One of my readers forwarded my last blog to a college student who had recently made a trip to Israel. The student was quite upset by what they saw: unjust treatment of "palestinians," a "disgusting wall" that Israel had built more or less along the "Green Line," and armed soldiers who were just "kids" carrying rifles and tormenting even the students. The student felt that my blog was one-sided and ignored the various "injustices." My reply to the student is below:
I used to be a liberal democrat. Then the 2000 intifada had a huge impact on me. Day after day I was watching Jews get blown up on buses (like happened today), in cafes, in malls, and even at a Passover Seder. I felt like I was watching the beginning of another Holocaust. Not knowing that much about the history of the area, I decided to do some reading. A lot of reading.
I like to put things in some perspective. There are under 14 million Jews in the entire world! Under 6 million in Israel. There are over 300 million Arabs. And there are 1.6 BILLION muslims. Israel is about the size of New Jersey. The Arab world: 50 times bigger? 100 times? 200 times? No. 625 times bigger than Israel. So one question reasonable people might ask, is why are 300 million Arabs and 1.6 billion muslims unable to accept the presence of 6 million Jews living on a tiny sliver of land (half of which is desert - the Negev)?
Some history. The only country to exist on the land was and is Israel: 2000 years ago, and again since 1948. Before World War I the Ottoman Empire controlled most of what is the Middle East, and did so for about 400 years. After the Ottoman defeat in WWI, England and France controlled most of the area. Syria, for example, got their independence from France in 1946. Palestine was under the "British Mandate." It consisted of Jordan (then Trans-Jordan), Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank (Judea and Sumaria). To make a long story short, Britain was reluctant to allow Jewish refugees from Europe after WWII to emigrate to Palestine. (If you have never watched the movie "Exodus" with Paul Newman, I recommend that you do so.) Under pressure from Jews and others, Britain turned over their Mandate to the UN General Assembly. The UN then approved a measure partitioning the land between the Jews and the Arabs. (I should point out that the Brits had already given 2/3 of the land in the Mandate to the Hashemite King in Jordan.) That left very little to be divided yet again between the Jews and remaining Arabs. Before the measure passed, the Arabs made it clear that they would never accept partition. (In the 1920's Jews were slaughtered by Arabs. In WWII, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem sided with Hitler and had a great interest in Hitler's "Final Solution." Muslim anti-semitism was quite prevalent before Israel existed.)
So, the UN voted partition in 1947; and on May 14, 1948 the tiny country of Israel declared their independence. The very next day, five Arab countries attacked; the first effort to wipe Israel off the map. The Israeli forces were outnumbered and lacking in weapons. Yet, the underdogs (yes, Israel was the weaker party and clearly the underdog) won. When the war ended in 1949, 6000 Israelis had been killed - one percent of the entire Jewish population. The boundaries that were set in the 1949 "armistice" were not final boundaries based upon any treaty. There was no treaty and no agreement other than a cessation of hostilities. (Which is why Obama does not call the "settlements" illegal but rather "illegitimate." Because they are not illegal.) Israel had to fight for its survival again in 1956 and again in the Six Day War of 1967. In 1967, Israel captured the West Bank, including Jerusalem, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Sinai. An amazing accomplishment for such a tiny country. Just so we are clear, from 1949 to 1967, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank. During that time the Jordanians allowed the destruction of numerous Jewish holy sights. When Israel captured Jerusalem in 1967, it turned over control of the Temple Mount (arguably the holiest site in Judaism, and where the Al Aksa mosque is) to the muslims. (We could debate why the muslims chose to build on top of the the site where the two Great Jewish Temples stood, but that is another matter.)
In 1973, on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for Jews, the Arabs attacked again. The Jews were totally caught off guard, and but for the intervention of Richard Nixon supplying war materiel to the Jews, Israel might very well have been wiped off the map. Since then there have been other wars, including the Lebanon war, the war with Hezbollah, the war with Hamas, and the two intifadas (1987-1992 and 2000-2006). But Israel is never at peace. Since 2000, and mostly since vacating Gaza, the "palestinians" there/Hamas have launched over 10,000 rockets and missiles into Israel. Can you imagine what the US would do if Mexico had launched even 100 rockets and missiles into San Diego? The public would have demanded massive retaliation. But Israel, now a powerful country militarily, acts with great restraint. They do so because they do not want to kill innocents; and because the world demands it. The world demands that Israel take more hits than any other country would tolerate. Israel could flatten Gaza - they do not. The Israeli army operates under what are probably the strictest rules of engagement for any military.
So now to your comments. No, I have never been to Israel. But my three kids have (one spent a year there), as have friends. I do not need to be there to have an opinion. I do not need to see animal abuse to know that it is wrong. I do not need to see spousal abuse to know that it is wrong. I can form those opinions without seeing it or speaking to the victims.
I put "palestine" and "palestnians" in quotes because the Jews were also "palestinians" before the state of Israel existed. Palestine was our homeland. I believe the Arabs of palestine (a more accurate description) use the term "palestinian" for propaganda purposes; it is something they are very good at. You were disturbed by kids with guns slung over their back. Military service is mandatory in Israel, and yes, kids, enter the service after high school and before college. They are 18, just like you can be here. Are you upset that there are armed soldiers everywhere? Israel lives in a very dangerous neighborhood, surrounded by enemies on all sides. Do you know why that "disgusting wall" as you put it was built? It was begun after the second intifada to prevent terrorists from slipping across the green line and blowing up Jews. It is a wall that has undoubtedly saved many Jewish lives. If you agree that the first obligation of any government is to protect the lives of its citizens, then you understand why that wall was built. If you believe the inconvenience of the Arabs is more important than Jewish lives, then I think you might have some soul-searching to do.
You said that the Jews would not have their state but for Christian fundamentalists, who you obviously have a great deal of disdain for. That, of course, is incorrect (see the history above). But it sounds like you believe the Jews should NOT have a state. Do you believe that? Are you okay with 57 muslim countries in the world but not one Jewish state? In what country do Arabs have the most political and economic freedoms? ISRAEL! That's right. There are over 1 million Arabs in Israel who live there as citizens. (Which is interesting because when they talk about a Palestinian state they always say the "settlements" have to go. Notice how ethnic cleansing of the proposed country of Palestine is never objected to by the media, our President, or the UN? It's only the Jews being kicked out.) You equate Christian fundamentalism with Islamic fundamentalism. Really? I would estimate that over 90% of the terrorist acts of the last four decades have been carried out by Islamic fundamentalists. I do not see, hear, or read about Christians trying to kill Jews ever. But you can get it daily from the Arab and muslim world. Read or listen to their media. Look at their schools where Israel does not exist on their maps. All the land is Palestine. Look how they teach their kids to hate, and to be homicide bombers and jihadists. They may be coming after the Jews now, but don't think for one minute it won't be the Christians next.
And let's be clear. I am not referring to the ever dwindling number of Christians who still live in the "palestinian" areas. The problem is with the muslims. Iraq lost over 600,000 Christians. Lebanon went from being a Christian country to now being a muslim country. Christians are treated very badly in Gaza. In each case it was muslims who kicked them out or made it so unpleasant that the Christians left. (Between 1948 and 1998 the Christian population of Israel quadrupled.) If all the lands were occupied by only Christians and Jews there would have been peace for decades already. You said there are real people on both sides. Did you talk to the families of Jews who have been killed by terrorists? Did you talk to any Jews other than soldiers at checkpoints? Can you tell me why Yassir Arafat walked out on Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak after being offered a state? Can you tell me why Abbas did not accept a state from George Bush and Olmert? Are you familiar with the three "no's" issued by the Arab League in Khartoum: no peace, no negotiations, no recognition of Israel. Do you know that both the Hamas Charter and the PA's charter call for the destruction of Israel?
Do you understand the significance of Israel to the Jews? It is not just their Biblical homeland, which is significant in itself. The world has often been a hostile place for Jews throughout history. When terrorists hijacked a French airplane loaded with Jews and took it to Idi Amin's Uganda, who rescued those Jews? Not the French. Not the USA. It was the tiny country of Israel. It was not an Israeli plane that was hijacked. But Jewish lives don't always mean that much to the rest of the world; and Israel sees itself as the protector of Jews worldwide.
You say you have to sympathize with people who react in a violent way. Did your fellow Christians evicted from Iraq and Lebanon and the palestinian areas react with violence? No. They moved on to other places where they could live in peace. Do you support what happened to the Fogel family? You sympathize with someone who stabs a family to death in their beds; even a 3 month old child? Do you support homicide bombers who blow up people on buses, in restaurants, in malls? Did you support the terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center? After all, they had a beef with us and the way they were treated. There is one group of people in the world who believe any actions taken against "infidels" is legitimate. Did you support the bastards who cut off the head of the journalist Daniel Perl? There is something very wrong with people who behave in this manner, and it saddens me to think that you would sympathize with such animals.
I do agree with you that it is a complicated situation. And, yes, innocents on both sides can be unfairly affected. And, yes, I even agree that some Israelis can be very tough people. But I do not have to sleep with an automatic weapon at my side every night for fear of an attack. I do not have to have a bomb shelter in my house, like all Israelis do. But when you think about that wall, ask yourself this: you walk over to your best friend's house and there is the father with a gun in his hand standing over a dead man on the floor who had just been shot. So you immediately conclude your friend's father is a murderer! Or, wait, did he act in self-defense? I hope we can agree that the moral difference is profound.
Sincerely,
Friday, March 25, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Half the Distance to the Goal.
In September, 2010, Obama indicated that he was giving the Israelis and "palestinians" one year to reach a resolution to their long-standing conflict on their own. Recently, the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli "settlements" as "illegitimate." While saying the issue should be resolved between the parties, the US nevertheless also condemned the "settlements." Meanwhile, the US and the Europeans have put "intense pressure" on Netanyahu to give the Palestinian Authority full control over West Bank cities, with the ultimate goal being the State of Palestine in what is now Gaza, the West Bank, and even part of Jerusalem. (Per Aaron Klein in the 3/9/11 Jewish Press.) Obama clearly prefers a "negotiated" (forced) resolution to one dictated by the UN, as the former would be one for which he could take credit. It would be his major foreign policy achievement, much the same way that Obamacare is his major domestic policy achievement. And it would come before the next presidential election.
So what's wrong with Obama's plan? EVERYTHING! First, the Arab Middle East is in turmoil. While there is no telling where things might end up, there is enough concern about the influences of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood that it should give Obama pause. With what could easily be an increasingly hostile Arab world surrounding Israel, is this the time to create a terrorist state right on Israel's borders; a state that may act as a noose around Israel's neck? Just how far does he think Ben Gurion airport will be from the border of the new "palestinian" state? Maybe five to six miles - not too far for a shoulder held rocket to start taking down Israeli commercial planes.
Second, while Bush pursued the same goal of a "palestinian" state, he did have certain preconditions. Stop the violence. Recognize Israel's right to exist as the home of the Jewish people. Obama, however, took sides the minute he took office. By immediately condemning the Israeli "settlements" as illegitimate, it encouraged the "palestinians" to simply walk away from the bargaining table. So now we are half the distance to Obama's goal, and with no negotiations taking place, Obama is putting all the pressure on Israel to create a new state on its border that will be dedicated to the destruction of Israel. As Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal recently said: "The first step (to liberating Jerusalem from Israeli occupation) is refusal to negotiate with Israel...and to establish a new, reconciled palestinian position based on jihad." (From AIPAC.)
Third, Obama's push for his goal requires him to ignore both past and current reality. It requires Obama to see Israel as the biggest threat to the United States - not Iran. On March 15, the Israeli Navy intercepted a weapons carrying ship 125 miles off its coast. The ship was German owned, under a Liberian flag, sailing out of Turkey. It made a stop in Syria - not coincidentally at the same port that 2 Iranian warships docked at after being allowed to pass through the Suez Canal in January. The ship was carrying 250 mortar shells, 67,000 bullets, and six C-704 sophisticated anti-ship missiles, along with the needed radar systems and hydraulic mounting cases. The ship was bound for Egypt, likely the Sinai; or Gaza. Hamas smuggles large amounts of weapons through tunnels between the Sinai and Gaza. On March 13, Egyptian security forces stopped 5 trucks from Sudan headed towards Gaza with rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, rifles and explosives. Iran anyone? Recently both Senegal and Gambia invited the Iranian ambassadors to their countries to leave. Senegal did so after finding Iranian made weapons in the hands of insurgents there; and Gambia finding Iranian arms on the way there. And while we know that Iran arms the Taliban with weapons that kill American troops, and the same for the insurgents in Iraq; we can only speculate as to how many Iranian munitions have been shipped to Hugo Chavez and other Central and South American countries. And Iranian nukes? Apparently not that big a deal to Obama.
Obama must ignore the terrorist actions of the "palestinians" to feel good about his goal. Israel was just hit with over 50 mortar shells from Gaza. Hamas took responsibility for at least some of those attacks. Thankfully no one was killed, but 2 Israelis were injured. And then there is the Fogel family. Udi and Ruth Fogel and three of their children, Yoav, 11 years old, Elad, 4 years old and Hadas, 3months old, were brutally stabbed and murdered in their beds in Itamar, one of those "settlements" condemned by the US and UN. So what type of person is able to stab children - and even a three month old - to death? The type that Obama must ignore in order to feel good about his goal. We know that the "palestinians" name schools, parks, streets, community centers, camps and other things after terrorists who have murdered innocent civilians. We know that Abbas takes part in the naming ceremonies honoring these bastards (Abbas, the "moderate") and even gives PA money to the families of the terrorists. We do not know what honors Abbas will give to the brutal murderers of the Fogel family. However, Obama will have to ignore the murders and honoring of terrorists to feel good about his goal.
Obama must ignore the words of the "palestinians" - from their leaders, from their media, and as taught in their schools. Leaders and a media and schools that teach hatred of Israel, of Jews, and of the US and the West. Schools that do not even show Israel on their maps; rather, all the land between the Jordan river and Mediterranean is "Palestine." It is a non-stop incitement that allows terrorists to think that a 3 month old child is worthy of being stabbed to death. Palestinian leaders who say one thing in English in order to gain the sympathy of the US and Western world; but who continue to preach violence and jihad to their people in Arabic. But Obama must ignore all of this in order to feel good about his goal.
So is Obama's goal "peace"? Not likely. It appears to this writer that Obama seeks Israeli concession after Israeli concession. If the "palestinians" get their state in Gaza, the West Bank and "east" Jerusalem, they will soon want all of Jerusalem, and bits and pieces of what is left of Israel until the Jews leave or are killed. And with Iranian nukes, and Iranian weapons going to Syria, Hezbollah, the "palestinians" and other Arab countries, Israel's next war could very well be its last. I wish that there was even a hint that Obama gives a damn.
So what's wrong with Obama's plan? EVERYTHING! First, the Arab Middle East is in turmoil. While there is no telling where things might end up, there is enough concern about the influences of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood that it should give Obama pause. With what could easily be an increasingly hostile Arab world surrounding Israel, is this the time to create a terrorist state right on Israel's borders; a state that may act as a noose around Israel's neck? Just how far does he think Ben Gurion airport will be from the border of the new "palestinian" state? Maybe five to six miles - not too far for a shoulder held rocket to start taking down Israeli commercial planes.
Second, while Bush pursued the same goal of a "palestinian" state, he did have certain preconditions. Stop the violence. Recognize Israel's right to exist as the home of the Jewish people. Obama, however, took sides the minute he took office. By immediately condemning the Israeli "settlements" as illegitimate, it encouraged the "palestinians" to simply walk away from the bargaining table. So now we are half the distance to Obama's goal, and with no negotiations taking place, Obama is putting all the pressure on Israel to create a new state on its border that will be dedicated to the destruction of Israel. As Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal recently said: "The first step (to liberating Jerusalem from Israeli occupation) is refusal to negotiate with Israel...and to establish a new, reconciled palestinian position based on jihad." (From AIPAC.)
Third, Obama's push for his goal requires him to ignore both past and current reality. It requires Obama to see Israel as the biggest threat to the United States - not Iran. On March 15, the Israeli Navy intercepted a weapons carrying ship 125 miles off its coast. The ship was German owned, under a Liberian flag, sailing out of Turkey. It made a stop in Syria - not coincidentally at the same port that 2 Iranian warships docked at after being allowed to pass through the Suez Canal in January. The ship was carrying 250 mortar shells, 67,000 bullets, and six C-704 sophisticated anti-ship missiles, along with the needed radar systems and hydraulic mounting cases. The ship was bound for Egypt, likely the Sinai; or Gaza. Hamas smuggles large amounts of weapons through tunnels between the Sinai and Gaza. On March 13, Egyptian security forces stopped 5 trucks from Sudan headed towards Gaza with rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, rifles and explosives. Iran anyone? Recently both Senegal and Gambia invited the Iranian ambassadors to their countries to leave. Senegal did so after finding Iranian made weapons in the hands of insurgents there; and Gambia finding Iranian arms on the way there. And while we know that Iran arms the Taliban with weapons that kill American troops, and the same for the insurgents in Iraq; we can only speculate as to how many Iranian munitions have been shipped to Hugo Chavez and other Central and South American countries. And Iranian nukes? Apparently not that big a deal to Obama.
Obama must ignore the terrorist actions of the "palestinians" to feel good about his goal. Israel was just hit with over 50 mortar shells from Gaza. Hamas took responsibility for at least some of those attacks. Thankfully no one was killed, but 2 Israelis were injured. And then there is the Fogel family. Udi and Ruth Fogel and three of their children, Yoav, 11 years old, Elad, 4 years old and Hadas, 3months old, were brutally stabbed and murdered in their beds in Itamar, one of those "settlements" condemned by the US and UN. So what type of person is able to stab children - and even a three month old - to death? The type that Obama must ignore in order to feel good about his goal. We know that the "palestinians" name schools, parks, streets, community centers, camps and other things after terrorists who have murdered innocent civilians. We know that Abbas takes part in the naming ceremonies honoring these bastards (Abbas, the "moderate") and even gives PA money to the families of the terrorists. We do not know what honors Abbas will give to the brutal murderers of the Fogel family. However, Obama will have to ignore the murders and honoring of terrorists to feel good about his goal.
Obama must ignore the words of the "palestinians" - from their leaders, from their media, and as taught in their schools. Leaders and a media and schools that teach hatred of Israel, of Jews, and of the US and the West. Schools that do not even show Israel on their maps; rather, all the land between the Jordan river and Mediterranean is "Palestine." It is a non-stop incitement that allows terrorists to think that a 3 month old child is worthy of being stabbed to death. Palestinian leaders who say one thing in English in order to gain the sympathy of the US and Western world; but who continue to preach violence and jihad to their people in Arabic. But Obama must ignore all of this in order to feel good about his goal.
So is Obama's goal "peace"? Not likely. It appears to this writer that Obama seeks Israeli concession after Israeli concession. If the "palestinians" get their state in Gaza, the West Bank and "east" Jerusalem, they will soon want all of Jerusalem, and bits and pieces of what is left of Israel until the Jews leave or are killed. And with Iranian nukes, and Iranian weapons going to Syria, Hezbollah, the "palestinians" and other Arab countries, Israel's next war could very well be its last. I wish that there was even a hint that Obama gives a damn.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Republican Governors Take on the Unions; and More on the Middle East.
1. Republican Governors versus Public Employee Unions. In a battle begun by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and N.J. Gov. Chris Christie, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ohio Gov. John Kasich are reminding the people of their states of that old truism: there are no free lunches. When Christie wanted the N.J. teachers to increase their share of health insurance premiums by 1.5%, he got death threats. Now, in Wisconsin, teachers and other public employees have been out en masse protesting Gov. Walker's proposal that they contribute 5.8% to their pensions and 12.6% to their health insurance. The Unions say they have conceded the issues, and are now fighting over the right to maintain collective bargaining for themselves. Putting aside for a moment the issue of whether or not public employees, as public servants paid by the taxpayers, should even have that right, let's see what collective bargaining has wrought.
According to the Wall Street Journal (Feb. 19-20, 2011) the following reflects the differences in public vs. private employment (with the figures for public employees first): $26.25 per hour on average vs. $19.68; 99% get some retirement benefits vs. 74%; 99% get medical benefits vs. 86%; 98% get sick leave vs. 74%; 11 paid holidays vs. 8; and 11% paid to their own insurance premiums vs. 20%. So the question is: what makes public employees more important than those in the private sector? Why should a person who works in the private sector, already making on average less than public employees, pay either wholly or in part for their own retirement and health insurance, and then have to pay for the public employees' as well? Why isn't everyone on a level playing field? The answer is CORRUPTION!
The unions, especially the public employee ones, have become the fund raising arm of the Democratic Party. The unions contribute millions to help democrats get elected; and the Dems return the favor by granting big salaries and huge benefits in return. Only they do it with taxpayer money. (If they did this in the private sector, people would be going to jail.) While Wisconsin's state pension plan provides that the state will contribute 6.8%, and employees contribute 6.2%, that does not necessarily happen. The reason is that through COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (more properly referred to as collusion) some districts (like Milwaukee) pay the entire 13%.
And while lifetime medical care often accompanies pensions in the public sector, it is rare indeed in the private sector.
So what will Jerry Brown do in California? His first proposed budget does not even address the pension issue. California's projected budget deficit is $25.4 billion, far and away the highest in the nation. And what do we have to show for our spending spree? "12.6% unemployment; public schools ranking near the bottom in math and science; a business climate ranked by CEOs as last for jobs and business growth; the highest gasoline tax and combined sales, local and state income taxes that are among the nation's steepest." (According to Victor Davis Hanson in the 2/14/11 Investor's Business Daily.) Although Mr. Hanson notes that we do have "30% of the national welfare load" with only 12% of the population.
Even the LA Times, in their lead editorial of 2/26/11, notes that many state and local government employees were promised pensions that the public could not afford (citing a report just issued by the Little Hoover Commission). According to the Commission: "pension costs will crush government." The Times recognizes that "the more tax dollars governments have to devote to pensions, the more they'll have to take from other programs or from taxpayers. That means more layoffs or pay cuts for public employees, higher taxes, fewer services, or all of the above." But the Times is part of the problem as they consistently support democrat candidates for the legislature, the same party that has gotten us into this mess. They even note that in 1999 the Legislature reduced the public employees' retirement age, and increased their pensions - retroactively. Yet it is almost guaranteed that the Times will endorse more democrats for the Legislature in 2012.
Meanwhile, an increasing number of governors are asking the Feds for waivers from some of the requirements of Medicaid (Medical in California). According to Peter Suderman, in an article in the 2/15/11 Wall Street Journal, Medicaid now takes about 21% of total state expenditures. He states that Medicaid covers a whopping 53 million people and costs $373.9 billion per year - with states expected to pay one-half of the tab. The states need the waivers because of their increasing budgetary problems. Of course, the Feds have no money either, with a $14 TRILLION debt.
Yet, Obama's proposed budget does nothing to address the major issues of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Even Erksine Bowles, Democrat appointed to be co-chair of Obama's fiscal commission, said Obama's budget goes "nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare." (Per Michael Barone in the 2/17/11 Wall Street Journal.) I think Obama is playing politics and waiting to see if the Republicans' proposed cuts are supported by the public. If not, he will make it a big campaign issue in 2012. So much for a new way of doing business in D.C. So much for Hope and Change. So I say: Let's hear it for the Republican Governors! They are the only ones giving us real Hope and Change.
2. The Middle East. It appears one Middle Eastern dictator after the next may be falling. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and others. While the left hails these developments as a blow for freedom, we on the right (and the more sensible ones on the left) know that we must be cautiously optimistic. Citing a Pew Research poll, the 2/11/11 IBD lead editorial gives some frightening statistics regarding Egyptians: 95% prefer that Islam "play a large role in politics;" "84% favor the death penalty for people who leave the muslim faith; 82% support stoning adulterers; 77% think thieves should have their hands cut off; 54% support a law segregating women from men in the workplace; 54% believe suicide bombings that kill civilians can be justified; and nearly half support the terrorist group Hamas."
As seems typical now in the area of foreign affairs, the Obama Administration is either way over their heads, totally incompetent, or simply on the wrong side. Take your pick. As noted by Bret Stephens in the 2/15/11 Wall Street Journal, our Director of National Intelligence told the Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood was "largely secular." What a moron! This is the man that heads all of our "intelligence" agencies. This is what happens when Obama puts politics, political correctness, and his naive and distorted view of the world ahead of realty. It explains why the head of NASA would say NASA's mission is outreach to the Muslim World. It explains why Obama said all Israeli "settlements" in the West Bank - even part of Jerusalem - are "illegitimate."
So what does the Muslim Brotherhood really have to say? Per Mr. Stephens, Kamal al-Hilbawi, one of the leaders, said he "thinks highly of a country...that confronts Western hegemony, and is scientifically and technologically advanced. Unfortunately, these characteristics can be found only in The ISLAMIC Republic of Iran." (Emphasis added.) And then we have this comment from Muhammad Badie, supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood: "Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny. The improvement and change that the (Muslim) nation seeks can only be attained...by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death as the enemies pursue life." DEATH OVER LIFE!
It is fair to ask just where this President's sensibilities lie. Why did Obama have the then president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) give a prayer as part of his inauguration cermonies? The ISNA is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, itself an offshoot of the Brotherhood. Why did Obama send his close friend and top adviser Valerie Jarrett to be keynote speaker at the ISNA's 2009 convention? If Obama's goal was to win hearts and minds, it did not work. Even though he spoke to the muslim world from Cairo, 82% of Egyptians dislike the USA, per the above-referenced Pew poll. So maybe Obama is just letting us know which side he is on.
The early signs in Egypt are certainly not all positive. For the first time in decades Iranian warships have been allowed to pass through the Suez Canal. Clearly, the proximity of these ships to Israel poses a direct threat to that country. (Does Obama, with all of the unrest in the Arab world, even now understand that Israel is our closest and best ally in the region?) Hamas, perhaps feeling emboldened, launched a missile attack on Beersheva, a city considerably further from the Gaza border than previous targets.
Meanwhile, the palestinians say the "peace talks" are dead, and will be pushing for a UN resolution granting them statehood. Undoubtedly, they see they can use the push for "democracy" in the region to their advantage. They have lined up eight Latin American countries, and are now wooing the European countries for their support. Needless to say, they will have the support of the 57 muslim countries in the world. It will not be difficult for them to get the UN to support them. After all, 155 out of the total of 192 member countries at the UN voted just last year to elect Libya to the Human Rights Council. Did those 155 countries think Qaddafi actually supported human rights until he started killing his fellow countrymen in the streets? How many would make the same vote today?
It would behoove the O. team to remember that "democracy" is simply a process. The real goal is liberty. Democracy may be the best process to ensure liberty, but it is far from being a guarantee.
According to the Wall Street Journal (Feb. 19-20, 2011) the following reflects the differences in public vs. private employment (with the figures for public employees first): $26.25 per hour on average vs. $19.68; 99% get some retirement benefits vs. 74%; 99% get medical benefits vs. 86%; 98% get sick leave vs. 74%; 11 paid holidays vs. 8; and 11% paid to their own insurance premiums vs. 20%. So the question is: what makes public employees more important than those in the private sector? Why should a person who works in the private sector, already making on average less than public employees, pay either wholly or in part for their own retirement and health insurance, and then have to pay for the public employees' as well? Why isn't everyone on a level playing field? The answer is CORRUPTION!
The unions, especially the public employee ones, have become the fund raising arm of the Democratic Party. The unions contribute millions to help democrats get elected; and the Dems return the favor by granting big salaries and huge benefits in return. Only they do it with taxpayer money. (If they did this in the private sector, people would be going to jail.) While Wisconsin's state pension plan provides that the state will contribute 6.8%, and employees contribute 6.2%, that does not necessarily happen. The reason is that through COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (more properly referred to as collusion) some districts (like Milwaukee) pay the entire 13%.
And while lifetime medical care often accompanies pensions in the public sector, it is rare indeed in the private sector.
So what will Jerry Brown do in California? His first proposed budget does not even address the pension issue. California's projected budget deficit is $25.4 billion, far and away the highest in the nation. And what do we have to show for our spending spree? "12.6% unemployment; public schools ranking near the bottom in math and science; a business climate ranked by CEOs as last for jobs and business growth; the highest gasoline tax and combined sales, local and state income taxes that are among the nation's steepest." (According to Victor Davis Hanson in the 2/14/11 Investor's Business Daily.) Although Mr. Hanson notes that we do have "30% of the national welfare load" with only 12% of the population.
Even the LA Times, in their lead editorial of 2/26/11, notes that many state and local government employees were promised pensions that the public could not afford (citing a report just issued by the Little Hoover Commission). According to the Commission: "pension costs will crush government." The Times recognizes that "the more tax dollars governments have to devote to pensions, the more they'll have to take from other programs or from taxpayers. That means more layoffs or pay cuts for public employees, higher taxes, fewer services, or all of the above." But the Times is part of the problem as they consistently support democrat candidates for the legislature, the same party that has gotten us into this mess. They even note that in 1999 the Legislature reduced the public employees' retirement age, and increased their pensions - retroactively. Yet it is almost guaranteed that the Times will endorse more democrats for the Legislature in 2012.
Meanwhile, an increasing number of governors are asking the Feds for waivers from some of the requirements of Medicaid (Medical in California). According to Peter Suderman, in an article in the 2/15/11 Wall Street Journal, Medicaid now takes about 21% of total state expenditures. He states that Medicaid covers a whopping 53 million people and costs $373.9 billion per year - with states expected to pay one-half of the tab. The states need the waivers because of their increasing budgetary problems. Of course, the Feds have no money either, with a $14 TRILLION debt.
Yet, Obama's proposed budget does nothing to address the major issues of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Even Erksine Bowles, Democrat appointed to be co-chair of Obama's fiscal commission, said Obama's budget goes "nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare." (Per Michael Barone in the 2/17/11 Wall Street Journal.) I think Obama is playing politics and waiting to see if the Republicans' proposed cuts are supported by the public. If not, he will make it a big campaign issue in 2012. So much for a new way of doing business in D.C. So much for Hope and Change. So I say: Let's hear it for the Republican Governors! They are the only ones giving us real Hope and Change.
2. The Middle East. It appears one Middle Eastern dictator after the next may be falling. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and others. While the left hails these developments as a blow for freedom, we on the right (and the more sensible ones on the left) know that we must be cautiously optimistic. Citing a Pew Research poll, the 2/11/11 IBD lead editorial gives some frightening statistics regarding Egyptians: 95% prefer that Islam "play a large role in politics;" "84% favor the death penalty for people who leave the muslim faith; 82% support stoning adulterers; 77% think thieves should have their hands cut off; 54% support a law segregating women from men in the workplace; 54% believe suicide bombings that kill civilians can be justified; and nearly half support the terrorist group Hamas."
As seems typical now in the area of foreign affairs, the Obama Administration is either way over their heads, totally incompetent, or simply on the wrong side. Take your pick. As noted by Bret Stephens in the 2/15/11 Wall Street Journal, our Director of National Intelligence told the Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood was "largely secular." What a moron! This is the man that heads all of our "intelligence" agencies. This is what happens when Obama puts politics, political correctness, and his naive and distorted view of the world ahead of realty. It explains why the head of NASA would say NASA's mission is outreach to the Muslim World. It explains why Obama said all Israeli "settlements" in the West Bank - even part of Jerusalem - are "illegitimate."
So what does the Muslim Brotherhood really have to say? Per Mr. Stephens, Kamal al-Hilbawi, one of the leaders, said he "thinks highly of a country...that confronts Western hegemony, and is scientifically and technologically advanced. Unfortunately, these characteristics can be found only in The ISLAMIC Republic of Iran." (Emphasis added.) And then we have this comment from Muhammad Badie, supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood: "Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny. The improvement and change that the (Muslim) nation seeks can only be attained...by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death as the enemies pursue life." DEATH OVER LIFE!
It is fair to ask just where this President's sensibilities lie. Why did Obama have the then president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) give a prayer as part of his inauguration cermonies? The ISNA is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, itself an offshoot of the Brotherhood. Why did Obama send his close friend and top adviser Valerie Jarrett to be keynote speaker at the ISNA's 2009 convention? If Obama's goal was to win hearts and minds, it did not work. Even though he spoke to the muslim world from Cairo, 82% of Egyptians dislike the USA, per the above-referenced Pew poll. So maybe Obama is just letting us know which side he is on.
The early signs in Egypt are certainly not all positive. For the first time in decades Iranian warships have been allowed to pass through the Suez Canal. Clearly, the proximity of these ships to Israel poses a direct threat to that country. (Does Obama, with all of the unrest in the Arab world, even now understand that Israel is our closest and best ally in the region?) Hamas, perhaps feeling emboldened, launched a missile attack on Beersheva, a city considerably further from the Gaza border than previous targets.
Meanwhile, the palestinians say the "peace talks" are dead, and will be pushing for a UN resolution granting them statehood. Undoubtedly, they see they can use the push for "democracy" in the region to their advantage. They have lined up eight Latin American countries, and are now wooing the European countries for their support. Needless to say, they will have the support of the 57 muslim countries in the world. It will not be difficult for them to get the UN to support them. After all, 155 out of the total of 192 member countries at the UN voted just last year to elect Libya to the Human Rights Council. Did those 155 countries think Qaddafi actually supported human rights until he started killing his fellow countrymen in the streets? How many would make the same vote today?
It would behoove the O. team to remember that "democracy" is simply a process. The real goal is liberty. Democracy may be the best process to ensure liberty, but it is far from being a guarantee.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Turmoil in the Middle East and What We Can Learn From it.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)