* I suspect my friends on the left would dispute the title of this post, or, in the alternative, think it is a good thing. If you hold one of those positions I would urge you to read on.
* Most Americans would undoubtedly believe that the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)is a positive check on abusive government power, giving the public access to previously undisclosed government action. Yet, the 3/21/14 Investor's Business Daily reports that the Center for Effective Government gives about 1/2 of federal agencies the grade of "F" for compliance with the FOIA. So why have we not heard more complaints from the mainstream media about their reduced access? The IBD also reported that Michelle Obama banned the press from her recent China trip, which happened to be at taxpayer expense. The IBD further reported that the US fell to 46th place in the rankings for press freedom. Where is the outcry?
* One does not do well to speak out against Obama. Remember how Dr. Ben Carson was audited by the IRS for the first time in his life, after criticizing the ACA at the National Prayer Breakfast? Or how about the attacks on Bob Woodward for daring to criticize Obama? Not to mention the mistreatment of the Tea Parties during the last election. And the 3/21/14 IBD article quotes a Baltimore Sun reporter, David Zurawik, about how he was treated for his criticisms of Obama. Said Zurawik: "I have been comparing Obama to Nixon in his disdain for the First Amendment and a free press since 2009, and mainly all I got was attacked - often from long-time colleagues in the media who couldn't believe the object of their political affection could have such contempt for them." (Were the attacks on Zurawik any different than the attacks on this writer by the two attorneys as discussed in my last post?) The mainstream media aids and abets in Obama's attack - on them!
* Sharyl Attkisson was, until recently, an investigative reporter at CBS.
She recently told Bill O'Reilly: "As I felt we were beginning to scratch the surface (on Benghazi)...interest was largely lost on the part of the people that decide what goes on the news." Today on Fox, Attkisson said this: "There is pressure coming to bear on journalists for just doing their job in ways that have never come to bear before." Never before Obama - at least not during her career. Anybody remember Obama promising us the most "transparent" presidency ever? Just don't try to cross him. Nixon? Apparently small time compared to Obama. Part of the reason for that, of course, is the media grilled Nixon, and willfully ignores the sins of Obama.
* Attkisson went on to say, with regards to the tensions between the White House and the press, that the White House has been "particularly aggressive under the Obama Administration, and it's a campaign that's very well organized and it's designed to have sort of a chilling effect, and to some degree has been somewhat successful in getting broadcast producers who don't really want to deal with the headache of it." Imagine if Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post did not want to deal with the "headache" of Watergate, then being investigated by reporters Woodward and Bernstein.
* American universities are no better at assuring an open discussion of issues. Brandeis University had invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree at this year's commencement ceremonies. Following protests by faculty, students and others, Brandeis uninvited Ms. Ali. Ms. Ali was born a Muslim in Somalia. She is now an outspoken critic of Islam, and a vocal proponent of the rights of women and girls. Had she been allowed to speak, she would have mentioned "...that violence against women is also increasing. In Saudi Arabia, there has been a noticeable rise in the practice of female genital mutilation. In Egypt, 99% of women report being sexually harassed and up to 80 sexual assaults occur in a single day...In Iraq, a law is being proposed that lowers to nine the legal age at which a girl can be forced into marriage. That same law would give a husband the right to deny his wife permission to leave the house." (Quote from an article in the 4/11/14 Wall Street Journal by Ms. Ali discussing what she would have said at Brandeis.)
* Ordinarily, such a speech defending the rights of women and girls would be welcome at any college campus in this country - unless you happen to be criticizing anything Muslim. As this writer has previously noted, every favored left-wing group (whether it be women, blacks, Hispanic or others) falls by the wayside when held up against anything Islamic.
* And speaking of Islam, the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University thought it was important to put out a media guide entitled: "Islam for Journalists: A Primer on Covering Muslim Communities in the U.S." What? The mainstream media isn't sufficiently politically correct - they need a guide to make sure that they remain "pure," at least with regards to Islam. The guide tells journalists that "It is inaccurate to use the term (jihad) simply as a synonym for violence." Jihad is a "struggle for G-d." So how come we always hear about that struggle in connection with violent attacks, mostly on civilians? (Quotes from the 4/10/14 IBD.) According to the IBD, the guide tells journalists that Hamas opposes jihad (I suppose they mean the violent kind, but seriously?). The guide also says that "in the Quran, men and women are equal," and that "men are instructed to support their wives in all respects." I think we can agree that Ms. Ali would differ. I guess the Muslim countries of the world need no longer concern themselves with getting the UN to pass a resolution banning criticism of Islam worldwide (something they have been attempting to get passed). It looks like the West is happy to voluntarily forgo any and all criticism of Islam.
* The press, of course, just cannot tolerate political speech. As with the Citizens United case, they are upset by the Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission. The Court struck down the $123,200. contribution limit for a single election cycle. ($48,600. for federal candidates and $74,600. for other political committees.) Said
John Roberts for the majority (it was a 5-4 decision): "There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our leaders." (The limits on contributing to any single candidate remain in effect.) The New York Times saw it differently, saying the decision was "...less about free speech than about giving those few people with the most money the loudest voice in politics." Ironic, is it not, that the NY Times does not equate "voice" with "speech." In any event, the Times does not mean it. All they are really concerned about is limiting conservative speech. Otherwise, they might complain about unions vast donations to Democrat candidates. Or the Open Society Foundation (George Soros' group) giving $58 million to left wing groups in 2011. Or that Soros gave over $10 billion over the last 30 years. That's $333 million per year. (Contribution figures from the 4/3/14 IBD.)
* Complained the NY Times: "Thanks to Wednesday's decision (in McCutcheon), the interests of the very few wealthiest Americans - which differ significantly from those of most Americans - will now get even more outsize consideration by legislators." So, remind me again, exactly who was going to all those $35,000. a plate dinners held by Obama during the last 6 or 7 years? I certainly was not attending those dinners; nor was anyone that I know. I guess it was a bunch of wealthy Americans whose interests differ from mine. Why wasn't that a problem for the NY Times?
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Sunday, March 30, 2014
"You Can't Face the Truth"
* The inability of some to face the truth is a topic that I have addressed quite often in this blog. I first discussed the issue in my second blog posting ("Some thoughts on world views and other matters"). I most recently discussed the issue in my last posting ("Odds and Ends," with reference to a quote from Proust). The issue has come up yet again; and as with my second posting, it involved a discussion with attorneys.
* I was speaking with two liberal (socialist?) attorneys about the ACA/Obamacare. I asked if they would at least agree that Obama lied about the ability to keep your own insurance. When they advised me that Obama did not lie (although everything he said did not pan out as predicted), I said that I could prove that he lied. The reaction was swift and severe. One started talking about Bush. The other, quite hostile and angry, insisted that I could not prove Obama lied. Furthermore, he took great offense when people falsely attacked his President. I was not given the opportunity to make my case.
* Attorneys, arguably, are part of the "intelligentsia" of society. But, as noted in the post "An Open Letter to Professor Stephen Hawking," intelligence is no match for liberal brainwashing. And what else would you call it really? After all, attorneys are taught to question. It is what attorneys do when cross-examining a witness. But questioning one's own beliefs - now that's a different ballgame altogether. Sadly, questioning the veracity of Obama is the equivalent of questioning their belief in G-d (or any other fundamental belief about the world) for these liberals. So, did Obama lie?
* Politifact called it the "lie of the year" for 2013. The Washington Post's fact checker gave Obama's promise about keeping your policy 4 pinocchios. (They have a 1 to 4 scale, with only the biggest lies getting 4 pinocchios.) Still not enough? NBC was told of internal White House memos from 2010, advising Obama that millions of Americans would lose their policies. However, Obama was not deterred and kept repeating his falsehood time after time after time. Finally, on November 4, Obama said "Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law, and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed." Of course, Obama said nothing of the sort. He did say: "If you like your policy you can keep your policy. Period. No one will take it away from you."
* Ordinarily, the two above-referenced attorneys would have no difficulty in cross-examining a witness who gave two such conflicting statements about whether or not people could keep their policies. Sooner or later they would be asking the witness: "Were you lying when you said you can keep your policy, period? Or were you lying when you claimed that you qualified that remark and added 'if no changes were made to the policy?' Because the first remark was an absolute assurance with no qualifiers."
* It is quite upsetting to speak with people who reject the use of analytical thinking in favor of dogma. Think of all the political movements throughout history where masses of people were brainwashed to accept their leader's ideology. Now think of all the tens of millions of people who were murdered during the 20th century in the name of various political dogmas. So this favoring of dogma over truth is quite serious business. It reflects a willingness to be led down any path, by any popular, eloquent speaker, who may express ideas with which you generally agree. So what if those two attorneys, again, were part of a larger mob, and I dared to insult their leader? Would I be turned in to the authorities for blasphemy? Injured? Killed? As I write these words I cannot honestly say that I would feel safe in a crowd of such similarly-minded people.
* In fact, of the various episodes of discrimination that I have experienced (as a result of my religion, one time, and as a result of my disability, two times), the worst by far has been the mistreatment received as a result of my being a conservative Republican. Some just make fun of me, others act as if there is something wrong with me, and others still have told me to my face - with some vitriol - that they "hate Republicans."
* No one should finish reading this post and think that I am just talking about two attorneys. Far from it. As noted above, just look at the 20th century. Also, take a look again at the 1/26/14 post entitled "Liberals' Views of Conservatives" (regarding remarks by the New York Democratic State Governor as to whether conservatives were welcome in New York State). Take another look at the 8/2/2012 post entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat" (concerning what four Democratic big city mayors had to say about the right of Chick-Fil-A to do business in their cities). So let me be clear - I am neither kidding nor intentionally overstating my fears and concerns about being cornered by a group of dogmatic people, similar in belief to the two attorneys discussed above.
* I have heard and read opinions by some about whether America should be divided into two countries - one "red" and one "blue." I am not in favor of that. I have even heard concerns expressed about whether America might be headed for a civil war. Needless to say, I am not in favor of that either. But just where are we headed when two otherwise bright attorneys would rather shout me down than hear the truth?
* I was speaking with two liberal (socialist?) attorneys about the ACA/Obamacare. I asked if they would at least agree that Obama lied about the ability to keep your own insurance. When they advised me that Obama did not lie (although everything he said did not pan out as predicted), I said that I could prove that he lied. The reaction was swift and severe. One started talking about Bush. The other, quite hostile and angry, insisted that I could not prove Obama lied. Furthermore, he took great offense when people falsely attacked his President. I was not given the opportunity to make my case.
* Attorneys, arguably, are part of the "intelligentsia" of society. But, as noted in the post "An Open Letter to Professor Stephen Hawking," intelligence is no match for liberal brainwashing. And what else would you call it really? After all, attorneys are taught to question. It is what attorneys do when cross-examining a witness. But questioning one's own beliefs - now that's a different ballgame altogether. Sadly, questioning the veracity of Obama is the equivalent of questioning their belief in G-d (or any other fundamental belief about the world) for these liberals. So, did Obama lie?
* Politifact called it the "lie of the year" for 2013. The Washington Post's fact checker gave Obama's promise about keeping your policy 4 pinocchios. (They have a 1 to 4 scale, with only the biggest lies getting 4 pinocchios.) Still not enough? NBC was told of internal White House memos from 2010, advising Obama that millions of Americans would lose their policies. However, Obama was not deterred and kept repeating his falsehood time after time after time. Finally, on November 4, Obama said "Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law, and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed." Of course, Obama said nothing of the sort. He did say: "If you like your policy you can keep your policy. Period. No one will take it away from you."
* Ordinarily, the two above-referenced attorneys would have no difficulty in cross-examining a witness who gave two such conflicting statements about whether or not people could keep their policies. Sooner or later they would be asking the witness: "Were you lying when you said you can keep your policy, period? Or were you lying when you claimed that you qualified that remark and added 'if no changes were made to the policy?' Because the first remark was an absolute assurance with no qualifiers."
* It is quite upsetting to speak with people who reject the use of analytical thinking in favor of dogma. Think of all the political movements throughout history where masses of people were brainwashed to accept their leader's ideology. Now think of all the tens of millions of people who were murdered during the 20th century in the name of various political dogmas. So this favoring of dogma over truth is quite serious business. It reflects a willingness to be led down any path, by any popular, eloquent speaker, who may express ideas with which you generally agree. So what if those two attorneys, again, were part of a larger mob, and I dared to insult their leader? Would I be turned in to the authorities for blasphemy? Injured? Killed? As I write these words I cannot honestly say that I would feel safe in a crowd of such similarly-minded people.
* In fact, of the various episodes of discrimination that I have experienced (as a result of my religion, one time, and as a result of my disability, two times), the worst by far has been the mistreatment received as a result of my being a conservative Republican. Some just make fun of me, others act as if there is something wrong with me, and others still have told me to my face - with some vitriol - that they "hate Republicans."
* No one should finish reading this post and think that I am just talking about two attorneys. Far from it. As noted above, just look at the 20th century. Also, take a look again at the 1/26/14 post entitled "Liberals' Views of Conservatives" (regarding remarks by the New York Democratic State Governor as to whether conservatives were welcome in New York State). Take another look at the 8/2/2012 post entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat" (concerning what four Democratic big city mayors had to say about the right of Chick-Fil-A to do business in their cities). So let me be clear - I am neither kidding nor intentionally overstating my fears and concerns about being cornered by a group of dogmatic people, similar in belief to the two attorneys discussed above.
* I have heard and read opinions by some about whether America should be divided into two countries - one "red" and one "blue." I am not in favor of that. I have even heard concerns expressed about whether America might be headed for a civil war. Needless to say, I am not in favor of that either. But just where are we headed when two otherwise bright attorneys would rather shout me down than hear the truth?
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Odds and Ends
* John Kerry said it was a "mistake" for Israel to insist on the Palestinians recognizing Israel as the Jewish state. Kerry obviously still believes that the conflict is over land. It's not. It's a religious war, with the Muslims not being able to tolerate the existence of the Jews. After all, if a new state of "Palestine" comes into existence, that makes 58 Muslim countries. But it's a "mistake" to ask for Muslim acknowledgement of just one Jewish state?
* Christians do not fair any better with the Muslims, however. Over 100 Christians were just murdered by the Muslims in Nigeria; in yet another of multiple attacks of late.
* Obama has some new definitions of "freedom." "Freedom is signing for that new home and knowing it can't be taken from you because you actually understand what you're signing." And this: "Freedom is getting that new credit card and knowing the stakes and understanding how you're going to manage it."
* Whereas I thought freedom meant my ability to keep more of the money I earned without the government deciding that someone else should have that money. Or being able to enter into a contract for the type of health insurance that meets my needs; instead of having to buy a policy for $600. per month more - for the privilege of getting pediatric coverage, which I do not need.
* Back to John Kerry. He has instructed US diplomats around the world to make "climate change" their top priority. Good to know nothing else of importance is happening anywhere. But why should this come as a surprise to anyone. Kerry's boss previously told the head of NASA to make outreach to the Muslim world one of NASA's top priorities. And, having downsized NASA, the US now has no way to get astronauts into space except by relying on...Russia. How could that possibly be a problem?
* Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leader willing to do anything for Obama, with no consideration for honesty or integrity (not his values) was at it again. This is the guy who, from the floor of the US Senate in 2012, accused Mitt Romney of not paying taxes. A total lie, of course. And if he did know what Romney actually paid, then he violated numerous federal laws given the confidentiality of tax returns.
* Again from the Senate floor, this time Reid said every horror story about Obamacare (either denial of care or raised premiums) is a lie. All lies! So then can I ignore the letter from Anthem Blue Cross raising my premium $600. a month - and tell Anthem it's a lie? Reid also complained about the Koch brothers, claiming they were two unpatriotic billionaires trying to buy America. I get it; the patriotic billionaires are the ones who support Democrat causes - Gates, Buffett, the Hollywood crowd, George Soros. Not to mention all the millions that flood into Democrat coffers from unions.
* The country will be better served when John Kerry is no longer the Secretary of State. But his moronic comments certainly provide fodder for this blog. Here's a good one. Referring to Russia's invasion of Crimea, Kerry said: "It's a 19th century act in the 21st century." I guess it's possible that Kerry failed to take any history class in high school or college. Otherwise, he might have some basic familiarity with the 20th century. You know, people and events like WWI and WWII, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Rwanda, the killing fields of Cambodia. From Obama to Biden to Reid to Pelosi to Clinton to Kerry, our leaders are either liars or morons - or both. (I trust no one is going to argue on behalf of Nancy "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" Pelosi.)
* In a breath of fresh air, a federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit brought by various Islamic agencies against the NYPD. These groups claimed civil rights violations because the NYPD was keeping an eye on local mosques. As the IBD noted: "Police can't monitor the country for Muslim terrorist activities without monitoring the Muslim community itself - including its places of worship, where too many terrorists are radicalized." (2/25/14 Editorial.) Given that "political correctness" has infiltrated most federal agencies, the FBI refused to participate in the monitoring. As a result of their monitoring, the NYPD thwarted many attacks, undoubtedly saving many lives. Something the Boston PD might have given some thought to.
* Well, the Obama crowd is glowing with praise for the ACA, claiming that over 4 million people have signed up. Somehow, they avoid mentioning that over 6 million had their policies cancelled. They also neglect one other minor detail. According to a McKinsey & Company study (cited in a 3/12/14 editorial in the WSJ) only 27% of those signing up in the exchanges through February were uninsured previously. What? Obamacare only really signed up a little over 1 million uninsured? Let me repeat, the ACA was never about healthcare; it was and is all about income redistribution.
* "The facts of life do not penetrate to the sphere in which our beliefs are cherished; as it was not they that engendered those beliefs, so they are powerless to destroy them; they can aim at them continual blows of contradiction and disproof without weakening them; and an avalanche of miseries and maladies coming, one after another..." will not make people lose their faith. While Proust may have had religion in mind, the same applies to the "religion" of "liberalism." This writer frequently notes that "liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, whereas conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs."
* Case in point: Texas. Since 2000, Texas had a net migration of 2 million people. In 5 years "$14.4 billion worth of income shifted from other states to Texas." (Per the 3/7/14 IBD, citing a Tax Foundation study.) "Over the same years, liberal bastions such as California lost $15.8 billion, New York $21 billion and Massachusetts $4 billion." (IBD citing the same study.) So, the Texas Republican governor Rick Perry used policies that actually work - allowing reality to dictate his beliefs. Democrat states? High unemployment, high taxes, businesses leaving. What was that about "an avalanche of miseries and maladies?" Never affects Democrats' faith in their policies.
* Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at George Washington University, recently testified before Congress. Turley also penned an opinion piece in the 3/9/14 LA Times. Turley actually agrees with many of Obama's policies. However, he still believes in the Constitution - and the process of how government should work. Turley wrote: "The system of separation of powers was not created to protect the authority of each branch for its own sake. Rather, it is the primary protection of individual rights because it prevents the concentration of power in any one branch. In this sense, Obama is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he has become the very danger that separation of powers was designed to avoid."
* Turley: "Our system is changing in a fundamental way without even a whimper of regret." But during the 2008 campaign, Obama did say say he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to our country. The media had no interest in questioning what that might be. Wasn't there a time when the media were "watchdogs" and not "lapdogs?"
* Christians do not fair any better with the Muslims, however. Over 100 Christians were just murdered by the Muslims in Nigeria; in yet another of multiple attacks of late.
* Obama has some new definitions of "freedom." "Freedom is signing for that new home and knowing it can't be taken from you because you actually understand what you're signing." And this: "Freedom is getting that new credit card and knowing the stakes and understanding how you're going to manage it."
* Whereas I thought freedom meant my ability to keep more of the money I earned without the government deciding that someone else should have that money. Or being able to enter into a contract for the type of health insurance that meets my needs; instead of having to buy a policy for $600. per month more - for the privilege of getting pediatric coverage, which I do not need.
* Back to John Kerry. He has instructed US diplomats around the world to make "climate change" their top priority. Good to know nothing else of importance is happening anywhere. But why should this come as a surprise to anyone. Kerry's boss previously told the head of NASA to make outreach to the Muslim world one of NASA's top priorities. And, having downsized NASA, the US now has no way to get astronauts into space except by relying on...Russia. How could that possibly be a problem?
* Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leader willing to do anything for Obama, with no consideration for honesty or integrity (not his values) was at it again. This is the guy who, from the floor of the US Senate in 2012, accused Mitt Romney of not paying taxes. A total lie, of course. And if he did know what Romney actually paid, then he violated numerous federal laws given the confidentiality of tax returns.
* Again from the Senate floor, this time Reid said every horror story about Obamacare (either denial of care or raised premiums) is a lie. All lies! So then can I ignore the letter from Anthem Blue Cross raising my premium $600. a month - and tell Anthem it's a lie? Reid also complained about the Koch brothers, claiming they were two unpatriotic billionaires trying to buy America. I get it; the patriotic billionaires are the ones who support Democrat causes - Gates, Buffett, the Hollywood crowd, George Soros. Not to mention all the millions that flood into Democrat coffers from unions.
* The country will be better served when John Kerry is no longer the Secretary of State. But his moronic comments certainly provide fodder for this blog. Here's a good one. Referring to Russia's invasion of Crimea, Kerry said: "It's a 19th century act in the 21st century." I guess it's possible that Kerry failed to take any history class in high school or college. Otherwise, he might have some basic familiarity with the 20th century. You know, people and events like WWI and WWII, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Rwanda, the killing fields of Cambodia. From Obama to Biden to Reid to Pelosi to Clinton to Kerry, our leaders are either liars or morons - or both. (I trust no one is going to argue on behalf of Nancy "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" Pelosi.)
* In a breath of fresh air, a federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit brought by various Islamic agencies against the NYPD. These groups claimed civil rights violations because the NYPD was keeping an eye on local mosques. As the IBD noted: "Police can't monitor the country for Muslim terrorist activities without monitoring the Muslim community itself - including its places of worship, where too many terrorists are radicalized." (2/25/14 Editorial.) Given that "political correctness" has infiltrated most federal agencies, the FBI refused to participate in the monitoring. As a result of their monitoring, the NYPD thwarted many attacks, undoubtedly saving many lives. Something the Boston PD might have given some thought to.
* Well, the Obama crowd is glowing with praise for the ACA, claiming that over 4 million people have signed up. Somehow, they avoid mentioning that over 6 million had their policies cancelled. They also neglect one other minor detail. According to a McKinsey & Company study (cited in a 3/12/14 editorial in the WSJ) only 27% of those signing up in the exchanges through February were uninsured previously. What? Obamacare only really signed up a little over 1 million uninsured? Let me repeat, the ACA was never about healthcare; it was and is all about income redistribution.
* "The facts of life do not penetrate to the sphere in which our beliefs are cherished; as it was not they that engendered those beliefs, so they are powerless to destroy them; they can aim at them continual blows of contradiction and disproof without weakening them; and an avalanche of miseries and maladies coming, one after another..." will not make people lose their faith. While Proust may have had religion in mind, the same applies to the "religion" of "liberalism." This writer frequently notes that "liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, whereas conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs."
* Case in point: Texas. Since 2000, Texas had a net migration of 2 million people. In 5 years "$14.4 billion worth of income shifted from other states to Texas." (Per the 3/7/14 IBD, citing a Tax Foundation study.) "Over the same years, liberal bastions such as California lost $15.8 billion, New York $21 billion and Massachusetts $4 billion." (IBD citing the same study.) So, the Texas Republican governor Rick Perry used policies that actually work - allowing reality to dictate his beliefs. Democrat states? High unemployment, high taxes, businesses leaving. What was that about "an avalanche of miseries and maladies?" Never affects Democrats' faith in their policies.
* Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at George Washington University, recently testified before Congress. Turley also penned an opinion piece in the 3/9/14 LA Times. Turley actually agrees with many of Obama's policies. However, he still believes in the Constitution - and the process of how government should work. Turley wrote: "The system of separation of powers was not created to protect the authority of each branch for its own sake. Rather, it is the primary protection of individual rights because it prevents the concentration of power in any one branch. In this sense, Obama is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he has become the very danger that separation of powers was designed to avoid."
* Turley: "Our system is changing in a fundamental way without even a whimper of regret." But during the 2008 campaign, Obama did say say he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to our country. The media had no interest in questioning what that might be. Wasn't there a time when the media were "watchdogs" and not "lapdogs?"
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Obama's Foreign Policy
* We all recall how the Democrats told us that Obama would restore America's standing in the world, allegedly diminished during Bush's presidency. So perhaps one of my liberal readers can name just one country with whom we have better relations under Obama? The latest poll has Obama's overall approval rating down to 38%. In terms of improving the United States' image around the world, only 33% believe Obama has succeeded, with 59% believing he has failed.
* Russia. Remember the 2008 campaign when the Republicans nominated Sarah Palin for the V.P. slot. She was so ignorant, so unready for prime time. Said Palin during the campaign: "After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next." Yep, quite stupid.
* Then we had Romney vs. Obama in the 2012 election. During one of their debates Romney spoke of the "geopolitical" threat from Russia. Obama mocked him and said: "You said Russia. Not Al Qaeda...The 1980's are now calling for their foreign policy back because...the cold war's been over for 20 years." Romney replied: "I'm not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin." Dumb Republicans.
* Obama told Russia he was going to "reset" U.S.-Russian relations. Then Secretary of State Clinton gave her Russian counterpart a "reset" button, meant to symbolize the change in relations. Previously, Obama refused to deploy defensive missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama told Medvedev to tell Vladimir (Putin) that he, Obama, would have "more flexibility" after the (2012) election. In return, Russia gave safe harbor to Edward Snowden, and suffered no consequences. Obama drew a red line on Syrian use of chemical weapons. After Assad ignored the red line, Obama did nothing and allowed Russia to step in and control the situation.
* As noted by Bret Stephens in the 3/4/14 WSJ: "Give the Russian president this much: He pursues Russia's national interests, baldly and expediently, as he sees them. The American president, by contrast, does nothing more than patronizingly lecture other countries about where their respective interests should lie." Which now brings us to another country.
* Israel. Obama recently gave an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of Bloomberg News. Obama was not just patronizing; his comments were a not so subtle threat to Israel if they do not make a peace deal with the Palestinians. (As an aside, the burden is always on Israel to do something, the Palestinians need do nothing.) Said Obama: The United States' ability to "manage the international fallout is going to be limited" without a peace deal..."And that has consequences." So, Obama will cease protecting Israel at the UN and other forums when Israel is threatened with trade embargoes or sanctions?
* Here's a thought - tell the Palestinians they will get no more aid until they stop supporting terrorism; they will not get any part of Jerusalem, which is Israel's capital; and they will not get a "right of return" to Israel proper. Obama's failure to speak these truths has emboldened the Palestinians; just as his failure to act in other instances has emboldened Russia. As this blog has frequently noted, when the U.S. withdraws from the world, others will step in to fill the void. And those others do not perceive the world as naively as does Obama.
Obama claimed that the window of opportunity for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is closing due, in part, to Abbas' age: "We do not know what a successor to Abbas will look like." So if Abbas' successor cannot be trusted to make peace, why should that successor be trusted to keep the peace, if a deal is made now? In the meantime, Obama has not only told Israel not to attack Iran's nuclear facilities; he also told the Israelis to stop their targeted killings of Iranian nuclear scientists. (Although Israel has never acknowledged responsibility for those killings, it is widely assumed that Israel is behind the killings.)
* Obama frequently says he has Israel's back. The Israelis know better. The rest of the world does not believe what Obama says either. And why should they? A U.S. ambassador and three other brave Americans were murdered. Obama blamed it on a movie trailer, but did nothing. Syria crossed the "red line" that Obama drew, and he did nothing. It was actually worse than nothing - he let the Russians step in and take the lead. Obama said Iran would not be allowed to get nukes, but then made a deal with Iran with no teeth. So Iran continues their nuclear program. While I would not expect an armed conflict with Russia over the Crimea, it was as clear to Putin as it was to the rest of the world that Obama is a weak president.
* So if Obama has Israel's back why did he just cut $200 million from joint U.S.-Israeli military and missile defense programs? Last year, why did the U.S. State Department refuse hundreds of visas to members of Israel's security services? And why did he insist that Israel release hundreds of terrorists responsible for the deaths of Israelis, as a sign of good faith to the Palestinians, when the U.S. subsequently complained about Afghanistan releasing terrorists responsible for the killing of American soldiers?
* Come sometime in April we will be at the deadline given by Obama and Kerry for agreement on the Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. Obama wants to be the president to get credit for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Whether that is good for our ally Israel or the Middle East is of no consequence. If Obama comes down hard on Israel when there is no peace deal, will my liberal friends still blame Bush?
* Russia. Remember the 2008 campaign when the Republicans nominated Sarah Palin for the V.P. slot. She was so ignorant, so unready for prime time. Said Palin during the campaign: "After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next." Yep, quite stupid.
* Then we had Romney vs. Obama in the 2012 election. During one of their debates Romney spoke of the "geopolitical" threat from Russia. Obama mocked him and said: "You said Russia. Not Al Qaeda...The 1980's are now calling for their foreign policy back because...the cold war's been over for 20 years." Romney replied: "I'm not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin." Dumb Republicans.
* Obama told Russia he was going to "reset" U.S.-Russian relations. Then Secretary of State Clinton gave her Russian counterpart a "reset" button, meant to symbolize the change in relations. Previously, Obama refused to deploy defensive missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama told Medvedev to tell Vladimir (Putin) that he, Obama, would have "more flexibility" after the (2012) election. In return, Russia gave safe harbor to Edward Snowden, and suffered no consequences. Obama drew a red line on Syrian use of chemical weapons. After Assad ignored the red line, Obama did nothing and allowed Russia to step in and control the situation.
* As noted by Bret Stephens in the 3/4/14 WSJ: "Give the Russian president this much: He pursues Russia's national interests, baldly and expediently, as he sees them. The American president, by contrast, does nothing more than patronizingly lecture other countries about where their respective interests should lie." Which now brings us to another country.
* Israel. Obama recently gave an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of Bloomberg News. Obama was not just patronizing; his comments were a not so subtle threat to Israel if they do not make a peace deal with the Palestinians. (As an aside, the burden is always on Israel to do something, the Palestinians need do nothing.) Said Obama: The United States' ability to "manage the international fallout is going to be limited" without a peace deal..."And that has consequences." So, Obama will cease protecting Israel at the UN and other forums when Israel is threatened with trade embargoes or sanctions?
* Here's a thought - tell the Palestinians they will get no more aid until they stop supporting terrorism; they will not get any part of Jerusalem, which is Israel's capital; and they will not get a "right of return" to Israel proper. Obama's failure to speak these truths has emboldened the Palestinians; just as his failure to act in other instances has emboldened Russia. As this blog has frequently noted, when the U.S. withdraws from the world, others will step in to fill the void. And those others do not perceive the world as naively as does Obama.
Obama claimed that the window of opportunity for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is closing due, in part, to Abbas' age: "We do not know what a successor to Abbas will look like." So if Abbas' successor cannot be trusted to make peace, why should that successor be trusted to keep the peace, if a deal is made now? In the meantime, Obama has not only told Israel not to attack Iran's nuclear facilities; he also told the Israelis to stop their targeted killings of Iranian nuclear scientists. (Although Israel has never acknowledged responsibility for those killings, it is widely assumed that Israel is behind the killings.)
* Obama frequently says he has Israel's back. The Israelis know better. The rest of the world does not believe what Obama says either. And why should they? A U.S. ambassador and three other brave Americans were murdered. Obama blamed it on a movie trailer, but did nothing. Syria crossed the "red line" that Obama drew, and he did nothing. It was actually worse than nothing - he let the Russians step in and take the lead. Obama said Iran would not be allowed to get nukes, but then made a deal with Iran with no teeth. So Iran continues their nuclear program. While I would not expect an armed conflict with Russia over the Crimea, it was as clear to Putin as it was to the rest of the world that Obama is a weak president.
* So if Obama has Israel's back why did he just cut $200 million from joint U.S.-Israeli military and missile defense programs? Last year, why did the U.S. State Department refuse hundreds of visas to members of Israel's security services? And why did he insist that Israel release hundreds of terrorists responsible for the deaths of Israelis, as a sign of good faith to the Palestinians, when the U.S. subsequently complained about Afghanistan releasing terrorists responsible for the killing of American soldiers?
* Come sometime in April we will be at the deadline given by Obama and Kerry for agreement on the Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. Obama wants to be the president to get credit for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Whether that is good for our ally Israel or the Middle East is of no consequence. If Obama comes down hard on Israel when there is no peace deal, will my liberal friends still blame Bush?
Sunday, February 23, 2014
"We Are Going To Fundamentally Change America"
* So said President Obama when campaigning in 2008. What original ideas upon which our country was founded do you believe in? Let's take a look at just how drastically our country has changed - both before and during Obama's term in office.
* The First Amendment to the Constitution starts as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The Founders wanted no official federal religion. But a number of states did in fact have their own official state religion. Nevertheless, each individual was still free to practice their own religion. But our freedom to practice our religion has come to be interpreted by the Courts to be a freedom from religion. Thus, we see courts regularly barring religious displays from the public square, and prayers at public high school sporting events and graduations, and other public ceremonies. Is this removal of religion from public life a positive or a negative? It is always good to consider what will replace religion in its absence.
* Washington was thinking just that when he said: "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
* What should be the purpose of government? Our Founders understood that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the basis of our laws, came from G-d. Starting with the Progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s, that idea was felt to be discredited. The Founders drafted a Constitution intended to protect the individual and his property from their own government. They understood the nature of man. Therefore, they provided for a federal government of limited, enumerated powers. Even so, they provided for a system of checks and balances to assure that no single branch, especially the executive, should become too powerful. And they gave us the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to make it clear that the federal government was not the repository upon which our rights rested.
* But the Progressives felt differently. One progressive put it this way: "...the most fundamental and indispensable mark of statehood (was) the original, absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual subject, and all associations of subjects." (Quote by John Burgess.) This belief in the power of the state manifested itself in the idea that a few select leaders, along with a burgeoning bureaucracy, could best run society in an increasingly complex world. While history is filled with examples of the state being elevated over the individual, with often the most horrific consequences, today's left still accepts the premise. That is why Obama (and the Occupy Wall Street movement) are able to demonize the millionaires and billionaires. It is why Obama is able to say that "if you've got a business you didn't build that, somebody else (he meant the government) made that happen." Obama has also said that at a certain point you have made enough money. That means the government gets to decide just how much money you can earn and keep; another example of the primacy of the state over the individual.
* This blog has previously addressed the idea that the concept of property rights has drastically changed from the days of our founders. The taking of private property for public use (as discussed in the Fifth Amendment) was always understood to mean an actual public use - such as for a public school or highway. But in 2005, the US Supreme Court allowed the taking of private property for a commercial use - because it would generate more tax dollars for the City of New London. (Kelo vs. City of New London, Connecticut, et. al.) That decision was a reflection of the Court valuing the primacy of the state over the individual.
* An earlier president, Teddy Roosevelt, was a leading proponent of the Progressive Movement. He is well known for his "trust-busting" days. Said Roosevelt: "We demand that big business give people a square deal..." But some of his other beliefs are so far removed from today's liberal thinking that it behooves us to take a look at just how much liberal thinking has changed from the Progressive Era.
* The following are quotes from Roosevelt. "The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight." "If a man stumbles, it is a good thing to help him to his feet. Every one of us needs a helping hand now and then. But if a man lies down, it is a waste of time to try to carry him; and it is a very bad thing for every one if we make men feel that the same reward will come to those who shirk their work and to those who do it." Compare that with today's welfare society.
* Does character make the man? When voting for president, some vote party lines. Others feel the office is too important to ignore character issues. My friends on the left frequently say how smart our current President is. Is that enough? Said Roosevelt: "And character is far more important than intellect in making a man a good citizen or successful at his calling - meaning by character not only such qualities as honesty and truthfulness, but courage, perseverance, and self-reliance." Sadly, no amount of lying by our current president, nor other demonstrations of bad character, would deter my liberal friends from voting for Obama again if he could run for a third term.
* In these few short paragraphs we took a look at founding principles and how the progressive movement challenged those principles and how today's left has completely abandoned our founding principles. If the Constitution is outdated and therefore not to be followed, or is seen as a "living breathing document," then we have no Constitution. We have whatever our leaders tell us we have. Thus, we can have a president writing the laws (as Obama regularly does with the ACA), even though Congress is tasked with law making. We then have a President who does not see his job as "faithfully executing" the laws passed by Congress. My friends on the left have abandoned principle in favor of their causes. What, then, are the limits of government power? If our liberty comes from the state, and is no longer seen as coming from G-d, then what liberty do we really have?
* A friend and reader of this blog believes that today's liberals need to watch the movie "Dr. Zhivago." After the good doctor goes off to tend to soldiers during the Russian Revolution, he comes back to his rather spacious home to find thirteen other families residing in his home. The "people" decided no one family should have such a large home. There is, of course, more to the movie; and a little history lesson now and then can be quite illuminating.
* The First Amendment to the Constitution starts as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The Founders wanted no official federal religion. But a number of states did in fact have their own official state religion. Nevertheless, each individual was still free to practice their own religion. But our freedom to practice our religion has come to be interpreted by the Courts to be a freedom from religion. Thus, we see courts regularly barring religious displays from the public square, and prayers at public high school sporting events and graduations, and other public ceremonies. Is this removal of religion from public life a positive or a negative? It is always good to consider what will replace religion in its absence.
* Washington was thinking just that when he said: "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
* What should be the purpose of government? Our Founders understood that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the basis of our laws, came from G-d. Starting with the Progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s, that idea was felt to be discredited. The Founders drafted a Constitution intended to protect the individual and his property from their own government. They understood the nature of man. Therefore, they provided for a federal government of limited, enumerated powers. Even so, they provided for a system of checks and balances to assure that no single branch, especially the executive, should become too powerful. And they gave us the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to make it clear that the federal government was not the repository upon which our rights rested.
* But the Progressives felt differently. One progressive put it this way: "...the most fundamental and indispensable mark of statehood (was) the original, absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual subject, and all associations of subjects." (Quote by John Burgess.) This belief in the power of the state manifested itself in the idea that a few select leaders, along with a burgeoning bureaucracy, could best run society in an increasingly complex world. While history is filled with examples of the state being elevated over the individual, with often the most horrific consequences, today's left still accepts the premise. That is why Obama (and the Occupy Wall Street movement) are able to demonize the millionaires and billionaires. It is why Obama is able to say that "if you've got a business you didn't build that, somebody else (he meant the government) made that happen." Obama has also said that at a certain point you have made enough money. That means the government gets to decide just how much money you can earn and keep; another example of the primacy of the state over the individual.
* This blog has previously addressed the idea that the concept of property rights has drastically changed from the days of our founders. The taking of private property for public use (as discussed in the Fifth Amendment) was always understood to mean an actual public use - such as for a public school or highway. But in 2005, the US Supreme Court allowed the taking of private property for a commercial use - because it would generate more tax dollars for the City of New London. (Kelo vs. City of New London, Connecticut, et. al.) That decision was a reflection of the Court valuing the primacy of the state over the individual.
* An earlier president, Teddy Roosevelt, was a leading proponent of the Progressive Movement. He is well known for his "trust-busting" days. Said Roosevelt: "We demand that big business give people a square deal..." But some of his other beliefs are so far removed from today's liberal thinking that it behooves us to take a look at just how much liberal thinking has changed from the Progressive Era.
* The following are quotes from Roosevelt. "The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight." "If a man stumbles, it is a good thing to help him to his feet. Every one of us needs a helping hand now and then. But if a man lies down, it is a waste of time to try to carry him; and it is a very bad thing for every one if we make men feel that the same reward will come to those who shirk their work and to those who do it." Compare that with today's welfare society.
* Does character make the man? When voting for president, some vote party lines. Others feel the office is too important to ignore character issues. My friends on the left frequently say how smart our current President is. Is that enough? Said Roosevelt: "And character is far more important than intellect in making a man a good citizen or successful at his calling - meaning by character not only such qualities as honesty and truthfulness, but courage, perseverance, and self-reliance." Sadly, no amount of lying by our current president, nor other demonstrations of bad character, would deter my liberal friends from voting for Obama again if he could run for a third term.
* In these few short paragraphs we took a look at founding principles and how the progressive movement challenged those principles and how today's left has completely abandoned our founding principles. If the Constitution is outdated and therefore not to be followed, or is seen as a "living breathing document," then we have no Constitution. We have whatever our leaders tell us we have. Thus, we can have a president writing the laws (as Obama regularly does with the ACA), even though Congress is tasked with law making. We then have a President who does not see his job as "faithfully executing" the laws passed by Congress. My friends on the left have abandoned principle in favor of their causes. What, then, are the limits of government power? If our liberty comes from the state, and is no longer seen as coming from G-d, then what liberty do we really have?
* A friend and reader of this blog believes that today's liberals need to watch the movie "Dr. Zhivago." After the good doctor goes off to tend to soldiers during the Russian Revolution, he comes back to his rather spacious home to find thirteen other families residing in his home. The "people" decided no one family should have such a large home. There is, of course, more to the movie; and a little history lesson now and then can be quite illuminating.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
The Intellectual Dishonesty of the Left
* No, I am not referring to all the obvious lies. Lies such as: "If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance. Period. No one will take it away from you." Or: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period." Or even that Obamacare will save the average American $2500. per year in insurance premiums. The $2500. number may be correct - but in the opposite direction. No, I want to discuss how those on the left never understand that the actions that they take have real world, often negative, consequences. When challenged on it...well, there's the blog.
* When the Congressional Budget Office just came out with their estimate of the Affordable Care Act costing the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs lost (based upon a reduction in work hours) in the next decade, it was hard for the Democrats to ignore. Again, I am not referring to the obvious lie of the Dems who claimed that 4 million new jobs would be created. We know that the Dems told one lie after the next to get the ACA passed. After all, the ends justify the means; and truth as an ultimate end is not particularly valued.
* How were the Dems to explain such awful job numbers - 6 1/2 million less jobs than they projected. How to deal with the head of the CBO stating that the ACA's disincentives for work are "the central factor in slowing economic growth...later in this decade and beyond." (Quote from the 2/6/14 Investor's Business Daily.) No fear - never underestimate the intellectual dishonesty of the left.
* Jason Furman is the chief economist for the White House. He explained that it was not the ACA causing the reduction in work hours and jobs. After all, the law does not force people to work less. No, it was "a choice on the part of workers." You see, workers will make their own rational decision as to whether to cut their hours (and still qualify for the ACA subsidy), or drop out of the labor market altogether (no longer needing an employer to provide health insurance). Such decisions, per Furman, "might be a better choice and a better option than what they had before." Don't bother asking him about people who want MORE hours to work so they can earn more to support their family and get ahead.
* What if the government passed a law saying that everyone would be paid $3000. per month by the Feds - whether or not you worked; and, if you did work, you could not earn more than the same $3000. When tens of millions of people stopped working it would not be because the law forced them to stop working. No, it would just be people making their own rational decisions about what option is best for them. See? No real world negative consequences.
* Think we should extend unemployment benefits for another three months (or ad infinitum)? Why? Many of those people made their own rational decision to give up on looking for work, did they not? Almost every business owner will tell you that Obama's constant threats to raise taxes, along with all the increasing regulations (15,000 to 20,000 pages from Obamacare alone) have discouraged them from expanding their businesses and increasing hiring. So people gave up looking. And some decided that it was not worth the effort. No one forced them to stop working.
* I have asserted for years that the left never understands that their actions and laws have negative consequences. When forced to face those consequences they engage in intellectual dishonesty. After all, if you have no problem with outright lies, what is the problem with some disingenuousness? So when California raises taxes and increases regulations causing businesses and people to move to Texas (no income tax and low regulations) the reaction was: "Who needs them here anyway?" The Dems in California would never blame themselves or their policies for the exodus of people. It was not the unfriendly business climate responsible for lost jobs. No one forced those people to move. It was just people deciding that they did not want to live in California anymore.
* When Democrat controlled cities declared themselves to be "sanctuary" cities for illegal aliens, and states awarded welfare benefits and free medical care at hospital ERs, and even gave driver's licenses to illegals, none of that forced them to move here. They were just leaving a poor country. Obviously, that's true, but who created the climate to make the choice of coming here both attractive and available? Not the Dems, because their policies do not have negative consequences.
* When the Dems raise income taxes and LESS money flows into the Treasury, it is because of those evil millionaires and billionaires. But why? They just make rational decisions to lower their tax liability by taking advantage of every legal deduction and tax-exempt investment that they can. When Dems say every student gets a free lunch at school, guess what? Parents stop giving their kids lunches. No one forces them to stop sending their kids to school without a lunch. It's not the fault of the policy.
* It was just two weeks ago that Obama gave his state of the union address. He spoke about everyone having a shot, an opportunity to succeed. And the best path to that success, to that American Dream? A good job. Said Obama: "The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by - let alone get ahead." So, Mr. President, how does a reduction in hours equivalent to 2.5 million jobs help those struggling to get by. When your law penalizes employers with more than 50 employees, or who have employees working more than 30 hours per week, what rational decisions do you expect those employers to make? Want to raise the minimum wage to make up for those lost hours? What rational decisions will employers make about coping with that burden?
* The most intellectually dishonest comment about the negative effects on jobs from the ACA came, not surprisingly, from the White House: "Individuals will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods." No they won't! The choice will be made for them. They will not be able to get that full time job. They will continue to be lucky to get any job. If you buy into the 6.6% unemployment rate, let me put that in perspective for you. They do not count the long term unemployed. The actual labor participation rate is the lowest it has been since 1978. But maybe we do have a new breed of Americans - ones that choose not to work. Or maybe Obama's policies are in fact creating the lowest labor participation rate in over 35 years.
* If you actually buy into the liberal argument about giving people "choices," ask yourself this question. Is society healthier when it creates incentives for businesses to grow and hire people, or when it creates disincentives for work?
* When the Congressional Budget Office just came out with their estimate of the Affordable Care Act costing the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs lost (based upon a reduction in work hours) in the next decade, it was hard for the Democrats to ignore. Again, I am not referring to the obvious lie of the Dems who claimed that 4 million new jobs would be created. We know that the Dems told one lie after the next to get the ACA passed. After all, the ends justify the means; and truth as an ultimate end is not particularly valued.
* How were the Dems to explain such awful job numbers - 6 1/2 million less jobs than they projected. How to deal with the head of the CBO stating that the ACA's disincentives for work are "the central factor in slowing economic growth...later in this decade and beyond." (Quote from the 2/6/14 Investor's Business Daily.) No fear - never underestimate the intellectual dishonesty of the left.
* Jason Furman is the chief economist for the White House. He explained that it was not the ACA causing the reduction in work hours and jobs. After all, the law does not force people to work less. No, it was "a choice on the part of workers." You see, workers will make their own rational decision as to whether to cut their hours (and still qualify for the ACA subsidy), or drop out of the labor market altogether (no longer needing an employer to provide health insurance). Such decisions, per Furman, "might be a better choice and a better option than what they had before." Don't bother asking him about people who want MORE hours to work so they can earn more to support their family and get ahead.
* What if the government passed a law saying that everyone would be paid $3000. per month by the Feds - whether or not you worked; and, if you did work, you could not earn more than the same $3000. When tens of millions of people stopped working it would not be because the law forced them to stop working. No, it would just be people making their own rational decisions about what option is best for them. See? No real world negative consequences.
* Think we should extend unemployment benefits for another three months (or ad infinitum)? Why? Many of those people made their own rational decision to give up on looking for work, did they not? Almost every business owner will tell you that Obama's constant threats to raise taxes, along with all the increasing regulations (15,000 to 20,000 pages from Obamacare alone) have discouraged them from expanding their businesses and increasing hiring. So people gave up looking. And some decided that it was not worth the effort. No one forced them to stop working.
* I have asserted for years that the left never understands that their actions and laws have negative consequences. When forced to face those consequences they engage in intellectual dishonesty. After all, if you have no problem with outright lies, what is the problem with some disingenuousness? So when California raises taxes and increases regulations causing businesses and people to move to Texas (no income tax and low regulations) the reaction was: "Who needs them here anyway?" The Dems in California would never blame themselves or their policies for the exodus of people. It was not the unfriendly business climate responsible for lost jobs. No one forced those people to move. It was just people deciding that they did not want to live in California anymore.
* When Democrat controlled cities declared themselves to be "sanctuary" cities for illegal aliens, and states awarded welfare benefits and free medical care at hospital ERs, and even gave driver's licenses to illegals, none of that forced them to move here. They were just leaving a poor country. Obviously, that's true, but who created the climate to make the choice of coming here both attractive and available? Not the Dems, because their policies do not have negative consequences.
* When the Dems raise income taxes and LESS money flows into the Treasury, it is because of those evil millionaires and billionaires. But why? They just make rational decisions to lower their tax liability by taking advantage of every legal deduction and tax-exempt investment that they can. When Dems say every student gets a free lunch at school, guess what? Parents stop giving their kids lunches. No one forces them to stop sending their kids to school without a lunch. It's not the fault of the policy.
* It was just two weeks ago that Obama gave his state of the union address. He spoke about everyone having a shot, an opportunity to succeed. And the best path to that success, to that American Dream? A good job. Said Obama: "The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by - let alone get ahead." So, Mr. President, how does a reduction in hours equivalent to 2.5 million jobs help those struggling to get by. When your law penalizes employers with more than 50 employees, or who have employees working more than 30 hours per week, what rational decisions do you expect those employers to make? Want to raise the minimum wage to make up for those lost hours? What rational decisions will employers make about coping with that burden?
* The most intellectually dishonest comment about the negative effects on jobs from the ACA came, not surprisingly, from the White House: "Individuals will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods." No they won't! The choice will be made for them. They will not be able to get that full time job. They will continue to be lucky to get any job. If you buy into the 6.6% unemployment rate, let me put that in perspective for you. They do not count the long term unemployed. The actual labor participation rate is the lowest it has been since 1978. But maybe we do have a new breed of Americans - ones that choose not to work. Or maybe Obama's policies are in fact creating the lowest labor participation rate in over 35 years.
* If you actually buy into the liberal argument about giving people "choices," ask yourself this question. Is society healthier when it creates incentives for businesses to grow and hire people, or when it creates disincentives for work?
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Liberals' Views of Conservatives
* The Democrat Governor of New York had some choice words for conservatives. Speaking of a split between moderate and conservative Republicans, Andrew Cuomo expressed his disdain for conservatives. "Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that's who they are and they're the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the State of New York because that's not who New Yorkers are." We need to very clear about the significance of these comments.
* First, these are not isolated comments. See my earlier blog post of 8/2/12 entitled "Why I Am No Longer A Democrat." That post discusses how the Democrat mayors of four big cities (Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and D.C.) said that Chick-fil-A was not welcome in their cities because the owner believed in the traditional definition of marriage. So you need to understand that mainstream liberals have no respect for, nor tolerance of, opposing political beliefs.
* Second, you see how what might be considered traditional American values are now labeled as being "extreme." If you oppose the killing of babies, you are extreme. Yet, public support for abortion on demand and at all stages of pregnancy, is on the decline. If you support the Second Amendment, you are extreme. If you oppose gay marriage, and believe in the thousands of years old definition of marriage, you are extreme. There is absolutely no respect for your viewpoints - if they are contrary to leftist ideology.
* Third, these leftists would be the first to remind everyone of the attack on freedom of speech and freedom of belief during the McCarthy era. When the House Un-American Activities Committee was investigating Communists in the 1950s, the question was: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" These same people, however, are the first to ask: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a conservative?" This is dangerous ground upon which these leftists tread; and I can only imagine what they would be willing to do to conservatives if they had such power. At the very least, it appears they would be perfectly willing to limit where conservatives could live and conduct business. If you are a democrat and this does not frighten you, then you need to ask yourself when you gave up on freedom in favor of tyranny.
* Maria Conchita Alonso is an actress and was scheduled to star in a production of "The Vagina Monologues." The production was being put on by a San Francisco arts group. However, Ms. Alonso committed a horrible offense against the left; she appeared in an ad on behalf of Tim Donnelly, a member of the California State Assembly. Oh, and he is a Tea Party member. Said the producer: "We really can't have her in the show, unfortunately." What the producer meant was: 'We really can't tolerate anybody with opinions that are contrary to ours.' So it's no surprise that conservatives in Hollywood often stay "in the closet."
* Melissa Harris-Perry has her own show on MSNBC. For what soon became an obvious reason, she showed a family picture of the Romneys. Sitting on Mitt's lap was his grandchild, who is black. One of Ms. Harris-Perry's guests started singing, "One of these things is not like the other..." Another guest compared the photo to the "diversity of the Republican Party," because there was just "one black person." It is difficult to imagine a more mean-spirited segment. Black children are in desperate need of adoption. But no credit went to the Romneys. When the left can only see race at all times and in all circumstances, they are blinded to the goodness and humanity that should have been the focus of the conversation.
* New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow recently had a column entitled "Indoctrinating Religious Warriors." In it, he cited a Pew Research poll that made the startling comment that most "staunch conservatives" "agree with the Tea Party, and even more very strongly disapprove of Barack Obama's job performance." Most such "staunch conservatives" were also regular viewers of Fox News. (I am just shocked by that!) I have not conducted a poll on this, but I would be willing to bet that most "staunch leftists" agree with the Occupy Wall Street movement, very strongly approve of Barack Obama's job performance, and watch MSNBC. (Okay, maybe not the last one; not that many people watch MSNBC.) Mr. Blow concludes that Republicans rile up the rank-and-file "to divert their attention from areas of common sense and the common good. After all, infidels are deserving of your enmity, not your empathy." Perhaps Mr. Blow could read the above and tell me how democrats show their empathy to those with whom they disagree and perceive to be "infidels."
* Paul Krugman, another leftist columnist for the New York Times, recently had a column about income inequality. He opined that "American capitalism as currently constituted is undermining the foundations of middle-class society..." Lots of assumptions there. Assuming the middle-class is dying, can this award-winning economist think of no other explanations? What about the globalization of the economy, and treaties like NAFTA, that sent American jobs south and overseas? What about high taxes, excessive regulation and the burdens of Obamacare? About 400 businesses have announced their intentions on cutting employees' hours in order to avoid the mandate/penalty of Obamacare. Think that helps with income inequality?
* During Obama's time in office income inequality has worsened. Median Income is down from $55,958.00 to $52,163. The number in poverty has increased from 46.5 million to 67 million. And the participation in the labor force has dwindled to 62.8% from 65.7%. (Data from Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.)
* One could learn a lot from looking at how people vote - with their feet. The top three states for net interstate migration for the 12 month period ending 7/1/13 were Texas (up 113,528), Florida (up 91,484), and North Carolina (up 37,240). The big losers are what may be described as the Big Three of Liberal Government: California (down 49,259), Illinois (down 67,313), and New York (down 104,470). (Data from the 1/24/14 USA Today.) The IBD reported that the US lost 1.8 million jobs from 9/07 to 11/13. On the other hand, Texas gained 1.1 million jobs during that same time frame. People went to Texas for jobs. So why did Texas succeed in growing jobs at a time when the country was losing jobs? Lower taxes and less regulation.
Again, I would bet that most people care more about having a job for themselves, than care about incomes at the top rising. The evidence is right there - people left the high tax, high regulation, high unemployment liberal states for jobs. Something that democrats are not particularly good at growing. However, democrats remain quite talented at demonizing conservatives.
* First, these are not isolated comments. See my earlier blog post of 8/2/12 entitled "Why I Am No Longer A Democrat." That post discusses how the Democrat mayors of four big cities (Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and D.C.) said that Chick-fil-A was not welcome in their cities because the owner believed in the traditional definition of marriage. So you need to understand that mainstream liberals have no respect for, nor tolerance of, opposing political beliefs.
* Second, you see how what might be considered traditional American values are now labeled as being "extreme." If you oppose the killing of babies, you are extreme. Yet, public support for abortion on demand and at all stages of pregnancy, is on the decline. If you support the Second Amendment, you are extreme. If you oppose gay marriage, and believe in the thousands of years old definition of marriage, you are extreme. There is absolutely no respect for your viewpoints - if they are contrary to leftist ideology.
* Third, these leftists would be the first to remind everyone of the attack on freedom of speech and freedom of belief during the McCarthy era. When the House Un-American Activities Committee was investigating Communists in the 1950s, the question was: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" These same people, however, are the first to ask: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a conservative?" This is dangerous ground upon which these leftists tread; and I can only imagine what they would be willing to do to conservatives if they had such power. At the very least, it appears they would be perfectly willing to limit where conservatives could live and conduct business. If you are a democrat and this does not frighten you, then you need to ask yourself when you gave up on freedom in favor of tyranny.
* Maria Conchita Alonso is an actress and was scheduled to star in a production of "The Vagina Monologues." The production was being put on by a San Francisco arts group. However, Ms. Alonso committed a horrible offense against the left; she appeared in an ad on behalf of Tim Donnelly, a member of the California State Assembly. Oh, and he is a Tea Party member. Said the producer: "We really can't have her in the show, unfortunately." What the producer meant was: 'We really can't tolerate anybody with opinions that are contrary to ours.' So it's no surprise that conservatives in Hollywood often stay "in the closet."
* Melissa Harris-Perry has her own show on MSNBC. For what soon became an obvious reason, she showed a family picture of the Romneys. Sitting on Mitt's lap was his grandchild, who is black. One of Ms. Harris-Perry's guests started singing, "One of these things is not like the other..." Another guest compared the photo to the "diversity of the Republican Party," because there was just "one black person." It is difficult to imagine a more mean-spirited segment. Black children are in desperate need of adoption. But no credit went to the Romneys. When the left can only see race at all times and in all circumstances, they are blinded to the goodness and humanity that should have been the focus of the conversation.
* New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow recently had a column entitled "Indoctrinating Religious Warriors." In it, he cited a Pew Research poll that made the startling comment that most "staunch conservatives" "agree with the Tea Party, and even more very strongly disapprove of Barack Obama's job performance." Most such "staunch conservatives" were also regular viewers of Fox News. (I am just shocked by that!) I have not conducted a poll on this, but I would be willing to bet that most "staunch leftists" agree with the Occupy Wall Street movement, very strongly approve of Barack Obama's job performance, and watch MSNBC. (Okay, maybe not the last one; not that many people watch MSNBC.) Mr. Blow concludes that Republicans rile up the rank-and-file "to divert their attention from areas of common sense and the common good. After all, infidels are deserving of your enmity, not your empathy." Perhaps Mr. Blow could read the above and tell me how democrats show their empathy to those with whom they disagree and perceive to be "infidels."
* Paul Krugman, another leftist columnist for the New York Times, recently had a column about income inequality. He opined that "American capitalism as currently constituted is undermining the foundations of middle-class society..." Lots of assumptions there. Assuming the middle-class is dying, can this award-winning economist think of no other explanations? What about the globalization of the economy, and treaties like NAFTA, that sent American jobs south and overseas? What about high taxes, excessive regulation and the burdens of Obamacare? About 400 businesses have announced their intentions on cutting employees' hours in order to avoid the mandate/penalty of Obamacare. Think that helps with income inequality?
* During Obama's time in office income inequality has worsened. Median Income is down from $55,958.00 to $52,163. The number in poverty has increased from 46.5 million to 67 million. And the participation in the labor force has dwindled to 62.8% from 65.7%. (Data from Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.)
* One could learn a lot from looking at how people vote - with their feet. The top three states for net interstate migration for the 12 month period ending 7/1/13 were Texas (up 113,528), Florida (up 91,484), and North Carolina (up 37,240). The big losers are what may be described as the Big Three of Liberal Government: California (down 49,259), Illinois (down 67,313), and New York (down 104,470). (Data from the 1/24/14 USA Today.) The IBD reported that the US lost 1.8 million jobs from 9/07 to 11/13. On the other hand, Texas gained 1.1 million jobs during that same time frame. People went to Texas for jobs. So why did Texas succeed in growing jobs at a time when the country was losing jobs? Lower taxes and less regulation.
Again, I would bet that most people care more about having a job for themselves, than care about incomes at the top rising. The evidence is right there - people left the high tax, high regulation, high unemployment liberal states for jobs. Something that democrats are not particularly good at growing. However, democrats remain quite talented at demonizing conservatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)