Written November 21, 2009
Over 61 years ago Israel declared its independence. Jews everywhere around the world celebrated. The Holocaust had ended just a few years earlier, and Jews understood the significance of Israel as both a return to our historical homeland, and a sanctuary against a frightening and evil world. Vast amounts of money were raised for Israel by Jews throughout the Diaspora. (For my non-Jewish friends, the Diaspora is simply all Jews who reside outside of Israel.)
Fast forward to today - less than an average lifetime later. The legitimacy of Israel's right to exist is under attack from all corners.
1. Iran. Still the biggest threat to Israel's physical existence. A denier of the Holocaust, it frequently threatens to wipe Israel off the map. It has refused the offer of the Five (permanent members of the Security Council) plus One (Germany) to have its nuclear material reprocessed to civilian use levels in Europe before being returned to Iran. At a recent meeting of diplomats from the 5 + 1 they expressed "disappointment" over Iran's refusal of the offer. Did further sanctions come up? No. Instead, they "urged" Iran to reconsider. Well, that should definitely work! (From the 11/20/09 Jerusalem Post Online.)
Earlier this month, Israel seized a ship with over 300 tons of weapons and over 3000 rockets. The ship departed Iran on its way to Syria, with Israel suspecting the materiel was headed ultimately for Hezbollah. (From the 11/13/09 Jewish Press.) And where is the world outcry over this threat to Israel's existence? Where indeed! (And see more on this below.)
And now, Iran is going to have 5 days of military exercises in which their air force will be practicing a defense against any potential air strikes on their nuclear facilities.
2. The UN (Unconscionable Nations). First, we have the Goldstone Report (previously discussed in this column) threatening to prosecute Israeli civilian leaders and military personnel for alleged war crimes over Operation Cast Lead (the last war with Hamas).
Second, the Unconscionable Nations are completely silent over Iran exporting arms (see above) in violation of a UN resolution. The Unconscionable Nations are completely silent over Hezbollah's refusal to disarm; again, contrary to UN resolutions. UN resolution 1701 also forbids "armed personnel, assets and weapons" in the region south of the Litani River (southern Lebanon, which borders Israel). Yet, in July of this year there was a "massive explosion" in that area which revealed what? A large weapons cache controlled by Hezbollah. And what does the Unconscionable Nations have to say? Hello? Anybody? (From the 11/09/09 Investor's Business Daily.)
Third, we have the threat by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to ask the Unconscionable Nations to recognize a state of "Palestine" in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. How did we get to this point? Well, our President (who is so smart, right?) told the "palestinians" and the world that all Israeli towns in the "occupied" territories are "illegal settlements;" and that no further construction should be permitted.
So, let's be clear about what our "brilliant" President has done. He has accepted the "palestinian" propaganda that the territories are "occupied" land. He has accepted their propaganda that all Israelis living in those areas are in "illegal settlements." So, Obama having announced in advance what the outcome should be, the PA felt comfortable saying no more negotiations until all construction stops - even in Jerusalem, Israel's capital. The O. team then realized that, politically, Israel could not forbid construction in their own capital. But it was too late. Expectations were raised (stupidly, not brilliantly) and now Abbas won't budge.
So would the General Assembly and/or Security Council of the Unconscionable Nations approve a resolution establishing a "palestinian" state on Israeli land? Well, I wonder how the 57 muslim countries would vote. I wonder how all the dictators of the world, who despise democracies like the US and Israel, would vote. And the 5 permanent members of the Security Council? It's a pretty safe bet that Russia and China would vote against Israel. France and England? As anti-semitic as ever. So that leaves the US; or more accurately, Obama. According to Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad (Abbas is the PA President) the Obama administration is not opposed to the plan! (Fayyad comment from the 11/13/09 Jewish Press.)
3. Liberal Jews. Sadly, there is no longer an almost universal appreciation of the significance of Israel to Jews. The strongest support comes from the Orthodox, a minority in the Jewish community. Many liberal Jews have actual disdain for the Orthodox, and for the State of Israel, and for Israel's supporters.
The Hillel at UC Berkeley actually had a dance party on Yom Hashoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day); and a Cinco de Mayo celebration on Israel's Remembrance Day for their fallen soldiers. The Hillel at UC Berkeley also works hand in hand with Students for Justice for Palestine (SJP), a radical group that supports unlimited arab immigration into Israel. They also support UC divestiture from Israel (and apparently companies that do business with Israel). (From the 11/19/09 Jerusalem Post Online, article by Caroline Glick.)
Worse yet, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), considered a mainstream Jewish organization, has just blasted conservative supporters of Israel. And who did they target for their attack? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin. Levin is the only Jew in the group. Yet, these men CONSISTENTLY support Israel on their radio and TV shows. And what do they get for that support? They get to be told that they are "cultivating a climate of hatred and paranoia which could endanger Jews among others." And Beck is called the "fearmonger in chief." (From the same Caroline Glick article cited above.)
So, sadly, many mainstream Jewish organizations in this country have moved to the far left along with the mainstream media. But sadder to see that Jews will not stand up for themselves, nor appreciate those non-Jews who will stand up for them. Rather, liberal Jews have accepted the "palestinian" propaganda and adopted it as their own. So now we have Jews attacking Israel and Christian supporters of Israel.
So, does Israel have a right to exist? This question is not even posed about any other country in the world, no matter how evil. Can Israel continue to exist when Jews will not speak on her behalf? "If I am not for myself, who will be? If not now, when?"
Thursday, November 26, 2009
The Liberal Mind
Written November 15, 2009
1. The Fort Hood Murders. Not unexpectedly, the liberal media and commentators were doing their best to explain the behavior of the murdering, radical muslim Major Hasan.
A. From Newsweek's Evan Thomas: "I cringe that he's a muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case. But with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going..." What analysis! Those of us who live in the Judeo-Christian world (and presumably a good number of muslims) do think that flying planes into buildings or shooting unarmed people is "nuts." But that does not mean people who do such things are actually "crazy." They are motivated by an ideology that justifies the killing of "infidels." But the left has difficulty acknowledging that evil exists. It is much easier to write him off as a nut case, than accept the reality of a world-wide effort by islamofascists to dominate the planet and establish sharia law everywhere. As for getting the right wing going...please. After 3000 people were murdered on 9/11, was the right wing out en masse killing muslims in the streets? Even worse, the implication is that we should not pay attention to the fact of yet another muslim terrorist attack. Just how far can this guy Thomas stick his head in the sand? (Quote from Thomas in Investor's Business Daily column by L. Brent Bozell, 11/12/09.)
B. Bob Schieffer of CBS: "...Islam doesn't have a majority - or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts, too." Wow! And these guys actually get paid for their insightful analysis! Again, dismissing Hasan as a "nut" and completely ignoring the motivating factor of radical islam. And yes, everywhere around the world over the last couple of decades, the headlines have been about Christians flying planes into buildings, acting as homicide bombers, and otherwise attacking and killing non-Christian "infidels." Everyone remembers all those headlines, right? (Quote of Schieffer from same article noted above.)
C. And one to never let us down, Chris Matthews of MSNBC: "Apparently, he (Hasan) tried to contact Al-Qaida. Is that the point at which you say, "This guy is dangerous?" That's not a crime to call up Al-Qaida, is it?" Really, Chris. You're not sure if contacting Al-Qaida suggests someone might be dangerous? Are you a total moron? And who would even think to ask that question, as if there can be any issue. (Quote from same article above.)
D. And saddest of all, the head of the Army, General Casey, expressed concern that this incident not negatively impact the "diversity" in the Army. Really? Why would that even be the case? And why was that the concern at the time, instead of your murdered troops and their families?
2. The execution of the D.C. sniper John Mohammad.
A. From a letter to the editor in the 11/13/09 USA Today, an opponent of the death penalty: "I know it's hard to lose people, especially for senseless reasons, but to be responsible for any death would haunt me more than bullets ever could." Really? What if one of those bullets killed one of your family members? What if your entire family was killed? So the writer would not defend themselves and their family against deadly attack because they might have to kill the perpetrator? And just why does a criminal intent on doing fatal harm have a greater right to life than innocent victims? The liberal mind.
B. And another writer (I do not recall the paper) who pointed out that Hasan was obviously against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and having muslims (in the US military) kill muslims. Therefore, the writer concluded that we simply needed to withdraw our troops from those countries. Really? Is that how we should determine US foreign policy? If it's offensive to any individual we should not do it?
3. The decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in U.S. civil courts.
A. From the LA Times 11/14/09 lead editorial: "What matters is that they will be afforded the panoply of rights enjoyed by defendants in U.S. courts, including a prohibition on the use of illegally obtained evidence." Except, these sons of bitches are not U.S. citizens; nor do they meet the qualifications for protection under the Geneva convention. They are enemy combatants. Congress, in fact, established military tribunals for this exact purpose. Those accused of attacking the U.S. Cole will be tried by those military tribunals. So, almost all admissions/comments made by 9/11 defendants while in custody will probably not be admissable in court. Obviously, no "Miranda" warnings were given. The purpose was to capture and interrogate and get information about possible future attacks. And why even risk an acquittal? And why give them a stage for their disgusting ideology? All the world's media will be there. But the LA Times is still worried about our "image" in the world.
As pointed out in the 11/16/09 Investor's Business Daily, this approach reflects a return to the Bill Clinton approach of treating all terror attacks as criminal matters. But 9/11 was an act of war - the most significant attack on U.S. soil in our history. And how well did Clinton's approach work? Yes, there was a conviction after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. But did that stop further islamoterrorist attacks? No. Did it aid our "image" in the muslim world? No. After the 1993 attack, we had the Cole, the 2 embassies in Africa, and numerous other attacks. But at least it gets some more terrorists out of Guantanamo, so Obama can keep his promise to close it.
4. Obama's attempts to reach out to Iran and talk and appease. Has this worked well? Iran has refused to send most of its uranium to Europe to be enriched to levels fit for civilian use only. Ayatollah Khamenei said any talks with the U.S. would be "naive and perverted." And now, three American hikers who crossed over from Iraq into Iran are going to be tried for spying. If convicted, the punishment is death. So just how well is this appeasement of dictators working out? When will Obama's liberal mind understand that all efforts at appeasement are taken as signs of weakness by our enemies?
5. Conclusions. Because liberals do not live in the real world, their approach to dealing with problems often has the opposite effect of what they intend. Appeasement does not result in better relations; it simply encourages the enemy to be more bold. The effort by the mainstream media to explain away Major Hasan's radical islamic ties in hopes of preventing future discrimination against other muslims will have the opposite effect. As Ann Coulter points out, the giving of "victim" status to muslims will not prevent others from being suspicious of them. If the Army had done it's job and gotten rid of Hasan, that would have given confidence to our soldiers that other muslims could be trusted. Now, they have to wonder if other muslims might be the next Hasan, because they have seen the military will not screen out those who are likely to be terrorists. And why wasn't Hasan screened out? Because he is muslim, and after 9/11 the muslims are the victims. Victims of what? You'd have to ask a liberal.
1. The Fort Hood Murders. Not unexpectedly, the liberal media and commentators were doing their best to explain the behavior of the murdering, radical muslim Major Hasan.
A. From Newsweek's Evan Thomas: "I cringe that he's a muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case. But with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going..." What analysis! Those of us who live in the Judeo-Christian world (and presumably a good number of muslims) do think that flying planes into buildings or shooting unarmed people is "nuts." But that does not mean people who do such things are actually "crazy." They are motivated by an ideology that justifies the killing of "infidels." But the left has difficulty acknowledging that evil exists. It is much easier to write him off as a nut case, than accept the reality of a world-wide effort by islamofascists to dominate the planet and establish sharia law everywhere. As for getting the right wing going...please. After 3000 people were murdered on 9/11, was the right wing out en masse killing muslims in the streets? Even worse, the implication is that we should not pay attention to the fact of yet another muslim terrorist attack. Just how far can this guy Thomas stick his head in the sand? (Quote from Thomas in Investor's Business Daily column by L. Brent Bozell, 11/12/09.)
B. Bob Schieffer of CBS: "...Islam doesn't have a majority - or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts, too." Wow! And these guys actually get paid for their insightful analysis! Again, dismissing Hasan as a "nut" and completely ignoring the motivating factor of radical islam. And yes, everywhere around the world over the last couple of decades, the headlines have been about Christians flying planes into buildings, acting as homicide bombers, and otherwise attacking and killing non-Christian "infidels." Everyone remembers all those headlines, right? (Quote of Schieffer from same article noted above.)
C. And one to never let us down, Chris Matthews of MSNBC: "Apparently, he (Hasan) tried to contact Al-Qaida. Is that the point at which you say, "This guy is dangerous?" That's not a crime to call up Al-Qaida, is it?" Really, Chris. You're not sure if contacting Al-Qaida suggests someone might be dangerous? Are you a total moron? And who would even think to ask that question, as if there can be any issue. (Quote from same article above.)
D. And saddest of all, the head of the Army, General Casey, expressed concern that this incident not negatively impact the "diversity" in the Army. Really? Why would that even be the case? And why was that the concern at the time, instead of your murdered troops and their families?
2. The execution of the D.C. sniper John Mohammad.
A. From a letter to the editor in the 11/13/09 USA Today, an opponent of the death penalty: "I know it's hard to lose people, especially for senseless reasons, but to be responsible for any death would haunt me more than bullets ever could." Really? What if one of those bullets killed one of your family members? What if your entire family was killed? So the writer would not defend themselves and their family against deadly attack because they might have to kill the perpetrator? And just why does a criminal intent on doing fatal harm have a greater right to life than innocent victims? The liberal mind.
B. And another writer (I do not recall the paper) who pointed out that Hasan was obviously against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and having muslims (in the US military) kill muslims. Therefore, the writer concluded that we simply needed to withdraw our troops from those countries. Really? Is that how we should determine US foreign policy? If it's offensive to any individual we should not do it?
3. The decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in U.S. civil courts.
A. From the LA Times 11/14/09 lead editorial: "What matters is that they will be afforded the panoply of rights enjoyed by defendants in U.S. courts, including a prohibition on the use of illegally obtained evidence." Except, these sons of bitches are not U.S. citizens; nor do they meet the qualifications for protection under the Geneva convention. They are enemy combatants. Congress, in fact, established military tribunals for this exact purpose. Those accused of attacking the U.S. Cole will be tried by those military tribunals. So, almost all admissions/comments made by 9/11 defendants while in custody will probably not be admissable in court. Obviously, no "Miranda" warnings were given. The purpose was to capture and interrogate and get information about possible future attacks. And why even risk an acquittal? And why give them a stage for their disgusting ideology? All the world's media will be there. But the LA Times is still worried about our "image" in the world.
As pointed out in the 11/16/09 Investor's Business Daily, this approach reflects a return to the Bill Clinton approach of treating all terror attacks as criminal matters. But 9/11 was an act of war - the most significant attack on U.S. soil in our history. And how well did Clinton's approach work? Yes, there was a conviction after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. But did that stop further islamoterrorist attacks? No. Did it aid our "image" in the muslim world? No. After the 1993 attack, we had the Cole, the 2 embassies in Africa, and numerous other attacks. But at least it gets some more terrorists out of Guantanamo, so Obama can keep his promise to close it.
4. Obama's attempts to reach out to Iran and talk and appease. Has this worked well? Iran has refused to send most of its uranium to Europe to be enriched to levels fit for civilian use only. Ayatollah Khamenei said any talks with the U.S. would be "naive and perverted." And now, three American hikers who crossed over from Iraq into Iran are going to be tried for spying. If convicted, the punishment is death. So just how well is this appeasement of dictators working out? When will Obama's liberal mind understand that all efforts at appeasement are taken as signs of weakness by our enemies?
5. Conclusions. Because liberals do not live in the real world, their approach to dealing with problems often has the opposite effect of what they intend. Appeasement does not result in better relations; it simply encourages the enemy to be more bold. The effort by the mainstream media to explain away Major Hasan's radical islamic ties in hopes of preventing future discrimination against other muslims will have the opposite effect. As Ann Coulter points out, the giving of "victim" status to muslims will not prevent others from being suspicious of them. If the Army had done it's job and gotten rid of Hasan, that would have given confidence to our soldiers that other muslims could be trusted. Now, they have to wonder if other muslims might be the next Hasan, because they have seen the military will not screen out those who are likely to be terrorists. And why wasn't Hasan screened out? Because he is muslim, and after 9/11 the muslims are the victims. Victims of what? You'd have to ask a liberal.
Misc. Musings IV
Written November 9, 2009
1. Election, 2009. Rumors of the demise of the Republican Party are clearly premature. As noted by Charles Krauthammer, the Republican wins were not a surprise. Rather, the surprise was the 2008 election, which he refers to as a historical anomaly. Per Krauthammer: "A uniquely charismatic candidate was running at a time of deep war weariness, with an intensely unpopular Republican President, against a politically incompetent opponent, amid the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression." (From Krauthammer article in the 11/06/09 Investors Business Daily.)
And even so, Obama only won by 7 points. Obama carried Virginia by 6 points. The republican nominee for governor there just won by 17 points - a swing of 23 percentage points! Obama won New Jersey by 15 points. My home state has regrettably been reliably democratic of late. The republican nominee for governor just won by 4 points - a swing of 19 percentage points! (From Krauthammer article.)
One of the key factors in determining the outcomes was the vote of the independents. They went about 2 to 1 for the republican candidate in both states. A recent Gallup poll had 40% of the respondents describing themselves as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 20% as liberal. (Again, from the Krauthammer article.)
No wonder why Obama and the democrats want to push their health care "reform" now. The people do not want it. The people do not want a federal government deeper in debt. The people do not want higher taxes. And the people will probably take away their overwhelming majorities in one or both houses of Congress come next November's elections. So, the "elites," who know what is best for us, need to ram it down our throats while they still have the power to do so.
2. Fox News. On a related note, the network that the President and his people refer to as a not legitimate news organization did extremely well in the ratings on election night. While CNN was down 12%, and MSNBC was up 18%, Fox News was up an astounding 84% in viewership! O'Reilly, with the highest rated show on cable news, was up 1 million viewers. Hannity was up 1.7 million (from 2.5 to 4.2 million). Greta was also up 1.7 million (from 2.0 million to 3.7 million). (Data from the NYTimes online, citing the Nielsen ratings.) So Obama and the dems not only lost 2 key governorships, they must have been stewing over the phenomenal success of the dreaded Fox News. Eat your hearts out!
3. Terror at Fort Hood. One Major Hasan decided to kill and maim as many of his fellow soldiers as he could. The Army is quick to say that he acted alone. They are not calling it terrorism. While he was supposed to be counseling his patients, he would go off on religious rants. He described the "war on terror" as a war against Islam. His fellow classmates complained about his "anti-American propaganda." Apparently, several of his classmates felt that "a fear of appearing discriminatory against a muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint." (From Verizon News online, 11/07/09.)
According to the Investor's Business Daily, he also said that "muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor." (11/09/09 edition.) It has also been widely reported that he viewed web sites related to "suicide bombings." And he apparently yelled "Allah Akbar" at the onset of his killing spree.
Our President tells us that we should not rush to any conclusions before all the facts are in. That is rather ironic, as it was he who referred to the Cambridge police officer as having acted "stupidly" against Professor Gates, after admitting he (Obama) did not have all the facts. So, we have a President who goes out of his way to defend a black man and now a muslim. But "rushing" to a conclusion is hardly the problem. The problem is the exact opposite: political correctness impeding society's ability to take action against those who would do us harm.
The Army did not "rush" to take action against Hasan for any of his actions (as referenced above). In fact, they did NOTHING! This man should have been kicked out of the military long ago - but he is a muslim, so they did nothing. Well, not nothing. They allowed him access to all sorts of weapons, facilitating his mass murder. From this writer's viewpoint, all those in the chain of command who knew about his proclivities should, at a minimum, be kicked out of the army themselves. Political correctness has permeated every aspect of our society and we have got to put an end to it - NOW! As I have said numerous times before, we in the West will let them destroy us. We buy into their propaganda and then adopt it as our own in the form of "political correctness." And the results are deadly.
And please don't tell me he was just a peaceful man who broke from being under tremendous stress and even taunting from his fellow soldiers. SOMEWHERE he picked up a radical islamist agenda. They need to investigate where - his mosque? Online? Where?
1. Election, 2009. Rumors of the demise of the Republican Party are clearly premature. As noted by Charles Krauthammer, the Republican wins were not a surprise. Rather, the surprise was the 2008 election, which he refers to as a historical anomaly. Per Krauthammer: "A uniquely charismatic candidate was running at a time of deep war weariness, with an intensely unpopular Republican President, against a politically incompetent opponent, amid the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression." (From Krauthammer article in the 11/06/09 Investors Business Daily.)
And even so, Obama only won by 7 points. Obama carried Virginia by 6 points. The republican nominee for governor there just won by 17 points - a swing of 23 percentage points! Obama won New Jersey by 15 points. My home state has regrettably been reliably democratic of late. The republican nominee for governor just won by 4 points - a swing of 19 percentage points! (From Krauthammer article.)
One of the key factors in determining the outcomes was the vote of the independents. They went about 2 to 1 for the republican candidate in both states. A recent Gallup poll had 40% of the respondents describing themselves as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 20% as liberal. (Again, from the Krauthammer article.)
No wonder why Obama and the democrats want to push their health care "reform" now. The people do not want it. The people do not want a federal government deeper in debt. The people do not want higher taxes. And the people will probably take away their overwhelming majorities in one or both houses of Congress come next November's elections. So, the "elites," who know what is best for us, need to ram it down our throats while they still have the power to do so.
2. Fox News. On a related note, the network that the President and his people refer to as a not legitimate news organization did extremely well in the ratings on election night. While CNN was down 12%, and MSNBC was up 18%, Fox News was up an astounding 84% in viewership! O'Reilly, with the highest rated show on cable news, was up 1 million viewers. Hannity was up 1.7 million (from 2.5 to 4.2 million). Greta was also up 1.7 million (from 2.0 million to 3.7 million). (Data from the NYTimes online, citing the Nielsen ratings.) So Obama and the dems not only lost 2 key governorships, they must have been stewing over the phenomenal success of the dreaded Fox News. Eat your hearts out!
3. Terror at Fort Hood. One Major Hasan decided to kill and maim as many of his fellow soldiers as he could. The Army is quick to say that he acted alone. They are not calling it terrorism. While he was supposed to be counseling his patients, he would go off on religious rants. He described the "war on terror" as a war against Islam. His fellow classmates complained about his "anti-American propaganda." Apparently, several of his classmates felt that "a fear of appearing discriminatory against a muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint." (From Verizon News online, 11/07/09.)
According to the Investor's Business Daily, he also said that "muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor." (11/09/09 edition.) It has also been widely reported that he viewed web sites related to "suicide bombings." And he apparently yelled "Allah Akbar" at the onset of his killing spree.
Our President tells us that we should not rush to any conclusions before all the facts are in. That is rather ironic, as it was he who referred to the Cambridge police officer as having acted "stupidly" against Professor Gates, after admitting he (Obama) did not have all the facts. So, we have a President who goes out of his way to defend a black man and now a muslim. But "rushing" to a conclusion is hardly the problem. The problem is the exact opposite: political correctness impeding society's ability to take action against those who would do us harm.
The Army did not "rush" to take action against Hasan for any of his actions (as referenced above). In fact, they did NOTHING! This man should have been kicked out of the military long ago - but he is a muslim, so they did nothing. Well, not nothing. They allowed him access to all sorts of weapons, facilitating his mass murder. From this writer's viewpoint, all those in the chain of command who knew about his proclivities should, at a minimum, be kicked out of the army themselves. Political correctness has permeated every aspect of our society and we have got to put an end to it - NOW! As I have said numerous times before, we in the West will let them destroy us. We buy into their propaganda and then adopt it as our own in the form of "political correctness." And the results are deadly.
And please don't tell me he was just a peaceful man who broke from being under tremendous stress and even taunting from his fellow soldiers. SOMEWHERE he picked up a radical islamist agenda. They need to investigate where - his mosque? Online? Where?
Obama vs. The Constitution of the United States of America
Written October 23, 2009
The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." As everyone knows, there has been much talk of bringing back the so-called "fairness doctrine" back to radio. (No one can seriously doubt that the real reason is to shut down the hugely successful conservative talk radio.) Now, the Obama Administration is talking about regulating the internet as well (so-called "net neutrality").
While these proposals are still in the development stage, the O. team has already actively attacked those they do not believe are entitled to free speech: those who disagree with them. Obviously, Rush Limbaugh has been one of their main targets. Now, Fox Cable News is another.
Anita Dunn, O.'s communications director, said that Fox was an "arm of the Republican Party." (Jewish Press, 10/23/09) Recall that Dunn has said that Mao was one of her two favorite political philosophers. She has also said that Fox is not a legitimate news organization. (Politico.com, 10/21/09)
Obviously taking their cue from either Dunn or O. himself, other high ranking members of the O. team have joined in. Per David Axelrod, O.'s political advisor, Fox is "not really a news station." He goes on to tell George Stephanopolous on ABC that: the bigger thing is that...other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way." (Politico.com, 10/18/09)
Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel got the same memo, as he told CNN that Fox "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." He goes on: "more importantly is not to have the CNN's and the others in the world basically be led by Fox." (Politico.com, 10/18/09)
Ken Feinberg, the "executive pay czar," was offering to do interviews with the White House "pool" news organizations - except Fox was not invited. Thankfully, the other networks recognized the attack on free speech for what it was, and refused to participate without Fox. The White House had to back down. (Investor's Business Daily, 10/23/09 opinion by Charles Krauthammer)
Clearly, another one of Obama's lies was his desire to unite the country and end the partisan divide. After all, Limbaugh has the highest rated talk show on radio, with perhaps as many as 13-15 million listeners. Fox Cable News has more than the combined audience of CNN and MSNBC. If Obama was looking to unite people he would go on Fox (with say Chris Wallace, a fair interviewer) and reach out to an entire segment of the population that might not otherwise be inclined to listen to him.
But no. The first instinct is to attack and delegitimize. This is no different than any dictator in history - shut down the free press; or at least those in opposition. The O. team has not felt any need to go after the rest of the media as they compete with each other to shower adulation on Obama. After all, if Fox and Rush and most of talk radio are on one side of the divide, the other side is not exactly devoid of participants: The NY Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, most of the papers in the country (including our local Ventura County Star), ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, National Public Radio, Air America and others. Not to mention the Hollywood crowd and most university professors and public school teachers. Only dictators and totalitarian regimes do not tolerate dissent.
Now, one might think that with the development of the internet, people have access to more news and opinions than ever before in our country's history. Just because a news item or opinion piece does not make it into the newspaper or network TV does not mean you can not read about it on many sites on the internet. After all, it was Fox that broke the Rev. Wright story - a full year before the "mainstream" media felt compelled to pick it up. It was on Fox that we learned about Acorn. It was on Fox that we learned about Anita Dunn's fondness for one of the greatest dictators of all time, Mao. And it was on Fox that we learned about Van Jones, a former czar, and his socialist ideas and belief of US government involvement in 9/11. Not too bad for a "not legitimate news organization."
But the O. team does not see things the same way. Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the FCC, said: "I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust internet." (Investor's Business Daily, 10/22/09) Now, I do not usually make this request, but if anyone reading this does NOT believe that we have an "open and robust internet" without government involvement I would truly like to hear from you. Not so, though, according to O.'s Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd. He wrote: "Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn't value the internet for its public interest benefits. Instead, these companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must control what content you see and how you get it." (Investor's Business Daily, 10/22/09)
In typical dictatorial style, he demonizes those he wants to control or eliminate ("the powerful cable and telecom industry"), and justifies such action by attributing evil motives to them ("profits"). Entitling his hit piece "Net Neutrality is a Civil Rights Issue" it is clear who he thinks can best assure the proper distribution of news and information and opinion on the internet - the government.
But a friend of Lloyd's and Van Jones, one Robert McChesney, is at least forthright in explaining his support for net neutrality. "Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." He goes on: "We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it and perhaps even eliminate it." (Investor's Business Daily, 10/22/09)
Remember, when Obama was running for office he said he wanted to bring FUNDAMENTAL change to the U.S. Anyone think he was kidding?
The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." As everyone knows, there has been much talk of bringing back the so-called "fairness doctrine" back to radio. (No one can seriously doubt that the real reason is to shut down the hugely successful conservative talk radio.) Now, the Obama Administration is talking about regulating the internet as well (so-called "net neutrality").
While these proposals are still in the development stage, the O. team has already actively attacked those they do not believe are entitled to free speech: those who disagree with them. Obviously, Rush Limbaugh has been one of their main targets. Now, Fox Cable News is another.
Anita Dunn, O.'s communications director, said that Fox was an "arm of the Republican Party." (Jewish Press, 10/23/09) Recall that Dunn has said that Mao was one of her two favorite political philosophers. She has also said that Fox is not a legitimate news organization. (Politico.com, 10/21/09)
Obviously taking their cue from either Dunn or O. himself, other high ranking members of the O. team have joined in. Per David Axelrod, O.'s political advisor, Fox is "not really a news station." He goes on to tell George Stephanopolous on ABC that: the bigger thing is that...other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way." (Politico.com, 10/18/09)
Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel got the same memo, as he told CNN that Fox "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." He goes on: "more importantly is not to have the CNN's and the others in the world basically be led by Fox." (Politico.com, 10/18/09)
Ken Feinberg, the "executive pay czar," was offering to do interviews with the White House "pool" news organizations - except Fox was not invited. Thankfully, the other networks recognized the attack on free speech for what it was, and refused to participate without Fox. The White House had to back down. (Investor's Business Daily, 10/23/09 opinion by Charles Krauthammer)
Clearly, another one of Obama's lies was his desire to unite the country and end the partisan divide. After all, Limbaugh has the highest rated talk show on radio, with perhaps as many as 13-15 million listeners. Fox Cable News has more than the combined audience of CNN and MSNBC. If Obama was looking to unite people he would go on Fox (with say Chris Wallace, a fair interviewer) and reach out to an entire segment of the population that might not otherwise be inclined to listen to him.
But no. The first instinct is to attack and delegitimize. This is no different than any dictator in history - shut down the free press; or at least those in opposition. The O. team has not felt any need to go after the rest of the media as they compete with each other to shower adulation on Obama. After all, if Fox and Rush and most of talk radio are on one side of the divide, the other side is not exactly devoid of participants: The NY Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, most of the papers in the country (including our local Ventura County Star), ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, National Public Radio, Air America and others. Not to mention the Hollywood crowd and most university professors and public school teachers. Only dictators and totalitarian regimes do not tolerate dissent.
Now, one might think that with the development of the internet, people have access to more news and opinions than ever before in our country's history. Just because a news item or opinion piece does not make it into the newspaper or network TV does not mean you can not read about it on many sites on the internet. After all, it was Fox that broke the Rev. Wright story - a full year before the "mainstream" media felt compelled to pick it up. It was on Fox that we learned about Acorn. It was on Fox that we learned about Anita Dunn's fondness for one of the greatest dictators of all time, Mao. And it was on Fox that we learned about Van Jones, a former czar, and his socialist ideas and belief of US government involvement in 9/11. Not too bad for a "not legitimate news organization."
But the O. team does not see things the same way. Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the FCC, said: "I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust internet." (Investor's Business Daily, 10/22/09) Now, I do not usually make this request, but if anyone reading this does NOT believe that we have an "open and robust internet" without government involvement I would truly like to hear from you. Not so, though, according to O.'s Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd. He wrote: "Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn't value the internet for its public interest benefits. Instead, these companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must control what content you see and how you get it." (Investor's Business Daily, 10/22/09)
In typical dictatorial style, he demonizes those he wants to control or eliminate ("the powerful cable and telecom industry"), and justifies such action by attributing evil motives to them ("profits"). Entitling his hit piece "Net Neutrality is a Civil Rights Issue" it is clear who he thinks can best assure the proper distribution of news and information and opinion on the internet - the government.
But a friend of Lloyd's and Van Jones, one Robert McChesney, is at least forthright in explaining his support for net neutrality. "Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." He goes on: "We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it and perhaps even eliminate it." (Investor's Business Daily, 10/22/09)
Remember, when Obama was running for office he said he wanted to bring FUNDAMENTAL change to the U.S. Anyone think he was kidding?
Misc. Musings III
Written October 3, 2009
1. Obamacare. To my surprise, the LA Times last Sunday ran a front page article about some of the problems with the Canadian healthcare system. Towards the end of the article was a chart showing the wait times for various procedures. For example, the wait for a hip replacement (near and dear to me) is listed at 35.3 weeks. But the chart is misleading. If you read the article you will see that the wait time just to see a specialist, on referral from the gatekeeper, can be a year. Then it can be months to get the necessary MRI. So the actual wait time is about two years! Clearly, the 35.3 weeks wait the chart refers to is from the time the specialist says you need the surgery, even though the chart does not disclose that.
Canada now has a number of doctors opening up private clinics, servicing those who do not want the waits. The question is: will the government shut them down and sanction them? In an opinion article in Investor's Business Daily from 10/2/09, the author comments on some of the states that have enacted healthcare programs for their states. Maine passed their law in 2003. The governor assured everyone that all 128,000 uninsured would be covered. By 2009 only 3,400 (3%) were insured. In 2007 the system was broke and was closed to new enrollees. In Oregon, when you are denied care for serious illnesses they will offer you physician assisted suicide!
Back to the LA Times article. In defending the broken Canadian system, one doctor acknowledged the need for improvements but said their system is more "equitable." And therein lies the socialist mentality - as long as it's "equitable" it's good, quality and delays be damned! Kind of reminds me of the lines to get limited choices of food in the USSR.
And then I heard on TV one of the commentators say that one of the proposals here was heavy fines and even IMPRISONMENT for failure to buy health insurance. In Mass. the fines were too small and many people chose to pay the fines and not buy health ins. until they got sick. So the Feds want a big fine, maybe $25,000., and imprisonment to prevent people from making that decision. If you have not read Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" now would be a good time to do so. The Declaration of Independence tells us we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It looks like your Life (health) will now depend on your government. And Liberty - forget about it.
2. Republicans are evil. A congressman on the floor of the House displayed some poster boards describing the Republican healthcare plan. First, don't get sick. Second, if you do, die quickly! Get that? We Republicans just want people to die. And for those of you who may think that type of accusation is an aberration - NO, NO, NO. When John Dean was Chairman of the DNC he said the difference between us and the Republicans is that we don't want kids going to bed hungry! Of course, that's why I became a republican - I hate kids and want them to be hungry. And the court reporter who said to me that she hates ALL republicans because they are evil. Democrats get to call names or accuse their opponents of the worst motivations. No HONEST disagreements possible.
3. Obama the Showman. Charles Krauthammer had another excellent article yesterday. When Obama became the first US President to preside over the UN Security Council on 9/24/09 he already knew about Iran's secret nuclear facility. The French and British urged him to disclose it at that time, as it would have maximum press coverage and impact. He refused. Why? Per White House officials, Obama did not want to "dilute" his disarmament resolution by "diverting to Iran."
Krauthammer: "Diversion? It's the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless UN disarmament resolution?" Per the French, Obama did not want to spoil his "image" of success at the UN. Obama has said he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Sarkozy was fuming and told Obama: "We live in a real world not a virtual world." Again, Krauthammer: "When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom." (Krauthammer article in the 10/2/09 Investors Business Daily.)
4. The LA Times. On the front page of the 9/30/09 edition, the lead headline is "Iran offers conflicting messages." Just under that is the subheadline: "A tone both defiant and cooperative leaves diplomats unsure if Tehran will take this week's talks seriously."
What a surprise! Maybe I should add these "reporters" to my email list. If they had seen last week's email (or better yet, actually followed the story), they would know that Iran has spent the LAST SIX YEARS "vacillating between talking like they were interested in some deal, and then not talking and refusing to deal." As I said, they successfully used that technique to buy time to build up their nuclear facilities, playing the West for fools.
4. The Mideast. And finally, the Obama Administration has told the Palestinian Authority that they will support the announcement of a Palestinian state within 2 years. It is assumed that Netanyahu will have to cave in; but if he does not the US will supposedly consider sanctions of some form - against Israel! (From the 9/25/09 Jewish Press.) And why not - Obama has abandoned ally after ally in favor of appeasing the dictators of the world. And now, Obama is apparently trying to prevent Netanyahu from working with pro-Israel members of Congress. He wants to make sure the pressure remains where he believes it should be - on Israel! (From the 10/2/09 Jewish Press.)
1. Obamacare. To my surprise, the LA Times last Sunday ran a front page article about some of the problems with the Canadian healthcare system. Towards the end of the article was a chart showing the wait times for various procedures. For example, the wait for a hip replacement (near and dear to me) is listed at 35.3 weeks. But the chart is misleading. If you read the article you will see that the wait time just to see a specialist, on referral from the gatekeeper, can be a year. Then it can be months to get the necessary MRI. So the actual wait time is about two years! Clearly, the 35.3 weeks wait the chart refers to is from the time the specialist says you need the surgery, even though the chart does not disclose that.
Canada now has a number of doctors opening up private clinics, servicing those who do not want the waits. The question is: will the government shut them down and sanction them? In an opinion article in Investor's Business Daily from 10/2/09, the author comments on some of the states that have enacted healthcare programs for their states. Maine passed their law in 2003. The governor assured everyone that all 128,000 uninsured would be covered. By 2009 only 3,400 (3%) were insured. In 2007 the system was broke and was closed to new enrollees. In Oregon, when you are denied care for serious illnesses they will offer you physician assisted suicide!
Back to the LA Times article. In defending the broken Canadian system, one doctor acknowledged the need for improvements but said their system is more "equitable." And therein lies the socialist mentality - as long as it's "equitable" it's good, quality and delays be damned! Kind of reminds me of the lines to get limited choices of food in the USSR.
And then I heard on TV one of the commentators say that one of the proposals here was heavy fines and even IMPRISONMENT for failure to buy health insurance. In Mass. the fines were too small and many people chose to pay the fines and not buy health ins. until they got sick. So the Feds want a big fine, maybe $25,000., and imprisonment to prevent people from making that decision. If you have not read Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" now would be a good time to do so. The Declaration of Independence tells us we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It looks like your Life (health) will now depend on your government. And Liberty - forget about it.
2. Republicans are evil. A congressman on the floor of the House displayed some poster boards describing the Republican healthcare plan. First, don't get sick. Second, if you do, die quickly! Get that? We Republicans just want people to die. And for those of you who may think that type of accusation is an aberration - NO, NO, NO. When John Dean was Chairman of the DNC he said the difference between us and the Republicans is that we don't want kids going to bed hungry! Of course, that's why I became a republican - I hate kids and want them to be hungry. And the court reporter who said to me that she hates ALL republicans because they are evil. Democrats get to call names or accuse their opponents of the worst motivations. No HONEST disagreements possible.
3. Obama the Showman. Charles Krauthammer had another excellent article yesterday. When Obama became the first US President to preside over the UN Security Council on 9/24/09 he already knew about Iran's secret nuclear facility. The French and British urged him to disclose it at that time, as it would have maximum press coverage and impact. He refused. Why? Per White House officials, Obama did not want to "dilute" his disarmament resolution by "diverting to Iran."
Krauthammer: "Diversion? It's the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless UN disarmament resolution?" Per the French, Obama did not want to spoil his "image" of success at the UN. Obama has said he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Sarkozy was fuming and told Obama: "We live in a real world not a virtual world." Again, Krauthammer: "When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom." (Krauthammer article in the 10/2/09 Investors Business Daily.)
4. The LA Times. On the front page of the 9/30/09 edition, the lead headline is "Iran offers conflicting messages." Just under that is the subheadline: "A tone both defiant and cooperative leaves diplomats unsure if Tehran will take this week's talks seriously."
What a surprise! Maybe I should add these "reporters" to my email list. If they had seen last week's email (or better yet, actually followed the story), they would know that Iran has spent the LAST SIX YEARS "vacillating between talking like they were interested in some deal, and then not talking and refusing to deal." As I said, they successfully used that technique to buy time to build up their nuclear facilities, playing the West for fools.
4. The Mideast. And finally, the Obama Administration has told the Palestinian Authority that they will support the announcement of a Palestinian state within 2 years. It is assumed that Netanyahu will have to cave in; but if he does not the US will supposedly consider sanctions of some form - against Israel! (From the 9/25/09 Jewish Press.) And why not - Obama has abandoned ally after ally in favor of appeasing the dictators of the world. And now, Obama is apparently trying to prevent Netanyahu from working with pro-Israel members of Congress. He wants to make sure the pressure remains where he believes it should be - on Israel! (From the 10/2/09 Jewish Press.)
Iranian Nukes
Written September 26, 2009
At the recent meeting of world leaders at the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a forceful, stirring and clarifying speech. First, he denounced Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust and produced recently released documents from Germany showing all of the plans for the death camps and how to kill the Jews.
Then, for those who stayed and listened to Ahmadinejad's speech he said: "Have you no shame? No decency? What a disgrace, what a mockery of the charter of the UN." Wow - I wish our President spoke with that same truthfulness!
Netanyahu went on: "Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. But if you think that, you are wrong...History has shown us time and time again that what starts with attacks on the Jews, eventually ends up engulfing many, many others."
And then he explained that the struggle against the religious fanaticism exemplified by the likes of Iran, is a struggle that pits "civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death." Again, spoken with the type of moral clarity that I wish our own President was able to articulate. (Quotes from the 9/24/09 Jerusalem Post online.)
Then, yesterday, our President, with Brown and Sarkozi at his side, announced that Iran had a secret, previously undisclosed nuclear facility built deep into a mountainside. The type of site that made it clear to our intelligence people that it could ONLY be used to make weapons, and not for peaceful purposes. So what will this mean. Well, Iran was supposed to have until September to accept Obama's offer for a meeting. Now it is set for October 1. Iran will do nothing; and having come as far as they are to getting nukes, they are not going to stop now. Besides, the Europeans (England, France and Germany, with US support) started these negotiations SIX YEARS AGO! The entire time Iran has vacillated between talking like they were interested in some deal, and then not talking and refusing to deal. In other words, they were playing the West for fools while building up their nuclear facilities the whole time!
So now, there will be a meeting on Oct.1. Nothing will happen. Maybe Russia and China will even go along with tougher sanctions, using the undisclosed nuke facility as their pretext (although maybe Obama got their agreement in exchange for dropping the missile defense in Europe). Regardless, Iran will not back down even with sanctions. So does the West accept a nuclear armed Iran with the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad in charge? Or will they finally launch a joint military operation to eliminate this worldwide threat (something they should have done three years ago)? Or will they once again leave it up to the tiny country of Israel to do the dirty work?
If they leave it up to Israel, this brings up another issue. Zbigniew Brezinski, Carter's National Security Advisor, and current advisor to President Obama, has said that if Israel flies over Iraqi airspace to get to Iran then the US should send up our fighters to confront (attack) the Israelis. EVERYBODY GET THIS? He would go to war against our ally Israel in order to protect Iran's nuclear facilities! Iran - a sworn enemy of the US! (From 9/24/09 J-Post online article by Caroline Glick.) This anti-Israel mentality is consistent with that of a current member of the National Security Council, Samantha Powers. She previously expressed the opinion that the US should send troops into "Palestine" to fight against the Israelis on behalf of the "palestinians." And, sadly, this anti-Israel attitude is consistent with that of our Commander in Chief, who has been putting relentless pressure on Israel regarding the "settlements."
In fact, Obama described all Israeli settlements beyond the 1949 armistice line as "illegitimate." To remind everyone, Israel declared their independence in 1948 after the UN voted partition of the British Mandate into 2 states. The Arabs rejected the idea and Israel had to fight it's own war of independence. When the war ended in 1949, there were no final treaties or agreements. The armistice line simply reflected the territory held by each side when the hostilities ended. And there was no "palestinian" territory. Gaza was held by Egypt and the West Bank was held by Jordan. That was the status until 1967 when, in yet another war, Israel captured those territories as well as the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula. The Sinai was returned to Egypt after a deal was made following the Yom KIppur war in 1973.
So there is no basis for declaring Israel's settlements as being "illegitimate." The "palestinians" have never accepted and to this day say they will never accept the State of Israel. They believe that ALL the land belongs to them. So, absent any agreement EVER on borders, how can it be said that settlements in the West Bank are "illegitimate?" So, sadly, our President lacks the moral clarity that was so eloquently expressed by Netanyahu.
So Obama wants to go to the UN for sanctions and drag this on for how much longer? Until Iran has some nukes and then it's too late to do anything about it? We in the West are fools! After SIX years we still believe in more talking, more negotiating - even though those six years accomplished ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Was it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again - and yet expecting a different result.
An Iran with nukes - G-d bless us all!
At the recent meeting of world leaders at the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a forceful, stirring and clarifying speech. First, he denounced Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust and produced recently released documents from Germany showing all of the plans for the death camps and how to kill the Jews.
Then, for those who stayed and listened to Ahmadinejad's speech he said: "Have you no shame? No decency? What a disgrace, what a mockery of the charter of the UN." Wow - I wish our President spoke with that same truthfulness!
Netanyahu went on: "Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. But if you think that, you are wrong...History has shown us time and time again that what starts with attacks on the Jews, eventually ends up engulfing many, many others."
And then he explained that the struggle against the religious fanaticism exemplified by the likes of Iran, is a struggle that pits "civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death." Again, spoken with the type of moral clarity that I wish our own President was able to articulate. (Quotes from the 9/24/09 Jerusalem Post online.)
Then, yesterday, our President, with Brown and Sarkozi at his side, announced that Iran had a secret, previously undisclosed nuclear facility built deep into a mountainside. The type of site that made it clear to our intelligence people that it could ONLY be used to make weapons, and not for peaceful purposes. So what will this mean. Well, Iran was supposed to have until September to accept Obama's offer for a meeting. Now it is set for October 1. Iran will do nothing; and having come as far as they are to getting nukes, they are not going to stop now. Besides, the Europeans (England, France and Germany, with US support) started these negotiations SIX YEARS AGO! The entire time Iran has vacillated between talking like they were interested in some deal, and then not talking and refusing to deal. In other words, they were playing the West for fools while building up their nuclear facilities the whole time!
So now, there will be a meeting on Oct.1. Nothing will happen. Maybe Russia and China will even go along with tougher sanctions, using the undisclosed nuke facility as their pretext (although maybe Obama got their agreement in exchange for dropping the missile defense in Europe). Regardless, Iran will not back down even with sanctions. So does the West accept a nuclear armed Iran with the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad in charge? Or will they finally launch a joint military operation to eliminate this worldwide threat (something they should have done three years ago)? Or will they once again leave it up to the tiny country of Israel to do the dirty work?
If they leave it up to Israel, this brings up another issue. Zbigniew Brezinski, Carter's National Security Advisor, and current advisor to President Obama, has said that if Israel flies over Iraqi airspace to get to Iran then the US should send up our fighters to confront (attack) the Israelis. EVERYBODY GET THIS? He would go to war against our ally Israel in order to protect Iran's nuclear facilities! Iran - a sworn enemy of the US! (From 9/24/09 J-Post online article by Caroline Glick.) This anti-Israel mentality is consistent with that of a current member of the National Security Council, Samantha Powers. She previously expressed the opinion that the US should send troops into "Palestine" to fight against the Israelis on behalf of the "palestinians." And, sadly, this anti-Israel attitude is consistent with that of our Commander in Chief, who has been putting relentless pressure on Israel regarding the "settlements."
In fact, Obama described all Israeli settlements beyond the 1949 armistice line as "illegitimate." To remind everyone, Israel declared their independence in 1948 after the UN voted partition of the British Mandate into 2 states. The Arabs rejected the idea and Israel had to fight it's own war of independence. When the war ended in 1949, there were no final treaties or agreements. The armistice line simply reflected the territory held by each side when the hostilities ended. And there was no "palestinian" territory. Gaza was held by Egypt and the West Bank was held by Jordan. That was the status until 1967 when, in yet another war, Israel captured those territories as well as the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula. The Sinai was returned to Egypt after a deal was made following the Yom KIppur war in 1973.
So there is no basis for declaring Israel's settlements as being "illegitimate." The "palestinians" have never accepted and to this day say they will never accept the State of Israel. They believe that ALL the land belongs to them. So, absent any agreement EVER on borders, how can it be said that settlements in the West Bank are "illegitimate?" So, sadly, our President lacks the moral clarity that was so eloquently expressed by Netanyahu.
So Obama wants to go to the UN for sanctions and drag this on for how much longer? Until Iran has some nukes and then it's too late to do anything about it? We in the West are fools! After SIX years we still believe in more talking, more negotiating - even though those six years accomplished ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Was it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again - and yet expecting a different result.
An Iran with nukes - G-d bless us all!
Misc. Observations
Written September 11, 2009
1. Obama's latest speech. Regardless of where you stand on healthcare, I trust we can all agree that, notwithstanding Obama's assertions, there are NO free lunches. Here is his scenario: the economy is being pushed towards bankruptcy by the spiraling health care costs, so we will spend 1 TRILLION dollars to fix the problem, and no taxes will be raised, and there will be no increase in the federal debt. So while I disagree with the Congressman who yelled "you lie" (regarding the coverage of illegal aliens) during the President's speech to a joint session of Congress, can there be any doubt that the fiscal scenario Obama laid out can possibly be truthful?
He says there will be enormous savings because of all the "waste and abuse." Now, I have suggested for some time that ALL government budgets be subject to periodic review to cut out true waste. (What are the odds of that truly happening?) Obama's plan is to create an independent commission (doctors and medical experts) to identify and cut waste. He believes the "waste" runs in the hundreds of billions of dollars. As Charles Krauthammer said, if there is so much waste and abuse in the healthcare system dragging down our economy, then why hasn't he been working on that issue from day one? It would be much less controversial than an overhaul of the entire system; and he says the need is immediate.
The reality is, every time I have heard Obama talk about waste in healthcare, it has been in the context of too much testing and too much treatment. In other words, he is talking about rationing. In Britain, a woman gave birth to a premie at 21 weeks and 5 days. But their National Health Service has a "guideline" that says babies born at less than 22 weeks should not get treated. So the baby died. DEATH PANELS, ANYONE? And for those of you who can't believe they would let a baby die because he was only 2 days earlier than the guidelines allowed for treatment, I can only say that based on my experience that is exactly how bureaucratic mentality works. So they told this woman to just think of her baby (born alive) as a miscarriage. (Story from the 9/11/09 Wall Street Journal.)
2. Why Are Jews Liberal? This is a question that I am often asked by my Christian friends. Norman Podhoretz has just written a book with that title. Given the fact that John McCain had a significant history of strong support for Israel, while Barack Obama's associates expressed open hostility towards Israel, one might have expected a large Jewish vote for McCain. Instead, Jews voted for Obama in greater numbers than any other group except blacks. While a large number of Jews in this country are secular, it does not mean they are non-religious. Rather, their religion is Liberalism. (Nature abhors a vacuum.)
Secular Jews tend to believe that their religion of Liberalism is consistent with the Torah and Jewish values. But as Podhoretz points out, Jewish Law is restrictive on abortion (only to protect the life of the mother), is opposed to suicide (assisted or otherwise) except to prevent forced conversion or incest, and prohibits sex between men. Podhoretz concludes that, given the inconsistencies, Liberalism has in fact replaced Judaism as the religion of choice for many American Jews. (Summary of Podhoretz's book from the 9/10/09 Wall Street Journal.)
The September, 2009 issue of Commentary magazine asked five prominent Jews to give their own take on why Jews are liberal. Of particular interest was the commentary by Michael Medved. He points out that the one thing Jews seem to have in common is their rejection of Jesus/Christianity/the New Testament. As he points out, even pro-palestinian Jews are given a voice in the Jewish community. But not Jews for Jesus. Now, there is no denying that Jews have suffered greatly at the hands of Christians (the Holocaust for example). And Jews here distrust the Republican party precisely because of its ties to the Christian community (or more accurately, the Christian Right). And then you get the occasional Pat Buchanan to reinforce Jews ideas about Republicans.
So Jews still fear that Christian conservatives/Republicans will try to impose their values on the much smaller Jewish population. I believe there is much truth in what Medved says. The fact that times have changed and that conservative Christians in large numbers are strongly supportive of Israel (as are Republicans in general) has not changed these long held beliefs/fears. On the other hand, many of these same Jews have a distrust (and even dislike) for their fellow Jews who are Orthodox. There is simply no comfort level with those who "make faith the center of their lives."
3. Hollywood idiots. The latest morons out of Hollywood are Jane Fonda and Danny Glover. At the Toronto International Film Festival they were showing a film celebrating the 100th anniversary of Tel Aviv, the main city in Israel. But these morons signed onto a letter decrying the film and the festival, claiming that Tel Aviv was built on the land where many "palestinian" towns had been destroyed by the Jews. Now, I have said before that the "palestinians" are good at propaganda. And it does not take much to convince leftists like Fonda and Glover, who already think the worst about the U.S. and Israel.
But let's be clear. Notwithstanding their denial of anti-semitism, there can be no other explanation. They are basically saying the Jews are not entitled to live on the land which constitutes the State of Israel. Desert land on which the Jews created a modern and productive society, without the benefits of any oil riches. And other than foreign conquerors, the only "state" to ever exist on the land was the state of Israel - 2000 years ago and again today. There was never a country or state of Palestine. It was a geographic area that Jews in the Diaspora have always considered their homeland. And the Arabs who live there are just that - Arabs. The use of the term "palestinian" is just part of their propaganda. And then morons like Glover and Fonda probably think the "palestinians" had a state that was stolen from them. Then again, so does our President, apparently.
1. Obama's latest speech. Regardless of where you stand on healthcare, I trust we can all agree that, notwithstanding Obama's assertions, there are NO free lunches. Here is his scenario: the economy is being pushed towards bankruptcy by the spiraling health care costs, so we will spend 1 TRILLION dollars to fix the problem, and no taxes will be raised, and there will be no increase in the federal debt. So while I disagree with the Congressman who yelled "you lie" (regarding the coverage of illegal aliens) during the President's speech to a joint session of Congress, can there be any doubt that the fiscal scenario Obama laid out can possibly be truthful?
He says there will be enormous savings because of all the "waste and abuse." Now, I have suggested for some time that ALL government budgets be subject to periodic review to cut out true waste. (What are the odds of that truly happening?) Obama's plan is to create an independent commission (doctors and medical experts) to identify and cut waste. He believes the "waste" runs in the hundreds of billions of dollars. As Charles Krauthammer said, if there is so much waste and abuse in the healthcare system dragging down our economy, then why hasn't he been working on that issue from day one? It would be much less controversial than an overhaul of the entire system; and he says the need is immediate.
The reality is, every time I have heard Obama talk about waste in healthcare, it has been in the context of too much testing and too much treatment. In other words, he is talking about rationing. In Britain, a woman gave birth to a premie at 21 weeks and 5 days. But their National Health Service has a "guideline" that says babies born at less than 22 weeks should not get treated. So the baby died. DEATH PANELS, ANYONE? And for those of you who can't believe they would let a baby die because he was only 2 days earlier than the guidelines allowed for treatment, I can only say that based on my experience that is exactly how bureaucratic mentality works. So they told this woman to just think of her baby (born alive) as a miscarriage. (Story from the 9/11/09 Wall Street Journal.)
2. Why Are Jews Liberal? This is a question that I am often asked by my Christian friends. Norman Podhoretz has just written a book with that title. Given the fact that John McCain had a significant history of strong support for Israel, while Barack Obama's associates expressed open hostility towards Israel, one might have expected a large Jewish vote for McCain. Instead, Jews voted for Obama in greater numbers than any other group except blacks. While a large number of Jews in this country are secular, it does not mean they are non-religious. Rather, their religion is Liberalism. (Nature abhors a vacuum.)
Secular Jews tend to believe that their religion of Liberalism is consistent with the Torah and Jewish values. But as Podhoretz points out, Jewish Law is restrictive on abortion (only to protect the life of the mother), is opposed to suicide (assisted or otherwise) except to prevent forced conversion or incest, and prohibits sex between men. Podhoretz concludes that, given the inconsistencies, Liberalism has in fact replaced Judaism as the religion of choice for many American Jews. (Summary of Podhoretz's book from the 9/10/09 Wall Street Journal.)
The September, 2009 issue of Commentary magazine asked five prominent Jews to give their own take on why Jews are liberal. Of particular interest was the commentary by Michael Medved. He points out that the one thing Jews seem to have in common is their rejection of Jesus/Christianity/the New Testament. As he points out, even pro-palestinian Jews are given a voice in the Jewish community. But not Jews for Jesus. Now, there is no denying that Jews have suffered greatly at the hands of Christians (the Holocaust for example). And Jews here distrust the Republican party precisely because of its ties to the Christian community (or more accurately, the Christian Right). And then you get the occasional Pat Buchanan to reinforce Jews ideas about Republicans.
So Jews still fear that Christian conservatives/Republicans will try to impose their values on the much smaller Jewish population. I believe there is much truth in what Medved says. The fact that times have changed and that conservative Christians in large numbers are strongly supportive of Israel (as are Republicans in general) has not changed these long held beliefs/fears. On the other hand, many of these same Jews have a distrust (and even dislike) for their fellow Jews who are Orthodox. There is simply no comfort level with those who "make faith the center of their lives."
3. Hollywood idiots. The latest morons out of Hollywood are Jane Fonda and Danny Glover. At the Toronto International Film Festival they were showing a film celebrating the 100th anniversary of Tel Aviv, the main city in Israel. But these morons signed onto a letter decrying the film and the festival, claiming that Tel Aviv was built on the land where many "palestinian" towns had been destroyed by the Jews. Now, I have said before that the "palestinians" are good at propaganda. And it does not take much to convince leftists like Fonda and Glover, who already think the worst about the U.S. and Israel.
But let's be clear. Notwithstanding their denial of anti-semitism, there can be no other explanation. They are basically saying the Jews are not entitled to live on the land which constitutes the State of Israel. Desert land on which the Jews created a modern and productive society, without the benefits of any oil riches. And other than foreign conquerors, the only "state" to ever exist on the land was the state of Israel - 2000 years ago and again today. There was never a country or state of Palestine. It was a geographic area that Jews in the Diaspora have always considered their homeland. And the Arabs who live there are just that - Arabs. The use of the term "palestinian" is just part of their propaganda. And then morons like Glover and Fonda probably think the "palestinians" had a state that was stolen from them. Then again, so does our President, apparently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)