* The June jobs report came out and showed that the economy created only 80,000 new jobs. The second quarter averaged only 75,000 new jobs per month, generally considered to be rather lackluster (pathetic actually) by economists on all sides. Unemployment remained at 8.2%; although if you count those who have given up looking it is as high as 14.9%. (Per the Investor's Business Daily, 7/12/12, citing the Labor Dept. numbers.) Unemployment has remained over 8% for the last 3 1/2 years - not coincidentally the same length of time that Obama has been President. Obama proudly proclaims that the private sector has grown 4.4 million jobs while he has been President. But when Reagan inherited a worse economy and worse unemployment numbers, the economy grew 9.5 million jobs. And it did so with a smaller population. (Data from 7/9/12 IBD.) Obama initially said the 80,000 number was a "step in the right direction." He did not repeat that claim. But DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said she was "pretty happy" with the economy. And Obama's lead economic adviser Alan Krueger claimed that the economy is "continuing to heal."
* Remember when Obama said if he did not get the unemployment rate under 8% he did not deserve to be reelected? No wonder he's not talking about the economy. Nor is he talking about Obamacare, the highly unpopular bill that turned out to be one of the largest tax increases. Instead, he is making up stories about Romney and Bain Capital. I say making up because the liberal Washington Post has a fact checker which says most (if not all) of the Obama campaign's allegations are WRONG! This does not deter either Obama or his campaign from repeating the same falsehoods. It's the old Big Lie theory - say it loud enough and often enough and a whole bunch of people will believe it.
* As we know, Obama wants to let what are referred to as the Bush era tax cuts expire at the end of this year. This will result in an increase in your income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes and estate taxes. According to the lead editorial in the 7/9/12 Wall Street Journal, Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation reported that 53% of the tax increases will come from business. As the Journal notes: "Those are the businesses that aren't hiring people (already) as they wait out the tax and other policy uncertainties." But let me explain once again: Obama and the left do not care about the actual impact their policies have on people. They just care about the ideology.
* Disagree? Then explain the following. In a 2008 interview with Charles Gibson at ABC, Obama was asked why he would raise the capital gains tax when, historically, a raise in the rates has resulted in less revenue to the government. Obama: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." Again, the ideology over outcome. Still doubt it? One of Obama's close advisers, Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union, said this: "I think Western Europe...has made different trade-offs which may have ended up with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality." A "little" more unemployment is when some other guy is unemployed. Try telling someone who has lost their job, their home, and their ability to take care of their family, that at least the wealthy are paying more than they already do in taxes. I'm sure that will make the unemployed happy. Again, ideology over results. One last example. When the country was debating Obamacare the LA Times had an article about the Canadian government run healthcare system. They interviewed a doctor who acknowledged that there were long waits, and perhaps lesser care, but he justified it by saying it was, at least, more "equal." Again, ideology over results.
* You still doubt it? Then tell me why liberals cannot stand Republican Governors like Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Scott Walker in Wisconsin, along with various other Republican governors, all of whom have turned around their states' economies. Lower unemployment because of lower taxes and less regulation. Deficits reduced or eliminated. Business moving in. After all, these governors inherited the same "Bush-era" economy that Obama blames everything on. Here's why liberals do not like these Republican governors - liberals do NOT care about results, just their ideology. The fact that Republican policies have benefited people in states with Republican governors is of no import. But the liberals in California will continue to vote in Democrats, notwithstanding cities going bankrupt, and the state being on the brink.
* Speaking of which, San Bernardino is the latest city to decide to file for bankruptcy protection. As noted by the 7/11/12 LA Times, part of the City's problems are "escalating pension costs (and) lucrative labor agreements." These ridiculously high public employee salaries and pensions are given to the unions as a reward by democrats, who receive much in the way of campaign contributions from these same unions. If you want fiscal solvency in your governmental entities, then you need to do what the Republican governors have been doing vis-a vis these unions. Or, if you care more about ideology than results, you can keep voting for more democrats.
* In the 7/6/12 LA Times was a report that retail sales grew only 0.1% in June. The Times notes that this was "the worst monthly showing since August, 2009." Hardly surprising. More people out of work means less people buying. Less people buying means stores will often have to lay off even more people. In a related story, the 7/7/12 LA Times lead business section headline was: "Engine of job growth sputtering." They quote one Chris Christopher, senior principal economist at IHS Global Insight: "There is no reason for small businesses to do well in this environment." Generally, small businesses are the drivers of job growth. The article goes to say that "about 30% of companies plan to reduce the number of employees in the next year, 48% plan to stay at the same level, and only 21% plan to hire new workers." Many businesses have said they have the money to hire, but will not do so until they see what is going to happen with all the new taxes (especially if the "Bush tax cuts" expire), and new taxes and regs under Obamacare. At a time when Obama should have been trying to stimulate the economy with tax cuts and less regulation, he instead spent two years getting Obamacare passed. The "ideology" of equality in healthcare over the negative impact on the economy, and over what will eventually be a negative impact on healthcare in this country.
* But some numbers are up. An increasing number of people are on Social Security Disability. Also way up are the number of people receiving food stamps (although the program is now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). According to the 7/5/12 USA Today the number of people on food stamps has skyrocketed to 46 million people as of April,2012. The USA Today notes that that means one in every seven Americans is on food stamps. Obama has no problem with these numbers - he buys votes with government handouts. The democrats are used to this approach (see above about public employee unions).
* So, we the people have a very real choice in this election. If you prefer things as they are, and do not mind if they get worse, so long as the wealthy pay more in taxes, then vote for Obama. Although maybe you can tell me why the top 10% paying 70% of the federal income taxes, with the bottom 50% paying no taxes is not fair enough. If, however, you prefer job growth, lower budget deficits, and less taxes then vote for Romney. If you are on the fence do yourself a favor. Look at how states run by Republican governors are doing compared to those run by Democrats. Do not let your beliefs (ideology) win out over results (reality).
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Obamacare Upheld Under a Flimsy - and Dangerous - Theory.
In my posting of 4/15/12, entitled "Obamacare at the Supreme Court," I suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts might join an already existing majority in order to be able to assign the writing of the opinion to himself; allowing him to make the decision "as broad or as limited as the Chief wants." Admittedly, I did not anticipate that the Chief would end up being the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare, especially given the fact that four Justices were prepared to throw out the entire law. The liberal media, highly critical of Roberts to date, was gushing with praise for his "courageous" vote.
So what happened? It is not unusual for Courts to look for ways to uphold the constitutionality of statutes passed by Congress. Here, Roberts ruled that the "individual mandate" could not be upheld as an exercise of the interstate commerce clause, as was argued before the Court. Rather, Roberts deemed the requirement to buy insurance as not being mandatory; a failure to do so merely meant that one was obligated to pay a sum of money to the IRS. Obama insisted it was not a tax; Congress in the legislation expressly stated in numerous places that it was a "penalty" for failing to buy insurance. But, according to Roberts, Congress anticipated that many people (up to 4 million) would not buy insurance; and Congress did not intend to make all those people "outlaws." Rather, according to Roberts, Congress was giving the people the option of buying insurance or paying a tax.
Undoubtedly, Roberts believed he was limiting the power of Congress by expressly stating that the mandate could not be upheld under the commerce clause. Said Roberts: "Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and - under the government's theory - empower Congress to make those decisions for him." In this writer's opinion, Roberts was wrong both in considering the penalty to be a "tax," and in thinking that he was limiting the power of the federal government.
If this is a tax, it is the first of its kind. Roberts argued that Congress was merely encouraging people to buy insurance, otherwise they would have to pay a "tax." Roberts: "Congress's use of the taxing clause to encourage buying something is...not new." He pointed to tax incentives to buy homes and get a professional education. However, a "deduction" for buying a home, gives one a tax break. While not buying a home will mean not having that deduction, and likely a higher tax rate, we understand that not qualifying for a deduction is not the same as a tax. As the dissent said: "Taxes have never been popular...they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at the next election, which is never more than two years off."
The dissent continued: "We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty." Given the fact that Congress had the option to make it a "tax" and declined, meant that Roberts was not simply interpreting the statute - he was rewriting it. Besides, think of all the various taxes that you and I pay. Generally, we are taxed any time money changes hands (like the mob getting their "cut"). An employer pays an employee - taxed. Purchase of a good or service - taxed. We are also taxed for owning real or personal property, and investment property (stocks, some bonds). But under Roberts' decision, you can now be "taxed" for inaction - not buying the insurance. Again, completely different than giving a deduction for those who do buy the insurance.
Which leads me to my next point. If Congress can now tax us for failing to buy a product, how can that power in any sense be considered less all-encompassing than Congress' power under the commerce clause. Roberts tries to limit that power when he says: "Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today." Is he kidding? Of course it does! Congress already dictates fuel efficiency in cars. Why can't they order us all to buy small cars or hybrids - or pay a "tax" for failing to do so. Through the Food and Drug Administration the feds dictate certain requirements in food products and labeling. So what's to stop them from telling us we must buy certain food products - or pay a "tax." Given how many areas of life Congress has in some way regulated, there is no apparent limit on what Congress can order us to do - or pay a "tax" if we don't.
The outcome of all this is that the Court has now legitimized the lies of the Congress and the President when they repeatedly insisted that this was not a tax. Roberts thought it was more important to uphold the law under any theory imaginable, rather than insist on the integrity of our elected officials. We already know that politicians lie; now we know that the Court has sanctioned those lies. Said Roberts: "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Maybe not, but wouldn't it be nice if one branch of government insisted on truthfulness and integrity in our officials.
A side issue rarely commented on, is that Obamacare does not require illegal aliens to purchase the insurance. Nevertheless, they cannot legally be turned away from any emergency room. Maybe someone can explain to me why someone here illegally gets all the benefits but none of the obligations. If the estimate is between 10 and 20 million illegals in the country, why isn't it important for them to have insurance? Wasn't Obamacare intended to cover ALL the uninsured?
The only good news is that Obama now has to run for reelection after having signed into law (Obamacare) the biggest tax increase in our country's history; and having done so during one of our worst economic downturns. Not surprisingly, the White House still will not call the refusal to buy insurance a "tax." Said Press Secretary Jay Carney: "It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?"
It should be quite clear to all now that there is not a single branch of the federal government that will protect your economic liberty. You have only that liberty that a Congress and President will allow you to have; there are no Constitutional restraints. As noted by various commentators, this decision makes the upcoming November election more important than ever. Do not think for one minute that this President and Reid and Pelosi do not understand the virtually limitless power that Roberts has handed to them. If the democrats retake the House, you can count on them to address their social equality agenda by "giving you the option" (as Roberts would say) of buying a certain good or service - or paying a tax. Even if you like Obamacare, you may not like what the next Congress decides to order you to buy - or pay a "tax."
So what happened? It is not unusual for Courts to look for ways to uphold the constitutionality of statutes passed by Congress. Here, Roberts ruled that the "individual mandate" could not be upheld as an exercise of the interstate commerce clause, as was argued before the Court. Rather, Roberts deemed the requirement to buy insurance as not being mandatory; a failure to do so merely meant that one was obligated to pay a sum of money to the IRS. Obama insisted it was not a tax; Congress in the legislation expressly stated in numerous places that it was a "penalty" for failing to buy insurance. But, according to Roberts, Congress anticipated that many people (up to 4 million) would not buy insurance; and Congress did not intend to make all those people "outlaws." Rather, according to Roberts, Congress was giving the people the option of buying insurance or paying a tax.
Undoubtedly, Roberts believed he was limiting the power of Congress by expressly stating that the mandate could not be upheld under the commerce clause. Said Roberts: "Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and - under the government's theory - empower Congress to make those decisions for him." In this writer's opinion, Roberts was wrong both in considering the penalty to be a "tax," and in thinking that he was limiting the power of the federal government.
If this is a tax, it is the first of its kind. Roberts argued that Congress was merely encouraging people to buy insurance, otherwise they would have to pay a "tax." Roberts: "Congress's use of the taxing clause to encourage buying something is...not new." He pointed to tax incentives to buy homes and get a professional education. However, a "deduction" for buying a home, gives one a tax break. While not buying a home will mean not having that deduction, and likely a higher tax rate, we understand that not qualifying for a deduction is not the same as a tax. As the dissent said: "Taxes have never been popular...they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at the next election, which is never more than two years off."
The dissent continued: "We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty." Given the fact that Congress had the option to make it a "tax" and declined, meant that Roberts was not simply interpreting the statute - he was rewriting it. Besides, think of all the various taxes that you and I pay. Generally, we are taxed any time money changes hands (like the mob getting their "cut"). An employer pays an employee - taxed. Purchase of a good or service - taxed. We are also taxed for owning real or personal property, and investment property (stocks, some bonds). But under Roberts' decision, you can now be "taxed" for inaction - not buying the insurance. Again, completely different than giving a deduction for those who do buy the insurance.
Which leads me to my next point. If Congress can now tax us for failing to buy a product, how can that power in any sense be considered less all-encompassing than Congress' power under the commerce clause. Roberts tries to limit that power when he says: "Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today." Is he kidding? Of course it does! Congress already dictates fuel efficiency in cars. Why can't they order us all to buy small cars or hybrids - or pay a "tax" for failing to do so. Through the Food and Drug Administration the feds dictate certain requirements in food products and labeling. So what's to stop them from telling us we must buy certain food products - or pay a "tax." Given how many areas of life Congress has in some way regulated, there is no apparent limit on what Congress can order us to do - or pay a "tax" if we don't.
The outcome of all this is that the Court has now legitimized the lies of the Congress and the President when they repeatedly insisted that this was not a tax. Roberts thought it was more important to uphold the law under any theory imaginable, rather than insist on the integrity of our elected officials. We already know that politicians lie; now we know that the Court has sanctioned those lies. Said Roberts: "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Maybe not, but wouldn't it be nice if one branch of government insisted on truthfulness and integrity in our officials.
A side issue rarely commented on, is that Obamacare does not require illegal aliens to purchase the insurance. Nevertheless, they cannot legally be turned away from any emergency room. Maybe someone can explain to me why someone here illegally gets all the benefits but none of the obligations. If the estimate is between 10 and 20 million illegals in the country, why isn't it important for them to have insurance? Wasn't Obamacare intended to cover ALL the uninsured?
The only good news is that Obama now has to run for reelection after having signed into law (Obamacare) the biggest tax increase in our country's history; and having done so during one of our worst economic downturns. Not surprisingly, the White House still will not call the refusal to buy insurance a "tax." Said Press Secretary Jay Carney: "It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?"
It should be quite clear to all now that there is not a single branch of the federal government that will protect your economic liberty. You have only that liberty that a Congress and President will allow you to have; there are no Constitutional restraints. As noted by various commentators, this decision makes the upcoming November election more important than ever. Do not think for one minute that this President and Reid and Pelosi do not understand the virtually limitless power that Roberts has handed to them. If the democrats retake the House, you can count on them to address their social equality agenda by "giving you the option" (as Roberts would say) of buying a certain good or service - or paying a tax. Even if you like Obamacare, you may not like what the next Congress decides to order you to buy - or pay a "tax."
Monday, May 28, 2012
Conservative Observations
*On this Memorial Day we remember all those that have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country, and for securing for us all the freedoms that we cherish. Sadly, not all of us feel the same way. A talk show host on MSNBC, Chris Hayes, in discussing our fallen heroes had this to say: "I feel...uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war." (As reported by Foxnews.com, 5/28/12.) I'm sorry, but I'm going to say it: What a moron! We remember those who gave their lives for this country today; not the civilian policy makers who sent them to war. Is that such a difficult distinction for you, Mr. Hayes? It reminds me of comments from two earlier blogs. In the 12/12/09 posting (Fools, Liars & Thieves) I quoted former President Jimmy Carter: "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." In my 6/3/10 posting (Right vs. Left...) I quoted Rabbi Joshua Levine Grater: "War should always be a last resort, and I admit that I am somewhat ambivalent about even that choice." (I will not repeat at length here my comments on these last two quotes, but the posts are still on the blog where you can read my reactions.)
*Speaking of morons, Foxnews.com, on 5/28/12, reported on the reaction of U.S. Senator Charles Schumer to a story in the AP. The AP reported that families traveling by plane this summer may have to pay more to sit next to each other. Apparently, airlines do not cover the cost of a flight from the basic airfare alone. And now they have to deal with rising fuel costs. They had already started charging for checking barrage, watching TV, early boarding, and so on. Now, they are asking as much as $25.00 extra per seat for an aisle seat, a window seat, and a seat with more legroom. Said Senator Schumer: "Unnecessary airline fees shouldn't serve as a literal barrier between mother and child." And unnecessary senators should not be telling airlines how to run their businesses. Here's a shock - he's been a politician his entire adult life, running exactly the same number of businesses as has our President. NONE. And I would be willing to bet that he has no clue whether or not these fees are "unnecessary" for the continued functioning of any of the airlines that have instituted them.
*It gets better. In the town of Fort Lee, New Jersey, you can now be ticketed for careless or distracted walking, as reported by the USA Today, 5/16/12 edition. The fine will be $85.00. The Utah Transit Authority now has a $50.00 fine for distracted walking near trains. Of course, I would never suggest that governmental entities are looking for new and creative ways to take your money in these difficult economic times. (Not to mention yet another effort by government to control your behavior.) But, take the case of Russ and Pat Caswell, as reported in a column by George Will (5/20/12 Ventura County Star). It seems the Caswells had a motel that has not always had the finest clientele. About 30 customers have been arrested since 1994 on drug charges. That's 1.6 arrests per year. I suspect quite a few high schools have a worse arrest record. In any event, as Will tells it, the city of Tewksbury, Mass. is conspiring with the feds to take the property under civil forfeiture laws. And the feds share the money with the locals; with the sale of the motel expected to bring in $1.5 million. Of course, the 68 year old Mr. Caswell will no longer have his source of income, nor his retirement. Mr. Caswell has neither been charged with, nor convicted of, any crime. In fact, he had a history of cooperating with the local police in providing customer ID's and license plates. According to Will, a federal drug agent seeks out properties to steal (really, is there another word for it?) if the equity is at least $50,000. Government power, says Will quoting Madison, "is of an encroaching nature." Per Will: "If unresisted, it produces iniquitous sharing of other people's property."
*And speaking of government "taking," under Obamacare there will be a 2.3% tax on the gross revenue of medical device manufactures. You see, these evil companies make devices that save lives and improve the quality of many lives; but the government simply can't afford to have all these people around needing medical care. So, if we tax these evil-doers, we will get more revenue into government coffers, and hopefully put some of them out of business. Lost jobs? How many of you still think Obama was ever about jobs? If he was, tell me why with the worst economy since the Great Depression, he was focusing all of his time and energy on Obamacare during his first two years in office. According to George Will, in the 5/10/12 Investor's Business Daily, Cook Medical will no longer be opening a US factory this year. Boston Scientific? Built a $35 million research and development facility in Ireland, and is building a $150 million factory in China. Stryker Corp? Laid off 1000 employees. Zimmer? Laying off 450. Covidien? 200 lay-offs, and moving some production to Costa Rica and Mexico. Obama is motivated solely by ideology. You know, the "idea" of "equality." If thousands or millions lose their jobs, he will not lose one night's sleep over it. He and Michelle will just take another vacation.
*And in what may be the most telling phone call to a talk radio show that I will ever hear, a woman called up to Dennis Prager to disagree with a generalization he had made. In the process, she mentioned that she was Jewish and that her father (mid 80's) also listened to Prager and virtually always agreed with him. Then, the question by Prager - did her father ever vote for a Republican? Being a Jewish Republican, I did not need to actually hear the answer. Of course he never did. Prager's explanation was that the Left had done such a good job of demonizing the right that it would never occur to this man (and others like him) to actually vote for the party which had policies with which he agreed. I agree with that assessment, and have mentioned it on numerous occasions in prior postings. In fact, one time a liberal Jew with whom I was speaking was complaining of some of the high taxes in her city. When I said: "Congratulations, when did you become a Republican?", the reply was: Oh G-d forbid!" Many of my fellow Jews cannot even acknowledge that some of the positions that they hold are Republican positions. Even if they worked hard for everything they got in life, with no handouts, they do not believe others are capable of accomplishing the same things; whether it be a good education, a good job, or financial success. They believe the lie of the Left that every left-wing interest group is made up of "victims" of something or other, and only the government can right the perceived wrongs.
Ask them what President said: "This administration pledged itself...to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes" because "the accumulated evidence of the last five years is that our present tax system...exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; ...it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power;...it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk taking." Okay, we know Obama would never say such a thing; but it was a democrat. JFK said it. Tell that to a liberal democrat today and then get back to me with all the excuses they make for the difference between then and now. You see, they do not even recognize how far to the left they, and their party, have moved. Kennedy was a "traditional" liberal democrat: low taxes, personal responsibility, and a strong military to defend the country. As I say near the top left of my postings when you access the site, I left the party, in part, because it left me.
*Let's hear it for the State of New Jersey! The state Attorney General determined that no laws were violated when the NYPD conducted surveillance of Muslim businesses, mosques and student groups within New Jersey, without giving advance notification to New Jersey authorities. Not surprisingly, Muslim leaders are upset, and are considering the filing of a federal civil rights action. You know what I'm upset by? Three thousand fellow Americans, including one with whom I attended all of public school, being murdered on 9/11. The NYPD's Intelligence Division has people assigned to Scotland Yard, as well as police headquarters in 10 other foreign cities. You see, the war on radical islam is far from being over; and the NYPD has done an incredible job in helping to stop numerous planned attacks.
*In a related story, the city of Leicester, England, with a Muslim population of 30-40,000, just elected their first Muslim mayor. According to a story in the 5/24/12 Jewish Press online, the most influential Muslim in Leicester is one Shayk Abu Yusuf Riyadh Ul-Haq. In one of his sermons, Ul-Haq said that having a friendship with a Christian or Jew makes "a mockery of Allah's religion." He also discussed the "evil influence" of Western culture. The article notes that "Leicester has been plagued by forced marriages, kidnappings, physical and mental abuse of women, and other honor-based crimes against those who have not, according to family and local community members, conformed to religious or cultural expectations." Well it's sure comforting to know that they have avoided the "evil influence" of Western culture.
Not surprisingly, Ul-Haq also gave a sermon on the Jews. He had this to say: "They're all the same...It doesn't matter whether they're in New York, Houston, St. Louis, London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester. They're all the same. They've monopolized everything: the Holocaust, G-d, money, interest, usury, the world economy, the media, political institutions...they monopolized tyranny and oppression as well. And injustice." I'm impressed; less than than two tenths of one percent of the world's population and we control the world economy, the media and all political institutions. Seriously, though, if these kinds of comments, along with the ongoing efforts to commit terror attacks on US soil, does not convince you of the need for the type of surveillance being conducted by the NYPD, then you probably need to spend a year in, say, Saudi Arabia. But good luck in finding a Church or Synagogue to attend.
*Speaking of morons, Foxnews.com, on 5/28/12, reported on the reaction of U.S. Senator Charles Schumer to a story in the AP. The AP reported that families traveling by plane this summer may have to pay more to sit next to each other. Apparently, airlines do not cover the cost of a flight from the basic airfare alone. And now they have to deal with rising fuel costs. They had already started charging for checking barrage, watching TV, early boarding, and so on. Now, they are asking as much as $25.00 extra per seat for an aisle seat, a window seat, and a seat with more legroom. Said Senator Schumer: "Unnecessary airline fees shouldn't serve as a literal barrier between mother and child." And unnecessary senators should not be telling airlines how to run their businesses. Here's a shock - he's been a politician his entire adult life, running exactly the same number of businesses as has our President. NONE. And I would be willing to bet that he has no clue whether or not these fees are "unnecessary" for the continued functioning of any of the airlines that have instituted them.
*It gets better. In the town of Fort Lee, New Jersey, you can now be ticketed for careless or distracted walking, as reported by the USA Today, 5/16/12 edition. The fine will be $85.00. The Utah Transit Authority now has a $50.00 fine for distracted walking near trains. Of course, I would never suggest that governmental entities are looking for new and creative ways to take your money in these difficult economic times. (Not to mention yet another effort by government to control your behavior.) But, take the case of Russ and Pat Caswell, as reported in a column by George Will (5/20/12 Ventura County Star). It seems the Caswells had a motel that has not always had the finest clientele. About 30 customers have been arrested since 1994 on drug charges. That's 1.6 arrests per year. I suspect quite a few high schools have a worse arrest record. In any event, as Will tells it, the city of Tewksbury, Mass. is conspiring with the feds to take the property under civil forfeiture laws. And the feds share the money with the locals; with the sale of the motel expected to bring in $1.5 million. Of course, the 68 year old Mr. Caswell will no longer have his source of income, nor his retirement. Mr. Caswell has neither been charged with, nor convicted of, any crime. In fact, he had a history of cooperating with the local police in providing customer ID's and license plates. According to Will, a federal drug agent seeks out properties to steal (really, is there another word for it?) if the equity is at least $50,000. Government power, says Will quoting Madison, "is of an encroaching nature." Per Will: "If unresisted, it produces iniquitous sharing of other people's property."
*And speaking of government "taking," under Obamacare there will be a 2.3% tax on the gross revenue of medical device manufactures. You see, these evil companies make devices that save lives and improve the quality of many lives; but the government simply can't afford to have all these people around needing medical care. So, if we tax these evil-doers, we will get more revenue into government coffers, and hopefully put some of them out of business. Lost jobs? How many of you still think Obama was ever about jobs? If he was, tell me why with the worst economy since the Great Depression, he was focusing all of his time and energy on Obamacare during his first two years in office. According to George Will, in the 5/10/12 Investor's Business Daily, Cook Medical will no longer be opening a US factory this year. Boston Scientific? Built a $35 million research and development facility in Ireland, and is building a $150 million factory in China. Stryker Corp? Laid off 1000 employees. Zimmer? Laying off 450. Covidien? 200 lay-offs, and moving some production to Costa Rica and Mexico. Obama is motivated solely by ideology. You know, the "idea" of "equality." If thousands or millions lose their jobs, he will not lose one night's sleep over it. He and Michelle will just take another vacation.
*And in what may be the most telling phone call to a talk radio show that I will ever hear, a woman called up to Dennis Prager to disagree with a generalization he had made. In the process, she mentioned that she was Jewish and that her father (mid 80's) also listened to Prager and virtually always agreed with him. Then, the question by Prager - did her father ever vote for a Republican? Being a Jewish Republican, I did not need to actually hear the answer. Of course he never did. Prager's explanation was that the Left had done such a good job of demonizing the right that it would never occur to this man (and others like him) to actually vote for the party which had policies with which he agreed. I agree with that assessment, and have mentioned it on numerous occasions in prior postings. In fact, one time a liberal Jew with whom I was speaking was complaining of some of the high taxes in her city. When I said: "Congratulations, when did you become a Republican?", the reply was: Oh G-d forbid!" Many of my fellow Jews cannot even acknowledge that some of the positions that they hold are Republican positions. Even if they worked hard for everything they got in life, with no handouts, they do not believe others are capable of accomplishing the same things; whether it be a good education, a good job, or financial success. They believe the lie of the Left that every left-wing interest group is made up of "victims" of something or other, and only the government can right the perceived wrongs.
Ask them what President said: "This administration pledged itself...to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes" because "the accumulated evidence of the last five years is that our present tax system...exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; ...it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power;...it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk taking." Okay, we know Obama would never say such a thing; but it was a democrat. JFK said it. Tell that to a liberal democrat today and then get back to me with all the excuses they make for the difference between then and now. You see, they do not even recognize how far to the left they, and their party, have moved. Kennedy was a "traditional" liberal democrat: low taxes, personal responsibility, and a strong military to defend the country. As I say near the top left of my postings when you access the site, I left the party, in part, because it left me.
*Let's hear it for the State of New Jersey! The state Attorney General determined that no laws were violated when the NYPD conducted surveillance of Muslim businesses, mosques and student groups within New Jersey, without giving advance notification to New Jersey authorities. Not surprisingly, Muslim leaders are upset, and are considering the filing of a federal civil rights action. You know what I'm upset by? Three thousand fellow Americans, including one with whom I attended all of public school, being murdered on 9/11. The NYPD's Intelligence Division has people assigned to Scotland Yard, as well as police headquarters in 10 other foreign cities. You see, the war on radical islam is far from being over; and the NYPD has done an incredible job in helping to stop numerous planned attacks.
*In a related story, the city of Leicester, England, with a Muslim population of 30-40,000, just elected their first Muslim mayor. According to a story in the 5/24/12 Jewish Press online, the most influential Muslim in Leicester is one Shayk Abu Yusuf Riyadh Ul-Haq. In one of his sermons, Ul-Haq said that having a friendship with a Christian or Jew makes "a mockery of Allah's religion." He also discussed the "evil influence" of Western culture. The article notes that "Leicester has been plagued by forced marriages, kidnappings, physical and mental abuse of women, and other honor-based crimes against those who have not, according to family and local community members, conformed to religious or cultural expectations." Well it's sure comforting to know that they have avoided the "evil influence" of Western culture.
Not surprisingly, Ul-Haq also gave a sermon on the Jews. He had this to say: "They're all the same...It doesn't matter whether they're in New York, Houston, St. Louis, London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester. They're all the same. They've monopolized everything: the Holocaust, G-d, money, interest, usury, the world economy, the media, political institutions...they monopolized tyranny and oppression as well. And injustice." I'm impressed; less than than two tenths of one percent of the world's population and we control the world economy, the media and all political institutions. Seriously, though, if these kinds of comments, along with the ongoing efforts to commit terror attacks on US soil, does not convince you of the need for the type of surveillance being conducted by the NYPD, then you probably need to spend a year in, say, Saudi Arabia. But good luck in finding a Church or Synagogue to attend.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
A Letter I Would Never Write
I have been a little frustrated of late. Talking to those who disagree with me does not bother me. But some people's inability to even listen to a contrary opinion, or even FACTS that are inconsistent with their tightly held worldview, can get a little discouraging. If you read this blog, you know that I leave personalities out (I know, on a few rare occasions I referred to some public figure as a moron), and I discuss the issues of the day in an intellectual manner, trying to cite my sources whenever possible. But every once in a while I am tempted to write a letter that I would never write.
"To my liberal friends,
What is the matter with you? How long will you keep blaming George Bush without recognizing what Obama has done to our economy? The percentage of people who want to work that are actually working is down to 63.6% as of April - the lowest since 1981! Shortly after Obama took office it was 65.7%. So while new jobs in April totaled 115,00, the labor force shrank by 342,000. And you think Obama is turning things around? Why? Because you read the LA or NY Times? Or watch CNN or MSNBC? Our "recovery" technically began in June, 2009. Yet, all other expansions post WWII had the labor force GROWING by MILLIONS at this point in the recovery. (Stats from 5/7/12 Investor's Business Daily.)
Well, here's what the NY Times said in their lead editorial in the Sunday, 4/29/12 edition: "...President George W. Bush was responsible for nearly five times more of the current debt than President Obama." I guess if you are going to so blatantly LIE, it may as well be a whopper! In 8 years in office, Bush never spent more than $3 trillion a year. Obama spent $3.938 trillion in his first year alone. As a percentage of GDP, Bush never had a deficit above above 3.5%; Obama's record: 10.1%, 9.0%, 8.7% and estimated 8.5% for this year. (Deficit figures from White House OMB site. Other stats from a 3/09 paper from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.) I would suggest that you go online and check it out for yourself, but I know that you are more comfortable with your belief system than with facts. You ever ask yourself why that is?
Remember how upset you were with Bush when gas prices got to over $3.00/gallon? He had all those ties to the evil oil industry! Now, gas prices are over $4.00/gallon. Where are you? Where is your outrage? Either the LA or NY Times, both of whom lambasted Bush for his $3.00/gallon gas, not only did not blame Obama in one of their editorials. They actually said we should drive Priuses, ride bicycles, walk to work, or move closer to work. Yes, let's go back to the 19th century! You know, I trust, that your President's Energy Secretary said he would like to see the price of gas rise to what it is in Europe ($8.00 or $9.00/gallon)! Is that looking out for you? No. It hurts you; and it will make every product you buy more expensive, because most products are shipped by trucks, which use GASOLINE! But you will happily vote for Obama in November.
As someone who has always been interested in astronomy and the space program, I mentioned to a dear friend (please don't get mad at me) how upset I was that Obama has basically destroyed the program. He pooh-poohed my assertion. So I used my smart phone and typed in "Obama and the space program." Article after article about Obama's lack of interest in and lack of support for the space program. Yet, you can easily Google "the space program and scientific and medical advances" and you may be surprised by what comes up. Obama has added $5 trillion dollars to the debt, but cannot adequately fund the space program. Well, it doesn't have anything to do with redistributing wealth, hence his lack of interest. And yours, I guess.
Thank goodness the democrats are running Sacramento. They have controlled the legislature for, what, four decades now? They sure know how to tax and spend. Workers earning more than $48,000/year pay a top rate of 9.3%, higher than what millionaires pay in 47 states. But about 40% of California residents pay NO income taxes, with about 25% on Medi-Cal. (Stats from an article by Allysia Finley in an interview with demographer Joel Kotkin.) As Mr. Kotkin notes, it might not be that far-fetched for someone to propose a ballot measure taxing all income above $100,000. at 100%! Between 1992 and 2008, about 4.4 million people (tax filers) left California, while only 3.5 million moved in from other states. Those leaving had higher adjusted gross incomes, on average. And where do Californians move to? States with LOWER TAXES! Of the top nine states they go to, the average maximum income tax rate is 3.44% (versus California's top rate of 10.3%). (Last stats from an article by Arthur Laffer in the 4/17/12 IBD.) "Let them go," you say? Well, they not only take their higher incomes and higher tax payments with them. They take jobs. According to Mr. Kotkin,there are four "growth corridors," including the Gulf Coast, the Great Plains, the Intermountain West, and the Southeast. What do these areas have that California doesn't? Lower taxes, lower costs of living, less government regulation and natural resources. According to Mr. Kotkin: "Almost all of the major tech companies have moved stuff to Salt Lake City," including Twitter, Adobe, eBay, and Oracle. Apple is creating 3600 jobs in Austin, Texas. Facebook and eBay have or will add jobs there also. So, let them all go. That way, you and the remaining people and businesses can pay more in taxes! It's on the ballot, you know.
When those Republicans run things, they just care about saving money! Well, yes, they care about saving YOUR money. But maybe the dems and the public employee unions can get Scott Walker recalled as Governor of Wisconsin. He actually made public employees pay 5.8% of their salaries to their own pensions, and 12.6% to their health insurance premiums. (Of course, I pay 100% of my retirement and 100% of my health insurance. But I don't kick back millions of dollars to the democratic pols like the public employee unions do.) Under Walker, property taxes have actually declined for the first time since 1998. Shameful! Wisconsin has actually moved up the list 21 spots on the best places to do business, during Walker's term. (Per Chief Executive magazine, as quoted from the 5/4/12 WSJ. Other stats from same article.) And taxpayers - you know, the people - have saved $1 billion dollars under Walker. The result is that School Districts have been able to keep teachers' jobs and avoid mass lay-offs. But who cares about saving jobs? You know in your heart that Republicans are evil. You know voting for a Republican is just WRONG!
Here's some good news. The Socialist candidate for President of France has won in today's run-off election! Sarkozy is OUT. Austerity measures are OUT. The winner, Francois Hollande, wants to raise taxes for income over 1 million Euro to 75%, and over 450,000 Euro to 45%. (From the 4/20/12 WSJ.) Think that will help France's miserable employment rate of 62.8%? (Germany's rate - 76.5%, and Switzerland's - 82.9%.) (From an article by Bret Stephens in the 4/24/12 WSJ.) Who cares about jobs? It's time to make those rich bastards pay more taxes. You know, the 1%. I wonder where most of those one-percenters come from? Hmmm. Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? Humble beginnings. Many millionaire entertainers? Started out as waiters and waitresses in New York or LA, but with a dream and a desire. But Obama says it's time to punish them for their success, so that's what the country has to do. The government can make better use of their money. Didn't the government create the desktop computer, smartphones, iTunes, iPads Skype, Facebook, Twitter, Google and on and on it goes? No? Well, the government needs that money anyway. It's just unfair to have wealthy people.
So, my friends, go out there and do all you can to get Obama re-elected. He'll raise your taxes, put us further into debt to the point where your children and grandchildren will never get out from under. He'll continue to limit supply so your gas prices will keep going up. The medical advances from our space program will be no more. But under Obamacare we won't be able to pay for all that treatment anyway. And just to make sure of that, Obama created the Independent Payment Advisory Board that gets to decide just how much the government will spend for your particular medical treatment. And it has the bonus of NO CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT! That was written into the law. With a socialist victory in France, it's looking better for a socialist victory again here. So go out and work hard for a November victory and then celebrate.
Your friend,
The Truth-Uncensored.
P.S. "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone..." (Thanks to Joni Mitchell.)"
"To my liberal friends,
What is the matter with you? How long will you keep blaming George Bush without recognizing what Obama has done to our economy? The percentage of people who want to work that are actually working is down to 63.6% as of April - the lowest since 1981! Shortly after Obama took office it was 65.7%. So while new jobs in April totaled 115,00, the labor force shrank by 342,000. And you think Obama is turning things around? Why? Because you read the LA or NY Times? Or watch CNN or MSNBC? Our "recovery" technically began in June, 2009. Yet, all other expansions post WWII had the labor force GROWING by MILLIONS at this point in the recovery. (Stats from 5/7/12 Investor's Business Daily.)
Well, here's what the NY Times said in their lead editorial in the Sunday, 4/29/12 edition: "...President George W. Bush was responsible for nearly five times more of the current debt than President Obama." I guess if you are going to so blatantly LIE, it may as well be a whopper! In 8 years in office, Bush never spent more than $3 trillion a year. Obama spent $3.938 trillion in his first year alone. As a percentage of GDP, Bush never had a deficit above above 3.5%; Obama's record: 10.1%, 9.0%, 8.7% and estimated 8.5% for this year. (Deficit figures from White House OMB site. Other stats from a 3/09 paper from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.) I would suggest that you go online and check it out for yourself, but I know that you are more comfortable with your belief system than with facts. You ever ask yourself why that is?
Remember how upset you were with Bush when gas prices got to over $3.00/gallon? He had all those ties to the evil oil industry! Now, gas prices are over $4.00/gallon. Where are you? Where is your outrage? Either the LA or NY Times, both of whom lambasted Bush for his $3.00/gallon gas, not only did not blame Obama in one of their editorials. They actually said we should drive Priuses, ride bicycles, walk to work, or move closer to work. Yes, let's go back to the 19th century! You know, I trust, that your President's Energy Secretary said he would like to see the price of gas rise to what it is in Europe ($8.00 or $9.00/gallon)! Is that looking out for you? No. It hurts you; and it will make every product you buy more expensive, because most products are shipped by trucks, which use GASOLINE! But you will happily vote for Obama in November.
As someone who has always been interested in astronomy and the space program, I mentioned to a dear friend (please don't get mad at me) how upset I was that Obama has basically destroyed the program. He pooh-poohed my assertion. So I used my smart phone and typed in "Obama and the space program." Article after article about Obama's lack of interest in and lack of support for the space program. Yet, you can easily Google "the space program and scientific and medical advances" and you may be surprised by what comes up. Obama has added $5 trillion dollars to the debt, but cannot adequately fund the space program. Well, it doesn't have anything to do with redistributing wealth, hence his lack of interest. And yours, I guess.
Thank goodness the democrats are running Sacramento. They have controlled the legislature for, what, four decades now? They sure know how to tax and spend. Workers earning more than $48,000/year pay a top rate of 9.3%, higher than what millionaires pay in 47 states. But about 40% of California residents pay NO income taxes, with about 25% on Medi-Cal. (Stats from an article by Allysia Finley in an interview with demographer Joel Kotkin.) As Mr. Kotkin notes, it might not be that far-fetched for someone to propose a ballot measure taxing all income above $100,000. at 100%! Between 1992 and 2008, about 4.4 million people (tax filers) left California, while only 3.5 million moved in from other states. Those leaving had higher adjusted gross incomes, on average. And where do Californians move to? States with LOWER TAXES! Of the top nine states they go to, the average maximum income tax rate is 3.44% (versus California's top rate of 10.3%). (Last stats from an article by Arthur Laffer in the 4/17/12 IBD.) "Let them go," you say? Well, they not only take their higher incomes and higher tax payments with them. They take jobs. According to Mr. Kotkin,there are four "growth corridors," including the Gulf Coast, the Great Plains, the Intermountain West, and the Southeast. What do these areas have that California doesn't? Lower taxes, lower costs of living, less government regulation and natural resources. According to Mr. Kotkin: "Almost all of the major tech companies have moved stuff to Salt Lake City," including Twitter, Adobe, eBay, and Oracle. Apple is creating 3600 jobs in Austin, Texas. Facebook and eBay have or will add jobs there also. So, let them all go. That way, you and the remaining people and businesses can pay more in taxes! It's on the ballot, you know.
When those Republicans run things, they just care about saving money! Well, yes, they care about saving YOUR money. But maybe the dems and the public employee unions can get Scott Walker recalled as Governor of Wisconsin. He actually made public employees pay 5.8% of their salaries to their own pensions, and 12.6% to their health insurance premiums. (Of course, I pay 100% of my retirement and 100% of my health insurance. But I don't kick back millions of dollars to the democratic pols like the public employee unions do.) Under Walker, property taxes have actually declined for the first time since 1998. Shameful! Wisconsin has actually moved up the list 21 spots on the best places to do business, during Walker's term. (Per Chief Executive magazine, as quoted from the 5/4/12 WSJ. Other stats from same article.) And taxpayers - you know, the people - have saved $1 billion dollars under Walker. The result is that School Districts have been able to keep teachers' jobs and avoid mass lay-offs. But who cares about saving jobs? You know in your heart that Republicans are evil. You know voting for a Republican is just WRONG!
Here's some good news. The Socialist candidate for President of France has won in today's run-off election! Sarkozy is OUT. Austerity measures are OUT. The winner, Francois Hollande, wants to raise taxes for income over 1 million Euro to 75%, and over 450,000 Euro to 45%. (From the 4/20/12 WSJ.) Think that will help France's miserable employment rate of 62.8%? (Germany's rate - 76.5%, and Switzerland's - 82.9%.) (From an article by Bret Stephens in the 4/24/12 WSJ.) Who cares about jobs? It's time to make those rich bastards pay more taxes. You know, the 1%. I wonder where most of those one-percenters come from? Hmmm. Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? Humble beginnings. Many millionaire entertainers? Started out as waiters and waitresses in New York or LA, but with a dream and a desire. But Obama says it's time to punish them for their success, so that's what the country has to do. The government can make better use of their money. Didn't the government create the desktop computer, smartphones, iTunes, iPads Skype, Facebook, Twitter, Google and on and on it goes? No? Well, the government needs that money anyway. It's just unfair to have wealthy people.
So, my friends, go out there and do all you can to get Obama re-elected. He'll raise your taxes, put us further into debt to the point where your children and grandchildren will never get out from under. He'll continue to limit supply so your gas prices will keep going up. The medical advances from our space program will be no more. But under Obamacare we won't be able to pay for all that treatment anyway. And just to make sure of that, Obama created the Independent Payment Advisory Board that gets to decide just how much the government will spend for your particular medical treatment. And it has the bonus of NO CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT! That was written into the law. With a socialist victory in France, it's looking better for a socialist victory again here. So go out and work hard for a November victory and then celebrate.
Your friend,
The Truth-Uncensored.
P.S. "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone..." (Thanks to Joni Mitchell.)"
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Obamacare at the Supreme Court.
* There were some memorable lines from the Supreme Court hearings on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. (The law will neither protect patients nor make health care affordable, but that is another matter.) Justice Kennedy had what may be the best line, indicating that the mandate "changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way." Indeed, for the first time the feds would be ordering everyone to purchase a product from a private company or state run exchange. Yes, I know the States require the purchase of various things: car insurance, motorcycle helmets, and on and on. But if you do not drive a car or motorcycle, you need not make those purchases. And it goes to the very nature of our republic as to whether or not the constitution limits the federal government to enumerated powers, with plenary power reserved to the states; and whether the power of the states and the rights of the individual are superseded by an all powerful central government.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.: "Virtually everybody in society is in this market," explaining why ordering people to buy insurance is different than other products. But there were so many assumptions made in these hearings. Even if virtually everyone does enter the market at some point in their lives, there are studies that have suggested that about 20% of the population uses about 80% of the healthcare services. If so, should this unequal distribution be a factor in assessing costs?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "The people who don't participate in this market are making it much more expensive for the people who do...and the result is that everybody else's premiums get raised." Even if she is right, do we confer constitutionality on a statute just because it might control costs? Can Congress pass laws limiting what any product can cost, or order the purchase of products by all, to keep the prices down? And is the Justice right, or is it just another assumption? Mark Levin a couple of weeks ago was discussing how government interference in the healthcare market is what is keeping prices high. States, and now the feds with Obamacare, have had certain requirements of what every health insurance policy must provide, regardless of whether the purchaser wants or will ever use that service. The insurance companies then pass along the costs of those services. And what about Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) and Medicare? Doctors and hospitals are limited in what they are paid by those two programs, regardless of the doctor's or hospital's actual cost. So the rest of us get to make up the difference in higher prices.
Justice Antonin Scalia: "Everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli." Maybe, maybe not. But does anyone have any doubt that once the door is opened to the feds to allow them to order you to buy one thing, it is now wide open for whatever a future Congress and President see fit to order you to purchase or to do? And why not broccoli, if it can be shown that the beneficial health effects help cut down on the use of healthcare services?
* The LA Times. In their 3/26/12 editorial they say that the mandate "is a key piece of a broad effort to fix a healthcare system that is too expensive, inefficient and inaccessible to too many Americans." For this reason, they say, the mandate should be upheld. This does not address the constitutionality issue at all. Rather, it reflects typical leftist thinking that the ends justify the means. They believe Obamacare is a good idea and therefore it should be upheld. They do argue that government orders the purchase of car insurance and motorcylce helmets - but see the discussion in the first paragraph explaining the nature of our Republic, which the Times does not seem to get.
* The New York Times. In their 4/1/12 editorial they say, in reference to the Roberts Court: "There has been no court less restrained in signaling its willingness to replace law made by Congress with law made by justices." Except they don't really mean it - it's a lie. They would be fine with the court overturning The Defense of Marriage Act, as well as numerous other laws passed by Congress. And they would not call it "replacing law made by Congress with law made by justices." Rather, they would be lauding the justices for their "courage." In any event, their basic supposition about the Roberts Court is a lie. Roe vs. Wade found a right to abortion based on a right to privacy. Except that the Constitution mentions neither privacy nor abortion. Was the court deciding Roe engaging in "law made by justices?" Did the Roe court feel itself constrained by laws duly made by legislative bodies?
* The Investor's Business Daily. In their 3/28/12 editorial, the IBD notes that Obama ridiculed Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries when she argued for a healthcare "mandate." Said candidate Obama, if a mandate was a solution then "we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house..." Except, the mandate became imperative for him a year later, so which time was he lying? The IBD cites a report by two professors concluding that Obamacare's "combination of high taxes, large subsidies and extensive mandatory contractual terms seems likely to eventually drive most private insurance plans out of business." I always thought that the goal of Obamacare was to destroy the private health insurance market, thereby making it mandatory for Congress to put in a "public option." Only by then, it would not be an option - it would be the only coverage available.
* The Investor's Business Daily. In their 4/3/12 editorial, the paper discusses the costs of Obamacare. Originally, it was projected to cost $940 billion dollars in its first ten years. Except, the first two years had virtually no costs; so the CBO now projects costs for the next ten years to be $1.76 trillion dollars. Almost double. There's a shocker - a government program that costs far more than original projections. Are your insurance rates up? Obama originally said that families would save $2500. per year. But a Kaiser Family Foundation study has found that average costs are already up $2200. per year. Notes the IBD: "Increased health insurance coverage is not the same as better health, nor does wider coverage guarantee lower medical costs."
* President Obama. "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." Wow. Not bad - Obama managed two lies in one sentence. Congress barely passed Obamacare; 219 to 212 in the House, with quite a few democrats voting against it. It passed in the Senate when Harry Reid bribed certain senators in order to get their vote. Not a single Republican in either house voted for it. So, no, it did not pass by a "strong majority." And "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" if the Court overturns the law? Not only incorrect, but as Obama taught constitutional law, he knew full well it was an untruth. For 209 years, since Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury vs. Madison, the Court has the inherent power of "judicial review." Were it otherwise, then any Congress could pass any law contrary to the Constitution and that law would stand, effectively negating the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution would just be the first "law" passed, and could be superseded any time Congress passed a contrary law. No need for Amendments.
* My take. Sadly missing from much commentary favoring Obamacare, even by lawyers and law professors, is whether or not the use of the Commerce Clause to justify this legislation is good for the country. Those on the left point to the use of the Commerce Clause for at least seven decades (if not ten or more) to justify expansion of federal power. In 1942 the case of Wickard vs. Filburn came before the U.S. Supreme Court. Filburn was a farmer in Ohio who grew wheat for himself and his family and his farm animals. But the Department of Agriculture fined him for growing more wheat than he was allowed by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Congress said the act was authorized by their power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court upheld the fine saying that Filburn's use of his own wheat meant he did not have to purchase wheat in commerce - thereby affecting commerce. Also, he "might" decide to sell the wheat in commerce. This was an awful decision. The Court was allowing the feds to fine a citizen for growing wheat on his own farm. It was a sad day for the rights of property owners, and for individual liberty. So without questioning whether or not this was a wise decision, the left uses this as a basis for arguing for almost any expansion of federal power under the Commerce Clause.
And the left is right in that regard. If the Court believes Filburn was rightly decided, they could easily then uphold Obamacare. After all, healthcare affects interstate commerce. And not buying insurance can affect the market like not buying wheat (because Filburn grew his own). If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, it will be by a 5-4 vote, as the four liberal justices believe as the LA Times (see above) and those on the left often do - that the ends justify the means. If Obamacare is upheld, it could by a 5-4 vote (with Kennedy being the swing vote either way), but it could also be a 6-3 vote. The Chief Justice votes last. If he sees that Kennedy is siding with the four liberals he could decide to go with the majority. The reason would be that when the Chief Justice is in the majority he can assign the writing of the majority opinion to whomever he wants to, including himself. Therefore, the decision can be as broad or as limited as the Chief wants.
So what's with Obama? How could he make such a bold statement about the Court's power that was so wrong? He taught constitutional law, after all. Lots of excuses and explanations were made by the White House and Obama's supporters in the mainstream media. Of course, all the explanations were nonsensical because, again, Obama taught constitutional law. The criticisms from the right mostly suggested that Obama was trying to bully the Court into upholding the law. But missing from the analysis is a simple explanation: as someone on the left Obama believes that the ends justify the means. Looked at from this perspective it explains why it would be a non-issue for Obama to so blatantly lie about the size of the majority vote, and the Court's power to overturn the law. It explains why, in my opinion, Obama lies far more often than other Presidents have, and feels comfortable doing it. Even when the lies are so obviously and transparently wrong, he "knows" he is defending a "just" cause. That is why he can go out there and say what he does with a straight face, and undoubtedly sound convincing to the uninformed. And given that the mainstream media will never call him on any of his lies (remember "Bush lied, people died") Obama knows he is safe in continuing with his intellectual dishonesty.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.: "Virtually everybody in society is in this market," explaining why ordering people to buy insurance is different than other products. But there were so many assumptions made in these hearings. Even if virtually everyone does enter the market at some point in their lives, there are studies that have suggested that about 20% of the population uses about 80% of the healthcare services. If so, should this unequal distribution be a factor in assessing costs?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "The people who don't participate in this market are making it much more expensive for the people who do...and the result is that everybody else's premiums get raised." Even if she is right, do we confer constitutionality on a statute just because it might control costs? Can Congress pass laws limiting what any product can cost, or order the purchase of products by all, to keep the prices down? And is the Justice right, or is it just another assumption? Mark Levin a couple of weeks ago was discussing how government interference in the healthcare market is what is keeping prices high. States, and now the feds with Obamacare, have had certain requirements of what every health insurance policy must provide, regardless of whether the purchaser wants or will ever use that service. The insurance companies then pass along the costs of those services. And what about Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) and Medicare? Doctors and hospitals are limited in what they are paid by those two programs, regardless of the doctor's or hospital's actual cost. So the rest of us get to make up the difference in higher prices.
Justice Antonin Scalia: "Everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli." Maybe, maybe not. But does anyone have any doubt that once the door is opened to the feds to allow them to order you to buy one thing, it is now wide open for whatever a future Congress and President see fit to order you to purchase or to do? And why not broccoli, if it can be shown that the beneficial health effects help cut down on the use of healthcare services?
* The LA Times. In their 3/26/12 editorial they say that the mandate "is a key piece of a broad effort to fix a healthcare system that is too expensive, inefficient and inaccessible to too many Americans." For this reason, they say, the mandate should be upheld. This does not address the constitutionality issue at all. Rather, it reflects typical leftist thinking that the ends justify the means. They believe Obamacare is a good idea and therefore it should be upheld. They do argue that government orders the purchase of car insurance and motorcylce helmets - but see the discussion in the first paragraph explaining the nature of our Republic, which the Times does not seem to get.
* The New York Times. In their 4/1/12 editorial they say, in reference to the Roberts Court: "There has been no court less restrained in signaling its willingness to replace law made by Congress with law made by justices." Except they don't really mean it - it's a lie. They would be fine with the court overturning The Defense of Marriage Act, as well as numerous other laws passed by Congress. And they would not call it "replacing law made by Congress with law made by justices." Rather, they would be lauding the justices for their "courage." In any event, their basic supposition about the Roberts Court is a lie. Roe vs. Wade found a right to abortion based on a right to privacy. Except that the Constitution mentions neither privacy nor abortion. Was the court deciding Roe engaging in "law made by justices?" Did the Roe court feel itself constrained by laws duly made by legislative bodies?
* The Investor's Business Daily. In their 3/28/12 editorial, the IBD notes that Obama ridiculed Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries when she argued for a healthcare "mandate." Said candidate Obama, if a mandate was a solution then "we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house..." Except, the mandate became imperative for him a year later, so which time was he lying? The IBD cites a report by two professors concluding that Obamacare's "combination of high taxes, large subsidies and extensive mandatory contractual terms seems likely to eventually drive most private insurance plans out of business." I always thought that the goal of Obamacare was to destroy the private health insurance market, thereby making it mandatory for Congress to put in a "public option." Only by then, it would not be an option - it would be the only coverage available.
* The Investor's Business Daily. In their 4/3/12 editorial, the paper discusses the costs of Obamacare. Originally, it was projected to cost $940 billion dollars in its first ten years. Except, the first two years had virtually no costs; so the CBO now projects costs for the next ten years to be $1.76 trillion dollars. Almost double. There's a shocker - a government program that costs far more than original projections. Are your insurance rates up? Obama originally said that families would save $2500. per year. But a Kaiser Family Foundation study has found that average costs are already up $2200. per year. Notes the IBD: "Increased health insurance coverage is not the same as better health, nor does wider coverage guarantee lower medical costs."
* President Obama. "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." Wow. Not bad - Obama managed two lies in one sentence. Congress barely passed Obamacare; 219 to 212 in the House, with quite a few democrats voting against it. It passed in the Senate when Harry Reid bribed certain senators in order to get their vote. Not a single Republican in either house voted for it. So, no, it did not pass by a "strong majority." And "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" if the Court overturns the law? Not only incorrect, but as Obama taught constitutional law, he knew full well it was an untruth. For 209 years, since Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury vs. Madison, the Court has the inherent power of "judicial review." Were it otherwise, then any Congress could pass any law contrary to the Constitution and that law would stand, effectively negating the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution would just be the first "law" passed, and could be superseded any time Congress passed a contrary law. No need for Amendments.
* My take. Sadly missing from much commentary favoring Obamacare, even by lawyers and law professors, is whether or not the use of the Commerce Clause to justify this legislation is good for the country. Those on the left point to the use of the Commerce Clause for at least seven decades (if not ten or more) to justify expansion of federal power. In 1942 the case of Wickard vs. Filburn came before the U.S. Supreme Court. Filburn was a farmer in Ohio who grew wheat for himself and his family and his farm animals. But the Department of Agriculture fined him for growing more wheat than he was allowed by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Congress said the act was authorized by their power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court upheld the fine saying that Filburn's use of his own wheat meant he did not have to purchase wheat in commerce - thereby affecting commerce. Also, he "might" decide to sell the wheat in commerce. This was an awful decision. The Court was allowing the feds to fine a citizen for growing wheat on his own farm. It was a sad day for the rights of property owners, and for individual liberty. So without questioning whether or not this was a wise decision, the left uses this as a basis for arguing for almost any expansion of federal power under the Commerce Clause.
And the left is right in that regard. If the Court believes Filburn was rightly decided, they could easily then uphold Obamacare. After all, healthcare affects interstate commerce. And not buying insurance can affect the market like not buying wheat (because Filburn grew his own). If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, it will be by a 5-4 vote, as the four liberal justices believe as the LA Times (see above) and those on the left often do - that the ends justify the means. If Obamacare is upheld, it could by a 5-4 vote (with Kennedy being the swing vote either way), but it could also be a 6-3 vote. The Chief Justice votes last. If he sees that Kennedy is siding with the four liberals he could decide to go with the majority. The reason would be that when the Chief Justice is in the majority he can assign the writing of the majority opinion to whomever he wants to, including himself. Therefore, the decision can be as broad or as limited as the Chief wants.
So what's with Obama? How could he make such a bold statement about the Court's power that was so wrong? He taught constitutional law, after all. Lots of excuses and explanations were made by the White House and Obama's supporters in the mainstream media. Of course, all the explanations were nonsensical because, again, Obama taught constitutional law. The criticisms from the right mostly suggested that Obama was trying to bully the Court into upholding the law. But missing from the analysis is a simple explanation: as someone on the left Obama believes that the ends justify the means. Looked at from this perspective it explains why it would be a non-issue for Obama to so blatantly lie about the size of the majority vote, and the Court's power to overturn the law. It explains why, in my opinion, Obama lies far more often than other Presidents have, and feels comfortable doing it. Even when the lies are so obviously and transparently wrong, he "knows" he is defending a "just" cause. That is why he can go out there and say what he does with a straight face, and undoubtedly sound convincing to the uninformed. And given that the mainstream media will never call him on any of his lies (remember "Bush lied, people died") Obama knows he is safe in continuing with his intellectual dishonesty.
Friday, March 30, 2012
More on Iran; Trayvon Martin; Jews Murdered In Toulouse; and Other Matters
1. More on Iran. Former Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, was on Fox News and reported that the Obama administration may have leaked sensitive information about a possible Israeli attack on Iran. Israel has been developing a close relationship with Azerbaijan, a country that sits on Iran's northern border. According to Bolton, "government sources" told Foreign Policy magazine that Azerbaijan may allow Israeli forces to use their airfields in a strike against Iran. Such close access to Iranian targets would make a strike easier, and would allow for multiple waves of attack.
If Obama intentionally had this information released, it would be consistent with his efforts to prevent an Israeli attack. In February, our Defense Secretary said if Israel strikes, it will most likely be in April, May or June; essentially announcing to the Iranians when they need to be prepared. Now, they are telling the Iranians the direction from which the attacks may occur. Per Bolton: "It's just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies." Obama recently said he had Israel's back. It seems like Obama has Iran's back.
2. The Nanny State and the Food Police. In an example of how leftist interference supersedes common sense, New York City will no longer allow charitable groups like churches and synagogues to donate left-over food to homeless shelters. As reported in the 3/27/12 IBD, the concern did not appear to be over lawsuits. Rather, the IBD says: "A new document from the bureaucracy dictates serving sizes, as well as salt, fat and calorie limits, fiber minimums and condiment recommendations." Think they won't dictate what you can eat if Obamacare is upheld? Apparently they are willing to let the homeless starve.
3. Trayvon Martin. One cannot help but feel for the overwhelming grief of the parents of Trayvon Martin over the death of their son. The shooter is apparently half hispanic, and spent time tutoring young minority and black kids (according to Hannity on Fox). But the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton must have been concerned that they would not have anything to do after the country elected a black president. It is certainly feasible that George Zimmerman had engaged in some racial profiling when he saw Martin walking through his neighborhood. But that is not the same as saying that he was out to kill a black person. And it's a far cry to leap the conclusion of one woman who brought her 10 year old to a rally because "it's important for them to learn from this incident - that it's not equal treatment, that (this country) is not as rose-colored as people think, even though we have a black president." (Quote from 3/27/12 LA Times.)
Is that the proper lesson for children? One shooting and the entire non-black population of the US wants to kill all the blacks? I cannot help but wonder if these same people are out in force every time there is a black on black killing, often by gangs. Do those innocent victims deserve any less attention? The head of the New Black Panther Party apparently put a bounty on the head of George Zimmerman. And Spike Lee Twitted what he thought was Zimmerman's address. (He got it wrong, unfortunately for an older couple.) So do these blacks want to return to mob rule? Have they already forgotten that mob rule resulted in lynchings of blacks? I would ask why the Attorney General is not seeking to prosecute Spike Lee and the head of the Panthers, but we already know the answer - blacks don't get prosecuted under this Administration.
4. No More Christian or Jewish Holidays Off. The State University of New York at Stony Brook has decided that classes will not be cancelled any longer for major Christian or Jewish holidays. Easter is on a Sunday anyway, and Christmas is during the winter break, so that leaves Good Friday. For Jews, it's Rosh Hashanah (2 days for the more observant) and Yom Kippur (and Passover and other days for the more observant). But the High Holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are almost universally observed. According to the Vice Provost of undergraduate education: "...the reality is it's a relatively small number of people who are upset." Maybe; but my guess would be that it was even a smaller number of people who objected. My only question is: was it the atheists or the Muslim Student Association that objected? (Story from Foxnews.com, 3/25/12.)
5. Jews Murdered in Toulouse, France. One Mohamed Merah (may he rot in hell forever) murdered a Rabbi and his two small children, along with another child, at a Jewish school in Toulouse, France. He actually grabbed one of the children by her hair and then shot her in the head. A number of media outlets apparently reported that Merah claimed he acted to "avenge the deaths of Palestinian children." But NPR reported it as avenging "slain" Palestinian children. (As reported by Vic Rosenthal in the 3/23/12 Jewish Press online.) So let's be clear about a few things. First, these people were murdered for one reason - they were Jews. Second, Merah's rationalization is no different than what we see from the mainstream media day in and day out. They talk about the "violence" in the Middle East; or that today some Palestinians were killed and tomorrow some Israelis were killed. It's all the same because the mainstream media and the Western leaders make no moral distinctions. The Palestinians launch thousands and thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel, not caring who is killed or injured. Israel then targets only the terrorists, and yes, innocents do get killed. Yet the media and Western leaders make no distinction.
When Obama spoke to the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009, he talked about the death of six million Jews in the Holocaust. But he followed that up with his statement that "...the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable." Except their situation is of their own doing. But when we in the West do not make any moral distinctions, how surprising can it be that the terrorists use the same justifications. We (the terrorists) are just avenging "slain" Palestinian children. Except that Israel does not target children or other innocents. If that was their intent, the Israelis could flatten Gaza and the West Bank.
6. London as a "Beacon" of Islam. The former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, is running again for Mayor. The fact that this anti-semitic radical leftist won twice already is bad enough. The thought of him getting a third term is shocking. More shocking is his desire to turn London, the capital of England, into a "beacon" of Islam. (As reported in the 3/23/12 Jewish Press.) Livingstone spoke at the North London Central Mosque, known for its radical brand of Islam. One group, Muslims Against Crusades, wants to turn 12 cities in Britain into Islamic Emirates, governed by Sharia law, and not English law. There are approximately one million Muslims in London. We can only speculate about where London, England and all of Europe is headed. And are we next?
It brings to mind what I wrote in my 11/15/09 blog (The Liberal Mind) discussing all the excuses the mainstream media was making for Major Hassan (another who should rot in hell) after he murdered US soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas: "It is much easier to write him off as a nut case, than accept the reality of a world-wide effort by islamofascists to dominate the planet and establish sharia law everywhere."
If Obama intentionally had this information released, it would be consistent with his efforts to prevent an Israeli attack. In February, our Defense Secretary said if Israel strikes, it will most likely be in April, May or June; essentially announcing to the Iranians when they need to be prepared. Now, they are telling the Iranians the direction from which the attacks may occur. Per Bolton: "It's just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies." Obama recently said he had Israel's back. It seems like Obama has Iran's back.
2. The Nanny State and the Food Police. In an example of how leftist interference supersedes common sense, New York City will no longer allow charitable groups like churches and synagogues to donate left-over food to homeless shelters. As reported in the 3/27/12 IBD, the concern did not appear to be over lawsuits. Rather, the IBD says: "A new document from the bureaucracy dictates serving sizes, as well as salt, fat and calorie limits, fiber minimums and condiment recommendations." Think they won't dictate what you can eat if Obamacare is upheld? Apparently they are willing to let the homeless starve.
3. Trayvon Martin. One cannot help but feel for the overwhelming grief of the parents of Trayvon Martin over the death of their son. The shooter is apparently half hispanic, and spent time tutoring young minority and black kids (according to Hannity on Fox). But the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton must have been concerned that they would not have anything to do after the country elected a black president. It is certainly feasible that George Zimmerman had engaged in some racial profiling when he saw Martin walking through his neighborhood. But that is not the same as saying that he was out to kill a black person. And it's a far cry to leap the conclusion of one woman who brought her 10 year old to a rally because "it's important for them to learn from this incident - that it's not equal treatment, that (this country) is not as rose-colored as people think, even though we have a black president." (Quote from 3/27/12 LA Times.)
Is that the proper lesson for children? One shooting and the entire non-black population of the US wants to kill all the blacks? I cannot help but wonder if these same people are out in force every time there is a black on black killing, often by gangs. Do those innocent victims deserve any less attention? The head of the New Black Panther Party apparently put a bounty on the head of George Zimmerman. And Spike Lee Twitted what he thought was Zimmerman's address. (He got it wrong, unfortunately for an older couple.) So do these blacks want to return to mob rule? Have they already forgotten that mob rule resulted in lynchings of blacks? I would ask why the Attorney General is not seeking to prosecute Spike Lee and the head of the Panthers, but we already know the answer - blacks don't get prosecuted under this Administration.
4. No More Christian or Jewish Holidays Off. The State University of New York at Stony Brook has decided that classes will not be cancelled any longer for major Christian or Jewish holidays. Easter is on a Sunday anyway, and Christmas is during the winter break, so that leaves Good Friday. For Jews, it's Rosh Hashanah (2 days for the more observant) and Yom Kippur (and Passover and other days for the more observant). But the High Holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are almost universally observed. According to the Vice Provost of undergraduate education: "...the reality is it's a relatively small number of people who are upset." Maybe; but my guess would be that it was even a smaller number of people who objected. My only question is: was it the atheists or the Muslim Student Association that objected? (Story from Foxnews.com, 3/25/12.)
5. Jews Murdered in Toulouse, France. One Mohamed Merah (may he rot in hell forever) murdered a Rabbi and his two small children, along with another child, at a Jewish school in Toulouse, France. He actually grabbed one of the children by her hair and then shot her in the head. A number of media outlets apparently reported that Merah claimed he acted to "avenge the deaths of Palestinian children." But NPR reported it as avenging "slain" Palestinian children. (As reported by Vic Rosenthal in the 3/23/12 Jewish Press online.) So let's be clear about a few things. First, these people were murdered for one reason - they were Jews. Second, Merah's rationalization is no different than what we see from the mainstream media day in and day out. They talk about the "violence" in the Middle East; or that today some Palestinians were killed and tomorrow some Israelis were killed. It's all the same because the mainstream media and the Western leaders make no moral distinctions. The Palestinians launch thousands and thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel, not caring who is killed or injured. Israel then targets only the terrorists, and yes, innocents do get killed. Yet the media and Western leaders make no distinction.
When Obama spoke to the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009, he talked about the death of six million Jews in the Holocaust. But he followed that up with his statement that "...the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable." Except their situation is of their own doing. But when we in the West do not make any moral distinctions, how surprising can it be that the terrorists use the same justifications. We (the terrorists) are just avenging "slain" Palestinian children. Except that Israel does not target children or other innocents. If that was their intent, the Israelis could flatten Gaza and the West Bank.
6. London as a "Beacon" of Islam. The former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, is running again for Mayor. The fact that this anti-semitic radical leftist won twice already is bad enough. The thought of him getting a third term is shocking. More shocking is his desire to turn London, the capital of England, into a "beacon" of Islam. (As reported in the 3/23/12 Jewish Press.) Livingstone spoke at the North London Central Mosque, known for its radical brand of Islam. One group, Muslims Against Crusades, wants to turn 12 cities in Britain into Islamic Emirates, governed by Sharia law, and not English law. There are approximately one million Muslims in London. We can only speculate about where London, England and all of Europe is headed. And are we next?
It brings to mind what I wrote in my 11/15/09 blog (The Liberal Mind) discussing all the excuses the mainstream media was making for Major Hassan (another who should rot in hell) after he murdered US soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas: "It is much easier to write him off as a nut case, than accept the reality of a world-wide effort by islamofascists to dominate the planet and establish sharia law everywhere."
Sunday, March 11, 2012
What To Do About Iran?
The topic of whether or not to bomb Iran's nuclear sites has been much in the news of late. Both President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu recently addressed the annual AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) convention. Since then, there have been numerous editorials and opinion pieces in the newspapers. The purpose of this blog is to give you various viewpoints, with, of course, my own commentary along the way.
* In making a legal argument against a preemptive strike, Bruce Ackerman cites the UN Charter which allows self-defense against an armed attack. The right to a preemptive strike, however, goes back to the reasoning put forward by Daniel Webster. Webster said that such a strike could only be justified if there was a "necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." Ackerman (described as a professor of law and political science at Yale) goes on to suggest that the UN Security Council should approve aggressive use of military force. (From an opinion piece in the 3/5/12 LA Times.)
The problem that I have with Ackerman is that the UN is not simply made up of democracies. It includes dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. I am hard pressed to understand why a democracy should be constrained by such a body. Russia and China are permanent members of the Security Council. They would never approve of military action against Iran. And the Human Rights Council of UNESCO (the UN's Educational, Scientific and Cultural organization) recently decided to keep Syria on the Council. A country that is presently murdering thousands of its own citizens is kept on the Human Rights Council. Hence, my lack of respect for, and confidence in, the United Nations. (From Foxnews.com, 3/9/12.)
* In a 3/6/12 editorial, the New York Times said that "Iran's nuclear appetites are undeniable, as is its malign intent toward Israel (and) America..." They go on: "We don't know if there is any mix of sanctions and diplomacy that can persuade the mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions." But, "Tehran's recent offer to return to the negotiations is almost certainly a feint, but must be tested." They conclude: "...Israel should not doubt this president's mettle..."
So, after acknowledging Iran's indisputable nuclear ambitions, their animosity toward Israel and the U.S., and even that Iran's new move to negotiations is likely a ploy, what do they conclude? Let's just wait. This, to me, is nothing other than typical leftist refusal to live in the real world. It is letting their beliefs (in Obama, in the peace process, in whatever) dictate their reality. Diplomacy has been tried for the last eight years or more. Iran feigns interest, all the while building up a significant nuclear program, and enriching uranium beyond the level needed for peaceful purposes. But let's talk some more?
* The 3/6/12 editorial of the IBD (Investor's Business Daily) was rather more blunt: "...Netanyahu shouldn't trust Obama's rhetoric..." They point out that Obama wants to give diplomacy a chance. (Obama said: "...I firmly believe that an opportunity still remains for diplomacy..." at AIPAC.) The IBD goes on to say that Obama failed to tell Abbas that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state for the peace process to move forward. Obama also kept quiet during the Iranian uprising of 2009. Yet he supported the Arab Spring, resulting in Islamic run states in Egypt and Libya. The IBD questions whether Obama's tough talk at AIPAC was "something other than an election-year sop to Obama's faltering Jewish support."
* Obama did give some tough talk at AIPAC. He said his policy was not one of containment (of a nuclear-armed Iran) but rather was one of preventing Iran from getting a nuke. He made this very important comment: "No Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel's destruction. And so I understand the profound historical obligation that weighs on the shoulders of Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak (Israel's defense minister) and all of Israel's leaders."
* Charles Krauthammer, in the 3/9/12 IBD, quotes an Obama Administration official as saying this: "We're trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel." Krauthammer notes that Israel would look bad to the U.S. and the world if they attacked while the U.S. was engaged in negotiations. (And, I would add, the constant comments by Administration officials about why an attack would not be prudent at this time all have the same purpose.) Per Krauthammer: "...Obama wants to get past Nov. 6 without any untoward action that might threaten his re-election." (Which might explain why Obama sees no need to take action this year, while the Israelis fear that Iran will have a nuke by year's end.)
* Thomas Sowell agrees that Israel should not trust Obama. He notes how Obama spoke of "shovel-ready" jobs with the stimulus, and when they failed to materialize Obama then made a joke and laughed about it a year later. Obama promised transparency in his Administration. Remember how all proposed legislation would first be posted online? Yet massive pieces of legislation were passed without even the Congress reading it. (A la Pelosi's "we have to pass the bill (Obamacare) to see what's in it.) Obama promised higher ethical standards, except if he wanted someone in his cabinet (such as the Treasury Secretary who failed to pay taxes for a number of years). (And I would point out that Obama promised to end partisanship and be a uniter. But when Republicans made some proposals for "Obamacare," Obama refused, and said: "I won the election." Sowell goes on: "If you were an Israeli, how willing would you be to risk your national survival on Obama's promise to stand by your country?" Sowell concludes with a quote from Churchill: "Do not let us take the course of allowing events to drift along until it is too late." (Sowell's comments from a 3/7/12 opinion piece in the IBD.)
* Netanyahu's speech to AIPAC was classic Netanyahu - direct and to the point. "Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself." "The Jewish State will not allow those who seek our destruction the means to achieve that goal." Netanyahu talked about how some still argue that maybe Iran is not a seeking a weapon; and that it is better to accept an Iran with nukes than start a war. (That would be the dreamers on the left.) Netanyahu pointed out that years of diplomacy and sanctions have done nothing to even slow Iran's nuclear development. In acknowledging the concern that an attack would prompt retaliation by Iran, Netanyahu referred to a letter from the World Jewish Congress to the U.S. government in 1944. The Jews were pleading for the U.S. to bomb Auschwitz. The reply was that such an operation would divert too many resources, was of doubtful efficacy and "might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans." These are the same arguments being made by many today in arguing against an attack on Iran. And what could have been more vindictive towards the Jewish people than the Holocaust? Netanyahu: "As Prime Minister of Israel I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation."
* My take. First, let's acknowledge that the decision to bomb or not bomb does not necessarily involve the same analysis for the U.S. as for Israel. Even Obama expressed his understanding of "the profound historical obligation" that weighs on Israel's leaders. If "Never Again" means anything, it must mean that no country expressing a desire to wipe Israel off the map can ever be allowed the means and opportunity to do so. Two well placed nukes could essentially destroy Israel and annihilate half the Jewish population of the world. One or two nukes on American soil would be devastating, but it would guarantee the end of Iran. It is not a calculus that Israel can make.
Obama said to AIPAC that "Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat." So, the second issue is whether or not the U.S. will supply the necessary weaponry (such as bunker-busting bombs) to Israel to do just that. Only Obama knows the answer to that.
As Netanyahu pointed out at AIPAC, the issue cannot simply be framed in terms of possible retaliatory acts by Iran, and whether or not an attack is worth the cost. We must also ask what the cost will be if nothing is done to stop Iran. It has been pointed out that if Iran gets the bomb, other countries in the Middle East have already indicated that they would feel a need to do so; countries such as Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Is a nuclear arms race in the Middle East good for world peace and security, or does it enhance the likelihood of nuclear war or terror? And isn't it interesting how Israel's open secret of having nukes does not provoke the same desire of other Middle Eastern countries to get their own nukes? This is because those countries recognize Israel obtained those weapons for defensive purposes, and as a deterrent; and Israel has never threatened, or expressed a desire, to wipe any other country off the map.
It does not seem likely that Israel will be willing to wait until next year (after the U.S. election) to attack. The question, therefore, is what will the U.S. do? Earlier in the Obama Administration, with lots of U.S. troops still in Iraq, Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested that if Israel flew over Iraq to attack Iran, U.S. fighter jets should shoot the Israelis down. (Brzezinski was also Carter's National Security Adviser.) I guess that's one option, although I do not see Obama doing that. So then, will Obama supply Israel with the necessary weaponry? Will Obama have the U.S. participate or even take the lead? Or will Obama simply wait until the election is over, at which time it might be too late?
No one can reasonably deny that there are consequences to both action and inaction. But the burden clearly is greater on Netanyahu than on Obama. His country, while strong militarily, cannot compare to the strength of the U.S.A. No Israeli leader can sit by and watch the destruction of the Jewish people. As the IAEA recently noted, Iran is enriching uranium at a rapid pace, and to a level more than is needed for civilian use. Iran has missiles that can reach Israel, and parts of Europe. (Once again, I am not holding my breath waiting to see if the Europeans will do anything.) Diplomacy and sanctions have been tried and have failed. Iran will not be deterred from obtaining a nuclear weapon short of military action. As Netanyahu said at AIPAC: "The purpose of the Jewish State is to defend Jewish lives and to secure the Jewish future." Netanyahu concluded: "In every generation there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. In this generation we are blessed to live in a time when there is a Jewish State capable of defending the Jewish people."
* In making a legal argument against a preemptive strike, Bruce Ackerman cites the UN Charter which allows self-defense against an armed attack. The right to a preemptive strike, however, goes back to the reasoning put forward by Daniel Webster. Webster said that such a strike could only be justified if there was a "necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." Ackerman (described as a professor of law and political science at Yale) goes on to suggest that the UN Security Council should approve aggressive use of military force. (From an opinion piece in the 3/5/12 LA Times.)
The problem that I have with Ackerman is that the UN is not simply made up of democracies. It includes dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. I am hard pressed to understand why a democracy should be constrained by such a body. Russia and China are permanent members of the Security Council. They would never approve of military action against Iran. And the Human Rights Council of UNESCO (the UN's Educational, Scientific and Cultural organization) recently decided to keep Syria on the Council. A country that is presently murdering thousands of its own citizens is kept on the Human Rights Council. Hence, my lack of respect for, and confidence in, the United Nations. (From Foxnews.com, 3/9/12.)
* In a 3/6/12 editorial, the New York Times said that "Iran's nuclear appetites are undeniable, as is its malign intent toward Israel (and) America..." They go on: "We don't know if there is any mix of sanctions and diplomacy that can persuade the mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions." But, "Tehran's recent offer to return to the negotiations is almost certainly a feint, but must be tested." They conclude: "...Israel should not doubt this president's mettle..."
So, after acknowledging Iran's indisputable nuclear ambitions, their animosity toward Israel and the U.S., and even that Iran's new move to negotiations is likely a ploy, what do they conclude? Let's just wait. This, to me, is nothing other than typical leftist refusal to live in the real world. It is letting their beliefs (in Obama, in the peace process, in whatever) dictate their reality. Diplomacy has been tried for the last eight years or more. Iran feigns interest, all the while building up a significant nuclear program, and enriching uranium beyond the level needed for peaceful purposes. But let's talk some more?
* The 3/6/12 editorial of the IBD (Investor's Business Daily) was rather more blunt: "...Netanyahu shouldn't trust Obama's rhetoric..." They point out that Obama wants to give diplomacy a chance. (Obama said: "...I firmly believe that an opportunity still remains for diplomacy..." at AIPAC.) The IBD goes on to say that Obama failed to tell Abbas that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state for the peace process to move forward. Obama also kept quiet during the Iranian uprising of 2009. Yet he supported the Arab Spring, resulting in Islamic run states in Egypt and Libya. The IBD questions whether Obama's tough talk at AIPAC was "something other than an election-year sop to Obama's faltering Jewish support."
* Obama did give some tough talk at AIPAC. He said his policy was not one of containment (of a nuclear-armed Iran) but rather was one of preventing Iran from getting a nuke. He made this very important comment: "No Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel's destruction. And so I understand the profound historical obligation that weighs on the shoulders of Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak (Israel's defense minister) and all of Israel's leaders."
* Charles Krauthammer, in the 3/9/12 IBD, quotes an Obama Administration official as saying this: "We're trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel." Krauthammer notes that Israel would look bad to the U.S. and the world if they attacked while the U.S. was engaged in negotiations. (And, I would add, the constant comments by Administration officials about why an attack would not be prudent at this time all have the same purpose.) Per Krauthammer: "...Obama wants to get past Nov. 6 without any untoward action that might threaten his re-election." (Which might explain why Obama sees no need to take action this year, while the Israelis fear that Iran will have a nuke by year's end.)
* Thomas Sowell agrees that Israel should not trust Obama. He notes how Obama spoke of "shovel-ready" jobs with the stimulus, and when they failed to materialize Obama then made a joke and laughed about it a year later. Obama promised transparency in his Administration. Remember how all proposed legislation would first be posted online? Yet massive pieces of legislation were passed without even the Congress reading it. (A la Pelosi's "we have to pass the bill (Obamacare) to see what's in it.) Obama promised higher ethical standards, except if he wanted someone in his cabinet (such as the Treasury Secretary who failed to pay taxes for a number of years). (And I would point out that Obama promised to end partisanship and be a uniter. But when Republicans made some proposals for "Obamacare," Obama refused, and said: "I won the election." Sowell goes on: "If you were an Israeli, how willing would you be to risk your national survival on Obama's promise to stand by your country?" Sowell concludes with a quote from Churchill: "Do not let us take the course of allowing events to drift along until it is too late." (Sowell's comments from a 3/7/12 opinion piece in the IBD.)
* Netanyahu's speech to AIPAC was classic Netanyahu - direct and to the point. "Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself." "The Jewish State will not allow those who seek our destruction the means to achieve that goal." Netanyahu talked about how some still argue that maybe Iran is not a seeking a weapon; and that it is better to accept an Iran with nukes than start a war. (That would be the dreamers on the left.) Netanyahu pointed out that years of diplomacy and sanctions have done nothing to even slow Iran's nuclear development. In acknowledging the concern that an attack would prompt retaliation by Iran, Netanyahu referred to a letter from the World Jewish Congress to the U.S. government in 1944. The Jews were pleading for the U.S. to bomb Auschwitz. The reply was that such an operation would divert too many resources, was of doubtful efficacy and "might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans." These are the same arguments being made by many today in arguing against an attack on Iran. And what could have been more vindictive towards the Jewish people than the Holocaust? Netanyahu: "As Prime Minister of Israel I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation."
* My take. First, let's acknowledge that the decision to bomb or not bomb does not necessarily involve the same analysis for the U.S. as for Israel. Even Obama expressed his understanding of "the profound historical obligation" that weighs on Israel's leaders. If "Never Again" means anything, it must mean that no country expressing a desire to wipe Israel off the map can ever be allowed the means and opportunity to do so. Two well placed nukes could essentially destroy Israel and annihilate half the Jewish population of the world. One or two nukes on American soil would be devastating, but it would guarantee the end of Iran. It is not a calculus that Israel can make.
Obama said to AIPAC that "Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat." So, the second issue is whether or not the U.S. will supply the necessary weaponry (such as bunker-busting bombs) to Israel to do just that. Only Obama knows the answer to that.
As Netanyahu pointed out at AIPAC, the issue cannot simply be framed in terms of possible retaliatory acts by Iran, and whether or not an attack is worth the cost. We must also ask what the cost will be if nothing is done to stop Iran. It has been pointed out that if Iran gets the bomb, other countries in the Middle East have already indicated that they would feel a need to do so; countries such as Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Is a nuclear arms race in the Middle East good for world peace and security, or does it enhance the likelihood of nuclear war or terror? And isn't it interesting how Israel's open secret of having nukes does not provoke the same desire of other Middle Eastern countries to get their own nukes? This is because those countries recognize Israel obtained those weapons for defensive purposes, and as a deterrent; and Israel has never threatened, or expressed a desire, to wipe any other country off the map.
It does not seem likely that Israel will be willing to wait until next year (after the U.S. election) to attack. The question, therefore, is what will the U.S. do? Earlier in the Obama Administration, with lots of U.S. troops still in Iraq, Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested that if Israel flew over Iraq to attack Iran, U.S. fighter jets should shoot the Israelis down. (Brzezinski was also Carter's National Security Adviser.) I guess that's one option, although I do not see Obama doing that. So then, will Obama supply Israel with the necessary weaponry? Will Obama have the U.S. participate or even take the lead? Or will Obama simply wait until the election is over, at which time it might be too late?
No one can reasonably deny that there are consequences to both action and inaction. But the burden clearly is greater on Netanyahu than on Obama. His country, while strong militarily, cannot compare to the strength of the U.S.A. No Israeli leader can sit by and watch the destruction of the Jewish people. As the IAEA recently noted, Iran is enriching uranium at a rapid pace, and to a level more than is needed for civilian use. Iran has missiles that can reach Israel, and parts of Europe. (Once again, I am not holding my breath waiting to see if the Europeans will do anything.) Diplomacy and sanctions have been tried and have failed. Iran will not be deterred from obtaining a nuclear weapon short of military action. As Netanyahu said at AIPAC: "The purpose of the Jewish State is to defend Jewish lives and to secure the Jewish future." Netanyahu concluded: "In every generation there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. In this generation we are blessed to live in a time when there is a Jewish State capable of defending the Jewish people."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)