* A senior member of the Egyptian/Muslim Brotherhood recently said that the Holocaust was a myth. The 6 million Jews were actually moved to the US and "the myth of the Holocaust is an industry that America invented." These comments come after it was revealed that Egypt's President Morsi had referred to Jews as descendants of apes and pigs. And also: "Never forget, brothers, to nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists and Jews." But obviously not a sufficient basis for Obama deciding against sending 20 additional F-16 fighter jets and 200 Abrams tanks to Egypt.
* Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas recently asked UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to get Israel's permission for Palestinians in Syria to be able to escape the civil war there and enter the West Bank. Israel agreed on condition that each refugee from Syria acknowledge in writing that they have no "right of return" to Israel. Said Abbas: "So we rejected that and said it's better they die in Syria than give up their right to return." This make sense to anybody? As we tend to see from the Left here, Abbas puts his ideology over outcome. How can one justify that the Palestinians in Syria would be better off dead than starting anew in the West Bank. I can assure all of you that not a single survivor of the Holocaust said they would be better off dead in Germany than starting anew in the US or Israel.
* "I am saddened that the Jews who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new state of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis, in the West Bank and Gaza." So said Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament (in Britain) David Ward. So, the Jews suffered "persecution" while the Palestinians are suffering "atrocities." An obvious anti-Semite from an increasingly anti-Semitic country.
* Israel has been warning about the dangers of Syrian weaponry getting into the hands of Hezbollah, given the increasing instability and civil war in Syria. Only days ago, the Israeli air force was able to take out a Syrian convoy that appeared to be headed towards the Lebanese border. Lebanon is home to the terrorist organization Hezbollah. It was believed that the convoy was carrying, among other things perhaps, SA-17 surface to air missiles. These missiles are Russian made and have the capability of reaching an altitude of 80,000 feet. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said he had "grave concern" over Israel's actions. He called on all countries to "strictly abide by international law, in particular in respect of territorial integrity and sovereignty of all countries in the region." Thankfully, Israel ignores such ridiculous advice whenever necessary for their survival. Maybe the Secretary-General should spend more of his time having "grave concern" about Iranian nukes, an Islamic Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt, and 50-60,000 dead in the Syrian civil war. Just a thought.
* The New York Times, in a 1/31/13 editorial, was concerned about Israel further isolating itself from the world by refusing to participate in the United Nations Human Rights Council review of its human rights practices. What could be wrong there? Some of the members of the Council include Kuwait, Libya, Pakistan, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. The Times even concedes, with great understatement, that the Council is "clearly not without faults." And what might those faults be? Again, with great understatement, the Times concedes "More than half of the resolutions passed by the council since it started work in 2006 have focused on Israel and its treatment of Palestinians, and Israel is the only country that is a standing item on the agenda for the council's biannual meetings." More than half! So were hundreds of thousands killed in Darfur and even more in the Congo? Did I miss the story about genocide in Israel? Are the editorial writers of the Times insane? Well, they did give one clue about their faith in the Human Rights Council - Obama had the US join after George W. Bush kept the US out. And if Obama thinks it's a good idea, then...(see post on Media Bias IV).
* The same Times editorial expressed concern over Israel also isolating itself over "its hard-line policies on West Bank settlements, the Gaza embargo and other issues." What "other issues?" Probably anything that Israel does. Here's another point of view. After looking around at all that is happening in the Middle East, Reuel Marc Gerecht wrote in the 1/30/13 Wall Street Journal: "The rising Islamic wave that has accompanied the Arab Spring should end the illusion that the Jewish state can be integrated into the Middle East through territorial concessions to nondemocratic regimes." But that would be letting the actual facts determine the best and most realistic approach. But, as part of the Left, the Times editorial writers do just the opposite - they let their beliefs dictate their reality. And their belief is not unlike that of MP David Ward.
* Who sides with the US at the UN? Israel does - over 90% of the time. You can pretty much count on the Arab/Muslim countries voting against the US. Who has been on the front line for the US time and again? Israel - during the Cold War, during Desert Storm, and against Iran and Islamic terror. And Israeli intelligence? Per General George Keagan, the former head of US Air Force Intelligence: "Israel is worth five CIAs." Not only did Israel provide intelligence during Desert Storm, but Israelis were able to get into the Iraqi desert and pick up downed US pilots.
* Yet, President Obama selects Chuck Hagel to be the Secretary of Defense. Yes, Hagel is a decorated Vietnam vet. And for that he deserves our respect and thanks. But is that enough to be Defense Secretary? Said Hagel: "The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people." What is often referred to as the "pro-Israel lobby" is supported by many non-Jews. And why not? Israel, along with England, are our two closest allies. And just why did Hagel see fit to single out one lobby among the many thousands in Washington, DC? Does he think it is a bad idea to support Israel? Hagel, as a US Senator, voted against declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. He has voted against sanctions on Iran. He supports talking with the terrorist group Hamas, which will not recognize Israel's right to exist even. He refused to sign off on a letter to the EU designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Four Senators refused to sign a letter to the President urging solidarity with Israel and condemning Palestinian violence. Hagel was one of those Senators. Even the liberal Washington Post opined that Hagel "is not the right choice for defense secretary." So, I ask my liberal friends and readers - what does it say about Obama that he would nominate such a man to be the head of our defense department, and be one of the most powerful people in the Administration?
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Media Bias, Part IV
* I have to admit, I am tired of, and annoyed at, liberal complaints about Fox News. Those who single out Fox are not only wrong, but also reflect how they simply parrot whatever emanates from the Obama Administration. So here are three questions to ask liberals when they criticize Fox: 1. Why do you believe that no one in the media should challenge the Obama Administration on any of their policies or actions? 2. If you claim other media outlets do, name them and give examples. 3. Are you aware of any recent examples of obvious bias by the mainstream media?
* As noted, liberals simply mimic what comes from the Obama Administration. In 2009, David Axelrod said Fox is "not really a news station." Anita Dunn said Fox was a "wing of the Republican Party," and "let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." And this recent comment by Obama reflects what he thinks of any opposition to him: "If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News...for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you'll see more of them doing it." As a demonstration of this Administration's intolerance of opposition, they recently kept Fox off of conference calls regarding Benghazi. Yet, Fox was the ONLY media outlet consistently covering the story; and ultimately showed that the party line about the attack being caused by an anti-Muslim film was a lie. So be honest - if you agree with the ban on Fox from the White House, then admit that you no longer agree that the media should pursue truth, or act as a check on government power.
* CBS. One of the "real" news networks. On a recent airing of "60 Minutes" Steve Kroft interviewed Obama and Hillary Clinton. He acknowledged that the segment was Obama's idea. He later told Piers Morgan on CNN that: "I think he (Obama) knows that we're not going to play gotcha with him, that we're not going to go out of our way to make him look bad or stupid." Not like they did with Bush, McCain and Romney. No, those guys are Republicans. Romney and his sons were criticized for their lack of military service. Obama? Not asked. Romney was asked if he had premarital sex with his wife. Not appropriate to ask Obama. Dan Rather pushed phony records about Bush's National Guard service. Oh, that's right, can't ask Obama about that topic. In Clinton's testimony before Congress about Benghazi, she was criticized for the Administration blaming the attack on a video rather than Muslim terrorism and yelled: "What difference does it make?" Kroft, apparently, was unable to think of what difference it might make either, so never challenged that comment.
* CBS. Again. John Dickerson is the political director at CBS News. This is a person one might expect would approach the political arena with some neutrality. After all, CBS is a "real" news station. Dickerson wrote for the liberal "Slate" that "The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat." And: "Obama's only remaining option is to pulverize...Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents." Needless to say, Mr. Dickerson was criticized by conservatives for those comments. But Mr. Dickerson was unable to see the bias, the advocacy for Obama. Said he: "For me, this was a math problem with an unmistakable conclusion. Some people thought I was giving the president my personal advice. No. My goal was to make a compelling argument based on the facts...this is the only plausible path..." So Dickerson thinks Obama should "delegitimize," "pulverize," and "destroy" the GOP. Loyal opposition? Not when they are Republicans. And Dickerson saw it as a math problem with an "unmistakable" conclusion. That one word - unmistakable - tells you all you need to know about why the mainstream media will not challenge Obama. After all, everything Obama stands for is "unmistakably" correct. So what's to question?
* ABC. Another "real" news organization. Recently, New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez was on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." The FBI had announced that Menendez was under investigation for visiting Dominican prostitutes. As if that was not bad enough, the prostitutes were said to be minors. So what hard-hitting questions did Stephanopoulos ask the Senator about the allegations? Anybody? NOTHING! As the IBD put it: "Would Communist Russia's TASS news agency or Pravda newspaper have been any more subservient to the party in power, the chief executive who leads it, or the ideology at their foundation than America's major media outlets are being to Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and their socialist-style liberalism?"
* Rolling Stone. Okay, not one of the typical mainstream media outlets. But the editor, Michael Hastings, at least had the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that, when in Obama's presence, the media starts "behaving in ways, you know, that are juvenile and amateurish and they swoon." THEY SWOON! Criticizing himself, Hastings said: "Did I ask about drones, did I ask about civil liberties? No, I did not." Too busy swooning, apparently.
* MSNBC. As an arm of NBC, clearly one of the mainstream media outlets. Martin Bashir was presenting some film clips of the testimony before Congress on gun control. When I subsequently saw a clip on O'Reilly that had first been aired by Bashir I was heartbroken. Here was a father who lost a child in the Newtown murders, and was testifying in favor of gun control. It appeared that pro-gun rights people were either heckling him or talking over him. It seemed outrageous to me. Then O'Reilly told his audience he was going to show the full unedited film clip. There was total silence as and after the father spoke. Total respect, as was appropriate given the circumstances. It was only after the father turned to the audience and suggested that no one could disagree with what he said that there were comments. This is not the first time such editing has given the wrong impression of events. Sadly, the mainstream media continues to have no problems with it. It is reminiscent of the Trayvon Martin incident, when the 911 call was edited to make it sound like George Zimmerman might be racist because he mentioned that Martin was black; when, in fact, race never came up until the 911 operator specifically asked Zimmerman what Martin's race was.
* Townhall magazine (February, 2013 issue) cites a study showing that 91% of journalists voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, when he received only 43% of the popular vote. To put it another way, UCLA professor Tim Groseclose (author of "Left Turn") suggested people imagine the most liberal city they could, such as San Francisco or Cambridge, Massachusetts - and then realize those cities are more conservative than the journalists in the mainstream media.
* This complete and total one-sided bias of the mainstream media makes it imperative for all concerned citizens, who care about this country and the world in which we live, to make sure they read and listen to a variety of viewpoints. I would even go so far as to say shame on you if you do not watch Fox News, at least occasionally. If your only news source is the mainstream media, it means you are willing to be spoon-fed the facts on which you base your beliefs.
* (NOTE: For those readers who may new to the blog, there was a three part series on "Media Bias" posted 12/17/11, 1/7/12 and 1/21/12.)
* As noted, liberals simply mimic what comes from the Obama Administration. In 2009, David Axelrod said Fox is "not really a news station." Anita Dunn said Fox was a "wing of the Republican Party," and "let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." And this recent comment by Obama reflects what he thinks of any opposition to him: "If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News...for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you'll see more of them doing it." As a demonstration of this Administration's intolerance of opposition, they recently kept Fox off of conference calls regarding Benghazi. Yet, Fox was the ONLY media outlet consistently covering the story; and ultimately showed that the party line about the attack being caused by an anti-Muslim film was a lie. So be honest - if you agree with the ban on Fox from the White House, then admit that you no longer agree that the media should pursue truth, or act as a check on government power.
* CBS. One of the "real" news networks. On a recent airing of "60 Minutes" Steve Kroft interviewed Obama and Hillary Clinton. He acknowledged that the segment was Obama's idea. He later told Piers Morgan on CNN that: "I think he (Obama) knows that we're not going to play gotcha with him, that we're not going to go out of our way to make him look bad or stupid." Not like they did with Bush, McCain and Romney. No, those guys are Republicans. Romney and his sons were criticized for their lack of military service. Obama? Not asked. Romney was asked if he had premarital sex with his wife. Not appropriate to ask Obama. Dan Rather pushed phony records about Bush's National Guard service. Oh, that's right, can't ask Obama about that topic. In Clinton's testimony before Congress about Benghazi, she was criticized for the Administration blaming the attack on a video rather than Muslim terrorism and yelled: "What difference does it make?" Kroft, apparently, was unable to think of what difference it might make either, so never challenged that comment.
* CBS. Again. John Dickerson is the political director at CBS News. This is a person one might expect would approach the political arena with some neutrality. After all, CBS is a "real" news station. Dickerson wrote for the liberal "Slate" that "The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat." And: "Obama's only remaining option is to pulverize...Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents." Needless to say, Mr. Dickerson was criticized by conservatives for those comments. But Mr. Dickerson was unable to see the bias, the advocacy for Obama. Said he: "For me, this was a math problem with an unmistakable conclusion. Some people thought I was giving the president my personal advice. No. My goal was to make a compelling argument based on the facts...this is the only plausible path..." So Dickerson thinks Obama should "delegitimize," "pulverize," and "destroy" the GOP. Loyal opposition? Not when they are Republicans. And Dickerson saw it as a math problem with an "unmistakable" conclusion. That one word - unmistakable - tells you all you need to know about why the mainstream media will not challenge Obama. After all, everything Obama stands for is "unmistakably" correct. So what's to question?
* ABC. Another "real" news organization. Recently, New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez was on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." The FBI had announced that Menendez was under investigation for visiting Dominican prostitutes. As if that was not bad enough, the prostitutes were said to be minors. So what hard-hitting questions did Stephanopoulos ask the Senator about the allegations? Anybody? NOTHING! As the IBD put it: "Would Communist Russia's TASS news agency or Pravda newspaper have been any more subservient to the party in power, the chief executive who leads it, or the ideology at their foundation than America's major media outlets are being to Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and their socialist-style liberalism?"
* Rolling Stone. Okay, not one of the typical mainstream media outlets. But the editor, Michael Hastings, at least had the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that, when in Obama's presence, the media starts "behaving in ways, you know, that are juvenile and amateurish and they swoon." THEY SWOON! Criticizing himself, Hastings said: "Did I ask about drones, did I ask about civil liberties? No, I did not." Too busy swooning, apparently.
* MSNBC. As an arm of NBC, clearly one of the mainstream media outlets. Martin Bashir was presenting some film clips of the testimony before Congress on gun control. When I subsequently saw a clip on O'Reilly that had first been aired by Bashir I was heartbroken. Here was a father who lost a child in the Newtown murders, and was testifying in favor of gun control. It appeared that pro-gun rights people were either heckling him or talking over him. It seemed outrageous to me. Then O'Reilly told his audience he was going to show the full unedited film clip. There was total silence as and after the father spoke. Total respect, as was appropriate given the circumstances. It was only after the father turned to the audience and suggested that no one could disagree with what he said that there were comments. This is not the first time such editing has given the wrong impression of events. Sadly, the mainstream media continues to have no problems with it. It is reminiscent of the Trayvon Martin incident, when the 911 call was edited to make it sound like George Zimmerman might be racist because he mentioned that Martin was black; when, in fact, race never came up until the 911 operator specifically asked Zimmerman what Martin's race was.
* Townhall magazine (February, 2013 issue) cites a study showing that 91% of journalists voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, when he received only 43% of the popular vote. To put it another way, UCLA professor Tim Groseclose (author of "Left Turn") suggested people imagine the most liberal city they could, such as San Francisco or Cambridge, Massachusetts - and then realize those cities are more conservative than the journalists in the mainstream media.
* This complete and total one-sided bias of the mainstream media makes it imperative for all concerned citizens, who care about this country and the world in which we live, to make sure they read and listen to a variety of viewpoints. I would even go so far as to say shame on you if you do not watch Fox News, at least occasionally. If your only news source is the mainstream media, it means you are willing to be spoon-fed the facts on which you base your beliefs.
* (NOTE: For those readers who may new to the blog, there was a three part series on "Media Bias" posted 12/17/11, 1/7/12 and 1/21/12.)
Friday, January 18, 2013
Republicans Vote Their Values, Democrats Are Driven By Issues.
* "Values:" "Important and lasting beliefs or ideals shared by the members of a culture about what is good or bad and desirable or undesirable. Values have a major influence on a person's behavior and attitude and serve as broad guidelines in all situations." (Definition from the Business Dictionary on line.)
* "Issues:" Topics for discussion or debate.
* Now, before any liberals give up on me, please allow me to explain. I am not suggesting that all liberals have no set of values by which they live. What I am suggesting is that whereas many liberals will comport themselves in their personal lives, often according to what might be considered a conservative set of values, they do not view public policy issues through the same lens. The result is that my fellow conservatives are often perplexed by what appears to be liberal illogic, inconsistency and even hypocrisy. A few examples.
* Abortion. As the killing of an unborn baby makes liberals uncomfortable, they have come to call abortion "a woman's right to choose." Once this became a "feminist issue" liberals jumped on the bandwagon. California Penal Code Section 187(a) defines "murder" as "the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." It is not murder, however, if "the act was solicited,aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus." In no other instance of unlawful killing is the crime of murder negated by the giving of consent by a third person. Illogical? Inconsistent? Hypocritical?
* Al Gore sells Current TV to Al Jazeera. Like President Obama, Gore was fond of saying the rich should pay more in taxes. Except he apparently had the sale go through on December 31, 2012 in order to avoid the higher capital gains taxes effective January 1, 2013. Current TV was said not to take ads from oil companies, given Gore's concern for the environment. But Al Jazeera is owned by the emir of Qatar, a country known for its oil production. But $100 million dollars, Gore's share of the sale proceeds, can apparently minimize the environmental impact.
* And, as the left believes all cultures, and hence all media outlets regardless of their origin, are equal, so no problem in selling to Al Jazeera. As the co-founder of Current TV said: "...Al Jazeera was founded with the same goals we had...to give voice to those voices...not typically heard; to speak truth to power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the important stories that no one else is telling." Maybe that would be like the show "Sharia and Life," in which the host said "Oh, Allah, take this oppressive Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers and kill them, down to the very last one." So Gore wanted to give voice to this hate speech? Did I mention $100 million? So, again, inconsistency? Hypocrisy?
* School vouchers. Liberals, like conservatives, believe in education. They want their kids to get the best education possible. In order to get that excellent education many liberals will send their own children to private schools. But are they in favor of school vouchers so that poor people can also send their own kids to the best schools? No. We have to protect public schools, not to mention the teachers. Inconsistent? Hypocritical?
* Welfare and food stamps. Many liberals have worked very hard for everything they have in life. They could not even conceive of being on the public dole. Work hard and you can enjoy life's rewards. But that's not "fair." It's not "equal." So under Obama food stamp recipients grew from 34 million to 47 million. Do liberals object? Do they suggest that creating dependency on government destroys an individual's desire and motivation to work and succeed on their own? Inconsistency?
* Overpopulation? On one occasion I was told by a liberal that the US is overpopulated, putting too much strain on the environment. So, I was advised that my kids should only have one child each. I then inquired if that same individual would be in favor of some type of barrier at our southern border. After all, millions have come here illegally. And they tend to produce multiple offspring themselves, adding millions more to the population. But I did not get agreement. There was no interest in limiting illegal immigration to the US. Inconsistent? You bet. Even my liberal friend admitted the inconsistency. But he still adhered to his inconsistent positions because he favored illegal immigration. The "issue" prevailed over all else, including logic, consistency and common sense.
* Guns. Gun control has been a favorite issue for the left, especially since Sandy Hook. Does it matter that gun control does not work? No. Look at Chicago and Washington, D.C. Very high murder rates with very strict gun control laws. Does it matter that many liberals are themselves protected by armed security, including our top public officials, and many in the entertainment world? No. Those very same people will propose stricter gun controls. Senator Diane Feinstein wants to bring back the so-called "assault weapons ban." But she is on record saying that she had a permit to carry and would take out anyone trying to kill her. Inconsistency? Hypocrisy?
* Because liberals are "issue" driven in the public policy arena, the "values" that they may live by do not come into play in the policy positions they take. This often results in illogical inconsistencies and apparent hypocrisy. Conservatives, however, do not detach their personal value system from the way they view the world. There is no collision between what Prager would call the macro and the micro for conservatives. If liberals voted the way they live (on their values) rather than on issues, Republicans would hold most elected offices in the country. But good luck to my conservative friends in trying to get a liberal to see the inconsistency between their conduct and their policy positions.
* "Issues:" Topics for discussion or debate.
* Now, before any liberals give up on me, please allow me to explain. I am not suggesting that all liberals have no set of values by which they live. What I am suggesting is that whereas many liberals will comport themselves in their personal lives, often according to what might be considered a conservative set of values, they do not view public policy issues through the same lens. The result is that my fellow conservatives are often perplexed by what appears to be liberal illogic, inconsistency and even hypocrisy. A few examples.
* Abortion. As the killing of an unborn baby makes liberals uncomfortable, they have come to call abortion "a woman's right to choose." Once this became a "feminist issue" liberals jumped on the bandwagon. California Penal Code Section 187(a) defines "murder" as "the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." It is not murder, however, if "the act was solicited,aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus." In no other instance of unlawful killing is the crime of murder negated by the giving of consent by a third person. Illogical? Inconsistent? Hypocritical?
* Al Gore sells Current TV to Al Jazeera. Like President Obama, Gore was fond of saying the rich should pay more in taxes. Except he apparently had the sale go through on December 31, 2012 in order to avoid the higher capital gains taxes effective January 1, 2013. Current TV was said not to take ads from oil companies, given Gore's concern for the environment. But Al Jazeera is owned by the emir of Qatar, a country known for its oil production. But $100 million dollars, Gore's share of the sale proceeds, can apparently minimize the environmental impact.
* And, as the left believes all cultures, and hence all media outlets regardless of their origin, are equal, so no problem in selling to Al Jazeera. As the co-founder of Current TV said: "...Al Jazeera was founded with the same goals we had...to give voice to those voices...not typically heard; to speak truth to power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the important stories that no one else is telling." Maybe that would be like the show "Sharia and Life," in which the host said "Oh, Allah, take this oppressive Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers and kill them, down to the very last one." So Gore wanted to give voice to this hate speech? Did I mention $100 million? So, again, inconsistency? Hypocrisy?
* School vouchers. Liberals, like conservatives, believe in education. They want their kids to get the best education possible. In order to get that excellent education many liberals will send their own children to private schools. But are they in favor of school vouchers so that poor people can also send their own kids to the best schools? No. We have to protect public schools, not to mention the teachers. Inconsistent? Hypocritical?
* Welfare and food stamps. Many liberals have worked very hard for everything they have in life. They could not even conceive of being on the public dole. Work hard and you can enjoy life's rewards. But that's not "fair." It's not "equal." So under Obama food stamp recipients grew from 34 million to 47 million. Do liberals object? Do they suggest that creating dependency on government destroys an individual's desire and motivation to work and succeed on their own? Inconsistency?
* Overpopulation? On one occasion I was told by a liberal that the US is overpopulated, putting too much strain on the environment. So, I was advised that my kids should only have one child each. I then inquired if that same individual would be in favor of some type of barrier at our southern border. After all, millions have come here illegally. And they tend to produce multiple offspring themselves, adding millions more to the population. But I did not get agreement. There was no interest in limiting illegal immigration to the US. Inconsistent? You bet. Even my liberal friend admitted the inconsistency. But he still adhered to his inconsistent positions because he favored illegal immigration. The "issue" prevailed over all else, including logic, consistency and common sense.
* Guns. Gun control has been a favorite issue for the left, especially since Sandy Hook. Does it matter that gun control does not work? No. Look at Chicago and Washington, D.C. Very high murder rates with very strict gun control laws. Does it matter that many liberals are themselves protected by armed security, including our top public officials, and many in the entertainment world? No. Those very same people will propose stricter gun controls. Senator Diane Feinstein wants to bring back the so-called "assault weapons ban." But she is on record saying that she had a permit to carry and would take out anyone trying to kill her. Inconsistency? Hypocrisy?
* Because liberals are "issue" driven in the public policy arena, the "values" that they may live by do not come into play in the policy positions they take. This often results in illogical inconsistencies and apparent hypocrisy. Conservatives, however, do not detach their personal value system from the way they view the world. There is no collision between what Prager would call the macro and the micro for conservatives. If liberals voted the way they live (on their values) rather than on issues, Republicans would hold most elected offices in the country. But good luck to my conservative friends in trying to get a liberal to see the inconsistency between their conduct and their policy positions.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Guns.
* I learned a lot from my father. Hard work never hurt anybody. If you want to succeed in this world you must work hard. There is no shame in doing any honest job (he had no tolerance for criminal activity, however). Do not expect any handouts; if you want something you have to work for it. My father lived by those words. His relaxation was in watching sports - almost any sport; and he liked to go target shooting. A gun was in the house when my brother and I were growing up. He kept it locked away, and made it quite clear to the two of us that guns were not toys. We were not allowed to go near the locked container. If we even pointed our toy pistols at him or our Mom we heard about it.
* In the 12/19/12 Investor's Business Daily, Dennis Prager wrote: "...when American schools emphasized character development, and when nearly all Americans believed that there is a G-d who forbids and punishes murder, such massacres rarely took place." Prager goes on: "...until the contemporary period, religion and/or conscience development were ubiquitous. Instead of teaching young Americans self-control, thanks to leftist influence, we now teach them self-esteem - which has been worse than morally useless." Citing a leading criminologist, Prager notes that "few Americans have the high self-esteem that violent criminals have." Some of us might conclude that bad, evil, immoral people do bad, evil and immoral things. But today's schools teach all cultures are equal; it is wrong to make value judgments like right and wrong or good and evil.
* Following the horrible shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA said "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." The simple logic of that statement seems irrefutable. But not for the left. So what succeeded in stopping the Nazis? Good guys yelling "Stop it now!" or good guys with guns? If your home is being burglarized while you are at home (and assuming you neither own a gun nor have armed security) do you want the police to come with their guns or without their guns? The President and his family are protected by a small army with quite a bit of firepower. According to Mark Levin, Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein owns a firearm, and said: If somebody tries to take me out, I'm going to take them with me."
* In the 12/21/12 IBD, Ann Coulter wrote of a study by two professors who examined how changes in gun laws from 1977 to 1995 affected public shootings with multiple victims. Coulter notes that the study looked at "waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun." Only one policy seemed to work - the increasing number of states allowing the carrying of a concealed weapon. Coulter points out that the mass shootings of late seem to occur at locations where guns are prohibited - such as schools, movie theaters, malls and even churches. The 12/28/12 IBD points out that 25 years ago only a small number of states allowed concealed weapons. Now 41 states have such laws. Yet, "major crimes, except in gun-controlled major cities, have shown a continuing decline that has paralleled the rise in the number of right-to-carry-states."
* The 12/31/12 IBD, citing FBI data, reports that "In 2007, there were 1,817 homicides committed with 'knives or cutting instruments; 'blunt objects' killed 674; while 'personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)' were the choices in 869 homicides." Of course, if the concern is simply senseless deaths, then the automobile ought to be the first thing to go, with 32,367 deaths in 2011. That amounts to an astonishing 88+ people killed each and every day in the US by cars.
* Reflecting the perspective of the left is an opinion piece in the 1/6/13 NY Times by Elisabeth Rosenthal, described as a physician and science reporter for the paper. The headline of the piece is "More Guns = More Killing." In what she believes refutes the NRA approach, she says "Despite the ubiquitous presence of 'good guys' with guns, countries like Guatamala, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia and Venezuela have some of the highest homicide rates in the world." Aside from whether or not it is appropriate to make comparisons of the US with these Central and South American countries, Dr. Rosenthal does not tell us the actual rate of gun ownership in these countries, simply averring that gun ownership there is "ubiquitous." She goes on to note that, per a 2011 UN report, "Honduras led the world in homicides, with 91.6 per 100,000 people. The other countries' rates: "El Salvador (69.1), Jamaica (40.9), Colombia (31.4), and Guatamala (38.5).
* But according to a site called "gunpolicy.org" the the number of lawfully owned guns in Honduras was 500,000, or 6.2 per 100,000 people. (And recall, a homicide rate of 91.6 per 100,000.) As for the US, according to justfacts.com, the population in 2009 was 307 million, with an estimated 300 million guns in 2010. That amounts to a gun ownership rate of 97%! Yet, what does Dr. Rosenthal say the US homicide rate is? About 5 per 100,000. So just how does any of this data prove the point of the article, "More Guns = More Killing"? In fact, it seems to prove the opposite.
* The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Ambiguous? Perhaps. But we know that the militia in revolutionary times consisted of individuals who owned guns. And we know that the US Supreme Court held in 2010 that the Second Amendment does protect an individual's right to gun ownership; at least in the home. (McDonald vs. City of Chicago, holding that the Second Amendment protection applies to states and municipalities as well as the federal government.) I have read letters to the editor advocating the abolition of gun ownership. I suspect a good many on the left would favor that. But did Prohibition stop the consumption of alcohol? Has making drugs illegal stopped the sale and trafficking of drugs? If guns were to be banned, the criminals, who by definition do not respect the law, would still obtain guns on the black market. Why should any individual (who is not a criminal or mentally disturbed) not be allowed to defend themselves and their families?
* A professor at the University of Rhode Island Tweeted: "Looks like the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children." And this: "F... the NRA. Wayne LaPierre should be in prison." And this: "Can we define NRA membership dues as contributing to a terrorist organization?" And from Joyce Carol Oates: "Another NRA-sponsored massacre for Christmas 2012." (Quotes from article by Michelle Malkin in 12/20/12 IBD.) Malkin states that Oates "mused hopefully for mass shootings against the NRA." Marg Helgenberger of CSI chimed in with: "One can only hope, but sadly I don't think anything would change." And from a Texas Democrat party official: "Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?" As noted in my post entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat," one cannot disagree with the Left without being accused of being evil.
* The Sandy Hook shootings were horrific. It is impossible to comprehend why anyone would want to kill 6 and 7 year olds. The American people's hearts were broken that day. Some have suggested tougher penalties for possessing guns on or near school campuses. But these school shooters do not care about the punishment. They fully expect to die the day of their shootings. Often, they kill themselves. Tougher penalties would not stop them. So what then? Amend the Constitution to ban gun ownership? Again, the criminals will get guns anyway. Yet, the movement afoot coming from Obama and Biden seeks that utopian world that the left always seeks. But evil and killers have been with us long before there were guns; since the time of Cain and Abel.
* As one of our former politicians said: "Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms...The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." From one of our founders? No. A Republican? No. Former Vice President of the United States Hubert Horatio Humphrey, a Democrat.
* In the 12/19/12 Investor's Business Daily, Dennis Prager wrote: "...when American schools emphasized character development, and when nearly all Americans believed that there is a G-d who forbids and punishes murder, such massacres rarely took place." Prager goes on: "...until the contemporary period, religion and/or conscience development were ubiquitous. Instead of teaching young Americans self-control, thanks to leftist influence, we now teach them self-esteem - which has been worse than morally useless." Citing a leading criminologist, Prager notes that "few Americans have the high self-esteem that violent criminals have." Some of us might conclude that bad, evil, immoral people do bad, evil and immoral things. But today's schools teach all cultures are equal; it is wrong to make value judgments like right and wrong or good and evil.
* Following the horrible shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA said "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." The simple logic of that statement seems irrefutable. But not for the left. So what succeeded in stopping the Nazis? Good guys yelling "Stop it now!" or good guys with guns? If your home is being burglarized while you are at home (and assuming you neither own a gun nor have armed security) do you want the police to come with their guns or without their guns? The President and his family are protected by a small army with quite a bit of firepower. According to Mark Levin, Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein owns a firearm, and said: If somebody tries to take me out, I'm going to take them with me."
* In the 12/21/12 IBD, Ann Coulter wrote of a study by two professors who examined how changes in gun laws from 1977 to 1995 affected public shootings with multiple victims. Coulter notes that the study looked at "waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun." Only one policy seemed to work - the increasing number of states allowing the carrying of a concealed weapon. Coulter points out that the mass shootings of late seem to occur at locations where guns are prohibited - such as schools, movie theaters, malls and even churches. The 12/28/12 IBD points out that 25 years ago only a small number of states allowed concealed weapons. Now 41 states have such laws. Yet, "major crimes, except in gun-controlled major cities, have shown a continuing decline that has paralleled the rise in the number of right-to-carry-states."
* The 12/31/12 IBD, citing FBI data, reports that "In 2007, there were 1,817 homicides committed with 'knives or cutting instruments; 'blunt objects' killed 674; while 'personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)' were the choices in 869 homicides." Of course, if the concern is simply senseless deaths, then the automobile ought to be the first thing to go, with 32,367 deaths in 2011. That amounts to an astonishing 88+ people killed each and every day in the US by cars.
* Reflecting the perspective of the left is an opinion piece in the 1/6/13 NY Times by Elisabeth Rosenthal, described as a physician and science reporter for the paper. The headline of the piece is "More Guns = More Killing." In what she believes refutes the NRA approach, she says "Despite the ubiquitous presence of 'good guys' with guns, countries like Guatamala, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia and Venezuela have some of the highest homicide rates in the world." Aside from whether or not it is appropriate to make comparisons of the US with these Central and South American countries, Dr. Rosenthal does not tell us the actual rate of gun ownership in these countries, simply averring that gun ownership there is "ubiquitous." She goes on to note that, per a 2011 UN report, "Honduras led the world in homicides, with 91.6 per 100,000 people. The other countries' rates: "El Salvador (69.1), Jamaica (40.9), Colombia (31.4), and Guatamala (38.5).
* But according to a site called "gunpolicy.org" the the number of lawfully owned guns in Honduras was 500,000, or 6.2 per 100,000 people. (And recall, a homicide rate of 91.6 per 100,000.) As for the US, according to justfacts.com, the population in 2009 was 307 million, with an estimated 300 million guns in 2010. That amounts to a gun ownership rate of 97%! Yet, what does Dr. Rosenthal say the US homicide rate is? About 5 per 100,000. So just how does any of this data prove the point of the article, "More Guns = More Killing"? In fact, it seems to prove the opposite.
* The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Ambiguous? Perhaps. But we know that the militia in revolutionary times consisted of individuals who owned guns. And we know that the US Supreme Court held in 2010 that the Second Amendment does protect an individual's right to gun ownership; at least in the home. (McDonald vs. City of Chicago, holding that the Second Amendment protection applies to states and municipalities as well as the federal government.) I have read letters to the editor advocating the abolition of gun ownership. I suspect a good many on the left would favor that. But did Prohibition stop the consumption of alcohol? Has making drugs illegal stopped the sale and trafficking of drugs? If guns were to be banned, the criminals, who by definition do not respect the law, would still obtain guns on the black market. Why should any individual (who is not a criminal or mentally disturbed) not be allowed to defend themselves and their families?
* A professor at the University of Rhode Island Tweeted: "Looks like the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children." And this: "F... the NRA. Wayne LaPierre should be in prison." And this: "Can we define NRA membership dues as contributing to a terrorist organization?" And from Joyce Carol Oates: "Another NRA-sponsored massacre for Christmas 2012." (Quotes from article by Michelle Malkin in 12/20/12 IBD.) Malkin states that Oates "mused hopefully for mass shootings against the NRA." Marg Helgenberger of CSI chimed in with: "One can only hope, but sadly I don't think anything would change." And from a Texas Democrat party official: "Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?" As noted in my post entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat," one cannot disagree with the Left without being accused of being evil.
* The Sandy Hook shootings were horrific. It is impossible to comprehend why anyone would want to kill 6 and 7 year olds. The American people's hearts were broken that day. Some have suggested tougher penalties for possessing guns on or near school campuses. But these school shooters do not care about the punishment. They fully expect to die the day of their shootings. Often, they kill themselves. Tougher penalties would not stop them. So what then? Amend the Constitution to ban gun ownership? Again, the criminals will get guns anyway. Yet, the movement afoot coming from Obama and Biden seeks that utopian world that the left always seeks. But evil and killers have been with us long before there were guns; since the time of Cain and Abel.
* As one of our former politicians said: "Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms...The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." From one of our founders? No. A Republican? No. Former Vice President of the United States Hubert Horatio Humphrey, a Democrat.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
The Liberal Mind; Texas vs. California; and The UN Recognizes Palestine.
* The Liberal Mind. In my last post I cited a CNN poll finding that Republicans overwhelmingly supported Israel's recent actions in Gaza (74% to 12%), whereas Democrats could not even muster majority support (41% to 36%). In an email to readers on my list I noted that readers who were Democrats might be surprised by their party's dwindling support of Israel. I also noted that I was not surprised. Sure enough, one Democrat reader disagreed with those stats. What follows is an exchange (given with his permission) between the reader (R) and Truth-Uncensored (TU):
TU: "So unless you think either I or CNN made up those stats, what is your explanation for the far greater GOP support? If you just don't buy it, then you have not been paying attention the last 10-20 years. Await your explanation."
R: "I live in a sheltered social circle. I have never met an anti-Israel person or a pro-Arab person. Just hard for me to believe, or perhaps accept, any numbers regardless of parties. I must be in denial as I have no reason to challenge you or your source. Where does CNN find these people I have never met or heard of?"
TU: "Let me correct you. You INTENTIONALLY live in a sheltered social circle. The evidence is all around you. I did NOT need that poll to tell me that Repubs overwhelmingly support Israel and Dems don't. Your inability to accept reality reflects two things: 1. You only read the mainstream media, and 2. As I often say, liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality. In this case, you BELIEVE all Dems support Israel, so you are UNABLE to process REALITY when it conflicts with that belief."
This exchange was with a reader whom I personally know. He is very bright and analytical in his job. So what's the problem? He is right about one thing - of course he is in denial. He only "knows" what he gets from the mainstream papers and mainstream/liberal talk shows. But like so many liberals I have come across, what they "know" is simply not true. Sadly, a combination of his "beliefs" and lack of exposure to other viewpoints and information, results in this liberal Jew not even recognizing how far his party has moved against Israel. Yet, this decreasing support for Israel among democrats has been going on for years, if not decades. These same limitations prevent these liberals from seeing how far their party has moved to the left on economic issues and social issues. And what incredible naivete to say these anti-Israel Dems don't exist because he never met them or heard of them. Will this same reader have to see an Iranian nuke go off in Israel or the US before he "knows" Iran has acquired nukes? The liberal mind.
* Texas vs. California. The growth rate in Texas the last two years: 3.3% and 5.2%. California: 2.0% and 1.7%. Texas' unemployment rate: 6.8% vs. California's whopping 10.2%. From 2008 to 2011 median hourly wages in Texas rose 8% vs. 5.7% in California. California's poverty rate of 23.5% is the highest in the US; Texas has a rate of 16.5%. Texas students do better in math and reading, even though Texas spends less on education. (Think about all the politically correct nonsense that California School Boards worry about over actual education.) From 2007 to 2010 about 500,000 people left California; Texas gained nearly 400,000 people. Not surprising as Texas has created more than double the number of jobs that California has created since June, 2009. (All stats and information from the 11/23/12 Investor's Business Daily.)
Texas regularly ranks in the top five of business friendly states. I suspect states like California, New York and Illinois are in the bottom five. Notwithstanding California's awful economic situation, they continue to raise taxes (Prop. 30 being the latest example), and will undoubtedly continue to increase regulations. Now that Californians have given super majorities in both legislative houses to the Democrats, they can pass whatever additional tax and spending measures they want.
So here's the question: Is Obama going to take us down California's path or the path of Texas? Yes, it's just a rhetorical question as we know Obama prefers the California path. In Obama's current fight with the Republicans in the House over the "fiscal cliff" and ending of the so-called Bush tax cuts, Obama continues to insist on raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Such a tax increase does almost nothing to pay down the debt or deficit. But as Obama told Charlie Gibson four years ago, he would consider raising the capital gains taxes out of a "sense of fairness," even though historically increasing the rates resulted in less revenue to the government. That's what his current fight is all about. Obama the ideologue, wants to raise taxes on the top 2%, even if it means impeding job growth; while at the same time making it look like it is the Republicans who are the extremist ideologues. (Here's a question: Who do you think creates more jobs, the top 2% or the bottom 2%? Or the top 2% vs. the bottom 50% for that matter.)
And, just to add insult to injury, if you want to rent a U-Haul to move from San Francisco to San Antonio, it will cost you $1693. If you want to go from San Antonio to San Francisco - that's only $983. Far less demand! (Data from the 11/23/12 IBD article.)
* The UN Recognizes Palestine. On November 29, the UN voted to upgrade the Palestinian Authority from non-member observer to non-member state. This new "state" consists of Gaza, the West Bank and "East Jerusalem," based upon the 1967 borders. The vote was 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions. The US, Canada, and Israel voted against, as did one European country - the Czech Republic. Voting for, among others, were France, Italy, Spain, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland. Britain and Germany "abstained;" such brave votes.
So what could be wrong with this picture? Well, Abbas has NO legitimacy as his term of office expired three years ago. Undoubtedly, he was reluctant to hold new elections fearing that Hamas would win, as they did in Gaza. This new "state" has two different governments: the terrorist group Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Here's a small matter: how does the UN have any jurisdiction to make this decision? When the UN General Assembly voted partition of the British Mandate in 1947, their jurisdiction was clear. Britain voluntarily turned over the Mandate area to the UN General Assembly to decide its' fate. Sixty-five years later they think they still have jurisdiction? While they are feeling so generous, they ought to recognize Tibet (too bad China), Chechnya (sorry Russia), Kurdistan (too bad Turkey, Syria and Iraq), just to name a few. And while they are at it, shouldn't they recognize Mexico's borders as including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California?
How many lies did Abbas tell in his speech to the General Assembly before the vote? He noted that 65 years prior the UNGA "partitioned the land of historic Palestine into two states and became the birth certificate for Israel." Actually, it would have been a birth certificate for an Arab country as well but for the fact that the Arabs announced before partition that they would NEVER accept a Jewish state; and, oh yeah, they attacked Israel the day after Israel declared their independence in 1948. So, the partition was not Israel's birth certificate; it was the defeat of the Arab world's multiple armies that assured the existence of a Jewish state. Abbas: "In those dark days, our people had looked to the United Nations as a beacon of hope and appealed for ending the injustice..." Wow! There's a whopper. Again, the Arabs announced BEFORE the 1947 UN vote that they would NEVER accept a Jewish state there. That is why the war ensued. So Abbas claims they looked to the UN when the truth is they denounced the UN vote.
Otherwise, Abbas' speech was filled with the usual accusations showing his true attitude towards Israel. He referred to Israel's creation as the Nabka (catastrophe) as the Arabs regularly do. He accused Israel of war crimes for their retaliation against thousands of rockets and mortars from Gaza; and hinted that as a "state" now they would file a complaint with the International Criminal Court against Israel. We know how that would end up. He referred to Israel's "racist, colonial occupation" of lands Israel has controlled since 1967 because the ARABS LOST THAT WAR! We know, of course, that the Arabs are the real racists as they have said no Jew may live in their country, whereas over one million Arabs live in Israel. And, I might add, enjoy greater civil rights than Arabs do in Arab run countries.
The same liberal reader referred to above believes in the legitimacy of the UN. See how the UN protects the Syrian people from being murdered by their own government? They can't - because Russia would veto any resolution. The UN had a peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon after Israel's war with Hezbollah. That UN force sat idly by while Hezbollah rearmed with tens of thousands of missiles from Iran and Syria. By maintaining our membership in the UN we only give credibility to the votes of dictators, thugs and islamofascists. The US ought to withdraw and establish a new UN of democratic and free countries. Countries wishing to join must not only have democratically elected leaders, but provide for basic civil freedoms for their citizens (such as free speech and freedom to choose one's religion). The UN as currently constituted allows for countries like Iran and Syria to be on the Human Rights Council. What a joke! Not only does the UN not promote peace, it arguably enables mass murder and genocide as in Syria. The Security Council is unable to act because dictatorships like Russia and China prevent action. Therefore, unless the US acts on its' own, nothing happens.
And let us not forget that the UN has voted more resolutions against the tiny country of Israel than the rest of the member states combined. Anyone who believes in the legitimacy of the UN has, quite simply, lost their moral compass.
TU: "So unless you think either I or CNN made up those stats, what is your explanation for the far greater GOP support? If you just don't buy it, then you have not been paying attention the last 10-20 years. Await your explanation."
R: "I live in a sheltered social circle. I have never met an anti-Israel person or a pro-Arab person. Just hard for me to believe, or perhaps accept, any numbers regardless of parties. I must be in denial as I have no reason to challenge you or your source. Where does CNN find these people I have never met or heard of?"
TU: "Let me correct you. You INTENTIONALLY live in a sheltered social circle. The evidence is all around you. I did NOT need that poll to tell me that Repubs overwhelmingly support Israel and Dems don't. Your inability to accept reality reflects two things: 1. You only read the mainstream media, and 2. As I often say, liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality. In this case, you BELIEVE all Dems support Israel, so you are UNABLE to process REALITY when it conflicts with that belief."
This exchange was with a reader whom I personally know. He is very bright and analytical in his job. So what's the problem? He is right about one thing - of course he is in denial. He only "knows" what he gets from the mainstream papers and mainstream/liberal talk shows. But like so many liberals I have come across, what they "know" is simply not true. Sadly, a combination of his "beliefs" and lack of exposure to other viewpoints and information, results in this liberal Jew not even recognizing how far his party has moved against Israel. Yet, this decreasing support for Israel among democrats has been going on for years, if not decades. These same limitations prevent these liberals from seeing how far their party has moved to the left on economic issues and social issues. And what incredible naivete to say these anti-Israel Dems don't exist because he never met them or heard of them. Will this same reader have to see an Iranian nuke go off in Israel or the US before he "knows" Iran has acquired nukes? The liberal mind.
* Texas vs. California. The growth rate in Texas the last two years: 3.3% and 5.2%. California: 2.0% and 1.7%. Texas' unemployment rate: 6.8% vs. California's whopping 10.2%. From 2008 to 2011 median hourly wages in Texas rose 8% vs. 5.7% in California. California's poverty rate of 23.5% is the highest in the US; Texas has a rate of 16.5%. Texas students do better in math and reading, even though Texas spends less on education. (Think about all the politically correct nonsense that California School Boards worry about over actual education.) From 2007 to 2010 about 500,000 people left California; Texas gained nearly 400,000 people. Not surprising as Texas has created more than double the number of jobs that California has created since June, 2009. (All stats and information from the 11/23/12 Investor's Business Daily.)
Texas regularly ranks in the top five of business friendly states. I suspect states like California, New York and Illinois are in the bottom five. Notwithstanding California's awful economic situation, they continue to raise taxes (Prop. 30 being the latest example), and will undoubtedly continue to increase regulations. Now that Californians have given super majorities in both legislative houses to the Democrats, they can pass whatever additional tax and spending measures they want.
So here's the question: Is Obama going to take us down California's path or the path of Texas? Yes, it's just a rhetorical question as we know Obama prefers the California path. In Obama's current fight with the Republicans in the House over the "fiscal cliff" and ending of the so-called Bush tax cuts, Obama continues to insist on raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Such a tax increase does almost nothing to pay down the debt or deficit. But as Obama told Charlie Gibson four years ago, he would consider raising the capital gains taxes out of a "sense of fairness," even though historically increasing the rates resulted in less revenue to the government. That's what his current fight is all about. Obama the ideologue, wants to raise taxes on the top 2%, even if it means impeding job growth; while at the same time making it look like it is the Republicans who are the extremist ideologues. (Here's a question: Who do you think creates more jobs, the top 2% or the bottom 2%? Or the top 2% vs. the bottom 50% for that matter.)
And, just to add insult to injury, if you want to rent a U-Haul to move from San Francisco to San Antonio, it will cost you $1693. If you want to go from San Antonio to San Francisco - that's only $983. Far less demand! (Data from the 11/23/12 IBD article.)
* The UN Recognizes Palestine. On November 29, the UN voted to upgrade the Palestinian Authority from non-member observer to non-member state. This new "state" consists of Gaza, the West Bank and "East Jerusalem," based upon the 1967 borders. The vote was 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions. The US, Canada, and Israel voted against, as did one European country - the Czech Republic. Voting for, among others, were France, Italy, Spain, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland. Britain and Germany "abstained;" such brave votes.
So what could be wrong with this picture? Well, Abbas has NO legitimacy as his term of office expired three years ago. Undoubtedly, he was reluctant to hold new elections fearing that Hamas would win, as they did in Gaza. This new "state" has two different governments: the terrorist group Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Here's a small matter: how does the UN have any jurisdiction to make this decision? When the UN General Assembly voted partition of the British Mandate in 1947, their jurisdiction was clear. Britain voluntarily turned over the Mandate area to the UN General Assembly to decide its' fate. Sixty-five years later they think they still have jurisdiction? While they are feeling so generous, they ought to recognize Tibet (too bad China), Chechnya (sorry Russia), Kurdistan (too bad Turkey, Syria and Iraq), just to name a few. And while they are at it, shouldn't they recognize Mexico's borders as including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California?
How many lies did Abbas tell in his speech to the General Assembly before the vote? He noted that 65 years prior the UNGA "partitioned the land of historic Palestine into two states and became the birth certificate for Israel." Actually, it would have been a birth certificate for an Arab country as well but for the fact that the Arabs announced before partition that they would NEVER accept a Jewish state; and, oh yeah, they attacked Israel the day after Israel declared their independence in 1948. So, the partition was not Israel's birth certificate; it was the defeat of the Arab world's multiple armies that assured the existence of a Jewish state. Abbas: "In those dark days, our people had looked to the United Nations as a beacon of hope and appealed for ending the injustice..." Wow! There's a whopper. Again, the Arabs announced BEFORE the 1947 UN vote that they would NEVER accept a Jewish state there. That is why the war ensued. So Abbas claims they looked to the UN when the truth is they denounced the UN vote.
Otherwise, Abbas' speech was filled with the usual accusations showing his true attitude towards Israel. He referred to Israel's creation as the Nabka (catastrophe) as the Arabs regularly do. He accused Israel of war crimes for their retaliation against thousands of rockets and mortars from Gaza; and hinted that as a "state" now they would file a complaint with the International Criminal Court against Israel. We know how that would end up. He referred to Israel's "racist, colonial occupation" of lands Israel has controlled since 1967 because the ARABS LOST THAT WAR! We know, of course, that the Arabs are the real racists as they have said no Jew may live in their country, whereas over one million Arabs live in Israel. And, I might add, enjoy greater civil rights than Arabs do in Arab run countries.
The same liberal reader referred to above believes in the legitimacy of the UN. See how the UN protects the Syrian people from being murdered by their own government? They can't - because Russia would veto any resolution. The UN had a peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon after Israel's war with Hezbollah. That UN force sat idly by while Hezbollah rearmed with tens of thousands of missiles from Iran and Syria. By maintaining our membership in the UN we only give credibility to the votes of dictators, thugs and islamofascists. The US ought to withdraw and establish a new UN of democratic and free countries. Countries wishing to join must not only have democratically elected leaders, but provide for basic civil freedoms for their citizens (such as free speech and freedom to choose one's religion). The UN as currently constituted allows for countries like Iran and Syria to be on the Human Rights Council. What a joke! Not only does the UN not promote peace, it arguably enables mass murder and genocide as in Syria. The Security Council is unable to act because dictatorships like Russia and China prevent action. Therefore, unless the US acts on its' own, nothing happens.
And let us not forget that the UN has voted more resolutions against the tiny country of Israel than the rest of the member states combined. Anyone who believes in the legitimacy of the UN has, quite simply, lost their moral compass.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
More on Israel and the Palestinians; and Benghazi
* Before Israeli jets attack Gaza, the Israelis do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. They drop leaflets in advance. They make phone calls into the soon to be targeted area. And strikes are even called off at the last minute when live feed shows civilians in the area. And what does Hamas do? They put their rockets on the rooftops of residential buildings, or near schools and mosques. Hamas P.M. Ismael Haniya said: "We desire death more than you desire life." A Hamas TV campaign urged: "bombs are more precious than children." Any wonder why Israel has a prosperous society while Hamas prides itself on death and destruction - and having tens of thousands of rockets and mortars. And let's not forget that after an Israeli bus full of civilians was blown up the Palestinians praised the attack and celebrated. Then again, the Arabs living in New York and New Jersey celebrated after our 9/11 attack.
* According to the Jerusalem Post, 1506 rockets were fired into Israel during the past week. 421 were intercepted by Iron Dome, the Israeli anti-missile system. Given that they only target rockets likely to hit civilian areas, it was quite an impressive display of the first functioning anti-missile system to ever be deployed.
* Cease-fire now in effect. As the LA Times described it in their lead article on 11/19/12: "An Israeli missile kills nine family members, increasing global pressure on both sides to end the hostilities." Can you imagine if these idiots were writing the news during WWII? Imagine the headlines: "Ike declares thousands died on Omaha beach, therefore U.S. should cease all hostilities." Or: "London devastated, Churchill needs to surrender!" Given that the mainstream media has completely lost their moral compass, it all becomes a numbers game. "Israel, you only have five dead, so make sure that you do not kill more than five Palestinians." The foolish leaders in the West are no better. This from the EU: Israel "must act proportionately and ensure the protection of civilians at all times..." Meanwhile, Assad's Syria can murder over 30,000 of its people, but...
* Meanwhile, masked gunmen in Gaza shot dead six people suspected of collaborating with Israel. They then dragged one of the bodies through the streets as Palestinians spit upon it. No indictment, no trial, just execution. Don't look for the mainstream media to be outraged. Anybody else think it's disgusting that Egypt's Morsi gets to be the "peacemaker"? Hamas' rockets and mortars come through Egypt via the Sudan or Libya. Morsi says he want to see the destruction of Israel and all Jews killed - but he is the peacemaker? Outrageous. Outrageous for Israel to agree on a cease-fire yet again. The only result is that Hamas will continue to fire rockets and mortars and missiles until a few years down the road when Israel decides they can no longer tolerate it and launches another attack. Here's the proof - the Jerusalem Post says 20 rockets have already been launched into Israel after the cease-fire took effect.
* Who supports Israel? A CNN poll found significant Republican support for Israel's defensive measures in Gaza - 74% in favor with 12% opposed. Democrats? Not even one-half in favor - 41% agreed, 36% disagreed. Sad, is it not? Thank G-d that most Congressional Democrats are supportive of Israel, notwithstanding the ever dwindling support amongst the rank and file. As the Democrat party goes further and further to the left this is not surprising - every major leftist group is anti-Israel (and often anti-semitic). And Obama? Anybody else tiring of his "violent extremists" phrase? When will he start telling the truth and call it radical Islam?
* More on Benghazi. The question in the past week has been who changed the original "talking points" used by Susan Rice when she went on the five Sunday talk shows. Specifically, who removed the references to terrorism and Al Qaeda? Originally, the intelligence agencies denied making any such deletions. Now, a spokesman for National Intelligence Director James Clapper said the intelligence community was SOLELY responsible for "substantive" changes to the talking points. So here's a question or two. Who authorized the changes? Was any pressure brought to bear by the White House or others? As noted above, Obama avoids use of the terms "terrorism" and "radical Islam." I would sure like to know how those changes came about. Whether or not the media cares (other than to try to prove that the White House was not behind it) I certainly hope Congress continues to investigate.
* According to the Jerusalem Post, 1506 rockets were fired into Israel during the past week. 421 were intercepted by Iron Dome, the Israeli anti-missile system. Given that they only target rockets likely to hit civilian areas, it was quite an impressive display of the first functioning anti-missile system to ever be deployed.
* Cease-fire now in effect. As the LA Times described it in their lead article on 11/19/12: "An Israeli missile kills nine family members, increasing global pressure on both sides to end the hostilities." Can you imagine if these idiots were writing the news during WWII? Imagine the headlines: "Ike declares thousands died on Omaha beach, therefore U.S. should cease all hostilities." Or: "London devastated, Churchill needs to surrender!" Given that the mainstream media has completely lost their moral compass, it all becomes a numbers game. "Israel, you only have five dead, so make sure that you do not kill more than five Palestinians." The foolish leaders in the West are no better. This from the EU: Israel "must act proportionately and ensure the protection of civilians at all times..." Meanwhile, Assad's Syria can murder over 30,000 of its people, but...
* Meanwhile, masked gunmen in Gaza shot dead six people suspected of collaborating with Israel. They then dragged one of the bodies through the streets as Palestinians spit upon it. No indictment, no trial, just execution. Don't look for the mainstream media to be outraged. Anybody else think it's disgusting that Egypt's Morsi gets to be the "peacemaker"? Hamas' rockets and mortars come through Egypt via the Sudan or Libya. Morsi says he want to see the destruction of Israel and all Jews killed - but he is the peacemaker? Outrageous. Outrageous for Israel to agree on a cease-fire yet again. The only result is that Hamas will continue to fire rockets and mortars and missiles until a few years down the road when Israel decides they can no longer tolerate it and launches another attack. Here's the proof - the Jerusalem Post says 20 rockets have already been launched into Israel after the cease-fire took effect.
* Who supports Israel? A CNN poll found significant Republican support for Israel's defensive measures in Gaza - 74% in favor with 12% opposed. Democrats? Not even one-half in favor - 41% agreed, 36% disagreed. Sad, is it not? Thank G-d that most Congressional Democrats are supportive of Israel, notwithstanding the ever dwindling support amongst the rank and file. As the Democrat party goes further and further to the left this is not surprising - every major leftist group is anti-Israel (and often anti-semitic). And Obama? Anybody else tiring of his "violent extremists" phrase? When will he start telling the truth and call it radical Islam?
* More on Benghazi. The question in the past week has been who changed the original "talking points" used by Susan Rice when she went on the five Sunday talk shows. Specifically, who removed the references to terrorism and Al Qaeda? Originally, the intelligence agencies denied making any such deletions. Now, a spokesman for National Intelligence Director James Clapper said the intelligence community was SOLELY responsible for "substantive" changes to the talking points. So here's a question or two. Who authorized the changes? Was any pressure brought to bear by the White House or others? As noted above, Obama avoids use of the terms "terrorism" and "radical Islam." I would sure like to know how those changes came about. Whether or not the media cares (other than to try to prove that the White House was not behind it) I certainly hope Congress continues to investigate.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Israel and the Palestinians; GOP Blues; and More on Benghazi
* Israel and the Palestinians. Why the increase in hostilities? Who started it? If one just reads the mainstream media, you may not know that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have launched thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel from Gaza since 2005, when Israel vacated Gaza. Over one thousand were launched into Israel just this year up to Friday. Here is what everyone needs to know about the conflict: "We are sending a short and simple message: there is no security for any Zionist on any single inch of Palestine..." So said Abu Obeida, spokesman for the Hamas military. Inasmuch as Israel left Gaza years ago, and the rockets and mortars are falling on Israel, Obeida is telling the world that the Jews who live in Israel are actually living in "Palestine." As they do not recognize Israel's legitimacy, and say they never will, what else do you need to know?
* While the motivation of the Palestinians is clear, things do get more complicated by the involvement of others. Hamas has launched longer range Fajr-5 missiles at Tel Aviv. These missiles are supplied by Iran, proving that Iran is not just a threat if they get nukes. Meanwhile, the new Islamist leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as the now Islamist leader in Turkey, have expressed their solidarity with the Palestinians. Does that mean they would get involved in a ground war with Israel if Israel sends troops into Gaza? Not likely, given their own internal problems, but it cannot be ruled out. And what about the U.S.? Two former military men (Col. Oliver North and 4 star General Jack Keane, former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army) believe that the Islamists, like Hamas, have felt emboldened since the 9/11/12 attack on Benghazi, killing the U.S. Ambassador and others. Obama blamed the attack on an anti-muslim video, and has taken no action against the terrorists. The U.S. has been perceived as being weak, resulting in a significant increase in anti-U.S. and anti-Israel "chatter." Nevertheless, I credit Obama for stating that "Israel has the right to defend itself," not something that every country acknowledges.
* As noted in the last post, Obama seems intent on presiding over a seriously diminished U.S. military force. A weakened U.S. always emboldens the enemies of peace and freedom. The mainstream media never gets it. In a 11/15/12 editorial, the New York Times opined: "The group (Hamas) has mostly adhered to an informal cease-fire with Israel after the war there in the winter of 2008-09." I suppose if you don't count a few thousand rockets and mortars raining down on Israel then they are correct. The Times continues: "Israel has a right to defend itself, but it's hard to see how Wednesday's operation could be the most effective way of advancing its long-term interests." If rockets were falling all around and in the NY Times' offices, would they want the NYPD and Homeland Security to stop it, or would they say fighting back would not be "an effective way of advancing the Times' long-term interests?" What a bunch of morons! One million Israelis have had to live in bomb shelters the last several days. Israel's long-term interests are in destroying the ability of Hamas to attack; not to worry about "new waves of condemnation against Israel in Arab countries," as the Times suggests. As if the Arabs would otherwise support Israel. The Times then concludes with their usual blaming of Israel - suggesting more countries would support Israel if they made peace with Abbas' Palestinian Authority. The dreamers of the left forever eschewing reality.
* GOP Blues. Numerous post-mortems have been written and verbalized about the GOP and what it needs to do since the election. Here are just a few suggestions that have been mentioned by commentators: back off on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, fix the immigration problem, learn to use social media, stop putting up Mr. Nice Guys to run, become more moderate, be better advocates of the free market, and select a more charismatic candidate. Having three young adults in my family, there seemed to be a general consensus that it was more "cool" and "in" to vote Democrat. My conservative son suggested the GOP stop talking about abortion and gay marriage. Abortion has been legal for 40 years, and gay marriage appears to be headed in the same direction. Mike Pence, a conservative Congressman, won the governorship in Indiana by avoiding discussion of the social issues. My older, more liberal daughter explained that Obama was more likeable, younger, cool, does Twitter, has a stylish wife and more easily relates to people.
* What seems clear from that daughter's analysis is that not a single substantive, policy issue was mentioned. And yet, she may be on to something. An exit poll asked people who was more "in touch with you," with 53% saying Obama to Romney's 43%. That ability to relate to people may trump substantive issues. If people sense that you understand them, they may feel that they can trust you to do the "right" thing on any policy issue. Some Republican governors are not happy with Romney saying Obama won with "financial gifts" from the government. Gov. Bobby Jindal says the GOP needs to campaign for every vote, and not insult people. Jindal says not to let demographics be destiny. As Gov. Scott Walker says, the Republican message works for everyone.
* The Investor's Business Daily suggests that the GOP "narrow the media gap." They want to see the GOP going on the mainstream media TV talk shows and fighting back. Of course, we need articulate conservatives doing so. I would add that conservatives should increasingly speak on college campuses, while acknowledging that even university presidents may hinder that effort. Fordham's president criticized the College Republicans for inviting Ann Coulter to speak, which ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of the invitation. Nevertheless, the effort must be made. When so many people hear only one viewpoint, it is incumbent upon Republicans to get the message out.
* We on the right should not be too discouraged. Of course, we felt extreme disappointment on the re-election of such a divisive, leftist ideologue. But, as noted by Don Campbell in the 11/14/12 USA Today, the GOP holds 30 of 50 governorships. Republicans also hold 27 of 49 state Houses/Assemblies, and 28 of 49 state Senates. (Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral legislature.) The GOP also has a 40 seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and 45 seats in the U.S. Senate. So let's not take the gas pipe just yet. Can we expect Obama to now work with the Republican House? No, he remains an ideologue. He has said he wants to bring "fundamental change" to this country and that "elections have consequences." He wants to be a significant President, like a Roosevelt or a Reagan. So House Republicans will need to pick and choose their battles carefully.
* More on Benghazi. Now former CIA Director Gen. Petraeus claimed that the CIA "talking points" after the 9/11 attack in Benghazi made it clear that the attack was an act of terrorism, likely linked to Al-Qaeda in Africa. Yet, the "talking points" given to UN Ambassador Susan Rice contained no such statement. We are supposed to believe that that is how she ended up on five Sunday talk shows after the attack blaming it all on an anti-muslim video. Said Obama: Amb. Rice had "nothing to do with Benghazi." Then why was she selected to speak for the Administration on all the Sunday shows. Why not the Sec. of State or Sec. of Defense? Might it be that Rice, a longtime political ally of Obama's, could be counted on to lie for the Administration? Or, did they simply keep her in the dark and allow her to tell a story that had no basis in truth?
* Who are the racists and sexists? After Rice received heaps of criticism from Senators McCain and Graham, Obama said if they "want to go after somebody, they should go after me." Is Obama suggesting that, as a woman at the highest level of government, Rice still needs the protection of a man? And how about Congresswoman Marcia Fudge of Ohio, in line to be next chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Fudge: "It is a shame that anytime something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities." And this by Fudge: "There is clear sexism and racism that goes with these comments" by McCain and Graham. Sorry Congresswoman, if you can't take the heat, don't hold political office. According to Fudge's "logic," only white males may be criticized. THAT is racist and sexist. It is also typical of the left's constant focus on race and sex. As we on the right know, criticism of Obama is likely to result in a charge of racism. It is divisive, and a child-like reaction to legitimate criticism. Let's not forget why they do it though; they believe that the ends (supporting the Obama Administration in this case) justify the means (lying about McCain and Graham being racists and sexists). And they know the mainstream media will never call them on it.
* While the motivation of the Palestinians is clear, things do get more complicated by the involvement of others. Hamas has launched longer range Fajr-5 missiles at Tel Aviv. These missiles are supplied by Iran, proving that Iran is not just a threat if they get nukes. Meanwhile, the new Islamist leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as the now Islamist leader in Turkey, have expressed their solidarity with the Palestinians. Does that mean they would get involved in a ground war with Israel if Israel sends troops into Gaza? Not likely, given their own internal problems, but it cannot be ruled out. And what about the U.S.? Two former military men (Col. Oliver North and 4 star General Jack Keane, former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army) believe that the Islamists, like Hamas, have felt emboldened since the 9/11/12 attack on Benghazi, killing the U.S. Ambassador and others. Obama blamed the attack on an anti-muslim video, and has taken no action against the terrorists. The U.S. has been perceived as being weak, resulting in a significant increase in anti-U.S. and anti-Israel "chatter." Nevertheless, I credit Obama for stating that "Israel has the right to defend itself," not something that every country acknowledges.
* As noted in the last post, Obama seems intent on presiding over a seriously diminished U.S. military force. A weakened U.S. always emboldens the enemies of peace and freedom. The mainstream media never gets it. In a 11/15/12 editorial, the New York Times opined: "The group (Hamas) has mostly adhered to an informal cease-fire with Israel after the war there in the winter of 2008-09." I suppose if you don't count a few thousand rockets and mortars raining down on Israel then they are correct. The Times continues: "Israel has a right to defend itself, but it's hard to see how Wednesday's operation could be the most effective way of advancing its long-term interests." If rockets were falling all around and in the NY Times' offices, would they want the NYPD and Homeland Security to stop it, or would they say fighting back would not be "an effective way of advancing the Times' long-term interests?" What a bunch of morons! One million Israelis have had to live in bomb shelters the last several days. Israel's long-term interests are in destroying the ability of Hamas to attack; not to worry about "new waves of condemnation against Israel in Arab countries," as the Times suggests. As if the Arabs would otherwise support Israel. The Times then concludes with their usual blaming of Israel - suggesting more countries would support Israel if they made peace with Abbas' Palestinian Authority. The dreamers of the left forever eschewing reality.
* GOP Blues. Numerous post-mortems have been written and verbalized about the GOP and what it needs to do since the election. Here are just a few suggestions that have been mentioned by commentators: back off on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, fix the immigration problem, learn to use social media, stop putting up Mr. Nice Guys to run, become more moderate, be better advocates of the free market, and select a more charismatic candidate. Having three young adults in my family, there seemed to be a general consensus that it was more "cool" and "in" to vote Democrat. My conservative son suggested the GOP stop talking about abortion and gay marriage. Abortion has been legal for 40 years, and gay marriage appears to be headed in the same direction. Mike Pence, a conservative Congressman, won the governorship in Indiana by avoiding discussion of the social issues. My older, more liberal daughter explained that Obama was more likeable, younger, cool, does Twitter, has a stylish wife and more easily relates to people.
* What seems clear from that daughter's analysis is that not a single substantive, policy issue was mentioned. And yet, she may be on to something. An exit poll asked people who was more "in touch with you," with 53% saying Obama to Romney's 43%. That ability to relate to people may trump substantive issues. If people sense that you understand them, they may feel that they can trust you to do the "right" thing on any policy issue. Some Republican governors are not happy with Romney saying Obama won with "financial gifts" from the government. Gov. Bobby Jindal says the GOP needs to campaign for every vote, and not insult people. Jindal says not to let demographics be destiny. As Gov. Scott Walker says, the Republican message works for everyone.
* The Investor's Business Daily suggests that the GOP "narrow the media gap." They want to see the GOP going on the mainstream media TV talk shows and fighting back. Of course, we need articulate conservatives doing so. I would add that conservatives should increasingly speak on college campuses, while acknowledging that even university presidents may hinder that effort. Fordham's president criticized the College Republicans for inviting Ann Coulter to speak, which ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of the invitation. Nevertheless, the effort must be made. When so many people hear only one viewpoint, it is incumbent upon Republicans to get the message out.
* We on the right should not be too discouraged. Of course, we felt extreme disappointment on the re-election of such a divisive, leftist ideologue. But, as noted by Don Campbell in the 11/14/12 USA Today, the GOP holds 30 of 50 governorships. Republicans also hold 27 of 49 state Houses/Assemblies, and 28 of 49 state Senates. (Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral legislature.) The GOP also has a 40 seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and 45 seats in the U.S. Senate. So let's not take the gas pipe just yet. Can we expect Obama to now work with the Republican House? No, he remains an ideologue. He has said he wants to bring "fundamental change" to this country and that "elections have consequences." He wants to be a significant President, like a Roosevelt or a Reagan. So House Republicans will need to pick and choose their battles carefully.
* More on Benghazi. Now former CIA Director Gen. Petraeus claimed that the CIA "talking points" after the 9/11 attack in Benghazi made it clear that the attack was an act of terrorism, likely linked to Al-Qaeda in Africa. Yet, the "talking points" given to UN Ambassador Susan Rice contained no such statement. We are supposed to believe that that is how she ended up on five Sunday talk shows after the attack blaming it all on an anti-muslim video. Said Obama: Amb. Rice had "nothing to do with Benghazi." Then why was she selected to speak for the Administration on all the Sunday shows. Why not the Sec. of State or Sec. of Defense? Might it be that Rice, a longtime political ally of Obama's, could be counted on to lie for the Administration? Or, did they simply keep her in the dark and allow her to tell a story that had no basis in truth?
* Who are the racists and sexists? After Rice received heaps of criticism from Senators McCain and Graham, Obama said if they "want to go after somebody, they should go after me." Is Obama suggesting that, as a woman at the highest level of government, Rice still needs the protection of a man? And how about Congresswoman Marcia Fudge of Ohio, in line to be next chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Fudge: "It is a shame that anytime something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities." And this by Fudge: "There is clear sexism and racism that goes with these comments" by McCain and Graham. Sorry Congresswoman, if you can't take the heat, don't hold political office. According to Fudge's "logic," only white males may be criticized. THAT is racist and sexist. It is also typical of the left's constant focus on race and sex. As we on the right know, criticism of Obama is likely to result in a charge of racism. It is divisive, and a child-like reaction to legitimate criticism. Let's not forget why they do it though; they believe that the ends (supporting the Obama Administration in this case) justify the means (lying about McCain and Graham being racists and sexists). And they know the mainstream media will never call them on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)