Under President Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder the police became the enemy. Obama was the first to criticize the police anytime they interacted with a black man in a way that made headlines. Not one to wait for the facts - nor to let local authorities handle local matters - Obama and Holder were always quick to step in. From the criticism of the Cambridge Police Department for arresting Professor Gates, to calling for an overhaul of the Ferguson Police Department following the Michael Brown incident, to Obama's new AG seeking federal control over the Baltimore Police Department following the death of Freddie Gray, the police are always the problem.
So now, the 5/13/15 Investor's Business Daily reports an 89% increase in the killings of police officers: from 27 in 2013 to 51 in 2014. Let me state two realities. First, the police, as with any other profession or group of people, is going to have some "bad apples." Second, once you start with the demagoguery - at which Democrats excel - there will be consequences. When the Democrats and mainstream media engage in demagoguery against Republicans, the result has been expressions of hatred against Republicans. And the same applies when we demean the police - it leads to hatred of them.
While every killing of a black by a police officer makes the news, the IBD points out that very few killings of police officers by blacks makes the news. But according to the IBD, "42% of officers murdered in the line of duty over the past decade were shot by black suspects..."
As for Baltimore after Freddie Gray, IBD reports that the number of murders in May more than doubled from what they were in May of last year. (Article by Thomas Sowell in 6/2/15 IBD.) But Sowell also reported that the number of arrests was down by over 50%.
When former federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani became Mayor of New York City, he instituted two policies that helped bring about a significant reduction in crime. One was "stop and frisk," and the other was "broken windows policing." The idea behind "broken windows" was to discourage and prevent even minor offenses, because when there is widespread minor criminality it encourages more criminality - including major offenses. Under Giuliani the murder rate in NYC dropped to a level unseen in decades. Admittedly, no one politician or policy can get all the credit for a drop in crime, as there can be multiple causative factors.
But two things are certain. First, if you make the police the bad guys, people will feel that they can take the law into their own hands. Second, the police will back off from enforcing the law if the politicians no longer have their backs. Let's take a look.
Heather MacDonald reports in the 5/30-31/15 edition of the Wall Street Journal, that Baltimore's gun violence is up over 60% from last year. She reports that Milwaukee has experienced a 180% increase in homicides through 5/17, compared to last year. Los Angeles saw a 25% increase in shootings and other violent felonies. New York's murder rate was up 13%. Chicago's murder rate was up 17% with shootings up 24%. Atlanta had a 32% increase in murders through mid-May. And in St. Louis murders were up 25% and shootings were up 39%.
How would "broken windows policing" have worked in Ferguson and Baltimore? For starters, the rioters would not have been given "space" to engage in their illegal activities of looting and vandalism. The police would have stepped in to prevent such violence, knowing that the political leaders had their backs. Instead, we had the Governor of Missouri immediately calling for a "vigorous prosecution" of the police in Ferguson - not a vigorous "investigation." Because Dem. Governor Jay Nixon had already convicted the police.
And we had Democratic Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake explain that she needed to give "space" to those "who wished to destroy."
So the question is not just who needs cops? But what kind of politicians do we need to elect if we care about crime? Time will tell if the likes of New York's new Democrat Mayor Bill De Blasio is the answer.
Saturday, June 6, 2015
What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Fox News reported on 6/5/15 that Hawaii's health care system under the Affordable Care Act, known as Hawaii Health Connector, is "unable to generate sufficient revenues to sustain operations." That, from the office of Governor David Ige. The $200 million provided by the Feds (which is really the taxpayers) did not seem to make a difference. While the prior Governor, Neil Abercrombie (Dem) predicted enrollment would reach 300,000, it actually topped out at 37,000.
Fox also reported that the Fed's overall investment of $4.5 billion given to the state run exchanges did not prevent other states from closing their exchanges - including Oregon, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, New Mexico and Nevada. As for California, the 5/14/15 LA Times reported: "After using most of $1 billion in federal start-up money, California's Obamacare exchange is preparing to go on a diet." But no matter, the state still plans on spending $121.5 million on "outreach, sales and marketing."
So how are other states doing? The 5/28/15 Investor's Business Daily reported that BlueCross/BlueShield of Tennessee is seeking a 36% premium rate hike, while Care First in Maryland wants a 30% hike and Moda Health in Oregon wants a 50% increase. Other states report similar requests. What's the problem? With all the mandates imposed on carriers by the ACA, the carriers have raised deductibles and co-pays in order to keep premiums generally affordable. Two problems. With high deductibles and co-pays people avoid going to the doctor, making the idea of affordable healthcare illusory. The second problem? Not enough people are signing up to help pay for all of this.
But some Democrats have a solution - force insurance carriers to lower deductibles and co-pays. Excellent. Then premiums will shoot up even more. Or insurance companies will be forced out of the healthcare business altogether resulting in: single payor. This writer has believed that to be the Democrat's goal all along. Given how well we are doing already with government involvement in healthcare, I am sure that total government control would work just fine. Right?
Fox also reported that the Fed's overall investment of $4.5 billion given to the state run exchanges did not prevent other states from closing their exchanges - including Oregon, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, New Mexico and Nevada. As for California, the 5/14/15 LA Times reported: "After using most of $1 billion in federal start-up money, California's Obamacare exchange is preparing to go on a diet." But no matter, the state still plans on spending $121.5 million on "outreach, sales and marketing."
So how are other states doing? The 5/28/15 Investor's Business Daily reported that BlueCross/BlueShield of Tennessee is seeking a 36% premium rate hike, while Care First in Maryland wants a 30% hike and Moda Health in Oregon wants a 50% increase. Other states report similar requests. What's the problem? With all the mandates imposed on carriers by the ACA, the carriers have raised deductibles and co-pays in order to keep premiums generally affordable. Two problems. With high deductibles and co-pays people avoid going to the doctor, making the idea of affordable healthcare illusory. The second problem? Not enough people are signing up to help pay for all of this.
But some Democrats have a solution - force insurance carriers to lower deductibles and co-pays. Excellent. Then premiums will shoot up even more. Or insurance companies will be forced out of the healthcare business altogether resulting in: single payor. This writer has believed that to be the Democrat's goal all along. Given how well we are doing already with government involvement in healthcare, I am sure that total government control would work just fine. Right?
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Who Needs The First Amendment? Part I
On May 3, there was a "Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest" held in Garland, Texas. It was sponsored by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders was an invited speaker. As we know, 2 shooters - both Muslim - tried to shoot their way into the facility where the contest was being held. Fortunately, a police officer at the scene was able to shoot both perpetrators, who died from their wounds.
No great surprise that Muslims would react violently to what they call blasphemy. What may be a surprise to some, however, is what Paul Harvey would call "the rest of the story." It turns out that even Muslims sworn to uphold the Constitution do not believe in it - and certainly not the free speech provision in the First Amendment.
There are 2 Muslims in Congress - Keith Ellison, Dem-Minn, and Andre Carson, Dem-Ind. Together, they joined with one other congressman, Joe Crowley, Dem-NY, in an effort to prevent Geert Wilders from getting a visa to come to the US and speak at the Garland event. These congressmen lobbied both State and Homeland Security to deny the visa.
Wilders has made comments about Islam that are taken as controversial. He has expressed concern about the Islamization of his country, the Netherlands. He wants to halt further immigration to the Netherlands from Islamic countries. And he wants to ban the construction of further mosques. Gilders has even called for banning the Koran; reasoning that if Mein Kampf is banned, then the Koran should be also. (This writer does not believe in banning either book.)
In seeking to keep Wilders out of the US, these congressmen wrote: "Freedom of speech, however, is not absolute. It is limited by the legal and moral understanding that speech that causes the incitement of violence or prejudicial action against protected groups is wrong." Not quite. If speech is likely to cause imminent illegal activity or harm it may not be protected. Those uttering such speech may suffer legal consequences. But "speech that is prejudicial against protected groups?"
What does that even mean? Speech that is "prejudicial" is still protected speech in this country, thanks to the First Amendment. It certainly seems as if these congressmen would prefer a different system, one akin to that proposed by the Organization of Islamic States to the UN. That group wants to outlaw speech that insults religion; although what they really care about is speech that insults Islam.
These congressmen also expressed concern about Wilders "participation in inciting anti-Muslim aggression and violence." While I do not doubt that one can find instances of attacks on Muslims just because they are Muslim, I suspect that the reverse happens with far greater frequency - attacks on non-Muslims by Muslims. Which is just what the two perpetrators in Garland attempted to do.
I was asked by one friend and reader if I agreed with the idea of a "draw Muhammad" contest. The question entirely misses the point. No, I do not go out of my way to insult other people. But the Nazis were allowed to march through Skokie, Illinois, home of many Jews and Holocaust survivors. Because under our system even hurtful speech is permitted. The Jews did not go on a killing spree as a result of that march.
Said Salia Salem, executive director of the Dallas/Fort Worth chapter of CAIR: "Free speech is not the same as responsible speech." Thankfully, she does not get to decide whose speech is responsible and whose is not. But it is quite telling that Democrats feel comfortable in trying to prevent people from hearing speech with which those Democrats disagree. After all, that is what free speech is all about - my right to hear what others say, whether you agree with it or not. Then again, I'm not a Democrat.
No great surprise that Muslims would react violently to what they call blasphemy. What may be a surprise to some, however, is what Paul Harvey would call "the rest of the story." It turns out that even Muslims sworn to uphold the Constitution do not believe in it - and certainly not the free speech provision in the First Amendment.
There are 2 Muslims in Congress - Keith Ellison, Dem-Minn, and Andre Carson, Dem-Ind. Together, they joined with one other congressman, Joe Crowley, Dem-NY, in an effort to prevent Geert Wilders from getting a visa to come to the US and speak at the Garland event. These congressmen lobbied both State and Homeland Security to deny the visa.
Wilders has made comments about Islam that are taken as controversial. He has expressed concern about the Islamization of his country, the Netherlands. He wants to halt further immigration to the Netherlands from Islamic countries. And he wants to ban the construction of further mosques. Gilders has even called for banning the Koran; reasoning that if Mein Kampf is banned, then the Koran should be also. (This writer does not believe in banning either book.)
In seeking to keep Wilders out of the US, these congressmen wrote: "Freedom of speech, however, is not absolute. It is limited by the legal and moral understanding that speech that causes the incitement of violence or prejudicial action against protected groups is wrong." Not quite. If speech is likely to cause imminent illegal activity or harm it may not be protected. Those uttering such speech may suffer legal consequences. But "speech that is prejudicial against protected groups?"
What does that even mean? Speech that is "prejudicial" is still protected speech in this country, thanks to the First Amendment. It certainly seems as if these congressmen would prefer a different system, one akin to that proposed by the Organization of Islamic States to the UN. That group wants to outlaw speech that insults religion; although what they really care about is speech that insults Islam.
These congressmen also expressed concern about Wilders "participation in inciting anti-Muslim aggression and violence." While I do not doubt that one can find instances of attacks on Muslims just because they are Muslim, I suspect that the reverse happens with far greater frequency - attacks on non-Muslims by Muslims. Which is just what the two perpetrators in Garland attempted to do.
I was asked by one friend and reader if I agreed with the idea of a "draw Muhammad" contest. The question entirely misses the point. No, I do not go out of my way to insult other people. But the Nazis were allowed to march through Skokie, Illinois, home of many Jews and Holocaust survivors. Because under our system even hurtful speech is permitted. The Jews did not go on a killing spree as a result of that march.
Said Salia Salem, executive director of the Dallas/Fort Worth chapter of CAIR: "Free speech is not the same as responsible speech." Thankfully, she does not get to decide whose speech is responsible and whose is not. But it is quite telling that Democrats feel comfortable in trying to prevent people from hearing speech with which those Democrats disagree. After all, that is what free speech is all about - my right to hear what others say, whether you agree with it or not. Then again, I'm not a Democrat.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Obama on Poverty, Part II
Obama: "...I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu (referring to the poor)...they're like, 'I don't want to work, I just want a free Obama phone.'"
Obama: "And so if we're going to change how John Boehner and Mitch McConnell think, we're going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we're going to have to change how the media reports on these issues and how people's impressions of what it's like to struggle in this economy looks like, and how budgets connect to that." Wow!
First, an admission. Probably no surprise, but I am a regular viewer of Fox News. Second, Obama needs to change how Republican leaders think?! And he wants to do that by changing how the media (Fox) reports on these issues? Is Obama conceding that Fox News is more persuasive than CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, CNN and MSNBC combined? Otherwise, why would he care about what only one cable news network says? If Fox is conveying a message that people want to hear, then maybe Obama should change his viewpoint. Although, let's be honest, he never cared that the majority of Americans did not want Obamacare - notwithstanding all his efforts to change "how our body politic thinks" about healthcare.
Most scary, however, is this idea of manipulating the media to bend toward his will. This is exactly what dictators do. If a dictator is unable to bend a media outlet to his will they simply shut it down. Obama has attacked Fox News since taking office. His inability to tolerate the sole dissenting voice on TV is, quite frankly, startling.
In referring to California, Obama said this: "...and there is a direct correlation between Proposition 13 and the slow disinvestment in the public university system so that it became very, very expensive. And kids got priced out of the market, or they started taking on a whole bunch of debt. Now, that was a public policy choice, based on folks not wanting to pay property taxes."
Let's first dispense with the obvious lie. Prop 13 did not come about because of "folks not wanting to pay property taxes." It came about because assessed values of homes had increased so dramatically that people who had owned their homes for decades could no longer afford to pay the property taxes. Prop 13 came about because the people of California saw how unfair it was to make homeowners, especially seniors, have to sell their homes just because of taxes. As for the rest of Obama's comments on education, see the discussion on public employee unions in Part I.
Obama: "The top hedge fund managers made more than all the kindergarten teachers in the country." Of the hedge fund managers he said: "You pretty much have more than you'll ever be able to use and your family will ever be able to use." This discussion came about in the context of the carried interest rate, which apparently allows these people to pay at a lower tax rate.
Where to begin? How many jobs do hedge fund managers create versus kindergarten teachers? How much wealth do they build for people versus kindergarten teachers? Why should any profession (anyone) make more than any other profession (anyone else)? If you answer it should all be "equal" then you are a socialist or communist.
Obama is always worried about the "millionaires and billionaires," a phrase he has used numerous times throughout his Presidency. So why should top Hollywood stars who make $20 million per picture be allowed to do that? Why should Obama supporters Bill Gates and Warren Buffet get to keep their billions? Think of all the people they could feed. Think of all the kids that could go to college with that money.
I am reminded of a scene from Dr. Zhivago; a scene which a friend and reader frequently refers to because of where our country seems to be headed. After returning home from tending to the wounded soldiers during WWI, Dr. Zhivago finds that his very large home has been taken over by many families - on orders of the new Soviet government. You see, why should one doctor have have such a spacious home for only his family, when the house is large enough to shelter many families.
Like communists and socialists everywhere, the Soviets concerned themselves with "equality." Not equality of opportunity, but equality of result. I, for one, prefer the American system. It's called freedom.
First, an admission. Probably no surprise, but I am a regular viewer of Fox News. Second, Obama needs to change how Republican leaders think?! And he wants to do that by changing how the media (Fox) reports on these issues? Is Obama conceding that Fox News is more persuasive than CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, CNN and MSNBC combined? Otherwise, why would he care about what only one cable news network says? If Fox is conveying a message that people want to hear, then maybe Obama should change his viewpoint. Although, let's be honest, he never cared that the majority of Americans did not want Obamacare - notwithstanding all his efforts to change "how our body politic thinks" about healthcare.
Most scary, however, is this idea of manipulating the media to bend toward his will. This is exactly what dictators do. If a dictator is unable to bend a media outlet to his will they simply shut it down. Obama has attacked Fox News since taking office. His inability to tolerate the sole dissenting voice on TV is, quite frankly, startling.
In referring to California, Obama said this: "...and there is a direct correlation between Proposition 13 and the slow disinvestment in the public university system so that it became very, very expensive. And kids got priced out of the market, or they started taking on a whole bunch of debt. Now, that was a public policy choice, based on folks not wanting to pay property taxes."
Let's first dispense with the obvious lie. Prop 13 did not come about because of "folks not wanting to pay property taxes." It came about because assessed values of homes had increased so dramatically that people who had owned their homes for decades could no longer afford to pay the property taxes. Prop 13 came about because the people of California saw how unfair it was to make homeowners, especially seniors, have to sell their homes just because of taxes. As for the rest of Obama's comments on education, see the discussion on public employee unions in Part I.
Obama: "The top hedge fund managers made more than all the kindergarten teachers in the country." Of the hedge fund managers he said: "You pretty much have more than you'll ever be able to use and your family will ever be able to use." This discussion came about in the context of the carried interest rate, which apparently allows these people to pay at a lower tax rate.
Where to begin? How many jobs do hedge fund managers create versus kindergarten teachers? How much wealth do they build for people versus kindergarten teachers? Why should any profession (anyone) make more than any other profession (anyone else)? If you answer it should all be "equal" then you are a socialist or communist.
Obama is always worried about the "millionaires and billionaires," a phrase he has used numerous times throughout his Presidency. So why should top Hollywood stars who make $20 million per picture be allowed to do that? Why should Obama supporters Bill Gates and Warren Buffet get to keep their billions? Think of all the people they could feed. Think of all the kids that could go to college with that money.
I am reminded of a scene from Dr. Zhivago; a scene which a friend and reader frequently refers to because of where our country seems to be headed. After returning home from tending to the wounded soldiers during WWI, Dr. Zhivago finds that his very large home has been taken over by many families - on orders of the new Soviet government. You see, why should one doctor have have such a spacious home for only his family, when the house is large enough to shelter many families.
Like communists and socialists everywhere, the Soviets concerned themselves with "equality." Not equality of opportunity, but equality of result. I, for one, prefer the American system. It's called freedom.
Obama on Poverty, Part I
On 5/12/15 President Obama participated in a panel on poverty at Georgetown University. The entire discussion can be read at the web site of the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, for those interested. Obama's comments tell us much about his ideology.
Early on Obama refers to a "...growing awareness of inequality in our society..." Inequality will always be a far bigger issue for the left than liberty, which is often a non-issue.
Obama: "First of all, I think we can all stipulate that the best antipoverty program is a job..." So stipulated! Now, Mr. Obama, when will you acknowledge what so many business leaders have been telling you - that your never-ending taxes and regulations deter businesses from hiring and creating more jobs. Your policies have resulted in the lowest employment rate in 40 years, along with one of the slowest economic recoveries.
Obama: "...over the past 40 years, the share of income going to the bottom 90% has shrunk from about 65% down to about 53%. It's a big shift. It's a big transfer..." Assuming the President is correct with his numbers, I have a question. How many of the bottom 90% have cell phones, computers, big screen TVs, and other such luxuries that one would not ordinarily equate with poverty?
Obama: "We don't dispute that the free market is the greatest producer of wealth in history - it has lifted billions of people out of poverty...but...concentrations of wealth can lead to some being left behind." Let's focus on the first part of that comment. It bears repeating: "the free market is the greatest producer of wealth in history." So, I must ask why you, Mr. President, and the left generally, adhere to so many socialist ideas. The "free market" is based on capitalism - not socialism. So see comment above about Obama's policies impeding job growth - and the free market.
Obama: "Those who are doing better and better...are withdrawing from sort of the commons - kids start going to private schools, kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public park. An anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together." Whew. There's a lot there. Private schools? Don't Democrats oppose school vouchers that would allow even poor families to send their kids to private schools? Don't the President's kids go to Sidwell Friends School, one of the truly elite private schools in the country? Any time you want an example of elitist - and hypocritical - statements of policy, just listen to what the Dems and their friends in Hollywood say, versus what they actually do.
After discussing the need for access to decent books and computers, Obama said this: "You look at state budgets, you look at city budgets, and you look at federal budgets, and we don't make those same common investments that we used to." Agreed. But maybe if we stopped rewarding teachers and other public employees with pensions that the government cannot afford, then we could finance those other things that Obama says we used to finance. But local governments and state legislatures and governors have consistently rewarded public employee unions in exchange for their electoral support, until some Republican governors came along and have tried to put the brakes on that nonsense.
Early on Obama refers to a "...growing awareness of inequality in our society..." Inequality will always be a far bigger issue for the left than liberty, which is often a non-issue.
Obama: "First of all, I think we can all stipulate that the best antipoverty program is a job..." So stipulated! Now, Mr. Obama, when will you acknowledge what so many business leaders have been telling you - that your never-ending taxes and regulations deter businesses from hiring and creating more jobs. Your policies have resulted in the lowest employment rate in 40 years, along with one of the slowest economic recoveries.
Obama: "...over the past 40 years, the share of income going to the bottom 90% has shrunk from about 65% down to about 53%. It's a big shift. It's a big transfer..." Assuming the President is correct with his numbers, I have a question. How many of the bottom 90% have cell phones, computers, big screen TVs, and other such luxuries that one would not ordinarily equate with poverty?
Obama: "We don't dispute that the free market is the greatest producer of wealth in history - it has lifted billions of people out of poverty...but...concentrations of wealth can lead to some being left behind." Let's focus on the first part of that comment. It bears repeating: "the free market is the greatest producer of wealth in history." So, I must ask why you, Mr. President, and the left generally, adhere to so many socialist ideas. The "free market" is based on capitalism - not socialism. So see comment above about Obama's policies impeding job growth - and the free market.
Obama: "Those who are doing better and better...are withdrawing from sort of the commons - kids start going to private schools, kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public park. An anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together." Whew. There's a lot there. Private schools? Don't Democrats oppose school vouchers that would allow even poor families to send their kids to private schools? Don't the President's kids go to Sidwell Friends School, one of the truly elite private schools in the country? Any time you want an example of elitist - and hypocritical - statements of policy, just listen to what the Dems and their friends in Hollywood say, versus what they actually do.
After discussing the need for access to decent books and computers, Obama said this: "You look at state budgets, you look at city budgets, and you look at federal budgets, and we don't make those same common investments that we used to." Agreed. But maybe if we stopped rewarding teachers and other public employees with pensions that the government cannot afford, then we could finance those other things that Obama says we used to finance. But local governments and state legislatures and governors have consistently rewarded public employee unions in exchange for their electoral support, until some Republican governors came along and have tried to put the brakes on that nonsense.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
A Lack of Truth and Integrity
Recently, Harry Reid was asked if he regretted comments he made as Senate Majority Leader about Mitt Romney not paying taxes for 10 years. Of course, the claim was untrue. It was pointed out that the allegations seemed "McCarthy-like" to some. Said Reid: "They can call it whatever they want. Romney didn't win, did he?" This, from one of the sleaziest politicians ever to hold such a high political post. It is another example of leftist thinking that the ends justify the means - to the point of even trying to ruin a good man's reputation with false accusations of criminal behavior (tax evasion).
Dana Perino, former press secretary to George W. Bush, was recently interviewed on Fox (where she is also a commentator) about her new book "And the Good News Is...Lessons and Advice from the Bright Side." While serving as assistant press secretary under Scott McClellan she said that she had become good friends with him. She was upset with McClellan when he put out one of those now-out-of-office-tell-all-books critical of Bush. But Bush dissuaded her from going after McClellan, saying that she should forgive him and should not live bitterly. Contrast that classiness with Obama's constant attacks of his critics, including Fox News, James Rosen, and other outspoken conservatives who subsequently suffered IRS audits.
Ben Affleck's family was recently the subject of an episode of the PBS show "Finding Your Roots." When it was discovered that Affleck had an ancestor who was a slave owner, Affleck pressured the host and PBS to keep that fact out of the episode. They did. Public Broadcasting caved in to a big name leftist actor. When the truth surfaced, Affleck said: "We deserve neither credit nor blame for our ancestors and the degree of interest in this story suggests that we are, as a nation, still struggling with the terrible legacy of slavery." What? Nice try Ben. The interest in the story is because a left-wing publicly owned media outlet caved in to pressure from you. The interest is there because you tried to hide the truth. Nothing to do with the struggle over slavery.
On Holocaust Remembrance Day President Obama said this: "Together we must stand against bigotry and hatred in all their forms." That is, unless the bigotry and hatred is actually directed against Jews and those critical of Islam. If you actually believed what you said, Mr. Obama, you would have marched with many other world leaders in Paris following the horrific murders at Charlie Hebdo and the kosher market there. But Muslims were the perpetrators of those crimes - and you had no interest in standing against them.
And speaking of standing against bigotry and hatred, it was good to see a critique of Obama by liberal commentator Kirsten Powers. Powers pointed out in a 4/22/15 column in the USA Today that Obama spoke out when three young Muslims were murdered in North Carolina (apparently over a parking space). (Obama referred to those killings as "brutal and outrageous murders.") But Powers noted that Obama "...can't seem to find any passion for the mass persecution of Middle Eastern Christians or the eradication of Christianity from its birthplace." Again, when Muslims are the perpetrators Obama is unable to find his voice.
Powers continued: "Western leaders, including Obama, will be remembered for their near silence as this human rights tragedy unfolded." Added Powers: "It will be hard to forget his lecturing of Christians at the National Prayer Breakfast about the centuries old Crusades while Middle Eastern Christians are being harassed, driven from their homes, tortured and murdered." In what could only be taken as a defense of radical Islam, what Obama actually said was this: "And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ."
If Obama was not so disparaging of America he would recognize that there are, in fact, any number of occasions when we should get on our high horse and directly confront evil - rather than make excuses for it. Instead, Obama has consistently apologized for America's actions in the world, while refusing to even acknowledge the threat from "radical Islam" - an expression which he will not even utter.
Dana Perino, former press secretary to George W. Bush, was recently interviewed on Fox (where she is also a commentator) about her new book "And the Good News Is...Lessons and Advice from the Bright Side." While serving as assistant press secretary under Scott McClellan she said that she had become good friends with him. She was upset with McClellan when he put out one of those now-out-of-office-tell-all-books critical of Bush. But Bush dissuaded her from going after McClellan, saying that she should forgive him and should not live bitterly. Contrast that classiness with Obama's constant attacks of his critics, including Fox News, James Rosen, and other outspoken conservatives who subsequently suffered IRS audits.
Ben Affleck's family was recently the subject of an episode of the PBS show "Finding Your Roots." When it was discovered that Affleck had an ancestor who was a slave owner, Affleck pressured the host and PBS to keep that fact out of the episode. They did. Public Broadcasting caved in to a big name leftist actor. When the truth surfaced, Affleck said: "We deserve neither credit nor blame for our ancestors and the degree of interest in this story suggests that we are, as a nation, still struggling with the terrible legacy of slavery." What? Nice try Ben. The interest in the story is because a left-wing publicly owned media outlet caved in to pressure from you. The interest is there because you tried to hide the truth. Nothing to do with the struggle over slavery.
On Holocaust Remembrance Day President Obama said this: "Together we must stand against bigotry and hatred in all their forms." That is, unless the bigotry and hatred is actually directed against Jews and those critical of Islam. If you actually believed what you said, Mr. Obama, you would have marched with many other world leaders in Paris following the horrific murders at Charlie Hebdo and the kosher market there. But Muslims were the perpetrators of those crimes - and you had no interest in standing against them.
And speaking of standing against bigotry and hatred, it was good to see a critique of Obama by liberal commentator Kirsten Powers. Powers pointed out in a 4/22/15 column in the USA Today that Obama spoke out when three young Muslims were murdered in North Carolina (apparently over a parking space). (Obama referred to those killings as "brutal and outrageous murders.") But Powers noted that Obama "...can't seem to find any passion for the mass persecution of Middle Eastern Christians or the eradication of Christianity from its birthplace." Again, when Muslims are the perpetrators Obama is unable to find his voice.
Powers continued: "Western leaders, including Obama, will be remembered for their near silence as this human rights tragedy unfolded." Added Powers: "It will be hard to forget his lecturing of Christians at the National Prayer Breakfast about the centuries old Crusades while Middle Eastern Christians are being harassed, driven from their homes, tortured and murdered." In what could only be taken as a defense of radical Islam, what Obama actually said was this: "And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ."
If Obama was not so disparaging of America he would recognize that there are, in fact, any number of occasions when we should get on our high horse and directly confront evil - rather than make excuses for it. Instead, Obama has consistently apologized for America's actions in the world, while refusing to even acknowledge the threat from "radical Islam" - an expression which he will not even utter.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Is This Really a Good Deal?
In their 4/8/15 op-ed, former Secretaries of State Kissinger and Shultz pointed out that "Iran's centrifuges have multiplied from about 100 at the beginning of the negotiation to almost 20,000 today." One would think this fact alone would give pause and make one question Iran's intentions.
The two former Secretaries go on: "Under the new approach, Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints." You have to hand it to the State Department though. In rebuttal, Marie Harf, State Department spokeswoman, actually said this: "I didn't hear a lot of alternatives...I heard a lot of sort of big words and big thoughts in that piece..." You have no idea how much I wish I could say that I was kidding about what Ms. Harf said.
One issue that Obama felt should not be included in these talks was Israel's right to exist. Said one Iranian commander: "The destruction of Israel is non-negotiable." In reply, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "The survival of Israel is non-negotiable. Israel will not accept an agreement which allows a country that vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons." On this issue there is no disagreement within Israel.
The liberal Zionist Union Party (formerly the Labor Party) headed by Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni issued a joint statement regarding Iran. They argue that Israel should enter into a comprehensive deal with the US that will give Israel "the unrestricted ability to act against threats and violations both of the deal and against our regional enemies that are supported by Iran." Sounds to me like they want a green light to attack Iran if necessary. Would Obama ever agree to that?
When asked if the US would agree to a deal with Iran that requires Iran to recognize Israel's right to exist, Marie Harf tersely said: "This is an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue." If that is the case, there is no meaningful deal. Not requiring any change in behavior from Iran means they will get their nuclear weapons, and continue to support terrorism and extend their reach even further throughout the Middle East.
Obama stated that requiring Iran to recognize Israel would be a "fundamental misjudgement." In an interview with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, Obama said how hard it was for him to hear criticisms that he has not done all he could to protect Israel. "This has been as hard as anything I do because of the deep affinities that I feel for the Israeli people and for the Jewish people." Yes, Mr. President, we can certainly see your affinity for the sole Jewish state in the world by the way you have treated its leader.
In their 4/8/15 editorial, the New York Times criticizes Israel's Minister of Intelligence and Strategic Affairs for insisting that Iran end all research end development of advanced centrifuges, reduce the number of centrifuges at Natanz beyond what the "framework" allows Iran to keep, completely close its underground facility at Fordo, allow inspectors anytime and anywhere, ship its existing stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country, and disclose past nuclear related activities having potential military use. Now that sounds like the makings of a good deal.
Yet, Obama and his State Department continue to insist that no alternatives have been proposed to Obama's deal. They continue to insist that Israel says the only option to Obama's deal is war with Iran. This writer suggested years ago that Bush should have taken out Iran's existing nuclear facilities at the time. They were fewer in number and less spread out. I argued that Bush should have sought an alliance for an aerial assault with Britain, France and Germany. I further argued that, absent a willingness to do so, Bush should have given the green light to Israel. But Bush refused to allow safe passage of Israeli planes over Iraq after we had toppled Saddam Hussein.
The result of this deal will be that Iran gets nuclear weapons, setting off a Middle East arms race as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and others will want to obtain their own nuclear weapons. All the while Obama will tell us he has made the world safer. "If you like your doctor..."
The two former Secretaries go on: "Under the new approach, Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints." You have to hand it to the State Department though. In rebuttal, Marie Harf, State Department spokeswoman, actually said this: "I didn't hear a lot of alternatives...I heard a lot of sort of big words and big thoughts in that piece..." You have no idea how much I wish I could say that I was kidding about what Ms. Harf said.
One issue that Obama felt should not be included in these talks was Israel's right to exist. Said one Iranian commander: "The destruction of Israel is non-negotiable." In reply, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "The survival of Israel is non-negotiable. Israel will not accept an agreement which allows a country that vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons." On this issue there is no disagreement within Israel.
The liberal Zionist Union Party (formerly the Labor Party) headed by Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni issued a joint statement regarding Iran. They argue that Israel should enter into a comprehensive deal with the US that will give Israel "the unrestricted ability to act against threats and violations both of the deal and against our regional enemies that are supported by Iran." Sounds to me like they want a green light to attack Iran if necessary. Would Obama ever agree to that?
When asked if the US would agree to a deal with Iran that requires Iran to recognize Israel's right to exist, Marie Harf tersely said: "This is an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue." If that is the case, there is no meaningful deal. Not requiring any change in behavior from Iran means they will get their nuclear weapons, and continue to support terrorism and extend their reach even further throughout the Middle East.
Obama stated that requiring Iran to recognize Israel would be a "fundamental misjudgement." In an interview with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, Obama said how hard it was for him to hear criticisms that he has not done all he could to protect Israel. "This has been as hard as anything I do because of the deep affinities that I feel for the Israeli people and for the Jewish people." Yes, Mr. President, we can certainly see your affinity for the sole Jewish state in the world by the way you have treated its leader.
In their 4/8/15 editorial, the New York Times criticizes Israel's Minister of Intelligence and Strategic Affairs for insisting that Iran end all research end development of advanced centrifuges, reduce the number of centrifuges at Natanz beyond what the "framework" allows Iran to keep, completely close its underground facility at Fordo, allow inspectors anytime and anywhere, ship its existing stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country, and disclose past nuclear related activities having potential military use. Now that sounds like the makings of a good deal.
Yet, Obama and his State Department continue to insist that no alternatives have been proposed to Obama's deal. They continue to insist that Israel says the only option to Obama's deal is war with Iran. This writer suggested years ago that Bush should have taken out Iran's existing nuclear facilities at the time. They were fewer in number and less spread out. I argued that Bush should have sought an alliance for an aerial assault with Britain, France and Germany. I further argued that, absent a willingness to do so, Bush should have given the green light to Israel. But Bush refused to allow safe passage of Israeli planes over Iraq after we had toppled Saddam Hussein.
The result of this deal will be that Iran gets nuclear weapons, setting off a Middle East arms race as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and others will want to obtain their own nuclear weapons. All the while Obama will tell us he has made the world safer. "If you like your doctor..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)