It is understood by all but the far left that the mainstream media has a strong liberal/leftist bias. For the far left, however, they do not have that perception of the media simply because they believe the media has not gone far enough to the left. So here are just a few examples of the liberal media bias.
* The lead story on the front page of the 12/13/11 LA Times is entitled "High court to rule on immigration." The issue, according to the Times, is "whether Arizona and other states can target illegal immigrants for arrest..." In the third paragraph they postulate a dilemma for leading Republican candidates for President - "appealing to their anti-immigrant base...(vs.)... alienating the growing bloc of Latino voters." So while the Times acknowledges that the legal issue involves ILLEGAL immigrants only, they somehow lost the ability to make that distinction on behalf of Republicans. Republicans are anti-ALL immigrants, legal or not. They may as well have called Republicans "racists" (which they undoubtedly believe to be the case). But people would have immediately picked up on that obvious media bias. Much better to use the more subtle suggestion that Republicans are anti-all immigration. I do not know any Republican, personally or otherwise among the candidates, opposed to legal immigration. When I tell people that the media engages in a subtle form of brainwashing through propaganda, this is the type of "reporting" to which I am referring.
* Those wealthy Republicans, like Romney, are out of touch with the American people. As reported by Larry Elder in the 12/15/11 Investor's Business Daily, the Democratic National Committee immediately blasted Romney as out of touch for offering that $10,000 bet to Rick Perry at one of the debates. The media joined in. But this is a lie frequently told by the media - those wealthy Republicans don't care about the average joe. They are simply out of touch. As Elder points out, there are more multi-millionaire Democrats in the US Senate than there are Republicans. Oops. That does not fit with the propaganda. And who was making $300,000 per year when, in Zanesville, Ohio, she complained about the "high cost of her daughters' summer camp, piano and dance lessons?" That would be Michelle Obama, speaking in a town where the median income was $28,854 (about $13,000 less than the national median). Out of touch? Oops. Obama went to Columbia University and then Harvard Law School. Does that experience put him in touch with the average American? Or how about when Obama referred to the US Senate salary of $170,000 as "relatively modest." Oops. (All as reported in the Elder IBD article.)
* The LA Times becomes part of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. In their lead editorial in the Sunday, 12/4/11 edition, they write: "An Occupy manifesto." That's right; not content with simply commenting on and otherwise supporting the "Occupy" movement, they wrote a Manifesto to aid the rudderless movement in an effort to help them accomplish their goals. As the "Occupy" movement has been largely supported by the Democrat party, do you now see what I mean when I say that the LA and NY Times (and others) act as the media arm of the Democrat party? The Manifesto suggests that the movement address five main issues: financial reform, taxation, corporate influence, education, and marijuana. Marijuana? Really? A main issue? Okay, how about "corporate influence." The Times is still ranting about the Citizens United case in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no limit on corporate advertising if the money was spent on independent advertising, not tied to any campaign. The Times still sees no problem with Union influence, however. Public employee unions have long had a corrupt relationship with state legislatures around the country. They give large sums to Democrat candidates and are rewarded with legislation providing ridiculous benefits and pensions to the unions, all at taxpayers' expense. These deals are bankrupting states; but somehow the corporate influence is the problem.
* Obama's economic speech at Osawatomie, Kansas. Well, the mainstream media loved this speech. Obama made hard-hitting comments like this: Republicans believe that "If only we cut more regulations and cut more taxes - especially for the wealthy - our economy will grow stronger...It's a simple theory...Here's the problem: It doesn't work. Its never worked." The NY Times immediately praised the speech as a "relief" to hear. (In their lead editorial of 12/7/11.) They agreed that cutting regulations and taxes do not work: "Not before the Great Depression, not in the 80's,and not in the last decade." The lead editorial in the 12/8/11 IBD disagreed. They note that after Reagan lowered taxes and cut regulations there was an economic boom lasting two decades. The Times also conveniently ignores how one business owner and CEO after the next says they have money to expand and grow jobs, but are reluctant to do so because of the unknown impact of Obama's policies (like Obamacare) on their bottom line. The Times also ignores how a high tax and regulation state like California has been bleeding jobs to a lower tax and regulation state like Texas. The Times agreed with Obama's assessment that the "rich" need to pay more taxes. As Obama said: the "wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century." Except the CBO shows that in 2009 the richest 1% paid about 40% of federal income taxes; whereas in 1980 they only paid 18%. (As reported in the 12/8/11 IBD.)
* The NY Times recently asked Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to write an op-ed piece for their paper. (As reported by Herb Keinon in the 12/16/11 Jerusalem Post online.) Ron Dermer, a senior advisor to Netanyahu, "respectfully declined." But in the Netanyahu style, he did not leave it at that. He then blasted the paper for their negative attitudes towards Israel, as reflected in 19 of their last 20 op-ed pieces. The Times let their liberal (and Jewish) columnist Thomas Friedman say in his column that Netanyahu's tremendous reception from Congress earlier this year was "bought and paid for by the Israel lobby." No chance any of those Senators or Congressmen actually view Israel as a strategic ally, with shared values? And Dermer further blasted the paper for printing an op-ed piece by Abbas, head of the PA. In referring to Israel's war for independence in 1948, Abbas said in that article: "Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued." Except that none of it is true. When the UN voted partition of the British Mandate in 1947, the Arabs announced before the vote that they would never accept the existence of a Jewish state. Five Arab countries, along with the aid of at least some of the Arabs in the Mandate area, attacked Israel the day after Israel declared their independence.
Dermer made a comment that all of the mainstream media should consider. He said that it was a shame that the "paper of record" (as the NY Times calls itself) ignored the admonition from Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "...everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but...no one is entitled to their own facts." But how can the mainstream media be expected to screen submissions for factual accuracy, when their own articles and editorials have long abandoned the idea of accuracy in favor of propaganda?
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Two Americas
Much has been wrriten about the Occupy Wall Street movement. Without any empirical data at hand, my gut tells me that the mainstream media has been far more interested in this movement than the Tea Party movement. The obvious differences have been discussed in articles and emails going around. The Tea Party peaceful, OWS not so much. The Tea Party obtains permits and peacefully demonstrates accordingly, OWS not so much. Tea Partiers clean up after themselves, OWS - well, I assume you have all seen the pictures.
There are, actually, some areas of agreement between the two movements. No government bailouts of big corporations. An end to government and corporate corruption. But there remains a fundamental difference between the two groups, a difference that reflects two very differing views of America. The Tea Party wants a smaller government, and to be left alone as much as possible to pursue their own economic and personal interests. OWS wants Big government, and they want entitlements - good jobs from the government, no student loan repayments, taking money from the "wealthy," and other handouts.
It has been said that OWS lacks clear leadership. I disagree. Their true leader is none other than the President. Now, before some of you start criticizing me for saying nonsense, let's take a look.
The OWS crowd constantly refers to the 99% vs. the 1%. Who is the one continually criticizing the millionaires and billionaires (the 1%) for not paying their fair share? Obama. Who, as candidate for President, said he wanted to bring "fundamental" change to this country? Obama. Who said he did not want any restraints on his power based upon "some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?" Obama.
Who did Obama pick as his main Czar? Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar. Sunstein wrote a book published in 2004 entitled: "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why we Need it More than Ever." Unlike the original Bill of Rights, which assured freedom and liberty to the people by restraining government power, this Bill of Rights seek to enlarge government in unimaginable ways. Or maybe not so unimaginable. Here is the Second Bill of Rights:
1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
5. The right of every family to a decent home;
6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;
8. The right to a good education. (As reported by Aaron Klein in the 11/17/11 Jewish Press online.)
In the America of our Founders, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect Americans from excessive government power and unwanted government intrusion in our lives. It reflects the conservative view of America. In this Second Bill of Rights we see that it is a list of what government can do you for you. These "rights" are nothing other than "entitlements." It relects the liberal view of America.
Anybody seriously dispute that Obama does not agree with the Second Bill of Rights? He said he wants every young person to get a college education. He forced Obamacare on a country that did not want it. (Even though these socialists/utopians do not get that the right to "achieve and enjoy good health" is sometimes up to G-d, not man.) He may not have been able to create jobs for everyone (just the opposite with his job destroying policies) but in its place he sought unlimited unemployment benefits.
Now who exactly pays for all these goodies? We, the taxpayers, are already $15 trillion in the hole. So where does the money come from? Confiscate every dime from the millionaires and billionaires and you still will not have enough money for this. And what happens to an individual's drive and motivation to achieve something in life, when everything is already given to him? Well, in the utopian dream world of the left none of these questions is asked, and therefore none has to be answered.
Another top advisor and supporter and confidante of Obama has been Andy Stern, the former head of the Service Employees International Union. Mr. Stern wrote an article praising the Chinese economic model over ours (as seen in the 12/1/11 Wall street Journal). Whereas China "plans" their economic growth, we still rely on old-fashioned capitalism. He laments the "demonization of government and worship of the free market at a historical moment that requires rethinking of both those beliefs." Sounds a lot like Obama's "fundamental change" to me.
He talks about a city in Western China building "1.5 million square feet of usable floor space daily...including 700,000 units of public housing annually." This is laughable. One of the news shows only recently had a segment about the vast amount of housing that had been built in the more rural, remote areas of China over the last few years. They showed one high rise apartment complex after the next in various cities. The only problem - they were virtually all vacant. Unless the government dictates where people must live, the Chinese made a very basic mistake of building where no market exists. That's right - NO MARKET. As in capitalism and free markets. But maybe people like Stern and Sunstein and Obama do not see any problem in having government dictate where people live.
Stern's views conflict with other realities in China as well. The very same edition of the WSJ had an article discussing China's sagging trade and real estate sectors. Stern ignores the reality that, even with their "five year plans," China has become more open to the free market, seeing the wealth that capitalism has created in their own backyard - Hong Kong.
We seem to have two very differing views of America: the OWS/Obama/Sunstein/Stern/Reid/Pelosi/liberal/socialist view, and the Tea Party/original Bill of Rights/Constitutionalist/conservative point of view. Some of you have sent emails in the past suggesting that it is time for the country to split: either east and west or north and south, liberals in one area and conservatives in another. Not very feasible; and maybe not desirable.
But how about this: at age 18 every individual registers as a conservative or liberal. If you register as a conservative, you may own a gun; liberal, no. Conservatives will pay 1/2 the taxes of liberals; someone has to pay for all those social equality programs. Conservatives will have the original Bill of Rights apply to them; liberals will have Sunstein's Second Bill of Rights. Conservatives will have a right to free speech, along with existing requirements for permits, and "time, place and manner" restrictions. Liberals get to occupy other liberals' property as they may see fit. Conservatives maintain their private health insurance. Liberals - have fun with Obamacare. And so on.
I am not a gambler, but if I had to bet, I would guess that 80% of the people would sign up as "conservative," with only the hardcore 20% or so on the left clinging to their government run utopia. Anyone ready to sign up?
There are, actually, some areas of agreement between the two movements. No government bailouts of big corporations. An end to government and corporate corruption. But there remains a fundamental difference between the two groups, a difference that reflects two very differing views of America. The Tea Party wants a smaller government, and to be left alone as much as possible to pursue their own economic and personal interests. OWS wants Big government, and they want entitlements - good jobs from the government, no student loan repayments, taking money from the "wealthy," and other handouts.
It has been said that OWS lacks clear leadership. I disagree. Their true leader is none other than the President. Now, before some of you start criticizing me for saying nonsense, let's take a look.
The OWS crowd constantly refers to the 99% vs. the 1%. Who is the one continually criticizing the millionaires and billionaires (the 1%) for not paying their fair share? Obama. Who, as candidate for President, said he wanted to bring "fundamental" change to this country? Obama. Who said he did not want any restraints on his power based upon "some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?" Obama.
Who did Obama pick as his main Czar? Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar. Sunstein wrote a book published in 2004 entitled: "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why we Need it More than Ever." Unlike the original Bill of Rights, which assured freedom and liberty to the people by restraining government power, this Bill of Rights seek to enlarge government in unimaginable ways. Or maybe not so unimaginable. Here is the Second Bill of Rights:
1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
5. The right of every family to a decent home;
6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;
8. The right to a good education. (As reported by Aaron Klein in the 11/17/11 Jewish Press online.)
In the America of our Founders, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect Americans from excessive government power and unwanted government intrusion in our lives. It reflects the conservative view of America. In this Second Bill of Rights we see that it is a list of what government can do you for you. These "rights" are nothing other than "entitlements." It relects the liberal view of America.
Anybody seriously dispute that Obama does not agree with the Second Bill of Rights? He said he wants every young person to get a college education. He forced Obamacare on a country that did not want it. (Even though these socialists/utopians do not get that the right to "achieve and enjoy good health" is sometimes up to G-d, not man.) He may not have been able to create jobs for everyone (just the opposite with his job destroying policies) but in its place he sought unlimited unemployment benefits.
Now who exactly pays for all these goodies? We, the taxpayers, are already $15 trillion in the hole. So where does the money come from? Confiscate every dime from the millionaires and billionaires and you still will not have enough money for this. And what happens to an individual's drive and motivation to achieve something in life, when everything is already given to him? Well, in the utopian dream world of the left none of these questions is asked, and therefore none has to be answered.
Another top advisor and supporter and confidante of Obama has been Andy Stern, the former head of the Service Employees International Union. Mr. Stern wrote an article praising the Chinese economic model over ours (as seen in the 12/1/11 Wall street Journal). Whereas China "plans" their economic growth, we still rely on old-fashioned capitalism. He laments the "demonization of government and worship of the free market at a historical moment that requires rethinking of both those beliefs." Sounds a lot like Obama's "fundamental change" to me.
He talks about a city in Western China building "1.5 million square feet of usable floor space daily...including 700,000 units of public housing annually." This is laughable. One of the news shows only recently had a segment about the vast amount of housing that had been built in the more rural, remote areas of China over the last few years. They showed one high rise apartment complex after the next in various cities. The only problem - they were virtually all vacant. Unless the government dictates where people must live, the Chinese made a very basic mistake of building where no market exists. That's right - NO MARKET. As in capitalism and free markets. But maybe people like Stern and Sunstein and Obama do not see any problem in having government dictate where people live.
Stern's views conflict with other realities in China as well. The very same edition of the WSJ had an article discussing China's sagging trade and real estate sectors. Stern ignores the reality that, even with their "five year plans," China has become more open to the free market, seeing the wealth that capitalism has created in their own backyard - Hong Kong.
We seem to have two very differing views of America: the OWS/Obama/Sunstein/Stern/Reid/Pelosi/liberal/socialist view, and the Tea Party/original Bill of Rights/Constitutionalist/conservative point of view. Some of you have sent emails in the past suggesting that it is time for the country to split: either east and west or north and south, liberals in one area and conservatives in another. Not very feasible; and maybe not desirable.
But how about this: at age 18 every individual registers as a conservative or liberal. If you register as a conservative, you may own a gun; liberal, no. Conservatives will pay 1/2 the taxes of liberals; someone has to pay for all those social equality programs. Conservatives will have the original Bill of Rights apply to them; liberals will have Sunstein's Second Bill of Rights. Conservatives will have a right to free speech, along with existing requirements for permits, and "time, place and manner" restrictions. Liberals get to occupy other liberals' property as they may see fit. Conservatives maintain their private health insurance. Liberals - have fun with Obamacare. And so on.
I am not a gambler, but if I had to bet, I would guess that 80% of the people would sign up as "conservative," with only the hardcore 20% or so on the left clinging to their government run utopia. Anyone ready to sign up?
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Andy Rooney's Liberal Views of the World.
Recently, Andy Rooney passed away, after 33 years of commentary on "60 Minutes." He was an admitted liberal. The 11/8/11 Investor's Business Daily had a piece by Brent Baker, who provided a few excerpts from Rooney's commentaries. What follows are a few quotes with my own commentary.
1. "The original communist philosophy may have been wrong, but they didn't plan it as a totalitarian system...Communist governments have been dominated by men, not Marxist ideals." The "communist idea of creating a society in which everyone does his best for the good of everyone is appealing and fundamentally a more uplifting idea than capitalism...It seems sad and sort of a spiritual defeat for us all that an economic system based on doing it for No. 1 is more successful than one based on a noble idea."
What can one say? The left is made up of perennial dreamers who cannot accept the real world. As I have said before, capitalism in this country has created more wealth for more people than any country in the history of the world. But that's not good enough. The left needs utopia. Of course, utopia has never existed, nor will it ever. Who but the left believes that everyone wants to do his best for the good of everyone?
Americans work hard to do their best for themselves and their families. Because this country allows for personal success, Americans then donate more of their time (volunteerism) and money (charity) than virtually all other nations. But if people think they are working for a "common good," then the motivation level decreases sharply. Such a "common good" means the money is transferred to a central government, which then disburses (or redistributes) that money to everyone equally. And then people realize there is no reason to work hard, as the government will take that money and give it to those who may not work so hard. Furthermore, when the government takes care of everyone's needs, the ideas of volunteerism and charity will diminish, as it has in Europe. As Prager says, "the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."
Those on the left (as was Rooney) continue to put their faith in Big Government. This is rather ironic as Rooney noted that "communist governments have been dominated by men, not Marxist ideals." Well, guess what - democracies are dominated by men also. Our founders, unlike those on the left, understood the frailities of man, as well as the lust for power. That is why they drafted a Constitution with as many checks and balances as possible. But when the Constitution is disrespected by our leaders, and ignored in the Courts, then we are left with a government of men only. And, as Rooney noted, that does not usually work out so well.
2. After 9/11: "Some people who hated Americans set out to kill a lot of us, and they succeeded...We're trying to protect ourselves with more weapons. We have to do it, I guess, but it might be better if we figured out how to behave as a nation in a way that wouldn't make so many people in the world want to kill us." Wrong and extremely naive.
So many people people do not want to kill us - just the islamofascists. In fact, people still come here from all over the world for a better life. However, here are two ways you can behave so they will no longer hate you: 1.Convert to Islam and live under Sharia law, or 2. Die. I think that pretty much covers it.
That does not mean that everything this country has done or will do will always be right. But save for the English Empire, which ultimately helped bring democracy to the four corners of the globe, I think one would find it difficult to name another country other than the USA that has done more good for the world. We have defended freedom, and have used our power to provide financial aid to the poorest of countries, and to help with natural and man-made disasters. (Yes, I know we have also supported dictators; and have allowed our aid to be funneled to dictators' private accounts. Yes, I know we had slavery. But read above about "utopia" and then tell me what country has done a better job.)
3. "I don't understand why we think it's OK for us to have a nuclear weapon, but it isn't OK for some other countries to have any. I don't think any country should have nuclear weapons. And that includes ours..." All in favor of the Ayatollahs having nukes, raise your hands.
Again, this comment reflects another naive, liberal belief that all countries, all cultures, all value systems are equal. Moral equivalency. It is hard to believe that adults can still hold such positions. But they did make fun of Reagan for referring to the Soviet Union as the "evil" empire. They did make fun of Bush II for referring to an axis of "evil." Such notions are so antiquated. Just ask those sophisticated Europeans; you know, the ones who seek to appease every islamofascist dictator in the world.
Anyway, I just hate it when the criminals do not have the same firepower as the police. It's just so unfair!
1. "The original communist philosophy may have been wrong, but they didn't plan it as a totalitarian system...Communist governments have been dominated by men, not Marxist ideals." The "communist idea of creating a society in which everyone does his best for the good of everyone is appealing and fundamentally a more uplifting idea than capitalism...It seems sad and sort of a spiritual defeat for us all that an economic system based on doing it for No. 1 is more successful than one based on a noble idea."
What can one say? The left is made up of perennial dreamers who cannot accept the real world. As I have said before, capitalism in this country has created more wealth for more people than any country in the history of the world. But that's not good enough. The left needs utopia. Of course, utopia has never existed, nor will it ever. Who but the left believes that everyone wants to do his best for the good of everyone?
Americans work hard to do their best for themselves and their families. Because this country allows for personal success, Americans then donate more of their time (volunteerism) and money (charity) than virtually all other nations. But if people think they are working for a "common good," then the motivation level decreases sharply. Such a "common good" means the money is transferred to a central government, which then disburses (or redistributes) that money to everyone equally. And then people realize there is no reason to work hard, as the government will take that money and give it to those who may not work so hard. Furthermore, when the government takes care of everyone's needs, the ideas of volunteerism and charity will diminish, as it has in Europe. As Prager says, "the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."
Those on the left (as was Rooney) continue to put their faith in Big Government. This is rather ironic as Rooney noted that "communist governments have been dominated by men, not Marxist ideals." Well, guess what - democracies are dominated by men also. Our founders, unlike those on the left, understood the frailities of man, as well as the lust for power. That is why they drafted a Constitution with as many checks and balances as possible. But when the Constitution is disrespected by our leaders, and ignored in the Courts, then we are left with a government of men only. And, as Rooney noted, that does not usually work out so well.
2. After 9/11: "Some people who hated Americans set out to kill a lot of us, and they succeeded...We're trying to protect ourselves with more weapons. We have to do it, I guess, but it might be better if we figured out how to behave as a nation in a way that wouldn't make so many people in the world want to kill us." Wrong and extremely naive.
So many people people do not want to kill us - just the islamofascists. In fact, people still come here from all over the world for a better life. However, here are two ways you can behave so they will no longer hate you: 1.Convert to Islam and live under Sharia law, or 2. Die. I think that pretty much covers it.
That does not mean that everything this country has done or will do will always be right. But save for the English Empire, which ultimately helped bring democracy to the four corners of the globe, I think one would find it difficult to name another country other than the USA that has done more good for the world. We have defended freedom, and have used our power to provide financial aid to the poorest of countries, and to help with natural and man-made disasters. (Yes, I know we have also supported dictators; and have allowed our aid to be funneled to dictators' private accounts. Yes, I know we had slavery. But read above about "utopia" and then tell me what country has done a better job.)
3. "I don't understand why we think it's OK for us to have a nuclear weapon, but it isn't OK for some other countries to have any. I don't think any country should have nuclear weapons. And that includes ours..." All in favor of the Ayatollahs having nukes, raise your hands.
Again, this comment reflects another naive, liberal belief that all countries, all cultures, all value systems are equal. Moral equivalency. It is hard to believe that adults can still hold such positions. But they did make fun of Reagan for referring to the Soviet Union as the "evil" empire. They did make fun of Bush II for referring to an axis of "evil." Such notions are so antiquated. Just ask those sophisticated Europeans; you know, the ones who seek to appease every islamofascist dictator in the world.
Anyway, I just hate it when the criminals do not have the same firepower as the police. It's just so unfair!
Friday, September 30, 2011
Wilful Ignorance?
1. According to an AJC (American Jewish Congress) poll, 59.5% of American Jews disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy, with 39.5% approving. When asked about Obama's dealings with Israel, 53% of American Jews disapprove, and 40% approve. Overall, 45% approve of Obama's job as president, with 48% disapproving.
Now,logically, one might expect from these poll numbers that the potential republican candidates would garner at least 50% of the vote from American Jews if the election was being held today. One would be wrong, however. Obama gets the usual 75% to 80% Jewish vote against all comers, except for Romney who gets 32.1%. But even against Romney Obama still gets over 2/3 of the Jewish vote. (Poll data reported in the 9/26/11 Jewish Press online.) How is this possible with such low approval ratings?
As we have noted many times before, it is so ingrained in many American Jews that democrat = good and republican = bad, that neither facts nor logic nor common sense will have any impact on the outcome. Yet, you say, their positions are inconsistent: they disapprove of Obama on major issues, and overall, yet they will still vote for him. Consistency is NOT highly rated by the left, as numbers 2 and 3 below also demonstrate.
2. The 9/23/11 New York Times lead editorial argues for the need for a Palestinian state. While they say that negotiations are the best way for them to get a state, they note that the negotiations have stalled. And while "there is plenty of blame to go around...the main responsibility right now belongs to Benjamin Netanyahu who refuses to make any serious compromises for peace." Now, factually, the Times is simply incorrect. But that is another matter (and also typical of this paper).
What I find more interesting is Times' push for a Palestinian state when the Palestinian representative to the United States recently said that their new state would allow no Jews and no gays. Now, I know "no Jews" does not bother the New York Times. But no gays? The Times has been extremely supportive of every gay rights position, whether it be abolishing "don't ask, don't tell," or measures supporting gay marriage. So doesn't it appear that the New York Times is being (here's that word again) inconsistent? How can they possibly be in favor of a state that will have NO gay rights - because there will be no gays?
Again, consistency in beliefs is not an issue for the Left. And, unfortunately for the gays, there is one group that the Times will support over all others: Muslims. One reader has advised me of a gay person he knows who, incredibly, is also supportive of the muslims. Think that's odd? Not for the left, as also seen in number 3 below.
3. So, as we know, the Arabs/Muslims are not particularly fond of Jews or gays. In fact, a 2008 Pew Research poll reflected that between 95% to 97% of Jordanians, Egyptians and Lebanese hate Jews. (As reported by Caroline Glick in the 9/28/11 Jerusalem Post online.) A 2006 Pew poll found that while only 7% of Britains had negative views of Jews, the number jumped to 47% among British Muslims. (In France the numbers were 13% and 28% and in Germany 22% and 44%.) (From the same Glick article.) Glick reports that in 2010 Muslims were 4.6% of the British population, but committed 39% of the anti-semitic acts. And Pew reported that 37% of UK Muslims say British Jews are legitimate targets; with only 30% expressing disagreement.
Glick argues that the Arabs/Muslims are not particularly fond of blacks either. At a Palestinian rally in Ramallah after Abbas' return from the UN, there were posters of Obama depicting him as a monkey, and describing him as "the first Jewish President of the US." She notes that when Condoleezza Rice was Secretary of State, she too was depicted as a monkey. All of which pales in comparison to the genocide of blacks committed by the Muslims of Sudan.
So, to recap, Muslims do not like/hate Jews; but also pretty much feel the same way about two groups of whom American Jews have been highly supportive: blacks and gays. So does any of this affect American Jews' perceptions of Muslims? Of course not! In an August, 2011 Gallup poll, 80% of American Jews have favorable views of Muslims. 80%! (From the Glick article.) Yet, if you ask these Jews who constitutes the biggest threat to them and to Judaism, they will undoubtedly tell you that it is the Catholic Church and Evangelical Christians. (Even though Glick notes surveys showing anti-semitism among Evangelicals is less than that of the general population.) So, inconsistency in beliefs among American Jews, yet again? Absolutely. The problem, of course, is that this inconsistency reflects a much deeper problem - an inability to recognize true threats to one's very existence.
(And as an aside, another group favored by Jews is the democrat party. Yet a survey by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research (a group based in San Francisco no less) reports that democrats are more likely to be anti-semitic than republicans. Yet, such findings would never interfere with Jews support for that group either; as we have previously reported, rank and file republicans are very supportive of Israel, while only a minority of democrats are.)
Wilful ignorance? You tell me.
Now,logically, one might expect from these poll numbers that the potential republican candidates would garner at least 50% of the vote from American Jews if the election was being held today. One would be wrong, however. Obama gets the usual 75% to 80% Jewish vote against all comers, except for Romney who gets 32.1%. But even against Romney Obama still gets over 2/3 of the Jewish vote. (Poll data reported in the 9/26/11 Jewish Press online.) How is this possible with such low approval ratings?
As we have noted many times before, it is so ingrained in many American Jews that democrat = good and republican = bad, that neither facts nor logic nor common sense will have any impact on the outcome. Yet, you say, their positions are inconsistent: they disapprove of Obama on major issues, and overall, yet they will still vote for him. Consistency is NOT highly rated by the left, as numbers 2 and 3 below also demonstrate.
2. The 9/23/11 New York Times lead editorial argues for the need for a Palestinian state. While they say that negotiations are the best way for them to get a state, they note that the negotiations have stalled. And while "there is plenty of blame to go around...the main responsibility right now belongs to Benjamin Netanyahu who refuses to make any serious compromises for peace." Now, factually, the Times is simply incorrect. But that is another matter (and also typical of this paper).
What I find more interesting is Times' push for a Palestinian state when the Palestinian representative to the United States recently said that their new state would allow no Jews and no gays. Now, I know "no Jews" does not bother the New York Times. But no gays? The Times has been extremely supportive of every gay rights position, whether it be abolishing "don't ask, don't tell," or measures supporting gay marriage. So doesn't it appear that the New York Times is being (here's that word again) inconsistent? How can they possibly be in favor of a state that will have NO gay rights - because there will be no gays?
Again, consistency in beliefs is not an issue for the Left. And, unfortunately for the gays, there is one group that the Times will support over all others: Muslims. One reader has advised me of a gay person he knows who, incredibly, is also supportive of the muslims. Think that's odd? Not for the left, as also seen in number 3 below.
3. So, as we know, the Arabs/Muslims are not particularly fond of Jews or gays. In fact, a 2008 Pew Research poll reflected that between 95% to 97% of Jordanians, Egyptians and Lebanese hate Jews. (As reported by Caroline Glick in the 9/28/11 Jerusalem Post online.) A 2006 Pew poll found that while only 7% of Britains had negative views of Jews, the number jumped to 47% among British Muslims. (In France the numbers were 13% and 28% and in Germany 22% and 44%.) (From the same Glick article.) Glick reports that in 2010 Muslims were 4.6% of the British population, but committed 39% of the anti-semitic acts. And Pew reported that 37% of UK Muslims say British Jews are legitimate targets; with only 30% expressing disagreement.
Glick argues that the Arabs/Muslims are not particularly fond of blacks either. At a Palestinian rally in Ramallah after Abbas' return from the UN, there were posters of Obama depicting him as a monkey, and describing him as "the first Jewish President of the US." She notes that when Condoleezza Rice was Secretary of State, she too was depicted as a monkey. All of which pales in comparison to the genocide of blacks committed by the Muslims of Sudan.
So, to recap, Muslims do not like/hate Jews; but also pretty much feel the same way about two groups of whom American Jews have been highly supportive: blacks and gays. So does any of this affect American Jews' perceptions of Muslims? Of course not! In an August, 2011 Gallup poll, 80% of American Jews have favorable views of Muslims. 80%! (From the Glick article.) Yet, if you ask these Jews who constitutes the biggest threat to them and to Judaism, they will undoubtedly tell you that it is the Catholic Church and Evangelical Christians. (Even though Glick notes surveys showing anti-semitism among Evangelicals is less than that of the general population.) So, inconsistency in beliefs among American Jews, yet again? Absolutely. The problem, of course, is that this inconsistency reflects a much deeper problem - an inability to recognize true threats to one's very existence.
(And as an aside, another group favored by Jews is the democrat party. Yet a survey by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research (a group based in San Francisco no less) reports that democrats are more likely to be anti-semitic than republicans. Yet, such findings would never interfere with Jews support for that group either; as we have previously reported, rank and file republicans are very supportive of Israel, while only a minority of democrats are.)
Wilful ignorance? You tell me.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Why Don't They Get It?
1. Obama's Jobs Speech. Yes, it was all political theater, with Obama knowing full well that a new $500 billion "stimulus" (he avoided the term) would never pass. Yes, he sounded child-like repeatedly telling Congress to "pass this bill, pass it now." And yes, even Democrats are not likely to go along with some of the tax increases included in the bill with elections around the corner.
But what I found to be most interesting was this line: "What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do." The only possible "rigid" ideas he could be referring to would be those found in our Constitution. A Constitution that set up a system of limited and enumerated powers in a federal government; which recognized the state's powers; and which prevented government infringement of individual liberties. Yet Obama, like many on the left, has little regard for a document that he views as ancient and outdated, with little relevance to the modern world.
Yet the geniuses behind the Constitution were all too aware of the possible abuses that might be imposed by a too powerful central government. So they gave us, among other provisions, the First Amendment, protecting our freedom of speech and religion. Think it's not important? In Europe, where most countries have no equivalent protection on speech, people are regularly prosecuted and sent to jail for violating certain speech norms. It does not take much of an imagination to think about what type of speech those on the left would not deem worthy of legal protection, absent our First Amendment. Want to give up the right to a jury trial, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to not testify against yourself, the right to keep and bear arms?
Obama's comment reflects a lack of respect/understanding of the fundamentals of this country (or maybe not as he said he wanted to bring "fundamental" change to this country). Recall that Pelosi's attitude was no different when, in reply to a reporter asking where in the Constitution the Congress was authorized to order people to buy health insurance, she said: "Are you kidding?" Remember, the party that you like will not always be in power. So ask yourself: when the opposing party is in power, what restraints, if any, do you want there to be on what laws they may choose to pass.
2. Obama's Tax the Rich Scheme. Next on his agenda is a measure to up the taxes on the rich; another proposal that is all political theater as Obama knows it will never pass. Worse, it perpetuates the idea of class warfare, and fails in its stated goal. As Thomas Sowell notes in the 9/19/11 Investor's Business Daily, Congress raised the top rate on income taxes in 1921 to 73%. In 1916, there were more than 1000 people with earnings of $300,000. or more. Quite a sum for that time. Yet, after the new tax rate passed, that number decreased to under 300. As Sowell points out, the wealthy simply redirected their money into tax-exempt securities (such as municipal bonds). It was a lose/lose proposition: less investment in the economy without the desired result of increased government revenue. But Congress subsequently gave in and lowered the rates to 24%, with the result being that: "Vast sums of money that had seemingly vanished into thin air suddenly reappeared in the economy, creating far more jobs and far more tax revenue for the government." (Quote from Sowell's article.) It is a sad commentary that Democrats today just do not understand that people react rationally to the laws that they pass.
Tell businesses with 50 full time employees or more that they will have to pay a $2000. fine for each employee if they do not provide health insurance, and guess what happens? Those businesses approaching 50 will make sure to only hire part-time workers. Those with over 50 will cut back their existing employees' hours. Why? Because business owners and individuals act rationally in order to lessen the negative impact of legislation. The end result is simply another measure that will retard economic growth and delay our economic recovery. Now this is not rocket science, so maybe someone can explain why the Democrats do not get it.
3. The UN Vote on a Palestinian State. So the time has arrived. The UN General Assembly opens a new session. A year has passed since Obama told the two sides that he wanted to see a Palestinian state at the UN by this session. But he has pressure from his own party to veto any measure brought to the Security Council that is not based upon an agreed resolution; and the Palestinians are seeking no such accord. But so what - the Palestinians just want to have their own state and live side by side with Israel in peace. Right?
"We support establishing a Palestinian state on any part of Palestinian land without giving up an inch of Palestine or recognizing Israel." Ismail Haniya, Prime Minister of Hamas, as reported in the 9/19/11 NY Times.
"We are going to complain that as Palestinians we have been under occupation for 63 years." Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority. Israel was established in 1948 - 63 years ago. But it did not control the West Bank or Gaza until after the 1967 war. So what is Abbas talking about? He is telling a deaf, dumb and blind world that the Palestinians consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestinian land. Doubt that?
"Even Palestinian refugees living in (refugee camps) inside the (new) state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens." Abdullah Abdullah, PLO Ambassador to Lebanon, as reported by Caroline Glick in the 9/15/11 Jerusalem Post online. They will not be considered citizens because the Palestinians want them to "return" to Israel with millions of the descendants of the original refugees; resulting in the end of Israel as the Jewish state. Remember, it is no coincidence that Abbas continues to refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. To do so would conflict with his virtually stated desire to control all the land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean.
But my "favorite" comment comes from the PLO representative here in Washington, who told the press that the new Palestinian state will ban Jews and homosexuals. As reported by Glick in the above-refenced article.
And according to the latest Pew Research Poll, 77% of Palestinians agree that "Palestinians' rights can't be taken care of if Israel exists." 79% of Jordanians agree, as do 80% of Egyptians. As reported in the 9/13/11 Investor's Business Daily.
As Glick concludes: "The Obama Administration, the EU bureacracy and most EU member states are obsessed with the Palestinians...their faith in the justice of the Palestinian cause is impermeable to contrary facts or rational interests."
But what I found to be most interesting was this line: "What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do." The only possible "rigid" ideas he could be referring to would be those found in our Constitution. A Constitution that set up a system of limited and enumerated powers in a federal government; which recognized the state's powers; and which prevented government infringement of individual liberties. Yet Obama, like many on the left, has little regard for a document that he views as ancient and outdated, with little relevance to the modern world.
Yet the geniuses behind the Constitution were all too aware of the possible abuses that might be imposed by a too powerful central government. So they gave us, among other provisions, the First Amendment, protecting our freedom of speech and religion. Think it's not important? In Europe, where most countries have no equivalent protection on speech, people are regularly prosecuted and sent to jail for violating certain speech norms. It does not take much of an imagination to think about what type of speech those on the left would not deem worthy of legal protection, absent our First Amendment. Want to give up the right to a jury trial, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to not testify against yourself, the right to keep and bear arms?
Obama's comment reflects a lack of respect/understanding of the fundamentals of this country (or maybe not as he said he wanted to bring "fundamental" change to this country). Recall that Pelosi's attitude was no different when, in reply to a reporter asking where in the Constitution the Congress was authorized to order people to buy health insurance, she said: "Are you kidding?" Remember, the party that you like will not always be in power. So ask yourself: when the opposing party is in power, what restraints, if any, do you want there to be on what laws they may choose to pass.
2. Obama's Tax the Rich Scheme. Next on his agenda is a measure to up the taxes on the rich; another proposal that is all political theater as Obama knows it will never pass. Worse, it perpetuates the idea of class warfare, and fails in its stated goal. As Thomas Sowell notes in the 9/19/11 Investor's Business Daily, Congress raised the top rate on income taxes in 1921 to 73%. In 1916, there were more than 1000 people with earnings of $300,000. or more. Quite a sum for that time. Yet, after the new tax rate passed, that number decreased to under 300. As Sowell points out, the wealthy simply redirected their money into tax-exempt securities (such as municipal bonds). It was a lose/lose proposition: less investment in the economy without the desired result of increased government revenue. But Congress subsequently gave in and lowered the rates to 24%, with the result being that: "Vast sums of money that had seemingly vanished into thin air suddenly reappeared in the economy, creating far more jobs and far more tax revenue for the government." (Quote from Sowell's article.) It is a sad commentary that Democrats today just do not understand that people react rationally to the laws that they pass.
Tell businesses with 50 full time employees or more that they will have to pay a $2000. fine for each employee if they do not provide health insurance, and guess what happens? Those businesses approaching 50 will make sure to only hire part-time workers. Those with over 50 will cut back their existing employees' hours. Why? Because business owners and individuals act rationally in order to lessen the negative impact of legislation. The end result is simply another measure that will retard economic growth and delay our economic recovery. Now this is not rocket science, so maybe someone can explain why the Democrats do not get it.
3. The UN Vote on a Palestinian State. So the time has arrived. The UN General Assembly opens a new session. A year has passed since Obama told the two sides that he wanted to see a Palestinian state at the UN by this session. But he has pressure from his own party to veto any measure brought to the Security Council that is not based upon an agreed resolution; and the Palestinians are seeking no such accord. But so what - the Palestinians just want to have their own state and live side by side with Israel in peace. Right?
"We support establishing a Palestinian state on any part of Palestinian land without giving up an inch of Palestine or recognizing Israel." Ismail Haniya, Prime Minister of Hamas, as reported in the 9/19/11 NY Times.
"We are going to complain that as Palestinians we have been under occupation for 63 years." Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority. Israel was established in 1948 - 63 years ago. But it did not control the West Bank or Gaza until after the 1967 war. So what is Abbas talking about? He is telling a deaf, dumb and blind world that the Palestinians consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestinian land. Doubt that?
"Even Palestinian refugees living in (refugee camps) inside the (new) state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens." Abdullah Abdullah, PLO Ambassador to Lebanon, as reported by Caroline Glick in the 9/15/11 Jerusalem Post online. They will not be considered citizens because the Palestinians want them to "return" to Israel with millions of the descendants of the original refugees; resulting in the end of Israel as the Jewish state. Remember, it is no coincidence that Abbas continues to refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. To do so would conflict with his virtually stated desire to control all the land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean.
But my "favorite" comment comes from the PLO representative here in Washington, who told the press that the new Palestinian state will ban Jews and homosexuals. As reported by Glick in the above-refenced article.
And according to the latest Pew Research Poll, 77% of Palestinians agree that "Palestinians' rights can't be taken care of if Israel exists." 79% of Jordanians agree, as do 80% of Egyptians. As reported in the 9/13/11 Investor's Business Daily.
As Glick concludes: "The Obama Administration, the EU bureacracy and most EU member states are obsessed with the Palestinians...their faith in the justice of the Palestinian cause is impermeable to contrary facts or rational interests."
Monday, September 5, 2011
Will the Creation of Palestine Mean the End of Israel?
As the UN General Assembly gets set to vote on the establishment of "Palestine," will it be the beginning of the end for Israel? The UN will undoubtedly approve the creation of a palestinian state along the 1949 armistice lines (often referred to as the pre-1967 lines). This will, incredibly, return much of Israel's capital city to Arab control. Even the Kotel (the Western Wall) would be beyond Israeli control. Of course, Israel will never voluntary cede control of Jerusalem or the "West Bank" to the Arabs.
Once it becomes a full member state at the UN, the new country of Palestine will demand sanctions against Israel for occupying its land. They will likely seek the involvement of UN troops as well. Failing that, this writer believes we can either expect the Arabs to start a war (or provoke one, and then blame Israel for responding); or, at the least, the beginning of a Third Intifada.
Think the Arabs are a true partner in peace? Think the Obama Administration cares about Israel? The rest of the world? Let's take a look:
Abbas: "Don't order us to recognize a Jewish state. We won't accept it." (Said on 8/27/11, per the LA Jewish Journal, 9/2-9/8/11 edition.)
Abbas: Said on 8/28/11 that he plans on demanding a "right of return" for millions of Arabs to Israel. (Per the 8/31/11 Jewish Press editorial.) This would mean the end of the two-state solution, as the entire area would come under Arab control. So much for the sincerity of Abbas. But let's give credit where it's due: to Obama! After all, he is the one who said we should decide the issues of borders and security first, and leave the "emotional issues" of refugees and Jerusalem until later. There is no way any Israeli leader could or would allow millions of Arabs into the country; nor would they ever give up Jerusalem. Of course, Obama knew this when he gave his speech. And that speech has undoubtedly encouraged Abbas. Still think Obama is on Israel's side?
Hillary Clinton, US Sec. of State: "Any unilateral action by the U.S. that would signal, symbolically or concretely, that it recognizes that Jerusalem is a city that is located within the sovereign territory of Israel would critically compromise the ability of the U.S. to work with Israelis, Palestinians and others in the region to further the peace process." (As reported in the 8/31/11 Jewish Press.) Got that? Jerusalem is NOT located in Israel! Still think Obama is a friend of Israel? If you do, can I assume that you think Ahmadinejad is a friend of Israel also?
Speaking of which: Ahmadinejad again said on 8/26/11 that "the goal of all believers and seekers of justice should be the disappearance of the Zionist regime." (Per the 8/30/11 JPost online.) And he recently said that the establishment of a Palestinian state is the first step to wiping Israel off the map.
From the European Union's Foreign Affairs Chief: the EU's support for the UN resolution will depend on the "content of the resolution." (As reported in the 9/2-9/8/11 edition of the LA Jewish Journal.) There you have it. If they word the resolution nicely, the EU will approve. Never mind the true intentions of the Arabs - as long as the resolution is...what?...politically correct? After that, we don't give a damn what they do to Israel.
And Turkey moves further away from Israel. As Turkey under Erdogan has tried to become a leader in the muslim world, it has ordered the Israeli ambassador to leave, because Israel will not apologize for defending itself against the flotilla that tried to enter Gaza. Recall that nine were killed during the Israeli commando operation. (Of course, it should be Turkey that apologizes to Israel for allowing the flotilla to organize in, and then depart from, a Turkish port.) Turkey has suspended military agreements with Israel; and is basically threatening naval war with Israel. (As reported by Caroline Glick in the 9/5/11 JPost online.)
But in a shocking development, 40 Israeli passengers were detained at the Ankara airport, their passports confiscated, forced to strip to their underwear, made to line up against a wall without being allowed to sit - for a total of 90 minutes. (Again, as reported by Glick in the above referenced article.) If the world and UN tolerates such behavior against Jews, what country does anyone think will support Israel in the next war? And, if war does break out after Palestine is established by the UN, will we now see a non-Arab muslim country actively join in a war against Israel for the very first time?
Once it becomes a full member state at the UN, the new country of Palestine will demand sanctions against Israel for occupying its land. They will likely seek the involvement of UN troops as well. Failing that, this writer believes we can either expect the Arabs to start a war (or provoke one, and then blame Israel for responding); or, at the least, the beginning of a Third Intifada.
Think the Arabs are a true partner in peace? Think the Obama Administration cares about Israel? The rest of the world? Let's take a look:
Abbas: "Don't order us to recognize a Jewish state. We won't accept it." (Said on 8/27/11, per the LA Jewish Journal, 9/2-9/8/11 edition.)
Abbas: Said on 8/28/11 that he plans on demanding a "right of return" for millions of Arabs to Israel. (Per the 8/31/11 Jewish Press editorial.) This would mean the end of the two-state solution, as the entire area would come under Arab control. So much for the sincerity of Abbas. But let's give credit where it's due: to Obama! After all, he is the one who said we should decide the issues of borders and security first, and leave the "emotional issues" of refugees and Jerusalem until later. There is no way any Israeli leader could or would allow millions of Arabs into the country; nor would they ever give up Jerusalem. Of course, Obama knew this when he gave his speech. And that speech has undoubtedly encouraged Abbas. Still think Obama is on Israel's side?
Hillary Clinton, US Sec. of State: "Any unilateral action by the U.S. that would signal, symbolically or concretely, that it recognizes that Jerusalem is a city that is located within the sovereign territory of Israel would critically compromise the ability of the U.S. to work with Israelis, Palestinians and others in the region to further the peace process." (As reported in the 8/31/11 Jewish Press.) Got that? Jerusalem is NOT located in Israel! Still think Obama is a friend of Israel? If you do, can I assume that you think Ahmadinejad is a friend of Israel also?
Speaking of which: Ahmadinejad again said on 8/26/11 that "the goal of all believers and seekers of justice should be the disappearance of the Zionist regime." (Per the 8/30/11 JPost online.) And he recently said that the establishment of a Palestinian state is the first step to wiping Israel off the map.
From the European Union's Foreign Affairs Chief: the EU's support for the UN resolution will depend on the "content of the resolution." (As reported in the 9/2-9/8/11 edition of the LA Jewish Journal.) There you have it. If they word the resolution nicely, the EU will approve. Never mind the true intentions of the Arabs - as long as the resolution is...what?...politically correct? After that, we don't give a damn what they do to Israel.
And Turkey moves further away from Israel. As Turkey under Erdogan has tried to become a leader in the muslim world, it has ordered the Israeli ambassador to leave, because Israel will not apologize for defending itself against the flotilla that tried to enter Gaza. Recall that nine were killed during the Israeli commando operation. (Of course, it should be Turkey that apologizes to Israel for allowing the flotilla to organize in, and then depart from, a Turkish port.) Turkey has suspended military agreements with Israel; and is basically threatening naval war with Israel. (As reported by Caroline Glick in the 9/5/11 JPost online.)
But in a shocking development, 40 Israeli passengers were detained at the Ankara airport, their passports confiscated, forced to strip to their underwear, made to line up against a wall without being allowed to sit - for a total of 90 minutes. (Again, as reported by Glick in the above referenced article.) If the world and UN tolerates such behavior against Jews, what country does anyone think will support Israel in the next war? And, if war does break out after Palestine is established by the UN, will we now see a non-Arab muslim country actively join in a war against Israel for the very first time?
Sunday, August 28, 2011
The LA Times Wastes no Time in Slamming the New Republican Front Runner.
It did not take very long. As soon as the polls showed Rick Perry to be the front runner for the Republican party nomination for president, the media arm of the Democrat party went into attack mode. The lead editorial in today's LA Times was entitled "The problem with Perry." The Sunday edition has the highest readership and they wasted no time whatsoever. (Remember how they blasted candidate Obama too? No? That's because he's a democrat.)
Their biggest beef with Perry is that he "loathes" the federal government. Assuming that to be true, I'll take that any day of the week over someone who loathes our country (that would be Obama who felt that the country was so bad it needed "fundamental change"). The Times asks why Perry would want to preside over a government he loathes. Why did Obama want to be president of a country he loathes? Remember, his wife was proud of this country for the FIRST time only after he got the Democrat nomination. Think he felt any differently? Ask Rev. Wright if you do.
Another major concern of the Times is that as Governor of Texas, they say Perry "rarely reached across the aisle;" that he would be "uncompromising." Would that be like Obama telling the Repubs "well I won." Or jamming Obamacare down the people's throat without a single Republican vote? That kind of uncompromising? We know that the Times (like their NY cousins) have no intellectual honesty; and that truth is not an issue - only their agenda is important. But one cannot help but wonder if they actually believe what they write.
Another problem with Perry is that he wants a strong national defense. We know the Dems only want to spend money on social programs in order to make an increasing number of people dependent on government; and thereby become permanent democratic voters. As for the numerous evil dictators and other bad actors in the world...well, the UN can deal with them, can't they? Or maybe Europe? Europe was on its way to defeating the Nazis without our intervention, right?
And horrors! Can you believe that Perry wants to repeal Obamacare? But wouldn't that put Perry in the same group as 2/3 of the country who opposed Obamacare. What do the people know, anyway? We, the elitists and superior intellectuals of the democrat party, know what is best for everyone even if they do not.
Did you know that, according to the Times, Perry has "disturbing connections to fringe religious groups?" Well, thank G-d that does not apply to our current President! He would never belong to a church where the reverend spewed hate speech, and anti-semitism, and said things like "G-d damn America." The Times would have been all over a story like that if candidate Obama belonged to such a church. Well, Hannity was all over it. It took the LA Times a year after Hannity broke that story for the Times to deem it newsworthy.
The Times says Perry wants to eliminate Social Security and replace it with private individual accounts. Like it or not, something is going to have to change for the system to survive. We simply do not have enough workers anymore to support all the retirees. It is time for the politicians to admit that social security withholding is simply another tax, and therefore people will have no automatic right to any return. So if we are going to keep the system for those who are disabled or have not planned for retirement, then maybe those worth $10 million or more should not receive any return. ($5million maybe?) And they will need to raise the retirement age. But what's wrong with telling people 50 and under to start planning for at least some of their own retirement? Maybe if middle income private employees did not have to fund full retirement benefits for public employees (even those making much more) then they could better fund their own retirements.
Finally, according to the Times, Perry "sees a utopia in which life is made better by unrestrained capitalism." I have some "news" for the LA Times (it's not their fault - news is not their business): American capitalism has created more wealth for more people than any country in the history of the world. And "unrestrained" capitalism? Good luck to any president attempting to abolish all business regulations. Still, unrestrained capitalism definitely beats socialism. Sooner or later, socialists run out of other people's money to give away. And in the interim they create millions of helpless individuals dependent on the government to survive. Obama's "redistribution"/stimulus approach to the economy has resulted in "the most prolonged economic recovery since the Great Depression." (As reported in the 8/29/11 Investor's Business Daily.) We are now in our 8th quarter of "recovery;" all the other recessions required only 1 to 3 quarters for recovery.
Thank goodness we can count on the LA Times for their fair and honest and intellectually consistent reporting. Then again, if you have a bird cage...
Their biggest beef with Perry is that he "loathes" the federal government. Assuming that to be true, I'll take that any day of the week over someone who loathes our country (that would be Obama who felt that the country was so bad it needed "fundamental change"). The Times asks why Perry would want to preside over a government he loathes. Why did Obama want to be president of a country he loathes? Remember, his wife was proud of this country for the FIRST time only after he got the Democrat nomination. Think he felt any differently? Ask Rev. Wright if you do.
Another major concern of the Times is that as Governor of Texas, they say Perry "rarely reached across the aisle;" that he would be "uncompromising." Would that be like Obama telling the Repubs "well I won." Or jamming Obamacare down the people's throat without a single Republican vote? That kind of uncompromising? We know that the Times (like their NY cousins) have no intellectual honesty; and that truth is not an issue - only their agenda is important. But one cannot help but wonder if they actually believe what they write.
Another problem with Perry is that he wants a strong national defense. We know the Dems only want to spend money on social programs in order to make an increasing number of people dependent on government; and thereby become permanent democratic voters. As for the numerous evil dictators and other bad actors in the world...well, the UN can deal with them, can't they? Or maybe Europe? Europe was on its way to defeating the Nazis without our intervention, right?
And horrors! Can you believe that Perry wants to repeal Obamacare? But wouldn't that put Perry in the same group as 2/3 of the country who opposed Obamacare. What do the people know, anyway? We, the elitists and superior intellectuals of the democrat party, know what is best for everyone even if they do not.
Did you know that, according to the Times, Perry has "disturbing connections to fringe religious groups?" Well, thank G-d that does not apply to our current President! He would never belong to a church where the reverend spewed hate speech, and anti-semitism, and said things like "G-d damn America." The Times would have been all over a story like that if candidate Obama belonged to such a church. Well, Hannity was all over it. It took the LA Times a year after Hannity broke that story for the Times to deem it newsworthy.
The Times says Perry wants to eliminate Social Security and replace it with private individual accounts. Like it or not, something is going to have to change for the system to survive. We simply do not have enough workers anymore to support all the retirees. It is time for the politicians to admit that social security withholding is simply another tax, and therefore people will have no automatic right to any return. So if we are going to keep the system for those who are disabled or have not planned for retirement, then maybe those worth $10 million or more should not receive any return. ($5million maybe?) And they will need to raise the retirement age. But what's wrong with telling people 50 and under to start planning for at least some of their own retirement? Maybe if middle income private employees did not have to fund full retirement benefits for public employees (even those making much more) then they could better fund their own retirements.
Finally, according to the Times, Perry "sees a utopia in which life is made better by unrestrained capitalism." I have some "news" for the LA Times (it's not their fault - news is not their business): American capitalism has created more wealth for more people than any country in the history of the world. And "unrestrained" capitalism? Good luck to any president attempting to abolish all business regulations. Still, unrestrained capitalism definitely beats socialism. Sooner or later, socialists run out of other people's money to give away. And in the interim they create millions of helpless individuals dependent on the government to survive. Obama's "redistribution"/stimulus approach to the economy has resulted in "the most prolonged economic recovery since the Great Depression." (As reported in the 8/29/11 Investor's Business Daily.) We are now in our 8th quarter of "recovery;" all the other recessions required only 1 to 3 quarters for recovery.
Thank goodness we can count on the LA Times for their fair and honest and intellectually consistent reporting. Then again, if you have a bird cage...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)