1. I was asked today how we could allow the building of a mosque at Ground Zero. Certainly, a good question. Apparently, the land is already owned by the Cordoba Co., a muslim group taking its name from when Islam controlled Spain. Yesterday, a local community board in NYC approved the building of the mosque. Will the City Council or Landmark Commission stop it? Who knows. Even liberal New Yorkers can be pushed only so far. I think the more interesting question is: why are the peace loving muslims seeking to build a symbol equated with both their religion and the destruction of the Twin Towers at that site, knowing it will obviously cause much pain and anguish to their fellow New Yorkers? Why not build elsewhere? Obviously, the message and symbolism is not lost on these people. What better way to show the entire muslim world that they can destroy us and then build their religion on top of the destruction? What better way to get more supporters for their goal of jihad and a worldwide Caliphate under sharia law? What better way to stick it to the infidel?
Our enemies understand the importance of symbolism and propaganda - and they are good at it.
2. Another Case in Point. On the third page of today's (5/26/10) LA Times is an article about North and South Korea. North Korea sank a South Korean vessel on March 26, killing 46 on board. South Korea (foolishly) wants a UN resolution condemning the incident and imposing sanctions. (Foolish because China will never allow it; and a UN resolution has pretty much the same value as a piece of toilet paper.) In any event , North Korea now says that the South is engaging in a "deliberate provocation aimed to spark off another milirtary conflict." Beautiful! The North attacks the South, the South wants only a UN resolution, but the South is the one engaging in "provocation." Always turn the tables. Try to create an equivalency that, to the average person, sounds reasonable. And no lie is too big because said loud enough and often enough people will either come to agree or think that both sides are equally at fault.
3. Third Case in Point. Also in today's LA Times is an opinion piece by the Prime Minister Of Lebanon, Saad Hariri. It sounds so reasonable. But for the Middle East tensions and wars between Israel and the palestinians, peace would break out everywhere. After all, it is the frustration and rage of the palestinians that understandably results in people doing desperate things. Uh, no. Arabs slaughtered Jews in the 1920's before there was an Israel. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem supported Hitler in WWII before there was an Israel. How to explain the awful treatment of Christians in muslim countries; Christians do not run Israel. How do YOU explain Mr. Prime Minister why so many Christians have left Lebanon, a once majority-Christian country. The Truth-uncensored (okay, a little plug) is that radical islam has a philosophy that seeks jihad and to take over the world. That is the motivating force - not poverty or frustration. That is why the 9/11 terrorists were mostly middle and upper middle class. They were not suffering. They had a philosophy they believed in. Same with Bin Laden, whose family is worth billions.
Hariri goes on to say that a solution should be imposed by the UN or the Quartet (US, UN, EU and Russia). This is all quite odd coming from a man who says his country will never make peace with Israel. But maybe not. Without a US veto, the rest of the participants all line up on the side of the Arabs. Think the US will still protect Israel? According to Aaron Klein in a 5/18/10 posting in the Jewish Press, one palestinian negotiator says absent an agreement, the US is willing to impose a solution "that the Israelis won't appreciate." I had argued that same point in my last blog, in light of Obama declaring a resolution to be of "vital national security interests."
Hariri makes one other interesting point (LIE). He notes Israel refused the offer of the Arab world (3oo million people he notes) and the entire muslime world (1.3 billion people) to just return to the pre-1967 borders, return "occupied" Syrian and Lebanese land, and voila - peace. Of course, he can't tell the whole truth. He neglects to say they also wanted a return of all palestinian "refugees" and their descendants, effectively eliminating Israel as a Jewish state (either immediately or shortly thereafter). Yes, they just yearn for those 1967 borders; the ones they could not live with then, and instead provoked yet another war. And Hariri can't say how all the palestinian groups have in their charters a call for the total destruction of Israel and annihilation of the Jewish people. But, I (Hariri) am so reasonable; I just want peace.
Propaganda. Know it. Recognize it. And explain it to your liberal friends.
4. Iran - still. Iran was given until 12/31/09 by our President to open its nuclear facilities. No dice. And why should they cooperate? The US has done NOTHING since. Oh sure, Secreatary of State Clinton is still trying to get that worthless piece of paper known as a UN Security Council Resolution on sanctions. Meanwhile, in a world which sees the US withdrawing, others are coming to the fore. So Brazil and Turkey have offered to take some of Iran's low-enriched uranium and convert it to commercial use only. Of course, Iran is keeping enough uranium on hand to still make bombs. As Thomas Friedman noted in today's NY Times: "Is there anything uglier than watching democrats sell out other democrats to a Holocaust-denying, vote-stealing Iranian thug just to tweak the U.S. and show that they, too, can play at the big power table?" Of course, he means democratic countries selling out the reformist democrats within Iran.
But they are not the only ones selling out democracy. According to the 5/17/10 National Review column "The Week," the Egyptian government is much fonder of Obama than they were of Bush. And why not? Obama apparently slashed the funding for pro-democracy groups in Egypt. Bush, on the other hand, spoke harshly to the Arab world when he suggested that they bring more freedoms and democracy to their peoples. At the time, the mainscream media criticized Bush for being naive in trying to force our values on other people. So good for Obama - he is supporting the dictatorial values of other countries: Egypt, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and on it goes. You morons in the mainscream media feel better now?
5. Elena Kagan for SCOTUS. Obama gave a commencement address at Hampton University in Virginia. In discussing how these students live in an age of 24/7 media, he noted: "...all kinds of content exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't rank all that high on the truth meter...information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation." This is pretty scary. He is right in some ways; people are distracted by the likes of Lindsay Lohan, for example. So do we censor those stories? Does the government decide for us what we need to read and hear? And what do we need to be emancipated from? And has he found someone willing to make those hard decisions for us?
Enter one Elena Kagan. According to Aaron Klein in a 5/12/10 posting in the Jewish Press, Kagan had signed onto a brief to which Obama would undoubtedly subscribe. (Admittedly, no date was given for this brief and it may have been years ago. But it eerily, and scarily, seems to track Obama's thinking.) The brief said: "whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the speech against its societal costs." I wonder if Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and many others would meet the Obama/Kagan test for First Amendment protection. So little respect for our Constitution from this Administration.
6. On a final note, the press was all over Bush after about 2 to 3 days post Katrina for not getting the federal government involved sooner. It took the press over THIRTY days to finally challenge Obama over his Administration's inaction with regards to the Gulf oil spill. But while the Obama team did nothing, they certainly got their stories aligned. One after the next said how horrible BP is and that they will have to pay civilly and possibly criminally. No surprise there, given Obama's intense dislike of Business. But my favorite line was one that was well-coordinated and which Hannity played several times: each and every member of the O. team said the government was there "from day one." They weren't doing anything, but so what - they were there.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The Liberal Mind, Part II; & Obama vs. Israel, Part III.
I. The Liberal Mind, Part II. 1. The liberals are all worked up over Arizona's new immigration law. President Obama called the law "irresponsible" and "misguided." But his Attorney General, Eric Holder, is considering challenging the law in court. Never mind that the health (lives even), welfare and property of American citizens are being threatened by Mexican drug cartels - a group that the Mexican government cannot even control. So instead of acting as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, the Attorney General instead wants to challenge a state law that seeks to enforce a federal law that he will not enforce! As long as we are clear on that.
The liberal media is all in a tizzy about Arizona's law also. Richard Cohen (in the 4/27/10 Investor's Business Daily) opined that "the people of Arizona are not totally crazy. They are merely misguided and scared." He is amazed that 70% of the people of Arizona support the law. He says there is a better way to deal with the immigration problem, but does not tell us what that might be. Instead, he recognizes the "scream of pain and anger from a constituency that has seen immigration laws turn meaningless and the impotence of the government flaunted on a daily basis." Mr. Cohen is obviously a rarity among his fellow liberals - he actually acknowledges that a problem exists! And, by inference at least, recognizes a difference between legal and illegal immigrants.
One Linda Greenhouse, a columnist for nytimes.com and a lecturer at Yale Law School, does not even see the issue of legal vs. illegal. She notes that the Arizona law makes it a trespass to be present on any public or private property while lacking authority to be in the U.S. She refers to it as the crime of "breathing while undocumented." That is one way to look at it. Another way is that the Feds will not enforce the law that says if you want to come here you must do so legally (follow certain procedures). Basically, the Feds (and I blame both parties) have ignored the laws and have followed a de facto open borders policy. So what if EVERY state made it illegal to BE in that state without authorization obtained through federal immigration laws. Then the states could do the job the Feds refuse to do. After all, if it's illegal to come here improperly, should it not be illegal to stay here improperly?
Even the LA Times got it partly right. After refering to the Arizona law as "wrongheaded" in their 4/16/10 editorial, they acknowledge the "state's sense of abandonment by Washington..." The bottom line is that we are in fact a nation of immigrants. But those of us on the right can still differentiate between right and wrong, and legal and illegal. Every other country - including Mexico - enforces their immigration laws. Why can't we? If the laws need to be amended, then so be it. Otherwise, our elected officials should vote to abolish all the immigration laws and acknowledge that anyone and everyone may come here without limitation.
2. "Any Faith Can Become Violent." So was the title of an opinion piece in the 4/19/10 USA Today by Philip Jenkins. Not surprisingly, Mr. Jenkins is a professor - at both Penn State and Baylor Universities. As you may have guessed from the title, he is telling us how any religion, not just Islam, can cause people to behave badly. He takes us back to the time of the Roman Empire to demonstrate just how badly Christians have behaved. Frankly, as a Jew, I only have to go back to the Holocaust to know how badly Christians can behave. But that's not the point either. The point is that radical islamists are the ones using their religion as an excuse to act badly TODAY. Not 70 years ago, not centuries ago, but today. We do live in today, do we not? We do not need a professor to tell us that "any religion can be used to justify savagery and extremism." We cannot change the past. We need to deal with the here and now - and not make excuses for islamic terror. Who is threatening to kill the producers of South Park? Christians? Jews? Hindus? No, it is muslims who take ANY comments they do not like as an insult to their religion or their honor - and any insult warrants the DEATH PENALTY! So let's stop making excuses for people who give such little value to human life.
3. "Yes, I Love Taxes." This was the title of a 4/15/10 opinion piece in the USA Today by a Rich Benjamin. He thinks it is "unpatriotic to demonize the funding of our government." He says he is "proud and glad" to pay his taxes. Nowhere is there any discussion of the tremendous fraud and waste in government spending. Nowhere is there any discussion of whether certain activities are best left to the private sector and not to government. Nowhere does he talk about the corruption of elected officials such as Harry Reid - who used my tax dollars to bribe Senators to vote for the healthcare bill. Does he think Senator Reid was being "patriotic" when he used tax dollars in that fashion? He does, however, make one particularly good point. He notes that "paying taxes makes real my commitment to a functioning America." Too bad he did not use that point to criticize our current income tax structure which allows 40% of Americans to NOT pay taxes. How do those Americans get their sense of "commitment?" Or do those people just get a sense of "entitlement?"
4. "Can We Live Too Long?" Such is the title of an opinion piece by Gregory Rodriguez in the 4/19/10 LA Times. He notes that by 2050 25% of Americans will be 65or older, and 20 million will be 85 or older and 1 million over 100. He discusses how Japan already has 25% of its population over age 65. He mentions the "loneliness and ennui" of the elderly population in Japan, and even increased rates of suicide in that same group. His discussion focuses on the societal problems related to an increasingly elderly population. And no doubt about it, there are significant problems. But do we look at it only through those social lenses? Are there moral and religious issues to be considered also? Or should we just get prepared for the "death panels?"
II. Obama vs Israel, Part III. We already know that our President is more concerned with Jewish homes in Jerusalem than nuclear weapons in Tehran. We already know that he has adopted the leftist propaganda that Israeli housing in the West Bank are all "illegal settlements" in "occupied" land. His latest announcement is that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem is now a "vital national security interest of the United States." The basis for this lie is the same as that told in "The Israel Lobby," the anti-Israel and anti-semitic diatribe by professors Walt and Mearsheimer: that Israel is no longer an asset/ally of the United States but rather is a liability. The lie that says all the problems and tensions in the arab and muslim worlds are due to the conflict between Israel and the palestinians. I will not repeat why that is simply untrue (refer to earlier blogs).
The significance is Obama's declaring the conflict to be of vital US interest. Such a declaration warrants the US imposing a resolution to the conflict; and we know which side Obama will favor in any imposed settlement. According to Aaron Klein, as reported in the 4/8/10 Jewish Press, "the US has been negotiating with Israel on behalf of the PA, assuming all palestinian positions and bargaining with Israel from the palestinian side." According to Klein, unnamed sources in the Israeli government said such behavior by the US is unprecedented.
A point that this writer has frequently made was recently stated by Moshe Ya'alon, Strategic Affairs Minister of Israel. He asked: "If we are talking about coexistence and peace, why the (palestinian) insistence that the territory they receive be ethnically cleansed of Jews?" Why indeed? Or is this a type of ethnic cleansing with which Obama will see no problem? It's just the Jews, and Obama's people are the...muslims?
And what about the real threat to vital national security interests of the US - Iranian nukes. Recently, a top secret memo by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to National Security Advisor General James Jones was leaked to the press. Apparently, Gates was complaining about US lack of preparedness for a military response to Iran in the event diplomacy and sanctions fail. As noted before, diplomacy has failed and sanctions have and will continue to fail. The obvious conclusion, therefore, is that Obama has accepted the fact of Iranian nukes. Clearly, he is not concerned about our security, and definitely not about Israel's security.
Meanwhile, Steve Walz reported in the 4/21/10 Jewish Press that the Israeli Air Force nearly attacked a Syrian arms convoy along the Lebanese border. Supposedly, the atack was called off to allow US and Israeli diplomats a chance to dissuade Syria from providing advanced missles to Hezbollah. Israel allegedly got a message to Assad that if Hezbollah launched the Scud missiles against Israel, Israel would bomb Syria "back to the Stone Age." At least some in the Israeli government believe that Netanyahu is rapidly running out of time to decide on a stirke on Iran. Dr. Aryeh Eldad, a member of the Knesset and National Union party, opined that "the only way for Israel to prevent a war with Lebanon and Syria is to show it has a real deterrence capability and that deterrence should be represented by a strike against Iranian nuclear sites." He goes on that "the lack of an aggressive American strategy has put Israel on a direct collision course with the Iranian regime." Instead, Obama thinks that if the US reduces (and eventually gives up) its nuclear arsenal, then others will do the same. But, as pointed out by Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, there is "no historical basis" for Obama's belief. The US nuclear arsenal has been reduced by 80% since the end of the Cold War, yet China has increased their nuclear arsenal, and India and Pakistan and North Korea have all joined the nuclear club since then. (From an opinion piece in the 4/13/10 USA Today.) But as I have frequently noted, Obama is a liberal, and liberals do not need to comport their beliefs with reality.
The liberal media is all in a tizzy about Arizona's law also. Richard Cohen (in the 4/27/10 Investor's Business Daily) opined that "the people of Arizona are not totally crazy. They are merely misguided and scared." He is amazed that 70% of the people of Arizona support the law. He says there is a better way to deal with the immigration problem, but does not tell us what that might be. Instead, he recognizes the "scream of pain and anger from a constituency that has seen immigration laws turn meaningless and the impotence of the government flaunted on a daily basis." Mr. Cohen is obviously a rarity among his fellow liberals - he actually acknowledges that a problem exists! And, by inference at least, recognizes a difference between legal and illegal immigrants.
One Linda Greenhouse, a columnist for nytimes.com and a lecturer at Yale Law School, does not even see the issue of legal vs. illegal. She notes that the Arizona law makes it a trespass to be present on any public or private property while lacking authority to be in the U.S. She refers to it as the crime of "breathing while undocumented." That is one way to look at it. Another way is that the Feds will not enforce the law that says if you want to come here you must do so legally (follow certain procedures). Basically, the Feds (and I blame both parties) have ignored the laws and have followed a de facto open borders policy. So what if EVERY state made it illegal to BE in that state without authorization obtained through federal immigration laws. Then the states could do the job the Feds refuse to do. After all, if it's illegal to come here improperly, should it not be illegal to stay here improperly?
Even the LA Times got it partly right. After refering to the Arizona law as "wrongheaded" in their 4/16/10 editorial, they acknowledge the "state's sense of abandonment by Washington..." The bottom line is that we are in fact a nation of immigrants. But those of us on the right can still differentiate between right and wrong, and legal and illegal. Every other country - including Mexico - enforces their immigration laws. Why can't we? If the laws need to be amended, then so be it. Otherwise, our elected officials should vote to abolish all the immigration laws and acknowledge that anyone and everyone may come here without limitation.
2. "Any Faith Can Become Violent." So was the title of an opinion piece in the 4/19/10 USA Today by Philip Jenkins. Not surprisingly, Mr. Jenkins is a professor - at both Penn State and Baylor Universities. As you may have guessed from the title, he is telling us how any religion, not just Islam, can cause people to behave badly. He takes us back to the time of the Roman Empire to demonstrate just how badly Christians have behaved. Frankly, as a Jew, I only have to go back to the Holocaust to know how badly Christians can behave. But that's not the point either. The point is that radical islamists are the ones using their religion as an excuse to act badly TODAY. Not 70 years ago, not centuries ago, but today. We do live in today, do we not? We do not need a professor to tell us that "any religion can be used to justify savagery and extremism." We cannot change the past. We need to deal with the here and now - and not make excuses for islamic terror. Who is threatening to kill the producers of South Park? Christians? Jews? Hindus? No, it is muslims who take ANY comments they do not like as an insult to their religion or their honor - and any insult warrants the DEATH PENALTY! So let's stop making excuses for people who give such little value to human life.
3. "Yes, I Love Taxes." This was the title of a 4/15/10 opinion piece in the USA Today by a Rich Benjamin. He thinks it is "unpatriotic to demonize the funding of our government." He says he is "proud and glad" to pay his taxes. Nowhere is there any discussion of the tremendous fraud and waste in government spending. Nowhere is there any discussion of whether certain activities are best left to the private sector and not to government. Nowhere does he talk about the corruption of elected officials such as Harry Reid - who used my tax dollars to bribe Senators to vote for the healthcare bill. Does he think Senator Reid was being "patriotic" when he used tax dollars in that fashion? He does, however, make one particularly good point. He notes that "paying taxes makes real my commitment to a functioning America." Too bad he did not use that point to criticize our current income tax structure which allows 40% of Americans to NOT pay taxes. How do those Americans get their sense of "commitment?" Or do those people just get a sense of "entitlement?"
4. "Can We Live Too Long?" Such is the title of an opinion piece by Gregory Rodriguez in the 4/19/10 LA Times. He notes that by 2050 25% of Americans will be 65or older, and 20 million will be 85 or older and 1 million over 100. He discusses how Japan already has 25% of its population over age 65. He mentions the "loneliness and ennui" of the elderly population in Japan, and even increased rates of suicide in that same group. His discussion focuses on the societal problems related to an increasingly elderly population. And no doubt about it, there are significant problems. But do we look at it only through those social lenses? Are there moral and religious issues to be considered also? Or should we just get prepared for the "death panels?"
II. Obama vs Israel, Part III. We already know that our President is more concerned with Jewish homes in Jerusalem than nuclear weapons in Tehran. We already know that he has adopted the leftist propaganda that Israeli housing in the West Bank are all "illegal settlements" in "occupied" land. His latest announcement is that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem is now a "vital national security interest of the United States." The basis for this lie is the same as that told in "The Israel Lobby," the anti-Israel and anti-semitic diatribe by professors Walt and Mearsheimer: that Israel is no longer an asset/ally of the United States but rather is a liability. The lie that says all the problems and tensions in the arab and muslim worlds are due to the conflict between Israel and the palestinians. I will not repeat why that is simply untrue (refer to earlier blogs).
The significance is Obama's declaring the conflict to be of vital US interest. Such a declaration warrants the US imposing a resolution to the conflict; and we know which side Obama will favor in any imposed settlement. According to Aaron Klein, as reported in the 4/8/10 Jewish Press, "the US has been negotiating with Israel on behalf of the PA, assuming all palestinian positions and bargaining with Israel from the palestinian side." According to Klein, unnamed sources in the Israeli government said such behavior by the US is unprecedented.
A point that this writer has frequently made was recently stated by Moshe Ya'alon, Strategic Affairs Minister of Israel. He asked: "If we are talking about coexistence and peace, why the (palestinian) insistence that the territory they receive be ethnically cleansed of Jews?" Why indeed? Or is this a type of ethnic cleansing with which Obama will see no problem? It's just the Jews, and Obama's people are the...muslims?
And what about the real threat to vital national security interests of the US - Iranian nukes. Recently, a top secret memo by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to National Security Advisor General James Jones was leaked to the press. Apparently, Gates was complaining about US lack of preparedness for a military response to Iran in the event diplomacy and sanctions fail. As noted before, diplomacy has failed and sanctions have and will continue to fail. The obvious conclusion, therefore, is that Obama has accepted the fact of Iranian nukes. Clearly, he is not concerned about our security, and definitely not about Israel's security.
Meanwhile, Steve Walz reported in the 4/21/10 Jewish Press that the Israeli Air Force nearly attacked a Syrian arms convoy along the Lebanese border. Supposedly, the atack was called off to allow US and Israeli diplomats a chance to dissuade Syria from providing advanced missles to Hezbollah. Israel allegedly got a message to Assad that if Hezbollah launched the Scud missiles against Israel, Israel would bomb Syria "back to the Stone Age." At least some in the Israeli government believe that Netanyahu is rapidly running out of time to decide on a stirke on Iran. Dr. Aryeh Eldad, a member of the Knesset and National Union party, opined that "the only way for Israel to prevent a war with Lebanon and Syria is to show it has a real deterrence capability and that deterrence should be represented by a strike against Iranian nuclear sites." He goes on that "the lack of an aggressive American strategy has put Israel on a direct collision course with the Iranian regime." Instead, Obama thinks that if the US reduces (and eventually gives up) its nuclear arsenal, then others will do the same. But, as pointed out by Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, there is "no historical basis" for Obama's belief. The US nuclear arsenal has been reduced by 80% since the end of the Cold War, yet China has increased their nuclear arsenal, and India and Pakistan and North Korea have all joined the nuclear club since then. (From an opinion piece in the 4/13/10 USA Today.) But as I have frequently noted, Obama is a liberal, and liberals do not need to comport their beliefs with reality.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
The Left's Intolerance of, and Assault on Free (Conservative) Speech; and Obama vs. Israel Redux
1. So who are the 'fat cats' supporting? According to the 4/1/10 NBC Nightly News, Obama will be in LA on April 19 for a reception and dinner; the purpose of which is to raise money for Barbara Boxer's reelection campaign, and for the DNC in general. The cost for this event will be $35,000. per couple! But as noted in my 1/23/10 blog, Obama and the dems plan on doing all they can to reverse the effects of the Supreme Court decision allowing independent corporate campaign advertising. Because, as Obama said: the "...powerful interests...marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." I pointed out then that it was not "everyday Americans" attending $10,000. a plate fund raisers. I was wrong. This fund raiser is $35,000. for two.
However, the dems are dead serious about reversing the effects of the Supreme Court decision. According to the Investor's Business Daily 3/30/10 edition, Sen. Schumer is working with a Rep. Van Hollen to prepare a bill that they want to introduce in mid-April. According to IBD, they want to ban "expenditures by foreign-owned corporations, federal contractors, TARP recipients, (and require) greater disclosure of corporate political spending to shareholders and federal agencies and (include) requirements the CEO's appear in political ads and say they sanctioned the message." So, if you get any type of federal assistance - you must give up your right to free speech. And, if you choose to exercise your right to speak anyway, you will have greater reporting requirements to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! Anybody NOT think that this is a government gone mad with power? The FEDS get to monitor HOW MUCH corporations spend on speech!
Part of Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court decision was his concern that elections would be "bankrolled by America's powerful interests." Hello! Who's paying $35,000. a couple to see you Mr. President on April 19? Powerful interests, that just happen to be on YOUR side of the political fence. So, of course, that's OK. Following Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court at his State of the Union speech, the Chief Justice later opined that perhaps the Justices ought not attend future State of the Union speeches. He found Obama's comments, with the Justices sitting right in front, to be "troubling." But the White House did not let it go. As reported in the 3/30/10 IBD, the White House replied that what was "troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests."
We have seen that kind of 'in your face' attitude by Obama on numerous occassions now. Perhaps it is the Chicago approach. But if you cross him, watch out. Whether you are a tea-partier, clinging to your guns and religion, Fox News, the prime minister of one of our closest allies, or the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, it's all the same. If you are not with Obama - watch out! My guess is that Obama's 'enemies list' would put Nixon to shame. But it is not just corporate speech that those on the left want to put an end to; it is all conservative speech.
2. The assault on conservative speakers at universities continues. Anyone who believes that the university is the place for the free flow of ideas has not been paying attention. For that matter, conservative speech and speakers are under attack from virtually all fronts, including the mainstream media. We have previously chronicled the assault on Michael Oren's attempt to speak at UC Irvine (2/13/10 blog). Recall that the protesters said, among other things, that "propaganda is not an expression of speech." And Ann Coulter was told by the provost of Ottawa University that she should learn "what is acceptable in Canada" before coming to speak. (As reported in my 3/27/10 blog.) Recently, Karl Rove was shouted down by a group from Code Pink when attempting to give a speech.
And now, one of my readers has brought to my attention some disturbing events at USC. David Horowitz was invited to speak by the College Republicans. Specifically, he wanted to address a posting on an official USC website containing a quote attributed to Mohammed: that for the Day of Judgment to come muslims must "fight the Jews and kill them." The posting according to the article, was put up by the USC Muslim Student Union (MSU). The provost called it "disgusting" and ordered its removal last spring. But it was subsequently put on another USC site.
Before Mr. Horowitz even came and gave his speech, he claims that both he and the College Republicans were subject to vicious slanders, and false claims about what he said or wrote in the past. However, the Muslim Student Union said their members felt "threatened, unsafe, and betrayed." Or so said Michael Jackson (no, not that one, he's dead), V.P. for Student Affairs at USC. He repeated the false allegations made by the MSU against Mr. Horowitz and referred to the MSU as an "outstanding student organization" that has "never engaged in any campus activities that presented concerns for the university." Really? Calling for muslims to kill the Jews does not present a "concern" for the university!? What a moron!
So conservative speech is seriously under attack. However, the most vile and hateful comments are still permissable at universities and in the mainstream media, and even in the democratic party - as long as it comes from the left, or those they side with. So Ahmadinejad was welcomed to speak at Columbia University. One Mike Malloy, who apparently has a nationally syndicated radio talk show, has called for Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove to kill themselves! He apparently suggested that Beck blow his own brains out! (As reported by Dennis Prager this past week, with actual excerpts from Malloy's show.) Who on the left condemned him? Where was the mea culpa that all conservatives must engage in for any slip of the tongue? And what nationally syndicated conservative talk show host comes even close to the vile spewed by this idiot Malloy?
Think this kind of rhetoric is limited to a few nut jobs? How about this: "You're damn right; Dick Cheney's heart's a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him," said Ed Schultz, MSNBC and radio host. And how about this one: The contest between Democrats and Republicans is a "struggle of good and evil. And we're the good." The same moron who said "the difference between us and the Republicans is we don't want kids to go to bed hungry at night." One Howard Dean, former HEAD of the DNC. And last but not least: "The Bush administration and the Nazi and communist regimes all engaged in the politics of fear...Indeed, the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and communist propagand machines," according to George Soros, billionaire contributor to the Democratic Party! (Quotes in this paragraph - except the one about kids going to bed hungry - from an article by Larry Elder in the
4/5/10 IBD.)
Clearly, the left and the dems today do not believe in a quote attributed to Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is not surprising since so many on the left are pure ideologues. That is why Obama does NOT respect those who oppose him. As we have seen with the passage of Obamacare, they have no respect for the truth either, as they believe that the ends justify the means. And we know, as a student of Saul Alinsky, what he learned. Alinsky taught a "strategy of working within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it." (Quote attributed to David Horowitz by Aaron Klein and posted 3/29/10 on the Jewish Press website.) So one must LIE to get the power needed to destroy the system - otherwise, the people would never elect such a person. The kind of strong language that other presidents have reserved for America's enemies, Obama and his cronies use against Americans who disagree with them.
3. Obama versus Israel, redux. Caroline Glick, columnist for the Jerusalem Post, is the clearest thinker and writer on the Middle East of any columnist in any of the various papers and magazines this writer reads. In a 4/2/10 posting, she notes that Obama's open hostility towards, and lack of support for, Israel, gives Israeli leaders a certain freedom to speak the truth. The truth is that Abbas and Fayyad, the two Palestinian Authority leaders, both refuse to accept Israel's right to exist - just like Hamas. They are NOT moderates. They support terrorism just like Hamas does, when it suits their interests.
The two state solution will bring peace. Another LIE! Arafat rejected it when offered by Barak and Clinton. Abbas rejected it when offered by Olmert and Bush. Jewish building in Jerusalem must stop for there to be peace. Another LIE! How come the Arabs don't have to stop building in Jerusalem? The Arabs NEVER insisted on cessation of Jewish building in Jerusalem - until Obama made it an issue. Turkey is an ally of the West. No they are NOT! In fact, Turkey announced this past week that it SUPPORTS Iran's nuclear ambitions. We have opened relations with the dictator of Syria because Assad can be weaned away from Iranian influence. NO HE CAN'T! He gets significant amounts of armaments from Iran and Russia. Are we going to offer him the same? Are we going to tell Israel that if they give up the Golan Heights they will get peace with Syria? Just like giving up Gaza led to "peace" with Hamas, and giving up southern Lebanon led to "peace" with Hezbollah. Lebanon says they will never make peace with Israel.
Attitudes in the arab world toward Israel and the Jews have not changed since this quote from over a generation ago: "When the State of Israel was established and was recognized by many, in both East and West, one of the reasons for this recognition was the desire of the people in the East and West to get rid of as many as possible of the representatives of that human error known as the Jews. Behind this motive was another, secret purpose: to concentrate them in one place, so that it would be easier to strike at the right moment." (Quote from Louis Rene Beres in a 3/29/10 posting of The Jewish Press.) No different really than Ahmadinejad's desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Or the palestianians teaching their kids in their schoolbooks and on their maps that ALL the land is called "Palestine." Israel is nowhere to be seen.
However, the dems are dead serious about reversing the effects of the Supreme Court decision. According to the Investor's Business Daily 3/30/10 edition, Sen. Schumer is working with a Rep. Van Hollen to prepare a bill that they want to introduce in mid-April. According to IBD, they want to ban "expenditures by foreign-owned corporations, federal contractors, TARP recipients, (and require) greater disclosure of corporate political spending to shareholders and federal agencies and (include) requirements the CEO's appear in political ads and say they sanctioned the message." So, if you get any type of federal assistance - you must give up your right to free speech. And, if you choose to exercise your right to speak anyway, you will have greater reporting requirements to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! Anybody NOT think that this is a government gone mad with power? The FEDS get to monitor HOW MUCH corporations spend on speech!
Part of Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court decision was his concern that elections would be "bankrolled by America's powerful interests." Hello! Who's paying $35,000. a couple to see you Mr. President on April 19? Powerful interests, that just happen to be on YOUR side of the political fence. So, of course, that's OK. Following Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court at his State of the Union speech, the Chief Justice later opined that perhaps the Justices ought not attend future State of the Union speeches. He found Obama's comments, with the Justices sitting right in front, to be "troubling." But the White House did not let it go. As reported in the 3/30/10 IBD, the White House replied that what was "troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests."
We have seen that kind of 'in your face' attitude by Obama on numerous occassions now. Perhaps it is the Chicago approach. But if you cross him, watch out. Whether you are a tea-partier, clinging to your guns and religion, Fox News, the prime minister of one of our closest allies, or the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, it's all the same. If you are not with Obama - watch out! My guess is that Obama's 'enemies list' would put Nixon to shame. But it is not just corporate speech that those on the left want to put an end to; it is all conservative speech.
2. The assault on conservative speakers at universities continues. Anyone who believes that the university is the place for the free flow of ideas has not been paying attention. For that matter, conservative speech and speakers are under attack from virtually all fronts, including the mainstream media. We have previously chronicled the assault on Michael Oren's attempt to speak at UC Irvine (2/13/10 blog). Recall that the protesters said, among other things, that "propaganda is not an expression of speech." And Ann Coulter was told by the provost of Ottawa University that she should learn "what is acceptable in Canada" before coming to speak. (As reported in my 3/27/10 blog.) Recently, Karl Rove was shouted down by a group from Code Pink when attempting to give a speech.
And now, one of my readers has brought to my attention some disturbing events at USC. David Horowitz was invited to speak by the College Republicans. Specifically, he wanted to address a posting on an official USC website containing a quote attributed to Mohammed: that for the Day of Judgment to come muslims must "fight the Jews and kill them." The posting according to the article, was put up by the USC Muslim Student Union (MSU). The provost called it "disgusting" and ordered its removal last spring. But it was subsequently put on another USC site.
Before Mr. Horowitz even came and gave his speech, he claims that both he and the College Republicans were subject to vicious slanders, and false claims about what he said or wrote in the past. However, the Muslim Student Union said their members felt "threatened, unsafe, and betrayed." Or so said Michael Jackson (no, not that one, he's dead), V.P. for Student Affairs at USC. He repeated the false allegations made by the MSU against Mr. Horowitz and referred to the MSU as an "outstanding student organization" that has "never engaged in any campus activities that presented concerns for the university." Really? Calling for muslims to kill the Jews does not present a "concern" for the university!? What a moron!
So conservative speech is seriously under attack. However, the most vile and hateful comments are still permissable at universities and in the mainstream media, and even in the democratic party - as long as it comes from the left, or those they side with. So Ahmadinejad was welcomed to speak at Columbia University. One Mike Malloy, who apparently has a nationally syndicated radio talk show, has called for Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove to kill themselves! He apparently suggested that Beck blow his own brains out! (As reported by Dennis Prager this past week, with actual excerpts from Malloy's show.) Who on the left condemned him? Where was the mea culpa that all conservatives must engage in for any slip of the tongue? And what nationally syndicated conservative talk show host comes even close to the vile spewed by this idiot Malloy?
Think this kind of rhetoric is limited to a few nut jobs? How about this: "You're damn right; Dick Cheney's heart's a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him," said Ed Schultz, MSNBC and radio host. And how about this one: The contest between Democrats and Republicans is a "struggle of good and evil. And we're the good." The same moron who said "the difference between us and the Republicans is we don't want kids to go to bed hungry at night." One Howard Dean, former HEAD of the DNC. And last but not least: "The Bush administration and the Nazi and communist regimes all engaged in the politics of fear...Indeed, the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and communist propagand machines," according to George Soros, billionaire contributor to the Democratic Party! (Quotes in this paragraph - except the one about kids going to bed hungry - from an article by Larry Elder in the
4/5/10 IBD.)
Clearly, the left and the dems today do not believe in a quote attributed to Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is not surprising since so many on the left are pure ideologues. That is why Obama does NOT respect those who oppose him. As we have seen with the passage of Obamacare, they have no respect for the truth either, as they believe that the ends justify the means. And we know, as a student of Saul Alinsky, what he learned. Alinsky taught a "strategy of working within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it." (Quote attributed to David Horowitz by Aaron Klein and posted 3/29/10 on the Jewish Press website.) So one must LIE to get the power needed to destroy the system - otherwise, the people would never elect such a person. The kind of strong language that other presidents have reserved for America's enemies, Obama and his cronies use against Americans who disagree with them.
3. Obama versus Israel, redux. Caroline Glick, columnist for the Jerusalem Post, is the clearest thinker and writer on the Middle East of any columnist in any of the various papers and magazines this writer reads. In a 4/2/10 posting, she notes that Obama's open hostility towards, and lack of support for, Israel, gives Israeli leaders a certain freedom to speak the truth. The truth is that Abbas and Fayyad, the two Palestinian Authority leaders, both refuse to accept Israel's right to exist - just like Hamas. They are NOT moderates. They support terrorism just like Hamas does, when it suits their interests.
The two state solution will bring peace. Another LIE! Arafat rejected it when offered by Barak and Clinton. Abbas rejected it when offered by Olmert and Bush. Jewish building in Jerusalem must stop for there to be peace. Another LIE! How come the Arabs don't have to stop building in Jerusalem? The Arabs NEVER insisted on cessation of Jewish building in Jerusalem - until Obama made it an issue. Turkey is an ally of the West. No they are NOT! In fact, Turkey announced this past week that it SUPPORTS Iran's nuclear ambitions. We have opened relations with the dictator of Syria because Assad can be weaned away from Iranian influence. NO HE CAN'T! He gets significant amounts of armaments from Iran and Russia. Are we going to offer him the same? Are we going to tell Israel that if they give up the Golan Heights they will get peace with Syria? Just like giving up Gaza led to "peace" with Hamas, and giving up southern Lebanon led to "peace" with Hezbollah. Lebanon says they will never make peace with Israel.
Attitudes in the arab world toward Israel and the Jews have not changed since this quote from over a generation ago: "When the State of Israel was established and was recognized by many, in both East and West, one of the reasons for this recognition was the desire of the people in the East and West to get rid of as many as possible of the representatives of that human error known as the Jews. Behind this motive was another, secret purpose: to concentrate them in one place, so that it would be easier to strike at the right moment." (Quote from Louis Rene Beres in a 3/29/10 posting of The Jewish Press.) No different really than Ahmadinejad's desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Or the palestianians teaching their kids in their schoolbooks and on their maps that ALL the land is called "Palestine." Israel is nowhere to be seen.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Liberals Speaking and Acting Poorly
1. Threats. Various members of Congress have had their offices vandalized and even had death threats since the passage of Obamacare. Oddly, the threats were not limited to democrats. There has been quite an expression of outrage by the Democrat leadership. They clearly believe that the GOP and the tea partiers are behind it all; or, at least, encouraging those who commit the violence. Too bad they were not heard just as loudly when all the comments were being made about Bush. Or when there was both a book and a movie about the assassination of George Bush - while he was President! As noted in the 3/26/10 Investor's Business Daily : "Politically motivated violence is to be condemned as long as America can peacefully be kept free." Agreed. But I do recall reading about a group of people in 1776 who took up arms when taxation became overly burdensome, and King George ignored the will of the people.
Bob Herbert, leftist lying columnist for the NY Slimes bemoaned the "Absence of Class" by the GOP and tea partiers in his 3/23/10 hit piece. Said Herbert: "Back in the 1960's, John Lewis risked his life and endured savage beatings to secure fundamental rights for black Americans while right wing Republicans like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were lining up with segregationist democrats to oppose landmark civil rights legislation." Funny how he makes it sound like all the republicans and a few "segregationist" democrats were aligned against civil rights legislation. Funny how he mentions NO democrats by name who opposed the legislation. Funny how he neglects to say that the party of Lincoln voted in the affirmative for the bill in numbers GREATER than the democrats did! That's right; 80% of the House Republicans and 82% of the Senate Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The dems? Only 61% for in the House, and only 69% for in the Senate. You see Bob, Republicans believe that all Americans should have equal OPPORTUNITY to succeed in this great country. Obama and the democrats want to take away our liberties in order to dictate equal RESULTS.
2. More on Obamacare. As we on the right know, Obamacare is NOT about healthcare, but is simply part and parcel of Obama's overall legislative agenda - SPREADING THE WEALTH AROUND! It slipped out during the campaign; and the gullible bought his subsequent back pedalling. As Larry Elder wrote in the 3/26/10 Investor's Business Daily: Never having run a business, and having no appreciation for those who have (or the long hours we put in), Obama "believes unequal outcomes are unjust and government exists to right this wrong by 'spreading the wealth.'" It is, of course, a decidedly European and socialist mentality. Here in the USA, we believe (some of us still do) that it is better to let people freely pursue their interests, and in doing so wealth is created and jobs are created and the entire society benefits.
And in the event any of you actually believe that Obamacare is about improving our healthcare, here are some interesting statistics for you. Cancer survival rates in the US for all types of cancer are 66% for men and 63% for women. In England: 45% and 53% respectively. In the US, 90% of breast cancer patients receive treatment within 3 weeks; only 70% in Canada. In the US, 23% of the people report waiting more than 4 weeks to see a specialist. That number is 57% in Canada and 60% in Britain. A specialist that could save your life! In the US, 30% of middle-aged adults get colonoscopies; only 5% do in Canada. And 11.7% of low income seniors in the US report having excellent health; only 5.8% do in Canada. And mammograms for middle-aged women? 90% in the US get tested at their check-ups; only 72% in Canada. (Statistics from the 3/24/10 Investor's Business Daily.)
But as Obama has told us, we have too much of that "unnecessary" testing and treatment in this country - you know, the kind that saves lives! As mentioned in one of my earlier columns, a physician in Canada, while acknowledging the long waits, was proud that at least everyone was treated equally. The same will apply when we have a lesser quality of care - at least it will be the same for everyone (except for our elected officials, anyway). And that, my friends, is the socialist mentality - bring everyone DOWN to the lowest common denominator; rather than LIFT everyone up as the economy grows and society improves for all.
3. Welcome to the White House - you son of a bitch! Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was invited to the White House. Kind of. There was no red carpet. There were no photo-ops showing Obama smiling and shaking hands with Netanyahu. Instead, in the middle of their meeting, Obama announces he is going upstairs to the residence to have dinner with his family, but will return if Netanyahu has anything new for him! So here's a question: how many excuses will the liberal Jews make for Obama's incredibly disrespectful treatment of the head of state of one of our closest allies? Please, I would like to hear from you. But the Saudi King, who heads one of the most oppressive regimes in the Middle East and the world? He gets a bow! Hugo Chavez, America hating dictator of Venezuela? He gets an embrace! Netanyahu? Not so much as a handshake!
As Netanyahu said: Israel is "an outpost of freedom that prevents them (muslim terrorists) from overrunning the Middle East. When Israel stands against its enemies, it stands against America's enemies." Bravo! But does any reader (or anyone other than Obama) truly believe that if Israel stopped all building, and gave up Jerusalem, and gave up the West Bank, that the palestinians and Iran and Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah would suddenly love Israel and the US? And they would lay down their arms and stop attacking what might be left of Israel? And they would stop their terror attacks on the US and the West? Really? Does anybody REALLY believe that nonsense?
4. Ann Coulter. Ms. Coulter was to speak at the University of Ottawa last Tuesday night. Not surprisingly, leftist demonstrators prevented her from speaking. (Not unlike the way muslim demonstrators attempted to prevent Israeli ambasssador to the US Michael Oren from speaking at UC Irvine.) Bob Herbert have anything to say about the 'Absence of Class' of these people, who do not believe in free speech even in a university setting? But the provost of the University, one Francois Houle, had previously notified (warned?) Ms. Coulter in an email that she should: "educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and do so before your planned visit here." So here we have the provost of the university also not believing in free speech! He may as well as joined the demonstrators in preventing Coulter from speaking. Why not just write out a script for her as to what she is allowed to say? Kind of sounds like Obama's desire to bring back the "fairness doctrine" in order to make sure the people hear only what he thinks they should hear.
5. Dennis Prager. Mr. Prager is now a regular columnist in the LA Jewish Journal. In his 3/26/10 article he discusses "Jews and Big Government." He notes that those on the left, including many Jews, believe that the state is the "greatest single force for good in society." He notes the irony: Jews have done poorly in countries where the state is larger, and have done infinitely better in the USA where the focus is on individual liberty. Also, countries with leftist leaders are far less supportive of Israel. European countries have already ceded some of their sovereignty to the larger European Union. And Obama seems willing to cede some of our sovereignty to institutions such as the UN. As Prager says: "That Jews should yearn for a world in which the United Nations has more power than the United States is so foolish as to border on the suicidal." He goes on: "A strong, indeed a dominant, America has been a blessing for the world, for liberty and democracy - and for the Jewish people." It is not for no reason that more Jews live in the USA than any place besides Israel. And the UN? As Prager notes: "...composed largely of countries ruled by thugs." When will my fellow Jews wake up?
Bob Herbert, leftist lying columnist for the NY Slimes bemoaned the "Absence of Class" by the GOP and tea partiers in his 3/23/10 hit piece. Said Herbert: "Back in the 1960's, John Lewis risked his life and endured savage beatings to secure fundamental rights for black Americans while right wing Republicans like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were lining up with segregationist democrats to oppose landmark civil rights legislation." Funny how he makes it sound like all the republicans and a few "segregationist" democrats were aligned against civil rights legislation. Funny how he mentions NO democrats by name who opposed the legislation. Funny how he neglects to say that the party of Lincoln voted in the affirmative for the bill in numbers GREATER than the democrats did! That's right; 80% of the House Republicans and 82% of the Senate Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The dems? Only 61% for in the House, and only 69% for in the Senate. You see Bob, Republicans believe that all Americans should have equal OPPORTUNITY to succeed in this great country. Obama and the democrats want to take away our liberties in order to dictate equal RESULTS.
2. More on Obamacare. As we on the right know, Obamacare is NOT about healthcare, but is simply part and parcel of Obama's overall legislative agenda - SPREADING THE WEALTH AROUND! It slipped out during the campaign; and the gullible bought his subsequent back pedalling. As Larry Elder wrote in the 3/26/10 Investor's Business Daily: Never having run a business, and having no appreciation for those who have (or the long hours we put in), Obama "believes unequal outcomes are unjust and government exists to right this wrong by 'spreading the wealth.'" It is, of course, a decidedly European and socialist mentality. Here in the USA, we believe (some of us still do) that it is better to let people freely pursue their interests, and in doing so wealth is created and jobs are created and the entire society benefits.
And in the event any of you actually believe that Obamacare is about improving our healthcare, here are some interesting statistics for you. Cancer survival rates in the US for all types of cancer are 66% for men and 63% for women. In England: 45% and 53% respectively. In the US, 90% of breast cancer patients receive treatment within 3 weeks; only 70% in Canada. In the US, 23% of the people report waiting more than 4 weeks to see a specialist. That number is 57% in Canada and 60% in Britain. A specialist that could save your life! In the US, 30% of middle-aged adults get colonoscopies; only 5% do in Canada. And 11.7% of low income seniors in the US report having excellent health; only 5.8% do in Canada. And mammograms for middle-aged women? 90% in the US get tested at their check-ups; only 72% in Canada. (Statistics from the 3/24/10 Investor's Business Daily.)
But as Obama has told us, we have too much of that "unnecessary" testing and treatment in this country - you know, the kind that saves lives! As mentioned in one of my earlier columns, a physician in Canada, while acknowledging the long waits, was proud that at least everyone was treated equally. The same will apply when we have a lesser quality of care - at least it will be the same for everyone (except for our elected officials, anyway). And that, my friends, is the socialist mentality - bring everyone DOWN to the lowest common denominator; rather than LIFT everyone up as the economy grows and society improves for all.
3. Welcome to the White House - you son of a bitch! Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was invited to the White House. Kind of. There was no red carpet. There were no photo-ops showing Obama smiling and shaking hands with Netanyahu. Instead, in the middle of their meeting, Obama announces he is going upstairs to the residence to have dinner with his family, but will return if Netanyahu has anything new for him! So here's a question: how many excuses will the liberal Jews make for Obama's incredibly disrespectful treatment of the head of state of one of our closest allies? Please, I would like to hear from you. But the Saudi King, who heads one of the most oppressive regimes in the Middle East and the world? He gets a bow! Hugo Chavez, America hating dictator of Venezuela? He gets an embrace! Netanyahu? Not so much as a handshake!
As Netanyahu said: Israel is "an outpost of freedom that prevents them (muslim terrorists) from overrunning the Middle East. When Israel stands against its enemies, it stands against America's enemies." Bravo! But does any reader (or anyone other than Obama) truly believe that if Israel stopped all building, and gave up Jerusalem, and gave up the West Bank, that the palestinians and Iran and Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah would suddenly love Israel and the US? And they would lay down their arms and stop attacking what might be left of Israel? And they would stop their terror attacks on the US and the West? Really? Does anybody REALLY believe that nonsense?
4. Ann Coulter. Ms. Coulter was to speak at the University of Ottawa last Tuesday night. Not surprisingly, leftist demonstrators prevented her from speaking. (Not unlike the way muslim demonstrators attempted to prevent Israeli ambasssador to the US Michael Oren from speaking at UC Irvine.) Bob Herbert have anything to say about the 'Absence of Class' of these people, who do not believe in free speech even in a university setting? But the provost of the University, one Francois Houle, had previously notified (warned?) Ms. Coulter in an email that she should: "educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and do so before your planned visit here." So here we have the provost of the university also not believing in free speech! He may as well as joined the demonstrators in preventing Coulter from speaking. Why not just write out a script for her as to what she is allowed to say? Kind of sounds like Obama's desire to bring back the "fairness doctrine" in order to make sure the people hear only what he thinks they should hear.
5. Dennis Prager. Mr. Prager is now a regular columnist in the LA Jewish Journal. In his 3/26/10 article he discusses "Jews and Big Government." He notes that those on the left, including many Jews, believe that the state is the "greatest single force for good in society." He notes the irony: Jews have done poorly in countries where the state is larger, and have done infinitely better in the USA where the focus is on individual liberty. Also, countries with leftist leaders are far less supportive of Israel. European countries have already ceded some of their sovereignty to the larger European Union. And Obama seems willing to cede some of our sovereignty to institutions such as the UN. As Prager says: "That Jews should yearn for a world in which the United Nations has more power than the United States is so foolish as to border on the suicidal." He goes on: "A strong, indeed a dominant, America has been a blessing for the world, for liberty and democracy - and for the Jewish people." It is not for no reason that more Jews live in the USA than any place besides Israel. And the UN? As Prager notes: "...composed largely of countries ruled by thugs." When will my fellow Jews wake up?
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Obama's Remaking of the USA into Europe
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)