Senator Ted Cruz had introduced a measure in the US Senate commonly referred to as "Kate's Law." Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco, an immigrant who had been deported from the US at least five times. This criminal already had a lengthy criminal history of seven felony convictions.
The purpose behind the law was quite simple - to discourage criminals who had been deported from attempting to sneak back in to the US. If such an individual were caught after reentering the country they would face a mandatory five year prison sentence.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid was able to block the measure from coming to a vote. Under Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to bring a measure to the floor for a vote of the full Senate. The Republicans have only 54 seats, allowing Reid to still have control over the Senate's business, even though he is no longer Majority Leader.
Said Reid: "All we've seen from Republican leaders and their caucus is bills that attack immigrants and tear families apart. So I object." In reply, Cruz said this: "When the Democratic leader suggests that incarcerating aggravated felons, murderers and rapists who illegally reenter this country is somehow a sleight to immigrants - well, Mr. President, I am a son of an immigrant who came from Cuba. There is no one in this chamber who will fight harder for legal immigrants than I will."
Bill O'Reilly was a huge supporter of Kate's Law. After Reid blocked a Senate vote, O'Reilly was furious and said: "Mr. Reid is a liar and a villain. This has nothing to do with the so-called immigrant community. This is about fixing a corrupt criminal situation."
The murderer of Kate Steinle was actually in the custody of San Francisco's Sheriff on unrelated charges when the Feds requested they he be held until the Feds could pick him up for immigration violations. However, when the local prosecutor decided not to pursue charges against the soon to be murderer, the Sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, declined to keep the man in custody. Shortly after his release he killed Ms. Steinle.
Another positive result of this past Tuesday's election is that Sheriff Mirkarimi was soundly defeated by the challenger, garnering only 33% of the vote, with the victor getting 61%.
As I mentioned in Part II, the Democrats equate illegal immigrants, even criminal illegal immigrants, with legal immigrants. The complete blurring - no, elimination of any distinction between them. The fact that Senate Democrats - only 6 were needed to vote with the 54 Republicans to bring the bill to a vote - were unwillingly to take a firm stand against criminal aliens, tells you everything you need to know about how divided this country is. Shared fundamental values? Not by a long shot. Whose side are you on?
Friday, November 6, 2015
The Culture Wars, Part II
About one and a half years ago the City of Houston passed what became known as HERO - the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance. The stated purpose was to protect 15 different classes of people (based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity and pregnancy) from discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, etc.
Those opposed to the ordinance were able to get a vote on repeal of the ordinance on this past Tuesday's ballot. The ordinance was repealed by a landslide vote of 61% to 39%. Opposition to the ordinance was apparently fierce by those concerned that men would be allowed to use women's restrooms.
The Mayor of Houston, Annise Parker, who is openly gay, was quite upset over the ordinance's repeal. The Mayor blamed the repeal on a "small, very determined group of right-wing ideologues and the religious right." I don't know how small a group if the measure passed with 61% in favor of repeal. That does not sound like a "small group." I also dislike the attack on the religious.
Not living in Houston, I did not read the various editorials and letters to the editor in the Houston papers concerning the ordinance and the repeal measure. Having looked at the text of the Ordinance, I cannot help but wonder why the drafters did not specifically state that the ordinance does not permit men to enter women's restrooms, if that was the concern.
The Houston Mayor also added that the opponents "only know how to destroy and not build up." Aside from the typical demagoguery from the left, I would suggest that it is they who seek to destroy, with the target being Western Civilization and Judeo-Christian values.
Speaking of demagoguery, the New York Times lead editorial of 11/5/15 ran with this headline: "In Houston, Hate Trumped Fairness." I must say, it is quite tiring to hear the whining from the New York Times anytime something does not go their way. The "paper of record" does not prefer intellectual discourse; they do not see their job as elevating the discussion of issues in our country. Rather, like Junior High School kids, their arguments consist of name-calling and demagoguery.
The Mayor certainly did nothing to help her cause when she sought to subpoena the sermons of five (presumably outspoken) pastors in Houston. That was a clear violation of both the free speech and freedom of religion clauses of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Was there some backlash from that overreaching? I do not know.
Here's a question: if a man sought employment and said he insisted on wearing a dress on the job, why should an employer not be allowed to say no - if you want to wear a dress do it outside of work. Would it matter to you if the man was looking to be hired as an elementary school teacher?
Society has always had to deal with issues of where lines should be drawn. But we are in a new era, an era in which the left seeks to obliterate all distinctions.
Those opposed to the ordinance were able to get a vote on repeal of the ordinance on this past Tuesday's ballot. The ordinance was repealed by a landslide vote of 61% to 39%. Opposition to the ordinance was apparently fierce by those concerned that men would be allowed to use women's restrooms.
The Mayor of Houston, Annise Parker, who is openly gay, was quite upset over the ordinance's repeal. The Mayor blamed the repeal on a "small, very determined group of right-wing ideologues and the religious right." I don't know how small a group if the measure passed with 61% in favor of repeal. That does not sound like a "small group." I also dislike the attack on the religious.
Not living in Houston, I did not read the various editorials and letters to the editor in the Houston papers concerning the ordinance and the repeal measure. Having looked at the text of the Ordinance, I cannot help but wonder why the drafters did not specifically state that the ordinance does not permit men to enter women's restrooms, if that was the concern.
The Houston Mayor also added that the opponents "only know how to destroy and not build up." Aside from the typical demagoguery from the left, I would suggest that it is they who seek to destroy, with the target being Western Civilization and Judeo-Christian values.
Speaking of demagoguery, the New York Times lead editorial of 11/5/15 ran with this headline: "In Houston, Hate Trumped Fairness." I must say, it is quite tiring to hear the whining from the New York Times anytime something does not go their way. The "paper of record" does not prefer intellectual discourse; they do not see their job as elevating the discussion of issues in our country. Rather, like Junior High School kids, their arguments consist of name-calling and demagoguery.
The Mayor certainly did nothing to help her cause when she sought to subpoena the sermons of five (presumably outspoken) pastors in Houston. That was a clear violation of both the free speech and freedom of religion clauses of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Was there some backlash from that overreaching? I do not know.
Here's a question: if a man sought employment and said he insisted on wearing a dress on the job, why should an employer not be allowed to say no - if you want to wear a dress do it outside of work. Would it matter to you if the man was looking to be hired as an elementary school teacher?
Society has always had to deal with issues of where lines should be drawn. But we are in a new era, an era in which the left seeks to obliterate all distinctions.
The Culture Wars, Part I
In a story out of Palatine, Illinois, a student in the Township High School District is undergoing hormone therapy. The student was born as a male, but identifies as female. It is unclear if the student ultimately wishes to undergo gender reassignment surgery. In any event, this student was denied access to the girls' locker room.
Apparently, a separate changing area was offered to the student, but that was unacceptable. Then the Feds stepped in and told the District to allow the student access to the girls' locker room, or end up on the wrong side of a federal lawsuit, and lose $6 million in federal aid.
The Washington Post quoted the student as follows: "This decision (by the Feds) makes me extremely happy - because of what it means for me, personally, and for countless others...The District's policy stigmatized me, often making me feel like I was not a 'normal person.'"
Locker rooms at a school are used for changing clothes. People are often naked. What if 15 and 16 and 17 year old girls do not want a male student changing in their locker room with them? What about the feelings of those students?
Now, before everybody yells at me, the student in question has all the male genitalia. Just as I believe we should not have changed the definition of marriage, I do not believe we should change the definition of male or female based upon how one feels. This does not mean that I do not have sympathy for people who feel so uncomfortable in their own bodies. I do. They are human beings and should be treated as such. But when do the feelings of other students come into play? And, if we were still a more religious oriented society we might have retained the concept of "modesty," with no explanation needed as to why the two sexes have separate locker rooms. Instead, we see another example of "it's all about me."
Not surprisingly, the New York Times was thrilled with the Federal government involving itself into a local matter. Said the Times in their 11/5/15 editorial: "...the Department of Education backed a transgender student in Illinois who is fighting for the right to use restrooms and and locker rooms on campus like any other female student." Like any other female student? Do the other female students have penises and testicles?
To the leftists at the Times it's all the same - no difference between males and females. I have expressed before my discomfort at the changing of definitions. Now we have "male equals female." If the Times had said that notwithstanding the male genitalia on this student the student should be allowed to use the girls' locker room, I would still disagree, but it would have been more honest. Instead, they want us to believe that a male student is "just like any other female student."
Fundamental concepts are being altered by the left, supported by the heavy hand of the Obama Administration. Meanwhile, common sense has left the building, all in the name of political correctness. None of us knows where this will end, and certainly not whether we will be happy with the consequences.
Apparently, a separate changing area was offered to the student, but that was unacceptable. Then the Feds stepped in and told the District to allow the student access to the girls' locker room, or end up on the wrong side of a federal lawsuit, and lose $6 million in federal aid.
The Washington Post quoted the student as follows: "This decision (by the Feds) makes me extremely happy - because of what it means for me, personally, and for countless others...The District's policy stigmatized me, often making me feel like I was not a 'normal person.'"
Locker rooms at a school are used for changing clothes. People are often naked. What if 15 and 16 and 17 year old girls do not want a male student changing in their locker room with them? What about the feelings of those students?
Now, before everybody yells at me, the student in question has all the male genitalia. Just as I believe we should not have changed the definition of marriage, I do not believe we should change the definition of male or female based upon how one feels. This does not mean that I do not have sympathy for people who feel so uncomfortable in their own bodies. I do. They are human beings and should be treated as such. But when do the feelings of other students come into play? And, if we were still a more religious oriented society we might have retained the concept of "modesty," with no explanation needed as to why the two sexes have separate locker rooms. Instead, we see another example of "it's all about me."
Not surprisingly, the New York Times was thrilled with the Federal government involving itself into a local matter. Said the Times in their 11/5/15 editorial: "...the Department of Education backed a transgender student in Illinois who is fighting for the right to use restrooms and and locker rooms on campus like any other female student." Like any other female student? Do the other female students have penises and testicles?
To the leftists at the Times it's all the same - no difference between males and females. I have expressed before my discomfort at the changing of definitions. Now we have "male equals female." If the Times had said that notwithstanding the male genitalia on this student the student should be allowed to use the girls' locker room, I would still disagree, but it would have been more honest. Instead, they want us to believe that a male student is "just like any other female student."
Fundamental concepts are being altered by the left, supported by the heavy hand of the Obama Administration. Meanwhile, common sense has left the building, all in the name of political correctness. None of us knows where this will end, and certainly not whether we will be happy with the consequences.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Whose Side Are You On - Obama's or Cruz's?
Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was told by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest that "the inflammatory rhetoric needs to stop." You see, Netanyahu somewhat overstated the case when he said that during the World War II era, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem persuaded Hitler to exterminate all the Jews instead of deporting them. Hitler apparently came up with the idea of the Jewish genocide on his own.
However, there is no doubt that the Grand Mufti supported the Holocaust. In Carolyn Glick's book, The Israeli Solution, she discusses how the Mufti was eager to assist Hitler but wanted two things in exchange: support for the Mufti ruling much of the Middle East (including modern day Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel), and support for the genocide of Middle East Jewry. Support for genocide of the Jews!
So, Netanyahu overstated the argument - but not by that much. For that, he got White House condemnation. Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, recently said this: "We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem. This is pure blood, clean blood, blood on its way to Allah." Have you heard the outcry yet? Have you heard the White House complain that the Palestinian Muslims have a culture of death? Many non-Jews have even heard that most famous Jewish toast: L'Chaim! To life! Does Obama ever acknowledge the contrast?
Abbas also recently said these words: "Al Aksa (mosque) is ours and so is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They (Jews) have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet." Still waiting for that outcry from the White House?
On numerous occasions Abbas has said that not one single Jew may live in any new Palestinian state. There are over one million Arabs living in Israel. But not a single Jew may live in "Palestine." Are you straining to hear the protestations from the White House?
The dean of Koran studies at Gaza University had this to say: "All Jews in Palestine today are fair game - even the women...Every single Jew in Palestine is a combatant, even the children." He then called for attacks throughout Israel: "...in the very heart of the enemy - in Haifa, Jaffa, Tel Aviv, and Hadera as was the case in the past because that is what hurts the Jews." Maybe if we all cup our hands around our ears we can hear the denunciations from the White House.
By contrast, here are recent comments from Presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz: "I believe that nobody wants to see peace more than the Israeli people. The barrier to peace is not the government of Israel. The barrier to peace is Palestinians who refuse to renounce terrorism and refuse to even acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state."
Cruz continued: "The Palestinians have turned down every reasonable offer of peace. And I believe America should stand unshakably alongside the nation of Israel." A little over a year ago, Cruz spoke at a Middle Eastern Christian event. Said Cruz: "Tonight, we are united in defense of Christians. Tonight, we are united in defense of Jews...Christians have no greater ally than Israel." The booing was deafening. But Cruz did not back down. He did not play to the room for political benefit.
Instead, Cruz said this: "If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you. Good night and G-d bless." Then Cruz walked out. That type of moral clarity simply does not fit with Obama's agenda. It is not part of Obama's makeup - so don't expect to hear it. You can uncup your hands from your ears now. The next sound you hear will be the voice of...Josh Earnest, condemning Israel for something else.
However, there is no doubt that the Grand Mufti supported the Holocaust. In Carolyn Glick's book, The Israeli Solution, she discusses how the Mufti was eager to assist Hitler but wanted two things in exchange: support for the Mufti ruling much of the Middle East (including modern day Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel), and support for the genocide of Middle East Jewry. Support for genocide of the Jews!
So, Netanyahu overstated the argument - but not by that much. For that, he got White House condemnation. Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, recently said this: "We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem. This is pure blood, clean blood, blood on its way to Allah." Have you heard the outcry yet? Have you heard the White House complain that the Palestinian Muslims have a culture of death? Many non-Jews have even heard that most famous Jewish toast: L'Chaim! To life! Does Obama ever acknowledge the contrast?
Abbas also recently said these words: "Al Aksa (mosque) is ours and so is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They (Jews) have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet." Still waiting for that outcry from the White House?
On numerous occasions Abbas has said that not one single Jew may live in any new Palestinian state. There are over one million Arabs living in Israel. But not a single Jew may live in "Palestine." Are you straining to hear the protestations from the White House?
The dean of Koran studies at Gaza University had this to say: "All Jews in Palestine today are fair game - even the women...Every single Jew in Palestine is a combatant, even the children." He then called for attacks throughout Israel: "...in the very heart of the enemy - in Haifa, Jaffa, Tel Aviv, and Hadera as was the case in the past because that is what hurts the Jews." Maybe if we all cup our hands around our ears we can hear the denunciations from the White House.
By contrast, here are recent comments from Presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz: "I believe that nobody wants to see peace more than the Israeli people. The barrier to peace is not the government of Israel. The barrier to peace is Palestinians who refuse to renounce terrorism and refuse to even acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state."
Cruz continued: "The Palestinians have turned down every reasonable offer of peace. And I believe America should stand unshakably alongside the nation of Israel." A little over a year ago, Cruz spoke at a Middle Eastern Christian event. Said Cruz: "Tonight, we are united in defense of Christians. Tonight, we are united in defense of Jews...Christians have no greater ally than Israel." The booing was deafening. But Cruz did not back down. He did not play to the room for political benefit.
Instead, Cruz said this: "If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you. Good night and G-d bless." Then Cruz walked out. That type of moral clarity simply does not fit with Obama's agenda. It is not part of Obama's makeup - so don't expect to hear it. You can uncup your hands from your ears now. The next sound you hear will be the voice of...Josh Earnest, condemning Israel for something else.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
With Friends Like These...
From October 1 through early yesterday 7 Israelis have been attacked and killed by Arabs, with dozens more wounded. The attackers frequently walked up behind people and started stabbing them with knives. Whether it was an older person or a 13 year old victim, it made no difference to these animals. They believe that all Jews should be killed. The 7 dead Israelis is the equivalent of 278 Americans stabbed to death in under two weeks, and as if the attacks occurred all across the country. How long would Americans tolerate that?
Then along comes Secretary of State John Kerry, essentially justifying the murder of innocent Israeli civilians, with this: "And there's been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years, and now you have this violence because there's a frustration that is growing."
In the world occupied by the left, there is always an excuse for evil - because the left has a problem with acknowledging that evil even exists. So, the Arabs are frustrated. Many blacks in this country are frustrated because of the number of black deaths at the hands of the police. I guess that would justify blacks going out and randomly killing whites, in the eyes of John Kerry. After all, they are frustrated - just like the Arabs are.
The State Department attempted to back off the apparent link made by Kerry with this comment by spokesperson John Kirby: "The secretary wasn't saying, well now you have the settlement activity as the cause for the effect we're seeing."
Nice try, because Kirby added: "Is it a source of frustration for Palestinians. You bet it is, and the secretary observed that. But this isn't about affixing blame on either side here for the violence..." It's not? The Arabs started what may be the beginning of a third intifada. The Israelis reacted in self-defense. But in the eyes of the left we never affix blame. Rather, the left lives in the world of moral equivalency. No side is right and no side is wrong.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media and various world leaders have adopted that viewpoint; simply stating that the violence by both sides has to stop, with no mention of who started it. And certainly no mention of who's at fault. They just condemn "violence," as if violence is the perpetrator.
The State Department spokesman continued talking out of both sides of his mouth, first stating that "the Israeli government has a right and a responsibility to protect its citizens." But then he added this: "We've certainly seen some reports of what many would consider excessive use of force, obviously we don't like to see that." I take it that Israelis can defend themselves - as long as no Arabs get hurt.
Isn't it nice to know that in the worldview of people like John Kerry, and the left generally, frustration can justify not only criminal behavior, but murder. When someone is rushing at you with a knife intending to stab you to death, I think you're going to want a gun to stop the attacker dead in his tracks - so that you're not stopped dead in yours. The moral idiots of the left be damned!
Then along comes Secretary of State John Kerry, essentially justifying the murder of innocent Israeli civilians, with this: "And there's been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years, and now you have this violence because there's a frustration that is growing."
In the world occupied by the left, there is always an excuse for evil - because the left has a problem with acknowledging that evil even exists. So, the Arabs are frustrated. Many blacks in this country are frustrated because of the number of black deaths at the hands of the police. I guess that would justify blacks going out and randomly killing whites, in the eyes of John Kerry. After all, they are frustrated - just like the Arabs are.
The State Department attempted to back off the apparent link made by Kerry with this comment by spokesperson John Kirby: "The secretary wasn't saying, well now you have the settlement activity as the cause for the effect we're seeing."
Nice try, because Kirby added: "Is it a source of frustration for Palestinians. You bet it is, and the secretary observed that. But this isn't about affixing blame on either side here for the violence..." It's not? The Arabs started what may be the beginning of a third intifada. The Israelis reacted in self-defense. But in the eyes of the left we never affix blame. Rather, the left lives in the world of moral equivalency. No side is right and no side is wrong.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media and various world leaders have adopted that viewpoint; simply stating that the violence by both sides has to stop, with no mention of who started it. And certainly no mention of who's at fault. They just condemn "violence," as if violence is the perpetrator.
The State Department spokesman continued talking out of both sides of his mouth, first stating that "the Israeli government has a right and a responsibility to protect its citizens." But then he added this: "We've certainly seen some reports of what many would consider excessive use of force, obviously we don't like to see that." I take it that Israelis can defend themselves - as long as no Arabs get hurt.
Isn't it nice to know that in the worldview of people like John Kerry, and the left generally, frustration can justify not only criminal behavior, but murder. When someone is rushing at you with a knife intending to stab you to death, I think you're going to want a gun to stop the attacker dead in his tracks - so that you're not stopped dead in yours. The moral idiots of the left be damned!
Sunday, October 11, 2015
He Was Practiced at the Art of Deception*
There were two very interesting opinion pieces regarding Obama's policy outlook in the 10/6/15 Wall Street Journal. One was by William McGurn, former speechwriter for George W. Bush. McGurn was comparing Obama with Jimmy Carter.
McGurn: "...toward the end of his tenure, President Carter proved himself capable of something that still eludes President Obama: a willingness to learn from mistakes and reconsider options." McGurn then goes on to note how Carter finally realized he needed to do something about the runaway inflation, and so appointed Paul Volcker who agreed: "Inflation certainly is the priority."
McGurn then discusses how the realities of Soviet behavior (the invasion of Afghanistan) made Carter reconsider his foreign policy. The US boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics, we imposed embargoes on certain Russian goods, and we supported the Afghan resistance. Carter even withdrew from the Senate "the one thing he had devoted his presidency to, his beloved SALT II treaty."
McGurn concludes: "Is there any any intrusion of reality that could ever persuade Mr. Obama to do the same" (and change course)? The other opinion piece was by Bret Stephens, who writes a regular column on foreign affairs for the Journal. Stephens has a much better understanding of Obama.
Stephens: "Mr. Obama believes his Syria policy - the one that did nothing as 250,000 people were murdered; the one that did nothing as his own red lines were crossed; the one that allowed ISIS to flourish; the one that has created the greatest refugee crisis of the 21st century; the one currently being exploited by Russia and Iran for geopolitical advantage - is a success."
In this writer's opinion it is not necessarily that Obama is happy with all the consequences of his inaction; he would probably view those things as unavoidable (if not desirable in some cases) consequences of his approach. Stephens explains Obama's "...fundamental conviction about American foreign policy is that we need less of it - less commitment, less expense, less responsibility."
In a further WSJ opinion piece by Niall Ferguson (in the 10/10-10/11/15 edition), he discusses some of the other consequences of Obama's foreign policy. "Since 2010, total fatalities from armed conflict in the world have increased by a factor of close to four," citing data from the International Institute of Strategic Studies. Then, citing a study from the University of Maryland, Ferguson says: "total fatalities due to terrorism have risen nearly sixfold."
Currently, both Russian and Iranian troops are in Syria - on Israel's northern border. The 10/12/15 IBD reports that Chinese warships are also en route to the Middle East. If there is one region of the world that would be most likely to set off another world war it would be the Middle East.
Obama's take on this is that Russia is acting out of weakness, not strength. Obama gave an interview to Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes, which is to air later today. Kroft to Obama: "He's (Putin) challenging your leadership, Mr. President." Obama's reply: "...if you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in, in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we've got a different definition of leadership."
You have to hand it to Obama. He is indeed practiced at the art of deception. Whether it's keeping your health insurance policy, or keeping your doctor, or drawing a red line and then claiming he did not draw that line, Obama can lie with a straight face better than most who have preceded him. But when the ends justify the means, and truth is not a value - only the agenda is, then it is fairly easy to lie and not think anything of it.
I give Obama credit for this latest lie. Putin taking action is not true leadership; Obama doing nothing with turmoil swirling all around him - that's leadership. Putin taking the Crimea and part of Eastern Ukraine? Not leadership. Meanwhile, Obama's lackey, John Kerry, is practically begging his Russian counterpart to stand down, telling him that Russian involvement in Syria will only make things worse.
As Charles Krauthammer states in the 9/18/15 IBD, Russia's involement in Syria does not make things worse for Russia. Russia extends their power and influence to the Middle East, in a way that they have not been able to do since the 1970s when they were kicked out of Egypt.
Krauthammer: "Obama has given short shrift to the Kurds, shafted America's allies with the Iran deal and abandoned the Anbar Sunnis who helped us win the surge." Now that is what Obama would call leadership.
(*Apologies to the Rolling Stones.)
McGurn: "...toward the end of his tenure, President Carter proved himself capable of something that still eludes President Obama: a willingness to learn from mistakes and reconsider options." McGurn then goes on to note how Carter finally realized he needed to do something about the runaway inflation, and so appointed Paul Volcker who agreed: "Inflation certainly is the priority."
McGurn then discusses how the realities of Soviet behavior (the invasion of Afghanistan) made Carter reconsider his foreign policy. The US boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics, we imposed embargoes on certain Russian goods, and we supported the Afghan resistance. Carter even withdrew from the Senate "the one thing he had devoted his presidency to, his beloved SALT II treaty."
McGurn concludes: "Is there any any intrusion of reality that could ever persuade Mr. Obama to do the same" (and change course)? The other opinion piece was by Bret Stephens, who writes a regular column on foreign affairs for the Journal. Stephens has a much better understanding of Obama.
Stephens: "Mr. Obama believes his Syria policy - the one that did nothing as 250,000 people were murdered; the one that did nothing as his own red lines were crossed; the one that allowed ISIS to flourish; the one that has created the greatest refugee crisis of the 21st century; the one currently being exploited by Russia and Iran for geopolitical advantage - is a success."
In this writer's opinion it is not necessarily that Obama is happy with all the consequences of his inaction; he would probably view those things as unavoidable (if not desirable in some cases) consequences of his approach. Stephens explains Obama's "...fundamental conviction about American foreign policy is that we need less of it - less commitment, less expense, less responsibility."
In a further WSJ opinion piece by Niall Ferguson (in the 10/10-10/11/15 edition), he discusses some of the other consequences of Obama's foreign policy. "Since 2010, total fatalities from armed conflict in the world have increased by a factor of close to four," citing data from the International Institute of Strategic Studies. Then, citing a study from the University of Maryland, Ferguson says: "total fatalities due to terrorism have risen nearly sixfold."
Currently, both Russian and Iranian troops are in Syria - on Israel's northern border. The 10/12/15 IBD reports that Chinese warships are also en route to the Middle East. If there is one region of the world that would be most likely to set off another world war it would be the Middle East.
Obama's take on this is that Russia is acting out of weakness, not strength. Obama gave an interview to Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes, which is to air later today. Kroft to Obama: "He's (Putin) challenging your leadership, Mr. President." Obama's reply: "...if you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in, in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we've got a different definition of leadership."
You have to hand it to Obama. He is indeed practiced at the art of deception. Whether it's keeping your health insurance policy, or keeping your doctor, or drawing a red line and then claiming he did not draw that line, Obama can lie with a straight face better than most who have preceded him. But when the ends justify the means, and truth is not a value - only the agenda is, then it is fairly easy to lie and not think anything of it.
I give Obama credit for this latest lie. Putin taking action is not true leadership; Obama doing nothing with turmoil swirling all around him - that's leadership. Putin taking the Crimea and part of Eastern Ukraine? Not leadership. Meanwhile, Obama's lackey, John Kerry, is practically begging his Russian counterpart to stand down, telling him that Russian involvement in Syria will only make things worse.
As Charles Krauthammer states in the 9/18/15 IBD, Russia's involement in Syria does not make things worse for Russia. Russia extends their power and influence to the Middle East, in a way that they have not been able to do since the 1970s when they were kicked out of Egypt.
Krauthammer: "Obama has given short shrift to the Kurds, shafted America's allies with the Iran deal and abandoned the Anbar Sunnis who helped us win the surge." Now that is what Obama would call leadership.
(*Apologies to the Rolling Stones.)
Does This Make Any Sense?
Remember a time when government workers got excellent benefits because they were paid less than those in the private sector? Government work at least meant job security. The 10/9/15 IBD reports on a wage comparison of earnings between federal government and private sector workers, based on a study by Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute.
According to the study, government workers average $84,153 per year. The private sector employees average $56,350 per year. Add in employee benefits and the results are truly shocking: $119,934 for government employees versus $67,246 for private employees. If you have ever dealt with a federal agency my bet would be that you do not believe those workers are worth 78% more than workers in the private sector.
This study by the Cato Institute is a perfect example of what is wrong with public employee unions. The unions spend large sums to back candidates who support their never-ending pay and benefit increases, and attack those who do not. Congressional members give in with taxpayer money (your money and my money) in order to protect their seats.
So, while private employers during this recession had to cut payroll, and even entire departments, the Feds were adding employees and increasing salaries. What a system.
Rand Paul has a solution. It is a solution that a more liberal friend and I have discussed and agreed on previously: zero-based budgeting. Far too frequently our government is faced with having to raise the debt limit. A large part of the problem is that each new budget assumes whatever was spent by each federal agency the prior year is the floor from which they begin to argue for more money.
With zero-based budgeting, each department of government would have to justify their very existence, and how much money they should get. If this is too big a task for yearly review, then make it a two year budget. But do it. It is the only approach that has the ability to shrink the size of the federal bureaucracy. All other efforts have only slowed the rate of growth of the federal government. The benefits are manifold. Less need for taking taxpayer money. Less competition for money between government and the private sector. And, of course, a lesser ability of government to try to control ever increasing aspects of our lives.
The lobbying pressure on Congress would be enormous. But at least the public would get to see who cares about their money and who does not; and what agencies are so important that government chooses to fund them over letting people keep their hard-earned money. Which brings up another topic.
Donald Trump has unveiled a tax plan that will allow 50% of Americans to not pay taxes. Bobby Jindal has a plan in which all Americans pay taxes. It is often said that about 46%-47% of Americans already do not pay taxes. The rebuttal is that many do still pay payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare). While that money is not put into any special "trust fund," it is paid with the expectation of getting it back at retirement age. Federal income tax is what funds day to day government operations, and yes, I believe everyone should contribute to that.
Which brings me to my final topic: Bernie Sanders. The self-professed Democratic-Socialist wants to see an ever-expanding government. Government paid healthcare, government paid child-care and preschool, and "free" tuition at public colleges, among other things. Then there are the mandates he wants to place on employers - $15 minimum wage, mandatory medical leave, sick leave and vacation pay. (Per 9/16/15 IBD.) He is also a friend of unions. Who will pay for all of this? Get ready for a lower standard of living. Greece anyone?
You have to love how the mainstream media consistently portray the Republican party as a bunch of extremists when they stand up for what were always considered to be traditional American values. But now that the Democrat party is supporting an avowed Socialist in large numbers? Not a peep about that real sea change.
According to the study, government workers average $84,153 per year. The private sector employees average $56,350 per year. Add in employee benefits and the results are truly shocking: $119,934 for government employees versus $67,246 for private employees. If you have ever dealt with a federal agency my bet would be that you do not believe those workers are worth 78% more than workers in the private sector.
This study by the Cato Institute is a perfect example of what is wrong with public employee unions. The unions spend large sums to back candidates who support their never-ending pay and benefit increases, and attack those who do not. Congressional members give in with taxpayer money (your money and my money) in order to protect their seats.
So, while private employers during this recession had to cut payroll, and even entire departments, the Feds were adding employees and increasing salaries. What a system.
Rand Paul has a solution. It is a solution that a more liberal friend and I have discussed and agreed on previously: zero-based budgeting. Far too frequently our government is faced with having to raise the debt limit. A large part of the problem is that each new budget assumes whatever was spent by each federal agency the prior year is the floor from which they begin to argue for more money.
With zero-based budgeting, each department of government would have to justify their very existence, and how much money they should get. If this is too big a task for yearly review, then make it a two year budget. But do it. It is the only approach that has the ability to shrink the size of the federal bureaucracy. All other efforts have only slowed the rate of growth of the federal government. The benefits are manifold. Less need for taking taxpayer money. Less competition for money between government and the private sector. And, of course, a lesser ability of government to try to control ever increasing aspects of our lives.
The lobbying pressure on Congress would be enormous. But at least the public would get to see who cares about their money and who does not; and what agencies are so important that government chooses to fund them over letting people keep their hard-earned money. Which brings up another topic.
Donald Trump has unveiled a tax plan that will allow 50% of Americans to not pay taxes. Bobby Jindal has a plan in which all Americans pay taxes. It is often said that about 46%-47% of Americans already do not pay taxes. The rebuttal is that many do still pay payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare). While that money is not put into any special "trust fund," it is paid with the expectation of getting it back at retirement age. Federal income tax is what funds day to day government operations, and yes, I believe everyone should contribute to that.
Which brings me to my final topic: Bernie Sanders. The self-professed Democratic-Socialist wants to see an ever-expanding government. Government paid healthcare, government paid child-care and preschool, and "free" tuition at public colleges, among other things. Then there are the mandates he wants to place on employers - $15 minimum wage, mandatory medical leave, sick leave and vacation pay. (Per 9/16/15 IBD.) He is also a friend of unions. Who will pay for all of this? Get ready for a lower standard of living. Greece anyone?
You have to love how the mainstream media consistently portray the Republican party as a bunch of extremists when they stand up for what were always considered to be traditional American values. But now that the Democrat party is supporting an avowed Socialist in large numbers? Not a peep about that real sea change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)