1. Fools. This prize goes to Jimmy Carter. The 12/09/09 USA Today had an article about the four Presidents who have received the Nobel Peace Prize: Obama, Carter, Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. The paper gave a quote by each of the four about war and peace.
Carter: "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children." Carter has no moral compass. War is always an evil. Really? The Allies in WWII had to fight the truly evil Nazi regime; it was the only way to defeat them. But if the Allies engaged in the evil activity of war, doesn't that make them evil? So following Carter's logic (or lack thereof), are the Allies and Nazis equally evil for engaging in war? This is not unlike the liberal writer of the letter to the editor expressing how the use of bullets would upset her, so she would presumably let herself and her family be killed rather than use a gun in self defense. Because guns and bullets - and war - are all evil! As for me, when guns are used to protect the innocent and kill the bad guys - I'm all for them. Same for war.
Contrast T.R.'s comment: "Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy." So while Carter foolishly declares all war "evil," Roosevelt understood that peace itself could be evil if it was imposed to further evil ends. Roosevelt clearly understood the nuances - even peace is not always a "good." And undoubtedly, he would not have called all war "evil." Because war with righteousness, just like peace with righteousness, can not ever be evil.
In the 12/04/09 Jewish Press, Professor Paul Eidelberg coincidentally discusses this very issue, albeit in reference to the Middle East. "Politicians and pundits fail to see that to seek peace with tyrants is to arm the wicked and disarm the virtuous (as Churchill warned in 'The Gathering Storm')...But 'Woe unto them,' warns Isaiah, 'that call evil good and good evil.' Seeking peace with evil men is tantamount to calling evil good." Needless to say, Professor Eidelberg is referring to today's left-leaning, politically correct politicians and pundits. He would not have had to worry about Teddy Roosevelt.
2. Liars. This prize goes to Senate Moronic (sorry, Majority) Leader Harry Reid. As discussed by Michelle Malkin in the 12/10/09 Investor's Business Daily, Reid was accusing Republicans of standing in the way of Obama's healthcare plan. He compared today's Republicans to others who have stood in the way of history: "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'Slow down. It's too early. Things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted 'Slow down...' When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."
So you see, Reid suggested that Republicans are always on the wrong side of history. Or, maybe Reid is a liar. Or, maybe it's just that he has as much knowledge of history as the period at the end of this sentence. But it was the Republican Abraham Lincoln that freed the slaves. It was the democratic south that strongly fought against civil rights for blacks. That was in Reid's lifetime. So not likely he forgot, especially something that historic. George Wallace - democrat. Lester Maddox - democrat. And as Michelle Malkin points out: "It was then Democrat Strom Thurmond who led the civil rights filibuster that Reid tried to lay on the Republicans. And it's the Democratic Party, not the GOP, that boasts ex-Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd among its leaders." And it was the "progressive's" pushing women's right to vote.
So what's the message here? The democrats, as usual, get to engage in unlimited amounts of demagoguery and name calling based on outright lies, without ever being called on it by the mainstream media. With the Far Left in charge of the House, Senate, White House and the Fourth Estate, we have no checks and no balances. Nothing to stop or even slowdown the onslaught of government tyranny - except the American people.
3. Thieves. The last prize goes to: the Feds. According to the 12/11-13/09 USA Today, "Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months - and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted." And let's not forget all the paid holidays, great benefits and virtually lifetime job guarantees! The article goes on: "Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time - in pay and hiring - during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector." So we can clearly see that Congress takes care of their own. And anyone still have any doubt about whether they think they work for us or we work for them?
Now, one might think that if Congress had normal, rational people they might understand the fact that the average American doesn't get this. When 7.3 million have lost their livelihoods - their ability to support their families, this kind of salary inflation might appear, shall we say, somewhat unseemly? But apparently not. So who still believes that a government willing to stick it in your face with these unconscionable taxpayer-funded salary grabs is looking out for you? But one thing is for certain: there will be lots of new government jobs in all the new bureaucracies about to be created - and at least 19% of them will apparently pay $100,000 or more!
Honorable mention for the "thief" prize goes to: Medicare. As discussed previously, workers comp cases require a Medicare Set Aside Trust in the lump sum settlement documents in certain cases. The purpose is to set aside some of the settlement money to cover future medical expenses so that Medicare does not have to pay for work related injuries. So Medicare actually approves the amount to be set aside in a separate account. Once that money is used up then (what they say is that) Medicare will cover the industrial injury thereafter. It turns out to be a big lie!
It is up to the individual to keep an accounting and to make sure that the money is used only to pay medical bills related to the injury, and only for treatment that Medicare would otherwise cover, and only at the Medicare rate. This writer had an opportunity to speak with an attorney intimately familiar with the process and who has important contacts at Medicare. He asked one of his contacts: How do you expect the average person to follow all the rules and pay properly and keep an accurate accounting? The reply: WE DON'T! AND WE DON'T CARE! They have no expectation that people will be able to follow all their technical rules. They even expect that many people will improperly use the money for personal items, and not for medical bills.
So then what gives? It's simple. A beautiful scam really. Medicare, knowing that people will make mistakes, will simply deny future Medicare coverage for any body part involved in the industrial injury - FOR LIFE! No matter at all to them that many of these people have paid into Medicare over a lifetime. No matter that they are told that after the "trust account" money is used up, Medicare will cover them. The Government looking out for you!
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
A Conservative View (Misc. Musings VI)
1. The Swiss vote on minarets. The people of Switzerland recently voted to ban any new minarets (not mosques) in their country. It was felt that the minarets were tied to radical islam and/or reflected islamic tolerance. Of course, there was much hand-wringing throughout the liberal EU, condemning the Swiss action. But the most "interesting" quote was from one Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. He referred to the ban as an "example of growing anti-Islamic incitement in Europe by the extremist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, scare-mongering ultra-right politicians, who reign over common sense, wisdom and universal values." (From the Verizon News online, 11/30/09.)
This is a beautiful piece of propaganda. Look at how much they cover in one sentence. Are there any more demonizing terms they left out about this politically incorrect ban of minarets? And never mind that the measure passed with 58% approval. And look at how they appeal to "universal values." It is truly a work of art as far as propaganda goes (a topic I have commented on extensively). So here are a few questions I would ask Mr. Ihsanoglu:
1. Hundreds of mosques have been built throughout the Western world in
maybe the last 10 to 20 years. How many churches have the muslim
countries of the world allowed to be built in the same time frame? How
many synagogues?
2. Any Christian missionaries allowed in muslim countries? In how many
muslim countries is it illegal to try to convert a muslim? In how many
muslim countries is it illegal to even enter with a copy of the Old or New
Testament? In how many muslim countries is the punishment death for
a muslim converting to another religion?
3. Why do Muslim countries seem to lose large numbers of their Christian
populations after Islamists take over? Think Iraq, Lebanon, the
"Palestinian" territories.
4. So what about those "universal values?" Not only does this all work one
way, in favor of the muslims, but (as I said many times before) the
liberal, guilt-ridden, politically-correct West falls for it every time!
So just when I despair of no liberals getting any of this, along comes Thomas Friedman, liberal author and columnist for the NYTimes. In his 11/29/09 column, he discusses what he calls "The Narrative." He defines The Narrative as a "cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11...that America has declared war on Islam, as part of a grand "American-Crusader-Zionist conspiracy" to keep Muslims down." Pretty good coming from a liberal - even though this "Narrative" actually started well before 9/11 and applies to the entire Western world, not just the U.S.
He points out, as if it will matter to the muslim world, that America has helped free muslims in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan. He points out that most muslims being killed in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Indonesia are killed by OTHER MUSLIMS! He points out that "for every Abu Ghraib, (not such a scandal to this writer) our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders." (And although he does not say so, George Bush would actually get some of the credit for that - OMG!)
And then Mr. Friedman puts them to the test. If major Hasan is not an example of true Islam, then "you need to tell us what ... is and show us how its positive interpretations are being promoted in your schools and mosques." And why will millions of muslims protest cartoons but not suicide (homicide) bombers blowing up real people? WHY INDEED?
2. Climategate - Scandal at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. (Or how Liberals learned to hate the truth and love their ideologies.) Some hackers (not to be condoned, but who are not the real criminals here; and why wasn't this data made public in the first place) obtained thousands of emails to and from scientists at East Anglia, a clearinghouse for climate data. Phil Jones, director of CRU was rather reluctant to release data based on FOI (freedom of information) requests. From Mr. Jones: "When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half-hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise." (Quote from Investors Business Daily, 12/01/09.) Mr. Jones to a professor Mann at Penn State: "If they ever hear there's a Freedom of Information Act in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." (Quote from the same IBD article.)
You see, it would be totally unacceptable to let people know about the global COOLING of the last decade. But, as noted here on a frequent basis, liberals do not let FACTS determine their REALITY. So one Andrew Revkin of the NYTimes reported on 11/21/09 that "the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument." (Quote from the 12/02/09 IBD.) The IBD article goes on to quote The Washington Post of 11/25/09: "None of it seriously undercuts the scientific consensus on climate change." Really? Fraudulently reporting higher temperatures when they were declining has no effect on anyone's opinion? So I guess we just reach the conclusion first, then conduct the "studies." "Off with her head" said the Queen, of Alice. Alice: "What about the trial?" The Queen: "We'll have the trial afterwards!" So welcome to the Alice in Wonderland of the liberal mentality!
But a Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, in an article on 11/27/09, explains what "global warming/climate change" really means to the liberal/statist: "Most Americans are convinced that climate change is real - a necessary prerequisite for the kinds of huge economic and behavioral adjustments we would have to make." (Quote from the 12/02/09 IBD.) That one sentence pretty much says it all; the liberal mentality is all about CONTROL! So the world economy can lay out trillions of dollars (coming from YOU - the TAXPAYER) to further their agenda of having the government dictate every aspect of our lives. This is truly no different than Obamacare, allowing the government to raise our taxes and "redistribute" the wealth and otherwise control our behavior. Nor is it different from the left's desire to bring back the "fairness doctrine" or bring "net neutrality" to the internet. This is all about government control over you! And while liberals were all in a tizzy over "W" authorizing wiretapping of foreign terrorists who communicated with Americans, they are more than willing to give up so much more at the altar of Big Government.
This is a beautiful piece of propaganda. Look at how much they cover in one sentence. Are there any more demonizing terms they left out about this politically incorrect ban of minarets? And never mind that the measure passed with 58% approval. And look at how they appeal to "universal values." It is truly a work of art as far as propaganda goes (a topic I have commented on extensively). So here are a few questions I would ask Mr. Ihsanoglu:
1. Hundreds of mosques have been built throughout the Western world in
maybe the last 10 to 20 years. How many churches have the muslim
countries of the world allowed to be built in the same time frame? How
many synagogues?
2. Any Christian missionaries allowed in muslim countries? In how many
muslim countries is it illegal to try to convert a muslim? In how many
muslim countries is it illegal to even enter with a copy of the Old or New
Testament? In how many muslim countries is the punishment death for
a muslim converting to another religion?
3. Why do Muslim countries seem to lose large numbers of their Christian
populations after Islamists take over? Think Iraq, Lebanon, the
"Palestinian" territories.
4. So what about those "universal values?" Not only does this all work one
way, in favor of the muslims, but (as I said many times before) the
liberal, guilt-ridden, politically-correct West falls for it every time!
So just when I despair of no liberals getting any of this, along comes Thomas Friedman, liberal author and columnist for the NYTimes. In his 11/29/09 column, he discusses what he calls "The Narrative." He defines The Narrative as a "cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11...that America has declared war on Islam, as part of a grand "American-Crusader-Zionist conspiracy" to keep Muslims down." Pretty good coming from a liberal - even though this "Narrative" actually started well before 9/11 and applies to the entire Western world, not just the U.S.
He points out, as if it will matter to the muslim world, that America has helped free muslims in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan. He points out that most muslims being killed in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Indonesia are killed by OTHER MUSLIMS! He points out that "for every Abu Ghraib, (not such a scandal to this writer) our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders." (And although he does not say so, George Bush would actually get some of the credit for that - OMG!)
And then Mr. Friedman puts them to the test. If major Hasan is not an example of true Islam, then "you need to tell us what ... is and show us how its positive interpretations are being promoted in your schools and mosques." And why will millions of muslims protest cartoons but not suicide (homicide) bombers blowing up real people? WHY INDEED?
2. Climategate - Scandal at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. (Or how Liberals learned to hate the truth and love their ideologies.) Some hackers (not to be condoned, but who are not the real criminals here; and why wasn't this data made public in the first place) obtained thousands of emails to and from scientists at East Anglia, a clearinghouse for climate data. Phil Jones, director of CRU was rather reluctant to release data based on FOI (freedom of information) requests. From Mr. Jones: "When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half-hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise." (Quote from Investors Business Daily, 12/01/09.) Mr. Jones to a professor Mann at Penn State: "If they ever hear there's a Freedom of Information Act in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." (Quote from the same IBD article.)
You see, it would be totally unacceptable to let people know about the global COOLING of the last decade. But, as noted here on a frequent basis, liberals do not let FACTS determine their REALITY. So one Andrew Revkin of the NYTimes reported on 11/21/09 that "the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument." (Quote from the 12/02/09 IBD.) The IBD article goes on to quote The Washington Post of 11/25/09: "None of it seriously undercuts the scientific consensus on climate change." Really? Fraudulently reporting higher temperatures when they were declining has no effect on anyone's opinion? So I guess we just reach the conclusion first, then conduct the "studies." "Off with her head" said the Queen, of Alice. Alice: "What about the trial?" The Queen: "We'll have the trial afterwards!" So welcome to the Alice in Wonderland of the liberal mentality!
But a Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, in an article on 11/27/09, explains what "global warming/climate change" really means to the liberal/statist: "Most Americans are convinced that climate change is real - a necessary prerequisite for the kinds of huge economic and behavioral adjustments we would have to make." (Quote from the 12/02/09 IBD.) That one sentence pretty much says it all; the liberal mentality is all about CONTROL! So the world economy can lay out trillions of dollars (coming from YOU - the TAXPAYER) to further their agenda of having the government dictate every aspect of our lives. This is truly no different than Obamacare, allowing the government to raise our taxes and "redistribute" the wealth and otherwise control our behavior. Nor is it different from the left's desire to bring back the "fairness doctrine" or bring "net neutrality" to the internet. This is all about government control over you! And while liberals were all in a tizzy over "W" authorizing wiretapping of foreign terrorists who communicated with Americans, they are more than willing to give up so much more at the altar of Big Government.
Monday, November 30, 2009
A Conservative View (Misc. Musings V)
1. From the 11/26/09 LA Times. Their lead editorial expresses what they are thankful for on Thanksgiving. Not surprisingly, they are grateful for Barack Obama. Why? Because he has "greatly improved the United States' relations with the rest of the world" among other things. Really? I'm wondering where that might be. With Israel? No; only 4% of Israelis feel Obama supports them. With the "palestinians?" No; since he opined on the "settlements" the "palestinians" have refused to return to the bargaining table. With Iran? No; as previously reported here, the Ayatollah Khamenei had this to say about Obama reaching out to them: talks with the U.S. would be "naive and perverted." In fact, the Iranians are thinking about developing 10 new uranium enrichment facilities. With the EU? Maybe, since a weakened dollar bodes well for their euro. But greater respect for the U.S.? As previously reported here, even the French think Obama is in over his head. Russia and China? Well, they did just vote to express their disappointment with Iran over their nuclear program. And to "urge" Iran to reconsider; but no sanctions. Japan? According to the 11/27/09 Jewish Press (and notwithstanding Obama's bow to the Emperor) Japan is "backing off" its deal with the U.S. to allow refueling of warhips in the Indian Ocean. Hugo Chavez? At yet another meeting with Ahmadinejad, he accused Israel of engaging in "genocide" against the "palestinians" with the support of the U.S. Brazil? Their leader also just met with Ahmadidnejad; which, of course, only enhances his credibility as a world leader. But the Times says Obama has not only improved our relations with the world, but GREATLY improved those relations. Could this be yet another example of liberals letting their beliefs (in Obama in this case) dictating their reality (a world with much improved global relations)?
2. In their same editorial, the Times first expresses their thanks to our troops. Anybody really buy this? They did not support the Iraq war. They do not support winning in Afghanistan. But they know it is the right thing to say because the American people DO support their troops. But after displaying picture after picture from Abu Graib, one might think that the Times believed our troops engaged in horrible "atrocities;" worse, even than 9/11 and certainly worse than the beheadings engaged in by the radical muslims. And in the same editorial, they refer to the detention facility at Guananamo Bay as being "disgraceful." Gitmo, where prisoners who killed our troops are given three meals a day, copies of the Koran, and time for prayers. So, the only question really is: does the Times believe their own b.s.?
3. While we are on the subject, and in the interest of fairness, former Judge Andrew Napolitano, and current Fox News commentator, had an opinion in the 11/29/09 LA Times. He indicated that Pres. Bush never got a declaration of war from Congress. Rather, Congress authorized the use of military force to hunt down terrorists wherever they may be. He states that without a declaration of war, the Constitution does not allow the government to use the "tools of war," such as military tribunals. He indicates that Federal Court is in fact the proper venue for trying the bastards (the last word is mine, not his).
4. Again, another example of the editorial writers at the LA Times letting their beliefs dictate their reality. In their 11/29/09 editorial, after blaming the problems with Iran on Bush, they conclude that any "solution must be negotiated by political leaders." Are they paying any attention at all? Do they read the news? Has there been any indication anywhere of a sincere effort by Iran to negotiate on their nuclear production? Or, as previously written here, do they continue to play the West for fools while moving full speed ahead on their nuclear development!
5. "Free" health care. Obama says he will not sign health care legislation if people will have their taxes raised. So the obvious questions are : 1. how much will it cost? 2. just who is going to pay for it? According to the 11/27/09 Investor's Business Daily, most real spending under the proposed legislation does not begin until 2014. The cost over the next ten years after that is an astounding 1.5 trillion dollars! But the next five years after that comes in at a truly amazing 1.7 trillion. So we are well over 3 trillion dollars for the first fifteen years. And whereas the Dems project spending 848 billion dollars for the ten years beginning 2010, IBD says the Cato Institute estimates 2.5 trillion dollars for that decade. And again, per the IBD, most of the real expense begins in 2014. And when has a government estimate come in under budget? But no new taxes! Well, they won't call the requirement to buy health insurance a "tax." They won't call the slashing of Medicare benefits a "tax." I wonder just how many new taxes the Dems will pass to pay for all of this - but just not call it a "tax." And the future of the dollar? Look out below!
6. Recently, our President gave an interview on Fox News. He described the building within existing Israeli "settlements" as "embittering" the "palestinians" and that such building could end up "being very dangerous." (From the 11/27/09 Jewish Press.) Does that mean the "palestinians" will engage in further violence? Does it mean that Obama is excusing any such violence in advance as being justified? Would such violence somehow be unlike their past behavior, regardless of what Israel does? Is Obama familiar with the Hamas Charter: "I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah. I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill." (From an article by Prof. Louis Rene Beres, in the 11/27/09 Jewish Press.) Does this help Obama understand the "palestinians" bloodlust; in which they not only torture and kill civilians, but then celebrate those deaths. Does this help Obama get the fact that the "palestinians" do not want a state side by side with Israel, but, as Prof. Beres says, "upon the corpse of Israel"? Is it possible that we have another case of a liberal (Obama) letting his belief in the peace process dictate his reality (that the "palestinians" were a peace-loving, non-violent people before Israel built the "settlements")?
2. In their same editorial, the Times first expresses their thanks to our troops. Anybody really buy this? They did not support the Iraq war. They do not support winning in Afghanistan. But they know it is the right thing to say because the American people DO support their troops. But after displaying picture after picture from Abu Graib, one might think that the Times believed our troops engaged in horrible "atrocities;" worse, even than 9/11 and certainly worse than the beheadings engaged in by the radical muslims. And in the same editorial, they refer to the detention facility at Guananamo Bay as being "disgraceful." Gitmo, where prisoners who killed our troops are given three meals a day, copies of the Koran, and time for prayers. So, the only question really is: does the Times believe their own b.s.?
3. While we are on the subject, and in the interest of fairness, former Judge Andrew Napolitano, and current Fox News commentator, had an opinion in the 11/29/09 LA Times. He indicated that Pres. Bush never got a declaration of war from Congress. Rather, Congress authorized the use of military force to hunt down terrorists wherever they may be. He states that without a declaration of war, the Constitution does not allow the government to use the "tools of war," such as military tribunals. He indicates that Federal Court is in fact the proper venue for trying the bastards (the last word is mine, not his).
4. Again, another example of the editorial writers at the LA Times letting their beliefs dictate their reality. In their 11/29/09 editorial, after blaming the problems with Iran on Bush, they conclude that any "solution must be negotiated by political leaders." Are they paying any attention at all? Do they read the news? Has there been any indication anywhere of a sincere effort by Iran to negotiate on their nuclear production? Or, as previously written here, do they continue to play the West for fools while moving full speed ahead on their nuclear development!
5. "Free" health care. Obama says he will not sign health care legislation if people will have their taxes raised. So the obvious questions are : 1. how much will it cost? 2. just who is going to pay for it? According to the 11/27/09 Investor's Business Daily, most real spending under the proposed legislation does not begin until 2014. The cost over the next ten years after that is an astounding 1.5 trillion dollars! But the next five years after that comes in at a truly amazing 1.7 trillion. So we are well over 3 trillion dollars for the first fifteen years. And whereas the Dems project spending 848 billion dollars for the ten years beginning 2010, IBD says the Cato Institute estimates 2.5 trillion dollars for that decade. And again, per the IBD, most of the real expense begins in 2014. And when has a government estimate come in under budget? But no new taxes! Well, they won't call the requirement to buy health insurance a "tax." They won't call the slashing of Medicare benefits a "tax." I wonder just how many new taxes the Dems will pass to pay for all of this - but just not call it a "tax." And the future of the dollar? Look out below!
6. Recently, our President gave an interview on Fox News. He described the building within existing Israeli "settlements" as "embittering" the "palestinians" and that such building could end up "being very dangerous." (From the 11/27/09 Jewish Press.) Does that mean the "palestinians" will engage in further violence? Does it mean that Obama is excusing any such violence in advance as being justified? Would such violence somehow be unlike their past behavior, regardless of what Israel does? Is Obama familiar with the Hamas Charter: "I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah. I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill." (From an article by Prof. Louis Rene Beres, in the 11/27/09 Jewish Press.) Does this help Obama understand the "palestinians" bloodlust; in which they not only torture and kill civilians, but then celebrate those deaths. Does this help Obama get the fact that the "palestinians" do not want a state side by side with Israel, but, as Prof. Beres says, "upon the corpse of Israel"? Is it possible that we have another case of a liberal (Obama) letting his belief in the peace process dictate his reality (that the "palestinians" were a peace-loving, non-violent people before Israel built the "settlements")?
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Does Israel Have the Right to Exist? Should it?
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?"
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?"
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)