(For new readers of this blog I previously put up a post entitled "Obamacare at the Supreme Court" on 4/15/12. The issue was whether or not the the requirement to purchase health insurance under the ACA could be upheld under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. I incorrectly predicted that SCOTUS would strike down the ACA. However, C.J. John Roberts surprised many commentators by holding, with the four liberal Justices, that the failure to purchase insurance would not result in a penalty/fine being assessed (as Congress wrote); rather, he rewrote the law and called the penalty a "tax." My discussion of the Court's holding can be found in the 7/1/12 post entitled "Obamacare Upheld Under a Flimsy - and Dangerous Theory.")
Now, Obamacare was again before the Supreme Court in the case of King vs. Burwell. The issue is whether or not the subsidies provided under the ACA can be given to people who reside in states that have not set up a health insurance exchange. A total of 34 states did not in fact set up exchanges. The people in those states are eligible to enroll in the federal exchange. The issue is whether or not those people qualify for a subsidy.
The wording of the statute provides that the subsidies are available to enrollees in exchanges "established by the State." As 34 states did not establish an exchange, the argument is that the residents of those states are not entitled to the subsidy. The failure to be eligible for the subsidy, the argument goes, would result in millions being unable to afford insurance, in turn requiring insurers to charge even more for those with insurance. Ultimately, the entire system could come crashing down.
In fact, Justice Kennedy expressed such a concern during oral arguments. He questioned whether or not the statute would then be coercing the states to set up an exchange or force their state "insurance market into a death spiral." The analysis is flawed as it leaves out another option - "clean-up legislation." It happens all the time. A law is passed and the legislature realizes certain words were left out or phrased poorly. So they fix it. What Kennedy is really saying is that the Republican Congress could not be trusted to do so. Maybe not; but it's not his job to rewrite legislation in anticipation of the Congress (the body tasked with writing legislation) failing to do so.
The New York Times lead editorial of 3/1/15 discussed this issue. They called it "The Phony Legal Attack on Health Care." As usual, the Times puts their agenda ahead of the truth, starting their editorial with demagoguery and name calling. It is such a "phony" issue that the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case. Said the Times: "So it is no surprise that no one involved in passing or interpreting the law...thought that the subsidies would not be available on federal exchanges."
Really? Some of you may recall the name Jonathan Gruber. Gruber, an MIT professor, was one of the main architects of the bill. Videos surfaced a few months back in which Gruber was quoted as saying that the bill was purposely written in a "tortured way" in order to fool the American people about the fact that "healthy people pay in and sick people get money." A typical leftist elitist who feels he knows what is best for everyone else.
Directly relevant and on point to the issue in King vs. Burwell was this comment by Gruber: "...if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits" (or subsidies). Gruber continued: "...if your governor doesn't set up an exchange, you're losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens." The thinking was that the financial benefits of the subsidies would overcome any political objections to the feds taking over healthcare. 34 states were not persuaded.
Now, and especially for those of you who mock Fox News, do you think that the NY Times editorial staff had the intellectual honesty to mention Mr. Gruber in their 3/1/15 editorial? No they did not. They dismissed the idea of Congress encouraging states to set up an exchange in order to qualify their residents for the subsidy. Why? Because if Congress intended that result they "would have shouted it from the mountaintops." I guess the plain writing of the statute is not sufficient for the Times.
I will not make the same mistake twice. Having incorrectly predicted that SCOTUS would declare the ACA unconstitutional in 2012, I will not do so again. No, I learned my lesson. If the Court was willing to rewrite the law to define a "penalty" as a "tax," I am sure they will feel comfortable rewriting it again in order to define "state" as also meaning "federal." Furthermore, we are now several years into the enactment of the ACA, and at least Justice Kennedy was concerned about the impact on states and the effectiveness of the law if it is interpreted the way it is written - which means only state exchange enrollees get the subsidy.
It would be nice, however, if the President ("I have a pen")and the Supreme Court let the legislative branch of government do the writing of statutes, as the Constitution provides.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Monday, March 9, 2015
Two Brief Lessons in Contrasts
It was reported by Fox News that the Clinton Foundation has received substantial sums from Middle Eastern Arab countries. Their source for the data was the Clinton Foundation itself. A few examples. Contributions from Saudi Arabia totaled between 10 million and 25 million dollars. Kuwait contributed between 5 and 10 million dollars, with the U.A.E. trailing at 1 to 5 million dollars.
Saudi Arabia, as an example, has a less than stellar human rights record when it comes to women and freedom of religion and speech. Women may not travel on their own or get certain medical procedures without their male "guardian" giving approval. Women are barred from certain professions and may not intermingle with male coworkers. Women have very strict clothing requirements; and as of 2015 will be allowed to vote in local elections only.
One should definitely not attempt to bring either the Jewish Bible (Old Testament) or Christian Bible (New Testament) into the country. Christian churches are forbidden, and you can forget about Jewish synagogues. Just today, Fox reported that a Saudi man was sentenced to death for renouncing his Islamic faith, and other alleged acts of blasphemy. In justifying the Foundation accepting money from such sources, Bill Clinton had this to say: "...you gotta decide when you do this work whether it'll do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country..." This is the kind of "the ends justify the means" approach that we are so used to from the left.
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the USA, a Saudi prince offered Mayor Rudy Giuliani 10 million dollars to help rebuild New York City. But the prince said that the U.S. needed to address issues that led to the attack. Among other things, the U.S. "should reexamine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause." The prince also said that "...our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek."
In rejecting the offer of 10 million dollars, the Mayor said: "I entirely reject that statement. There is no moral equivalent for their (terrorist) act. There is no justification for it." The Mayor accused those engaging in such moral equivalency of "not understanding the difference between liberal democracies like the United States, like Israel, and terrorist states and those who condone terrorism...so I think not only are these statements wrong, they're part of the problem."
There is no doubt that the City of New York could have used that 10 million dollars after 9/11. But Rudy Giuliani chose principle over expediency. Just remember that before casting your vote for Hillary Clinton.
President Obama participated in the commemoration of the march in Selma that occurred 50 years ago. It was certainly appropriate for him to do so. The attack on peaceful protesters 50 years ago was not one of our finer moments. Notwithstanding the claims by a few that nothing has changed in the past 50 years, most agree that there has been substantial change in protecting black and minority rights. Today, racism is roundly condemned; and you could not find a single mainstream politician or commentator to speak out on behalf of racist acts or comments. Those who engage in racism are ostracized.
So, while racism has been on the decline (yes, I know there are still incidents such as the one at the University of Oklahoma fraternity), anti-Semitism has been on the rise. It is widely believed by Jews of all political beliefs that we are living through the worst period of anti-Semitism since the Holocaust. The worst anti-Semitism in the USA seems to be on college campuses, where Jews are called abusive names, intimidated with threats and even assaulted. Thankfully, we have not seen the extent of anti-Semitism that has occurred in Europe and throughout the rest of the world.
So, while President Obama's security detail was somehow able to deal with the mass of people marching in Selma, it was claimed they could not do so in Paris, when world leaders marched in unity to support the right of free speech after the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the murders at the kosher market. But those killed in the market were Jews, as were some of the Charlie Hebdo employees. And Charlie Hebdo poked fun at Islam, as they did with other religions. Given all the world leaders marching in Paris, security was extremely tight. Curious that Obama could not attend that march.
Saudi Arabia, as an example, has a less than stellar human rights record when it comes to women and freedom of religion and speech. Women may not travel on their own or get certain medical procedures without their male "guardian" giving approval. Women are barred from certain professions and may not intermingle with male coworkers. Women have very strict clothing requirements; and as of 2015 will be allowed to vote in local elections only.
One should definitely not attempt to bring either the Jewish Bible (Old Testament) or Christian Bible (New Testament) into the country. Christian churches are forbidden, and you can forget about Jewish synagogues. Just today, Fox reported that a Saudi man was sentenced to death for renouncing his Islamic faith, and other alleged acts of blasphemy. In justifying the Foundation accepting money from such sources, Bill Clinton had this to say: "...you gotta decide when you do this work whether it'll do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country..." This is the kind of "the ends justify the means" approach that we are so used to from the left.
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the USA, a Saudi prince offered Mayor Rudy Giuliani 10 million dollars to help rebuild New York City. But the prince said that the U.S. needed to address issues that led to the attack. Among other things, the U.S. "should reexamine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause." The prince also said that "...our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek."
In rejecting the offer of 10 million dollars, the Mayor said: "I entirely reject that statement. There is no moral equivalent for their (terrorist) act. There is no justification for it." The Mayor accused those engaging in such moral equivalency of "not understanding the difference between liberal democracies like the United States, like Israel, and terrorist states and those who condone terrorism...so I think not only are these statements wrong, they're part of the problem."
There is no doubt that the City of New York could have used that 10 million dollars after 9/11. But Rudy Giuliani chose principle over expediency. Just remember that before casting your vote for Hillary Clinton.
President Obama participated in the commemoration of the march in Selma that occurred 50 years ago. It was certainly appropriate for him to do so. The attack on peaceful protesters 50 years ago was not one of our finer moments. Notwithstanding the claims by a few that nothing has changed in the past 50 years, most agree that there has been substantial change in protecting black and minority rights. Today, racism is roundly condemned; and you could not find a single mainstream politician or commentator to speak out on behalf of racist acts or comments. Those who engage in racism are ostracized.
So, while racism has been on the decline (yes, I know there are still incidents such as the one at the University of Oklahoma fraternity), anti-Semitism has been on the rise. It is widely believed by Jews of all political beliefs that we are living through the worst period of anti-Semitism since the Holocaust. The worst anti-Semitism in the USA seems to be on college campuses, where Jews are called abusive names, intimidated with threats and even assaulted. Thankfully, we have not seen the extent of anti-Semitism that has occurred in Europe and throughout the rest of the world.
So, while President Obama's security detail was somehow able to deal with the mass of people marching in Selma, it was claimed they could not do so in Paris, when world leaders marched in unity to support the right of free speech after the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the murders at the kosher market. But those killed in the market were Jews, as were some of the Charlie Hebdo employees. And Charlie Hebdo poked fun at Islam, as they did with other religions. Given all the world leaders marching in Paris, security was extremely tight. Curious that Obama could not attend that march.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Netanyahu's Speech to Congress
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave his speech to a joint session of Congress today. Netanyahu outlined the extent of Iran's support for terror around the world. And, perhaps with some intent to clarify to liberal Jews just how grave the threat of Iranian nukes can be, he said: "...listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. (Quoting Nasrallah): If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world."
Netanyahu told us what the Supreme Leader of Iran has said about their nuclear program: "Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount - 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal ...in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision."
After the speech, Obama claimed that Netanyahu offered no new suggestions. Obama's plan is to allow Iran nuclear capability and to ultimately provide for the lifting of economic sanctions. And the entire deal sunsets after ten years, after which time there will be no restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities.
Netanyahu suggested that there should be no easing of restrictions until Iran "stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East." And that Iran "stop supporting terrorism around the world." And that Iran "stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state."
Netanyahu also noted that the deal has no requirement that Iran abandon its intercontinental ballistic missile system. Exactly what, if anything, does this "deal" require of Iran? And a huge question remains - just why does Iran need to keep and maintain any of its uranium enriching centrifuges? Iran claims that they only seek peaceful, civilian uses of their uranium. Honestly, I cannot believe that anybody buys that. They have had hidden and underground nuclear facilities. They are developing an ICBM, which has only one purpose - the delivery of a nuclear warhead.
There are quite a few countries in the world which are not nuclear powers, but which do have nuclear reactors for civilian use. And they do not enrich their own uranium - they import it. They import low grade - not weapons grade - uranium, and have no capabilities of enriching the uranium up to weapons grade. They do not have centrifuges.
So for the Democrats who were incensed by Netanyahu's speech, I would ask why are you not incensed by a deal that appears to ask next to nothing of the Iranians. No giving up their centrifuges. No giving up their ICBM program. No commitment to stop supporting terror. No requirement to stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map, along with a commitment not to do so.
Or, are you so tied to party loyalty over the safety and security of the United States and our allies, that you will rejoice when Obama announces that the deal has achieved "peace in our time."
Netanyahu told us what the Supreme Leader of Iran has said about their nuclear program: "Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount - 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal ...in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision."
After the speech, Obama claimed that Netanyahu offered no new suggestions. Obama's plan is to allow Iran nuclear capability and to ultimately provide for the lifting of economic sanctions. And the entire deal sunsets after ten years, after which time there will be no restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities.
Netanyahu suggested that there should be no easing of restrictions until Iran "stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East." And that Iran "stop supporting terrorism around the world." And that Iran "stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state."
Netanyahu also noted that the deal has no requirement that Iran abandon its intercontinental ballistic missile system. Exactly what, if anything, does this "deal" require of Iran? And a huge question remains - just why does Iran need to keep and maintain any of its uranium enriching centrifuges? Iran claims that they only seek peaceful, civilian uses of their uranium. Honestly, I cannot believe that anybody buys that. They have had hidden and underground nuclear facilities. They are developing an ICBM, which has only one purpose - the delivery of a nuclear warhead.
There are quite a few countries in the world which are not nuclear powers, but which do have nuclear reactors for civilian use. And they do not enrich their own uranium - they import it. They import low grade - not weapons grade - uranium, and have no capabilities of enriching the uranium up to weapons grade. They do not have centrifuges.
So for the Democrats who were incensed by Netanyahu's speech, I would ask why are you not incensed by a deal that appears to ask next to nothing of the Iranians. No giving up their centrifuges. No giving up their ICBM program. No commitment to stop supporting terror. No requirement to stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map, along with a commitment not to do so.
Or, are you so tied to party loyalty over the safety and security of the United States and our allies, that you will rejoice when Obama announces that the deal has achieved "peace in our time."
The Democrats Take on Netanyahu's Speech
It appears that a total of 58 Representatives and Senators boycotted the speech given today to a joint session of Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. What a nice way to support the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against the State of Israel. It is also further proof of the difficulty many on the left have of even hearing what may be a different point of view.
Prior to the speech Rep. Charles Rangel said: "I'm offended as an American." Well, Mr. Rangel, I'm offended that you and 57 of your Democrat colleagues did not think it important enough to listen to our closest ally in the Middle East, an ally threatened with annihilation on a near daily basis.
Sen. Patrick Leahy before the speech called it a "tawdry and high-handed stunt." Do you know, Senator, that the deal on the table with Iran does nothing - nothing - to limit or put an end to their Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program. Why do they need such long range delivery systems, when the only purpose for an ICBM is the delivery of a nuclear warhead? Will you call it a "stunt" if a nuclear bomb explodes over the U.S.? Iran does not need an ICBM to reach Israel.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer said before the speech that the Constitution "vests the responsibility for foreign affairs in the president." Obama reiterated that sentiment after the speech: "It's very important for all of us Americans to realize that we have a system of government in which foreign policy runs through the executive branch and the president, not through other channels." So much for Obama being the constitutional scholar.
Yes, the president is the Commander in Chief. Yes, policy is set through the president. But we have a system of checks and balances for a reason. There are limits even on a president's foreign policy initiatives. Only the Congress has the power to declare war, and to raise funds to pay for war. Congress was given the power to "raise and support Armies," and to "provide and maintain a Navy." It is Congress that was given the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations." I trust that the House and Senate do not have standing committees on foreign affairs just for the fun of it.
And to insure that the president does not enter into any deals that might be considered bad for the United States, the Constitution also provides that the president '...shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur..." By and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. Except Obama does not believe he needs their approval. You just have to trust him.
What Obama said was this: "And what I can guarantee is that if it's a deal I've signed off on, I will be able to prove that it is the best way for us to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon." He will be able to prove it. Except that the head of the IAEA just announced that "The Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities." So the monitoring Agency for any deal is not confident about Iranian actions and intentions, but we should trust Obama. Would that be like trusting him when he drew the red line over the use of chemical weapons by Syria?
After Netanyahu's speech, we also heard from Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky. Yarmuth accused Netanyahu of "fear mongering." The Ayatollahs threaten to wipe Israel off the map on virtually a daily basis. A nuclear weapon will give Iran that capability. I have no doubt that if Yarmuth lived at the time, he would have been one of the Jews (yes, he's Jewish) telling people not to worry about Hitler - don't fear monger. What a disappointment he is.
Of course, some of the best nonsense always comes from Nancy Pelosi. While she attended the speech, she was so upset at times that she was "near tears." She was "saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States..." Do countries have their own intelligence? At least the woman who told us about the ACA that "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" did not tell us it was an insult to her intelligence, of which there is none.
Prior to the speech Rep. Charles Rangel said: "I'm offended as an American." Well, Mr. Rangel, I'm offended that you and 57 of your Democrat colleagues did not think it important enough to listen to our closest ally in the Middle East, an ally threatened with annihilation on a near daily basis.
Sen. Patrick Leahy before the speech called it a "tawdry and high-handed stunt." Do you know, Senator, that the deal on the table with Iran does nothing - nothing - to limit or put an end to their Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program. Why do they need such long range delivery systems, when the only purpose for an ICBM is the delivery of a nuclear warhead? Will you call it a "stunt" if a nuclear bomb explodes over the U.S.? Iran does not need an ICBM to reach Israel.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer said before the speech that the Constitution "vests the responsibility for foreign affairs in the president." Obama reiterated that sentiment after the speech: "It's very important for all of us Americans to realize that we have a system of government in which foreign policy runs through the executive branch and the president, not through other channels." So much for Obama being the constitutional scholar.
Yes, the president is the Commander in Chief. Yes, policy is set through the president. But we have a system of checks and balances for a reason. There are limits even on a president's foreign policy initiatives. Only the Congress has the power to declare war, and to raise funds to pay for war. Congress was given the power to "raise and support Armies," and to "provide and maintain a Navy." It is Congress that was given the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations." I trust that the House and Senate do not have standing committees on foreign affairs just for the fun of it.
And to insure that the president does not enter into any deals that might be considered bad for the United States, the Constitution also provides that the president '...shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur..." By and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. Except Obama does not believe he needs their approval. You just have to trust him.
What Obama said was this: "And what I can guarantee is that if it's a deal I've signed off on, I will be able to prove that it is the best way for us to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon." He will be able to prove it. Except that the head of the IAEA just announced that "The Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities." So the monitoring Agency for any deal is not confident about Iranian actions and intentions, but we should trust Obama. Would that be like trusting him when he drew the red line over the use of chemical weapons by Syria?
After Netanyahu's speech, we also heard from Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky. Yarmuth accused Netanyahu of "fear mongering." The Ayatollahs threaten to wipe Israel off the map on virtually a daily basis. A nuclear weapon will give Iran that capability. I have no doubt that if Yarmuth lived at the time, he would have been one of the Jews (yes, he's Jewish) telling people not to worry about Hitler - don't fear monger. What a disappointment he is.
Of course, some of the best nonsense always comes from Nancy Pelosi. While she attended the speech, she was so upset at times that she was "near tears." She was "saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States..." Do countries have their own intelligence? At least the woman who told us about the ACA that "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" did not tell us it was an insult to her intelligence, of which there is none.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Shame on the Democrats
The following Democrats have announced that they will not attend next week's speech in Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the House: Earl Blumenauer, Oregon; G.K. Butterfield, N.C.; Andre Carson, Ind.; James Clyburn, S.C.; Steve Cohen, Tenn.; Peter DeFazio, Oregon; Diana DeGette, Colo.; Donna Edwards, Md.; Keith Ellison, Minn.; Raul Grijalva, Ariz., Luis Gutierrez, Ill.; Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.; Eddie Bernice Johnson, Tex.; Barbara Lee, Cal.; John Lewis, Ga.; Betty McCollum, Minn.; Jim McDermott, Wash.; Gregory Meeks, N.Y.; Beto O'Rourke, Tex.; Chellie Pingree Maine; Charles Rangel, N.Y.; Cedric Richmond, La.; Jan Schakowsky, Ill.; Bennie Thompson, Miss.; John Yarmuth, Ky.; and Danny Davis, Ill.
That is a total of 26 House members to date who have said they will not attend. Included in the group is the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Butterfield. Also in the group is Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, and the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (I doubt many rank and file Dems are even aware of that group or its ties to far left and socialist groups.)
And of the Jewish members not attending, Steve Cohen had this to say: "After deliberation, I have decided I cannot in good conscience attend the Prime Minister's speech." If the interests of the United States conflicted with the interests of Israel, I could understand such a comment. After all, Cohen is a United States Representative, not an official of Israel. But here, the interests of the US and Israel are the same; the only conflict is with a President determined to endanger this country, Israel and the world by allowing Iran nuclear capability.
In addition to the 26 Representatives, 4 Senators have announced they will not attend: Tim Kaine, Va.; Patrick Leahy, Vt.; Bernie Sanders, Vt.; and Brian Schatz, Hw. A total to date of 30 Democrats who refuse to hear the Israeli Prime Minister speak. These people, and undoubtedly many other liberal Democrats in Congress, prefer to side with Obama rather than concern themselves with the terms of the deal Obama is about to enter into with Iran. I hope my fellow Jews who remain loyal to the Democrat party are proud.
National Security Adviser Susan Rice was rather blunt in expressing the Obama Administration's feelings about the Netanyahu speech. She stated that the Israeli Prime Minister's visit "injected a degree of partisanship which is not only unfortunate, I think it's destructive of the fabric of the relationship."
"Destructive of the fabric of the relationship." Obama will meet with the terrorist leaders of Iran, the dictatorial Castro brothers of Cuba, but boy, if you disagree with him - watch out! Adding insult to injury, Obama is giving Cuba and Iran what they want, while he tells Israel to commit suicide by establishing another terrorist state on its borders. There is nothing left that I can say to my fellow Jews who will remain Democrats, other than - I don't want to get on that train with you.
Secretary of State John Kerry, in reference to the war between Ukraine and Russia, recently said this: "Russia is engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda exercise that I've seen since the very height of the Cold War. And they have been persisting in their misrepresentations - lies- whatever you want to call them about their activities there to my face, to the face of others on many different occasions."
And I thought he might have been referring to the Iranians.
That is a total of 26 House members to date who have said they will not attend. Included in the group is the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Butterfield. Also in the group is Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, and the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (I doubt many rank and file Dems are even aware of that group or its ties to far left and socialist groups.)
And of the Jewish members not attending, Steve Cohen had this to say: "After deliberation, I have decided I cannot in good conscience attend the Prime Minister's speech." If the interests of the United States conflicted with the interests of Israel, I could understand such a comment. After all, Cohen is a United States Representative, not an official of Israel. But here, the interests of the US and Israel are the same; the only conflict is with a President determined to endanger this country, Israel and the world by allowing Iran nuclear capability.
In addition to the 26 Representatives, 4 Senators have announced they will not attend: Tim Kaine, Va.; Patrick Leahy, Vt.; Bernie Sanders, Vt.; and Brian Schatz, Hw. A total to date of 30 Democrats who refuse to hear the Israeli Prime Minister speak. These people, and undoubtedly many other liberal Democrats in Congress, prefer to side with Obama rather than concern themselves with the terms of the deal Obama is about to enter into with Iran. I hope my fellow Jews who remain loyal to the Democrat party are proud.
National Security Adviser Susan Rice was rather blunt in expressing the Obama Administration's feelings about the Netanyahu speech. She stated that the Israeli Prime Minister's visit "injected a degree of partisanship which is not only unfortunate, I think it's destructive of the fabric of the relationship."
"Destructive of the fabric of the relationship." Obama will meet with the terrorist leaders of Iran, the dictatorial Castro brothers of Cuba, but boy, if you disagree with him - watch out! Adding insult to injury, Obama is giving Cuba and Iran what they want, while he tells Israel to commit suicide by establishing another terrorist state on its borders. There is nothing left that I can say to my fellow Jews who will remain Democrats, other than - I don't want to get on that train with you.
Secretary of State John Kerry, in reference to the war between Ukraine and Russia, recently said this: "Russia is engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda exercise that I've seen since the very height of the Cold War. And they have been persisting in their misrepresentations - lies- whatever you want to call them about their activities there to my face, to the face of others on many different occasions."
And I thought he might have been referring to the Iranians.
Letter to the Editor
In a letter to the editor in the 2/13/15 edition of a local newspaper (The Ventura County Star), a writer who identified herself as a Jew expressed her "disgust" in Benjamin Netanyahu's "total disregard for proper etiquette" by accepting Speaker Boehner's invitation to speak to a joint session of Congress. The writer revealed her true colors when she added that Netanyahu's behavior in accepting the invitation was "unfortunately typical of him and his party." Another liberal Jew who puts her party ahead of the survival of Israel.
I then wrote a reply to her letter, which the Star published on 2/19/15. My reply follows; however, I have replaced the writer's name with an "X."
Letter to the Editor:
As a fellow Jew, it was with great disappointment that I read Ms. X's letter expressing her "disgust" for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's alleged disregard for proper etiquette. Does Ms. X believe the White House spin that the Netanyahu speech is about a breach of protocol? President Obama has never cared about protocol.
His first speech was in 2009 from Cairo to the Muslim world. There he was in Egypt, a guest of then President Hosni Mubarek, and Obama invited members of the outlawed terrorist group, the Muslim Botherhood, to come hear him speak. It was such a breach of protocol and slap in the face to Mubarek, that Mubarek was furious and refused to attend the speech. Were you equally "disgusted" by President Obama's actions? I could give more examples if space permitted.
The underlying issue remains that the deal proposed by President Obama will allow Iran to maintain nuclear capability. If Iran chooses to do so, they could violate the terms of the deal and obtain nuclear weapons within a matter of months. Iranian leaders regularly threaten to wipe Israel off the map. While such weapons would be a threat to the U.S., they would constitute an existential threat to the State of Israel. So, I would also ask Ms. X, is she also "disgusted" by the idea of the Ayatollahs possessing nukes?
Netanyahu is acting in the finest tradition of Rabbi Hillel, who famously said: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me...and if not now, when?"
Jews are increasingly under attack around the world. Yesterday in Copenhagen we saw yet another example. I would hope that the words of another famous quote still have meaning to you: "Never Again!"
I then wrote a reply to her letter, which the Star published on 2/19/15. My reply follows; however, I have replaced the writer's name with an "X."
Letter to the Editor:
As a fellow Jew, it was with great disappointment that I read Ms. X's letter expressing her "disgust" for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's alleged disregard for proper etiquette. Does Ms. X believe the White House spin that the Netanyahu speech is about a breach of protocol? President Obama has never cared about protocol.
His first speech was in 2009 from Cairo to the Muslim world. There he was in Egypt, a guest of then President Hosni Mubarek, and Obama invited members of the outlawed terrorist group, the Muslim Botherhood, to come hear him speak. It was such a breach of protocol and slap in the face to Mubarek, that Mubarek was furious and refused to attend the speech. Were you equally "disgusted" by President Obama's actions? I could give more examples if space permitted.
The underlying issue remains that the deal proposed by President Obama will allow Iran to maintain nuclear capability. If Iran chooses to do so, they could violate the terms of the deal and obtain nuclear weapons within a matter of months. Iranian leaders regularly threaten to wipe Israel off the map. While such weapons would be a threat to the U.S., they would constitute an existential threat to the State of Israel. So, I would also ask Ms. X, is she also "disgusted" by the idea of the Ayatollahs possessing nukes?
Netanyahu is acting in the finest tradition of Rabbi Hillel, who famously said: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me...and if not now, when?"
Jews are increasingly under attack around the world. Yesterday in Copenhagen we saw yet another example. I would hope that the words of another famous quote still have meaning to you: "Never Again!"
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Does Obama Love America?
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has taken some heat for his comment saying "I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the President loves America."
Not surprisingly, we had the feigned reactions of shock from the democrats. Josh Earnest, W.H. spokesperson, said he felt "sorry" for Rudy, having tarnished his legacy with such a comment. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC, said "We can disagree on issues, but when GOPers stay silent while one of their own questions the President's patriotism, we have a real problem." These comments are pure political nonsense; much like the feigned shock over Netanyahu accepting Boehner's invitation to speak to Congress.
Giuliani's comments were those of a private citizen. He holds no elected office. But Joe Biden, as Vice President, told a black audience that "He (Romney) is going to put y'all back in chains." And Harry Reid, as Senate Majority leader, said from the Senate floor: "So the word is out that he (Romney) has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not." So the democrats could accuse a presidential candidate of supporting slavery (a horrific practice) and income tax evasion (a crime) - and just where was the outcry by other democrats when their highest office holders said such things? Please...
Now that we have dispensed with the political nonsense, the underlying issue remains - does Obama love America? We could look at his own words and background to gain some insight on this issue. As a candidate in 2008 he said that he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to this country. Five days before the election he said he would "fundamentally transform" America. So, one could reasonably ask why the need for "fundamental" change/transformation of something that you love, as opposed to "improvement." One might ask why his wife said in 2008 that "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country..."
One might question why he stayed at a church where the Reverend said not G-d bless America but "G-d damn America." Or why Obama said people in small towns "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment."
However, there is a far larger issue of Obama not respecting our underlying system of limited government, with the supremacy of the individual based upon certain G-d given rights, and with a system of checks and balances in order to prevent any particular branch of government from becoming too powerful. But Obama says when Congress will not write legislation he will, as he recently did with his immigration policy. Only he does not have the power to write legislation, only Congress does.
Our country was also founded on the notion of "free enterprise." Capitalism. But Obama does not believe in that either. He does not believe in individual opportunity and success. In fact, he has constantly criticized those who have succeeded - the millionaires and billionaires. He told us that "if you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
As for the Constitution's Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, Obama sees it as defective. Obama in 2001 said that the Constitution "says what the States can't do to you...what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government must do on your behalf." So much for the concept of "rugged individualism." So much for John Kennedy's idea of "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Obama wanted the Constitution to provide for new "economic rights" and complained about the "essential constraints" on doing so by the language in the Constitution. Obama also complained about the Courts being bound by tradition and precedent, interfering with their ability "to bring about significant redistributional change."
So the real question might not be whether or not Obama loves America. The real question is what vision of America might Obama love? Certainly not the one created by our Founders. Which brings us to an even larger issue - how many Americans have the left and Obama persuaded to share their vision of America? We have numerous members of Congress currently who do not believe in the Founders' America. Rather, they share Obama's vision of a different, fundamentally transformed America. As I have said before, many in the democrat party remain completely unaware of how far left Obama and others have taken their party from the days of John Kennedy. These same individuals will continue to vote democrat, often unaware of what policies they are voting for, but believing all the demagogic lies about republicans.
A footnote. I have often addressed the topic of the political divide in this country. For newer readers of the blog who are interested in this topic you might want to take a look at these earlier posts: 8/2/12, "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat;" 8/30/12, "Why the Democrats Hate Republicans, But Feel So Good About Themselves;" 1/18/14, "Republicans Vote Their Values, Democrats Are Driven by Issues;" and 2/23/14, "We Are Going to Fundamentally Change America."
Not surprisingly, we had the feigned reactions of shock from the democrats. Josh Earnest, W.H. spokesperson, said he felt "sorry" for Rudy, having tarnished his legacy with such a comment. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC, said "We can disagree on issues, but when GOPers stay silent while one of their own questions the President's patriotism, we have a real problem." These comments are pure political nonsense; much like the feigned shock over Netanyahu accepting Boehner's invitation to speak to Congress.
Giuliani's comments were those of a private citizen. He holds no elected office. But Joe Biden, as Vice President, told a black audience that "He (Romney) is going to put y'all back in chains." And Harry Reid, as Senate Majority leader, said from the Senate floor: "So the word is out that he (Romney) has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not." So the democrats could accuse a presidential candidate of supporting slavery (a horrific practice) and income tax evasion (a crime) - and just where was the outcry by other democrats when their highest office holders said such things? Please...
Now that we have dispensed with the political nonsense, the underlying issue remains - does Obama love America? We could look at his own words and background to gain some insight on this issue. As a candidate in 2008 he said that he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to this country. Five days before the election he said he would "fundamentally transform" America. So, one could reasonably ask why the need for "fundamental" change/transformation of something that you love, as opposed to "improvement." One might ask why his wife said in 2008 that "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country..."
One might question why he stayed at a church where the Reverend said not G-d bless America but "G-d damn America." Or why Obama said people in small towns "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment."
However, there is a far larger issue of Obama not respecting our underlying system of limited government, with the supremacy of the individual based upon certain G-d given rights, and with a system of checks and balances in order to prevent any particular branch of government from becoming too powerful. But Obama says when Congress will not write legislation he will, as he recently did with his immigration policy. Only he does not have the power to write legislation, only Congress does.
Our country was also founded on the notion of "free enterprise." Capitalism. But Obama does not believe in that either. He does not believe in individual opportunity and success. In fact, he has constantly criticized those who have succeeded - the millionaires and billionaires. He told us that "if you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
As for the Constitution's Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, Obama sees it as defective. Obama in 2001 said that the Constitution "says what the States can't do to you...what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government must do on your behalf." So much for the concept of "rugged individualism." So much for John Kennedy's idea of "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Obama wanted the Constitution to provide for new "economic rights" and complained about the "essential constraints" on doing so by the language in the Constitution. Obama also complained about the Courts being bound by tradition and precedent, interfering with their ability "to bring about significant redistributional change."
So the real question might not be whether or not Obama loves America. The real question is what vision of America might Obama love? Certainly not the one created by our Founders. Which brings us to an even larger issue - how many Americans have the left and Obama persuaded to share their vision of America? We have numerous members of Congress currently who do not believe in the Founders' America. Rather, they share Obama's vision of a different, fundamentally transformed America. As I have said before, many in the democrat party remain completely unaware of how far left Obama and others have taken their party from the days of John Kennedy. These same individuals will continue to vote democrat, often unaware of what policies they are voting for, but believing all the demagogic lies about republicans.
A footnote. I have often addressed the topic of the political divide in this country. For newer readers of the blog who are interested in this topic you might want to take a look at these earlier posts: 8/2/12, "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat;" 8/30/12, "Why the Democrats Hate Republicans, But Feel So Good About Themselves;" 1/18/14, "Republicans Vote Their Values, Democrats Are Driven by Issues;" and 2/23/14, "We Are Going to Fundamentally Change America."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)