* Obama. Before the Egyptian military deposed Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, many Egyptians had been protesting his rule, and his desire to move the country toward Sharia law. After he was deposed, pro-Morsi supporters took to the streets, with the military having to use force in order to maintain order. Our President has condemned the violence. Must the left condemn all violence all the time? The answer is yes; because, as noted previously in this blog, the left is unable to make distinctions. Violence by the good guys against the bad guys is always the same as violence by the bad guys against the good guys, in the eyes of the left. This inability to make distinctions led Obama to say this: "America will work with all those in Egypt...all parties need to have a voice in Egypt's future." And this: "We don't take sides with any particular party or political figure."
* Why not Mr. President? You failed to support the protesters in Iran when such support might have made a difference. Would you like to see radical Islam control the entire Middle East, and then Europe, and then the rest of the world, including the U.S.? Prior Presidents of both parties had no difficulty in understanding that Communism was bad for America and the world; and they took the side of those who fought against the communists. Yet Obama is unable to see that radical Islam is also bad for America and the world; and refuses to take the side of those who fight against the islamofascists. The Muslim Brotherhood spawned Hamas. The Muslim Brotherhood threatened an end to the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood was taking Egypt in the direction of being yet another Islamist state. And the Brotherhood supporters have now destroyed over thirty Christian churches in the last week. So why does Obama refuse to stand against them?
* Once again Obama passed on a teachable moment, one of many missed opportunities. This is what he should have said: "While it is true that the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate (Morsi) won the last election, elections alone do not make for a democracy; nor do they guarantee a free society. Hitler, Hugo Chavez, and Hamas in Gaza were all elected. Elections are a necessary but not sufficient element of any free democracy. For true democracy requires a belief in the primacy of the individual, including such basic rights as freedom of speech and the freedom to practice one's religion." Actually, I take it back. Obama does take sides. When he gave his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, he invited the then-outlawed Muslim Brotherhood to attend; a direct slap in the face to Hosni Mubarak.
* Harry Reid. Reid is perhaps the most smarmy Senate majority leader in our history. After saying the Republicans are doing everything possible to make Obama fail, he added this: "I hope that's based on substance and not the fact that he's African-American." What he really was saying is this: the Republicans are a bunch of racists; how else can one account for their opposition to Obama's policies? Remember, for the left, no honest disagreements are allowed. When you do disagree you are a hater or a bigot or a racist. Of course, I should not be surprised by the depths to which Reid will sink when spewing his vile. After all, he unabashedly stated on the floor of the Senate during the last campaign that he would like to see proof that Romney paid income taxes, because he (Reid) knew that Romney did not. It was, of course, a total lie; but Reid never saw any need to apologize.
* HUD. The Department of Housing and Urban Development apparently needs something to do. Therefore, they will be mapping every single neighborhood in the country in order to assess "the access African American, Latino, Asian and other communities have to local assets, including schools, jobs, transportation, and other important neighborhood resources that can play a role in helping people move into the middle class." For those of you who thought that getting a good education and then a good job was the path to the middle class, sorry. Under Obama's handling of the economy the opportunity to get and keep a good paying job has lessened; and under Obamacare the chances of keeping a full time job have decreased as employers attempt to avoid all the penalties created by the law. And let's be realistic - this policy is meant for blacks only. Asians do exceptionally well in education, and socioeconomically. Who are the "other communities?" No mention of poor whites. Obama has shown us his pro-black bias time and again.
* The real question here is what will HUD do with all the data they obtain from their neighborhood mapping. I can assure you it will not be for informational purposes only. Will they require that low-income subsidized housing be built in neighborhoods of million dollar homes? Or, when homes go on the market in the "better" neighborhoods, will they directly subsidize low income (black) families to buy expensive homes? What happens if they decide they can dictate where you may live? Can't move into that neighborhood, it already has its' quota of whites. Far fetched? At one time maybe. But now we have the NSA monitoring Americans' cell phones, we have the IRS monitoring conservative groups, and we have government control of your healthcare and monitoring of your medical records. And remember, for the left "equality" does not mean equal opportunity. It means equal results. The assumption in all this is that a neighborhood alone will dictate your outcome in life. Except there are still some of us who believe that good values and hard work will determine your success.
* Not your property - not your loan. According to the 8/7/13 LA Times, the City of El Monte is looking at eminent domain in a new way. The problem is that a number of homeowners in the city are underwater - with their loans being for more than the current market value of the house. According to the Times, the city is proposing that the holders of over 620 mortgages "sell the loans to the city at a discount. The city would then write down the debt and refinance the loans for amounts in line with current home values." So what's the problem? Doesn't it feel good to help those who are struggling with mortgages exceeding their homes' values? So what if the mortgage holders have to take a loss? Remember, the left never worries about potential consequences of their feel-good policies.
* However, the President and CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association, was not a fan of the idea of forced sale of loans. No surprise there. But does he have logic on his side? In a letter to the editor in the 8/9/13 NY Times, he explained why shifting the risk of mortgages to the lender is a bad idea. Per David Stevens: "This risk would be factored into all future mortgages through higher interest rates and higher down-payment requirements, increasing the cost of a mortgage in that specific city or town." He goes on: "That town would then become less desirable for potential home buyers, and anyone who wants or needs to move wouldn't be able to sell. A result would be lower home values for all, even those who own their homes outright."
* Who follows the law anymore? This blog has previously argued that no branch of government has respect for your economic liberty. After all, it was only in 2005 that the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Kelo vs. City of New London. That Connecticut town used their eminent domain powers to take private property in order to sell it to a private developer. SCOTUS upheld such a taking by redefining "public use" to include "public purpose." "Public use" had always been considered to be a use by the government, such as for a school or library or road. By defining the term more broadly as "public purpose," the Court was rewriting the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The left wants the Constitution to be a "living, breathing" document. And this is what you get - when the Courts can rewrite the Constitution as they see fit, we are left with no Constitution at all.
* Then again, it was only June of last year that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare by rewriting the statute themselves. (See the July 1, 2012 post: "Obamacare Upheld a Flimsy - and Dangerous Theory.") You see, there was a time when it was understood that we had three separate branches of government, with each acting as a check on the others' powers. Our Founders knew very well the dangers of an all powerful central government. It was understood that Congress makes the laws, the President is tasked with faithfully executing the laws, and the Supreme Court interprets the laws. Now, both the Supreme Court and worse, the Chief Executive believe they get to make the laws.
* How else can you explain Obama declaring which sections of the Affordable Care Act he will enforce and which sections he will deny enforcement. Recently, his Administration announced they would "postpone" for one year, until January, 2015, the enforcement of the employer mandate, along with the imposition of any employer penalties. Obama has told us on many occasions that if Congress refuses to act, he will. Here is Obama's explanation for his unilateral action in delaying enforcement of the employer mandate: "...in a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the Speaker and say, 'You know what, this is a tweak that doesn't go to the essence of the law...so let's make a technical change to the law.' That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do." Since when does the President get to declare we do not have a "normal" political environment such that he need not follow the Constitution? Anyone see the mainstream media complaining of an "imperial presidency?"
* Many Presidents did not have a Congress led by their own party. Many of us remember Reagan, a Republican, having to sit down with Democrat Speaker Tip O'Neill, in order to get legislation passed. But Obama sees no need to speak with Boehner. Then again, Obama felt he could decide when the Senate was no longer in session in order to make "recess" appointments that he thought the Senate might not otherwise approve. Thankfully, the Supreme Court declared those appointments to be unconstitutional. But acting outside of the law has been emblematic of Obama and his Administration; from selective enforcement of Obamacare, to the granting of exemptions from Obamacare to the special interests that supported him, to his selective enforcement of the immigration laws, and the rewriting of the welfare laws regarding work requirements.
* Should the next President be a Republican, I trust that we will hear no complaints from the liberals or the mainstream media if he decides he gets to make the laws he wants by bypassing Congress. Right? Just kidding - the complaints will begin long before any Republican President is even sworn in.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Is This The America You Want?
* According to Foxnews.com, the City of Seattle has a new policy regarding certain words; words that government employees were told are not to be used in either government documents or speech. (No, not "swell" or "so's your old man.") Rather, "citizen" is an inappropriate term. Not everyone is a citizen. Some are legal residents, and probably a whole bunch are illegal aliens. Either way, we cannot be offending anybody, so let's get rid of the term "citizen." Of course, when we eliminate the term we also eliminate the concept. But isn't that the goal of the left? To eliminate distinctions. (See the 4/1/13 post: "What's the Difference? Why Do We Make Distinctions?") Why should citizens get to vote but not legal residents or even illegal aliens?
* Seattle also says no to the use of the phrase "brown bag." Instead, government employees should use "lunch and learn" or "sack lunch." I had no idea that those little brown paper lunch bags had racial connotations. According to the story, they were used as a way to determine skin color. (Anybody know this?)
* Seattle's policy comes on the heels of a New York City Department of Education policy from 2012. They determined that companies that provided standardized tests to the City should not use certain words that might cause "unpleasant emotions in the students." A few examples were given. "Birthdays" is inappropriate because Jehovah Witnesses do not celebrate birthdays. "Halloween" clearly no good as it is a pagan holiday. "Dinosaurs" even? Yes, "dinosaurs" might upset fundamentalists.
* Here is the rest of the list of what might provoke "unpleasant emotions" in the students: abuse, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, bodily functions, cancer, catastrophes/disasters (such as tsunami or hurricane), celebrities, children dealing with serious issues, cigarettes, home computers, crime, death, disease, divorce, evolution, expensive gifts, vacations, prizes, gambling with money, homelessness, homes with swimming pools, hunting, junk food, in depth discussion of sports, loss of job, nuclear weapons, parapsychology, occult topics, politics, pornography, poverty, rap music, religion, religious holidays, rock and roll music, running away, sex, slavery, terrorism, excessive TV/video games, vermin, violence, war, bloodshed, weapons (guns, knives), witchcraft and sorcery.
* While some of these might be understandable, especially depending upon the age of the student, I still see two major problems. One, is that any unpleasant emotion must be avoided. So how does one discuss history without discussing wars? Should the tests refer to World Event One and World Event Two? It is far too much politically correct nonsense. The second problem is the creeping socialism/equality philosophy. No mention of "homes with computers" because not everyone can afford a computer. No use of "vacations" because not every family can afford one. The same applies for "expensive gifts" and "homes with swimming pools." Does the NYC Department of Education really think that their students do not know that some families are better off than others?
* The NYC Department of Education dropped their insistence on these banned words/concepts after much protest, according to the Huffington Post. But officials said that they would "continue to advise companies to be sensitive to student backgrounds." So, after considering socioeconomic and religious differences, they need to consider the hundreds of ethnicities that populate the NYC school system? It would be easier to forgo all testing; which has the added benefit for the left of precluding unequal test results. After all, such unequal results might produce "unpleasant emotions in the students."
* Speaking of schools, Hannity on 7/31/13 reported on an interesting history textbook being used in Brevard County, Florida. According to Hannity's guest, Todd Starnes, chapter 10 of the textbook is devoted to Muslim Civilization from 622 to 1629. Jihad is no different than the Crusades; one is a holy war to defend Islam, the other to defend Christianity. The text apparently describes the wonderful way women are treated under Islam. And, best of all, Mohammed is said to be G-d"s messenger. As Hannity noted, imagine a book that declared Moses or Jesus to be G-d's messenger - how fast would the ACLU move to stop its use as a violation of the separation between church and state?
* Do not bother to look for the chapters on Judaism or Christianity - there are none. (The book is said to be published by Pierson Publishing.) According to Starnes, there are at least 80 textbooks that are filled with a pro-Muslim bias that are in use across the country. The adviser on the text is said to be the Institute on Religious and Civic Values. Innocuous enough name, except that it used to be the Council on Islamic Education.
* I have discussed previously how Saudi money is influencing/buying content in numerous textbooks being used in this country. You want to know why the conflict between Israel and the Arabs has gone on for so long? Because the Arabs brainwash their children from the beginning of their schooling that Jews are evil, that Jews are descendants of apes and pigs, that Jews need to be killed. Then, as adults, they get more brainwashing from their media which repeats all the lies on a regular basis. The conflict is not about land, it is about a never-ending religious hatred promulgated by one side only. Think it is different here? Look at what is in our children's textbooks. Consider how left wing (anti-American and anti-Israel) professors dominate our colleges and universities. Look at The New York Times one volume encyclopedic desk reference. I purchased one years ago. Sometime after 9/11 they updated their book, significantly enlarging the section on Islam. After all, the media told us that after 9/11 Muslims were the victims. (Plus, if we just understand them they will not hate us.) Look at how the mainstream media reserves all of its criticisms for Israel and Christianity; none for Islam and the Arab world. (See the 6/6/13 post "Are We At War With Islam, Part IV.)
* I am often criticized for saying that our schools and mainstream media engage in a form of left-wing brainwashing. But what else would you call it when the leftist side is always presented as fair and just, and the other side is always depicted as evil, oppressors, haters, bigots and so on. The Republicans/conservatives in this country are spoken of in the mainstream media the way Jews are spoken of in the Arab/Muslim media. And sadly, the Republicans/conservatives in this country are spoken of by Democrat leaders and pundits in a manner that is quite similar to the way Jews are spoken of by Arab/Muslim leaders. If you disagree, I would love to hear from you. But remember, it was then Chairman of the DNC, Howard Dean, who said Republicans want children to go to bed hungry. It was the NY and/or LA Times which said you were a bigot and a hater if you disapproved of gay marriage. And it was Obama who said the Republicans want dirty air and dirty water. The left demonizes Republicans/conservatives the way the Arabs/Muslims demonize Jews.
* Seattle also says no to the use of the phrase "brown bag." Instead, government employees should use "lunch and learn" or "sack lunch." I had no idea that those little brown paper lunch bags had racial connotations. According to the story, they were used as a way to determine skin color. (Anybody know this?)
* Seattle's policy comes on the heels of a New York City Department of Education policy from 2012. They determined that companies that provided standardized tests to the City should not use certain words that might cause "unpleasant emotions in the students." A few examples were given. "Birthdays" is inappropriate because Jehovah Witnesses do not celebrate birthdays. "Halloween" clearly no good as it is a pagan holiday. "Dinosaurs" even? Yes, "dinosaurs" might upset fundamentalists.
* Here is the rest of the list of what might provoke "unpleasant emotions" in the students: abuse, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, bodily functions, cancer, catastrophes/disasters (such as tsunami or hurricane), celebrities, children dealing with serious issues, cigarettes, home computers, crime, death, disease, divorce, evolution, expensive gifts, vacations, prizes, gambling with money, homelessness, homes with swimming pools, hunting, junk food, in depth discussion of sports, loss of job, nuclear weapons, parapsychology, occult topics, politics, pornography, poverty, rap music, religion, religious holidays, rock and roll music, running away, sex, slavery, terrorism, excessive TV/video games, vermin, violence, war, bloodshed, weapons (guns, knives), witchcraft and sorcery.
* While some of these might be understandable, especially depending upon the age of the student, I still see two major problems. One, is that any unpleasant emotion must be avoided. So how does one discuss history without discussing wars? Should the tests refer to World Event One and World Event Two? It is far too much politically correct nonsense. The second problem is the creeping socialism/equality philosophy. No mention of "homes with computers" because not everyone can afford a computer. No use of "vacations" because not every family can afford one. The same applies for "expensive gifts" and "homes with swimming pools." Does the NYC Department of Education really think that their students do not know that some families are better off than others?
* The NYC Department of Education dropped their insistence on these banned words/concepts after much protest, according to the Huffington Post. But officials said that they would "continue to advise companies to be sensitive to student backgrounds." So, after considering socioeconomic and religious differences, they need to consider the hundreds of ethnicities that populate the NYC school system? It would be easier to forgo all testing; which has the added benefit for the left of precluding unequal test results. After all, such unequal results might produce "unpleasant emotions in the students."
* Speaking of schools, Hannity on 7/31/13 reported on an interesting history textbook being used in Brevard County, Florida. According to Hannity's guest, Todd Starnes, chapter 10 of the textbook is devoted to Muslim Civilization from 622 to 1629. Jihad is no different than the Crusades; one is a holy war to defend Islam, the other to defend Christianity. The text apparently describes the wonderful way women are treated under Islam. And, best of all, Mohammed is said to be G-d"s messenger. As Hannity noted, imagine a book that declared Moses or Jesus to be G-d's messenger - how fast would the ACLU move to stop its use as a violation of the separation between church and state?
* Do not bother to look for the chapters on Judaism or Christianity - there are none. (The book is said to be published by Pierson Publishing.) According to Starnes, there are at least 80 textbooks that are filled with a pro-Muslim bias that are in use across the country. The adviser on the text is said to be the Institute on Religious and Civic Values. Innocuous enough name, except that it used to be the Council on Islamic Education.
* I have discussed previously how Saudi money is influencing/buying content in numerous textbooks being used in this country. You want to know why the conflict between Israel and the Arabs has gone on for so long? Because the Arabs brainwash their children from the beginning of their schooling that Jews are evil, that Jews are descendants of apes and pigs, that Jews need to be killed. Then, as adults, they get more brainwashing from their media which repeats all the lies on a regular basis. The conflict is not about land, it is about a never-ending religious hatred promulgated by one side only. Think it is different here? Look at what is in our children's textbooks. Consider how left wing (anti-American and anti-Israel) professors dominate our colleges and universities. Look at The New York Times one volume encyclopedic desk reference. I purchased one years ago. Sometime after 9/11 they updated their book, significantly enlarging the section on Islam. After all, the media told us that after 9/11 Muslims were the victims. (Plus, if we just understand them they will not hate us.) Look at how the mainstream media reserves all of its criticisms for Israel and Christianity; none for Islam and the Arab world. (See the 6/6/13 post "Are We At War With Islam, Part IV.)
* I am often criticized for saying that our schools and mainstream media engage in a form of left-wing brainwashing. But what else would you call it when the leftist side is always presented as fair and just, and the other side is always depicted as evil, oppressors, haters, bigots and so on. The Republicans/conservatives in this country are spoken of in the mainstream media the way Jews are spoken of in the Arab/Muslim media. And sadly, the Republicans/conservatives in this country are spoken of by Democrat leaders and pundits in a manner that is quite similar to the way Jews are spoken of by Arab/Muslim leaders. If you disagree, I would love to hear from you. But remember, it was then Chairman of the DNC, Howard Dean, who said Republicans want children to go to bed hungry. It was the NY and/or LA Times which said you were a bigot and a hater if you disapproved of gay marriage. And it was Obama who said the Republicans want dirty air and dirty water. The left demonizes Republicans/conservatives the way the Arabs/Muslims demonize Jews.
Monday, July 22, 2013
The Racial Politics of Criminal Justice
* (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.
* "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 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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)