In Tunisia, a country of over 10 million people, President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali was forced out of office after a popular uprising. Ben Ali has ruled as a dictator for 23 years. The uprising began after the self-immolation of a college graduate who was working as a street vendor and was dissatisfied with the lack of economic opportunities. Tunisia has one of the more educated Arab populations, has been a secular country, and has suppressed Islamist groups. The new Provisional Government is promising elections in six months and says it is seeking to build a democracy.
Meanwhile, with the Prime Minister of Lebanon visiting the US, Hezbollah effectively took over that government and garnered enough support to elect their hand picked candidate as the new prime minister. This puts an Iranian backed regime on Israel's northern border.
Then we turn to Egypt where there have been demonstrations for a week now. Egypt, with a population of over 80 million people, has been the leading Arab country. Mubarak has been dictator for 30 years, and has also suppressed Islamist groups, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is an offshoot of the Brotherhood. While Mubarak has far more support from his military than Ben Ali had from his, it is not guaranteed that Mubarak survives this uprising. Even if he does, his age makes it likely that it will not be for long. The Muslim Brotherhood, while outlawed in Egypt, nevertheless remains the key opposition group. And while the demonstrations were prompted by the same desire of the people for freedom and economic opportunity - as in Tunisia - the chances of Egypt becoming an Islamist state are uncomfortably high.
Under Mubarak, the peace treaty with Israel was strained at best. As an Islamist country the treaty with Israel would be dead. Egypt's military is significantly stronger than the last time it faced Israel in a war. It has about 300 F-16 fighter jets, the M1A1 tank, a large navy and double the size of Israel's army. (As reported by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post online.)
Yet, as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, Obama is still pursuing the establishment of yet another Islamist regime on Israel's border - "Palestine." Obama, having made a recess appointment of an ambassador to Syria, is also seeking to have Israel return the strategic Golan Heights to Syria. Obama and those in his Administration have repeated on numerous occassions that the failure of Israel to make a deal with the palestinians has been the main obstacle to overall peace and stability in the Middle East. Now we can see just what a Big Lie that has been. The uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have NOTHING to do with Israel and the palestinians; and everything to do with a desire by the people for freedom and economic opportunity. However, while the cause of these uprisings is unrelated to Israel, the effects can and likely will have a significant impact on Israel. Israel is surrounded on all sides by hostile neighbors. How much greater will the threat to peace be if the neighbors are Islamic fundalmentalist regimes and/or tied to the Iranian/Syrian/Hezbollah/Hamas (and now Turkey perhaps) axis. Clearly, the influence of the US and its main Arab allies - Egypt and Saudi Arabia - has already dwindled; while Iran, Syria and Turkey are playing far greater roles in Muddle East affairs.
So what lessons can we in the US learn about our own democracy from the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East? As expressed in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, we have a historical belief in the primacy of the individual over the state. It is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as well as all the rights enumerated in our Constitution. These individual rights are of vital necessity to a free and democratic society. Mere elections are not enough. Mere elections resulted in Hamas winning in Gaza, with their resultant iron-fisted rule and denial of basic human rights. Mere elections resulted in Hezbollah winning many seats in the Lebanese Parliament, speeding its way to what now may be total control. Mere elections may result in the Muslim Brotherhood controlling Egypt.
Here in the US there has been much disagreement between the Left and the Right over the significance to be given to our Constitution. Liberals have accused conservatives of treating the Constitution as a holy document; rather than a living and breathing document that should carry no more weight than any other law. As the Federal Government takes on an ever expanding role in our day to day lives, there seems to be little appreciation for the incredible system established by the Constitution - dividing power between a Federal Government, State Governments, and the People. A government that moves away from the Constitution sees itself as able to enact any laws it sees fit.
Obamacare passed with the Big Lie that the people demanded it when nearly 2/3 of the people opposed it. More importantly, there was little consideration given to how the Congress had the authority to order people to buy health insurance. Then Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave her now famous reply to a reporter's question about where in the Constitution Congress was given the power to order such a mandate by stating: "Are you kidding me?" Her assumption, like many in Congress assume, is that there is no limit on Federal power. What makes her belief different than that of the leaders of Hamas or Hezbollah or other dictators? Yes, I know she undoubtedly believes in some of the freedoms we hold dear. But what about "net neutrality?" What about a return of the "fairness doctrine?" What about a Congress that sees no impediment to forcing government control of healthcare down the people's throats? Without a core belief in the significance of our founding documents, just where is the limit on Federal power? What about a Supreme Court that interprets, for the first time in our history, the Fifth Amendment provision that says the government may take private property for public use, when that public use is nothing more than a better tax rate if your home is converted to a commercial use? When the Congress and the Courts view the State as having greater significance than the individual, then our country is lost. So that is why conservatives want to defend the Constitution and its division of powers between the People, the States and the Feds; and why we insist that it is more important than any other law that Congress may pass.
So whither the Arab Middle East? More secular dictatorships? More Islamic Fundamentalist dictatorships? Or free societies where those elected respect individual rights as being more significant than the State or Islam? I am not optimistic about the last option prevailing.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Abandonment of Truth.
On January 8, a single gunman named Jared Loughner, with murderous intent carried out a horrific attack at a Congressional meet and greet in Tucson, Arizona. By now we have all heard or read many of the commentators discussing the vitriolic nature of political discourse in this country, with most of the blame being pointed at the Right (including Republicans, the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, among others).
In their 1/10/11 lead editorial, the NY Times acknowledged that Loughner was probably mentally ill, and that his internet rantings "place him well beyond usual ideological categories." But that did not deter them from blaming talk radio for the death threats received by Federal Judge John Roll (killed by Loughner) after the Judge allowed a case to proceed against a rancher accused of assaulting 16 Mexicans while crossing his land. It did not deter the editorial writers at the Times from this bold assertion: "But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge." (I wonder who they think is responsible for the sudden increase in death threats being received by Sarah Palin since this incident, as reported by Fox News.)
The LA Times in their 1/11/11 editorial was not much different. After saying it is not fair to blame Sarah Palin (or others) for the massacre, they do exactly that. "The real problem is that a former vice presidential candidate and possible 2012 presidential hopeful thinks violent imagery directed at political opponents is acceptable, and her supporters see nothing wrong with it." They go on: "The right bears the brunt of responsibility for this poisoned atmosphere..." but then concede they do not have a "monopoly on hate-inspiring speech." Somehow, they cannot bring themselves to tell us who else they think might engage in hate speech. (Maybe the Left, Keith Olbermann, Mike Malloy, former Florida Congressman Grayson, Howard Dean, and Ed Schultz, to name just a few.) Somehow, they cannot bring themselves to tell us that the Democrats had their own map, with bulls-eyes on the congressional districts held by Republicans.
Somehow, they cannot bring themselves to tell us that it was the current President of the United States who said, in reference to Republicans: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." Somehow, they manage to overlook the fact that the Tea Party movement is one of the most peaceful political movements to ever come along.
So what is going on here? Do the LA and NY Times really not know all the facts stated above? They do, but it no longer matters to them. Their own left-wing agenda is now more important than the truth. In their world, the ends justify the means. So if an incident like the one in Tucson can be used to their political advantage, with an opportunity to take a shot at some of their favorite targets, then so be it; and the truth be damned. The agenda matters far more than the truth. The problem is, most of the people don't buy it. While many factors have been affecting newspaper circulation over the last decade or more, one big factor is the people know they can no longer rely on the truthfulness of these mainstream institutions.
The approval rating of Congress is abysmally low. Maybe the people don't like being lied to. However, many in Congress have the same belief that their agenda is the first and only priority; that the ends justify the means. Truth takes a back seat, if it is even considered at all. The people don't believe, for example, that we can add 30 to 40 million people to the healthcare system without it costing a dime. Yet Obama, Reid and Pelosi told us exactly that. The people voted overwhelmingly Republican in 2010, not because of talk radio, but because they knew they were lied to, and did not agree with the policies being promoted. People do not like being lied to, and yes, it makes them angry.
Not surprisingly, these mainstream papers take absolutely none of the blame for the vitriolic level of discourse they describe. So when the LA Times called all those opposed to gay marriage "bigots," they made it clear that there was no honorable disagreement with their position. If you disagreed you were a hater. They constantly referred to the war in Iraq as "Bush's war." Imagine that. A war approved of by Congress, with American soldiers in harms way, yet they saw no divisiveness in their description. The LA Times has been so obsessed with their agenda, that they also lost another forgotten value - common decency. The day after Terri Schivo died, their editorial blasted the parents for trying to keep their daughter alive. Imagine that - they could not even allow the family one day to bury their daughter and grieve without their vicious attacks on them. For the LA Times, decency went the way of truth.
Of course, truth has not just been abandoned in the political arena. We often see it in sports. During baseball's "steroid era" many players were cheating (another form of lying) while using these drugs. Few were able to admit what they were doing - they just magically grew in size and strength and speed, even though they were getting older; even though the normal aging process should have caused the opposite effects. And Major League Baseball did not care; attendance and revenue were way up with all the home runs being hit. So the ends (money in this case) justified the means. We see football players trying to convince the ref they caught a ball when they know full well it hit the ground first. Basketball players fall backwards onto the court when lightly brushed by another player in an effort to get a foul called on the opposing team. Now, many commentators refer to such antics as "heads-up" playing. So has winning become more important than honesty and integrity?
Back in the political arena, public employees do not want to hear that their unions have obtained salary and pension benefits that are bankrupting many cities and states. Their agenda is more important than the truth.
So where does this all end? We, the People, have to insist on truth and honesty at every turn. We can do it by shunning media sources that lie to us, and that refuse to give us a balanced viewpoint. We can do it by voting out of office politicians who lie to us. We can do it by teaching our kids and grandkids that winning is NOT everything. And we can insist on it in our own lives. Because the more we allow the lies, the more we are likely to be on the receiving end of them.
In their 1/10/11 lead editorial, the NY Times acknowledged that Loughner was probably mentally ill, and that his internet rantings "place him well beyond usual ideological categories." But that did not deter them from blaming talk radio for the death threats received by Federal Judge John Roll (killed by Loughner) after the Judge allowed a case to proceed against a rancher accused of assaulting 16 Mexicans while crossing his land. It did not deter the editorial writers at the Times from this bold assertion: "But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge." (I wonder who they think is responsible for the sudden increase in death threats being received by Sarah Palin since this incident, as reported by Fox News.)
The LA Times in their 1/11/11 editorial was not much different. After saying it is not fair to blame Sarah Palin (or others) for the massacre, they do exactly that. "The real problem is that a former vice presidential candidate and possible 2012 presidential hopeful thinks violent imagery directed at political opponents is acceptable, and her supporters see nothing wrong with it." They go on: "The right bears the brunt of responsibility for this poisoned atmosphere..." but then concede they do not have a "monopoly on hate-inspiring speech." Somehow, they cannot bring themselves to tell us who else they think might engage in hate speech. (Maybe the Left, Keith Olbermann, Mike Malloy, former Florida Congressman Grayson, Howard Dean, and Ed Schultz, to name just a few.) Somehow, they cannot bring themselves to tell us that the Democrats had their own map, with bulls-eyes on the congressional districts held by Republicans.
Somehow, they cannot bring themselves to tell us that it was the current President of the United States who said, in reference to Republicans: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." Somehow, they manage to overlook the fact that the Tea Party movement is one of the most peaceful political movements to ever come along.
So what is going on here? Do the LA and NY Times really not know all the facts stated above? They do, but it no longer matters to them. Their own left-wing agenda is now more important than the truth. In their world, the ends justify the means. So if an incident like the one in Tucson can be used to their political advantage, with an opportunity to take a shot at some of their favorite targets, then so be it; and the truth be damned. The agenda matters far more than the truth. The problem is, most of the people don't buy it. While many factors have been affecting newspaper circulation over the last decade or more, one big factor is the people know they can no longer rely on the truthfulness of these mainstream institutions.
The approval rating of Congress is abysmally low. Maybe the people don't like being lied to. However, many in Congress have the same belief that their agenda is the first and only priority; that the ends justify the means. Truth takes a back seat, if it is even considered at all. The people don't believe, for example, that we can add 30 to 40 million people to the healthcare system without it costing a dime. Yet Obama, Reid and Pelosi told us exactly that. The people voted overwhelmingly Republican in 2010, not because of talk radio, but because they knew they were lied to, and did not agree with the policies being promoted. People do not like being lied to, and yes, it makes them angry.
Not surprisingly, these mainstream papers take absolutely none of the blame for the vitriolic level of discourse they describe. So when the LA Times called all those opposed to gay marriage "bigots," they made it clear that there was no honorable disagreement with their position. If you disagreed you were a hater. They constantly referred to the war in Iraq as "Bush's war." Imagine that. A war approved of by Congress, with American soldiers in harms way, yet they saw no divisiveness in their description. The LA Times has been so obsessed with their agenda, that they also lost another forgotten value - common decency. The day after Terri Schivo died, their editorial blasted the parents for trying to keep their daughter alive. Imagine that - they could not even allow the family one day to bury their daughter and grieve without their vicious attacks on them. For the LA Times, decency went the way of truth.
Of course, truth has not just been abandoned in the political arena. We often see it in sports. During baseball's "steroid era" many players were cheating (another form of lying) while using these drugs. Few were able to admit what they were doing - they just magically grew in size and strength and speed, even though they were getting older; even though the normal aging process should have caused the opposite effects. And Major League Baseball did not care; attendance and revenue were way up with all the home runs being hit. So the ends (money in this case) justified the means. We see football players trying to convince the ref they caught a ball when they know full well it hit the ground first. Basketball players fall backwards onto the court when lightly brushed by another player in an effort to get a foul called on the opposing team. Now, many commentators refer to such antics as "heads-up" playing. So has winning become more important than honesty and integrity?
Back in the political arena, public employees do not want to hear that their unions have obtained salary and pension benefits that are bankrupting many cities and states. Their agenda is more important than the truth.
So where does this all end? We, the People, have to insist on truth and honesty at every turn. We can do it by shunning media sources that lie to us, and that refuse to give us a balanced viewpoint. We can do it by voting out of office politicians who lie to us. We can do it by teaching our kids and grandkids that winning is NOT everything. And we can insist on it in our own lives. Because the more we allow the lies, the more we are likely to be on the receiving end of them.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Islam; Arabs; and US Foreign Policy.
I. More on the "peaceful" muslim world. 1. According to a recent Pew Research Center poll (as reported in the 12/6/10 LA Times) "majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria would favor changing current laws (in their countries) to allow stoning as a punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft AND DEATH FOR THOSE WHO CONVERT FROM ISLAM TO ANOTHER RELIGION." (Emphasis added.) More than 3/4 of the respondents in Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria and Jordan favor a greater role for Islam in politics. Ande 85% of Pakistani muslims favor a law requiring segregation of the sexes in the workplace. So, anybody think that the only problem is the violent jihadists? Or do you not see a clash of civilizations?
2. The Fifth Convention of the Fatah Revolutionary Council "declared its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state." They also reiterated their stance against "the establishment of any racist state based on religion." Anybody see the irony? Much of the muslim world wants even MORE islam in their politics (see 1. above), but ANY Judaic influences in Israel are unacceptable. Got it. (As reported on the Jerusalem Post online 11/28/10.)
3. The Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information published an "official paper" concerning the Western Wall (known to Jews as the Kotel). According to the PA (as reported on JPost 11/22/10) "the Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of the Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (known to Jews as the Temple Mount). As a reminder, when Jordan controlled Jerusalem and the West Bank (1948-1967), Jewish holy sites were destroyed and the Jews were denied access to the Kotel. After the Jews captured that land in the 1967 war, Jews had access to the Kotel and GAVE the Arabs control of the Temple Mount with the the Al-Aksa Mosque. But the Jews are always the bad guys, right?
II. Wikileaks and the Arab world. So much for the anti-semitic rantings of Professor's Walt and Mearsheimer, author's of the book The Israel Lobby. Wasn't it the pressure from Israel and American Jews that was pushing the US into another war with another muslim country by trying to get the US to bomb Iranian nuclear sites?
As reported by JPost, 11/30/10, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said to the US in 2008: cut off the head of the snake" (Iran) while there is still time. With the US Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain, the King of Bahrain had this to say: "The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it," referring to Iranian nukes. The defense chief of the United Arab Emirates said the time for the US to act against Iran is "this year or next." He referred to Ahmadinejad as Hitler. And Egyptian President Mubarek called the Iranians "big fat liars."
Besides the obvious (most Arab countries have no great love for Iran) what's the other message here? Israeli leaders tell their own people and leaders in the US that Iran is the biggest threat to Mideast stability and world peace. The Arab leaders tell their people that Israel is the biggest threat to peace in the Mideast, while privately acknowledging to US leaders that they recognize Iran is. This is a very common tactic of the Arab world. Arafat and now Abbas talk peace to the world, yet urge continued jihad against Israel to their own people. This duplicity and lack of courage of Arab leaders is the real impediment to ever achieving peace between Israel and the Arabs. You listening President Obama?
III. Obama's foreign policy - or lack thereof. 1. Brazil and Argentina (and now Ecuador) have now recognized an independent Palestinian state, with "East" Jerusalem as its capital. Other Latin American countries are expected to follow suit. Iran has been arranging with Venezuela to deploy intermediate range ballistic missiles there, which would be capable of reaching the US. (As reported by Caroline Glick on JPost,12/13/10.)
Glick notes that Obama sat still at the Summit of the Americas in April, 2009, while Daniel Ortega blasted the US. Obama then gave another appeasement speech, this time to Latin America, and had a photo-op with Hugo Chavez.
Obama's appeasement and inability to view the world accurately puts the US at greater risk. He tries to appease Chavez and his ilk, and they blast him and move closer to the Iranian axis. He tries to appease Iran, so the rest of the Middle East sees a weak US President and, publicly at least, moves closer to the Iranian axis. Weaker countries will seek alliances with countries they perceive as stronger - and that is not how the US is being perceived.
2. Aaron Klein reported in the 12/8/10 Jewish Press online, citing some of the Wikileaks material, that the US is worried that "Iranian backed militants may attempt to infiltrate the US or use Latin America as a staging ground for anti-American attacks." Well, not really a surprise given Obama's weakness and sucking up to dictators. In fact Klein reports that the US has "caught Iran shipping explosives and attempting to ship unmanned aerial vehicles to Venezuela." So while Obama dithers with dictators, he directs true pressure at Israel so that yet another dictatorship can be established in "Palestine."
Of course, some idiots on the left such as John Kerry think differently. Per Klein Kerry said "Yasser Arafat went from living as a terrorist to signing an agreement with Israel on the White House lawn" (referring to the peace accords of the early 1990's). So Arafat went straight from terrorist to peacemaker? What a moron. Just like The Nobel Committee giving that terrorist the Peace prize. The truth is that Arafat turned down a Palestinian state offered by Clinton and Barak, and then was behind the subsequent Second Intifada in 2000. The intifada which resulted in the death of over 1000 Israelis. So quite the peacemaker that Arafat. Unfortunately, our President has the same naive, foolish and misplaced trust in Abbas that Kerry had in Arafat.
3. I think former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, may have said it best: "The President...just seems to view national security issues as a distraction from what his real priorities are." (I believe that would remaking the USA into a European style socialist democracy.) (Above and below quotes from Aaron Klein in the 12/1/10 Jewish Press online.) Bolton goes on: "The signal of weakness that (Obama's) policies send around the world only encourages our adversaries and increases the risk of trouble for ourselves and our allies."
Amen to that. Now let's elect a new president in 2012.
2. The Fifth Convention of the Fatah Revolutionary Council "declared its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state." They also reiterated their stance against "the establishment of any racist state based on religion." Anybody see the irony? Much of the muslim world wants even MORE islam in their politics (see 1. above), but ANY Judaic influences in Israel are unacceptable. Got it. (As reported on the Jerusalem Post online 11/28/10.)
3. The Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information published an "official paper" concerning the Western Wall (known to Jews as the Kotel). According to the PA (as reported on JPost 11/22/10) "the Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of the Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (known to Jews as the Temple Mount). As a reminder, when Jordan controlled Jerusalem and the West Bank (1948-1967), Jewish holy sites were destroyed and the Jews were denied access to the Kotel. After the Jews captured that land in the 1967 war, Jews had access to the Kotel and GAVE the Arabs control of the Temple Mount with the the Al-Aksa Mosque. But the Jews are always the bad guys, right?
II. Wikileaks and the Arab world. So much for the anti-semitic rantings of Professor's Walt and Mearsheimer, author's of the book The Israel Lobby. Wasn't it the pressure from Israel and American Jews that was pushing the US into another war with another muslim country by trying to get the US to bomb Iranian nuclear sites?
As reported by JPost, 11/30/10, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said to the US in 2008: cut off the head of the snake" (Iran) while there is still time. With the US Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain, the King of Bahrain had this to say: "The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it," referring to Iranian nukes. The defense chief of the United Arab Emirates said the time for the US to act against Iran is "this year or next." He referred to Ahmadinejad as Hitler. And Egyptian President Mubarek called the Iranians "big fat liars."
Besides the obvious (most Arab countries have no great love for Iran) what's the other message here? Israeli leaders tell their own people and leaders in the US that Iran is the biggest threat to Mideast stability and world peace. The Arab leaders tell their people that Israel is the biggest threat to peace in the Mideast, while privately acknowledging to US leaders that they recognize Iran is. This is a very common tactic of the Arab world. Arafat and now Abbas talk peace to the world, yet urge continued jihad against Israel to their own people. This duplicity and lack of courage of Arab leaders is the real impediment to ever achieving peace between Israel and the Arabs. You listening President Obama?
III. Obama's foreign policy - or lack thereof. 1. Brazil and Argentina (and now Ecuador) have now recognized an independent Palestinian state, with "East" Jerusalem as its capital. Other Latin American countries are expected to follow suit. Iran has been arranging with Venezuela to deploy intermediate range ballistic missiles there, which would be capable of reaching the US. (As reported by Caroline Glick on JPost,12/13/10.)
Glick notes that Obama sat still at the Summit of the Americas in April, 2009, while Daniel Ortega blasted the US. Obama then gave another appeasement speech, this time to Latin America, and had a photo-op with Hugo Chavez.
Obama's appeasement and inability to view the world accurately puts the US at greater risk. He tries to appease Chavez and his ilk, and they blast him and move closer to the Iranian axis. He tries to appease Iran, so the rest of the Middle East sees a weak US President and, publicly at least, moves closer to the Iranian axis. Weaker countries will seek alliances with countries they perceive as stronger - and that is not how the US is being perceived.
2. Aaron Klein reported in the 12/8/10 Jewish Press online, citing some of the Wikileaks material, that the US is worried that "Iranian backed militants may attempt to infiltrate the US or use Latin America as a staging ground for anti-American attacks." Well, not really a surprise given Obama's weakness and sucking up to dictators. In fact Klein reports that the US has "caught Iran shipping explosives and attempting to ship unmanned aerial vehicles to Venezuela." So while Obama dithers with dictators, he directs true pressure at Israel so that yet another dictatorship can be established in "Palestine."
Of course, some idiots on the left such as John Kerry think differently. Per Klein Kerry said "Yasser Arafat went from living as a terrorist to signing an agreement with Israel on the White House lawn" (referring to the peace accords of the early 1990's). So Arafat went straight from terrorist to peacemaker? What a moron. Just like The Nobel Committee giving that terrorist the Peace prize. The truth is that Arafat turned down a Palestinian state offered by Clinton and Barak, and then was behind the subsequent Second Intifada in 2000. The intifada which resulted in the death of over 1000 Israelis. So quite the peacemaker that Arafat. Unfortunately, our President has the same naive, foolish and misplaced trust in Abbas that Kerry had in Arafat.
3. I think former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, may have said it best: "The President...just seems to view national security issues as a distraction from what his real priorities are." (I believe that would remaking the USA into a European style socialist democracy.) (Above and below quotes from Aaron Klein in the 12/1/10 Jewish Press online.) Bolton goes on: "The signal of weakness that (Obama's) policies send around the world only encourages our adversaries and increases the risk of trouble for ourselves and our allies."
Amen to that. Now let's elect a new president in 2012.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
A World Gone Mad
1. Tolerance. One of the 11/10/10 New York Times editorials discusses a speech by retired US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. The Times describes Stevens' speech as one of the "sanest and most instructive arguments for tolerance...," which they say supports the Ground Zero mosque. They quote Stevens: "Ignorance - that is to say, fear of the unknown - is the source of most insidious prejudice."
Funny thing that "tolerance." It is usually preached to the wrong people; not unlike the "Coexist" bumper sticker preaching to the American people - an unusually tolerant people. In the 11/9/10 USA Today is a report on American born muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. He calls for muslims to kill Americans at will; it is "either us or them." Now there's a tolerant attitude. According to the article, the Obama administration says Awlaki is wanted dead or alive. Now that's the kind of tolerance I can relate to.
2. Illegal aliens get in-state tuition. The California Supreme Court has upheld the statute allowing in-state tuition rates for illegal aliens attending three years of in-state high school, a savings of up to $23,000. per year, per the 11/16/10 LA Times. So an American citizen from, say, Arizona or Nevada, gets to pay the extra $23,000. Does this make sense? (Let's put aside for a moment the issue of whether or not someone here illegally should be allowed a university seat that may then be denied to a California resident/American citizen. And let it be noted that this writer is in favor of higher education.)
In support of the ruling, the LA Times relates the story of a 20 year old student at UCLA who "had to drop out of school for a quarter to work and took low-cost community college courses at night so she would not fall behind." First, if we offer the benefit of in-state tuition to illegals, does that enourage or discourage more to come illegally? Second, the elitists at the Times obviously do not realize that California residents who are American citizens experience the same financial hardships. This writer's son works two jobs while carrying a heavy class load. Maybe some students cannot afford the UC's; that still leaves the Cal State University system as well as the community colleges.
Maybe the Times, being so compassionate (not to the taxpayers, of course), would like to see a minimum number of slots assured to illegals (50%?)at all of the UC's. (I know, I should not give them any ideas.) I am sure the taxpayers would like nothing more than to see their money going towards people here illegally, possibly to the detriment of their own children and grandchildren.
3. Death panels. The 11/17/10 Investor's Business Daily discusses the issue of "death panels" under Obamacare. Paul Krugman, liberal commentator and supporter of Britain's National Health Institute, said on ABC's "This Week" that we will need a "combination of death panels and sales taxes" to meet the financial burdens of Obamacare. He later explained that he was using the phrase "death panels" sarcastically. Fair enough.
But he then explained what he really meant; that to control costs there will have to be "consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we're willing to spend for extreme care." So...death panels? And what is considered "extreme care" for someone else, will be considered "life and death" when it's your family.
Nonetheless, Krugman has no authority over us. But Dr. Donald Berwick does, as the head of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. Per Dr. Berwick, at some point we have to decide if a "particular additional benefit (new drug or medical intervention)is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds." But it will not be the txpayers deciding that, it will be a bureaucrat. A bureaucrat deciding what treatments are sufficiently helpful - but not too costly - to save your life. You know, death panels! But they will have some nice bureaucratic name for it that will do the opposite of what it says (maybe the Agency for Assuring End of Life Care).
So on this issue I side with that favorite liberal punching bag - Sarah Palin. Per Palin: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." But then again, this writer sent three letters to the LA Times arguing for the life of Terri Schiavo. But a paper that put no value on her human life and could not wait to see her put to death, published none of them.
4. Sarah Palin. And speaking of Sarah Palin, with the 2012 Presidential election campaign beginning in earnest next year, you can expect to see the mainstream media putting out one negative piece after the next about her. Those who read only the mainstream media often buy into all the Big Lies (and to name a few): the poor palestinians just want peace; Israeli settlements are the problem; Islam is a religion of peace; if you oppose gay marriage it can only be because you are a hateful bigot; and, of course, compared to other politicians (rather, democrat politicians) Sarah Palin is stupid, as was Bush, Reagan, Ford and the Republicans in general.
But the Dems? One more brilliant and qualified than the next. Or so they say. Al Gore? He got worse college grades than Bush; and dropped out of divinity school with five "F's." Law School? Dropped out. Biden? Yes, a law school graduate, but finished 76 out of 85 in his class. (And probably more verbal gaffes than any living politician.) Kerry? Missed one-half of the questions on his military aptitude test. But at least he had a good explanation: "I must have been drinking the night before." (Info on above politicians from an article by Larry Elder in the 11/16/10 IBD.) Does this mean that Republican politicians are all stellar examples of intelligence and integrity? Of course not. But when the campaign heats up, look for most of the blistering attacks from mainstream media outlets to focus on Palin and other Republicans. (You know, the same people who did not think Rev. Wright was even a story until one year after it broke on Fox News.)
5. It's the settlements - still. Israel recently announced 1000 new housing units for Jerusalem. As expected, Obama said: "this kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations." Netanyahu tried to set Obama straight: "Jerusalem is not a settlement; Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel." Head negotiator for the P.A., Saeb Erekat used the occassion to say Israeli actions were "a call for immediate international recognition of the Palestinian state." No surprise there, as they know that for the first time ever they have a US president who will not protect Israel at the UN next year if Israel does not make "peace" on Obama's terms.
Of course, the LA Times agrees that settlements are a main obstacle to peace. They write in their 11/11/10 editorial: "Four decades during which the international community has been demanding that Israel step back to the pre-1967 lines, four decades during which Palestinians have called for an end to Israeli efforts to redraw the political map."
In an article in the 11/21/10 NY Times Ethan Bronner expresses that a failure of the peace process will likely result in further violence. He notes: "Ten years ago, when peace talks led by President Bill Clinton at Camp David fell apart, the second Palestinian uprising broke out, leading to exploding buses, suicide bombings and harsh Israeli countermeasures." This is the kind of reporting and opinion writing we can expect from the mainstream media. The peace talks did not "fall apart" ten years ago. Instead, Yassir Arafat walked out on a furious President Clinton, after Israeli P.M. Ehud Barak offered a Palestinian state. Buses did not just start exploding; Arafat and the Palestinians chose to engage in another "intifada" - they chose violence over peace. The Palestinians were the ones blowing up buses and using suicide (homicide) bombers, blowing up innocent people on buses, in cafes and even at a Passover Seder.
But that was then. Maybe the Arabs have become nicer since then. In the 11/15/10 LA Times, they write in their editorial that one Walid Husayin faces life in prison for insulting the g-d of Islam. The Times suggests that this man's case "needs to be handled with care, and would be best be resolved with a slap on the wrist." Not exactly a ringing endorsement of free speech from this media outlet. Then again, they do not give much of an endorsement to the Palestinian Authority "which controls the West Bank, (and) is not among the more repressive governments in the Arab world." (Although they will sentence you to death if you sell land to an Israeli. So not so bad a regime, right?) These are the people that Israel should trust when it to comes to their own national security? Quite stunning!
In an article in the 11/9/10 LA Times, Patrick Goldstein discusses a movie on the Middle East entitled "Precious Life." The movies focuses on how an Israeli reporter helped get a four month old baby out of Gaza to get treatment in Israel for a rare immune disorder. After the "niceties," the mother then discusses the politics of the region. "Let's not discuss the Temple (the Jewish Temple destroyed 2000 years ago). It is the source of all of our problems." Really? And then this bombshell: if her baby survives he would rightfully become a suicide bomber. So the hatred and anti-semitism is as strong as ever - even in the mother of a baby the Israelis were trying to save.
So are the Palestinians "nicer" today than when Arafat walked out on Clinton and Barak? Notwithstanding the above, and notwithstanding that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza regularly call for Israel's destruction, the LA Times holds onto their belief that peace can be achieved; and Israel only needs to go back to the pre-1967 borders. The borders which, the Times fails to mention, were nothing other than the armistace lines following Israel's War of Independence fought in 1948 and 1949. The war in which six Arab countries attacked in effort to wipe Israel off the map, after Israel declared their independence. No treaty exists accepting those borders as "permanent" borders. And after the Palestinians get their country in the West Bank and Gaza, what then? Sixty two years after Israeli independence, who thinks the Arabs will then be content with what they get?
As Dennis Prager wrote in the LA Jewish Journal of 11/19/10-11/25/10, "I wish settlements were the issue." Then peace would be easy. Instead, he recounts the 1948 attack by the Arabs, the 1967 war, the 3 "no's" of Khartoum (no peace, no negotiations, and no recognition of Israel), the intifadas, Arafat walking out on peace, and an Arab media that regularly broadcasts the most vile and disgusting comments about Jews and Israel. To ignore the reality of the Palestinian world and to blame Israeli "settlements" for the lack of peace is, quite obviously, to let one's beliefs dictate one's reality.
Funny thing that "tolerance." It is usually preached to the wrong people; not unlike the "Coexist" bumper sticker preaching to the American people - an unusually tolerant people. In the 11/9/10 USA Today is a report on American born muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. He calls for muslims to kill Americans at will; it is "either us or them." Now there's a tolerant attitude. According to the article, the Obama administration says Awlaki is wanted dead or alive. Now that's the kind of tolerance I can relate to.
2. Illegal aliens get in-state tuition. The California Supreme Court has upheld the statute allowing in-state tuition rates for illegal aliens attending three years of in-state high school, a savings of up to $23,000. per year, per the 11/16/10 LA Times. So an American citizen from, say, Arizona or Nevada, gets to pay the extra $23,000. Does this make sense? (Let's put aside for a moment the issue of whether or not someone here illegally should be allowed a university seat that may then be denied to a California resident/American citizen. And let it be noted that this writer is in favor of higher education.)
In support of the ruling, the LA Times relates the story of a 20 year old student at UCLA who "had to drop out of school for a quarter to work and took low-cost community college courses at night so she would not fall behind." First, if we offer the benefit of in-state tuition to illegals, does that enourage or discourage more to come illegally? Second, the elitists at the Times obviously do not realize that California residents who are American citizens experience the same financial hardships. This writer's son works two jobs while carrying a heavy class load. Maybe some students cannot afford the UC's; that still leaves the Cal State University system as well as the community colleges.
Maybe the Times, being so compassionate (not to the taxpayers, of course), would like to see a minimum number of slots assured to illegals (50%?)at all of the UC's. (I know, I should not give them any ideas.) I am sure the taxpayers would like nothing more than to see their money going towards people here illegally, possibly to the detriment of their own children and grandchildren.
3. Death panels. The 11/17/10 Investor's Business Daily discusses the issue of "death panels" under Obamacare. Paul Krugman, liberal commentator and supporter of Britain's National Health Institute, said on ABC's "This Week" that we will need a "combination of death panels and sales taxes" to meet the financial burdens of Obamacare. He later explained that he was using the phrase "death panels" sarcastically. Fair enough.
But he then explained what he really meant; that to control costs there will have to be "consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we're willing to spend for extreme care." So...death panels? And what is considered "extreme care" for someone else, will be considered "life and death" when it's your family.
Nonetheless, Krugman has no authority over us. But Dr. Donald Berwick does, as the head of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. Per Dr. Berwick, at some point we have to decide if a "particular additional benefit (new drug or medical intervention)is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds." But it will not be the txpayers deciding that, it will be a bureaucrat. A bureaucrat deciding what treatments are sufficiently helpful - but not too costly - to save your life. You know, death panels! But they will have some nice bureaucratic name for it that will do the opposite of what it says (maybe the Agency for Assuring End of Life Care).
So on this issue I side with that favorite liberal punching bag - Sarah Palin. Per Palin: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." But then again, this writer sent three letters to the LA Times arguing for the life of Terri Schiavo. But a paper that put no value on her human life and could not wait to see her put to death, published none of them.
4. Sarah Palin. And speaking of Sarah Palin, with the 2012 Presidential election campaign beginning in earnest next year, you can expect to see the mainstream media putting out one negative piece after the next about her. Those who read only the mainstream media often buy into all the Big Lies (and to name a few): the poor palestinians just want peace; Israeli settlements are the problem; Islam is a religion of peace; if you oppose gay marriage it can only be because you are a hateful bigot; and, of course, compared to other politicians (rather, democrat politicians) Sarah Palin is stupid, as was Bush, Reagan, Ford and the Republicans in general.
But the Dems? One more brilliant and qualified than the next. Or so they say. Al Gore? He got worse college grades than Bush; and dropped out of divinity school with five "F's." Law School? Dropped out. Biden? Yes, a law school graduate, but finished 76 out of 85 in his class. (And probably more verbal gaffes than any living politician.) Kerry? Missed one-half of the questions on his military aptitude test. But at least he had a good explanation: "I must have been drinking the night before." (Info on above politicians from an article by Larry Elder in the 11/16/10 IBD.) Does this mean that Republican politicians are all stellar examples of intelligence and integrity? Of course not. But when the campaign heats up, look for most of the blistering attacks from mainstream media outlets to focus on Palin and other Republicans. (You know, the same people who did not think Rev. Wright was even a story until one year after it broke on Fox News.)
5. It's the settlements - still. Israel recently announced 1000 new housing units for Jerusalem. As expected, Obama said: "this kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations." Netanyahu tried to set Obama straight: "Jerusalem is not a settlement; Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel." Head negotiator for the P.A., Saeb Erekat used the occassion to say Israeli actions were "a call for immediate international recognition of the Palestinian state." No surprise there, as they know that for the first time ever they have a US president who will not protect Israel at the UN next year if Israel does not make "peace" on Obama's terms.
Of course, the LA Times agrees that settlements are a main obstacle to peace. They write in their 11/11/10 editorial: "Four decades during which the international community has been demanding that Israel step back to the pre-1967 lines, four decades during which Palestinians have called for an end to Israeli efforts to redraw the political map."
In an article in the 11/21/10 NY Times Ethan Bronner expresses that a failure of the peace process will likely result in further violence. He notes: "Ten years ago, when peace talks led by President Bill Clinton at Camp David fell apart, the second Palestinian uprising broke out, leading to exploding buses, suicide bombings and harsh Israeli countermeasures." This is the kind of reporting and opinion writing we can expect from the mainstream media. The peace talks did not "fall apart" ten years ago. Instead, Yassir Arafat walked out on a furious President Clinton, after Israeli P.M. Ehud Barak offered a Palestinian state. Buses did not just start exploding; Arafat and the Palestinians chose to engage in another "intifada" - they chose violence over peace. The Palestinians were the ones blowing up buses and using suicide (homicide) bombers, blowing up innocent people on buses, in cafes and even at a Passover Seder.
But that was then. Maybe the Arabs have become nicer since then. In the 11/15/10 LA Times, they write in their editorial that one Walid Husayin faces life in prison for insulting the g-d of Islam. The Times suggests that this man's case "needs to be handled with care, and would be best be resolved with a slap on the wrist." Not exactly a ringing endorsement of free speech from this media outlet. Then again, they do not give much of an endorsement to the Palestinian Authority "which controls the West Bank, (and) is not among the more repressive governments in the Arab world." (Although they will sentence you to death if you sell land to an Israeli. So not so bad a regime, right?) These are the people that Israel should trust when it to comes to their own national security? Quite stunning!
In an article in the 11/9/10 LA Times, Patrick Goldstein discusses a movie on the Middle East entitled "Precious Life." The movies focuses on how an Israeli reporter helped get a four month old baby out of Gaza to get treatment in Israel for a rare immune disorder. After the "niceties," the mother then discusses the politics of the region. "Let's not discuss the Temple (the Jewish Temple destroyed 2000 years ago). It is the source of all of our problems." Really? And then this bombshell: if her baby survives he would rightfully become a suicide bomber. So the hatred and anti-semitism is as strong as ever - even in the mother of a baby the Israelis were trying to save.
So are the Palestinians "nicer" today than when Arafat walked out on Clinton and Barak? Notwithstanding the above, and notwithstanding that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza regularly call for Israel's destruction, the LA Times holds onto their belief that peace can be achieved; and Israel only needs to go back to the pre-1967 borders. The borders which, the Times fails to mention, were nothing other than the armistace lines following Israel's War of Independence fought in 1948 and 1949. The war in which six Arab countries attacked in effort to wipe Israel off the map, after Israel declared their independence. No treaty exists accepting those borders as "permanent" borders. And after the Palestinians get their country in the West Bank and Gaza, what then? Sixty two years after Israeli independence, who thinks the Arabs will then be content with what they get?
As Dennis Prager wrote in the LA Jewish Journal of 11/19/10-11/25/10, "I wish settlements were the issue." Then peace would be easy. Instead, he recounts the 1948 attack by the Arabs, the 1967 war, the 3 "no's" of Khartoum (no peace, no negotiations, and no recognition of Israel), the intifadas, Arafat walking out on peace, and an Arab media that regularly broadcasts the most vile and disgusting comments about Jews and Israel. To ignore the reality of the Palestinian world and to blame Israeli "settlements" for the lack of peace is, quite obviously, to let one's beliefs dictate one's reality.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Reflections on the Mid-Term Election and on the Middle East
I.Some Reflections on the Mid-Term Elections. 1. As goes California goes so goes the nation – thank G-d not this time! In a year when Republicans took back the House by a 50 seat majority, got 47 Senate seats, 30 governorships, and picked up over 500 new seats in state legislatures, California remained fiercely loyal to the Democrat Party. The party that has had control of the Legislature for the last 40+ years, the party that continues to punish business with taxes and regulations, the party that has stood by as one business after the next has left the state (including aerospace and TV and movie production – things for which California used to be known), got a resounding victory. And look at the record they created: 12.4% unemployment (2.3 million unemployed), factory jobs down from 1.87 million to 1.23 million over the last decade, about 33% of the USA’s welfare recipients (with 12% of the population), a state budget gap of $45.5 million for 2009 – 2010 (53% of state spending, the largest gap by any state ever), about $500 billion of unfunded liabilities for that favorite of the Dems – public employee pensions, and not to be forgotten, the highest sales tax and the third highest income tax in the country. (Data from the 11/5/10 Investor’s Business Daily, which itself is expanding operations of its LA based company – into Texas! Texas, a state they say has “bent over backwards to make us feel welcome.”) Texas, a state to which California has been bleeding businesses and people.
2. Meanwhile, the state’s unemployment insurance fund is flat broke (per the 11/7/10LA Times). Having borrowed $8.6 billion from the feds, that number is expected to rise to $16 billion in 2012; with interest on the debt costing a small fortune ($362 million by the end of next September). (Per the same LA Times front page article.) While individual Republican Latino candidates were picking up seats across the country, the rank and file was voting 2/3 to 1/3 for the Dems over the Repubs. As Ruben Navarrette noted in the 11/7/10 Ventura County Star, Republican Latino victory was far more than the well known Marco Rubio, new Senator from Florida. It included: David Rivera to the House (Fla.), new governor Brian Sandoval (Nev.), Francisco Canseco and Bill Flores to the House (Texas; which also elected four Latino Repubs to the state legislature), Jaime Herrera to the House (Wash.), Raul Labrador to the House (Idaho), and new governor Susana Martinez with new lieutenant governor John Sanchez, and new secretary of state Dianna Duran (all New Mex.). If the Latino vote is going to the Dems because of government benefits, then the Repubs need to explain why jobs and a rising economy are far better than any government handouts. And if immigration is the issue, then all sides need to see the difference between “legal” and “illegal.” These issues need to addressed to the Latino community from now until the 2012 presidential election.
3. Who’s the party of “no” now? The 11/4/10 USA Today editorial continued the Big Lie about the Republicans being the party of “no” the last two years. When the Republicans offered suggestions on Obamacare, they were shot down at every turn. Or, as Obama told them: “I won!” Under the circumstances, the Republicans were right to vote against the unlimited spending of the Democrats. So now with Repubs controlling the House and able to assert greater power in the Senate, when the Dems say “no” to Repub plans, what will the mainstream media say? That the Dems are the new party of “no”? Don’t hold your breath. Now, unless the Repubs “compromise” on their principles, they will be labeled “obstructionists.” Even though Obama recently said it was “time to punish our enemies,” it will undoubtedly be the Repubs fault for any bad news.
4. While the Repubs may have lost the Latino vote, they picked up the Independents (59% to 41%), and importantly, picked up the South (61% to 39%) and the Midwest (55% to 45%). Those two areas of the country were solidly democratic for some time. The Repubs even picked up a few House seats in the once entirely Democrat Northeast. Also of significance, the Repubs picked up the women voters (by 51% to 49%). Notwithstanding an ever deteriorating situation in the black community, they also remained fiercely loyal to the Dems (91% to 9%). I guess no level of unemployment will sway that demographic away from the Dems.
5. Still the race card? Really? According to one Eugene Robinson (in the 11/2/10 IBD) the anger of the country directed towards Obama was due to Obama being black. Wow! This guy is as far removed from reality as Obama showed he was in his post election news conference. At least Obama did not blame the Dems defeat on racism; no, the country was just too angry and stupid to appreciate all he did for us – because he did not take the time to explain it to us (you know, us morons!). Per Robinson, why else would the Tea Partiers be talking about taking “our country back” or “our government back?” He wants to know who stole it? They did not say those things about Bush while he was in office, per Robinson. What? They said Bush “stole” the election. They said he was a “Nazi.” What is this guy talking about? If we could understand him, it would give us some insight as to why blacks voted almost unanimously for the Dems. (Which, frankly, is not healthy for any racial, ethnic or religious group).
Mr. Robinson goes on: “I wonder how he can be seen as “elitist,” when he grew up in modest circumstances – his mother was on food stamps for a time – and paid for his fancy-pants education with student loans.” (How much you want to bet Mr. Robinson would not make those excuses for a current-day titan of industry, say CEO of BP, no matter how modest his background?) How does he NOT see Obama as elitist? We have the “clinging to their guns and religion” comment. We have a man pushing an agenda contrary to what the American people wanted, as expressed at the Town Hall meetings, at Tea Party rallies, and in the recent elections. Still, Obama says we the people are wrong and he was right to do everything he did. And you want elitism – just listen to how his arrogance and holier-than-thou attitude drips off every word out of his mouth. Finally, the complaints were generally against the Obama, Reid, Pelosi agenda; and the last time I looked Reid and Pelosi are white.
6. Finally, let’s hear it for the people of Oklahoma. According to the 11/6-11/12/10 edition of The Economist the people of Oklahoma “overwhelming voted to amend their state constitution to ban international law – specifically sharia law – from being used in their state courts.” While the writers say the people there were a “touch paranoid,” I say it is a lesson from which the other states ought to take heed.
II. The Latest on the Middle East. Now that the mid-term elections are over, it appears that Obama wants to put pressure on the Israelis to make a deal with the “Palestinians.” (According to Aaron Klein in the 11/3/10 Jewish Press online.) Such pressure would include allowing anti-Israel resolutions to be passed at the UN; and no longer opposing a “unity” government between the PA and Hamas. (Which would mean Hamas would be in control, just as Hezbollah is in Lebanon.)
According to Caroline Glick, Obama has proposed that Israel give up eastern Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, and then lease those areas back for a period of, say, seven years. Netanyahu apparently wants the lease back for 40 to 99 years. (Per her article in the Jerusalem Post online, 11/5/10.) Seven or 99 – it’s all the same. After all, Israel has been a country for 62 years and the Arabs are just as determined to see it destroyed today as they were then. And as readers of this blog know, the Arabs of Palestine sided with Hitler in WWII; and massacred Jews in Palestine in the 1920’s. So 7 years or 100 years – it makes no difference. If the past is prologue, why would the next 100 years be any different? If Obama thought rationally, rather than through his leftist colored lenses, he would see this. He would see that the Arabs continue to teach their kids that Israel does not exist, that all the land is theirs, to hate the Jews, and to want to kill every last Jew. As the Hamas Charter says: “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jews will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”
Jimmy Carter, on yet another trip to the Middle East to visit the “Palestinians,” told them he would press the US (Obama) and UN for sanctions against Israel. He said he would ask Obama to open a dialogue with Hamas (although that may be a done deal if Obama gave the go-ahead for Abbas and the PA to make a deal with Hamas). So we have a current President who bowed to the Saudi King, and a former President who embraced the Hamas leaders on his 2009 trip to the Middle East. I guess they don’t get that Hamas and Hezbollah are funded, armed, and directed by Iran, a country that wants Israel wiped off the map. I guess they don’t get that if Israel gives up part of Jerusalem, it is giving up its soul; and if they give up the West Bank they are giving up the ability to defend their country.
Dennis Prager had a recent article in the LA Jewish Journal discussing how man is not basically good, and must fight his nature to do good. Not surprisingly, the liberal Jews of LA took great offense and blasted Prager in a series of letters appearing in the 11/5-11/10 Jewish Journal. In the same edition, Prager replied to those letters. He then concluded: “A distinguishing characteristic of liberals and leftists is their aversion to acknowledging sad facts (the Soviet Union wasn’t evil; Islam has no more moral problems than Judaism or Christianity; the Palestinians don’t seek Israel’s destruction; there are no inherent differences between boys and girls, just sexist upbringing; the United Nations isn’t a moral wasteland, it’s mankind’s greatest hope; the list is almost limitless.)" Each one of these beliefs is explained by my oft-used truism: Liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality; conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs. Let’s hope Netanyahu remains a conservative.
2. Meanwhile, the state’s unemployment insurance fund is flat broke (per the 11/7/10LA Times). Having borrowed $8.6 billion from the feds, that number is expected to rise to $16 billion in 2012; with interest on the debt costing a small fortune ($362 million by the end of next September). (Per the same LA Times front page article.) While individual Republican Latino candidates were picking up seats across the country, the rank and file was voting 2/3 to 1/3 for the Dems over the Repubs. As Ruben Navarrette noted in the 11/7/10 Ventura County Star, Republican Latino victory was far more than the well known Marco Rubio, new Senator from Florida. It included: David Rivera to the House (Fla.), new governor Brian Sandoval (Nev.), Francisco Canseco and Bill Flores to the House (Texas; which also elected four Latino Repubs to the state legislature), Jaime Herrera to the House (Wash.), Raul Labrador to the House (Idaho), and new governor Susana Martinez with new lieutenant governor John Sanchez, and new secretary of state Dianna Duran (all New Mex.). If the Latino vote is going to the Dems because of government benefits, then the Repubs need to explain why jobs and a rising economy are far better than any government handouts. And if immigration is the issue, then all sides need to see the difference between “legal” and “illegal.” These issues need to addressed to the Latino community from now until the 2012 presidential election.
3. Who’s the party of “no” now? The 11/4/10 USA Today editorial continued the Big Lie about the Republicans being the party of “no” the last two years. When the Republicans offered suggestions on Obamacare, they were shot down at every turn. Or, as Obama told them: “I won!” Under the circumstances, the Republicans were right to vote against the unlimited spending of the Democrats. So now with Repubs controlling the House and able to assert greater power in the Senate, when the Dems say “no” to Repub plans, what will the mainstream media say? That the Dems are the new party of “no”? Don’t hold your breath. Now, unless the Repubs “compromise” on their principles, they will be labeled “obstructionists.” Even though Obama recently said it was “time to punish our enemies,” it will undoubtedly be the Repubs fault for any bad news.
4. While the Repubs may have lost the Latino vote, they picked up the Independents (59% to 41%), and importantly, picked up the South (61% to 39%) and the Midwest (55% to 45%). Those two areas of the country were solidly democratic for some time. The Repubs even picked up a few House seats in the once entirely Democrat Northeast. Also of significance, the Repubs picked up the women voters (by 51% to 49%). Notwithstanding an ever deteriorating situation in the black community, they also remained fiercely loyal to the Dems (91% to 9%). I guess no level of unemployment will sway that demographic away from the Dems.
5. Still the race card? Really? According to one Eugene Robinson (in the 11/2/10 IBD) the anger of the country directed towards Obama was due to Obama being black. Wow! This guy is as far removed from reality as Obama showed he was in his post election news conference. At least Obama did not blame the Dems defeat on racism; no, the country was just too angry and stupid to appreciate all he did for us – because he did not take the time to explain it to us (you know, us morons!). Per Robinson, why else would the Tea Partiers be talking about taking “our country back” or “our government back?” He wants to know who stole it? They did not say those things about Bush while he was in office, per Robinson. What? They said Bush “stole” the election. They said he was a “Nazi.” What is this guy talking about? If we could understand him, it would give us some insight as to why blacks voted almost unanimously for the Dems. (Which, frankly, is not healthy for any racial, ethnic or religious group).
Mr. Robinson goes on: “I wonder how he can be seen as “elitist,” when he grew up in modest circumstances – his mother was on food stamps for a time – and paid for his fancy-pants education with student loans.” (How much you want to bet Mr. Robinson would not make those excuses for a current-day titan of industry, say CEO of BP, no matter how modest his background?) How does he NOT see Obama as elitist? We have the “clinging to their guns and religion” comment. We have a man pushing an agenda contrary to what the American people wanted, as expressed at the Town Hall meetings, at Tea Party rallies, and in the recent elections. Still, Obama says we the people are wrong and he was right to do everything he did. And you want elitism – just listen to how his arrogance and holier-than-thou attitude drips off every word out of his mouth. Finally, the complaints were generally against the Obama, Reid, Pelosi agenda; and the last time I looked Reid and Pelosi are white.
6. Finally, let’s hear it for the people of Oklahoma. According to the 11/6-11/12/10 edition of The Economist the people of Oklahoma “overwhelming voted to amend their state constitution to ban international law – specifically sharia law – from being used in their state courts.” While the writers say the people there were a “touch paranoid,” I say it is a lesson from which the other states ought to take heed.
II. The Latest on the Middle East. Now that the mid-term elections are over, it appears that Obama wants to put pressure on the Israelis to make a deal with the “Palestinians.” (According to Aaron Klein in the 11/3/10 Jewish Press online.) Such pressure would include allowing anti-Israel resolutions to be passed at the UN; and no longer opposing a “unity” government between the PA and Hamas. (Which would mean Hamas would be in control, just as Hezbollah is in Lebanon.)
According to Caroline Glick, Obama has proposed that Israel give up eastern Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, and then lease those areas back for a period of, say, seven years. Netanyahu apparently wants the lease back for 40 to 99 years. (Per her article in the Jerusalem Post online, 11/5/10.) Seven or 99 – it’s all the same. After all, Israel has been a country for 62 years and the Arabs are just as determined to see it destroyed today as they were then. And as readers of this blog know, the Arabs of Palestine sided with Hitler in WWII; and massacred Jews in Palestine in the 1920’s. So 7 years or 100 years – it makes no difference. If the past is prologue, why would the next 100 years be any different? If Obama thought rationally, rather than through his leftist colored lenses, he would see this. He would see that the Arabs continue to teach their kids that Israel does not exist, that all the land is theirs, to hate the Jews, and to want to kill every last Jew. As the Hamas Charter says: “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jews will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”
Jimmy Carter, on yet another trip to the Middle East to visit the “Palestinians,” told them he would press the US (Obama) and UN for sanctions against Israel. He said he would ask Obama to open a dialogue with Hamas (although that may be a done deal if Obama gave the go-ahead for Abbas and the PA to make a deal with Hamas). So we have a current President who bowed to the Saudi King, and a former President who embraced the Hamas leaders on his 2009 trip to the Middle East. I guess they don’t get that Hamas and Hezbollah are funded, armed, and directed by Iran, a country that wants Israel wiped off the map. I guess they don’t get that if Israel gives up part of Jerusalem, it is giving up its soul; and if they give up the West Bank they are giving up the ability to defend their country.
Dennis Prager had a recent article in the LA Jewish Journal discussing how man is not basically good, and must fight his nature to do good. Not surprisingly, the liberal Jews of LA took great offense and blasted Prager in a series of letters appearing in the 11/5-11/10 Jewish Journal. In the same edition, Prager replied to those letters. He then concluded: “A distinguishing characteristic of liberals and leftists is their aversion to acknowledging sad facts (the Soviet Union wasn’t evil; Islam has no more moral problems than Judaism or Christianity; the Palestinians don’t seek Israel’s destruction; there are no inherent differences between boys and girls, just sexist upbringing; the United Nations isn’t a moral wasteland, it’s mankind’s greatest hope; the list is almost limitless.)" Each one of these beliefs is explained by my oft-used truism: Liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality; conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs. Let’s hope Netanyahu remains a conservative.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Free Speech, The Middle East and Venezuela
I.Free Speech? 1. NPR fires Juan Williams. Williams, who had been with NPR for over 10 years, was also a contributor on Fox News. The offense that got Williams fired was this comment on the Bill O’Reilly show : “When I get on the plane, I’ve got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.” In publicly dismissing Williams, NPR’s executive first indicated that Mr. Williams failed to meet their journalistic standards by inserting his personal views; and then added that why he said what he did was “between him and his psychiatrist or publicist.”
So let us analyze NPR’s comments. Journalistic standards were not met. When Cokie Roberts said: “Beck is worse than a clown. He’s more like a terrorist…” Did that meet their journalistic standards? When Nina Totenberg wished that Jesse Helms’ grandkids got AIDS because he did not support federal funding of AIDS research, did that meet their journalistic standards? When they asked last year that Williams NOT be identified as an NPR employee when he appeared on O’Reilly, what standards were they trying to meet? Or were they simply annoyed that one of their employees would engage in a give and take with the “enemy” at Fox News?
But the “best” line from the NPR executive was about Williams comments being between him and his psychiatrist. This comment reflects the inability of the left to accurately perceive the world around them. After all, no sane person would have any reason to fear Muslims more than they would fear anyone else. When we all watched in horror as people jumped from the top floors of the World Trade Center to their deaths on 9/11/2001, we were unaware that they were all suffering from psychological problems causing them to jump. It had nothing to do with the fact that some Muslims had just flown planes into their office buildings.
2. Per Penal Code Section 137C anyone “who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in any way insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief…will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.” Don’t panic – this is neither California nor US law. But it is the law in the Netherlands where Member of Parliament Geert Wilders is currently being prosecuted for alleged violations of that law. Among other things, Mr. Wilders has compared the Koran to Mein Kampf and has described it as a fascist book. He has called Mohammad the devil. He proposed banning the construction of mosques. (From the 10/11/10 Wall Street Journal article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, herself a former Member of the Parliament.)
The law in the Netherlands is not unlike that being pushed by the 57 members of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference). They have tried to get the UN and EU to agree to resolutions comparable to the statute in the Netherlands. Clearly, such a law would be contrary to our First Amendment free speech protections. Notice that the law punishes the causing of “insult.” To say that such a provision would put a chill on the freedom of expression would be a gross understatement. Any insult that anyone takes in reference to their “race, religion or belief” could result in jail time for the speaker. This puts personal feelings above truth and the free flow of ideas. And it is exactly what the Muslim world is pushing. After all, they take offense (get “insulted”) by any negative remark about Islam. So if you dare to insult them – go to jail! (Which, of course, is better than being killed by them, which they will also do for insulting them. How many years now has Salmon Rushdie had to live in hiding? Since 1989!) And what can be heard from Arab/Muslim media? The most vile comments about Jews, Israel and America. But we have to bend to them. And countries like the Netherlands fall for it.
II.Mideast Peace. 1. As this writer has previously noted, the Palestinians will seek to get a state through the UN if negotiations fail. They are already seeking support for their state through any international body that will listen. Per Hanan Ashrawi of the PLO: “If we cannot stop the settlements through the peace process, we have to go to the Security Council, the Human Rights Council and every international legal body.” (From the 10/21/10 NY Times.) Israel seems willing to again freeze settlement activity if the Palestinians will acknowledge Israel as the Jewish State. But the chief negotiator for the PLO, Saeb Erekat, says that the Palestinian Authority will NEVER recognize Israel as the Jewish State. And head of the PA Abbas says “Israel can name itself whatever it wants.” Just don’t ask the PA to agree. (From the 10/14/10 NY Times.)
Why is such a concession so important? Arab leaders have consistently and frequently denied Jewish historical roots to the land. A continued failure to accept and acknowledge a Jewish presence simply means that Israel gets to make concession after concession with no end in sight. It means that, as the Hamas and PLO charters indicate, there will be no end to fighting until the Arabs have conquered all the land.
Recently, Ahmadinejad visited Lebanon. Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah, welcomed the Iranian leader, and affirmed Iran’s support for the three “no’s.” He was referring to the 1967 summit of Arab leaders in Khartoum, Sudan. At that time, the Arabs indicated “no” to peace with Israel, “no” to negotiations with Israel, and “no” to recognition of Israel. Needless to say, these same Palestinian leaders take no offense if the word “Islamic” is part of the official name of any muslim country. But "Jewish?" How dare they?
2. But not to worry. Barack Obama to the rescue. Under Obama the USAID is helping to create “facts on the ground” by supporting Palestinian building in the West Bank and “eastern” part of Jerusalem. (As reported by Aaron Klein in the 10/13/10 Jewish Press online.) Of course, no building by the Israelis is allowed – even in their Capital city of Jerusalem.
3. The Catholic Bishops pile on. Catholic Bishops from the Middle East were summoned to Rome by the Pope. Sadly, the Bishops concluded that Israel was primarily responsible for the declining Catholic/Christian populations in Middle Eastern countries. As this writer has previously noted, Christian populations have been significantly reduced in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. Lebanon was once (not that long ago) a majority Christian nation. But the rise of Syrian influence and Hezbollah power has nothing to do with Christians leaving? The Islamic fundamentalists of Hamas have nothing to do with Christians leaving? If the Palestinians (mostly Muslims now) just had their own state, then the Christians would be welcomed back with open arms? Another example of an ideology preventing an accurate perception of the world.
And here's a little data for the Bishops. Notwithstanding the ongoing wars, the Christian population of Israel has actually INCREASED over the last two decades (107,000 in 1989, 132,000 in 1999, and 151,700 in 2009). (Data from the 10/24/10 Jerusalem Post online.) Now why isn't there a declining Christian population in Israel as there has been in the surrounding Arab countries, especially if it's Israel's fault? Why is that Bishops?
III. Russia inks a nuke deal with Venezuela. Russia has agreed to help Venezuela build two nuclear reactors. The Russians are the ones who have also assisted the Iranians with their nuclear program. Recall that Obama reversed Bush policy and declared that the US would NOT place defensive missiles in Eastern Europe, to which the Russians had objected. Recall that Obama signed an arms deal with Russia, indicating that the US would neither expand nor modernize our nuclear weapons program. Meanwhile, the Russians continue to occupy Georgia, help with the Iranian nuclear facilities, and now will do the same for Venezuela. Never mind the Monroe Doctrine. Never mind that Obama’s “appeasement” of the Russians was seen (as appeasement always is) as a sign of weakness that has gotten us NOTHING in return.
Obama has assured us: “We have no incentive or interest in increasing friction between Venezuela and the U.S.,but we do think Venezuela needs to act responsibly.” And this from our Commander in Chief: “Our attitude is that Venezuela has rights to peacefully develop nuclear power.” I guess if Obama had been elected President in 1960 there would have been no Cuban missile crisis – just Russian missiles in Cuba.
So let us analyze NPR’s comments. Journalistic standards were not met. When Cokie Roberts said: “Beck is worse than a clown. He’s more like a terrorist…” Did that meet their journalistic standards? When Nina Totenberg wished that Jesse Helms’ grandkids got AIDS because he did not support federal funding of AIDS research, did that meet their journalistic standards? When they asked last year that Williams NOT be identified as an NPR employee when he appeared on O’Reilly, what standards were they trying to meet? Or were they simply annoyed that one of their employees would engage in a give and take with the “enemy” at Fox News?
But the “best” line from the NPR executive was about Williams comments being between him and his psychiatrist. This comment reflects the inability of the left to accurately perceive the world around them. After all, no sane person would have any reason to fear Muslims more than they would fear anyone else. When we all watched in horror as people jumped from the top floors of the World Trade Center to their deaths on 9/11/2001, we were unaware that they were all suffering from psychological problems causing them to jump. It had nothing to do with the fact that some Muslims had just flown planes into their office buildings.
2. Per Penal Code Section 137C anyone “who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in any way insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief…will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.” Don’t panic – this is neither California nor US law. But it is the law in the Netherlands where Member of Parliament Geert Wilders is currently being prosecuted for alleged violations of that law. Among other things, Mr. Wilders has compared the Koran to Mein Kampf and has described it as a fascist book. He has called Mohammad the devil. He proposed banning the construction of mosques. (From the 10/11/10 Wall Street Journal article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, herself a former Member of the Parliament.)
The law in the Netherlands is not unlike that being pushed by the 57 members of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference). They have tried to get the UN and EU to agree to resolutions comparable to the statute in the Netherlands. Clearly, such a law would be contrary to our First Amendment free speech protections. Notice that the law punishes the causing of “insult.” To say that such a provision would put a chill on the freedom of expression would be a gross understatement. Any insult that anyone takes in reference to their “race, religion or belief” could result in jail time for the speaker. This puts personal feelings above truth and the free flow of ideas. And it is exactly what the Muslim world is pushing. After all, they take offense (get “insulted”) by any negative remark about Islam. So if you dare to insult them – go to jail! (Which, of course, is better than being killed by them, which they will also do for insulting them. How many years now has Salmon Rushdie had to live in hiding? Since 1989!) And what can be heard from Arab/Muslim media? The most vile comments about Jews, Israel and America. But we have to bend to them. And countries like the Netherlands fall for it.
II.Mideast Peace. 1. As this writer has previously noted, the Palestinians will seek to get a state through the UN if negotiations fail. They are already seeking support for their state through any international body that will listen. Per Hanan Ashrawi of the PLO: “If we cannot stop the settlements through the peace process, we have to go to the Security Council, the Human Rights Council and every international legal body.” (From the 10/21/10 NY Times.) Israel seems willing to again freeze settlement activity if the Palestinians will acknowledge Israel as the Jewish State. But the chief negotiator for the PLO, Saeb Erekat, says that the Palestinian Authority will NEVER recognize Israel as the Jewish State. And head of the PA Abbas says “Israel can name itself whatever it wants.” Just don’t ask the PA to agree. (From the 10/14/10 NY Times.)
Why is such a concession so important? Arab leaders have consistently and frequently denied Jewish historical roots to the land. A continued failure to accept and acknowledge a Jewish presence simply means that Israel gets to make concession after concession with no end in sight. It means that, as the Hamas and PLO charters indicate, there will be no end to fighting until the Arabs have conquered all the land.
Recently, Ahmadinejad visited Lebanon. Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah, welcomed the Iranian leader, and affirmed Iran’s support for the three “no’s.” He was referring to the 1967 summit of Arab leaders in Khartoum, Sudan. At that time, the Arabs indicated “no” to peace with Israel, “no” to negotiations with Israel, and “no” to recognition of Israel. Needless to say, these same Palestinian leaders take no offense if the word “Islamic” is part of the official name of any muslim country. But "Jewish?" How dare they?
2. But not to worry. Barack Obama to the rescue. Under Obama the USAID is helping to create “facts on the ground” by supporting Palestinian building in the West Bank and “eastern” part of Jerusalem. (As reported by Aaron Klein in the 10/13/10 Jewish Press online.) Of course, no building by the Israelis is allowed – even in their Capital city of Jerusalem.
3. The Catholic Bishops pile on. Catholic Bishops from the Middle East were summoned to Rome by the Pope. Sadly, the Bishops concluded that Israel was primarily responsible for the declining Catholic/Christian populations in Middle Eastern countries. As this writer has previously noted, Christian populations have been significantly reduced in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. Lebanon was once (not that long ago) a majority Christian nation. But the rise of Syrian influence and Hezbollah power has nothing to do with Christians leaving? The Islamic fundamentalists of Hamas have nothing to do with Christians leaving? If the Palestinians (mostly Muslims now) just had their own state, then the Christians would be welcomed back with open arms? Another example of an ideology preventing an accurate perception of the world.
And here's a little data for the Bishops. Notwithstanding the ongoing wars, the Christian population of Israel has actually INCREASED over the last two decades (107,000 in 1989, 132,000 in 1999, and 151,700 in 2009). (Data from the 10/24/10 Jerusalem Post online.) Now why isn't there a declining Christian population in Israel as there has been in the surrounding Arab countries, especially if it's Israel's fault? Why is that Bishops?
III. Russia inks a nuke deal with Venezuela. Russia has agreed to help Venezuela build two nuclear reactors. The Russians are the ones who have also assisted the Iranians with their nuclear program. Recall that Obama reversed Bush policy and declared that the US would NOT place defensive missiles in Eastern Europe, to which the Russians had objected. Recall that Obama signed an arms deal with Russia, indicating that the US would neither expand nor modernize our nuclear weapons program. Meanwhile, the Russians continue to occupy Georgia, help with the Iranian nuclear facilities, and now will do the same for Venezuela. Never mind the Monroe Doctrine. Never mind that Obama’s “appeasement” of the Russians was seen (as appeasement always is) as a sign of weakness that has gotten us NOTHING in return.
Obama has assured us: “We have no incentive or interest in increasing friction between Venezuela and the U.S.,but we do think Venezuela needs to act responsibly.” And this from our Commander in Chief: “Our attitude is that Venezuela has rights to peacefully develop nuclear power.” I guess if Obama had been elected President in 1960 there would have been no Cuban missile crisis – just Russian missiles in Cuba.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
More Quick Hits.
1. It’s the economy (er,ideology) stupid! Obama said to the UN: “America has joined with nations around the world to spur growth and renewed demand that could restart job creation.” Either Obama does not know the truth, or, more likely, does not care. He has his agenda (ideology) and the economic consequences be damned! Unemployment is at 9.6%. Four million jobs lost since Obama came into office. And what do we have to show for the $700 billion in bailouts, $862 billion stimulus, $1.4 trillion in new currency printed, and $2.9 trillion added to the federal deficit? We have a DECLINE in GDP over the last three quarters from 5% to 3.7% to 2.6%. (Data from 9/24/10 article in Investor’s Business Daily.) Job creation and economic growth must take a back seat to “spreading the wealth.” Think not?
Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax. When the cost of capital is raised, there is less capital being used to create economic growth by business expansion and business creation; in other words, less jobs. In a 9/29/10 article in the IBD Ralph Reiland quotes J.D.Foster, Ph.D., at the Heritage Foundation: “Obama is willing to trade losses in jobs and wages to advance his political ideology for tax fairness.” And in case you think Heritage is biased, how about this exchange between Obama and Charles Gibson during one of the pre-election debates: GIBSON: “In each instance when the rate was dropped, revenues from the tax increased – the government took in more money. And in the 1980’s when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?” OBAMA: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”
So there you have it. Never mind that the top 10% of US households pay 70% of the total of federal income tax revenues; and 40% to 50% of Americans pay no tax. Still not “fair” enough for Obama. Or how about this line from Obama. In referring to an extension of the Bush tax cuts (which by the way the failure to extend the "cuts" would be a tax hike, even though neither Obama nor the mainstream press will call it such), Obama said such an extension would be “giving them $100,000. for people making a million dollars or more.” Silly me – I thought when people earned money it was theirs. Obviously not, as Obama considers it the government’s money and he does not want to “give” it to the people who earned it.
2. Post racial politics? Not on your life! So has Obama, the unifier, brought us post racial politics? According to J. Christian Adams, a career attorney in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, his bosses “over and over and over” showed “hostility” to prosecuting any voter intimidation cases if it involved black defendants and white victims. The Obama Administration would not file election-related cases against minority defendants, no matter what the alleged violation of law. (From the 9/28/10 IBD.) So much for DOJ’s claim that they dropped the case against the Black Panthers due to an inability to prove their case. More like an unwillingness. Justice is not blind in this Administration, just racist.
So Obama favors blacks, just like he favors hispanics with his prosecution of a case against Arizona and Sheriff Joe. And according to the 9/19/10 Ventura County Star, Obama spoke to the Congressional Black Caucus in an effort to motivate them to in turn motivate black voters in their districts. (What if a white candidate urged white congressmen to motivate the white voters in their districts?) Obama also spoke to a Latino group, telling them: “…don’t forget who is standing with you, and who is standing against you…”
So rich versus poor, black and brown versus white, from the “unifier” Obama. Is this the “hope and change” he talked about?
3. We the people are stupid – just ask the Dems. According to John Kerry: “We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on, so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening.” Simple slogans, like “hope and change” perhaps? (Who knew I would agree with John Kerry.)
And recall Obama’s disdain for rural Americans, accusing them of clinging to their “guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
And now we have Jimmy Carter, one of the worst presidents ever, who just does not understand why Americans do not appreciate what a great job he did for us. Well, Jimmy, it might have something to do with your actual record: 18% rate of inflation when you left office, 18% interest rates, 11% unemployment, gas lines, and American hostages in Iran for over 400 days. Great job Jimmy. (Stats from 9/29/10 IBD.)
The Dems are still at it. Proving there is no limit to how low they will go, and how stupid they think we are, they have have now created the Meg Whitman maid story. The day after Whitman holds her own in a debate with Jerry Brown, longtime democrat supporter Gloria Allsleaze trots out the crying maid. It was quite a show; or should I say political stunt. Whitman hired the maid through an agency, vouching for the maid’s legality. The maid claimed (lied) she was here legally. She was paid $23 per hour. And she was crying why? Because she says she is still owed a few bucks. And she came forward risking deportation and criminal prosecution why? Because she claims she is still owed a few bucks. In responding to why she would put her client in such legal jeopardy by coming forward like this, Allsleaze said the maid had signed appropriate releases. Really? So the Dems got her to put herself at risk over a few bucks? It doesn’t passs the smell test. But does the media ask what’s really in it for her, or what she may have been promised? Do they wonder about the rather coincidental timing, and how long this whole thing may have been in the planning stages? Do they wonder what connections there were to the Brown campaign? And did they ask if the fix was already in with Obama’s racist DOJ to get a guarantee in advance that no action would be taken against the maid? Nope. Instead, the LA Slimes saw it this way: "Whitman admits maid was illegal.” (9/30/10 LA Times, page 1 of Latextra section.) Makes it sound like Whitman knew all along, as opposed to the fact that Whitman fired the maid as soon as found out the truth.
4. Biggest arms sale ever to our good ally – Saudi Arabia! That’s right. The terrorist supporting Saudis are about to get $60 BILLION of high tech armaments, including F-15’s and helicopters. As noted by Rep. Anthony Weiner, Dem. In NY’s 9th Cong. District: “Saudi schools still teach intolerance, hate and violence toward Jews, Christians and other non-muslims, and their public school textbooks accuse the Jews of attempting to take over the world, and demand that those who turn away from Islam be killed.” See how they share American values? Unlike that odious State of Israel.
Or how about this report from the 9/15/10 NY Times. One Ali Ahmad Asseri, a Saudi diplomat, has sought asylum in the US. He claims: “My life is in a great danger…if I go back to Saudi Arabia, they will kill me openly in broad daylight.” And what was his offense? Treason? No. A threat on the life of King Abdullah? No. His “crime” is he is gay. Per Nail al-Jubeir, a spokesperson at the Saudi embassy in D.C., “In general, homosexuality in Islam is unacceptable.” Quite the understatement Mr. al-Jubeir, quite the understatement.
5. More again on the mosque at Ground Zero. According to the 9/21/10 NY Times, a group of muslim leaders from various organizations gathered in NY to show their support for the Ground Zero mosque. Those attending included such “moderate” groups as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Circle of North America, and the Muslim American Society (MAS).
One Mahdi Bray of the MAS felt there was an analogy to be made of the mosque’s location with Rosa Parks, because people said to her “we want you to move, you offend us being where you are.” Really? That’s an appropriate comparison? Did Rosa Parks or her fellow blacks fly planes into buildings and kill 3000 people where she tried to board the bus and sit where she wanted? Am I missing something Mr. Bray?
How come, Mr. Bray, when you were asked about a 2000 video in which you are seen cheering for Hamas and Hezbollah, all you can say is it was taken out of context. What context would that be? When asked again at a joint news conference with your fellow muslim leaders, NONE of you would condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization? Remember, these muslim leaders are the so-called “moderates.” Which explains why, as indicated in the last blog, we are at war with Islam, and why this mosque should not be built.
Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax. When the cost of capital is raised, there is less capital being used to create economic growth by business expansion and business creation; in other words, less jobs. In a 9/29/10 article in the IBD Ralph Reiland quotes J.D.Foster, Ph.D., at the Heritage Foundation: “Obama is willing to trade losses in jobs and wages to advance his political ideology for tax fairness.” And in case you think Heritage is biased, how about this exchange between Obama and Charles Gibson during one of the pre-election debates: GIBSON: “In each instance when the rate was dropped, revenues from the tax increased – the government took in more money. And in the 1980’s when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?” OBAMA: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”
So there you have it. Never mind that the top 10% of US households pay 70% of the total of federal income tax revenues; and 40% to 50% of Americans pay no tax. Still not “fair” enough for Obama. Or how about this line from Obama. In referring to an extension of the Bush tax cuts (which by the way the failure to extend the "cuts" would be a tax hike, even though neither Obama nor the mainstream press will call it such), Obama said such an extension would be “giving them $100,000. for people making a million dollars or more.” Silly me – I thought when people earned money it was theirs. Obviously not, as Obama considers it the government’s money and he does not want to “give” it to the people who earned it.
2. Post racial politics? Not on your life! So has Obama, the unifier, brought us post racial politics? According to J. Christian Adams, a career attorney in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, his bosses “over and over and over” showed “hostility” to prosecuting any voter intimidation cases if it involved black defendants and white victims. The Obama Administration would not file election-related cases against minority defendants, no matter what the alleged violation of law. (From the 9/28/10 IBD.) So much for DOJ’s claim that they dropped the case against the Black Panthers due to an inability to prove their case. More like an unwillingness. Justice is not blind in this Administration, just racist.
So Obama favors blacks, just like he favors hispanics with his prosecution of a case against Arizona and Sheriff Joe. And according to the 9/19/10 Ventura County Star, Obama spoke to the Congressional Black Caucus in an effort to motivate them to in turn motivate black voters in their districts. (What if a white candidate urged white congressmen to motivate the white voters in their districts?) Obama also spoke to a Latino group, telling them: “…don’t forget who is standing with you, and who is standing against you…”
So rich versus poor, black and brown versus white, from the “unifier” Obama. Is this the “hope and change” he talked about?
3. We the people are stupid – just ask the Dems. According to John Kerry: “We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on, so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening.” Simple slogans, like “hope and change” perhaps? (Who knew I would agree with John Kerry.)
And recall Obama’s disdain for rural Americans, accusing them of clinging to their “guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
And now we have Jimmy Carter, one of the worst presidents ever, who just does not understand why Americans do not appreciate what a great job he did for us. Well, Jimmy, it might have something to do with your actual record: 18% rate of inflation when you left office, 18% interest rates, 11% unemployment, gas lines, and American hostages in Iran for over 400 days. Great job Jimmy. (Stats from 9/29/10 IBD.)
The Dems are still at it. Proving there is no limit to how low they will go, and how stupid they think we are, they have have now created the Meg Whitman maid story. The day after Whitman holds her own in a debate with Jerry Brown, longtime democrat supporter Gloria Allsleaze trots out the crying maid. It was quite a show; or should I say political stunt. Whitman hired the maid through an agency, vouching for the maid’s legality. The maid claimed (lied) she was here legally. She was paid $23 per hour. And she was crying why? Because she says she is still owed a few bucks. And she came forward risking deportation and criminal prosecution why? Because she claims she is still owed a few bucks. In responding to why she would put her client in such legal jeopardy by coming forward like this, Allsleaze said the maid had signed appropriate releases. Really? So the Dems got her to put herself at risk over a few bucks? It doesn’t passs the smell test. But does the media ask what’s really in it for her, or what she may have been promised? Do they wonder about the rather coincidental timing, and how long this whole thing may have been in the planning stages? Do they wonder what connections there were to the Brown campaign? And did they ask if the fix was already in with Obama’s racist DOJ to get a guarantee in advance that no action would be taken against the maid? Nope. Instead, the LA Slimes saw it this way: "Whitman admits maid was illegal.” (9/30/10 LA Times, page 1 of Latextra section.) Makes it sound like Whitman knew all along, as opposed to the fact that Whitman fired the maid as soon as found out the truth.
4. Biggest arms sale ever to our good ally – Saudi Arabia! That’s right. The terrorist supporting Saudis are about to get $60 BILLION of high tech armaments, including F-15’s and helicopters. As noted by Rep. Anthony Weiner, Dem. In NY’s 9th Cong. District: “Saudi schools still teach intolerance, hate and violence toward Jews, Christians and other non-muslims, and their public school textbooks accuse the Jews of attempting to take over the world, and demand that those who turn away from Islam be killed.” See how they share American values? Unlike that odious State of Israel.
Or how about this report from the 9/15/10 NY Times. One Ali Ahmad Asseri, a Saudi diplomat, has sought asylum in the US. He claims: “My life is in a great danger…if I go back to Saudi Arabia, they will kill me openly in broad daylight.” And what was his offense? Treason? No. A threat on the life of King Abdullah? No. His “crime” is he is gay. Per Nail al-Jubeir, a spokesperson at the Saudi embassy in D.C., “In general, homosexuality in Islam is unacceptable.” Quite the understatement Mr. al-Jubeir, quite the understatement.
5. More again on the mosque at Ground Zero. According to the 9/21/10 NY Times, a group of muslim leaders from various organizations gathered in NY to show their support for the Ground Zero mosque. Those attending included such “moderate” groups as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Circle of North America, and the Muslim American Society (MAS).
One Mahdi Bray of the MAS felt there was an analogy to be made of the mosque’s location with Rosa Parks, because people said to her “we want you to move, you offend us being where you are.” Really? That’s an appropriate comparison? Did Rosa Parks or her fellow blacks fly planes into buildings and kill 3000 people where she tried to board the bus and sit where she wanted? Am I missing something Mr. Bray?
How come, Mr. Bray, when you were asked about a 2000 video in which you are seen cheering for Hamas and Hezbollah, all you can say is it was taken out of context. What context would that be? When asked again at a joint news conference with your fellow muslim leaders, NONE of you would condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization? Remember, these muslim leaders are the so-called “moderates.” Which explains why, as indicated in the last blog, we are at war with Islam, and why this mosque should not be built.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)