the criticism of the Cambridge Police Department for arresting Professor Gates, to calling for an overhaul of the Ferguson Police Department following the Michael Brown incident, to Obama's new AG seeking federal control over the Baltimore Police Department following the death of Freddie Gray, the police are always the problem.
So now, the 5/13/15 Investor's Business Daily reports an 89% increase in the killings of police officers: from 27 in 2013 to 51 in 2014. Let me state two realities. First, the police, as with any other profession or group of people, is going to have some "bad apples." Second, once you start with the demagoguery - at which Democrats excel - there will be consequences. When the Democrats and mainstream media engage in demagoguery against Republicans, the result has been expressions of hatred against Republicans. And the same applies when we demean the police - it leads to hatred of them.
While every killing of a black by a police officer makes the news, the IBD points out that very few killings of police officers by blacks makes the news. But according to the IBD, "42% of officers murdered in the line of duty over the past decade were shot by black suspects..."
As for Baltimore after Freddie Gray, IBD reports that the number of murders in May more than doubled from what they were in May of last year. (Article by Thomas Sowell in 6/2/15 IBD.) But Sowell also reported that the number of arrests was down by over 50%.
When former federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani became Mayor of New York City, he instituted two policies that helped bring about a significant reduction in crime. One was "stop and frisk," and the other was "broken windows policing." The idea behind "broken windows" was to discourage and prevent even minor offenses, because when there is widespread minor criminality it encourages more criminality - including major offenses. Under Giuliani the murder rate in NYC dropped to a level unseen in decades. Admittedly, no one politician or policy can get all the credit for a drop in crime, as there can be multiple causative factors.
But two things are certain. First, if you make the police the bad guys, people will feel that they can take the law into their own hands. Second, the police will back off from enforcing the law if the politicians no longer have their backs. Let's take a look.
Heather MacDonald reports in the 5/30-31/15 edition of the Wall Street Journal, that Baltimore's gun violence is up over 60% from last year. She reports that Milwaukee has experienced a 180% increase in homicides through 5/17, compared to last year. Los Angeles saw a 25% increase in shootings and other violent felonies. New York's murder rate was up 13%. Chicago's murder rate was up 17% with shootings up 24%. Atlanta had a 32% increase in murders through mid-May. And in St. Louis murders were up 25% and shootings were up 39%.
How would "broken windows policing" have worked in Ferguson and Baltimore? For starters, the rioters would not have been given "space" to engage in their illegal activities of looting and vandalism. The police would have stepped in to prevent such violence, knowing that the political leaders had their backs. Instead, we had the Governor of Missouri immediately calling for a "vigorous prosecution" of the police in Ferguson - not a vigorous "investigation." Because Dem. Governor Jay Nixon had already convicted the police.
And we had Democratic Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake explain that she needed to give "space" to those "who wished to destroy."
So the question is not just who needs cops? But what kind of politicians do we need to elect if we care about crime? Time will tell if the likes of New York's new Democrat Mayor Bill De Blasio is the answer.
So now, the 5/13/15 Investor's Business Daily reports an 89% increase in the killings of police officers: from 27 in 2013 to 51 in 2014. Let me state two realities. First, the police, as with any other profession or group of people, is going to have some "bad apples." Second, once you start with the demagoguery - at which Democrats excel - there will be consequences. When the Democrats and mainstream media engage in demagoguery against Republicans, the result has been expressions of hatred against Republicans. And the same applies when we demean the police - it leads to hatred of them.
While every killing of a black by a police officer makes the news, the IBD points out that very few killings of police officers by blacks makes the news. But according to the IBD, "42% of officers murdered in the line of duty over the past decade were shot by black suspects..."
As for Baltimore after Freddie Gray, IBD reports that the number of murders in May more than doubled from what they were in May of last year. (Article by Thomas Sowell in 6/2/15 IBD.) But Sowell also reported that the number of arrests was down by over 50%.
When former federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani became Mayor of New York City, he instituted two policies that helped bring about a significant reduction in crime. One was "stop and frisk," and the other was "broken windows policing." The idea behind "broken windows" was to discourage and prevent even minor offenses, because when there is widespread minor criminality it encourages more criminality - including major offenses. Under Giuliani the murder rate in NYC dropped to a level unseen in decades. Admittedly, no one politician or policy can get all the credit for a drop in crime, as there can be multiple causative factors.
But two things are certain. First, if you make the police the bad guys, people will feel that they can take the law into their own hands. Second, the police will back off from enforcing the law if the politicians no longer have their backs. Let's take a look.
Heather MacDonald reports in the 5/30-31/15 edition of the Wall Street Journal, that Baltimore's gun violence is up over 60% from last year. She reports that Milwaukee has experienced a 180% increase in homicides through 5/17, compared to last year. Los Angeles saw a 25% increase in shootings and other violent felonies. New York's murder rate was up 13%. Chicago's murder rate was up 17% with shootings up 24%. Atlanta had a 32% increase in murders through mid-May. And in St. Louis murders were up 25% and shootings were up 39%.
How would "broken windows policing" have worked in Ferguson and Baltimore? For starters, the rioters would not have been given "space" to engage in their illegal activities of looting and vandalism. The police would have stepped in to prevent such violence, knowing that the political leaders had their backs. Instead, we had the Governor of Missouri immediately calling for a "vigorous prosecution" of the police in Ferguson - not a vigorous "investigation." Because Dem. Governor Jay Nixon had already convicted the police.
And we had Democratic Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake explain that she needed to give "space" to those "who wished to destroy."
So the question is not just who needs cops? But what kind of politicians do we need to elect if we care about crime? Time will tell if the likes of New York's new Democrat Mayor Bill De Blasio is the answer.
What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Fox News reported on 6/5/15 that Hawaii's health care system under the Affordable Care Act, known as Hawaii Health Connector, is "unable to generate sufficient revenues to sustain operations." That, from the office of Governor David Ige. The $200 million provided by the Feds (which is really the taxpayers) did not seem to make a difference. While the prior Governor, Neil Abercrombie (Dem) predicted enrollment would reach 300,000, it actually topped out at 37,000.
Fox also reported that the Fed's overall investment of $4.5 billion given to the state run exchanges did not prevent other states from closing their exchanges - including Oregon, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, New Mexico and Nevada. As for California, the 5/14/15 LA Times reported: "After using most of $1 billion in federal start-up money, California's Obamacare exchange is preparing to go on a diet." But no matter, the state still plans on spending $121.5 million on "outreach, sales and marketing."
So how are other states doing? The 5/28/15 Investor's Business Daily reported that BlueCross/BlueShield of Tennessee is seeking a 36% premium rate hike, while Care First in Maryland wants a 30% hike and Moda Health in Oregon wants a 50% increase. Other states report similar requests. What's the problem? With all the mandates imposed on carriers by the ACA, the carriers have raised deductibles and co-pays in order to keep premiums generally affordable. Two problems. With high deductibles and co-pays people avoid going to the doctor, making the idea of affordable healthcare illusory. The second problem? Not enough people are signing up to help pay for all of this.
But some Democrats have a solution - force insurance carriers to lower deductibles and co-pays. Excellent. Then premiums will shoot up even more. Or insurance companies will be forced out of the healthcare business altogether resulting in: single payor. This writer has believed that to be the Democrat's goal all along. Given how well we are doing already with government involvement in healthcare, I am sure that total government control would work just fine. Right?
Fox also reported that the Fed's overall investment of $4.5 billion given to the state run exchanges did not prevent other states from closing their exchanges - including Oregon, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, New Mexico and Nevada. As for California, the 5/14/15 LA Times reported: "After using most of $1 billion in federal start-up money, California's Obamacare exchange is preparing to go on a diet." But no matter, the state still plans on spending $121.5 million on "outreach, sales and marketing."
So how are other states doing? The 5/28/15 Investor's Business Daily reported that BlueCross/BlueShield of Tennessee is seeking a 36% premium rate hike, while Care First in Maryland wants a 30% hike and Moda Health in Oregon wants a 50% increase. Other states report similar requests. What's the problem? With all the mandates imposed on carriers by the ACA, the carriers have raised deductibles and co-pays in order to keep premiums generally affordable. Two problems. With high deductibles and co-pays people avoid going to the doctor, making the idea of affordable healthcare illusory. The second problem? Not enough people are signing up to help pay for all of this.
But some Democrats have a solution - force insurance carriers to lower deductibles and co-pays. Excellent. Then premiums will shoot up even more. Or insurance companies will be forced out of the healthcare business altogether resulting in: single payor. This writer has believed that to be the Democrat's goal all along. Given how well we are doing already with government involvement in healthcare, I am sure that total government control would work just fine. Right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)