...or maybe we're in Oceania, that "1984" country where the Party controls history and language and bars all individuality. Maybe, if we're real quiet, we can take a peek into what's happening in Oceania, formerly known as the United States of America.
Let's take a look at what's happening in the Ministry of Truth, which alters historical truths in order to accommodate the Party's current needs. Once the Party changed the definition of marriage as now being between any two people, those slow to adopt to the new rule were, of course, rightly called bigots and haters and enemies of the Party. Those who tried to "cling to their religion," religion having been banned, were the most difficult to persuade.
But Party loyalists were busy admonishing those recalcitrant few. Said one Rekhu Basu: "Of course some institutions, especially religious ones, will need time to adapt and change, and figure out how to reconcile their teachings with the law." (Mandatory reading in one of the Party's news organs, the Ventura County Star, 7/2/15 edition.) You see, the Party will not accept deviation from the Party's political dogma. Any group believing in the traditional definition of marriage must "adapt and change" their beliefs, even if those beliefs had been part of their religious tenets for thousands of years.
Some, such as a few who used to belong to the now outlawed Republican Party, were outraged that the Party could tell them to change such fundamental beliefs. Most, however, agreed that it was the government's duty to tell people how to think - that group having long forgotten how to engage in independent thought.
Let's see what else is going on in the Ministry Truth. It seems that any evidence of the existence of the Confederate States (which fought against the former United States) will be eliminated from all books; and any and all paraphernalia or references to the Confederacy or individual slave owners will also be banned.
One news organ reported that many steps were already being taken. The former Confederate flag was banned from all local governments and retail outlets. In Connecticut, there was an effort to change the name of Calhoun College (part of Yale University, one of the Party's many propaganda schools existing throughout Oceania), because former Vice President John C. Calhoun was a supporter of slavery. In an area that used to be known as Southern California, the local residents were following the Party's lead in removing the name "Robert E. Lee" from all schools.
Meanwhile, throughout Oceania, efforts were underway to take down all statues depicting any Confederate officers. At Party headquarters (formerly known as the Capitol building in what was once Washington, D.C.), it was decided that the flags of the former states would have to come down, as many depicted the Confederate symbol. It was also decided that the Father of our country would now be, and always was, John Adams. George Washington, having been considered the Father of the country for many years, used to be a slave owner. Therefore, his name and likeness was ordered off all buildings, currency and coinage. All books mentioning the name George Washington were ordered destroyed.
Let's see if we can find anything else that the Ministry of Truth is working on. One sports team by the name of the Washington Redskins, lost their trademark registration, on order of one of the Party's judges. It was determined that the name "Redskins" was disparaging to some of the citizens. While the First Amendment to the Constitution of the former United States used to protect a wide range of speech, especially speech that was "disparaging," the Party decided that such speech might create unnecessary conflict. Besides, the Party had long abandoned the Constitution as having any force of law; as the only law now is what the Party orders.
We need to leave the Ministry of Truth now; if we stay too long we might get caught. The punishment could be to remove all references to our ever having existed from all official records. Maybe we can sneak in another time, but the punishments are becoming increasingly severe for not following the Party line.
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Sunday, June 28, 2015
The Continuing Slide Into Tyranny, Part III
In yet another decision, Justice Kennedy joined the 4 liberal justices (Kennedy is mostly a liberal) in a decision involving the Fair Housing Act of 1968. That Act made it illegal to discriminate in housing on the basis of race. However, in another 5-4 decision, the Court said that it was illegal to have a "disparate impact" in housing, even where there is no evidence of actual discrimination. You see, according to Kennedy's logic, after lower courts found that "disparate impact" was part of the law, the Congress had various opportunities to pass legislation making it clear that, no - we never included "disparate impact" in the law - and we meant it.
But in the Bizarro world in which we now operate, the failure of Congress to act means that Congress did act. Let's just hope that the first new low-cost housing goes up in the neighborhoods occupied by the wealthy liberal democrats.
With a government completely out of control, the last hope to call them to task is the "Fourth Estate," the media. But the mainstream media is now part of the left-wing, politically correct "the ends justify the means" establishment. So do not look for today's media to concern itself with an "imperial" presidency, or a runaway Supreme Court.
The 6/26/15 lead editorial in the New York Times called both the 2012 challenge to Obamacare (the penalty vs. tax issue), as well this recent challenge as being "legally frivolous." So frivolous that 4 Justices dissented the first time and 3 dissented this time. The Times said the current challenge to the law was "fabricated...out of thin air." Once again, the Times made no mention of Jonathan Gruber, a key architect of the law, who publicly said that the purpose of limiting the subsidy to the State exchanges was to encourage the states to establish their own exchanges. Yet the Times claimed that such an interpretation was "preposterous." If you just read the mainstream media you would not even know the name Jonathan Gruber. You would not know or understand why an issue even exists. (The LA Times editorial was not substantially different.)
There is insufficient time, and space in this post, to discuss the 5-4 decision declaring gay marriage to be a Constitutional right. What I do wish to point out is that one mainstream newspaper has already declared that they would "no longer accept" and print letters to the editor or op-ed pieces opposing gay marriage. And there you have it with the mainstream media's approach to presenting all sides in the marketplace of ideas. You see, our President has told us that "global warming" is settled, and those holding opposing views are anti-science (even if they are scientists). Gay marriage is the law of the land; anyone opposing it must be a bigot and a hater - so their voices need to be shut down. If you oppose abortion it is because you hate women. If you believe in the right to bear arms... Well, you get the point. Or do you?
You see, I am not sure that my liberal friends do get the point. I am not sure that they are concerned with the damage done to our liberty, and to our system of government, by these cases, simply because they agree with the outcomes. The ends justify the means. I am not sure my liberal friends who constantly mock Fox News understand the very real service that that news outlet provides - challenging runaway government power the way the mainstream media used to do.
This is just the beginning. We will see many cases where the new Constitutional right to gay marriage conflicts with the First Amendment Constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of religion. Did you see how quickly governments and retail stores moved to take down and remove from their shelves all confederate flags, or items depicting those flags. Which side will you be on when the next move is to take down the American flag - the Stars and Stripes - because some feel it is a symbol of racism, and oppression and imperialism. Are you confident that the line will always be drawn where you think it should be drawn? Or maybe, just maybe, we are better off sticking to fundamental principles.
But in the Bizarro world in which we now operate, the failure of Congress to act means that Congress did act. Let's just hope that the first new low-cost housing goes up in the neighborhoods occupied by the wealthy liberal democrats.
With a government completely out of control, the last hope to call them to task is the "Fourth Estate," the media. But the mainstream media is now part of the left-wing, politically correct "the ends justify the means" establishment. So do not look for today's media to concern itself with an "imperial" presidency, or a runaway Supreme Court.
The 6/26/15 lead editorial in the New York Times called both the 2012 challenge to Obamacare (the penalty vs. tax issue), as well this recent challenge as being "legally frivolous." So frivolous that 4 Justices dissented the first time and 3 dissented this time. The Times said the current challenge to the law was "fabricated...out of thin air." Once again, the Times made no mention of Jonathan Gruber, a key architect of the law, who publicly said that the purpose of limiting the subsidy to the State exchanges was to encourage the states to establish their own exchanges. Yet the Times claimed that such an interpretation was "preposterous." If you just read the mainstream media you would not even know the name Jonathan Gruber. You would not know or understand why an issue even exists. (The LA Times editorial was not substantially different.)
There is insufficient time, and space in this post, to discuss the 5-4 decision declaring gay marriage to be a Constitutional right. What I do wish to point out is that one mainstream newspaper has already declared that they would "no longer accept" and print letters to the editor or op-ed pieces opposing gay marriage. And there you have it with the mainstream media's approach to presenting all sides in the marketplace of ideas. You see, our President has told us that "global warming" is settled, and those holding opposing views are anti-science (even if they are scientists). Gay marriage is the law of the land; anyone opposing it must be a bigot and a hater - so their voices need to be shut down. If you oppose abortion it is because you hate women. If you believe in the right to bear arms... Well, you get the point. Or do you?
You see, I am not sure that my liberal friends do get the point. I am not sure that they are concerned with the damage done to our liberty, and to our system of government, by these cases, simply because they agree with the outcomes. The ends justify the means. I am not sure my liberal friends who constantly mock Fox News understand the very real service that that news outlet provides - challenging runaway government power the way the mainstream media used to do.
This is just the beginning. We will see many cases where the new Constitutional right to gay marriage conflicts with the First Amendment Constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of religion. Did you see how quickly governments and retail stores moved to take down and remove from their shelves all confederate flags, or items depicting those flags. Which side will you be on when the next move is to take down the American flag - the Stars and Stripes - because some feel it is a symbol of racism, and oppression and imperialism. Are you confident that the line will always be drawn where you think it should be drawn? Or maybe, just maybe, we are better off sticking to fundamental principles.
The Continuing Slide Into Tyranny, Part II
Here's the problem. Under our Constitution, only the legislative branch - Congress - has the power to write laws. It was bad enough that the Executive branch - President Obama - decided to rewrite the ACA on his own when he delayed implementation of certain provisions, contrary to the express wording of the statute; and unilaterally granted certain exemptions not provided for in the statute. Now, the Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to write laws by rewording the statute. We have an extraordinary system established by our Founders - 3 separate branches of government, each acting as a check on the exercise of unbridled power by the others.
As with any system, it depends upon the good will of those carrying out what they are entrusted to do. Today, we have an "ends justify the means" approach to governing, with the result being that, rather than act as a check upon one another, the 3 branches act in unison to enforce whatever they may deem appropriate - and the effect on individual liberty be damned.
What should have happened in King vs. Burwell was a decision allowing the subsidies to the States only, as the law was written. If it was written in haste or sloppily, it is the job of the Congress to fix it. Legislative bodies pass "clean-up legislation" all the time. The Court was not only concerned with the policy outcome should the subsidies be denied; but, in this writer's opinion, did not trust the Republican Congress to fix the law. So now, we have every branch of government engaging in the writing of laws, with the result being that that the Constitutional separation of powers is gone.
Just imagine what a President with even greater dictatorial inclinations than has Obama might do with this now unlimited power. Congress may pass a law that says everyone must vote. Then a President adds "and if you don't you pay a tax." And then the Supreme Court says "yes;" obviously Congress intended that enforcement mechanism or the entire premise of the law may fail. That is just what the IRS did in amending the law to grant subsidies to those in the federal exchange; and then the Court (which was worried that the insurance market would destabilize if they did not support the IRS in adding "or Federal Exchange"), went along with the entire scheme.
Now, the separation of powers is a myth. Compounding the problem with the Roberts' decision is the attack on "federalism" as well. We have not only a federal government, but 50 different state governments, with each also considered a sovereign entity with certain powers. Therefore, even if the Republican Congress failed to fix the perceived problem with the ACA, the states could have done so. With 34 states not having established an exchange, a decision disallowing a subsidy to those in the federal exchange might have prompted those states to reconsider their decision - and establish an exchange - in order to get the subsidy for their residents.
But, just as Roberts and those in the majority showed utter contempt for the separation of powers, the same contempt was shown for the idea of federalism; the idea that states as sovereign entities could decide on their own what would be best for their citizens.
As with any system, it depends upon the good will of those carrying out what they are entrusted to do. Today, we have an "ends justify the means" approach to governing, with the result being that, rather than act as a check upon one another, the 3 branches act in unison to enforce whatever they may deem appropriate - and the effect on individual liberty be damned.
What should have happened in King vs. Burwell was a decision allowing the subsidies to the States only, as the law was written. If it was written in haste or sloppily, it is the job of the Congress to fix it. Legislative bodies pass "clean-up legislation" all the time. The Court was not only concerned with the policy outcome should the subsidies be denied; but, in this writer's opinion, did not trust the Republican Congress to fix the law. So now, we have every branch of government engaging in the writing of laws, with the result being that that the Constitutional separation of powers is gone.
Just imagine what a President with even greater dictatorial inclinations than has Obama might do with this now unlimited power. Congress may pass a law that says everyone must vote. Then a President adds "and if you don't you pay a tax." And then the Supreme Court says "yes;" obviously Congress intended that enforcement mechanism or the entire premise of the law may fail. That is just what the IRS did in amending the law to grant subsidies to those in the federal exchange; and then the Court (which was worried that the insurance market would destabilize if they did not support the IRS in adding "or Federal Exchange"), went along with the entire scheme.
Now, the separation of powers is a myth. Compounding the problem with the Roberts' decision is the attack on "federalism" as well. We have not only a federal government, but 50 different state governments, with each also considered a sovereign entity with certain powers. Therefore, even if the Republican Congress failed to fix the perceived problem with the ACA, the states could have done so. With 34 states not having established an exchange, a decision disallowing a subsidy to those in the federal exchange might have prompted those states to reconsider their decision - and establish an exchange - in order to get the subsidy for their residents.
But, just as Roberts and those in the majority showed utter contempt for the separation of powers, the same contempt was shown for the idea of federalism; the idea that states as sovereign entities could decide on their own what would be best for their citizens.
The Continuing Slide Into Tyranny, Part I
The progressive movement has been chipping away at individual liberty since the beginning of the last century. Rather than recount 100 years of history, let's start with 2005 and then jump to today.
In 2005, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined four other liberal Justices in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London. Those five Justices completely rewrote the part of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that deals with eminent domain: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." A "public use" was always considered to be just that - a school or library or highway, as examples. In the Kelo case, "public use" was redefined to mean government may take your property and give it to another private citizen (such as a developer), if the new use under the new owner would generate greater tax revenue (say a strip mall in place of your house). That new definition of "public use" gave government at all levels the unlimited power to take anyone's property if they could generate more tax revenue from that property.
This past Thursday the Supreme Court handed down their decision in the Affordable Care Act case (King vs. Burwell). While the statute provided subsidies to those enrolled in "an exchange established by the State," Obama decided that language was unsatisfactory. Thirty-four states did not set up an exchange, although the residents of those states were eligible to enroll in the federal exchange. The IRS, under Obama, took it upon themselves to grant subsidies to those enrolled in the federal exchange, notwithstanding the limiting language of the statute.
Generally, courts will defer to an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute where the language is ambiguous. Here, the plaintiffs argued that the language was plain - the subsidy was available to those enrolled in an exchange established by the State.
As a reminder, 3 years ago Chief Justice John Roberts took it upon himself to rewrite the ACA in order to uphold its Constitutionality. Then, the argument was that the Constitution did not give Congress the power to order people to buy insurance, or pay a penalty for failing to do so. Roberts agreed that the Commerce Clause (frequently used to expand government power) could not justify a mandate to buy insurance. Therefore, Roberts rewrote the statute so that the failure to purchase insurance was a "tax," rather than a "penalty;" and then upheld the law under Congress' taxing power. The four liberal Justices would have voted to uphold the law under the Commerce Clause, seeing no problem in Congress telling you what to buy.
This week, Roberts joined the majority again, and again rewrote the legislation to suit his purposes. Having previously declared the penalty was a tax, this time he said that an exchange "established by the State" actually meant "an exchange established by the State or Federal Government." So what's the problem? Wasn't this just an oversight by Congress? Per Roberts, wasn't this a case where "the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation?"
In 2005, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined four other liberal Justices in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London. Those five Justices completely rewrote the part of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that deals with eminent domain: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." A "public use" was always considered to be just that - a school or library or highway, as examples. In the Kelo case, "public use" was redefined to mean government may take your property and give it to another private citizen (such as a developer), if the new use under the new owner would generate greater tax revenue (say a strip mall in place of your house). That new definition of "public use" gave government at all levels the unlimited power to take anyone's property if they could generate more tax revenue from that property.
This past Thursday the Supreme Court handed down their decision in the Affordable Care Act case (King vs. Burwell). While the statute provided subsidies to those enrolled in "an exchange established by the State," Obama decided that language was unsatisfactory. Thirty-four states did not set up an exchange, although the residents of those states were eligible to enroll in the federal exchange. The IRS, under Obama, took it upon themselves to grant subsidies to those enrolled in the federal exchange, notwithstanding the limiting language of the statute.
Generally, courts will defer to an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute where the language is ambiguous. Here, the plaintiffs argued that the language was plain - the subsidy was available to those enrolled in an exchange established by the State.
As a reminder, 3 years ago Chief Justice John Roberts took it upon himself to rewrite the ACA in order to uphold its Constitutionality. Then, the argument was that the Constitution did not give Congress the power to order people to buy insurance, or pay a penalty for failing to do so. Roberts agreed that the Commerce Clause (frequently used to expand government power) could not justify a mandate to buy insurance. Therefore, Roberts rewrote the statute so that the failure to purchase insurance was a "tax," rather than a "penalty;" and then upheld the law under Congress' taxing power. The four liberal Justices would have voted to uphold the law under the Commerce Clause, seeing no problem in Congress telling you what to buy.
This week, Roberts joined the majority again, and again rewrote the legislation to suit his purposes. Having previously declared the penalty was a tax, this time he said that an exchange "established by the State" actually meant "an exchange established by the State or Federal Government." So what's the problem? Wasn't this just an oversight by Congress? Per Roberts, wasn't this a case where "the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation?"
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
HATE, Part II
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)