In yet another decision, Justice Kennedy joined the 4 liberal justices (Kennedy is mostly a liberal) in a decision involving the Fair Housing Act of 1968. That Act made it illegal to discriminate in housing on the basis of race. However, in another 5-4 decision, the Court said that it was illegal to have a "disparate impact" in housing, even where there is no evidence of actual discrimination. You see, according to Kennedy's logic, after lower courts found that "disparate impact" was part of the law, the Congress had various opportunities to pass legislation making it clear that, no - we never included "disparate impact" in the law - and we meant it.
But in the Bizarro world in which we now operate, the failure of Congress to act means that Congress did act. Let's just hope that the first new low-cost housing goes up in the neighborhoods occupied by the wealthy liberal democrats.
With a government completely out of control, the last hope to call them to task is the "Fourth Estate," the media. But the mainstream media is now part of the left-wing, politically correct "the ends justify the means" establishment. So do not look for today's media to concern itself with an "imperial" presidency, or a runaway Supreme Court.
The 6/26/15 lead editorial in the New York Times called both the 2012 challenge to Obamacare (the penalty vs. tax issue), as well this recent challenge as being "legally frivolous." So frivolous that 4 Justices dissented the first time and 3 dissented this time. The Times said the current challenge to the law was "fabricated...out of thin air." Once again, the Times made no mention of Jonathan Gruber, a key architect of the law, who publicly said that the purpose of limiting the subsidy to the State exchanges was to encourage the states to establish their own exchanges. Yet the Times claimed that such an interpretation was "preposterous." If you just read the mainstream media you would not even know the name Jonathan Gruber. You would not know or understand why an issue even exists. (The LA Times editorial was not substantially different.)
There is insufficient time, and space in this post, to discuss the 5-4 decision declaring gay marriage to be a Constitutional right. What I do wish to point out is that one mainstream newspaper has already declared that they would "no longer accept" and print letters to the editor or op-ed pieces opposing gay marriage. And there you have it with the mainstream media's approach to presenting all sides in the marketplace of ideas. You see, our President has told us that "global warming" is settled, and those holding opposing views are anti-science (even if they are scientists). Gay marriage is the law of the land; anyone opposing it must be a bigot and a hater - so their voices need to be shut down. If you oppose abortion it is because you hate women. If you believe in the right to bear arms... Well, you get the point. Or do you?
You see, I am not sure that my liberal friends do get the point. I am not sure that they are concerned with the damage done to our liberty, and to our system of government, by these cases, simply because they agree with the outcomes. The ends justify the means. I am not sure my liberal friends who constantly mock Fox News understand the very real service that that news outlet provides - challenging runaway government power the way the mainstream media used to do.
This is just the beginning. We will see many cases where the new Constitutional right to gay marriage conflicts with the First Amendment Constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of religion. Did you see how quickly governments and retail stores moved to take down and remove from their shelves all confederate flags, or items depicting those flags. Which side will you be on when the next move is to take down the American flag - the Stars and Stripes - because some feel it is a symbol of racism, and oppression and imperialism. Are you confident that the line will always be drawn where you think it should be drawn? Or maybe, just maybe, we are better off sticking to fundamental principles.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
The Continuing Slide Into Tyranny, Part II
Here's the problem. Under our Constitution, only the legislative branch - Congress - has the power to write laws. It was bad enough that the Executive branch - President Obama - decided to rewrite the ACA on his own when he delayed implementation of certain provisions, contrary to the express wording of the statute; and unilaterally granted certain exemptions not provided for in the statute. Now, the Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to write laws by rewording the statute. We have an extraordinary system established by our Founders - 3 separate branches of government, each acting as a check on the exercise of unbridled power by the others.
As with any system, it depends upon the good will of those carrying out what they are entrusted to do. Today, we have an "ends justify the means" approach to governing, with the result being that, rather than act as a check upon one another, the 3 branches act in unison to enforce whatever they may deem appropriate - and the effect on individual liberty be damned.
What should have happened in King vs. Burwell was a decision allowing the subsidies to the States only, as the law was written. If it was written in haste or sloppily, it is the job of the Congress to fix it. Legislative bodies pass "clean-up legislation" all the time. The Court was not only concerned with the policy outcome should the subsidies be denied; but, in this writer's opinion, did not trust the Republican Congress to fix the law. So now, we have every branch of government engaging in the writing of laws, with the result being that that the Constitutional separation of powers is gone.
Just imagine what a President with even greater dictatorial inclinations than has Obama might do with this now unlimited power. Congress may pass a law that says everyone must vote. Then a President adds "and if you don't you pay a tax." And then the Supreme Court says "yes;" obviously Congress intended that enforcement mechanism or the entire premise of the law may fail. That is just what the IRS did in amending the law to grant subsidies to those in the federal exchange; and then the Court (which was worried that the insurance market would destabilize if they did not support the IRS in adding "or Federal Exchange"), went along with the entire scheme.
Now, the separation of powers is a myth. Compounding the problem with the Roberts' decision is the attack on "federalism" as well. We have not only a federal government, but 50 different state governments, with each also considered a sovereign entity with certain powers. Therefore, even if the Republican Congress failed to fix the perceived problem with the ACA, the states could have done so. With 34 states not having established an exchange, a decision disallowing a subsidy to those in the federal exchange might have prompted those states to reconsider their decision - and establish an exchange - in order to get the subsidy for their residents.
But, just as Roberts and those in the majority showed utter contempt for the separation of powers, the same contempt was shown for the idea of federalism; the idea that states as sovereign entities could decide on their own what would be best for their citizens.
As with any system, it depends upon the good will of those carrying out what they are entrusted to do. Today, we have an "ends justify the means" approach to governing, with the result being that, rather than act as a check upon one another, the 3 branches act in unison to enforce whatever they may deem appropriate - and the effect on individual liberty be damned.
What should have happened in King vs. Burwell was a decision allowing the subsidies to the States only, as the law was written. If it was written in haste or sloppily, it is the job of the Congress to fix it. Legislative bodies pass "clean-up legislation" all the time. The Court was not only concerned with the policy outcome should the subsidies be denied; but, in this writer's opinion, did not trust the Republican Congress to fix the law. So now, we have every branch of government engaging in the writing of laws, with the result being that that the Constitutional separation of powers is gone.
Just imagine what a President with even greater dictatorial inclinations than has Obama might do with this now unlimited power. Congress may pass a law that says everyone must vote. Then a President adds "and if you don't you pay a tax." And then the Supreme Court says "yes;" obviously Congress intended that enforcement mechanism or the entire premise of the law may fail. That is just what the IRS did in amending the law to grant subsidies to those in the federal exchange; and then the Court (which was worried that the insurance market would destabilize if they did not support the IRS in adding "or Federal Exchange"), went along with the entire scheme.
Now, the separation of powers is a myth. Compounding the problem with the Roberts' decision is the attack on "federalism" as well. We have not only a federal government, but 50 different state governments, with each also considered a sovereign entity with certain powers. Therefore, even if the Republican Congress failed to fix the perceived problem with the ACA, the states could have done so. With 34 states not having established an exchange, a decision disallowing a subsidy to those in the federal exchange might have prompted those states to reconsider their decision - and establish an exchange - in order to get the subsidy for their residents.
But, just as Roberts and those in the majority showed utter contempt for the separation of powers, the same contempt was shown for the idea of federalism; the idea that states as sovereign entities could decide on their own what would be best for their citizens.
The Continuing Slide Into Tyranny, Part I
The progressive movement has been chipping away at individual liberty since the beginning of the last century. Rather than recount 100 years of history, let's start with 2005 and then jump to today.
In 2005, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined four other liberal Justices in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London. Those five Justices completely rewrote the part of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that deals with eminent domain: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." A "public use" was always considered to be just that - a school or library or highway, as examples. In the Kelo case, "public use" was redefined to mean government may take your property and give it to another private citizen (such as a developer), if the new use under the new owner would generate greater tax revenue (say a strip mall in place of your house). That new definition of "public use" gave government at all levels the unlimited power to take anyone's property if they could generate more tax revenue from that property.
This past Thursday the Supreme Court handed down their decision in the Affordable Care Act case (King vs. Burwell). While the statute provided subsidies to those enrolled in "an exchange established by the State," Obama decided that language was unsatisfactory. Thirty-four states did not set up an exchange, although the residents of those states were eligible to enroll in the federal exchange. The IRS, under Obama, took it upon themselves to grant subsidies to those enrolled in the federal exchange, notwithstanding the limiting language of the statute.
Generally, courts will defer to an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute where the language is ambiguous. Here, the plaintiffs argued that the language was plain - the subsidy was available to those enrolled in an exchange established by the State.
As a reminder, 3 years ago Chief Justice John Roberts took it upon himself to rewrite the ACA in order to uphold its Constitutionality. Then, the argument was that the Constitution did not give Congress the power to order people to buy insurance, or pay a penalty for failing to do so. Roberts agreed that the Commerce Clause (frequently used to expand government power) could not justify a mandate to buy insurance. Therefore, Roberts rewrote the statute so that the failure to purchase insurance was a "tax," rather than a "penalty;" and then upheld the law under Congress' taxing power. The four liberal Justices would have voted to uphold the law under the Commerce Clause, seeing no problem in Congress telling you what to buy.
This week, Roberts joined the majority again, and again rewrote the legislation to suit his purposes. Having previously declared the penalty was a tax, this time he said that an exchange "established by the State" actually meant "an exchange established by the State or Federal Government." So what's the problem? Wasn't this just an oversight by Congress? Per Roberts, wasn't this a case where "the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation?"
In 2005, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined four other liberal Justices in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London. Those five Justices completely rewrote the part of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that deals with eminent domain: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." A "public use" was always considered to be just that - a school or library or highway, as examples. In the Kelo case, "public use" was redefined to mean government may take your property and give it to another private citizen (such as a developer), if the new use under the new owner would generate greater tax revenue (say a strip mall in place of your house). That new definition of "public use" gave government at all levels the unlimited power to take anyone's property if they could generate more tax revenue from that property.
This past Thursday the Supreme Court handed down their decision in the Affordable Care Act case (King vs. Burwell). While the statute provided subsidies to those enrolled in "an exchange established by the State," Obama decided that language was unsatisfactory. Thirty-four states did not set up an exchange, although the residents of those states were eligible to enroll in the federal exchange. The IRS, under Obama, took it upon themselves to grant subsidies to those enrolled in the federal exchange, notwithstanding the limiting language of the statute.
Generally, courts will defer to an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute where the language is ambiguous. Here, the plaintiffs argued that the language was plain - the subsidy was available to those enrolled in an exchange established by the State.
As a reminder, 3 years ago Chief Justice John Roberts took it upon himself to rewrite the ACA in order to uphold its Constitutionality. Then, the argument was that the Constitution did not give Congress the power to order people to buy insurance, or pay a penalty for failing to do so. Roberts agreed that the Commerce Clause (frequently used to expand government power) could not justify a mandate to buy insurance. Therefore, Roberts rewrote the statute so that the failure to purchase insurance was a "tax," rather than a "penalty;" and then upheld the law under Congress' taxing power. The four liberal Justices would have voted to uphold the law under the Commerce Clause, seeing no problem in Congress telling you what to buy.
This week, Roberts joined the majority again, and again rewrote the legislation to suit his purposes. Having previously declared the penalty was a tax, this time he said that an exchange "established by the State" actually meant "an exchange established by the State or Federal Government." So what's the problem? Wasn't this just an oversight by Congress? Per Roberts, wasn't this a case where "the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation?"
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
HATE, Part II
This word "hate" played a prominent role in the reporting of the shooting by the mainstream media. The weekend edition (6/19-6/21/15) of USA Today had the word "HATE" in very large letters on their front page, followed by in slightly smaller letters the words "IN AMERICA." The front page of the 6/23/15 LA Times had this headline: "Hate may bring down a flag." And the lead editorial of the 6/23/15 NY Times read: "Take Down a Symbol of Hatred."
As for the USA Today, were they suggesting that the evil killer in South Carolina was emblematic of America as a whole? And what is wrong with hate - in the right places. It is completely wrong to hate someone because of their race, ethnicity or religion, for example. But why is it wrong to hate evil and the perpetrators of evil? I am not a Christian, so I found it difficult to hear some of the victims' family members say they forgave the perpetrator. I do not.
But while we are on the topic, I could easily understand family members saying they hated the perpetrator. And should we not hate the worst mass murderers in history? I hate Hitler and what he did. Is it going to cause me to want to kill today's Germans? Of course not. I hate those who brought down the Twin Towers and murdered 3000 fellow Americans on 9/11, one of whom I personally knew and grew up with. Why shouldn't I hate them?
Yet, with all this talk of racism and hate, the front page of the 6/22/15 NY Times actually had it right with this headline: "Defiant Show of Unity in Church That Lost 9 to Racial Violence." Unity. The Times reported that at this past Sunday's church service, there were "whites sitting next to blacks, locals next to visitors." They also noted that hundreds were at a nearby memorial at a town square - and that most of those people were white.
Yet, besides Obama, there were others seeking to divide. Said one Reverend: "There's a consciousness around the country. I think they were, not embarrassed, but feel responsible. This was a serious wake-up call for white people."
It is difficult to get consistent statistics showing the number of homicides in the US. Different sites give different numbers. However, if we extrapolate, it is reasonable to say that in the year 2013 there were somewhere between about 12,000 and 14,000 murders in the US. A Bureau of Justice Statistics report from 2007 showed not only were blacks the victims of homicides 49% of the time, but blacks were the perpetrators of homicides 93% of the time. More recently, Chicago, Obama's home town, was noted to have a serious murder problem - again, with many of the victims and perpetrators being black.
So I remain confused. I would ask the above referenced Reverend when there will be a "serious wake-up call for black people?"
I cannot end this post without commenting on an article in the 6/22/15 NY Times. I could not believe it when the first sentence of the second paragraph used the complete "n" word. So Obama, who I have accused on multiple occasions of having no class, uses the "n" word - and now the NY Times feel free to do it? What? In the mainstream media's never-ending effort to support Obama, they copied him, and quoted others to explain why Obama said it. If the President of the United States says it, and the leading mainstream media outlet says it, is it now okay to use the "n" word? Low class and foolish on both their parts.
As for the USA Today, were they suggesting that the evil killer in South Carolina was emblematic of America as a whole? And what is wrong with hate - in the right places. It is completely wrong to hate someone because of their race, ethnicity or religion, for example. But why is it wrong to hate evil and the perpetrators of evil? I am not a Christian, so I found it difficult to hear some of the victims' family members say they forgave the perpetrator. I do not.
But while we are on the topic, I could easily understand family members saying they hated the perpetrator. And should we not hate the worst mass murderers in history? I hate Hitler and what he did. Is it going to cause me to want to kill today's Germans? Of course not. I hate those who brought down the Twin Towers and murdered 3000 fellow Americans on 9/11, one of whom I personally knew and grew up with. Why shouldn't I hate them?
Yet, with all this talk of racism and hate, the front page of the 6/22/15 NY Times actually had it right with this headline: "Defiant Show of Unity in Church That Lost 9 to Racial Violence." Unity. The Times reported that at this past Sunday's church service, there were "whites sitting next to blacks, locals next to visitors." They also noted that hundreds were at a nearby memorial at a town square - and that most of those people were white.
Yet, besides Obama, there were others seeking to divide. Said one Reverend: "There's a consciousness around the country. I think they were, not embarrassed, but feel responsible. This was a serious wake-up call for white people."
It is difficult to get consistent statistics showing the number of homicides in the US. Different sites give different numbers. However, if we extrapolate, it is reasonable to say that in the year 2013 there were somewhere between about 12,000 and 14,000 murders in the US. A Bureau of Justice Statistics report from 2007 showed not only were blacks the victims of homicides 49% of the time, but blacks were the perpetrators of homicides 93% of the time. More recently, Chicago, Obama's home town, was noted to have a serious murder problem - again, with many of the victims and perpetrators being black.
So I remain confused. I would ask the above referenced Reverend when there will be a "serious wake-up call for black people?"
I cannot end this post without commenting on an article in the 6/22/15 NY Times. I could not believe it when the first sentence of the second paragraph used the complete "n" word. So Obama, who I have accused on multiple occasions of having no class, uses the "n" word - and now the NY Times feel free to do it? What? In the mainstream media's never-ending effort to support Obama, they copied him, and quoted others to explain why Obama said it. If the President of the United States says it, and the leading mainstream media outlet says it, is it now okay to use the "n" word? Low class and foolish on both their parts.
HATE, Part I
Americans mourned the cold-blooded murder of 9 fellow citizens last week at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina. An evil, white, 21 year old sat and prayed for an hour with parishioners before opening fire on them. Despicable, and one can only hope that he gets the death penalty.
As we have come to expect from this president, Obama passed up the opportunity to give an inspiring and unifying speech; but, rather, spoke as the Divider in Chief. Obama: "The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives, you know, casts a long shadow, and that's still part of our DNA that's passed on. We're not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say n..... in public." (For the record, Obama used the full "n" word, which this writer chooses not to do.)
Obama typically starts such a speech by noting that race relations and racial equality have improved dramatically in this country. However, he never seems to mean it as it is always followed by a "but," after which he makes it sound as if we are still in the first half of the last century. Exactly what is passed on in our DNA? Racism? A desire to kill blacks? Where does such nonsense come from? Worse, what does he think of white Americans, so many of whom voted for him twice?
Somehow, the main stream media decided that the real problem must be the Confederate flag, flying above various buildings in the south. (Guns, of course, were the other culprit.) Missing from much of the discussion was that evil exists. A check of US census data revealed that, as of 2014, there were an estimated 4,832,482 people in South Carolina. 68.3% were said to be white. That amounts to 3,300,585 white people. Has the sight of the Confederate flag thrown those 3 million white people into a murderous frenzy? Of course not. This was an evil young man who used certain symbols to demonstrate to others, and perhaps to himself, his feelings about race.
Do not misunderstand. I believe there are legitimate arguments that can be made about the flying of the Confederate flag - by both sides. But it is absurd to suggest that the flying of that flag was the cause of the perpetrator's murderous actions. It is ironic, is it not, that Obama links this killing to widespread racism, but is unable to see any connection between Islam and the killing of tens of thousands around the world. He will not say - nor allow anyone in his Administration to utter the words - "radical Islam." No, Islam is a religion of peace, but whites are a bunch of murdering scoundrels, I guess.
What was also of interest was how the Confederate flag was seen as a Republican issue only. Said the 6/23/15 front page of the LA Times: "...Republican presidential candidates struggled to keep from becoming embroiled in a long and potentially damaging debate over the painful legacy of racism from some in their party's ranks." Excuse me? Did the Times miss the fact that the Republican Abraham Lincoln was the president who fought a war to end slavery? Did they miss Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Clearly, they missed all the Democrats that fought the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, while Republicans made sure there enough votes to pass these landmark pieces of legislation.
In his recent interview, Obama once again managed to go after Fox News. It must really burn him that Fox easily draws more viewers than MSNBC and CNN. Obama: "...if you watch Fox News you inhabit a completely different world with different facts than if you read the New York Times." Of course, he was holding out the NY Times as the standard for the mainstream media. I agree with Obama's assessment. It is a different world. If you only read the NY Times or LA Times or other mainstream papers, you miss much of what is actually going on in your country and the world. Just look at the quote from the LA Times in the above paragraph. Are the Times writers and editors, perhaps, more interested in presenting the news within a left wing framework, or are they completely ignorant of history - you know, morons? It's one or the other. Maybe both.
As we have come to expect from this president, Obama passed up the opportunity to give an inspiring and unifying speech; but, rather, spoke as the Divider in Chief. Obama: "The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives, you know, casts a long shadow, and that's still part of our DNA that's passed on. We're not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say n..... in public." (For the record, Obama used the full "n" word, which this writer chooses not to do.)
Obama typically starts such a speech by noting that race relations and racial equality have improved dramatically in this country. However, he never seems to mean it as it is always followed by a "but," after which he makes it sound as if we are still in the first half of the last century. Exactly what is passed on in our DNA? Racism? A desire to kill blacks? Where does such nonsense come from? Worse, what does he think of white Americans, so many of whom voted for him twice?
Somehow, the main stream media decided that the real problem must be the Confederate flag, flying above various buildings in the south. (Guns, of course, were the other culprit.) Missing from much of the discussion was that evil exists. A check of US census data revealed that, as of 2014, there were an estimated 4,832,482 people in South Carolina. 68.3% were said to be white. That amounts to 3,300,585 white people. Has the sight of the Confederate flag thrown those 3 million white people into a murderous frenzy? Of course not. This was an evil young man who used certain symbols to demonstrate to others, and perhaps to himself, his feelings about race.
Do not misunderstand. I believe there are legitimate arguments that can be made about the flying of the Confederate flag - by both sides. But it is absurd to suggest that the flying of that flag was the cause of the perpetrator's murderous actions. It is ironic, is it not, that Obama links this killing to widespread racism, but is unable to see any connection between Islam and the killing of tens of thousands around the world. He will not say - nor allow anyone in his Administration to utter the words - "radical Islam." No, Islam is a religion of peace, but whites are a bunch of murdering scoundrels, I guess.
What was also of interest was how the Confederate flag was seen as a Republican issue only. Said the 6/23/15 front page of the LA Times: "...Republican presidential candidates struggled to keep from becoming embroiled in a long and potentially damaging debate over the painful legacy of racism from some in their party's ranks." Excuse me? Did the Times miss the fact that the Republican Abraham Lincoln was the president who fought a war to end slavery? Did they miss Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Clearly, they missed all the Democrats that fought the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, while Republicans made sure there enough votes to pass these landmark pieces of legislation.
In his recent interview, Obama once again managed to go after Fox News. It must really burn him that Fox easily draws more viewers than MSNBC and CNN. Obama: "...if you watch Fox News you inhabit a completely different world with different facts than if you read the New York Times." Of course, he was holding out the NY Times as the standard for the mainstream media. I agree with Obama's assessment. It is a different world. If you only read the NY Times or LA Times or other mainstream papers, you miss much of what is actually going on in your country and the world. Just look at the quote from the LA Times in the above paragraph. Are the Times writers and editors, perhaps, more interested in presenting the news within a left wing framework, or are they completely ignorant of history - you know, morons? It's one or the other. Maybe both.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
In Case You Missed It
Last week the Secretary of Health and Human Service, Sylvia Mathews, testified on Capitol Hill before the House Ways and Means Committee. She was there to warn Congress, on behalf of Obama, that the Administration had no "Plan B" in the event the Supreme Court this month disallows subsidies to those in the federal exchange - which would be most enrollees in Obamacare. (The pending case is King vs. Burwell.)
Said Ms. Mathews: "If the court says that we do not have the authority to give subsidies, the critical decisions will sit with the Congress and states and governors to determine if those subsidies are available." Well, Ms. Mathews, that happens to be exactly how our system is supposed to work. Congress can amend the ACA; and failing that, states without exchanges can decide to establish one in order to get the subsidies for their residents.
Meanwhile, Ms. Mathews' boss was busy warning the Supreme Court to "play it straight" in interpreting the law. Said Obama: "This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn't even have been taken up" by the court. So, what is all this warning of the other two branches of government by the Executive branch really all about?
First, it is pure Obama, showing once again his contempt for our system of government, and his contempt for the other two branches. Recall his berating of the Justices while they sat in front of him at an earlier State of the Union address, following the Court's decision in Citizens United. Second, is the political element. Obama and his people are making it clear who they will blame - the Republicans - if the Court does not rule as he has decided they should. The Republicans not only control Congress, but most states without an exchange are run by Republican governors.
The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Ret. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, also testified before Congress last week. According to Flynn, the pending Iranian nuke deal "only makes sense" if there is a "wider reconciliation" with Iran - which he called "wishful thinking" absent a regime change.
Said Flynn: "Iran has not once - not once - contributed to the greater good of the security of the region." Although he did note that Iran did aid in the killing of Americans in Iraq. Further, Flynn added that Iran has "every intention" of building a nuke; and he called the frequently verbalized threat to destroy Israel "very real."
Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, speaking for Obama, said this: "We are deeply troubled by the politically motivated sentences that have been handed down against former President Morsi and several others by an Egyptian court today." Morsi, of course, won the Egyptian election after Mubarek was thrown out. After engaging in his own dictatorial rule, and threatening to end Egypt's longstanding peace agreement with Israel, Morsi was himself thrown out and replaced by military leader al-Sisi.
Obama supported Morsi, the former head of the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood, in turn, supports Hamas, the Muslim Student Association in this country, and other nefarious groups. Now Morsi has been given the death penalty for crimes against the Egyptian people. Obama is "deeply troubled" by this. When did we last hear how "deeply troubled" he was by the deaths of countless Christians throughout the Middle East at the hands of radical Muslims? When was he "deeply troubled" by P.A. leader Abbas saying that not one single Jew may live in any new Palestinian state?
Which brings me to my next topic. France once again has a UN Security Council proposal to create a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders. (See many earlier posts regarding the absurdity of such a proposal.) In any event, the French proposal would also recognize Israel as a Jewish state. And there's the rub. Abbas says he will have nothing to do with it. In the past, the US has vetoed such resolutions. Now, however, Obama has such intense dislike of Netanyahu and Israel, that he is threatening to withhold a veto.
So Abbas has shown yet again that the Palestinians have no desire for a peaceful two-state solution. Rather, as they have said repeatedly, they want a single Muslim state - and preferably with all the Jews either kicked out or killed.
I almost cannot wait to see how Obama is going to blame Netanyahu and Israel for yet another refusal by the Palestinians to make peace.
Said Ms. Mathews: "If the court says that we do not have the authority to give subsidies, the critical decisions will sit with the Congress and states and governors to determine if those subsidies are available." Well, Ms. Mathews, that happens to be exactly how our system is supposed to work. Congress can amend the ACA; and failing that, states without exchanges can decide to establish one in order to get the subsidies for their residents.
Meanwhile, Ms. Mathews' boss was busy warning the Supreme Court to "play it straight" in interpreting the law. Said Obama: "This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn't even have been taken up" by the court. So, what is all this warning of the other two branches of government by the Executive branch really all about?
First, it is pure Obama, showing once again his contempt for our system of government, and his contempt for the other two branches. Recall his berating of the Justices while they sat in front of him at an earlier State of the Union address, following the Court's decision in Citizens United. Second, is the political element. Obama and his people are making it clear who they will blame - the Republicans - if the Court does not rule as he has decided they should. The Republicans not only control Congress, but most states without an exchange are run by Republican governors.
The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Ret. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, also testified before Congress last week. According to Flynn, the pending Iranian nuke deal "only makes sense" if there is a "wider reconciliation" with Iran - which he called "wishful thinking" absent a regime change.
Said Flynn: "Iran has not once - not once - contributed to the greater good of the security of the region." Although he did note that Iran did aid in the killing of Americans in Iraq. Further, Flynn added that Iran has "every intention" of building a nuke; and he called the frequently verbalized threat to destroy Israel "very real."
Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, speaking for Obama, said this: "We are deeply troubled by the politically motivated sentences that have been handed down against former President Morsi and several others by an Egyptian court today." Morsi, of course, won the Egyptian election after Mubarek was thrown out. After engaging in his own dictatorial rule, and threatening to end Egypt's longstanding peace agreement with Israel, Morsi was himself thrown out and replaced by military leader al-Sisi.
Obama supported Morsi, the former head of the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood, in turn, supports Hamas, the Muslim Student Association in this country, and other nefarious groups. Now Morsi has been given the death penalty for crimes against the Egyptian people. Obama is "deeply troubled" by this. When did we last hear how "deeply troubled" he was by the deaths of countless Christians throughout the Middle East at the hands of radical Muslims? When was he "deeply troubled" by P.A. leader Abbas saying that not one single Jew may live in any new Palestinian state?
Which brings me to my next topic. France once again has a UN Security Council proposal to create a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders. (See many earlier posts regarding the absurdity of such a proposal.) In any event, the French proposal would also recognize Israel as a Jewish state. And there's the rub. Abbas says he will have nothing to do with it. In the past, the US has vetoed such resolutions. Now, however, Obama has such intense dislike of Netanyahu and Israel, that he is threatening to withhold a veto.
So Abbas has shown yet again that the Palestinians have no desire for a peaceful two-state solution. Rather, as they have said repeatedly, they want a single Muslim state - and preferably with all the Jews either kicked out or killed.
I almost cannot wait to see how Obama is going to blame Netanyahu and Israel for yet another refusal by the Palestinians to make peace.
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Obama on Israel, Part II
Obama: "And the challenge I think that I have when it comes to these issues is that I do think part of my obligation of being a friend of Israel's is to speak the truth as I see it. And the truth as I see it is that the very moral imperatives that led to the founding of Israel - the belief that all of us share a basic humanity and dignity and rights that make it important for us to speak out against anti-Semitism - those things also require me from my perspective to say clearly that a Palestinian youth in Ramallah who feels their possibilities constrained by the status quo, that they have a claim on us, that they have a claim not just on Palestinian leaders, that they have a claim on Israeli leaders. They have a claim on U.S. leaders in the same way that children around the world who are locked out of opportunity have those claims."
Where to begin? First, let's dispense with the liberal nonsense that "all of us share a basic humanity." Tell that to all the people who have been beheaded or otherwise murdered by ISIS. Second, if you were a true friend of Israel's, Mr. Obama, you would not make such a lousy deal with Iran - allowing them to keep enriched uranium, thousands of centrifuges, continue their support of world-wide terrorism, and say that recognition of Israel's right to exist is unrelated to a country which constantly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. As a true friend you would not require Israel to reduce itself down to indefensible borders. But maybe we define "friend" differently.
You suggest, Mr. Obama, that you care about all the "children around the world who are locked out of opportunity." What are you doing about the children in all of the other Middle Eastern countries suffering through war and violence - Syria, Yemen, Iraq or Libya to name just a few. What are you doing for children who are truly oppressed in Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Cuba, to name just a few.
Mr. Obama, you seem to really only want to talk about children in the West Bank. Why is that? You refer to a "Palestinian youth who feels their possibilities constrained." So, let's talk about that. Allow me to give you some data from Carolyn Glick's book: "From 1967 to 2000, Israeli investment in the local (West Bank) economy enabled the local GDP to grow 5.5 percent each year on average - nearly a full point more than Israel's own economy's average growth rate of 4.2 percent. Literacy rates among the Palestinians rose from 52.5 percent in 1967 to 84.2 percent in 1995. Israel opened six universities in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and two in Gaza...Life expectancy increased sharply, from forty-eight in 1967 to seventy-two in 2000. Infant mortality plummeted by three-quarters, from 60 per thousand live births to 15, as Israel built more than a hundred clinics, offered comprehensive health insurance, and modernized and expanded sewage and electrical infrastructures." (From the Israeli Solution, pages 113-114.)
No, if you were a true friend of Israel's Mr. Obama you would stop enabling the Palestinians sense of victimhood and entitlement. You would tell them that there will never be a right of return for millions of descendants of the original refugees. You will tell them that Jerusalem will forever remain the undivided capital of Israel - and you will move the US embassy there to prove that point. And you will them - no, force them - to lay down their arms and recognize Israel as the sole Jewish state in the world. But as I said, maybe you and I define friendship differently.
Where to begin? First, let's dispense with the liberal nonsense that "all of us share a basic humanity." Tell that to all the people who have been beheaded or otherwise murdered by ISIS. Second, if you were a true friend of Israel's, Mr. Obama, you would not make such a lousy deal with Iran - allowing them to keep enriched uranium, thousands of centrifuges, continue their support of world-wide terrorism, and say that recognition of Israel's right to exist is unrelated to a country which constantly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. As a true friend you would not require Israel to reduce itself down to indefensible borders. But maybe we define "friend" differently.
You suggest, Mr. Obama, that you care about all the "children around the world who are locked out of opportunity." What are you doing about the children in all of the other Middle Eastern countries suffering through war and violence - Syria, Yemen, Iraq or Libya to name just a few. What are you doing for children who are truly oppressed in Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Cuba, to name just a few.
Mr. Obama, you seem to really only want to talk about children in the West Bank. Why is that? You refer to a "Palestinian youth who feels their possibilities constrained." So, let's talk about that. Allow me to give you some data from Carolyn Glick's book: "From 1967 to 2000, Israeli investment in the local (West Bank) economy enabled the local GDP to grow 5.5 percent each year on average - nearly a full point more than Israel's own economy's average growth rate of 4.2 percent. Literacy rates among the Palestinians rose from 52.5 percent in 1967 to 84.2 percent in 1995. Israel opened six universities in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and two in Gaza...Life expectancy increased sharply, from forty-eight in 1967 to seventy-two in 2000. Infant mortality plummeted by three-quarters, from 60 per thousand live births to 15, as Israel built more than a hundred clinics, offered comprehensive health insurance, and modernized and expanded sewage and electrical infrastructures." (From the Israeli Solution, pages 113-114.)
No, if you were a true friend of Israel's Mr. Obama you would stop enabling the Palestinians sense of victimhood and entitlement. You would tell them that there will never be a right of return for millions of descendants of the original refugees. You will tell them that Jerusalem will forever remain the undivided capital of Israel - and you will move the US embassy there to prove that point. And you will them - no, force them - to lay down their arms and recognize Israel as the sole Jewish state in the world. But as I said, maybe you and I define friendship differently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)