In announcing the 10/5/14 post in my email, I gave a quote from James Madison. It read, in pertinent part: "In framing a government which is to administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." Where do we stand with respect to our belief in the American system of democratic and limited government as based on our Constitution?
On the one hand, the conservative majority of the Jefferson County School Board tried to change the history curriculum to reflect the "benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights," and not having classes that support or condone "civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law." Protests by teachers, students and others ensued immediately.
No doubt legitimate objections can be made to that policy. To give just one example, segregation was the law of the land for quite some time. Are we to discourage or denigrate the advances made by the civil rights movement? Of course not. However, I believe the School Board was on to something nonetheless. Clearly, they understood the assault on America and American values that occurs on a daily basis in our schools and universities.
There was an interesting opinion piece in the 9/27-9/28/14 weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal. In article entitled "Democracy Requires a Patriotic Education," Professor Emeritus Donald Kagan of Yale notes that: "We live in a time when civic devotion has been undermined and national unity is under attack." In this writer's opinion, we suffer at times a failure to teach the basics of American Civics and Government; at other times we see the assault on American values by left wing teachers.
For those of you who watched Jay Leno on the "Tonight" show, you saw him speaking to people on the street. The lack of appreciation for - and basic understanding of - how our government works was astounding. Many could not name the three branches of government, or the names of the Vice President and top cabinet officials. President Obama was in Los Angeles recently at a fundraiser hosted by Gwyneth Paltrow. Reflecting a complete lack of appreciation for, and understanding of how our government works, Ms. Paltrow said: "It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man (Obama) all of the power that he needs to pass the things he needs to pass."
I do understand Ms. Paltrow's viewpoint. What she is really saying, like so many on the left believe, is: 'I believe in a dictatorship, as long as it is a dictatorship of the left.' Ms. Paltrow suffers not only from a lack of education, but also from the leftist ideology which holds all leftist viewpoints supreme - over truth, democracy and the US Constitution.
Lest you think Ms. Paltrow is alone in her dangerous and idiotic viewpoint, we have this story out of Houston. The City Council and Mayor approved the "Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (H.E.R.O.)." It sounds good enough, as it bars discrimination based on various group identities: "sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy." However, this ordinance apparently allows men to use women's restrooms, and vice versa. Some Houston Pastors objected, and raised enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot. Or so they thought. The City declared that there were "irregularities" in the signatures and threw out the petition.
Thereafter, the Pastors filed a lawsuit in order to get the their petition approved and the measure put on the ballot. Then the City did this - they issued subpoenas to various Pastors asking for copies of "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to H.E.R.O., the petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession." It is difficult to imagine a greater attack on, and less appreciation for, the First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects both speech and religion. After initially defending the subpoenas, the City Attorney then seemed to say if the subpoenas were over broad they were issued by outside counsel, acting on behalf of the City Attorney's office.
It should be noted that Mayor Parker is the first openly lesbian mayor of Houston. It should also be noted that subpoenas were served on Pastors who did not even join in the lawsuit. If the subpoenas had simply inquired into the signature collection process, as that is the legal issue, fine. But Mayor Parker tweeted this: "If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermon are fair game." Really? At this point I wonder who has less understanding of our system of government - Parker or Paltrow?
I am curious, Madam Mayor, how the content of sermons is relevant to the legitimacy of the signatures obtained. And I am greatly concerned that because you believe some of the sermons might have "political" content, that that means you are entitled to copies. For what purpose? Do you intend to prosecute those Pastors for "hate speech" because they are advocating their religious views? Let's be clear; certain religious sermons can also be considered to contain political content - such as sermons on abortion or gay marriage. These are both religious and political issues. So what? Or is it your intent to suppress religious speech with which you disagree, giving us yet another example of leftist ideology trumping our American values, including the most basic values of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
So maybe Professor Kagan and the Jefferson County School Board have good points. Maybe it is not just Hollywood morons like Gwyneth Paltrow who need an education, but elected officials like Mayor Parker as well. Maybe, in fact, it is a systemic problem in our society that needs to be addressed - before it is too late.
My Dad graduated from high school in 1929. They had large and beautiful diplomas, listing all the high school subjects as well as the number of units each student took in each subject. Not surprisingly, he had the most units in English, with 20. But he also had 5 in Latin. And, most significantly, he not only had 2 1/2 in American History, but another 2 1/2 in "Community Civics" and yet another 2 1/2 in "Democracy." Sometimes older, not change, is better.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
My Ex-Son and Ex-Daughters
(For those readers new to this blog please note that I previously wrote about "My Ex-Wife" on July 20, 2014. This post covers the latest news on this topic.)
Out of Lincoln, Nebraska comes this story, as reported by Todd Starnes on FoxNews.com. The assault on gender distinctions continues - even in the Heartland. A memo was apparently sent to teachers advising them "Don't use phrases such as 'boys and girls,' 'you guys,' 'ladies and gentlemen' and similarly gendered expressions to get kids' attention."
Let's recap. In California, the terms "husband" and "wife" are eliminated from the law because of their inherent bias. In California public schools, boys who feel like girls can use the girls' restrooms and play on girls' sports teams, and vice versa. Although, I am not quite sure why there still exists separate teams or restrooms for boys and girls, given that boys and girls don't exist. In Houston, a city ordinance passed allowing adults to use any restroom they feel best suits their gender identity. Opponents refer to the ordinance as the "Sexual Predators Protection" act, or something to that effect. (More on other issues related to the Houston ordinance in the next post.)
So, back to Lincoln. Brenda Leggiardo, described as the school district's "coordinator of social workers and counselors," defended the memo: "The agenda we're promoting is to help all kids succeed." I'm confused. Exactly how does the elimination of distinctions help kids succeed? I thought things like a good education and good work ethics and good values helped kids succeed. But, if we are eliminating distinctions, how do we make sure some kids are not taller than others, or heavier, or more athletic, or smarter, and on and on. We can make sure that everyone is blond, however, assuming that is a worthy goal.
What if a teacher wants to divide the class into two groups? The memo suggests asking kids who likes milk and who likes juice; or who like skateboards and who likes bikes? When it reaches this level of absurdity there is nothing more to say. Or is there? While suggesting teachers do not use the words "boys" or "girls" they do have a possible replacement: "purple penguins!" Okay, now we've hit the maximum level of absurdity.
Maybe my readers can help me out. What should I call my adult son and two adult daughters? Yes, I can use their actual names, of course. And I can use "child" or "children," but those terms seem much less personal. I still use "my son" or "my boy" when speaking to or emailing my son. I still use "my girls" or (horrors!) "ladies" when speaking to or emailing my daughters.
What is prompting all this politically correct nonsense? As I have stated before, once we start changing definitions, then we are headed down a path for which the ultimate outcome remains unknown. Yes, it started with redefining "marriage." I would love to know how many in favor of that change support all the other predictable changes to our language. I only hope that it will never reach the point in my lifetime where my boy and girls stop calling me "Dad."
Out of Lincoln, Nebraska comes this story, as reported by Todd Starnes on FoxNews.com. The assault on gender distinctions continues - even in the Heartland. A memo was apparently sent to teachers advising them "Don't use phrases such as 'boys and girls,' 'you guys,' 'ladies and gentlemen' and similarly gendered expressions to get kids' attention."
Let's recap. In California, the terms "husband" and "wife" are eliminated from the law because of their inherent bias. In California public schools, boys who feel like girls can use the girls' restrooms and play on girls' sports teams, and vice versa. Although, I am not quite sure why there still exists separate teams or restrooms for boys and girls, given that boys and girls don't exist. In Houston, a city ordinance passed allowing adults to use any restroom they feel best suits their gender identity. Opponents refer to the ordinance as the "Sexual Predators Protection" act, or something to that effect. (More on other issues related to the Houston ordinance in the next post.)
So, back to Lincoln. Brenda Leggiardo, described as the school district's "coordinator of social workers and counselors," defended the memo: "The agenda we're promoting is to help all kids succeed." I'm confused. Exactly how does the elimination of distinctions help kids succeed? I thought things like a good education and good work ethics and good values helped kids succeed. But, if we are eliminating distinctions, how do we make sure some kids are not taller than others, or heavier, or more athletic, or smarter, and on and on. We can make sure that everyone is blond, however, assuming that is a worthy goal.
What if a teacher wants to divide the class into two groups? The memo suggests asking kids who likes milk and who likes juice; or who like skateboards and who likes bikes? When it reaches this level of absurdity there is nothing more to say. Or is there? While suggesting teachers do not use the words "boys" or "girls" they do have a possible replacement: "purple penguins!" Okay, now we've hit the maximum level of absurdity.
Maybe my readers can help me out. What should I call my adult son and two adult daughters? Yes, I can use their actual names, of course. And I can use "child" or "children," but those terms seem much less personal. I still use "my son" or "my boy" when speaking to or emailing my son. I still use "my girls" or (horrors!) "ladies" when speaking to or emailing my daughters.
What is prompting all this politically correct nonsense? As I have stated before, once we start changing definitions, then we are headed down a path for which the ultimate outcome remains unknown. Yes, it started with redefining "marriage." I would love to know how many in favor of that change support all the other predictable changes to our language. I only hope that it will never reach the point in my lifetime where my boy and girls stop calling me "Dad."
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Israel's Closest Allies?
In September both PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to the U.N. General Assembly at its annual meeting. It is worthwhile to read what these leaders said.
Once again Abbas referred to the establishment of the State of Israel as "Al-Nakba," the "catastrophe." He referred to Israel's defensive war over the summer with Hamas as "genocide," which was "unmatched in modern times." In reply, Netanyahu said: "Genocide? In what moral universe does genocide include warning the enemy's civilian population to get out of harm's way? Or ensuring that they receive tons, tons of humanitarian aid each day, even as thousands of rockets are being fired at us? Or setting up a field hospital to aid for their wounded?" You probably never read/heard in the mainstream media about the ongoing humanitarian aid or the field hospital during the war.
Genocide unmatched in modern times? Abbas is very good at the Big Lie. He never heard of the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda, Iraq, Syria or others. No, 2000 Palestinian deaths, substantially caused by Hamas putting their own people in harm's way, is "unmatched." Abbas repeatedly referred to Israel as "racist," forgetting that he has declared that no Jew may live in a future state of Palestine.
Abbas is good at propaganda. He knows the words the West wants to hear, so he engaged in other Big Lies. Abbas said the state of Palestine will be "living in peace and building bridges of mutual cooperation with its neighbors...(and) strengthen(s) the values of citizenship, equality, non-discrimination, the rule of law, (and) human rights and pluralism." Does he not know that his partner (Hamas) in their unity government summarily executed about 19 Palestinians based on allegations of aiding Israel during the recent war. The rule of law? These people were given no trial.
"Building bridges...with its neighbors." So how should we account for this comment: "...I affirm here today: we will not forget and we will not forgive." Does that sound like building bridges? Abbas also referred to "Palestinian enlightened traditions of tolerance, coexistence and non-exclusion." Who buys this nonsense? Tolerance? Not for Jews or Christians. Coexistence? The Palestinians had an opportunity for co-existence for 66 years - the same length of time that Israel has again existed. They passed it up in favor of war after war, intifada after intifada, and relentless suicide bombers and rockets and mortars. More recently, they refused a state offered by Israeli P.M. Barak in 2000, and again by Israeli P.M. Olmert in 2008 during Bush's Administration. Non-exclusion? See above comment about no Jews being allowed in any future Palestinian state.
Netanyahu rightly compared Hamas to ISIS, quoting the leaders of each with their expressed desires to rule the world. He went on to say that all the Islamic terrorist groups are branches of the same poisonous tree. Said Netanyahu: "The Nazis believed in a master race. The militant Islamists believe in a master faith."
President Obama also spoke at the U.N., stating that "the world will be more just with two states living side by side, in peace and security." Last week Obama met with Netanyahu. At the same time, those opposed to any building by Israel in their Capital city of Jerusalem, revealed that Israel had planned on authorizing over 2500 housing units in Jerusalem. The reaction by the Obama Administration and European Union was swift and harsh. Said State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki: "This development will only draw condemnation from the international community, distance Israel from even its closest allies," and poison its relations with the Palestinians and other Arab countries.
Josh Earnest on behalf of Obama was nearly identical in these coordinated comments: "This development will only draw condemnation from the international community." Both Psaki and Earnest claimed such a development would call into question Israel's commitment to peace. The European Union also questioned "Israel's commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement." Want to know what might call into question the Palestinians commitment to peace? NOTHING!
Not thousands of rockets and mortars aimed at Israeli cities this summer. Not tunnels built into Israel from Gaza for the sole purposes of killing/kidnapping Israelis. Not Hamas calling for Israel's destruction. Not Abbas saying no Jew may live in a state of Palestine. The list is endless - and that's the point here. There really is nothing whatsoever that the Palestinians can do or say that will lessen the West's commitment to their statehood.
There remains one leader willing to speak the truth; one who understands what is going on in the Middle East. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu. Said Netanyahu at the U.N.: "The Middle East is in chaos. States are disintegrating. Militant Islamists are filling the void. Israel cannot have territories from which it withdraws taken over by Islamic militants yet again, as happened in Gaza and Lebanon. That would place the likes of ISIS within mortar range - a few miles - of 80% of our population." He observed that the suburbs of Tel Aviv would be as close as Times Square is from the UN!
Next month the Palestinians will be able to get a resolution introduced at the UN Security Council calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders (Gaza, the West Bank and so called East Jerusalem). The measure will also seek some resolution of the "refugee" problem. Will Obama have the U.S. veto such a resolution? The State Department will not say. It will be after the midterm elections. He will not need Jewish votes or money anymore. A similar measure passed the General Assembly in 2012. However, the G.A. has no enforcement power; the Security Council does. The Security Council could send in U.N. troops in an effort to evict Israel from those lands. Would the the U.S. send in troops against Israel?
Let's be clear. Israel will never give up any part of Jerusalem. "East" Jerusalem contains the Old City - with the Western Wall (Kotel) and the Temple Mount, the holiest sites in Judaism. Biblically and historically Jerusalem is the home and focal point of the Jews. When Jordan controlled those Holy sites from 1949 to 1967 no Jews were allowed access. Under Jewish rule, all religions have access. The obvious outcome of such a resolution passing the U.N. Security Council will be war.
Said Netanyahu: "...as Prime Minister of Israel, I am entrusted with the awesome responsibility of ensuring the future of the Jewish people and the future of the Jewish state. And no matter what pressure is brought to bear, I will never waiver in fulfilling that responsibility."
Once again Abbas referred to the establishment of the State of Israel as "Al-Nakba," the "catastrophe." He referred to Israel's defensive war over the summer with Hamas as "genocide," which was "unmatched in modern times." In reply, Netanyahu said: "Genocide? In what moral universe does genocide include warning the enemy's civilian population to get out of harm's way? Or ensuring that they receive tons, tons of humanitarian aid each day, even as thousands of rockets are being fired at us? Or setting up a field hospital to aid for their wounded?" You probably never read/heard in the mainstream media about the ongoing humanitarian aid or the field hospital during the war.
Genocide unmatched in modern times? Abbas is very good at the Big Lie. He never heard of the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda, Iraq, Syria or others. No, 2000 Palestinian deaths, substantially caused by Hamas putting their own people in harm's way, is "unmatched." Abbas repeatedly referred to Israel as "racist," forgetting that he has declared that no Jew may live in a future state of Palestine.
Abbas is good at propaganda. He knows the words the West wants to hear, so he engaged in other Big Lies. Abbas said the state of Palestine will be "living in peace and building bridges of mutual cooperation with its neighbors...(and) strengthen(s) the values of citizenship, equality, non-discrimination, the rule of law, (and) human rights and pluralism." Does he not know that his partner (Hamas) in their unity government summarily executed about 19 Palestinians based on allegations of aiding Israel during the recent war. The rule of law? These people were given no trial.
"Building bridges...with its neighbors." So how should we account for this comment: "...I affirm here today: we will not forget and we will not forgive." Does that sound like building bridges? Abbas also referred to "Palestinian enlightened traditions of tolerance, coexistence and non-exclusion." Who buys this nonsense? Tolerance? Not for Jews or Christians. Coexistence? The Palestinians had an opportunity for co-existence for 66 years - the same length of time that Israel has again existed. They passed it up in favor of war after war, intifada after intifada, and relentless suicide bombers and rockets and mortars. More recently, they refused a state offered by Israeli P.M. Barak in 2000, and again by Israeli P.M. Olmert in 2008 during Bush's Administration. Non-exclusion? See above comment about no Jews being allowed in any future Palestinian state.
Netanyahu rightly compared Hamas to ISIS, quoting the leaders of each with their expressed desires to rule the world. He went on to say that all the Islamic terrorist groups are branches of the same poisonous tree. Said Netanyahu: "The Nazis believed in a master race. The militant Islamists believe in a master faith."
President Obama also spoke at the U.N., stating that "the world will be more just with two states living side by side, in peace and security." Last week Obama met with Netanyahu. At the same time, those opposed to any building by Israel in their Capital city of Jerusalem, revealed that Israel had planned on authorizing over 2500 housing units in Jerusalem. The reaction by the Obama Administration and European Union was swift and harsh. Said State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki: "This development will only draw condemnation from the international community, distance Israel from even its closest allies," and poison its relations with the Palestinians and other Arab countries.
Josh Earnest on behalf of Obama was nearly identical in these coordinated comments: "This development will only draw condemnation from the international community." Both Psaki and Earnest claimed such a development would call into question Israel's commitment to peace. The European Union also questioned "Israel's commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement." Want to know what might call into question the Palestinians commitment to peace? NOTHING!
Not thousands of rockets and mortars aimed at Israeli cities this summer. Not tunnels built into Israel from Gaza for the sole purposes of killing/kidnapping Israelis. Not Hamas calling for Israel's destruction. Not Abbas saying no Jew may live in a state of Palestine. The list is endless - and that's the point here. There really is nothing whatsoever that the Palestinians can do or say that will lessen the West's commitment to their statehood.
There remains one leader willing to speak the truth; one who understands what is going on in the Middle East. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu. Said Netanyahu at the U.N.: "The Middle East is in chaos. States are disintegrating. Militant Islamists are filling the void. Israel cannot have territories from which it withdraws taken over by Islamic militants yet again, as happened in Gaza and Lebanon. That would place the likes of ISIS within mortar range - a few miles - of 80% of our population." He observed that the suburbs of Tel Aviv would be as close as Times Square is from the UN!
Next month the Palestinians will be able to get a resolution introduced at the UN Security Council calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders (Gaza, the West Bank and so called East Jerusalem). The measure will also seek some resolution of the "refugee" problem. Will Obama have the U.S. veto such a resolution? The State Department will not say. It will be after the midterm elections. He will not need Jewish votes or money anymore. A similar measure passed the General Assembly in 2012. However, the G.A. has no enforcement power; the Security Council does. The Security Council could send in U.N. troops in an effort to evict Israel from those lands. Would the the U.S. send in troops against Israel?
Let's be clear. Israel will never give up any part of Jerusalem. "East" Jerusalem contains the Old City - with the Western Wall (Kotel) and the Temple Mount, the holiest sites in Judaism. Biblically and historically Jerusalem is the home and focal point of the Jews. When Jordan controlled those Holy sites from 1949 to 1967 no Jews were allowed access. Under Jewish rule, all religions have access. The obvious outcome of such a resolution passing the U.N. Security Council will be war.
Said Netanyahu: "...as Prime Minister of Israel, I am entrusted with the awesome responsibility of ensuring the future of the Jewish people and the future of the Jewish state. And no matter what pressure is brought to bear, I will never waiver in fulfilling that responsibility."
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Death Panels?
It's not enough that only 35% of the people think favorably about The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). (Statistic from the 9/11/14 Investor's Business Daily, citing a Kaiser Family Foundation poll.) Or that premiums will be going up significantly higher for those still paying for their own insurance. (Mine has already gone up $400. per month.) Once the government stops subsidizing the insurance industry (which, of course, will not happen before the midterm elections) those paying for their own insurance are likely to see a further price increase. In the meantime, many insurers are limiting the size of their networks for covered hospitals and doctors in order to keep their costs down.
Nor is it enough that many doctors having a solo private practice will not be able to continue on their own much longer. Some of my doctors have told me that the private practice of medicine in single doctor offices will be a thing of the past in two to three years. An opinion piece in the 9/12/14 Wall Street Journal by a Dr. Mark Sklar discusses this problem. Dr. Sklar notes that he must use the new electronic system dictated by Medicare. If he does not show "meaningful use" of the system he will be penalized in his reimbursements. He says he spends 90 minutes per day entering "mostly meaningless data" into the system.
My own primary care physician has cut back on the number of patients seen daily - in order to accommodate the electronic system. Just one example of medical care taking a back seat to government dictates. Another doctor friend confirmed the reduction in appointments. Says Dr. Sklar: "The practice of medicine in the current environment is unsustainable." Or, as I have been told by some of my doctors, soon all doctors will be employed by an HMO or large clinic in order to survive economically.
Nor is it enough to ponder all the negative impacts on our job market and economy. Recall that employers with 50 or more employees who are full time (30 hours or more per week) must offer health insurance - or pay a fine. Hence, the new "29 hour work week." And what about the disincentives to people "on the edge," who do not qualify for Obamacare subsidies, but who also cannot afford to pay the premiums on their own? How many will voluntarily move down the economic ladder in order to qualify for subsidies? That will result in a lose/lose scenario - lower income and therefore less tax revenue, and greater taxpayer payouts to more seeking subsidies. As the saying goes, when you subsidize something you get more of it, and when you penalize something you get less of it. Obamacare gives all the wrong incentives.
But all of the above may be seen as mere annoyances in comparison to the idea put out by one of the main architects of The Affordable Care Act. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother to Obama's first Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) recently gave an interview to the Atlantic magazine. Said Dr. Emanuel: "Seventy-five. That's how long I want to live. I am sure of my position...living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived." Wow! This is one of the most evil comments I have seen in quite some time.
I have a few questions for Dr. Emanuel. Let's start with this one - who made you G-d? I know people in their eighties who work and are productive. Why should they be dead? Can I assume that you are not religious, that you do not believe that life is a gift from G-d, and do not believe that everyone's life may be a blessing to themselves and others? You say that old age may may render people "if not disabled, then faltering and declining." Can we assume then, if "faltering and declining" is enough to warrant a death sentence, but is not as bad as disabled, that you have no use for disabled people whatsoever? Do you agree that one person's quality of life at age 80 may be better than another's at age 70? Should we then kill the 70 year old? One more question, when Jews raise a glass to toast it is to L'Chaim - to life. Do you not think enough of our enemies have tried to eliminate us?
Do not think for even a minute that this is just one doctor's opinion. Dr. Emanuel is the Director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the National Institute of Health. His opinion matters. Obamacare has a 15 member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Their job - to save money in Medicare. So maybe once you are 75 years of age you don't need that medication, treatment or surgery (or fill in the blank). As the mainstream media and left always does, they made fun of conservatives, such as Sarah Palin, who warned of "death panels." Still think it's funny?
I am not a big believer in coincidences. Some time in the recent past there was a discussion in the media about whether or not mammograms were being over utilized. Now, in the 9/15/14 Wall Street Journal was an article about downgrading the use of the term "cancer" for slow growing tumors and instead referring to them as "indolent lesions of epithelial origin." Dr. Laura Esserman says "we're not finding enough of the really lethal cancers, and we're finding too many of the slow-moving ones that probably don't need to be found." Again, do not think this is just one doctor's opinion; Dr. Esserman is described as the chair of an advisory panel to the National Cancer Institute.
There is not complete agreement. For example, some dermatologists say it is wrong to refer to non-melanomas as "indolent lesions of epithelial origin." They state that deaths from squamous cells are on the rise, and even basal cells can do great harm and result in death.
So you tell me. Combine the role of the IPAB with Dr. Emauel's ideas and with the ideas of Dr. Esserman. Is the result "death panels?"
Nor is it enough that many doctors having a solo private practice will not be able to continue on their own much longer. Some of my doctors have told me that the private practice of medicine in single doctor offices will be a thing of the past in two to three years. An opinion piece in the 9/12/14 Wall Street Journal by a Dr. Mark Sklar discusses this problem. Dr. Sklar notes that he must use the new electronic system dictated by Medicare. If he does not show "meaningful use" of the system he will be penalized in his reimbursements. He says he spends 90 minutes per day entering "mostly meaningless data" into the system.
My own primary care physician has cut back on the number of patients seen daily - in order to accommodate the electronic system. Just one example of medical care taking a back seat to government dictates. Another doctor friend confirmed the reduction in appointments. Says Dr. Sklar: "The practice of medicine in the current environment is unsustainable." Or, as I have been told by some of my doctors, soon all doctors will be employed by an HMO or large clinic in order to survive economically.
Nor is it enough to ponder all the negative impacts on our job market and economy. Recall that employers with 50 or more employees who are full time (30 hours or more per week) must offer health insurance - or pay a fine. Hence, the new "29 hour work week." And what about the disincentives to people "on the edge," who do not qualify for Obamacare subsidies, but who also cannot afford to pay the premiums on their own? How many will voluntarily move down the economic ladder in order to qualify for subsidies? That will result in a lose/lose scenario - lower income and therefore less tax revenue, and greater taxpayer payouts to more seeking subsidies. As the saying goes, when you subsidize something you get more of it, and when you penalize something you get less of it. Obamacare gives all the wrong incentives.
But all of the above may be seen as mere annoyances in comparison to the idea put out by one of the main architects of The Affordable Care Act. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother to Obama's first Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) recently gave an interview to the Atlantic magazine. Said Dr. Emanuel: "Seventy-five. That's how long I want to live. I am sure of my position...living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived." Wow! This is one of the most evil comments I have seen in quite some time.
I have a few questions for Dr. Emanuel. Let's start with this one - who made you G-d? I know people in their eighties who work and are productive. Why should they be dead? Can I assume that you are not religious, that you do not believe that life is a gift from G-d, and do not believe that everyone's life may be a blessing to themselves and others? You say that old age may may render people "if not disabled, then faltering and declining." Can we assume then, if "faltering and declining" is enough to warrant a death sentence, but is not as bad as disabled, that you have no use for disabled people whatsoever? Do you agree that one person's quality of life at age 80 may be better than another's at age 70? Should we then kill the 70 year old? One more question, when Jews raise a glass to toast it is to L'Chaim - to life. Do you not think enough of our enemies have tried to eliminate us?
Do not think for even a minute that this is just one doctor's opinion. Dr. Emanuel is the Director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the National Institute of Health. His opinion matters. Obamacare has a 15 member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Their job - to save money in Medicare. So maybe once you are 75 years of age you don't need that medication, treatment or surgery (or fill in the blank). As the mainstream media and left always does, they made fun of conservatives, such as Sarah Palin, who warned of "death panels." Still think it's funny?
I am not a big believer in coincidences. Some time in the recent past there was a discussion in the media about whether or not mammograms were being over utilized. Now, in the 9/15/14 Wall Street Journal was an article about downgrading the use of the term "cancer" for slow growing tumors and instead referring to them as "indolent lesions of epithelial origin." Dr. Laura Esserman says "we're not finding enough of the really lethal cancers, and we're finding too many of the slow-moving ones that probably don't need to be found." Again, do not think this is just one doctor's opinion; Dr. Esserman is described as the chair of an advisory panel to the National Cancer Institute.
There is not complete agreement. For example, some dermatologists say it is wrong to refer to non-melanomas as "indolent lesions of epithelial origin." They state that deaths from squamous cells are on the rise, and even basal cells can do great harm and result in death.
So you tell me. Combine the role of the IPAB with Dr. Emauel's ideas and with the ideas of Dr. Esserman. Is the result "death panels?"
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Well That's a Relief!
I have to say I feel a lot better now. President Obama just told us that "ISIL is not Islamic." He added: "No religion condones the killing of innocents." And this: "ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. It has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way."
Boy, was I wrong. I thought ISIS (ISIL, IS) was named the ISLAMIC State. I thought Islam today had a problem with large numbers of radical terrorist groups, all committing their acts in the name of Islam. Groups like Al Qaeda, Boko Harem, Hamas (which just summarily executed a whole bunch of people without any trial based on an allegation of providing intelligence to Israel in the recent Gaza war), Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, ISIS, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and many others.
Is every single Muslim a radical who wants to see non-Muslims killed? Of course not. But what good does it do to not admit the truth and acknowledge that Islam today has a very serious problem? How can Obama say "ISIL is not Islamic"? How can Obama say ISIL has no vision "other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way," when it tells the world it wants to establish an ISLAMIC Caliphate under Shariah law?
Obama also said this: "At this moment the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL." Yes, and what do we have throughout the Middle East and North Africa - all Muslim countries! (With the exception of Israel which fights some of these same Islamic terrorist groups.) No religion condones the killing of innocents? So why do so many Imams do that? Perhaps they define "innocents" differently.
It was extremely disappointing to hear Republican Senator Rand Paul on Fox after Obama's speech. Said Paul: "...this is not a true form of Islam. This is an aberrant form that should not represent most of the civilized Islamic world."
So what is the "true form" of Islam today? We are told it's not the numerous Islamic terrorist groups, such as ISIS. And it's not all those Muslim countries who have in place one form of Shariah law or another; countries where free speech and freedom of religion don't exist. And it's not in countries where Christians and Jews are persecuted or killed. And it's not in countries where gays are persecuted or killed. And it's not in countries where women are less than second class citizens, and are subject to "honor killings."
Hopefully politicians like Obama and Paul will get back to us soon on where to find "true" Islam.
Boy, was I wrong. I thought ISIS (ISIL, IS) was named the ISLAMIC State. I thought Islam today had a problem with large numbers of radical terrorist groups, all committing their acts in the name of Islam. Groups like Al Qaeda, Boko Harem, Hamas (which just summarily executed a whole bunch of people without any trial based on an allegation of providing intelligence to Israel in the recent Gaza war), Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, ISIS, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and many others.
Is every single Muslim a radical who wants to see non-Muslims killed? Of course not. But what good does it do to not admit the truth and acknowledge that Islam today has a very serious problem? How can Obama say "ISIL is not Islamic"? How can Obama say ISIL has no vision "other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way," when it tells the world it wants to establish an ISLAMIC Caliphate under Shariah law?
Obama also said this: "At this moment the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL." Yes, and what do we have throughout the Middle East and North Africa - all Muslim countries! (With the exception of Israel which fights some of these same Islamic terrorist groups.) No religion condones the killing of innocents? So why do so many Imams do that? Perhaps they define "innocents" differently.
It was extremely disappointing to hear Republican Senator Rand Paul on Fox after Obama's speech. Said Paul: "...this is not a true form of Islam. This is an aberrant form that should not represent most of the civilized Islamic world."
So what is the "true form" of Islam today? We are told it's not the numerous Islamic terrorist groups, such as ISIS. And it's not all those Muslim countries who have in place one form of Shariah law or another; countries where free speech and freedom of religion don't exist. And it's not in countries where Christians and Jews are persecuted or killed. And it's not in countries where gays are persecuted or killed. And it's not in countries where women are less than second class citizens, and are subject to "honor killings."
Hopefully politicians like Obama and Paul will get back to us soon on where to find "true" Islam.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Wait...What?!
Out of Rotherham, England comes a report regarding the sexual abuse (rape) of children and teenagers, mostly girls. 1400 young people between 1997 and 2013 were apparently trafficked around the country. While the victims were described as working class white, the perpetrators were described as Pakistani Muslims. (As reported by Brendan O'Neill in the 9/3/14 Wall Street Journal, referencing a report by Alexis Jay, public policy professor and former social worker.) So why didn't the authorities act quicker to put a stop to this sex trade of minors? According to Mr. Jay, Rotherdam officials did not want to appear racist. Wait...What?! We need to let these bastards rape our young girls so we don't appear racist? It would be difficult to find a better example of Michael Savage's maxim: "Liberalism is a mental disorder."
In the city of Wuppertal, Germany, the police have been patrolling the nightlife area of town. They seek to discourage people from the use of alcohol and drugs, and from gambling and attending concerts. What?! Oh, these are not the regular police, these are radical Salafist Muslims. Notwithstanding their lack of actual authority, they have not been deterred, and even wear brightly colored orange vests with the words "Shariah Police" on the back. And there are reports of Salafists doing the same in Bonn. (As reported in the 9/7/14 Jewish Press online.) Think it's a good idea to not control the number of Muslims entering this country?
Our Secretary of State recently spoke at a ceremony appointing a Muslim attorney to serve as a special representative to Muslim communities. What?! In any event, Kerry said "our faiths are inextricably linked on any number of things that we must confront and deal with in policy concepts today. Our faiths are inextricably linked on the environment." Kerry went on: "Confronting climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges that we face, and you can see this duty or responsibility laid out in scriptures early, beginning in Genesis. And Muslim-majority countries are the most vulnerable." What?! Kerry believes his biggest issue is climate change? Don't we have more immediate threats - radical Islam, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea? And we have to take care of the Muslim-majority countries? Is that like the head of NASA previously saying NASA needed to reach out to the Muslim world? Did NASA's then Director and Kerry have the same boss? Hmmm. And just what are the oil rich Muslim countries doing to help the environment? (Quotes from the Washington Free Beacon.)
Obama has a plan for dealing with ISIS (or as he calls them, ISIL). At first, he did not have a plan: "We don't have a strategy yet." Then, he said: "The bottom line is this - our objective is clear and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL..." But then: "...if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL's sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its military capability to the point where it is a manageable problem." What?! People not being exactly clear on his message, Obama said today: "The next phase is us going on the offensive." I guess - as long as he doesn't draw any red lines.
Bill O'Reilly had the audacity to go after State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki. Said he: "With all due respect - that woman looked way out of her depth over there. Just the way she delivers...it just doesn't look like she has the gravitas for that job." (That's been my feeling about Ms. Psaki.) However, another spokesperson, Marie Harf, just could not take it, O'Reilly attacking her colleague like that. Said Harf: "When the anchor of a leading cable news show uses, quite frankly sexist, personally offensive language, I have an obligation and I think it's important to step up and say that's not okay." Wait...What?! Sexist? How? O'Reilly has gone after both male press secretaries to the President; and pretty much everybody on both sides of the fence.
But let's be honest. Those democrats cannot tolerate criticism. Because they engage in personal attacks, they have to equate all comments by conservatives to be personal attacks on them. (Criticize Obama and you are a racist.) Notice some similarity between Harf's comments and the fear of officials in Rotherham? Act against rapists who are Muslim and you are a racist. Speak against a woman in high office and you are a sexist. Still, the democrats just love dishing it out - even though they cannot take it.
And let's not forget this comment: "Mr. Obama's coterie of foreign policy advisers does not command anything like the international respect that is needed." Oh, that wasn't O'Reilly; that was the 9/3/14 editorial in the Financial Times, a paper that twice supported Obama for President. What?! Are they sexist too? I guess they're racist too, in light of this comment about Obama: "...Mr. Obama has been curiously passive. Fixing the strongest coalitions, and the best strategies, to push back Mr. Putin, ISIS and others will require the sustained engagement of America's friends and allies. But it will first require genuine leadership."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the head of the Democratic National Committee, is trying to get Scott Walker's democrat opponent in the Wisconsin governor's race elected to that office. Said Schultz of Walker: "Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand." She then equated Republicans like Walker with "grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back." What?! But this is the way it works for Democrats - ignore the issues and engage in demagoguery. So what if it's intellectually dishonest - it works. Ms. Schultz got a little feed back on those comments, equating Walker's policies with domestic abuse. But in her subsequent non-apology, she simply said she should not have used the words - but Walker is still bad for women.
Remember those poor Palestinians, the ones Israel beat up so badly in Gaza? Well, a poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research just found that 79% of Palestinians think they won that war, and 72% think the West Bank Palestinians should engage in similar attacks on Israel. Wait...What?! Weren't those people in Gaza just innocent civilians who wanted nothing to do with Hamas and the war? 61% in the West Bank and Gaza said they would vote for the Hamas leader over PA leader Abbas for President, if the election were held now. (Stats from the 9/3/14 Investor's Business Daily.)
We can't end this post without mention of former President Jimmy Carter. Carter recently spoke to the convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA, the largest Muslim advocacy group in the US). ISNA has alternately been linked with the Wahabi brand of radical Islam sponsored by Saudi Arabia, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. Said Carter: "I look forward to continued cooperation between ISNA and the Carter Center because we share so many things in common. We're all Americans, wanting to insist upon basic human rights, peace, freedom, justice, and the treatment of each other as equals." Wait...What?! Whom are we talking about, exactly? Carter went on: "I hope that all of you will use the principles of Allah and our G-d to bring peace and justice to all." You know what, Jimmy? Let them direct the principles of Allah at you. I'll pass.
In the city of Wuppertal, Germany, the police have been patrolling the nightlife area of town. They seek to discourage people from the use of alcohol and drugs, and from gambling and attending concerts. What?! Oh, these are not the regular police, these are radical Salafist Muslims. Notwithstanding their lack of actual authority, they have not been deterred, and even wear brightly colored orange vests with the words "Shariah Police" on the back. And there are reports of Salafists doing the same in Bonn. (As reported in the 9/7/14 Jewish Press online.) Think it's a good idea to not control the number of Muslims entering this country?
Our Secretary of State recently spoke at a ceremony appointing a Muslim attorney to serve as a special representative to Muslim communities. What?! In any event, Kerry said "our faiths are inextricably linked on any number of things that we must confront and deal with in policy concepts today. Our faiths are inextricably linked on the environment." Kerry went on: "Confronting climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges that we face, and you can see this duty or responsibility laid out in scriptures early, beginning in Genesis. And Muslim-majority countries are the most vulnerable." What?! Kerry believes his biggest issue is climate change? Don't we have more immediate threats - radical Islam, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea? And we have to take care of the Muslim-majority countries? Is that like the head of NASA previously saying NASA needed to reach out to the Muslim world? Did NASA's then Director and Kerry have the same boss? Hmmm. And just what are the oil rich Muslim countries doing to help the environment? (Quotes from the Washington Free Beacon.)
Obama has a plan for dealing with ISIS (or as he calls them, ISIL). At first, he did not have a plan: "We don't have a strategy yet." Then, he said: "The bottom line is this - our objective is clear and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL..." But then: "...if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL's sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its military capability to the point where it is a manageable problem." What?! People not being exactly clear on his message, Obama said today: "The next phase is us going on the offensive." I guess - as long as he doesn't draw any red lines.
Bill O'Reilly had the audacity to go after State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki. Said he: "With all due respect - that woman looked way out of her depth over there. Just the way she delivers...it just doesn't look like she has the gravitas for that job." (That's been my feeling about Ms. Psaki.) However, another spokesperson, Marie Harf, just could not take it, O'Reilly attacking her colleague like that. Said Harf: "When the anchor of a leading cable news show uses, quite frankly sexist, personally offensive language, I have an obligation and I think it's important to step up and say that's not okay." Wait...What?! Sexist? How? O'Reilly has gone after both male press secretaries to the President; and pretty much everybody on both sides of the fence.
But let's be honest. Those democrats cannot tolerate criticism. Because they engage in personal attacks, they have to equate all comments by conservatives to be personal attacks on them. (Criticize Obama and you are a racist.) Notice some similarity between Harf's comments and the fear of officials in Rotherham? Act against rapists who are Muslim and you are a racist. Speak against a woman in high office and you are a sexist. Still, the democrats just love dishing it out - even though they cannot take it.
And let's not forget this comment: "Mr. Obama's coterie of foreign policy advisers does not command anything like the international respect that is needed." Oh, that wasn't O'Reilly; that was the 9/3/14 editorial in the Financial Times, a paper that twice supported Obama for President. What?! Are they sexist too? I guess they're racist too, in light of this comment about Obama: "...Mr. Obama has been curiously passive. Fixing the strongest coalitions, and the best strategies, to push back Mr. Putin, ISIS and others will require the sustained engagement of America's friends and allies. But it will first require genuine leadership."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the head of the Democratic National Committee, is trying to get Scott Walker's democrat opponent in the Wisconsin governor's race elected to that office. Said Schultz of Walker: "Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand." She then equated Republicans like Walker with "grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back." What?! But this is the way it works for Democrats - ignore the issues and engage in demagoguery. So what if it's intellectually dishonest - it works. Ms. Schultz got a little feed back on those comments, equating Walker's policies with domestic abuse. But in her subsequent non-apology, she simply said she should not have used the words - but Walker is still bad for women.
Remember those poor Palestinians, the ones Israel beat up so badly in Gaza? Well, a poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research just found that 79% of Palestinians think they won that war, and 72% think the West Bank Palestinians should engage in similar attacks on Israel. Wait...What?! Weren't those people in Gaza just innocent civilians who wanted nothing to do with Hamas and the war? 61% in the West Bank and Gaza said they would vote for the Hamas leader over PA leader Abbas for President, if the election were held now. (Stats from the 9/3/14 Investor's Business Daily.)
We can't end this post without mention of former President Jimmy Carter. Carter recently spoke to the convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA, the largest Muslim advocacy group in the US). ISNA has alternately been linked with the Wahabi brand of radical Islam sponsored by Saudi Arabia, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. Said Carter: "I look forward to continued cooperation between ISNA and the Carter Center because we share so many things in common. We're all Americans, wanting to insist upon basic human rights, peace, freedom, justice, and the treatment of each other as equals." Wait...What?! Whom are we talking about, exactly? Carter went on: "I hope that all of you will use the principles of Allah and our G-d to bring peace and justice to all." You know what, Jimmy? Let them direct the principles of Allah at you. I'll pass.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
A Failure of Leadership, Part II
On 8/20/14, President Obama managed to break away for a few minutes from his golf game while on vacation in Martha's Vineyard, in order to speak about the beheading of US citizen and reporter James Foley. If you did not have an opportunity to see this short speech I will tell you it was passionless - and in stark contrast to Obama's smiling and having good time on the golf course only minutes later. I have often noted, however, that Obama has no class.
Said Obama: "So ISIL (aka ISIS & IS) speaks for no religion...their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents." You see, it is just a coincidence that there are dozens (hundreds?) of Islamic terror groups around the world who just happen to all say they are killing in the name of Islam. So how can Obama actually make such a naively absurd comment?
Part of the answer, no doubt, is his affinity for - and reluctance to criticize - anything Islamic. The words "Islamic terrorism" were banned from use in his Administration. Recall "overseas contingency operations" in its place. Recall the murderer Major Nidal Hassan who acknowledged his Islamic motivation in murdering fellow soldiers - but the White House calling his actions an act of "workplace violence." Obama's affinity for Islam and the Muslim world has been apparent from day one - overstating the contributions of Muslims to the United States and to the world. He constantly mentions the shared values that Islam has with the West - omitting the overwhelming lack of freedom and democracy in almost every Muslim state.
However, one cannot fully understand Obama's naivete without also noting his fundamental belief in leftism and even Marxism. At the end of July, Obama (Fundraisers R Us) spoke to contributors and said this: "Part of people's concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn't holding and we're not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that's based on a different set of principles, that's based on a sense of common humanity, that's based on economies that work for all people." His leftism tells him that we all share the same values - a "common humanity." But tens (if not hundreds) of millions Muslims believe in being governed by Shariah law. There is nothing in Shariah law that reflects common values with Western style democracies.
Obama's leftism also tells him that American power has been primarily a source of harm in the world - hence the need for a "new set of principles." But his Marxism tells him that economics ("economies that work for all people") is what motivates people, a Marxist idea lacking in its ability to explain radical Islam. These Muslims are, in fact, motivated by their understanding of Islam. They do not say they are poor people seeking a redistribution of wealth. (Neither was economics motivating the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan or many other murderous operators.)
Obama is proud of the fact that he "ended" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says he was not elected to start another war; and will not rush into another war - comparing himself to Bush. The problem is (even if one disagrees with the Iraq war) Obama acknowledged in 2011 that "...we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people." That does not mean that it was wise on Obama's part to not insist on a status-of-forces agreement, and not leave 10,000 - 15,000 troops in Iraq. 62 years later we still have troops in Korea. 69 years later we have troops still in Japan and Germany. Given the complete turmoil in the Middle East, would it not have been a good idea to leave a stabilizing force?
So now we have ISIS having taken over parts of Iraq and Syria. As noted by the USA Today (8/22-8/24/14), ISIS is better funded, better at the use of social media and propaganda, more experienced, and in control of far more land than Al Qaeda. Obama also said on 8/20/14: "People like this (ISIL) ultimately fail. They fail because the future is won by those who build and not destroy." Not exactly. As is frequently said - all that is required for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing. When Afghanistan was a failed state run by the Taliban, Al Qaeda was allowed to operate their bases and plan attacks on the US and others. ISIS controls large areas of land that will allow them and other terrorists to plan future attacks. Yet, only days ago Obama acknowledged a lack of US strategy for dealing with ISIS.
CIA Director John Brennan recently told Congress that he believes ISIS is a real threat to the United States of America. According to the latest Pew Research Poll (8/20-8/24/14), 54% of Americans believe Obama is not tough enough when it comes to foreign policy and national security. It appears that British Prime Minister David Cameron has a different approach. Said Cameron: "...the ambition to create an extremist Caliphate in the heart of Iraq and Syria is a threat to our own security here in the U.K...We can't appease this ideology. We have to confront it at home and abroad." And we in the US have to first elect a President willing to acknowledge the worldwide threat of radical Islam; a threat by not only those who engage in violence, but the tens of millions (or more) who support them. For the next 2 years and 5 months we will have to suffer a leader unwilling and/or unable to recognize the nature and seriousness of that threat.
Said Obama: "So ISIL (aka ISIS & IS) speaks for no religion...their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents." You see, it is just a coincidence that there are dozens (hundreds?) of Islamic terror groups around the world who just happen to all say they are killing in the name of Islam. So how can Obama actually make such a naively absurd comment?
Part of the answer, no doubt, is his affinity for - and reluctance to criticize - anything Islamic. The words "Islamic terrorism" were banned from use in his Administration. Recall "overseas contingency operations" in its place. Recall the murderer Major Nidal Hassan who acknowledged his Islamic motivation in murdering fellow soldiers - but the White House calling his actions an act of "workplace violence." Obama's affinity for Islam and the Muslim world has been apparent from day one - overstating the contributions of Muslims to the United States and to the world. He constantly mentions the shared values that Islam has with the West - omitting the overwhelming lack of freedom and democracy in almost every Muslim state.
However, one cannot fully understand Obama's naivete without also noting his fundamental belief in leftism and even Marxism. At the end of July, Obama (Fundraisers R Us) spoke to contributors and said this: "Part of people's concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn't holding and we're not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that's based on a different set of principles, that's based on a sense of common humanity, that's based on economies that work for all people." His leftism tells him that we all share the same values - a "common humanity." But tens (if not hundreds) of millions Muslims believe in being governed by Shariah law. There is nothing in Shariah law that reflects common values with Western style democracies.
Obama's leftism also tells him that American power has been primarily a source of harm in the world - hence the need for a "new set of principles." But his Marxism tells him that economics ("economies that work for all people") is what motivates people, a Marxist idea lacking in its ability to explain radical Islam. These Muslims are, in fact, motivated by their understanding of Islam. They do not say they are poor people seeking a redistribution of wealth. (Neither was economics motivating the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan or many other murderous operators.)
Obama is proud of the fact that he "ended" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says he was not elected to start another war; and will not rush into another war - comparing himself to Bush. The problem is (even if one disagrees with the Iraq war) Obama acknowledged in 2011 that "...we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people." That does not mean that it was wise on Obama's part to not insist on a status-of-forces agreement, and not leave 10,000 - 15,000 troops in Iraq. 62 years later we still have troops in Korea. 69 years later we have troops still in Japan and Germany. Given the complete turmoil in the Middle East, would it not have been a good idea to leave a stabilizing force?
So now we have ISIS having taken over parts of Iraq and Syria. As noted by the USA Today (8/22-8/24/14), ISIS is better funded, better at the use of social media and propaganda, more experienced, and in control of far more land than Al Qaeda. Obama also said on 8/20/14: "People like this (ISIL) ultimately fail. They fail because the future is won by those who build and not destroy." Not exactly. As is frequently said - all that is required for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing. When Afghanistan was a failed state run by the Taliban, Al Qaeda was allowed to operate their bases and plan attacks on the US and others. ISIS controls large areas of land that will allow them and other terrorists to plan future attacks. Yet, only days ago Obama acknowledged a lack of US strategy for dealing with ISIS.
CIA Director John Brennan recently told Congress that he believes ISIS is a real threat to the United States of America. According to the latest Pew Research Poll (8/20-8/24/14), 54% of Americans believe Obama is not tough enough when it comes to foreign policy and national security. It appears that British Prime Minister David Cameron has a different approach. Said Cameron: "...the ambition to create an extremist Caliphate in the heart of Iraq and Syria is a threat to our own security here in the U.K...We can't appease this ideology. We have to confront it at home and abroad." And we in the US have to first elect a President willing to acknowledge the worldwide threat of radical Islam; a threat by not only those who engage in violence, but the tens of millions (or more) who support them. For the next 2 years and 5 months we will have to suffer a leader unwilling and/or unable to recognize the nature and seriousness of that threat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)