1. Obamacare. We've heard all the lies from Obama: the American people are demanding we do this; spending $1 trillion dollars (every government projection of the cost of new programs is significantly underestimated) will reduce the budget deficit; medical care will be improved; there will be no new taxes; health insurance premiums will go down; and there will be no rationing of care.
We continue to see the buying of votes. The latest occurred in the Central Valley of California. Democrat fence sitters from the Central Valley, Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza, got a nice boost from the O. team. Representing people in the fertile (when irrigated) Central Valley, they have miraculously seen the water turned back on; after being turned off to protect the delta smelt. Never mind that billions of dollars were lost by growers, thousands were put out of work, and a major source of food for the USA and the world was cut off because of this tiny fish. We had to protect the delta smelt - well, until O. needed a few more votes for Obamacare. So the Dept. of the Interior is increasing the water supply to the Central Valley - the hell with that delta smelt now! (Information from the 3/19/10 Investor's Business Daily.) This vote buying comes on the heels of the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase," and the union buy-out. But if you can't buy the votes - just threaten them! Rep. Bart Stupak, a holdout because of the abortion issue, states that he has been threatened with ethics complaints now! Nothing like that good old style Chicago politics. (As reported in the 3/16/10 Wall Street Journal.)
With passage of this measure, we will be equal to the Europeans in terms of government involvement in our economy - nearly 50% government control. Does it matter that Medicare already has $37.8 TRILLION of unfunded obligations, and may be bankrupt by 2017? Of course not. (Data from the 3/15/10 IBD.) They can always tax us to death (never even an issue for the dems) or print more money, which will continue to lose value and lower the USA's credit worthiness in the world.
Once our healthcare system becomes like Canada's and England's, where will the rest of the world go for treatment? Recently, the premier of Newfoundland, one Danny Williams, came to Miami, USA for heart surgery. When asked why not stay in Canada, he replied: "This was my heart, my choice and my health." (From the 3/18/10 IBD.) In the same article, it is reported that British doctors have taken to not advising their patients about even life saving drugs - when they know those drugs will not be available under the British system.
The highly regarded New England Journal of Medicine reports that about 30% of primary care doctors would consider dropping out if Obamacare is passed. And fully 55% expect a DECLINE in the quality of Americans' healthcare. (As reported by Bill O'Reilly in the 3/20/10 Ventura County Star.) Previously, the IBD reported that 45% of the physicians polled said they would consider giving up the practice of medicine. (As reported in the 3/18/10 IBD; results from an IBD/TIPP poll.)
So what do We the People really want? How much do we trust our government in Washington to truly watch out for us? In another IBD/TIPP poll, an astoundingly low 3% of the people said they feel the federal government can be trusted to do the right thing almost always. Another 13% felt that the feds could be trusted most of the time. But 25% felt that the feds could NEVER be trusted; and 58% felt that, at best, the feds could be trusted some of the time. In the same poll, 64% of the people felt that the feds had too much power already. (As reported in the 3/17/10 IBD.) So I urge that we the people work for conservative candidates and show up in November and let these democrats know what we think of their unethical, illegal and unconstitutional behavior!
2. Obama vs. Israel. Like Europe, Obama has taken on a decidedly anti-semitic and anti-Israel attitude. Of course, this comes as no surprise to those of us who questioned his affiliation with the likes of Rev. Wright, and other far left Israel haters. So, other than O's inherently anti-semitic attitude (he has been to numerous muslim countries as president, but not once to our ally Israel), does he have some other agenda as well? Apparently he does. It appears he decided to keep the heat on Israel, and specifically Netanyahu, in order to try to drive a wedge between Netanyahu and the Israeli people; all in the hopes of having the far more liberal Tzipi Livni either take over or be part of a new coalition government. So far, it's not working. The people of Israel do not expect to give up part of their Capital city. In fact, when Jordan had control of the Old City,in the eastern part of Jerusalem, from 1948 through 1967, numerous Jewish holy sites were destroyed. Israel just restored and reopened the Hurva synagogue in the Old City. And, of course, the Arabs are protesting. How interesting that Obama is pushing for "regime change" in our ally Israel with a democratically elected leader. And Iran? Anybody?
The responsibility for the Day(s) of Rage, promoted by Hamas, and resulting in violent protests in the West Bank can all be laid at the feet of Obama. The 3/18/10 rag also known as the LA Times had on page three an "interview" with Mustafa Barghouti, a member of the PLO's central council. Noting the pressure that Obama is putting on Israel, he felt that sitting back and doing nothing was not the way to go. And clearly, the leaders of Hamas got the message also - whatever we do, Obama will blame it on Israel for not giving up their country to the arabs.
At one point, Barghouti said that Israel "hasn't done anything" in an effort to make peace. This went completely unchallenged by the so-called reporters at the LA Slimes. Why not point out to this terrorist that Israel accepted a very tiny bit of land in the UN partition of 1948. But the Arab world attacked. Reflecting a sentiment that has not changed one bit, the then Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, said this in 1948: "This will be a war of EXTERMINATION and a momentous MASSACRE which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." (From the 3/19/10 Jewish Press commentary by Prof. Louis Rene Beres.) The so-called reporter also failed to mention Barak's offer to Arafat at the Clinton White House; offering 97% of the West Bank. Arafat refused, Arafat made NO counter demand, and Arafat then walked out on a fuming President of the United States. And what did the dems and moronic media have to say when Bush came into office? Bush should have gotten more involved in the Middle East, and presumably invited Arafat back. Great thinkers those dems and those in the media. The so-called reporter also failed to mention that Olmert was willing to offer the same deal to Abbas. That did not come up either. In fact, there was not a single challenge to Barghouti - not unlike the mainscream media's failure to challenge any of the assertions by Obamacare's supporters.
So Biden and Obama were insulted by Israel's announcement of 1600 new apartments in their Capital. After recounting all of the peace overtures made by Israel (see above) Charles Krauthammer had this to say: "And Clinton (Sec. of State Hillary) demands that ISRAEL show its seriousness about peace? Now THAT'S an insult." (Quote from the 3/19/10 IBD.) But while we are on the topic of "insults," here is one that did not seem to bother Obama and Biden in the least. Also while Biden was in Israel, the Palestinian Authority had a ceremony naming a public square in Ramallah in honor of Dalal Mughrabi. And who is (was) Dalal Mughrabi? She was the leader, at age 19, of the terrorists who committed the deadliest terror attack in Israeli history. After killing an AMERICAN photojournalist, they then hijacked a bus in which 37 Israelis, including 12 children, were murdered. Any reader think that Obama has the ability to differentiate right from wrong? Ideologues often don't.
Meanwhile, Obama and the "palestinians" continue to assert that Israel has no historic right or connection to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is mentioned 656 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is mentioned 0 times in the Koran.
Prof. Paul Eidelberg (also from the 3/19/10 Jewish Press) quotes Nonie Darwish, a former muslim woman who converted to Christianity and wrote the book "Now They Call Me Infidel." She wrote: "But the hatred of Jews and anti-semitism was frighteningly prevalent in our society. At the same time I did not know - and no one in the Arab world did - that Israel had a history on that small strip of land going back thousands of years. Nor did we know that Jerusalem was the point of origin for two great religions, Judaism and Christianity, religions that existed before Islam even began...We were taught that 'Zionists' were foreign infidel invaders bent on taking Muslim land and our destruction, and that they must be destroyed."
So, Mr. Obama, you are part of the PROBLEM, and decidedly NOT part of the solution.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
His Royal Highness Obama, and Other Matters
1. "We've got to pass the health care bill so we can see what's in it." So said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, undoubtedly the dumbest Speaker we have ever had. Because Obama demands that Congress pass Obamacare, both he and Pelosi have had to LIE in an effort to convince the American people. The two of them repeatedly said that "the American people are demanding we pass health care reform now." Uh - no! Polls show that anywhere from 2/3 to 80% of the American people do NOT want this version of health care reform. "Bush lied, people died." Even the mainscream media picked up on that false slogan and ran with it. But when Obama and Pelosi look into the cameras and say what everyone knows is a blatant lie - dead silence. It is usually dictators that resort to the "Big Lie," a falsehood told over and over again in the hopes that the people get so confused that they cannot tell right from wrong.
Does it matter to Obama and Pelosi that the people do NOT want this reform? Not in the least. Another sign of dictatorial behavior, rather than representative government. Does it matter to Obama and Pelosi that not a single Republican will be voting in favor of the biggest piece of legislation in our country's history? Of course not. Another sign of O's dictatorial behavior. When Social Security was passed by a Democrat controlled Congress, fully 64% of Senate Republicans voted in favor of it, as did 79% of House Republicans. In other words, it was a true demonstration of bipartisanship. Again with Medicare, more than half of the Republican Senators voted in favor. (Statistics from the 3/3/10 Wall Street Journal.) But a dictator does not seek agreement, rather, he dictates and demands obeisance. In the mode of a dictator he attacks his opponents as the "party of no," rather than acknowledge that they speak for the vast majority of the American people. But a dictator does not believe in "majority rule." As His Highness so frequently tells us: "I won the election."
I have long indicated that the government cannot be trusted to take care of you. Coincidentally, that point came through loud and clear in a telephone conversation today with a client. He went to Social Security to apply for disability. They told him he would not qualify and sent him away without letting him fill out an application. Why? Because they know Social Security is running out of money, so they were looking out for the government, rather than the people they are supposed to serve. They did, however, suggest he apply for unemployment. So he went to EDD. They told him he did not qualify because he was not "100%" fit. That is simply a blatant LIE. But another example of the government looking out for their funds, rather than the people they nominally "serve." So if Obama gets control of the healthcare system how many people will be turned away for MRI's or surgeries or other expensive treatments in order to protect the government coffers? Why would anyone think it would be any different than the way my client was treated by Social Security and EDD?
2. As we know, His Highness continues to either dictate to our allies or abandon them; all the while cozying up to the other dictators of the world. Case in point: England is again having a dispute with Argentina over the Falklands. In 1982, when England and Argentina went to war over the Islands, President Reagan gave 100% U.S. support to the Thatcher government. England has been our oldest and closest ally. Not to Obama. His Administration has decided that they will remain neutral in the current dispute. As pointed out by Victor Davis Hanson (in the 3/8/10 Investor's Business Daily): "If Britain is not considered an ally, then America no longer has real allies."
His Highness has sent a number of high ranking officials to Israel to tell them to get with His program. The latest U.S. official to go there was V.P. Biden. On his arrival, Israel announced the construction of additional buildings in "East" Jerusalem. Of course, there is only one unified Jerusalem to Israelis and it is the Capital of their country. But the royal O. insists that Israel stop all construction and allow an independent terrorist state on their border. Before His Highness announced to the world that all "settlements" were illegitimate, the palestinians did not insist on cessation of construction before agreeing to talks. Now, with Obama at their back, they do. And let's be honest, whether Hamas or Fatah (or a combination of the two) run a new palestinian state, it will be lead by terrorists. Biden and Sec. of State Clinton both ripped into Israel and Netanyahu for announcing the construction. Clinton: "The Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words, but with specific actions, that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process." Get that? Israel sticks with the Obama plan or they are not committed to their relationship with the U.S. - no matter the threat to their very survival. And no honest differences between friends allowed (or, to paraphrase Mr. Hanson, the U.S. no longer has either allies or friends).
But does Obama dictate to his fellow dictators? Of course not. Iran had a 12/31/09 deadline with regards to their nuclear program. Still no sanctions. He is opening relations with the dictator in Syria. No real demands are placed on the terrorist dictators of Hamas or Fatah. And as Victor Hanson points out, he "seems more eager to mollify Venezuela's (dictator) Hugo Chavez than to strengthen our alliance with a democratic and pro-American...Colombia." As Mr. Hanson concludes: "All that raises the question of what exactly are the advantages these days of being a friend of the U.S., when neutrals and enemies alike garner as much of our sympathies?" Well, Obama's sympathies.
3. When His Highness gave his State of the Union he blasted the Supreme Court for their decision on corporate funding of campaign ads. Six of the Justices were sitting in the front row. Does a dictator hesitate to criticize a co-equal branch of government, knowing they are bound by tradition and judicial restraint to not reply, and are only present as a courtesy to the office of the President? Of course not. So, now, Chief Justice Roberts questions why they should ever show up again. They should not! In fact, if Obamacare is forced down the people's throats then this writer believes that the Republicans should also stay away from the next State of the Union as well. If His Highness sees fit to ignore them, they should return the favor and ignore Him. I would even go one step further. If it appears that the House Republicans cannot block Obamacare, then once the voting begins they should walk out en masse rather than participate in a sham democracy.
4. And finally, some Quick Hits. After seeing how Iraqi voters risked life and limb to cast their votes, NY Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman had this to say: "Former President Bush's gut instinct that this region craved and needed democracy was always right." Quite a concession!
The European Parliament passed a resolution endorsing the Goldstone report, which condemned Israel for war crimes because they defended their people against the terrorists of Hamas in the last Gaza war. (From Caroline Glick in the 3/12/10 Jerusalem Post online.) Really, can we be surprised by anything the Europeans do? Will we ever fight to save their asses again?
And a final comment on the religion of "peace." Muslim jihadists in Nigeria slaughtered Christians, including children, last weekend. Using machetes, axes and daggers, some were raped, some were scalped and some were just brutally murdered. And Obama and the mainscream media - not a peep, except for complaining about Israeli "settlements" as the biggest threat to world peace.
Does it matter to Obama and Pelosi that the people do NOT want this reform? Not in the least. Another sign of dictatorial behavior, rather than representative government. Does it matter to Obama and Pelosi that not a single Republican will be voting in favor of the biggest piece of legislation in our country's history? Of course not. Another sign of O's dictatorial behavior. When Social Security was passed by a Democrat controlled Congress, fully 64% of Senate Republicans voted in favor of it, as did 79% of House Republicans. In other words, it was a true demonstration of bipartisanship. Again with Medicare, more than half of the Republican Senators voted in favor. (Statistics from the 3/3/10 Wall Street Journal.) But a dictator does not seek agreement, rather, he dictates and demands obeisance. In the mode of a dictator he attacks his opponents as the "party of no," rather than acknowledge that they speak for the vast majority of the American people. But a dictator does not believe in "majority rule." As His Highness so frequently tells us: "I won the election."
I have long indicated that the government cannot be trusted to take care of you. Coincidentally, that point came through loud and clear in a telephone conversation today with a client. He went to Social Security to apply for disability. They told him he would not qualify and sent him away without letting him fill out an application. Why? Because they know Social Security is running out of money, so they were looking out for the government, rather than the people they are supposed to serve. They did, however, suggest he apply for unemployment. So he went to EDD. They told him he did not qualify because he was not "100%" fit. That is simply a blatant LIE. But another example of the government looking out for their funds, rather than the people they nominally "serve." So if Obama gets control of the healthcare system how many people will be turned away for MRI's or surgeries or other expensive treatments in order to protect the government coffers? Why would anyone think it would be any different than the way my client was treated by Social Security and EDD?
2. As we know, His Highness continues to either dictate to our allies or abandon them; all the while cozying up to the other dictators of the world. Case in point: England is again having a dispute with Argentina over the Falklands. In 1982, when England and Argentina went to war over the Islands, President Reagan gave 100% U.S. support to the Thatcher government. England has been our oldest and closest ally. Not to Obama. His Administration has decided that they will remain neutral in the current dispute. As pointed out by Victor Davis Hanson (in the 3/8/10 Investor's Business Daily): "If Britain is not considered an ally, then America no longer has real allies."
His Highness has sent a number of high ranking officials to Israel to tell them to get with His program. The latest U.S. official to go there was V.P. Biden. On his arrival, Israel announced the construction of additional buildings in "East" Jerusalem. Of course, there is only one unified Jerusalem to Israelis and it is the Capital of their country. But the royal O. insists that Israel stop all construction and allow an independent terrorist state on their border. Before His Highness announced to the world that all "settlements" were illegitimate, the palestinians did not insist on cessation of construction before agreeing to talks. Now, with Obama at their back, they do. And let's be honest, whether Hamas or Fatah (or a combination of the two) run a new palestinian state, it will be lead by terrorists. Biden and Sec. of State Clinton both ripped into Israel and Netanyahu for announcing the construction. Clinton: "The Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words, but with specific actions, that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process." Get that? Israel sticks with the Obama plan or they are not committed to their relationship with the U.S. - no matter the threat to their very survival. And no honest differences between friends allowed (or, to paraphrase Mr. Hanson, the U.S. no longer has either allies or friends).
But does Obama dictate to his fellow dictators? Of course not. Iran had a 12/31/09 deadline with regards to their nuclear program. Still no sanctions. He is opening relations with the dictator in Syria. No real demands are placed on the terrorist dictators of Hamas or Fatah. And as Victor Hanson points out, he "seems more eager to mollify Venezuela's (dictator) Hugo Chavez than to strengthen our alliance with a democratic and pro-American...Colombia." As Mr. Hanson concludes: "All that raises the question of what exactly are the advantages these days of being a friend of the U.S., when neutrals and enemies alike garner as much of our sympathies?" Well, Obama's sympathies.
3. When His Highness gave his State of the Union he blasted the Supreme Court for their decision on corporate funding of campaign ads. Six of the Justices were sitting in the front row. Does a dictator hesitate to criticize a co-equal branch of government, knowing they are bound by tradition and judicial restraint to not reply, and are only present as a courtesy to the office of the President? Of course not. So, now, Chief Justice Roberts questions why they should ever show up again. They should not! In fact, if Obamacare is forced down the people's throats then this writer believes that the Republicans should also stay away from the next State of the Union as well. If His Highness sees fit to ignore them, they should return the favor and ignore Him. I would even go one step further. If it appears that the House Republicans cannot block Obamacare, then once the voting begins they should walk out en masse rather than participate in a sham democracy.
4. And finally, some Quick Hits. After seeing how Iraqi voters risked life and limb to cast their votes, NY Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman had this to say: "Former President Bush's gut instinct that this region craved and needed democracy was always right." Quite a concession!
The European Parliament passed a resolution endorsing the Goldstone report, which condemned Israel for war crimes because they defended their people against the terrorists of Hamas in the last Gaza war. (From Caroline Glick in the 3/12/10 Jerusalem Post online.) Really, can we be surprised by anything the Europeans do? Will we ever fight to save their asses again?
And a final comment on the religion of "peace." Muslim jihadists in Nigeria slaughtered Christians, including children, last weekend. Using machetes, axes and daggers, some were raped, some were scalped and some were just brutally murdered. And Obama and the mainscream media - not a peep, except for complaining about Israeli "settlements" as the biggest threat to world peace.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Iranian Nukes, Part II
Recently, I was asked by a reader what I thought that Israel, and/or the US, might do about Iranian nukes. I answered as follows:
In the 2/16/10 LA Times there was an opinion piece saying how ridiculous the 2007 NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) was about Iran stopping their nuclear production in about 2003. I remember when it came out and the Times had a summary of it. It was like a child had written it. I could not believe that it was the combined "thinking" and "analysis" of our 12 or 16 or whatever number of intelligence agencies.
As I said in my latest blog, Bush let the issue go, even though he should have taken action long ago. After 2 to 3 years of our European allies (Britain, France and Germany) getting nowhere in their negotiations with Iran, Bush should have said "enough!" But he was already getting lots of flack about Iraq and Afghanistan; and the dems and the mainscream media were quite vocal in trying to preempt any action by us. They made it sound like the "cowboy" wanted to attack the entire muslim world.
Russia and China have prevented any meaningful sanctions. Frankly, however, I am hard pressed to see how sanctions would ever work to stop a country determined to make nukes. As I said in my latest blog, the time for appeasement has long since passed. So will Obama do what Bush failed to do? I know just asking the question makes it seem like I am nuts. But Obama has been using drones successfully in Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda. Can you imagine if Bush had sent those drones into a sovereign country that we are not at war with - the media would have gone crazy. Notice how it's a non-issue when Obama does it.
So, if after making all the overtures he has made to Iran and still being snubbed; and when it's clear now that Iran is enriching uranium for nukes, will Obama act or at least quietly support an Israeli attack? I can't rule it out.
As for Israel acting alone, there are still some (many I hope) who adhere to the credo: Never Again! Never again will Jews allow the mass extinction of many of their people. Israel sees itself as the defender and protector of Jews worldwide. That is why when a French plane was hijacked to Entebbe, Uganda it was Israel that sent commandos to rescue the hostages, many of them Jews. It was not the French. The sole Israeli soldier killed in that raid was Netanyahu's brother. So I do not believe Israel will do nothing. I would not be surprised if the Mossad already has agents in Iran either trying to disrupt their nuke program and/or killing some of their nuclear scientists.
It would still be a very difficult mission for tiny Israel to take on alone. Yes, they took out Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. And they took out Syria's a couple years ago. But Iran is considerably further and has spread out their numerous nuclear facilities across their large country. So the task is infinitely more difficult. But even with limited US assistance such as the cruise missiles and drones taking out Iran's anti-aircraft batteries and Iran's fighters it would make a huge difference. Of course, the AWACS surveillance wouldn't hurt either.
So I believe a lot of this falls on the USA as usual. Europe will do nothing. Russia and China don't care (in fact, they are probably enjoying it). Sending in troops is not an option. But our capabilities as noted above are significant. Obama just has to be pushed to the point where he is insulted enough by the snubbing Iran has given him. Otherwise, It falls onto Israel. Israel either does it, or at the very least, tells Iran very clearly that anything incoming into Israel from Iran will result in the immediate destruction of their country. As noted before, Israel has an estimated 200 nukes.
So while I wish I could be more definitive, that's the best I can do for now. If I learn more, you will hear about it from me.
Since sending the above reply, the 2/19/10 Jewish Press hit the newsstands. In an article concerning Iranian nukes, they indicate that Obama sent the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, to meet with IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi. According to the article they were "coordinating military strategy." With regards to Iran actually getting nukes, Mullen had this to say:
"Politically it is prohibited in any way for Iran to have nuclear weapons.
The US would like to exhaust all of the diplomatic options with Iran
before anyone decides what the next step would be. And all options,
including a military attack on Iran, are on the table. But we are not
there yet. We will operate all our forces to have a stable and secure
Israel. The collaboration and improving capabilities between our
militaries is not a response (to Iran) but only for defensive purposes."
Probably about as strong a statement as could be expected given where Mullen's boss, the Commander in Chief, currenly is on the issue. Obama is apparently sending Biden to Israel this week; so it remains to be seen if the political message varies significantly from Mullen's. This writer continues to believe that further sanctions, even if passed by the UN, are unlikely to deter a country determined to get nuclear weapons.
Then, in today's Verizon News online, they report that the Israeli Air Force has announced that they now have a new fleet of drones. The new drones, called Heron TP, are the size of a Boeing 737, with an 86' wingspan. They can fly up to 40,000 feet high and can go nonstop at least 20 hours - enabling them to reach the Persian Gulf. They have jamming capabilities, and can also "assist in communications between ground control and manned aircraft." And, of course, they can carry their own payloads.
So likely, Israel will allow the US to play out the sanctions issue a little longer. But if I am correct, it will ultimately take military action to prevent Iran from getting nukes.
In the 2/16/10 LA Times there was an opinion piece saying how ridiculous the 2007 NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) was about Iran stopping their nuclear production in about 2003. I remember when it came out and the Times had a summary of it. It was like a child had written it. I could not believe that it was the combined "thinking" and "analysis" of our 12 or 16 or whatever number of intelligence agencies.
As I said in my latest blog, Bush let the issue go, even though he should have taken action long ago. After 2 to 3 years of our European allies (Britain, France and Germany) getting nowhere in their negotiations with Iran, Bush should have said "enough!" But he was already getting lots of flack about Iraq and Afghanistan; and the dems and the mainscream media were quite vocal in trying to preempt any action by us. They made it sound like the "cowboy" wanted to attack the entire muslim world.
Russia and China have prevented any meaningful sanctions. Frankly, however, I am hard pressed to see how sanctions would ever work to stop a country determined to make nukes. As I said in my latest blog, the time for appeasement has long since passed. So will Obama do what Bush failed to do? I know just asking the question makes it seem like I am nuts. But Obama has been using drones successfully in Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda. Can you imagine if Bush had sent those drones into a sovereign country that we are not at war with - the media would have gone crazy. Notice how it's a non-issue when Obama does it.
So, if after making all the overtures he has made to Iran and still being snubbed; and when it's clear now that Iran is enriching uranium for nukes, will Obama act or at least quietly support an Israeli attack? I can't rule it out.
As for Israel acting alone, there are still some (many I hope) who adhere to the credo: Never Again! Never again will Jews allow the mass extinction of many of their people. Israel sees itself as the defender and protector of Jews worldwide. That is why when a French plane was hijacked to Entebbe, Uganda it was Israel that sent commandos to rescue the hostages, many of them Jews. It was not the French. The sole Israeli soldier killed in that raid was Netanyahu's brother. So I do not believe Israel will do nothing. I would not be surprised if the Mossad already has agents in Iran either trying to disrupt their nuke program and/or killing some of their nuclear scientists.
It would still be a very difficult mission for tiny Israel to take on alone. Yes, they took out Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. And they took out Syria's a couple years ago. But Iran is considerably further and has spread out their numerous nuclear facilities across their large country. So the task is infinitely more difficult. But even with limited US assistance such as the cruise missiles and drones taking out Iran's anti-aircraft batteries and Iran's fighters it would make a huge difference. Of course, the AWACS surveillance wouldn't hurt either.
So I believe a lot of this falls on the USA as usual. Europe will do nothing. Russia and China don't care (in fact, they are probably enjoying it). Sending in troops is not an option. But our capabilities as noted above are significant. Obama just has to be pushed to the point where he is insulted enough by the snubbing Iran has given him. Otherwise, It falls onto Israel. Israel either does it, or at the very least, tells Iran very clearly that anything incoming into Israel from Iran will result in the immediate destruction of their country. As noted before, Israel has an estimated 200 nukes.
So while I wish I could be more definitive, that's the best I can do for now. If I learn more, you will hear about it from me.
Since sending the above reply, the 2/19/10 Jewish Press hit the newsstands. In an article concerning Iranian nukes, they indicate that Obama sent the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, to meet with IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi. According to the article they were "coordinating military strategy." With regards to Iran actually getting nukes, Mullen had this to say:
"Politically it is prohibited in any way for Iran to have nuclear weapons.
The US would like to exhaust all of the diplomatic options with Iran
before anyone decides what the next step would be. And all options,
including a military attack on Iran, are on the table. But we are not
there yet. We will operate all our forces to have a stable and secure
Israel. The collaboration and improving capabilities between our
militaries is not a response (to Iran) but only for defensive purposes."
Probably about as strong a statement as could be expected given where Mullen's boss, the Commander in Chief, currenly is on the issue. Obama is apparently sending Biden to Israel this week; so it remains to be seen if the political message varies significantly from Mullen's. This writer continues to believe that further sanctions, even if passed by the UN, are unlikely to deter a country determined to get nuclear weapons.
Then, in today's Verizon News online, they report that the Israeli Air Force has announced that they now have a new fleet of drones. The new drones, called Heron TP, are the size of a Boeing 737, with an 86' wingspan. They can fly up to 40,000 feet high and can go nonstop at least 20 hours - enabling them to reach the Persian Gulf. They have jamming capabilities, and can also "assist in communications between ground control and manned aircraft." And, of course, they can carry their own payloads.
So likely, Israel will allow the US to play out the sanctions issue a little longer. But if I am correct, it will ultimately take military action to prevent Iran from getting nukes.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Of Israeli Friends and Enemies
1. American Jews seem to have an intense dislike for Sarah Palin. Part of that, of course, has to do with the fact that nearly 80% of American Jews are liberal democrats, and Palin is a conservative Republican. The fact that she is one of the strongest supporters of Israel is of no consequence. Palin: "We need a foreign policy that distinguishes America's friends from her enemies..." She goes on: "Israel, a friend and a critical ally, now questions the strength of our support." (From Caroline Glick at the 2/12/10 Jerusalem Post online.) As previously reported here, only 4% of Israelis believe that Obama favors Israel over the palestinians. As noted in the same article, Obama's attitudes about Israel come from such notable anti-Israel "intellectuals" as: Rashid Khalidi, John Mearshimer, Samantha Power, William Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn and the late Edward Said. Mearshimer is the co-author of the anti-Israel diatribe "Palestine-Peace not Apartheid." Ms. Glick also left out the Reverend Wright as another anti-Israel friend of Obama's. Or as Obama said in referring to Wright: "my mentor."
Sadly, for many American Jews the continued existence of their fellow Jews in Israel is either foolishly taken for granted (notwithstanding the greatest forces ever allied against the Jewish State) or worse, deemed unimportant.
2. Meanwhile, Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. was invited to speak at a Southern California college campus, UC Irvine. That campus, like many others, has seen extreme levels of anti-Israel and anti-semitic expressions. About 75 muslims, among others, showed up for the Ambassador's speech on February 12. Some were students, some not. They had obviously prearranged periodic interruptions of Oren's speech in an effort to prevent him from continuing. In listening to part of it on You Tube, I heard such challenges as: "Propaganda is not an expression of free speech." And: "Propagating murder is not an expression of free speech." Well, not unless the muslim palestinians/arabs are doing it - then all bets are off. As each one of the hecklers spoke and were removed by the police, they were applauded by the remaining men and women muslims. The Ambassador, however, carried on. Outside, more muslims were holding signs and yelling expressions equating Israel with racism and with baby killing. But if a palestinian blows up men, women, and children on a bus or in a cafe, they are heroes and martyrs. These people disgust me. And they should disgust all Americans who favor freedom over the tyranny of the islamic (islamofascist) world.
3. Recently, the highest court in England took it upon themselves to define who is a Jew. A couple tried to enroll their son in one of the country's Jewish schools, all of which receive some public support. For those who do not know, whether or not one is deemed a Jew - by the religion - is based on birth, and more specifically, matrilineal descent. If your mother is a Jew, so are you. If your father is and your mother is not, you are not a Jew. Judaism does allow for conversions; however, the Orthodox do not accept conversions performed by a Reform Rabbi. In this case the mother was born a Catholic and had a reform conversion. The school, however, followed orthodoxy, and the child was not admitted. The lawsuit followed.
The UK's Race Relations Act of 1976 forbids discrimination based on "colour, race, nationality, or ethnic or national origins." Somehow, the court decided that the use of matrilineal descent was "a test of ethnic origin by definition" and therefore the school discriminated on "racial grounds." (Information from an article by David Pryce-Jones in the February 2010 edition of Commentary magazine.) So, not unlike the UN before it, the court in Britain basically decided that Judaism is racism! Perhaps not such a surprise from an increasingly anti-semitic country. The number of anti-semitic incidents rose 55% in England from 2008 to 2009. And the unions and intellectuals in Britain regularly call for the boycott of all things Israeli. In fact, some British lawyers working with Hamas tried to get Tzipi Livni (former Prime Minister of Israel) arrested on a trip she was due to make to the UK. The charge: war crimes because of the war with Hamas in 2008. She found out about the plan and cancelled her trip.
4. There seems to be a great fear among Jews both in and out of Israel of a Jew speaking out strongly and not being intimidated by threats. A Jew is supposed to be meek and not "cause any trouble." My Jewish readers know exactly what I am talking about.
Case in point. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem threatened Israel, saying: "Don't test...the determination of Syria. You know that war this time would move to your cities." Not cowering and not backing down, Israel's own Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, replied: "...what was said yesterday marked a dramatic change of game, a direct threat on the State of Israel...Assad should know that if he attacks, he will not only lose the war. Neither he nor his family will remain in power." (From the 2/12/10 edition of Yated Ne'eman.) Lieberman is controversial precisely because he does speak out and refuses to let the Arabs play their games and say whatever they want. He will call them on it every time. In return, the cowering Jews criticize Lieberman for "stiring up trouble." Again, my Jewish readers know exactly what I am talking about.
Meanwhile, Syria has pledged its support of Lebanon in the event of another war; and the Lebanese government has pledged their support of Hezbollah if there is a further war with Israel.
5. In a visit to Israel, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had this to say to the Knesset, Israel's Parliament: "We cannot accept the nuclearization of a country whose leaders have exlicitly expressed their desire to destroy Israel, denied the Holocaust and delegitimized the Jewish State." He went on: "Today, the safeguarding of Israel's safety, and its right to exist as a Jewish State is an ethical choice and a moral decree against the possibility of the return of anti-semitism, Holocaust denial and a loss of memory of the West." (From the 2/12/10 Yated Ne'eman and the 2/12/10 Jewish Press.)
In return, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had this interesting story to tell: "On the train on her way to work, (an Italian woman) saw a German policeman arrest a Jewish girl. The woman, who was eight months pregnant, fearlessly put herself between the two, telling the German policeman, "You can kill me, but look at the faces of the passengers. They won't let you get out of here alive." In this courageous way, she saved the life of the Jewish girl and sparked a light of humanity in this dark period which had fallen upon Europe. This woman was called Rosa, and one of her children is called Silvio Berlusconi." And we Jews refer to her as one of the righteous among the nations.
6. So back to the USA. As noted above, Sarah Palin - huge supporter of Israel. And our President? Still talking sanctions against Iran, the biggest threat to Israel's existence and to the world. China, however, continues to insist on diplomacy. Clearly, neither sanctions nor diplomacy has worked over the last 6 years. So both are meaningless. Obama, however, seems to think that reducing our nuclear arsenal (in the latest arms control agreement with Russia) will what - make Teheran see the error of their ways? Or does he still want to sit down and talk with Ahmadinijad on the assumption that he can convince Iran to drop the nukes?
On the plus side, the 2/15/10 Jerusalem Report notes that, after a shaky start, Obama has allowed cooperation between the US and Israeli militaries. And according to the same article, Obama has now recommitted to the same 10 year $30 billion aid package to Israel that Bush had put in place.
But just how far is Obama willing to go to stop Iran's nukes? Bush clearly did not do enough. So now it is up to Obama. Is he willing to send in the cruise missiles and drones, followed by an aerial attack of US and Israeli fighter planes and bombers? I cannot foresee Israel sitting out the next battle, as Bush I asked of them in the Gulf War with Saddam. We put a stop to Iran, and that should quiet the terrorists and their supporters in Syria, Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah. The stronger Iran gets, the greater the threats from its puppets, and the greater the likelihood of war breaking out in the Middle East somewhere, and spreading to G-d knows where. The time for appeasement has long since passed.
Sadly, for many American Jews the continued existence of their fellow Jews in Israel is either foolishly taken for granted (notwithstanding the greatest forces ever allied against the Jewish State) or worse, deemed unimportant.
2. Meanwhile, Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. was invited to speak at a Southern California college campus, UC Irvine. That campus, like many others, has seen extreme levels of anti-Israel and anti-semitic expressions. About 75 muslims, among others, showed up for the Ambassador's speech on February 12. Some were students, some not. They had obviously prearranged periodic interruptions of Oren's speech in an effort to prevent him from continuing. In listening to part of it on You Tube, I heard such challenges as: "Propaganda is not an expression of free speech." And: "Propagating murder is not an expression of free speech." Well, not unless the muslim palestinians/arabs are doing it - then all bets are off. As each one of the hecklers spoke and were removed by the police, they were applauded by the remaining men and women muslims. The Ambassador, however, carried on. Outside, more muslims were holding signs and yelling expressions equating Israel with racism and with baby killing. But if a palestinian blows up men, women, and children on a bus or in a cafe, they are heroes and martyrs. These people disgust me. And they should disgust all Americans who favor freedom over the tyranny of the islamic (islamofascist) world.
3. Recently, the highest court in England took it upon themselves to define who is a Jew. A couple tried to enroll their son in one of the country's Jewish schools, all of which receive some public support. For those who do not know, whether or not one is deemed a Jew - by the religion - is based on birth, and more specifically, matrilineal descent. If your mother is a Jew, so are you. If your father is and your mother is not, you are not a Jew. Judaism does allow for conversions; however, the Orthodox do not accept conversions performed by a Reform Rabbi. In this case the mother was born a Catholic and had a reform conversion. The school, however, followed orthodoxy, and the child was not admitted. The lawsuit followed.
The UK's Race Relations Act of 1976 forbids discrimination based on "colour, race, nationality, or ethnic or national origins." Somehow, the court decided that the use of matrilineal descent was "a test of ethnic origin by definition" and therefore the school discriminated on "racial grounds." (Information from an article by David Pryce-Jones in the February 2010 edition of Commentary magazine.) So, not unlike the UN before it, the court in Britain basically decided that Judaism is racism! Perhaps not such a surprise from an increasingly anti-semitic country. The number of anti-semitic incidents rose 55% in England from 2008 to 2009. And the unions and intellectuals in Britain regularly call for the boycott of all things Israeli. In fact, some British lawyers working with Hamas tried to get Tzipi Livni (former Prime Minister of Israel) arrested on a trip she was due to make to the UK. The charge: war crimes because of the war with Hamas in 2008. She found out about the plan and cancelled her trip.
4. There seems to be a great fear among Jews both in and out of Israel of a Jew speaking out strongly and not being intimidated by threats. A Jew is supposed to be meek and not "cause any trouble." My Jewish readers know exactly what I am talking about.
Case in point. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem threatened Israel, saying: "Don't test...the determination of Syria. You know that war this time would move to your cities." Not cowering and not backing down, Israel's own Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, replied: "...what was said yesterday marked a dramatic change of game, a direct threat on the State of Israel...Assad should know that if he attacks, he will not only lose the war. Neither he nor his family will remain in power." (From the 2/12/10 edition of Yated Ne'eman.) Lieberman is controversial precisely because he does speak out and refuses to let the Arabs play their games and say whatever they want. He will call them on it every time. In return, the cowering Jews criticize Lieberman for "stiring up trouble." Again, my Jewish readers know exactly what I am talking about.
Meanwhile, Syria has pledged its support of Lebanon in the event of another war; and the Lebanese government has pledged their support of Hezbollah if there is a further war with Israel.
5. In a visit to Israel, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had this to say to the Knesset, Israel's Parliament: "We cannot accept the nuclearization of a country whose leaders have exlicitly expressed their desire to destroy Israel, denied the Holocaust and delegitimized the Jewish State." He went on: "Today, the safeguarding of Israel's safety, and its right to exist as a Jewish State is an ethical choice and a moral decree against the possibility of the return of anti-semitism, Holocaust denial and a loss of memory of the West." (From the 2/12/10 Yated Ne'eman and the 2/12/10 Jewish Press.)
In return, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had this interesting story to tell: "On the train on her way to work, (an Italian woman) saw a German policeman arrest a Jewish girl. The woman, who was eight months pregnant, fearlessly put herself between the two, telling the German policeman, "You can kill me, but look at the faces of the passengers. They won't let you get out of here alive." In this courageous way, she saved the life of the Jewish girl and sparked a light of humanity in this dark period which had fallen upon Europe. This woman was called Rosa, and one of her children is called Silvio Berlusconi." And we Jews refer to her as one of the righteous among the nations.
6. So back to the USA. As noted above, Sarah Palin - huge supporter of Israel. And our President? Still talking sanctions against Iran, the biggest threat to Israel's existence and to the world. China, however, continues to insist on diplomacy. Clearly, neither sanctions nor diplomacy has worked over the last 6 years. So both are meaningless. Obama, however, seems to think that reducing our nuclear arsenal (in the latest arms control agreement with Russia) will what - make Teheran see the error of their ways? Or does he still want to sit down and talk with Ahmadinijad on the assumption that he can convince Iran to drop the nukes?
On the plus side, the 2/15/10 Jerusalem Report notes that, after a shaky start, Obama has allowed cooperation between the US and Israeli militaries. And according to the same article, Obama has now recommitted to the same 10 year $30 billion aid package to Israel that Bush had put in place.
But just how far is Obama willing to go to stop Iran's nukes? Bush clearly did not do enough. So now it is up to Obama. Is he willing to send in the cruise missiles and drones, followed by an aerial attack of US and Israeli fighter planes and bombers? I cannot foresee Israel sitting out the next battle, as Bush I asked of them in the Gulf War with Saddam. We put a stop to Iran, and that should quiet the terrorists and their supporters in Syria, Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah. The stronger Iran gets, the greater the threats from its puppets, and the greater the likelihood of war breaking out in the Middle East somewhere, and spreading to G-d knows where. The time for appeasement has long since passed.
Friday, February 5, 2010
In Defense of the USA and Our Ally Israel
The USA is at greater risk of another terrorist attack - perhaps the greatest risk since 9/11. So said, in not so many words, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, CIA Director Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller. All three indicated to the Senate Intelligence Committee a further attack in the next 3 to 6 months was "certain." So what is the Obama Administration doing to protect us?
In his State of the Union address he expressed his concern about the threat of nuclear weapons; and that the US and Russia were going to enter into a new arms control agreement. Not so good. He talked about attempting to secure all nuclear material around the world at an upcoming 44 nation meeting in April. Good. And he talked about possible further sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Meaningless. Meanwhile, the EU has no interest in further sanctions against Iran unless they come from the UN Security Council. But with China being opposed, and likely Russia also, sanctions are simply not possible. Both countries have veto power.
Meanwhile, this past week Iran launched a missile into space. It appears that Iran is on its way towards developing an intercontinental ballistic missile. And, given the lack of action by the Western world, Iran is also about to have nukes. How convenient that they will have nuclear warheads to put on top of their ICBMs. Of course, if their only target was Israel, they would not need the ICBMs. So I wonder who else they might consider for targetting? Maybe the "Great Satan?"
And Iran and North Korea are not the only threats. China has been steadily increasing the size of its military personnel and arsenal over the last decade or so. It claims to have an F-22 type fighter that will be ready in a year. Not to be outdone, Russia says its next generation stealth fighter will be ready in 2013 with production in 2015. (From the 2/5/10 Investor's Business Daily.) And the US? Halting production of the F-22 Raptor in 2011 or 2012. The maximum authorized production is 187. Its replacement, the F-35, is in trouble. There have been the usual cost overruns and delays. Also, per the same IBD article, it is considered to be "vastly inferior in both air-to-air combat and ground defense penetration." Yet the Raptor may be the only plane we have capable of evading the Russian's sophisticated surface to air missile system - the S-300. Russia has already contracted to sell these advanced missile batteries to: IRAN. Nice how this all comes together. Israel has brought to bear whatever pressure it could to convince the Russians not to proceed with the delivery of the S-300's.
It should be pretty clear to all that Iran does not demonstrate much reluctance to cause - or threaten to cause - lots of problems. The unelected Ayatollah Khameni again threatened Israel saying: "Surely the day will come when the nations of the region will witness the destruction of the Zionest regime..." (From Caroline Glick in the 1/30/10 Jerusalem Post online.) But Obama gave the Iranians until 12/31/09 to come clean on their nuclear program. Yet another deadline has passed with no real action by the US or the West. And while the US Senate passed another round of sanctions, just how effective can they be if not even the EU is willing to go along. It's a sure bet that Iran can already count on China and Russia and Venezuela among others.
On the other hand, 54 members of the House of Representatives should be hanging their heads in shame. ALL DEMOCRATS, they sent a letter to President Obama asking that he pressure Israel to open up Gaza. Hamas, a terrorist organization, not only controls Gaza, but essentially acts as a branch of the Iranian military. In any conflict between Israel and Iran, becoming increasingly likely due to the Western powers failure to act, Hamas would undoubtedly join in on any attack against Israel. Signing on to this letter were Representatives Barbara Lee, Loretta Sanchez, Pete Stark and Diane Watson. And signing at the top: Keith Ellison, the sole muslim member of Congress.
Hezbollah has also jumped on the war bandwagon, with their leader Nasrallah saying on 1/15 that the next war will "change the face of the region." (From Caroline Glick in the 2/5/10 Jerusalem Post online.) Syria also has been making threatening sounds. Yet our President is going to open diplomatic relations with this state sponsor of terrorism.
So our President continues on his mission to rid the world of nuclear weapons, apparently oblivious to all of the dangers around us. And the strength (weakness?) of our military is also not an issue apparently. So while his State of the Union address now indicated that jobs would be the number one priority, he also has not given up on healthcare, energy/cap and trade, and education. Yes, he talked about Afghanistan, and getting our troops out of Iraq by 8/31. And not being able to control himself, he again compared himself favorably to Bush, noting that "far more" Al-Qaeda leaders and fighters were captured or killed in 2009 than 2008.
Imagine, however, if Israel did not have their widely estimated 200 nukes. Just what would the Arab states and/or Iran have tried already? 300 million Arabs and 80 million Iranians - compared to 7 million Israelis. Obama seems to have no appreciation of American military might - and it's ability to act as a deterrence. It is strength that leads to peace. Weakness leads to war.
But he appears to still have no uniform foreign policy/defense vision. Or maybe it's just that it's the same as a year ago - appeasement, and a belief that the US should not be the world's superpower. But it would have been nice to hear something from our Commander in Chief about what appears to be an imminent terrorist attack.
In his State of the Union address he expressed his concern about the threat of nuclear weapons; and that the US and Russia were going to enter into a new arms control agreement. Not so good. He talked about attempting to secure all nuclear material around the world at an upcoming 44 nation meeting in April. Good. And he talked about possible further sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Meaningless. Meanwhile, the EU has no interest in further sanctions against Iran unless they come from the UN Security Council. But with China being opposed, and likely Russia also, sanctions are simply not possible. Both countries have veto power.
Meanwhile, this past week Iran launched a missile into space. It appears that Iran is on its way towards developing an intercontinental ballistic missile. And, given the lack of action by the Western world, Iran is also about to have nukes. How convenient that they will have nuclear warheads to put on top of their ICBMs. Of course, if their only target was Israel, they would not need the ICBMs. So I wonder who else they might consider for targetting? Maybe the "Great Satan?"
And Iran and North Korea are not the only threats. China has been steadily increasing the size of its military personnel and arsenal over the last decade or so. It claims to have an F-22 type fighter that will be ready in a year. Not to be outdone, Russia says its next generation stealth fighter will be ready in 2013 with production in 2015. (From the 2/5/10 Investor's Business Daily.) And the US? Halting production of the F-22 Raptor in 2011 or 2012. The maximum authorized production is 187. Its replacement, the F-35, is in trouble. There have been the usual cost overruns and delays. Also, per the same IBD article, it is considered to be "vastly inferior in both air-to-air combat and ground defense penetration." Yet the Raptor may be the only plane we have capable of evading the Russian's sophisticated surface to air missile system - the S-300. Russia has already contracted to sell these advanced missile batteries to: IRAN. Nice how this all comes together. Israel has brought to bear whatever pressure it could to convince the Russians not to proceed with the delivery of the S-300's.
It should be pretty clear to all that Iran does not demonstrate much reluctance to cause - or threaten to cause - lots of problems. The unelected Ayatollah Khameni again threatened Israel saying: "Surely the day will come when the nations of the region will witness the destruction of the Zionest regime..." (From Caroline Glick in the 1/30/10 Jerusalem Post online.) But Obama gave the Iranians until 12/31/09 to come clean on their nuclear program. Yet another deadline has passed with no real action by the US or the West. And while the US Senate passed another round of sanctions, just how effective can they be if not even the EU is willing to go along. It's a sure bet that Iran can already count on China and Russia and Venezuela among others.
On the other hand, 54 members of the House of Representatives should be hanging their heads in shame. ALL DEMOCRATS, they sent a letter to President Obama asking that he pressure Israel to open up Gaza. Hamas, a terrorist organization, not only controls Gaza, but essentially acts as a branch of the Iranian military. In any conflict between Israel and Iran, becoming increasingly likely due to the Western powers failure to act, Hamas would undoubtedly join in on any attack against Israel. Signing on to this letter were Representatives Barbara Lee, Loretta Sanchez, Pete Stark and Diane Watson. And signing at the top: Keith Ellison, the sole muslim member of Congress.
Hezbollah has also jumped on the war bandwagon, with their leader Nasrallah saying on 1/15 that the next war will "change the face of the region." (From Caroline Glick in the 2/5/10 Jerusalem Post online.) Syria also has been making threatening sounds. Yet our President is going to open diplomatic relations with this state sponsor of terrorism.
So our President continues on his mission to rid the world of nuclear weapons, apparently oblivious to all of the dangers around us. And the strength (weakness?) of our military is also not an issue apparently. So while his State of the Union address now indicated that jobs would be the number one priority, he also has not given up on healthcare, energy/cap and trade, and education. Yes, he talked about Afghanistan, and getting our troops out of Iraq by 8/31. And not being able to control himself, he again compared himself favorably to Bush, noting that "far more" Al-Qaeda leaders and fighters were captured or killed in 2009 than 2008.
Imagine, however, if Israel did not have their widely estimated 200 nukes. Just what would the Arab states and/or Iran have tried already? 300 million Arabs and 80 million Iranians - compared to 7 million Israelis. Obama seems to have no appreciation of American military might - and it's ability to act as a deterrence. It is strength that leads to peace. Weakness leads to war.
But he appears to still have no uniform foreign policy/defense vision. Or maybe it's just that it's the same as a year ago - appeasement, and a belief that the US should not be the world's superpower. But it would have been nice to hear something from our Commander in Chief about what appears to be an imminent terrorist attack.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Independent Corporate Campaign Spending Limits
The First Amendment to the Constitution provides, in pertinent part, the following: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
In a major boost for the First Amendment the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that government may not limit or ban "independent" spending by corporations for political campaigns and elections. (Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee) While there is still a limit on direct contributions to political campaigns, corporations may now use unlimited funds to run their own ads. And they will not be restricted by the McCain-Feingold time limits which prohibit use of corporate general funds 30 days before a Presidential primary and 60 days before a general election.
In decrying the decision, and playing to his usual class-warfare theme, President Obama said it is "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."
So let's think about what the President says. First, never a believer in free enterprise and capitalism, he demonizes big business. It does not matter that these businesses provide millions of jobs. Next, he talks about how these corporations "marshal their power" in Washington. Is he really suggesting that the average American had the same access to politicians that the wealthy and big corporations had BEFORE this decision? How about all those $10,000. a plate fund- raisers politicians regularly hold. "Everyday Americans" attending those Mr. President? Real access is gained with big contributions.
So then what is the problem with the Court's decision that has politicians (mostly dems) in an uproar? It is not that vast sums of money will be flowing into political campaigns. That happens now. It is that the politicians will no longer be able to CONTROL how that money is spent. When the money goes directly into their campaigns, the candidates and their campaign directors can decide how to spend it. Now, there is no limit on corporate spending as long as it is an "independent expenditure" not coordinated with any candidate. And therein lies the rub. Even favorable ads may not focus on the issue(s) the candidates want to focus on. And attack ads on their opponents may not have the tone or content that the candidates prefer.
So on the one hand, you have the interest of political candidates wanting complete control over their own campaigns and messages; and on the other you have the First Amendment. In explaining why the First Amendment must prevail, Justice Kennedy wrote: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
The New York Times was fuming over the decision. In their 1/22/10 lead editorial they wrote: "It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs (corporations) have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate." I think the NY Times is on to something. What right do any of the following artificial legal constructs have to political speech: The NY Times Corp., NBC/Universal, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Tribune Co., The Washington Post Co., and on and on. Or do only those corporations that own media outlets have a right to political speech?
The NY Times bemoans the fact that while labor unions will also be free to spend their money, the unions have far less to spend than corporations. The inference is less influence by the unions. So here's a question: how did the unions manage to get their special exemption on taxes on "cadillac" healthcare plans that corporations did not get under the Senate version of Obamacare?
In anticipation of what he thought might be an "unfavorable" decision, Democrat Senator Charles Schumer has been working on legislation to limit the impact of the court's decision. So I would ask Mr. Schumer if he refuses to accept campaign contributions from these evil corporations. Apparently not. According to one google site, the top five industries contributing to his campaign from 2005 to 2010 are as follows: Securities and Investments (over 1 million), Lawyers (over $830,000), Real Estate (over $587,000), Misc. Finance (over $280,000), and Insurance (over $197,000). And what committees does Senator Schumer sit on? Banking, Finance and Judiciary. Matches up pretty nicely with his top contributors. But their money was just fine - as long as it went into the Senator's campaign coffers to use as he saw fit.
In a major boost for the First Amendment the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that government may not limit or ban "independent" spending by corporations for political campaigns and elections. (Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee) While there is still a limit on direct contributions to political campaigns, corporations may now use unlimited funds to run their own ads. And they will not be restricted by the McCain-Feingold time limits which prohibit use of corporate general funds 30 days before a Presidential primary and 60 days before a general election.
In decrying the decision, and playing to his usual class-warfare theme, President Obama said it is "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."
So let's think about what the President says. First, never a believer in free enterprise and capitalism, he demonizes big business. It does not matter that these businesses provide millions of jobs. Next, he talks about how these corporations "marshal their power" in Washington. Is he really suggesting that the average American had the same access to politicians that the wealthy and big corporations had BEFORE this decision? How about all those $10,000. a plate fund- raisers politicians regularly hold. "Everyday Americans" attending those Mr. President? Real access is gained with big contributions.
So then what is the problem with the Court's decision that has politicians (mostly dems) in an uproar? It is not that vast sums of money will be flowing into political campaigns. That happens now. It is that the politicians will no longer be able to CONTROL how that money is spent. When the money goes directly into their campaigns, the candidates and their campaign directors can decide how to spend it. Now, there is no limit on corporate spending as long as it is an "independent expenditure" not coordinated with any candidate. And therein lies the rub. Even favorable ads may not focus on the issue(s) the candidates want to focus on. And attack ads on their opponents may not have the tone or content that the candidates prefer.
So on the one hand, you have the interest of political candidates wanting complete control over their own campaigns and messages; and on the other you have the First Amendment. In explaining why the First Amendment must prevail, Justice Kennedy wrote: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
The New York Times was fuming over the decision. In their 1/22/10 lead editorial they wrote: "It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs (corporations) have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate." I think the NY Times is on to something. What right do any of the following artificial legal constructs have to political speech: The NY Times Corp., NBC/Universal, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Tribune Co., The Washington Post Co., and on and on. Or do only those corporations that own media outlets have a right to political speech?
The NY Times bemoans the fact that while labor unions will also be free to spend their money, the unions have far less to spend than corporations. The inference is less influence by the unions. So here's a question: how did the unions manage to get their special exemption on taxes on "cadillac" healthcare plans that corporations did not get under the Senate version of Obamacare?
In anticipation of what he thought might be an "unfavorable" decision, Democrat Senator Charles Schumer has been working on legislation to limit the impact of the court's decision. So I would ask Mr. Schumer if he refuses to accept campaign contributions from these evil corporations. Apparently not. According to one google site, the top five industries contributing to his campaign from 2005 to 2010 are as follows: Securities and Investments (over 1 million), Lawyers (over $830,000), Real Estate (over $587,000), Misc. Finance (over $280,000), and Insurance (over $197,000). And what committees does Senator Schumer sit on? Banking, Finance and Judiciary. Matches up pretty nicely with his top contributors. But their money was just fine - as long as it went into the Senator's campaign coffers to use as he saw fit.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Republican takes Massachusetts!
Republican Scott Brown won the U.S. Senate seat that had been occupied by democrats for nearly six decades - in the most liberal of states. President Obama went to Massachusetts over the weekend to help support Martha Coakley, the democrat's candidate. And once again, as happened in November in New Jersey and Virginia, it was to no avail. But the spin began before the final results were in - with the O. team already blaming Coakley for running a weak campaign and just not being a good candidate. In other words, THEY STILL DON'T GET IT!
When Obama was in Massachusetts campaigning with Coakley, he resorted to what he always seems to rely upon: Blame Bush! Guess what? You have been in office for a year Mr. President. The people don't want a whiner for president. The people don't want unrestrained government spending. The people don't want higher taxes. The people don't want government control of their healthcare. The people expect you to put greater emphasis on job creation by stimulating the economy through tax cuts, not by spending us deeper into debt. And the people expect a greater emphasis on keeping us safe.
It took "W" eight years to lose the support of independents and even some republicans. It's taken Obama only one year to lose the support of the independents and republicans who voted for him, and even the support of some democrats.
So it's time to stop the corruption (with special favors to Nebraska and Louisiana and union health plans); and provide the transparency you so frequently promised during your campaign. Stop the back room deals. Stop the express train of Obamacare now.
You have now been told time and again that the people don't want Obamacare. You heard it at the townhall meetings, at the tea parties, in N.J., in Virginia, and now in Massachusetts. So will you concede the issue? Or does your arrogance and disdain for the American people know no bounds? And will you try to ram it through the Congress before Brown can be seated? Will the democrats look for reasons to delay the seating of Brown? What the democrats do now could very well determine their fate in the November elections. But as of now, it certainly appears that they just don't get it.
When Obama was in Massachusetts campaigning with Coakley, he resorted to what he always seems to rely upon: Blame Bush! Guess what? You have been in office for a year Mr. President. The people don't want a whiner for president. The people don't want unrestrained government spending. The people don't want higher taxes. The people don't want government control of their healthcare. The people expect you to put greater emphasis on job creation by stimulating the economy through tax cuts, not by spending us deeper into debt. And the people expect a greater emphasis on keeping us safe.
It took "W" eight years to lose the support of independents and even some republicans. It's taken Obama only one year to lose the support of the independents and republicans who voted for him, and even the support of some democrats.
So it's time to stop the corruption (with special favors to Nebraska and Louisiana and union health plans); and provide the transparency you so frequently promised during your campaign. Stop the back room deals. Stop the express train of Obamacare now.
You have now been told time and again that the people don't want Obamacare. You heard it at the townhall meetings, at the tea parties, in N.J., in Virginia, and now in Massachusetts. So will you concede the issue? Or does your arrogance and disdain for the American people know no bounds? And will you try to ram it through the Congress before Brown can be seated? Will the democrats look for reasons to delay the seating of Brown? What the democrats do now could very well determine their fate in the November elections. But as of now, it certainly appears that they just don't get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)