* (On July 13, 2013, a Florida jury made up of six women acquitted George Zimmerman of all charges in the death of Trayvon Martin. As a parent, I can still only imagine the pain felt by Trayvon Martin's parents; and, as any parent would, I feel for their loss.)
* "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." So said our President over one year ago; again improperly injecting himself and the office of the Presidency into a local criminal matter - much as he did with his criticism of the Cambridge Police Department with regards to Professor Gates, a black man. Undoubtedly, many whites who voted for Obama twice thought that the election of a black man would bring us to a post-racial America. The mainstream media did their part in trying to make this a case of a white on black killing. George Zimmerman, whose mother is Hispanic, thinks of himself as Hispanic as well. Yet, the media referred to him as a "self-identifying Hispanic", and even made up a new term - "white Hispanic." (Does that make Obama, only half black, a self-identifying black man? Or a "white black?")
* Following the acquittal of Zimmerman, the Rev. Jesse Jackson had this to say: ...the "American legal system has once again failed justice." (I am curious as to whether he felt the same way after O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the murder of two white people.) The Rev. Al Sharpton said: "The acquittal of George Zimmerman is a slap in the face to the American people..." (Did he know, or care, that Zimmerman lived in a mixed race household as a youth? Did he know, or care, that Zimmerman tutored black children?)
* Benjamin Jealous, head of the NAACP, said: "We are outraged and heartbroken over today's verdict." (Is he outraged that, according to a Justice Department study from November, 2011, young black men between the ages of 14 and 24 account for 27% of the country's murders - while making up only 1% of the population? Data from 7/19/13 IBD.) President Obama spoke on Friday about the experiences of black men in America, commenting about being followed in a department store, or hearing car doors click locked on passing by. (As the above-referenced Justice Department study found that "blacks of any age are eight times more likely to murder than whites," might he have addressed legitimate fears instead? Quote from the same IBD article of 7/19/13.)
* Disappointingly, Obama did not see fit in his comments to take on those who would do harm to Zimmerman and his family. No comments about the New Black Panthers offering a $10,000. bounty for the capture of Zimmerman in March of last year. Or New York Giants football star Victor Cruz saying that Zimmerman won't last a year "until the 'hood catches up with him." Or basketball player Rodney White's comment that the "jurors should kill themselves." (Is that not a reflection of the problem already - too many blacks prone to resolve disputes by killing. See the stats above.)
* Apparently, one Georgia State Senator referred to the verdict as a "modern-day lynching." (So, one wonders what he thinks of the fact that the same Justice Department study mentioned above found that 93% of black homicide victims are killed by - blacks! From the 7/19/13 IBD article. What does he have to say about the fact that whites are twice as likely to be murdered by blacks than the reverse?)
* In his recent remarks on Friday, Obama asked all of us to question ourselves about racial bias: "...am I judging people, as much as I can, based not on the color of their skin but the content of their character?" (This comment, of course, comes from the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. Sadly, many of the so-called and self-described black leaders of today seem not to live by that credo. It is also noteworthy that a recent Rasmussen poll found that 31% of blacks think that most blacks are racists, yet only 24% of blacks think that most whites are racist. From an article by Thomas Sowell in the 7/9/13 IBD. So blacks tend to agree with whites as to which group is the most racist. 38% of whites, in the poll, thought most blacks to be racist, and only 10% of whites thought most whites were racist.)
* In speaking to the NAACP, Attorney General Holder said that: "We are mindful of the pain felt by our nation...The Justice Department shares your concern...I share your concern." Holder also announced that the Justice Department would look into possible civil rights violations and possible federal charges against Zimmerman. Many commentators have indicated that the FBI conducted an investigation last year and found no evidence of racial bias or animus. (The FBI spoke to at least 45 friends, neighbors, coworkers and others who knew Zimmerman, finding no evidence of racial bias.) Many commentators have added that it is likely that no federal charges will be brought; that the feds are just waiting for a cooling off period before making such an announcement. So here is a politically incorrect question: is there something in the black community that suggests they would automatically resort to violence absent the desired verdict and absent a federal prosecution? Was the country worried about white violence after O.J. was found not guilty?
* Chicago has a murder problem. In the city of 2,695,598 people, more people have been murdered between 2003 and 2011 than troops killed in Afghanistan from 3/20/03 to 12/15/11: 4265 in Chicago versus 2166 in Afghanistan. Chicago's make-up is 33% black, 32% white and 30% Hispanic, with some others in relatively small numbers. Yet, 75% of both the victims and the accused perpetrators were black (during the above-referenced time period). Only 19% of the victims and 20% of the alleged perpetrators were Hispanic. The numbers for whites were 6% and 4%. So why isn't the President of the United States addressing this very serious crisis? Why isn't the Attorney General of the United States addressing this crisis; and addressing his own Justice Department's study from 2011, referred to above. Interestingly, while the President uses almost every occasion to call for gun control, the City of Chicago bans the purchase of handguns. (Data from an article of 1/16/13 on WND.)
* In his comments on Friday, President Obama said that he acknowledged that young blacks are disproportionately perpetrators of violent crimes and was not trying to make excuses for that. But then he did just that by tying the problem to the "poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities (which) can be traced to a very difficult history." He was, of course, referring to our country's history of slavery and later institutionalized discrimination. That history is real. I would submit, however, that modern-day welfare has caused most of today's problems in the black community; with too many fatherless homes and mothers having more babies than they can care for. Our President has acknowledged previously that the lack of fathers in the home leads to more kids dropping out of school, more kids having babies as kids themselves, and more unemployed and ending up in legal trouble. He needs to return to those issues.
* In his 7/16/13 IBD article, Thomas Sowell noted how Obama improperly injected himself into the Trayvon Martin case ("If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon"), noting: "The political perversion of the criminal justice system began early and at the top, with the President of the United States." He concluded: "The only real heroes in this trial were the jurors. They showed that this is still America - at least for now - despite politicians who try to cheapen or corrupt the law, as if this were some banana republic. Some are already calling for a federal indictment of George Zimmerman, after he has been acquitted. Will this still be America then?"
* It was disappointing to see many black commentators suggest that it was now open season on young black men - by whites. I cannot imagine that they truly believe that. Do they believe that the whites they know are now going to think about killing young blacks because maybe they can get away with it? So, whites really want to murder blacks but only held back from doing so for fear of being prosecuted? If these black commentators have a concern it ought to be about the various statistics on crime noted above; it ought to be about the frequency with which blacks kill other blacks. As blacks and whites constitute approximately the same percentage of the population in Chicago, for example, but blacks commit 75% of the murders compared to 4% by whites, where does the greater danger lie? The Attorney General frequently says we need to have a more open and frank discussion about race in this country. If we do, let it begin with an understanding of the facts and the feelings on both sides, and without any threats of violence or boycotts when things don't go our way.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Monday, July 1, 2013
Liars and Morons
* As we approach July 4th I turned my thinking to the brilliant men who founded this country. Men who created a Constitution and form of government intended to protect the people from themselves and their leaders. Then my thoughts turned to today's leaders, consisting of numerous liars and morons. The lying and lack of common sense is beyond disheartening. It seems to me that the current Administration also has the most scandals since Harding and Nixon. And the most liars.
* We all know the Benghazi lies. National Security Adviser Susan Rice goes on five national talk shows to tell the country that our people died because of a movie video. Our President and Secretary of State repeated the lies for weeks. Then Press Secretary Jay Carney denies White House involvement in altering the CIA talking points. All lies.
* Attorney General Eric Holder lied about his department's refusal to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation in 2008. Holder said the decision was made by career prosecutors and was not a political decision. In fact, according to testimony by one of those career prosecutors, J. Christian Adams, the decision was made by the Associate Attorney General, an Obama appointee. In testimony to Congress on 5/3/11 Holder said he had just found out about the Fast and Furious gun running operation a few weeks earlier. Except, a July, 2010 memo reflected he was told at that time. He authorized the surveillance and tapping of Fox reporter James Rosen's phones, as well as those of his parents. He signed off on the warrant, but later said he never meant to prosecute Rosen. (From the 6/3/13 IBD.)
* At the Ohio State commencement, Obama warned students to reject the voices suggesting that tyranny is just around the corner. Voices that suggest that government is "nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all of our problems." Those same voices, said Obama, suggest "that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted." Well, given all the scandals and lies emanating from the Obama Administration, along with the desire to extend government control and surveillance into every aspect of our lives, why should we trust government? I guess our President would be surprised by a Fox News poll reported on 6/15/13, which found that a mere 5% of the people had a great deal of trust in the federal government. 32% reported a fair amount of trust; while 41% reported not having that much trust in the feds, with a whopping 22% having no trust in the federal government. As our Founders understood, and as Reagan said, it is too often the case that government is the problem, not the solution.
* The people also do not believe IRS claims of a few rogue agents in the Cincinnati office targeting conservative groups. Fox News reported on 6/23/13 that 70% of the people believe the orders came from Washington. Of that 70%, 41% believe the orders came from the White House, and 29% believe the orders came from the D.C. office of the IRS. To put it another way, the people think your Administration is lying, Mr. President.
* What evil characters is the Obama Administration targeting now? Employers who run criminal background checks on job applicants, that's who. What, you say? Isn't that just common sense? Not so according to our racist President and Attorney General. You see, the Obama EEOC believes it constitutes racial discrimination to "choose law-abiding applicants over applicants with criminal convictions." The Obama Labor Department does not want federal contractors to ask about criminal convictions. Obama's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is investigating Equifax, Experian and TransUnion for racial bias. Said Holder: "The question is not when does affirmative action end, but when does it begin?" And this: "When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?" (Information from article by Paul Sperry in the 6/28/13 IBD.) Think we have a President and Attorney General of all the people?
* But no fear. Obama not only favors blacks, he favors Muslims as well, even radical ones. The 6/13/13 IBD reports that, notwithstanding all the spying on Americans, "mosques have been off limits to FBI agents" since October, 2011. Only the Sensitive Operations Review Committee at the Justice Department can okay such surveillance. One wonders if that lack of surveillance allowed the Boston bombers to go undetected. After the attack, the FBI did not even contact the local mosque for possible help in identifying the bombers. It gets better. The National Security Council invited one Sheik Abdullah bin Bayyah to the White House. The 6/27/13 IBD reports that bin Bayyah is employed by one Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who advocates for attacks on US soldiers in Iraq, and suicide bombings. During his White House visit, bin Bayyah is alleged to have asked for support for Hamas. It gets better still. According to the 6/25/13 IBD, 400 soldiers will be sent to Egypt on a "peacekeeping mission." They apparently have training in riot suppression. So 2 million Egyptians are demonstrating for Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood to go, and we are sending troops to help Morsi? Not to mention the billions in military aid.
* Recently, Obama gave a speech in Berlin. His opinion regarding terrorism is as follows: "We may strike blows against terrorist networks, but if we ignore the instability and intolerance that fuels extremism, our own freedom will eventually be endangered." Just who is intolerant of whom? It must be apparent to all but Obama that radical Islamic terrorists have no tolerance for him, the West, the US, Israel, Christians, and pretty much everyone who is not Muslim.
* In that same Berlin speech, Obama told us: "I've determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies, and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent, while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third." When and how did he determine that? In college, when he proposed eliminating all nukes? To Medvedev when he said he would have greater "flexibility" after the election? Obama also said he "will not develop new nuclear weapons." So, just curious, how does he believe our aging nuclear arsenal provides a "strong and credible strategic deterrent?" When Democrats still believed in this country, we elected a different kind of President; a different kind of Democrat. John Kennedy said: "only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." As Reagan later said: "Peace through strength."
* In yet another speech in yet another country (our President does love to travel) Obama told the Irish people: "If towns remain divided - if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can't see ourselves in one another, and fear or resentment are allowed to harden - that too encourages division and discourages cooperation." In 2008 Obama told us he is a citizen of the world. He also would not wear the American flag on his lapel. You see, nations and religions create division in the world. So we need to end them. What else did Obama mean when he said he was a citizen of the world? What else was Obama suggesting when he spoke disparagingly of separate Catholic and Protestant schools? This is John Lennon's "Imagine" world. Of course, there is one slight difference. Obama wants there to be a world government, an all powerful United Nations perhaps. That is why there will be no need for nuclear weapons. Obama would call himself an idealist. Those who are regular readers of this blog know that I refer to such people as "liberals who let their beliefs dictate their reality."
* A final point. I know just who Obama has in mind to be leader of the new world order. After all, he sees him every time he looks in the mirror.
* We all know the Benghazi lies. National Security Adviser Susan Rice goes on five national talk shows to tell the country that our people died because of a movie video. Our President and Secretary of State repeated the lies for weeks. Then Press Secretary Jay Carney denies White House involvement in altering the CIA talking points. All lies.
* Attorney General Eric Holder lied about his department's refusal to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation in 2008. Holder said the decision was made by career prosecutors and was not a political decision. In fact, according to testimony by one of those career prosecutors, J. Christian Adams, the decision was made by the Associate Attorney General, an Obama appointee. In testimony to Congress on 5/3/11 Holder said he had just found out about the Fast and Furious gun running operation a few weeks earlier. Except, a July, 2010 memo reflected he was told at that time. He authorized the surveillance and tapping of Fox reporter James Rosen's phones, as well as those of his parents. He signed off on the warrant, but later said he never meant to prosecute Rosen. (From the 6/3/13 IBD.)
* At the Ohio State commencement, Obama warned students to reject the voices suggesting that tyranny is just around the corner. Voices that suggest that government is "nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all of our problems." Those same voices, said Obama, suggest "that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted." Well, given all the scandals and lies emanating from the Obama Administration, along with the desire to extend government control and surveillance into every aspect of our lives, why should we trust government? I guess our President would be surprised by a Fox News poll reported on 6/15/13, which found that a mere 5% of the people had a great deal of trust in the federal government. 32% reported a fair amount of trust; while 41% reported not having that much trust in the feds, with a whopping 22% having no trust in the federal government. As our Founders understood, and as Reagan said, it is too often the case that government is the problem, not the solution.
* The people also do not believe IRS claims of a few rogue agents in the Cincinnati office targeting conservative groups. Fox News reported on 6/23/13 that 70% of the people believe the orders came from Washington. Of that 70%, 41% believe the orders came from the White House, and 29% believe the orders came from the D.C. office of the IRS. To put it another way, the people think your Administration is lying, Mr. President.
* What evil characters is the Obama Administration targeting now? Employers who run criminal background checks on job applicants, that's who. What, you say? Isn't that just common sense? Not so according to our racist President and Attorney General. You see, the Obama EEOC believes it constitutes racial discrimination to "choose law-abiding applicants over applicants with criminal convictions." The Obama Labor Department does not want federal contractors to ask about criminal convictions. Obama's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is investigating Equifax, Experian and TransUnion for racial bias. Said Holder: "The question is not when does affirmative action end, but when does it begin?" And this: "When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?" (Information from article by Paul Sperry in the 6/28/13 IBD.) Think we have a President and Attorney General of all the people?
* But no fear. Obama not only favors blacks, he favors Muslims as well, even radical ones. The 6/13/13 IBD reports that, notwithstanding all the spying on Americans, "mosques have been off limits to FBI agents" since October, 2011. Only the Sensitive Operations Review Committee at the Justice Department can okay such surveillance. One wonders if that lack of surveillance allowed the Boston bombers to go undetected. After the attack, the FBI did not even contact the local mosque for possible help in identifying the bombers. It gets better. The National Security Council invited one Sheik Abdullah bin Bayyah to the White House. The 6/27/13 IBD reports that bin Bayyah is employed by one Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who advocates for attacks on US soldiers in Iraq, and suicide bombings. During his White House visit, bin Bayyah is alleged to have asked for support for Hamas. It gets better still. According to the 6/25/13 IBD, 400 soldiers will be sent to Egypt on a "peacekeeping mission." They apparently have training in riot suppression. So 2 million Egyptians are demonstrating for Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood to go, and we are sending troops to help Morsi? Not to mention the billions in military aid.
* Recently, Obama gave a speech in Berlin. His opinion regarding terrorism is as follows: "We may strike blows against terrorist networks, but if we ignore the instability and intolerance that fuels extremism, our own freedom will eventually be endangered." Just who is intolerant of whom? It must be apparent to all but Obama that radical Islamic terrorists have no tolerance for him, the West, the US, Israel, Christians, and pretty much everyone who is not Muslim.
* In that same Berlin speech, Obama told us: "I've determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies, and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent, while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third." When and how did he determine that? In college, when he proposed eliminating all nukes? To Medvedev when he said he would have greater "flexibility" after the election? Obama also said he "will not develop new nuclear weapons." So, just curious, how does he believe our aging nuclear arsenal provides a "strong and credible strategic deterrent?" When Democrats still believed in this country, we elected a different kind of President; a different kind of Democrat. John Kennedy said: "only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." As Reagan later said: "Peace through strength."
* In yet another speech in yet another country (our President does love to travel) Obama told the Irish people: "If towns remain divided - if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can't see ourselves in one another, and fear or resentment are allowed to harden - that too encourages division and discourages cooperation." In 2008 Obama told us he is a citizen of the world. He also would not wear the American flag on his lapel. You see, nations and religions create division in the world. So we need to end them. What else did Obama mean when he said he was a citizen of the world? What else was Obama suggesting when he spoke disparagingly of separate Catholic and Protestant schools? This is John Lennon's "Imagine" world. Of course, there is one slight difference. Obama wants there to be a world government, an all powerful United Nations perhaps. That is why there will be no need for nuclear weapons. Obama would call himself an idealist. Those who are regular readers of this blog know that I refer to such people as "liberals who let their beliefs dictate their reality."
* A final point. I know just who Obama has in mind to be leader of the new world order. After all, he sees him every time he looks in the mirror.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Are We At War With Islam? No, We've Already Lost. Part IV
* (Editor's note: Are We At War With Islam? Parts I & II were posted on 8/29/10 and 9/13/10. Part III was posted 9/30/12. This is a continuation of that series.)
* The May 27, 2013 New York Times had a rather lengthy article concerning the recent rioting in Stockholm, Sweden. The article, entitled "In Sweden, Riots Put An Identity In Question," starts on page 4 and continues onto page 8. The article discusses how rioting occurred in Stockholm and throughout Sweden when "bands made up mostly of young immigrants set buildings and cars ablaze in a spasm of destructive rage rarely seen in a country proud of its normally tranquil, law-abiding ways." The article makes note of the rioting that had previously occurred in Paris and London, "which also involved mostly immigrants." They also note how "in 2008 and 2010, immigrants clashed with the police in the southern port city of Malmo."
* If you were counting on the "paper of record" to actually inform you who these rioting immigrants were, you would be disappointed. If you were counting on the "paper of record" to tell you if the rioting immigrants in Stockholm, Paris, London, Malmo and other European cities had anything in common, you would be disappointed. Here's a clue: they share the same religion...Islam. Yet the NY Times will not tell its readers that the rioters in each instance were Muslim. It is a fact that most of its readers would want to know. But the paper that claims it has "All The News That's Fit To Print," does not see fit to tell the truth. When the mainstream media, the "paper of record," will not tell the truth, the war is lost. The "useful idiots" of the left are assisting in our defeat.
* The 5/30/13 Investor's Business Daily reports that one Amina Ismail, former Egyptian reporter, is now a White House correspondent. Soon after the Boston bombing she asked Press Secretary Jay Carney this: "President Obama said what happened in Boston was an act of terrorism. I would like to ask: Do you consider the U.S. bombing on civilians in Afghanistan a form of terrorism?" (Ms. Ismail sees no difference between the targeting of civilians and the targeting of terrorists, which sometimes leads to the deaths of civilians. Or does she? Maybe she just knows to manipulate the media in order to make us feel bad about killing terrorists.) Hina Shamsi, head of the ACLU's National Security Project, has appeared on MSNBC. Said she: "There is no global jihadist movement." Hadeel Al-Shalchi, former CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) Canada spokeswoman, writes anti-Israel and pro Muslim Brotherhood pieces for the AP. Sharaf Mowjood, formerly of CAIR also, has written pro-Islamist pieces for the NY Times, ABC and NBC.
* The mainstream media are co-conspirators in radical Islam's war against the West. The AP, under pressure from CAIR, will no longer use the term "Islamists" when referring to radical Muslims. The NY Times used "immigrants." The Obama Administration frequently uses "extremists." The left and "islamists" have something in common: manipulation of the language to reach their goals. So "abortion" becomes "a woman's right to choose." "Gay marriage" becomes "marriage equality." Given the lack of warming of late, "global warming" has become "climate change." And now, we see a media that will not use "radical Muslims" or "Islamists" and certainly not "Islamofascists" when referring to Muslims who murder and maim in the name of Islam.
* Recently, a British soldier by the name of Lee Rigby was literally hacked to death by two Muslim men in broad daylight on a street in London. Proud of their actions, one attacker encouraged passers-by to video him afterwards. The one stated to the cameras: "The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day." Never mind that more often than not Muslims are killing other Muslims. And, of course, the murderer (I refuse to give their names) added the mandatory "Allahu Akbar." The Times of London former editor Simon Jenkins said the public should not get worked up over "mundane acts of violence." So that's it - just get used to the brutal hacking death of a soldier on the streets of London as being "mundane." If Jenkins attitude prevails, such murders may indeed become "mundane."
* And then we had these gems. Brian Paddick, Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard, told us that "Islam and terrorism don't go together." David Miller, Mayor of Toronto, after learning of the plot to behead the Canadian Prime Minister by 19 Muslims said this about Islam: "It's a very peaceful religion." The BBC, a pillar of left wing ideology, somehow failed to use the word "Islam" in their story about the murder of Mr. Rigby. And they did not think it necessary to tell their viewers of the "Allahu Akbar" comment by the murderer. You see, if you want the truth about what happens in the world, you have to read and listen to conservative media outlets. If you want to remain uninformed with politically correct spins on every news story, stay with the mainstream media. After all, protecting certain groups from being offended is more important than telling the truth. (Information in this and above paragraph from an article by Mark Steyn in the 5/28/13 IBD.)
* BBC political editor Nick Robinson described the murderers of Mr. Rigby as being "of Muslim appearance." He had to apologize for saying that. Maybe the BBC can apologize to Mr. Rigby and his family and friends and fellow soldiers for his brutal slaying by Muslims. Except that they will not say the word "Muslim" in any negative context - truthful or not. The Guardian quoted a Muslim in London with this headline: "These poor idiots have nothing to do with Islam." Makes you wonder then why so many kill in the name of Islam, shouting "Allahu Akbar." (Information from article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the 5/28/13 WSJ.)
* One Moshen Rezaei will be running for president of Iran in next year's election. According to Interpol, Rezaei was behind the 1994 terror attack on the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires in 1994. Eighty-five people were killed and 300 were injured. Only two years prior a car bomb blew up the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. Iranians were also believed to be behind that terrorist attack. Isn't it comforting to know that Rezaei might be the man leading a nuclear armed Iran? (Information from 5/29/13 IBD.)
* I have to say I continue to be amazed by people telling me that under Obama the standing of the U.S. has improved throughout the world, and especially throughout the Muslim world. Except, the 3/25/13 IBD reported that approval for Obama's policies in the Muslim world has gone from 34% to 15%. That is lower than the approval of Bush's policies in his last year in office. The IBD data was from a Pew Research Center poll. Pew is considered to be one of the preeminent polling agencies in the international arena.
* President Obama recently gave a major policy address on the issues of terror and the use of drones. After telling us of both the efficacy and legality of the use of drones, he then said we need to change our policy. Drones should not be used unless we have "near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured." That, of course, is an impossible standard to meet, and is simply another concession to the terrorists trying to kill us. After discussing "extremism" in general, Obama then referenced the "native" U.S. extremists such as at the Oklahoma City Federal Building, and at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin. And that is how it works for the left. Ninety-nine percent of the terror attacks in the last few decades can be by Muslims, but if you are on the left it is mandatory to remind everyone about Oklahoma City. See, it's not just Muslims, right?
* Obama went on to explain that there is a "pull towards extremism (that) appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon." After referring to various terror attacks in the last few decades (without mentioning Islam or Muslims, even though Muslims caused all the attacks he referenced) he then tells us this: "Most, though not all, of the terrorism we faced is fueled by a common ideology - a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West...Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam." I agree; the United States is not at war with Islam. American soldiers have fought and died in various countries on behalf of Muslims. But he begs the question of whether Islam is in fact at war with the U.S., Israel and the rest of the West. I do not read stories about Christians burning down mosques in the Muslim world or anywhere else. I frequently read stories of Christian Churches being burned and Christians being oppressed and even murdered throughout the Muslim world. Those stories are of no concern to the left, who give ideological support to those who would kill us.
* Is there any hope? British Prime Minister David Cameron wants an investigation into "whether universities, prisons, Muslim charities and the Internet have been at times allowed to become a 'conveyor belt' of Islamist radicalization." He expressed concern about an "extremist ideology that perverts and warps Islam to create a culture of victimhood and justified violence." Cameron went on: "We need to dismantle this process at every stage - in schools, colleges, universities, on the Internet, in our prisons, wherever it is taking place." I certainly agree with that last sentiment. The truth, however, makes me discouraged. The truth is that our schools, colleges, universities and mainstream media are institutions that are overwhelmingly dominated by the left. In every instance, until maybe someone in their own family is beheaded, those on the left will give safe harbor to the Islamofascists. The left will continue to criticize the U.S and Israel and other Western countries as oppressors of Muslims. And, as I noted in an earlier post, after Muslims murdered 3000 Americans on 9/11, the media made Muslims the victims. So just how do we stop this culture of "victimhood" when the left pushes the idea of "victimhood" on almost every so-called minority group - blacks, hispanics, women, gays and Muslims. So I ask: is there any hope?
* The May 27, 2013 New York Times had a rather lengthy article concerning the recent rioting in Stockholm, Sweden. The article, entitled "In Sweden, Riots Put An Identity In Question," starts on page 4 and continues onto page 8. The article discusses how rioting occurred in Stockholm and throughout Sweden when "bands made up mostly of young immigrants set buildings and cars ablaze in a spasm of destructive rage rarely seen in a country proud of its normally tranquil, law-abiding ways." The article makes note of the rioting that had previously occurred in Paris and London, "which also involved mostly immigrants." They also note how "in 2008 and 2010, immigrants clashed with the police in the southern port city of Malmo."
* If you were counting on the "paper of record" to actually inform you who these rioting immigrants were, you would be disappointed. If you were counting on the "paper of record" to tell you if the rioting immigrants in Stockholm, Paris, London, Malmo and other European cities had anything in common, you would be disappointed. Here's a clue: they share the same religion...Islam. Yet the NY Times will not tell its readers that the rioters in each instance were Muslim. It is a fact that most of its readers would want to know. But the paper that claims it has "All The News That's Fit To Print," does not see fit to tell the truth. When the mainstream media, the "paper of record," will not tell the truth, the war is lost. The "useful idiots" of the left are assisting in our defeat.
* The 5/30/13 Investor's Business Daily reports that one Amina Ismail, former Egyptian reporter, is now a White House correspondent. Soon after the Boston bombing she asked Press Secretary Jay Carney this: "President Obama said what happened in Boston was an act of terrorism. I would like to ask: Do you consider the U.S. bombing on civilians in Afghanistan a form of terrorism?" (Ms. Ismail sees no difference between the targeting of civilians and the targeting of terrorists, which sometimes leads to the deaths of civilians. Or does she? Maybe she just knows to manipulate the media in order to make us feel bad about killing terrorists.) Hina Shamsi, head of the ACLU's National Security Project, has appeared on MSNBC. Said she: "There is no global jihadist movement." Hadeel Al-Shalchi, former CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) Canada spokeswoman, writes anti-Israel and pro Muslim Brotherhood pieces for the AP. Sharaf Mowjood, formerly of CAIR also, has written pro-Islamist pieces for the NY Times, ABC and NBC.
* The mainstream media are co-conspirators in radical Islam's war against the West. The AP, under pressure from CAIR, will no longer use the term "Islamists" when referring to radical Muslims. The NY Times used "immigrants." The Obama Administration frequently uses "extremists." The left and "islamists" have something in common: manipulation of the language to reach their goals. So "abortion" becomes "a woman's right to choose." "Gay marriage" becomes "marriage equality." Given the lack of warming of late, "global warming" has become "climate change." And now, we see a media that will not use "radical Muslims" or "Islamists" and certainly not "Islamofascists" when referring to Muslims who murder and maim in the name of Islam.
* Recently, a British soldier by the name of Lee Rigby was literally hacked to death by two Muslim men in broad daylight on a street in London. Proud of their actions, one attacker encouraged passers-by to video him afterwards. The one stated to the cameras: "The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day." Never mind that more often than not Muslims are killing other Muslims. And, of course, the murderer (I refuse to give their names) added the mandatory "Allahu Akbar." The Times of London former editor Simon Jenkins said the public should not get worked up over "mundane acts of violence." So that's it - just get used to the brutal hacking death of a soldier on the streets of London as being "mundane." If Jenkins attitude prevails, such murders may indeed become "mundane."
* And then we had these gems. Brian Paddick, Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard, told us that "Islam and terrorism don't go together." David Miller, Mayor of Toronto, after learning of the plot to behead the Canadian Prime Minister by 19 Muslims said this about Islam: "It's a very peaceful religion." The BBC, a pillar of left wing ideology, somehow failed to use the word "Islam" in their story about the murder of Mr. Rigby. And they did not think it necessary to tell their viewers of the "Allahu Akbar" comment by the murderer. You see, if you want the truth about what happens in the world, you have to read and listen to conservative media outlets. If you want to remain uninformed with politically correct spins on every news story, stay with the mainstream media. After all, protecting certain groups from being offended is more important than telling the truth. (Information in this and above paragraph from an article by Mark Steyn in the 5/28/13 IBD.)
* BBC political editor Nick Robinson described the murderers of Mr. Rigby as being "of Muslim appearance." He had to apologize for saying that. Maybe the BBC can apologize to Mr. Rigby and his family and friends and fellow soldiers for his brutal slaying by Muslims. Except that they will not say the word "Muslim" in any negative context - truthful or not. The Guardian quoted a Muslim in London with this headline: "These poor idiots have nothing to do with Islam." Makes you wonder then why so many kill in the name of Islam, shouting "Allahu Akbar." (Information from article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the 5/28/13 WSJ.)
* One Moshen Rezaei will be running for president of Iran in next year's election. According to Interpol, Rezaei was behind the 1994 terror attack on the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires in 1994. Eighty-five people were killed and 300 were injured. Only two years prior a car bomb blew up the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. Iranians were also believed to be behind that terrorist attack. Isn't it comforting to know that Rezaei might be the man leading a nuclear armed Iran? (Information from 5/29/13 IBD.)
* I have to say I continue to be amazed by people telling me that under Obama the standing of the U.S. has improved throughout the world, and especially throughout the Muslim world. Except, the 3/25/13 IBD reported that approval for Obama's policies in the Muslim world has gone from 34% to 15%. That is lower than the approval of Bush's policies in his last year in office. The IBD data was from a Pew Research Center poll. Pew is considered to be one of the preeminent polling agencies in the international arena.
* President Obama recently gave a major policy address on the issues of terror and the use of drones. After telling us of both the efficacy and legality of the use of drones, he then said we need to change our policy. Drones should not be used unless we have "near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured." That, of course, is an impossible standard to meet, and is simply another concession to the terrorists trying to kill us. After discussing "extremism" in general, Obama then referenced the "native" U.S. extremists such as at the Oklahoma City Federal Building, and at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin. And that is how it works for the left. Ninety-nine percent of the terror attacks in the last few decades can be by Muslims, but if you are on the left it is mandatory to remind everyone about Oklahoma City. See, it's not just Muslims, right?
* Obama went on to explain that there is a "pull towards extremism (that) appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon." After referring to various terror attacks in the last few decades (without mentioning Islam or Muslims, even though Muslims caused all the attacks he referenced) he then tells us this: "Most, though not all, of the terrorism we faced is fueled by a common ideology - a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West...Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam." I agree; the United States is not at war with Islam. American soldiers have fought and died in various countries on behalf of Muslims. But he begs the question of whether Islam is in fact at war with the U.S., Israel and the rest of the West. I do not read stories about Christians burning down mosques in the Muslim world or anywhere else. I frequently read stories of Christian Churches being burned and Christians being oppressed and even murdered throughout the Muslim world. Those stories are of no concern to the left, who give ideological support to those who would kill us.
* Is there any hope? British Prime Minister David Cameron wants an investigation into "whether universities, prisons, Muslim charities and the Internet have been at times allowed to become a 'conveyor belt' of Islamist radicalization." He expressed concern about an "extremist ideology that perverts and warps Islam to create a culture of victimhood and justified violence." Cameron went on: "We need to dismantle this process at every stage - in schools, colleges, universities, on the Internet, in our prisons, wherever it is taking place." I certainly agree with that last sentiment. The truth, however, makes me discouraged. The truth is that our schools, colleges, universities and mainstream media are institutions that are overwhelmingly dominated by the left. In every instance, until maybe someone in their own family is beheaded, those on the left will give safe harbor to the Islamofascists. The left will continue to criticize the U.S and Israel and other Western countries as oppressors of Muslims. And, as I noted in an earlier post, after Muslims murdered 3000 Americans on 9/11, the media made Muslims the victims. So just how do we stop this culture of "victimhood" when the left pushes the idea of "victimhood" on almost every so-called minority group - blacks, hispanics, women, gays and Muslims. So I ask: is there any hope?
Monday, May 20, 2013
Benghazi and the IRS
* Scandals. It's almost too good to be true for those of us who are conservative and never trusted Obama nor believed a word out of Obama's mouth. We have the ongoing investigation into the Benghazi cover-up, the IRS targeting conservative groups and the subsequent cover-up of that, and the Justice Department obtaining the work and personal phone records of AP reporters. At the same time we have the jury decision in the Doctor Gosnell case; finding that the killing of babies born alive, following an attempted abortion, is indeed murder. I throw that in the mix because not only is it a victory for conservatives, but because Obama favored so-called partial birth abortions - not significantly different from what got Gosnell convicted.
* Benghazi. There are three parts to the Benghazi story: why did the State Department fail to provide adequate security for the diplomatic post in Benghazi, why were some troops given an order to stand down instead of go in and assist, and why was there a cover-up of the truth behind the attacks. Underlying all three issues is who was involved in all of the decisions. Or, in Watergate parlance, who knew what, and when did they know it?
* An unwillingness to face the truth. Incredibly, there are still those on the left who will not even acknowledge any cover-up occurred, coincidentally, only weeks before the presidential election. The mainstream media leads the charge with regards to denial. The LA Times (5/9/13) said the testimony of the whistle blowers before Congress "shed little new light on the key questions at issue in the hearing." They continued that "partisan politics loomed large" at the hearings. Every congressional hearing involves politics. That's not the question though; the question is whether independent of the politics, there is a legitimate issue warranting Congressional investigation. Greg Hicks, second in command in Libya in the State Department (and first after the murder of our Ambassador) said it was clear from the beginning it was a coordinated attack. No one there was talking about an alleged anti-Muslim video. When he heard UN Ambassador Susan Rice went on five talk shows the Sunday after the attack, blaming it all on the anti-Muslim video, Hicks said he was disgusted.
* As Hicks never reported anything about a video, a real news organization might be a little curious about how Rice ended up blaming the video and not terrorism, as did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for weeks afterward. A real news outlet might wonder how it came to be that the highest officials in our government all came to repeat the same lie. Of course, the State Department's Accountability Review Board (A.R.B.) was not interested in the truth either. They did not interview Mr. Hicks, Mark Thompson (another whistle blower), or Secretary of State Clinton. But the so-called media of the left did not want to know why such important people were not interviewed. Neither the media nor the A.R.B. could think of a single question to ask these people. They do not want to know who gave the order to troops at the ready to "stand down." If that order came from anyone other than Obama (and if Obama had stayed engaged rather than worrying about heading to Vegas for another fundraiser) then as Commander-in-Chief he had the absolute authority to overturn that order.
* The NY Times, not surprisingly, was no better than the LA Times. In their 5/10/13 editorial the headline was "The Republicans' Benghazi Obsession." You see, the A.R.B. already blamed unnamed leadership and management at State for the inadequate security and lack of response. So, that's that. Then a funny thing happened. ABC, a mainstream outlet, disclosed additional emails revealing more about how the "talking points" were watered down, with far more involvement by State and the White House than Jay Carney had admitted last year. It's one thing for Fox, The Weekly Standard or other conservative outlets to pursue this story. Now, the NY Times sees one of their competitors in the liberal media pursuing it. So suddenly - overnight in fact - it is not just the Republicans' obsession. No, it's a front page story above the fold on May 11, with a clearly different twist to the headline: "Benghazi e-mails put White House on the defensive." With ABC having taken the lead, the very first paragraph says "the White House was more deeply involved in revising talking points about the attack than officials have previously acknowledged." So when White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the only change made by the White House and State Department was to change Benghazi from being a "consulate" to a "diplomatic outpost" it was a lie.
* State spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was unhappy with the the original CIA draft of the talking points, referring as it did to Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, and possibly making State look bad for not having increased security in light of earlier attacks on various consulates in Benghazi. However, the first rewrite was still unsatisfactory, as Ms. Nuland stated that the changes did not "resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership." Of course, her building's leader was Hillary Clinton. But the A.R.B. did not address the cover-up and the NY Times and the rest of the mainstream media could not think of anything to ask Secretary Clinton regarding the cover-up. After all, with regards to whether the attack was a terrorist attack or due to a demonstration over a video, Clinton told us in her testimony before Congress: "What difference does it make?" The media that held on like a pit bull over Watergate, was satisfied with that comment by Clinton. Obama subsequently added with regards to the investigation, "there's no there there." And that satisfied today's mainstream media as well.
* The press serves a unique function in our society. Aside from the constitutional checks and balances on unrestrained government power, the First Amendment guarantees a free press, with the ability to challenge government officials and question their words and deeds. When the press will only challenge Republican leaders, we all lose. One might think that the IRS scandal, in which the Obama Administration targeted conservative groups and individuals which supported Romney, would make the media say "enough is enough." It was not to be.
* The front page of Sunday's NY Times explains in its headline: "Confusion and Staff Troubles Rife at Cincinnati I.R.S. Office." In reading the article I counted at least 8 different excuses the Times made for this anti-American abuse of government power. (1)There was a "revolving cast of midlevel managers," (2)there was "miscommunication with IRS lawyers and executives in Washington," (3)they were "confused about the rules they were enforcing," (4)"few if any of the employees were experts on tax law," (5)"people were coming and going, asking for advice and not getting it," and (6)"sometimes forgetting the cases existed," (7)"administering the nearly four million word federal tax code involves so many arcane legalities," and (8)the Cincinnati office was overwhelmed by "60,000 paper applications trying to find efficient means of dealing with that."
* First, none of these excuses explain how the IRS came to target conservative groups. Given all the excuses proffered by the NY Times, one wonders how the IRS could have even figured out which groups were conservative groups. Yet figure it out they did, and targeted those groups accordingly. Second, let me state that it was not only the Cincinnati office targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups. Third, individuals were targeted as well. One Frank VanderSloot made a large donation to Romney in 2011. In April, 2012, VanderSloot and seven others were targeted by the Obama campaign. Mr. VanderSloot was accused of having a "less than reputable record." After never having problems with the IRS, in June he gets audited. In July, the Department of Labor decided they needed to audit the guest workers at his ranch, and in September the IRS decided they needed an audit of his business. (Info from Kimberly Strassel article in the 5/17/13 Wall Street Journal.)
* Strassel makes a brilliant point. Whether Obama ever picked up the phone or directly ordered anyone to engage in these abuses of power is beside the point. It is not just that he is the President. No, it is the tone he has set from the time he first ran for office until now. Everyone who disagreed with him was an enemy; none held their beliefs or acted in good faith. Those who cling to their guns and religion. Obama (along with Reid, Pelosi and others) badmouthing the very peaceful Tea Party, and supporting the far less than peaceful Occupy Wall Street. Obama condemning the "millionaires and billionaires" time after time after time as not paying their fair share. Obama saying the Republicans want dirty air and dirty water. Obama calling supporters of the Second Amendment liars. And the list could go on and on.
* When Obama first ran for President I had suggested to a friend that, regardless of his democrat affiliation, he should be wary of a Chicago politician who not only hails from Chicago, but has a history of engaging in Chicago-style politics. It is a take-no-prisoners approach to one's opposition. And now, if I may borrow a line from Obama's mentor Reverend Wright, "Obama's chickens are coming home to roost."
* Benghazi. There are three parts to the Benghazi story: why did the State Department fail to provide adequate security for the diplomatic post in Benghazi, why were some troops given an order to stand down instead of go in and assist, and why was there a cover-up of the truth behind the attacks. Underlying all three issues is who was involved in all of the decisions. Or, in Watergate parlance, who knew what, and when did they know it?
* An unwillingness to face the truth. Incredibly, there are still those on the left who will not even acknowledge any cover-up occurred, coincidentally, only weeks before the presidential election. The mainstream media leads the charge with regards to denial. The LA Times (5/9/13) said the testimony of the whistle blowers before Congress "shed little new light on the key questions at issue in the hearing." They continued that "partisan politics loomed large" at the hearings. Every congressional hearing involves politics. That's not the question though; the question is whether independent of the politics, there is a legitimate issue warranting Congressional investigation. Greg Hicks, second in command in Libya in the State Department (and first after the murder of our Ambassador) said it was clear from the beginning it was a coordinated attack. No one there was talking about an alleged anti-Muslim video. When he heard UN Ambassador Susan Rice went on five talk shows the Sunday after the attack, blaming it all on the anti-Muslim video, Hicks said he was disgusted.
* As Hicks never reported anything about a video, a real news organization might be a little curious about how Rice ended up blaming the video and not terrorism, as did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for weeks afterward. A real news outlet might wonder how it came to be that the highest officials in our government all came to repeat the same lie. Of course, the State Department's Accountability Review Board (A.R.B.) was not interested in the truth either. They did not interview Mr. Hicks, Mark Thompson (another whistle blower), or Secretary of State Clinton. But the so-called media of the left did not want to know why such important people were not interviewed. Neither the media nor the A.R.B. could think of a single question to ask these people. They do not want to know who gave the order to troops at the ready to "stand down." If that order came from anyone other than Obama (and if Obama had stayed engaged rather than worrying about heading to Vegas for another fundraiser) then as Commander-in-Chief he had the absolute authority to overturn that order.
* The NY Times, not surprisingly, was no better than the LA Times. In their 5/10/13 editorial the headline was "The Republicans' Benghazi Obsession." You see, the A.R.B. already blamed unnamed leadership and management at State for the inadequate security and lack of response. So, that's that. Then a funny thing happened. ABC, a mainstream outlet, disclosed additional emails revealing more about how the "talking points" were watered down, with far more involvement by State and the White House than Jay Carney had admitted last year. It's one thing for Fox, The Weekly Standard or other conservative outlets to pursue this story. Now, the NY Times sees one of their competitors in the liberal media pursuing it. So suddenly - overnight in fact - it is not just the Republicans' obsession. No, it's a front page story above the fold on May 11, with a clearly different twist to the headline: "Benghazi e-mails put White House on the defensive." With ABC having taken the lead, the very first paragraph says "the White House was more deeply involved in revising talking points about the attack than officials have previously acknowledged." So when White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the only change made by the White House and State Department was to change Benghazi from being a "consulate" to a "diplomatic outpost" it was a lie.
* State spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was unhappy with the the original CIA draft of the talking points, referring as it did to Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, and possibly making State look bad for not having increased security in light of earlier attacks on various consulates in Benghazi. However, the first rewrite was still unsatisfactory, as Ms. Nuland stated that the changes did not "resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership." Of course, her building's leader was Hillary Clinton. But the A.R.B. did not address the cover-up and the NY Times and the rest of the mainstream media could not think of anything to ask Secretary Clinton regarding the cover-up. After all, with regards to whether the attack was a terrorist attack or due to a demonstration over a video, Clinton told us in her testimony before Congress: "What difference does it make?" The media that held on like a pit bull over Watergate, was satisfied with that comment by Clinton. Obama subsequently added with regards to the investigation, "there's no there there." And that satisfied today's mainstream media as well.
* The press serves a unique function in our society. Aside from the constitutional checks and balances on unrestrained government power, the First Amendment guarantees a free press, with the ability to challenge government officials and question their words and deeds. When the press will only challenge Republican leaders, we all lose. One might think that the IRS scandal, in which the Obama Administration targeted conservative groups and individuals which supported Romney, would make the media say "enough is enough." It was not to be.
* The front page of Sunday's NY Times explains in its headline: "Confusion and Staff Troubles Rife at Cincinnati I.R.S. Office." In reading the article I counted at least 8 different excuses the Times made for this anti-American abuse of government power. (1)There was a "revolving cast of midlevel managers," (2)there was "miscommunication with IRS lawyers and executives in Washington," (3)they were "confused about the rules they were enforcing," (4)"few if any of the employees were experts on tax law," (5)"people were coming and going, asking for advice and not getting it," and (6)"sometimes forgetting the cases existed," (7)"administering the nearly four million word federal tax code involves so many arcane legalities," and (8)the Cincinnati office was overwhelmed by "60,000 paper applications trying to find efficient means of dealing with that."
* First, none of these excuses explain how the IRS came to target conservative groups. Given all the excuses proffered by the NY Times, one wonders how the IRS could have even figured out which groups were conservative groups. Yet figure it out they did, and targeted those groups accordingly. Second, let me state that it was not only the Cincinnati office targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups. Third, individuals were targeted as well. One Frank VanderSloot made a large donation to Romney in 2011. In April, 2012, VanderSloot and seven others were targeted by the Obama campaign. Mr. VanderSloot was accused of having a "less than reputable record." After never having problems with the IRS, in June he gets audited. In July, the Department of Labor decided they needed to audit the guest workers at his ranch, and in September the IRS decided they needed an audit of his business. (Info from Kimberly Strassel article in the 5/17/13 Wall Street Journal.)
* Strassel makes a brilliant point. Whether Obama ever picked up the phone or directly ordered anyone to engage in these abuses of power is beside the point. It is not just that he is the President. No, it is the tone he has set from the time he first ran for office until now. Everyone who disagreed with him was an enemy; none held their beliefs or acted in good faith. Those who cling to their guns and religion. Obama (along with Reid, Pelosi and others) badmouthing the very peaceful Tea Party, and supporting the far less than peaceful Occupy Wall Street. Obama condemning the "millionaires and billionaires" time after time after time as not paying their fair share. Obama saying the Republicans want dirty air and dirty water. Obama calling supporters of the Second Amendment liars. And the list could go on and on.
* When Obama first ran for President I had suggested to a friend that, regardless of his democrat affiliation, he should be wary of a Chicago politician who not only hails from Chicago, but has a history of engaging in Chicago-style politics. It is a take-no-prisoners approach to one's opposition. And now, if I may borrow a line from Obama's mentor Reverend Wright, "Obama's chickens are coming home to roost."
Thursday, May 9, 2013
An Open Letter to Professor Stephen Hawking
Dear Professor Hawking:
As you know, you had recently been invited to the fifth annual President's Conference to be held for three days, beginning June 16, in Israel. The purpose of the conference, hosted by Israeli President Shimon Peres and entitled "Facing Tomorrow, 2013," is to address various problems facing the world today. Experts in various fields, and past world leaders and statesmen attend. After accepting the invitation you subsequently withdrew. You are one of the best known scientists in the world. Clearly, you are brilliant within your field of theoretical physics. As is also well known, you suffer from a neurological disease similar to ALS. And, you are an anti-semite.
According to the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, they state you withdrew "based upon (your) knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of (your) own academic contacts there." So, you now support the boycott, divest and sanction movement against Israel. You had previously been to Israel. Now, as a leading scientist, you support an academic boycott of other scientists.
Since visiting Israel last you have become increasingly anti-Israel. You claimed that Israel's response to rocket attacks from Gaza was "plain out of proportion." Clearly, Palestinian rockets falling on Israeli cities and civilians was of no concern to you. While Israel's military operates under the strictest rules of engagement, your brilliance does not prevent you from falling for the left-wing propaganda regarding "proportionality." If a burglar enters my home while I am there and shoots me in the leg, how am I permitted to respond? Assuming I have a gun, can I only shoot him in his leg, in order to keep my response "proportional?" What if the second shot the burglar fires kills me? What kind of "proportional" response can I engage in then?
You have also said that "the situation (for Palestinians) is like that of South Africa before 1990 and cannot continue." I actually appreciate such a brilliant scientist such as yourself making such moronic comments. You are a perfect example of what I tell my fellow conservatives: liberal ideology trumps logic, consistency and common sense. And now I can add that it trumps brilliance as well.
You should listen to the words of Kenneth Meshoe, a Member of Parliament in South Africa, and a black man who lived under apartheid rule. He said it is "ridiculous" to equate the treatment of the Palestinians with the treatment of blacks under apartheid. He had no freedom of movement. He had to live in a "black" area. He could not move even to a different "black" area without permission; and it was much more difficult to enter a "white" area. There were separate medical clinics for blacks, with black doctors. If a white doctor agreed to see him, it had to be in a back room. Blacks could not vote. They could not hold elected office. A white person would never have to appear in front of a black judge, the way a former President of Israel had to appear in front of an Arab judge. Oh yes, Palestinians vote and are Members of the Knesset, Israel's Parliament. A white would never have a black teacher. Israel has Arab teachers. He said he was amazed by the experience of a fellow black from South Africa visiting Israel. His friend needed medical care and was apparently in an emergency room with a Jewish patient on one side of him and a Palestinian on the other, all getting the same care from the same doctors.
As Mr. Meshoe said, it is insulting to equate the situation of the Palestinians with the real apartheid of South Africa, because it "minimizes the pain of those who suffered in South Africa." Yes, you are brilliant. But your liberal ideology does not allow you to make distinctions. It certainly does not allow you to properly view the real world around you. But now that you believe in academic boycotts, what should I do with some of your books that I own? Should I return them or throw them out? Burn them maybe? After all, you cannot expect me, a Jew who supports Israel, to affiliate myself in any way with you, an anti-semite.
Very truly yours, The Truth-Uncensored
P.S. As a result of your neurological disease I understand that you can only communicate by use of a computer based system. Inasmuch as the system uses Israeli technology, when can we expect you to return the device?
As you know, you had recently been invited to the fifth annual President's Conference to be held for three days, beginning June 16, in Israel. The purpose of the conference, hosted by Israeli President Shimon Peres and entitled "Facing Tomorrow, 2013," is to address various problems facing the world today. Experts in various fields, and past world leaders and statesmen attend. After accepting the invitation you subsequently withdrew. You are one of the best known scientists in the world. Clearly, you are brilliant within your field of theoretical physics. As is also well known, you suffer from a neurological disease similar to ALS. And, you are an anti-semite.
According to the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, they state you withdrew "based upon (your) knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of (your) own academic contacts there." So, you now support the boycott, divest and sanction movement against Israel. You had previously been to Israel. Now, as a leading scientist, you support an academic boycott of other scientists.
Since visiting Israel last you have become increasingly anti-Israel. You claimed that Israel's response to rocket attacks from Gaza was "plain out of proportion." Clearly, Palestinian rockets falling on Israeli cities and civilians was of no concern to you. While Israel's military operates under the strictest rules of engagement, your brilliance does not prevent you from falling for the left-wing propaganda regarding "proportionality." If a burglar enters my home while I am there and shoots me in the leg, how am I permitted to respond? Assuming I have a gun, can I only shoot him in his leg, in order to keep my response "proportional?" What if the second shot the burglar fires kills me? What kind of "proportional" response can I engage in then?
You have also said that "the situation (for Palestinians) is like that of South Africa before 1990 and cannot continue." I actually appreciate such a brilliant scientist such as yourself making such moronic comments. You are a perfect example of what I tell my fellow conservatives: liberal ideology trumps logic, consistency and common sense. And now I can add that it trumps brilliance as well.
You should listen to the words of Kenneth Meshoe, a Member of Parliament in South Africa, and a black man who lived under apartheid rule. He said it is "ridiculous" to equate the treatment of the Palestinians with the treatment of blacks under apartheid. He had no freedom of movement. He had to live in a "black" area. He could not move even to a different "black" area without permission; and it was much more difficult to enter a "white" area. There were separate medical clinics for blacks, with black doctors. If a white doctor agreed to see him, it had to be in a back room. Blacks could not vote. They could not hold elected office. A white person would never have to appear in front of a black judge, the way a former President of Israel had to appear in front of an Arab judge. Oh yes, Palestinians vote and are Members of the Knesset, Israel's Parliament. A white would never have a black teacher. Israel has Arab teachers. He said he was amazed by the experience of a fellow black from South Africa visiting Israel. His friend needed medical care and was apparently in an emergency room with a Jewish patient on one side of him and a Palestinian on the other, all getting the same care from the same doctors.
As Mr. Meshoe said, it is insulting to equate the situation of the Palestinians with the real apartheid of South Africa, because it "minimizes the pain of those who suffered in South Africa." Yes, you are brilliant. But your liberal ideology does not allow you to make distinctions. It certainly does not allow you to properly view the real world around you. But now that you believe in academic boycotts, what should I do with some of your books that I own? Should I return them or throw them out? Burn them maybe? After all, you cannot expect me, a Jew who supports Israel, to affiliate myself in any way with you, an anti-semite.
Very truly yours, The Truth-Uncensored
P.S. As a result of your neurological disease I understand that you can only communicate by use of a computer based system. Inasmuch as the system uses Israeli technology, when can we expect you to return the device?
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Part II: The Dialogue Continues Into Personal Responsibility
This post is a continuation of the prior dialogue. The conversation veered into issues of personal responsibility. You will see that, regardless of which side you take, there is a clear distinction between the two viewpoints. As a conservative, I do not separate my values from my politics. I do not believe policy should be made on the basis of what "feels good." The institution of "welfare" undoubtedly felt good, yet, as noted below, resulted in the destruction of the black family. We "feel" bad that gays can't marry, so we'll change a definition that has existed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Government agencies that are meant to protect us (the FBI, Homeland Security and the military) have purged their training manuals of any references to radical Islam or jihad, so as not to hurt the "feelings" of Muslims in this country. When policy is based upon feelings, rather than truth and logic and common sense, one should not expect a positive outcome. A final note: I agreed in advance to give the reader the last word.
TU: Do you think trial and appellate judges are more persuaded by logical and consistent arguments or illogical and inconsistent arguments? Logic and consistency form the essence of persuasive writing and debating. As to why liberals do not care about logic and consistency, see the January 18 post.
R: I agree in a court logic and consistency should and do prevail. But human beings do not operate on logic and consistency alone. As a matter of fact, they often behave illogically and inconsistently and emotionally. So people vote and behave in significant part on feelings and emotionality and the gut intuitive sense of what is in their best interest, or what makes them feel more secure, or what makes them feel better. Your appeal to individual initiative, responsibility and hard work is laudable. But taken to its logical conclusion creates a very stressful situation in life that many people do not want and cannot handle. The truth is that many of our fellow citizens are not as capable or intelligent or as motivated or emotionally strong as we would hope.
The Reader continues: So just as the far left cannot impose a collective, communist, radical agenda on most of the people; strict conservatives cannot impose a strict individualist and conservative socially agenda on most people. The majority of people are somewhere in the middle. It means they don't want any overly socialistic and regulated society. At the same time, they don't want an overly competitive society in which it is stressful and in which there is an absence of a reasonable level of security, especially in old age and with regard to healthcare. I think conservatives miss the point that most people do not want to face a life of ruin or bankruptcy, due to a fear of serious illness or death within the family. It can be worse than the loss of some freedoms and choice. If Republicans don't speak to those needs it should not be a surprise to see electoral defeat, despite logic and consistency.
TU: I think that every social scientist now agrees that welfare led to the destruction of the black family unit in this country. Previously, the black family unit was strong. Look at the outcome: kids without fathers drop out of school more, are more likely to get lower paying jobs, are more likely to end up in jail, and more likely to have kids of their own at a young age and outside of marriage. As Larry Elder says, it is a liberal elitist attitude that essentially treats others (be it Blacks, Hispanics, the disabled, whatever) as being unable to take care of themselves. With all due respect, your family is a perfect example of what I mean. Both you and your wife work hard. All three of your adult kids have significant disabilities, yet all of them also work hard. It is a testament to the values that you and your wife instilled in them. Yet, you do not believe other people are capable of taking care of themselves.
TU continues: Respectfully, I agree with Elder that it is a paternalistic, elitist attitude. That does not mean I would get rid of every single social program. It does mean an extreme rethinking so that we do not create the wrong incentives in people - and that's what most of these programs do. I am not mean spirited. Rather, I have learned from 35 years of dealing with injured people that it is far healthier for them to return to the work force than to be home collecting benefits. They feel better about themselves, feel better mentally, and are productive members of society. Conservative values are better values. You and your family live those values. You just do not believe living like that is good for anyone else. Again, see my 1/18 post.
R: I agree on rethinking incentives. But the policies you advocate need consensus. That means an uplifting, inclusive message and tone, so people will vote for and support your ideas. No matter what Larry Elder says there are people less fortunate, sick, mentally ill, developmentally disabled, etc. I work with them daily. Yes, there are fakers and lazy people. Yes, the welfare incentives have been horrible. Still, the black middle class is rising dramatically, and we have a black president. Corrections need to be made, but conservatives need to get elected to implement their policies. They need an uplifting, inclusive message. People need to be won over, not browbeaten.
TU: I do not need a "consensus" to know the right way to live. I know that you do not either. I also know, without consensus, that it is the best way for others to live. Consensus will never determine my values. That does not mean, however, that we do not need articulate Republican candidates to explain why conservative policies are better. Better for the individual and better for society as a whole. I do not know, however, that you believe conservative values are best for society. Obviously, there are some who need assistance. But the big picture is that we need to restore conservative values to our homes and our schools. It sounds like your comments still consider conservatives as the "other," not ones that you identify with. In other words, I cannot tell if you would argue for a return to the conservative values that you and I live by.
R: In the beginning we were talking about gay marriage as a public policy issue. I did not think we were talking about our individual beliefs or values with respect to gay marriage. They are two different things. As a matter of public policy I believe that it is the right thing to do now. My values versus the values that I wish to impose on other people are sometimes two different things. I think you would agree that a fervently evangelical Christian or an Orthodox Jew have very strong values that are legitimate and mostly worthy of praise. But you would not agree that those values should always be imposed on the larger population. One can be fervently religious and still believe in the separation of church and state, and respect that others think differently. You said you don't need consensus to determine your values, but I thought we were talking about public policy.
The Reader continues: So it seems that we have been talking about apples and oranges to some extent. I don't see that having values means being inflexible with regard to those values. I don't mean moral relativism. I mean just taking into account that sometimes core values compete with one another. I can basically believe in the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility without also being opposed to upholding the value of taking care of fellow human beings. It is clear that certain people need help. From a purely libertarian point of view there would be no taxes except for public security. That means all help would have to come from charity. If there's not enough money for charity, too bad. So the government started to step in. Yes, it can go too far the other way. Yes, there is corruption and faking and waste in all social programs. There's also corruption and waste in our most sacred programs, such as the military. So I agree with you that the social programs need to be rethought and reconstructed to minimize fraud and abuse and to maximize incentives. I really did think we were talking about public policy and that is why my themes were centered so much around political dynamics and political consensus.
TU: Do you think trial and appellate judges are more persuaded by logical and consistent arguments or illogical and inconsistent arguments? Logic and consistency form the essence of persuasive writing and debating. As to why liberals do not care about logic and consistency, see the January 18 post.
R: I agree in a court logic and consistency should and do prevail. But human beings do not operate on logic and consistency alone. As a matter of fact, they often behave illogically and inconsistently and emotionally. So people vote and behave in significant part on feelings and emotionality and the gut intuitive sense of what is in their best interest, or what makes them feel more secure, or what makes them feel better. Your appeal to individual initiative, responsibility and hard work is laudable. But taken to its logical conclusion creates a very stressful situation in life that many people do not want and cannot handle. The truth is that many of our fellow citizens are not as capable or intelligent or as motivated or emotionally strong as we would hope.
The Reader continues: So just as the far left cannot impose a collective, communist, radical agenda on most of the people; strict conservatives cannot impose a strict individualist and conservative socially agenda on most people. The majority of people are somewhere in the middle. It means they don't want any overly socialistic and regulated society. At the same time, they don't want an overly competitive society in which it is stressful and in which there is an absence of a reasonable level of security, especially in old age and with regard to healthcare. I think conservatives miss the point that most people do not want to face a life of ruin or bankruptcy, due to a fear of serious illness or death within the family. It can be worse than the loss of some freedoms and choice. If Republicans don't speak to those needs it should not be a surprise to see electoral defeat, despite logic and consistency.
TU: I think that every social scientist now agrees that welfare led to the destruction of the black family unit in this country. Previously, the black family unit was strong. Look at the outcome: kids without fathers drop out of school more, are more likely to get lower paying jobs, are more likely to end up in jail, and more likely to have kids of their own at a young age and outside of marriage. As Larry Elder says, it is a liberal elitist attitude that essentially treats others (be it Blacks, Hispanics, the disabled, whatever) as being unable to take care of themselves. With all due respect, your family is a perfect example of what I mean. Both you and your wife work hard. All three of your adult kids have significant disabilities, yet all of them also work hard. It is a testament to the values that you and your wife instilled in them. Yet, you do not believe other people are capable of taking care of themselves.
TU continues: Respectfully, I agree with Elder that it is a paternalistic, elitist attitude. That does not mean I would get rid of every single social program. It does mean an extreme rethinking so that we do not create the wrong incentives in people - and that's what most of these programs do. I am not mean spirited. Rather, I have learned from 35 years of dealing with injured people that it is far healthier for them to return to the work force than to be home collecting benefits. They feel better about themselves, feel better mentally, and are productive members of society. Conservative values are better values. You and your family live those values. You just do not believe living like that is good for anyone else. Again, see my 1/18 post.
R: I agree on rethinking incentives. But the policies you advocate need consensus. That means an uplifting, inclusive message and tone, so people will vote for and support your ideas. No matter what Larry Elder says there are people less fortunate, sick, mentally ill, developmentally disabled, etc. I work with them daily. Yes, there are fakers and lazy people. Yes, the welfare incentives have been horrible. Still, the black middle class is rising dramatically, and we have a black president. Corrections need to be made, but conservatives need to get elected to implement their policies. They need an uplifting, inclusive message. People need to be won over, not browbeaten.
TU: I do not need a "consensus" to know the right way to live. I know that you do not either. I also know, without consensus, that it is the best way for others to live. Consensus will never determine my values. That does not mean, however, that we do not need articulate Republican candidates to explain why conservative policies are better. Better for the individual and better for society as a whole. I do not know, however, that you believe conservative values are best for society. Obviously, there are some who need assistance. But the big picture is that we need to restore conservative values to our homes and our schools. It sounds like your comments still consider conservatives as the "other," not ones that you identify with. In other words, I cannot tell if you would argue for a return to the conservative values that you and I live by.
R: In the beginning we were talking about gay marriage as a public policy issue. I did not think we were talking about our individual beliefs or values with respect to gay marriage. They are two different things. As a matter of public policy I believe that it is the right thing to do now. My values versus the values that I wish to impose on other people are sometimes two different things. I think you would agree that a fervently evangelical Christian or an Orthodox Jew have very strong values that are legitimate and mostly worthy of praise. But you would not agree that those values should always be imposed on the larger population. One can be fervently religious and still believe in the separation of church and state, and respect that others think differently. You said you don't need consensus to determine your values, but I thought we were talking about public policy.
The Reader continues: So it seems that we have been talking about apples and oranges to some extent. I don't see that having values means being inflexible with regard to those values. I don't mean moral relativism. I mean just taking into account that sometimes core values compete with one another. I can basically believe in the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility without also being opposed to upholding the value of taking care of fellow human beings. It is clear that certain people need help. From a purely libertarian point of view there would be no taxes except for public security. That means all help would have to come from charity. If there's not enough money for charity, too bad. So the government started to step in. Yes, it can go too far the other way. Yes, there is corruption and faking and waste in all social programs. There's also corruption and waste in our most sacred programs, such as the military. So I agree with you that the social programs need to be rethought and reconstructed to minimize fraud and abuse and to maximize incentives. I really did think we were talking about public policy and that is why my themes were centered so much around political dynamics and political consensus.
A Dialogue on Gay Marriage, Part I
Recently, a friend, who is also a reader of the blog, had a dinner conversation with me about gay marriage. What follows is our subsequent email exchange concerning that topic. I had expressed my concern about changing the definition of a (the?) fundamental institution of society. I indicated that I did not feel people were thinking of all the possible consequences. I also expressed my concern about the way the left uses language and changes the meanings of terms to suit their politically correct purposes. As I have noted previously, "gay marriage" has since become "marriage equality." "Abortion," as we know, is "a woman's right to choose." I said it made me uneasy to change the meaning of words; as in "1984" when the government said "War is Peace."
I was not arguing on behalf of polygamy because I believe in it. Rather, I was using it as a tool to highlight what I felt were inconsistencies in the reader's argument. Ultimately, the reader acknowledged the inconsistency, but, as noted in my 1/18/13 blog post, logic and consistency are not big issues for the left. In any event, it is easy to pick up on where the arguments left off at the dinner and where the email exchange continued from there. Finally, I have broken up the dialogue into two different posts, as Part II delves into other subjects, based upon a discussion of the issues of logic and consistency.
The Truth-Uncensored (TU): If the government has no business in marriage, can I safely assume you are okay with polygamy? It is a serious question. Why do you or the government get to define marriage as only being between two people? What if 3, 4, or 5 or more people love each other and want to make a commitment? How does it hurt anyone else? What's it the government's business?
Reader (R): You're right in terms of logic but the big and crucial difference is there is no political constituency for polygamy whereas there is for gay marriage. It is the politics that is driving the issue and I just don't see the equivalence between gay marriage and polygamy or even more taboo scenarios (e.g. beastiality, incest, etc.) that are sometimes brought up in the slippery slope argument. I think conservatives have every right to be against gay marriage and speak out against it and vote against it. I just think it's not a winning issue and I personally don't feel it is so offensive or detrimental an issue to warrant the kind of political capital that is being spent on this issue in light of the apparent changing political climate, and increasing acceptance of the idea of the fairness of allowing gay marriage. Regarding polygamy, there's virtually no constituency, no movement, and no foreseeable effort on the horizon to promote it. The gay marriage issue has political wind at its back, whereas it is hard to imagine polygamy ever having the same. Not a perfect answer but I think it lays out some of the issues that I see.
TU: There are a much smaller number of people that would want polygamy. But so what? Gays are a very small minority compared to heterosexuals. I used all the arguments you used to support gay marriage to argue for polygamy. Now, you are saying it comes down to politics. I know you don't believe "equal rights" should be based upon politics. So please tell me YOUR opinion on polygamy, and answer the questions I asked. And your bottom line: thumbs up or down on polygamy?
R: I don't think polygamy is marriage. I also think the states will decide the gay marriage issue which makes it a political issue in the broadest sense. You are right that eventually other issues like polygamy will be tested in the courts...The issue seems to me to be that conservatives want the federal government to define marriage and block states from allowing it. I don't see states or movements promoting polygamy. So, no, I don't think polygamy is in the same category. If a court rules in favor of polygamy as marriage then that would be a new factor.
TU: First, a correction. It was always up to the States. It was Bill Clinton who signed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Finally, it is the left/gays who want the Federal courts to overturn all state laws banning gay marriage on Constitutional grounds. So now that we are clear on who wants a Federal decision, you have another problem: "I don't think polygamy is marriage." Well, men did have multiple legal wives in various western states for a number of years. And, who are you to define marriage as being limited to two people - you are being inconsistent. I'm not allowed to define marriage but you are.
R: You are right when it comes to consistency. Yes, you have a right to define marriage. I believe, however, that it is a losing issue in the face of gradual change in public opinion. The reason public opinion is changing (in addition to media opinion) is the increasing belief that this is not a terrible thing and not a line in the sand issue. It is a change that an increasing majority (especially young people) can either support or live with. I am no gay marriage activist. I would just as soon they would not make the fuss and be okay with civil unions. There are more important issues. But I don't see this as a bad thing, and I think it does not rise to the level of moral imperative to preserve the definition of marriage. I think the idea and institution of marriage can evolve and is not one of those things that is so sacred and elemental as to be untouchable. I don't see the great harm in modifying or broadening marriage per se.
TU: As you have said you don't believe polygamy is within the definition of marriage, the question is: WHY? Again, you already said that marriage was a right. Therefore, a "right" should not be based upon whether polygamists have the political winds at their backs. So, WHY do you believe polygamy should not be considered within the definition of marriage?
R: I don't think marriage is a right. I think it is a consensus issue. I don't think it is one of those things that cannot evolve. That it is so sacred as to be untouchable. I think that opinion is generally moving in the direction of looking at marriage as being able to encompass gay marriage. I respect the other opinion...I think the analogy with Judaism is somewhat relevant. There are many mitzvot (commandments) in Judaism that you and I and most Jews have not seen as absolute or untouchable. I believe that marriage is something like that. It promotes the idea of two people committing to one another. It lessens the number of single family homes. It takes away a certain amount of stigma. The fact that I don't think polygamy is in the same category means I don't see marriage as a right so much as a consensus idea or convention...I also think that it shouldn't be decided solely in the courts...I think a gay marriage initiative today might fare better than it did a few years ago. So I guess I come down on the side of allowing the people to decide. So, no, I don't think marriage is a right.
TU: I don't think that you have answered my question: why doesn't polygamy fit within the definition of marriage? The reason I ask is this - I don't believe that you are able to give an explanation that is any different from the reasons I gave against gay marriage. So, if marriage is not a "right," what's the harm in providing for "civil unions" other than some gay people will be offended? And what about committed heterosexual couples who never marry? Should they get any of the tax advantages, etc. of married people?
R: I think the difference between polygamy and gay marriage remains the commitment and union of two people. That is something that I can accommodate to, given the increasingly slim but growing majority of people. With polygamy it's just different. Sorry. I know it's an unsatisfying answer.
TU: Actually, it's a very satisfying answer. You are defining marriage as being a union between two people. And you are LIMITING it to only two people. I define marriage as between a man and a woman. No different than you in that you have made your own definition and limitations. So have I.
R: At this point I would not say that other than two should be marriage. But (polygamy) as marriage - I just don't see it. I wouldn't vote for it. But I could see it becoming acceptable. I wouldn't outlaw it either. Just seems like it will be on the fringes for the foreseeable future.
TU: My point in our give and take was to make you have to acknowledge the inconsistency in your positions. I am not allowed to define marriage as being between a man and a woman without being called a bigot (by most of the left and the mainstream media). You, however, are allowed to define marriage as being limited to two people. Please read my blog post of 1/18/13 - "Republicans Vote Their Values, Democrats are Driven by Issues." Then tell me which group you fit into.
R: I grant you the consistency issue, but I still think it's not a matter of consistency. It's a matter of public policy reflecting gradual change in the body politic and cultural norms. I still think the issue is not primarily a legal definition issue. I do see the futility now of looking at it as an equal protection issue because that does certainly open up a can of worms legally. Your viewpoint is legitimate and reasonable, I just don't agree. And I don't think the key is having to be consistent across issues but rather to pick the important issues.
TU: You said marriage is a "consensus" issue. I don't think you really mean that. When the "consensus" was that blacks and whites could not intermarry, I know that neither one of us would ever find that acceptable, notwithstanding that there was a "consensus" at the time. Again, see my earlier post of 1/18/13. Liberals are not big on consistency. That is because they let "issues" trump their values.
R: The primary vehicle for ultimately establishing public policy is voting. Is that not "consensus" in its essence? The Constitution and courts are there, among other reasons, to balance majority tyranny and protect individual rights. But the policies of the government reflect consensus among the people.
I was not arguing on behalf of polygamy because I believe in it. Rather, I was using it as a tool to highlight what I felt were inconsistencies in the reader's argument. Ultimately, the reader acknowledged the inconsistency, but, as noted in my 1/18/13 blog post, logic and consistency are not big issues for the left. In any event, it is easy to pick up on where the arguments left off at the dinner and where the email exchange continued from there. Finally, I have broken up the dialogue into two different posts, as Part II delves into other subjects, based upon a discussion of the issues of logic and consistency.
The Truth-Uncensored (TU): If the government has no business in marriage, can I safely assume you are okay with polygamy? It is a serious question. Why do you or the government get to define marriage as only being between two people? What if 3, 4, or 5 or more people love each other and want to make a commitment? How does it hurt anyone else? What's it the government's business?
Reader (R): You're right in terms of logic but the big and crucial difference is there is no political constituency for polygamy whereas there is for gay marriage. It is the politics that is driving the issue and I just don't see the equivalence between gay marriage and polygamy or even more taboo scenarios (e.g. beastiality, incest, etc.) that are sometimes brought up in the slippery slope argument. I think conservatives have every right to be against gay marriage and speak out against it and vote against it. I just think it's not a winning issue and I personally don't feel it is so offensive or detrimental an issue to warrant the kind of political capital that is being spent on this issue in light of the apparent changing political climate, and increasing acceptance of the idea of the fairness of allowing gay marriage. Regarding polygamy, there's virtually no constituency, no movement, and no foreseeable effort on the horizon to promote it. The gay marriage issue has political wind at its back, whereas it is hard to imagine polygamy ever having the same. Not a perfect answer but I think it lays out some of the issues that I see.
TU: There are a much smaller number of people that would want polygamy. But so what? Gays are a very small minority compared to heterosexuals. I used all the arguments you used to support gay marriage to argue for polygamy. Now, you are saying it comes down to politics. I know you don't believe "equal rights" should be based upon politics. So please tell me YOUR opinion on polygamy, and answer the questions I asked. And your bottom line: thumbs up or down on polygamy?
R: I don't think polygamy is marriage. I also think the states will decide the gay marriage issue which makes it a political issue in the broadest sense. You are right that eventually other issues like polygamy will be tested in the courts...The issue seems to me to be that conservatives want the federal government to define marriage and block states from allowing it. I don't see states or movements promoting polygamy. So, no, I don't think polygamy is in the same category. If a court rules in favor of polygamy as marriage then that would be a new factor.
TU: First, a correction. It was always up to the States. It was Bill Clinton who signed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Finally, it is the left/gays who want the Federal courts to overturn all state laws banning gay marriage on Constitutional grounds. So now that we are clear on who wants a Federal decision, you have another problem: "I don't think polygamy is marriage." Well, men did have multiple legal wives in various western states for a number of years. And, who are you to define marriage as being limited to two people - you are being inconsistent. I'm not allowed to define marriage but you are.
R: You are right when it comes to consistency. Yes, you have a right to define marriage. I believe, however, that it is a losing issue in the face of gradual change in public opinion. The reason public opinion is changing (in addition to media opinion) is the increasing belief that this is not a terrible thing and not a line in the sand issue. It is a change that an increasing majority (especially young people) can either support or live with. I am no gay marriage activist. I would just as soon they would not make the fuss and be okay with civil unions. There are more important issues. But I don't see this as a bad thing, and I think it does not rise to the level of moral imperative to preserve the definition of marriage. I think the idea and institution of marriage can evolve and is not one of those things that is so sacred and elemental as to be untouchable. I don't see the great harm in modifying or broadening marriage per se.
TU: As you have said you don't believe polygamy is within the definition of marriage, the question is: WHY? Again, you already said that marriage was a right. Therefore, a "right" should not be based upon whether polygamists have the political winds at their backs. So, WHY do you believe polygamy should not be considered within the definition of marriage?
R: I don't think marriage is a right. I think it is a consensus issue. I don't think it is one of those things that cannot evolve. That it is so sacred as to be untouchable. I think that opinion is generally moving in the direction of looking at marriage as being able to encompass gay marriage. I respect the other opinion...I think the analogy with Judaism is somewhat relevant. There are many mitzvot (commandments) in Judaism that you and I and most Jews have not seen as absolute or untouchable. I believe that marriage is something like that. It promotes the idea of two people committing to one another. It lessens the number of single family homes. It takes away a certain amount of stigma. The fact that I don't think polygamy is in the same category means I don't see marriage as a right so much as a consensus idea or convention...I also think that it shouldn't be decided solely in the courts...I think a gay marriage initiative today might fare better than it did a few years ago. So I guess I come down on the side of allowing the people to decide. So, no, I don't think marriage is a right.
TU: I don't think that you have answered my question: why doesn't polygamy fit within the definition of marriage? The reason I ask is this - I don't believe that you are able to give an explanation that is any different from the reasons I gave against gay marriage. So, if marriage is not a "right," what's the harm in providing for "civil unions" other than some gay people will be offended? And what about committed heterosexual couples who never marry? Should they get any of the tax advantages, etc. of married people?
R: I think the difference between polygamy and gay marriage remains the commitment and union of two people. That is something that I can accommodate to, given the increasingly slim but growing majority of people. With polygamy it's just different. Sorry. I know it's an unsatisfying answer.
TU: Actually, it's a very satisfying answer. You are defining marriage as being a union between two people. And you are LIMITING it to only two people. I define marriage as between a man and a woman. No different than you in that you have made your own definition and limitations. So have I.
R: At this point I would not say that other than two should be marriage. But (polygamy) as marriage - I just don't see it. I wouldn't vote for it. But I could see it becoming acceptable. I wouldn't outlaw it either. Just seems like it will be on the fringes for the foreseeable future.
TU: My point in our give and take was to make you have to acknowledge the inconsistency in your positions. I am not allowed to define marriage as being between a man and a woman without being called a bigot (by most of the left and the mainstream media). You, however, are allowed to define marriage as being limited to two people. Please read my blog post of 1/18/13 - "Republicans Vote Their Values, Democrats are Driven by Issues." Then tell me which group you fit into.
R: I grant you the consistency issue, but I still think it's not a matter of consistency. It's a matter of public policy reflecting gradual change in the body politic and cultural norms. I still think the issue is not primarily a legal definition issue. I do see the futility now of looking at it as an equal protection issue because that does certainly open up a can of worms legally. Your viewpoint is legitimate and reasonable, I just don't agree. And I don't think the key is having to be consistent across issues but rather to pick the important issues.
TU: You said marriage is a "consensus" issue. I don't think you really mean that. When the "consensus" was that blacks and whites could not intermarry, I know that neither one of us would ever find that acceptable, notwithstanding that there was a "consensus" at the time. Again, see my earlier post of 1/18/13. Liberals are not big on consistency. That is because they let "issues" trump their values.
R: The primary vehicle for ultimately establishing public policy is voting. Is that not "consensus" in its essence? The Constitution and courts are there, among other reasons, to balance majority tyranny and protect individual rights. But the policies of the government reflect consensus among the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)