Senator John Risch, Rep., Idaho, accused Kerry of being one of"the most naive people in the history of the earth." Defending Kerry was CA Senator Barbara Boxer, claiming that if Kerry was "bamboozled, the world was bamboozled." First, I think we can agree that Kerry was leading the negotiations with Iran. Second, the rest of the world is not aligned with the interests of the United States; so if Kerry was bamboozled I think we can agree that Russia and China were not, perhaps being quite content to have Iran have the capabilities of threatening America. They don't seem to shout "Death to Russia" or "Death to China" in Iran. I think we need to put Boxer up there among the most naive people on earth.
The New York Times 7/15/15 editorial: The deal "puts strong, verifiable limits on Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years and is potentially one of the most consequential accords in recent diplomatic history, with the ability not just to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but also to reshape Middle East politics." Well, I do agree on the reshaping of Middle East politics. Perhaps the biggest accomplishment in this deal is the fact that Israel and Saudi Arabia have been working together to denounce this agreement.
Mitt Romney: "...Iran is led by suicidal, apocalypse-seeking, America-hating, Israel-denying theocratic fanatics. If these Ayatollahs have nuclear weapons, they will use them, someday, somewhere. Iran is a major, longtime state sponsor of terrorism; its leaders are entirely bereft of restraint, decency and respect for human life." I still cannot believe that this decent, clear-headed man is not our President.
Dennis Prager: "And whoever believes that the agreement will bring Iran into "the community of nations" betrays a breathtaking ignorance about the Iranian regime." Actually, those believers need only be liberals, people who let their beliefs dictate their reality.
Prager: "The Iranian regime has executed more people than any country except China (and probably North Korea, for which data are unavailable). The Iranian regime has killed more than 6,000 gays for being homosexual. No woman is allowed to leave the country or even to work outside her home without the permission of her husband." The brave folks on the left would rather look the other way than face these unpleasant truths. And the mainstream media would rather talk about the latest comment from Donald Trump.
John Kerry, when questioned about the possibility of Israel attacking Iran: "That'd be an enormous mistake, a huge mistake with grave consequences for Israel and for the region, and I don't think it's necessary." And what if Congress votes down the deal? Kerry: "I fear that what could happen is if Congress were to overturn it, our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated and more blamed."
During last year's Gaza war, it was you Mr. Kerry who isolated and blamed Israel. While Israel had to fight the terrorist group Hamas, which hid among the civilian population in Gaza, while firing their rockets into Israel's civilian population centers, it was you who was caught unawares on an open mic blaming Israel rather than Hamas for the civilian casualties. Remember your comments, Mr. Kerry: "It's a hell of a pinpoint operation; it's a hell of a pinpoint operation." So, yes, Israel will be blamed and isolated, with you and your boss leading the charge.
Philippe Assouline: "The unprecedented wealth and military might of Western democracies were exposed as a Potemkin village...Thrown to the wolves were the West's allies, and the idea of Western resolve itself."
I'll end with a quote from Jackie Mason, that famous Jewish, and conservative, comedian: "Do you know that in the restaurants of New York, they have an inspection system. You can surprise any restaurant without notice, that you can walk in and inspect them...so we are protected in this city from a bad tuna fish. We're not protected from a bomb but we're protected from a bad quality of tuna fish."
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Divergent Views on the Iran Deal, Part I
Barack Obama: "I welcome a robust debate in Congress on this issue, and I welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement." You mean, as long as Congress does not think that they have any say in the matter, as you also said: "I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal." Then again, part of your "fundamental change" has been to completely disregard the other two branches of government from the day you took office.
The Wall Street Journal in their 7/21/15 editorial: "This has been Mr. Obama's strategy all along-to present Congress with a political fait accompli. First, he constructed the negotiation as an executive agreement, rather than as a treaty that would have required a two-thirds vote of approval in the Senate...And now the U.N. vote lets him assert that disapproval in Congress will pit America against the rest of the world outside the Middle East."
The New York Times in their 7/19/15 editorial expressed concern that both Israel and Saudi Arabia "have issued alarming denunciations of the United States." What if Iran bordered the US; I wonder how many liberals would also be issuing "alarming" criticisms of this deal. The Times quoted the former Saudi ambassador to the US as saying the deal would "wreak havoc" on the Middle East. Seems like those who live in the neighborhood agree that it is a bad idea to give the Ayatollahs nukes.
Barack Obama: "There really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force, through war." Is that what it was, a negotiation? And I thought it was a capitulation. When the other side knows you are desperate for a deal, any deal, then you can be assured they will get what they want. And so they did. And no, those were not the only two options. A much better deal was a much better option.
The WSJ in their 7/15/15 editorial: "Perhaps most dismaying is that this nuclear deal also lifts sanctions on Iran's conventional weapons trade in five years, and ballistic missiles in eight." Hold on. How many times did Obama and Kerry and others tell us that this deal was only about the nukes? That was why they did not insist on Iran changing their terrorist-supporting ways, or ask Iran to release American hostages, or insist Iran stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and so on. So how did these other weapons make it into the deal? Simple, Iran insisted and the West caved. You see, Iran acted as the superpower during these negotiations, and the West seemed to agree.
Barack Obama: "We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region." Except that there is a general consensus that the opposite will occur; starting with Saudi Arabia using their gazillion dollars to purchase nukes from Pakistan. Obama: "...this deal meets every single one of the bottom lines that we established..." Uh, not quite. In fact, none of the bottom lines made it into the final deal. Not the anywhere, anytime inspections. Not forcing Iran to come clean on their past military applications for nukes. Not waiting for the lifting of sanctions. And certainly not the dismantling of their nuclear infrastructure. So, did Obama just lie to the American people yet again?
Michael Ramirez is a well known political cartoonist. In today's Ventura County Star is a six frame cartoon that shows Obama in each frame saying the following: 1. "This will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons..." 2. "And prevent a nuclear arms race." 3. "And create shovel ready jobs..." 4. And lower your premiums by $2500..." 5. "And if you like your doctor..." 6. "Uh, where was I again?" Where indeed.
The Wall Street Journal in their 7/21/15 editorial: "This has been Mr. Obama's strategy all along-to present Congress with a political fait accompli. First, he constructed the negotiation as an executive agreement, rather than as a treaty that would have required a two-thirds vote of approval in the Senate...And now the U.N. vote lets him assert that disapproval in Congress will pit America against the rest of the world outside the Middle East."
The New York Times in their 7/19/15 editorial expressed concern that both Israel and Saudi Arabia "have issued alarming denunciations of the United States." What if Iran bordered the US; I wonder how many liberals would also be issuing "alarming" criticisms of this deal. The Times quoted the former Saudi ambassador to the US as saying the deal would "wreak havoc" on the Middle East. Seems like those who live in the neighborhood agree that it is a bad idea to give the Ayatollahs nukes.
Barack Obama: "There really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force, through war." Is that what it was, a negotiation? And I thought it was a capitulation. When the other side knows you are desperate for a deal, any deal, then you can be assured they will get what they want. And so they did. And no, those were not the only two options. A much better deal was a much better option.
The WSJ in their 7/15/15 editorial: "Perhaps most dismaying is that this nuclear deal also lifts sanctions on Iran's conventional weapons trade in five years, and ballistic missiles in eight." Hold on. How many times did Obama and Kerry and others tell us that this deal was only about the nukes? That was why they did not insist on Iran changing their terrorist-supporting ways, or ask Iran to release American hostages, or insist Iran stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and so on. So how did these other weapons make it into the deal? Simple, Iran insisted and the West caved. You see, Iran acted as the superpower during these negotiations, and the West seemed to agree.
Barack Obama: "We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region." Except that there is a general consensus that the opposite will occur; starting with Saudi Arabia using their gazillion dollars to purchase nukes from Pakistan. Obama: "...this deal meets every single one of the bottom lines that we established..." Uh, not quite. In fact, none of the bottom lines made it into the final deal. Not the anywhere, anytime inspections. Not forcing Iran to come clean on their past military applications for nukes. Not waiting for the lifting of sanctions. And certainly not the dismantling of their nuclear infrastructure. So, did Obama just lie to the American people yet again?
Michael Ramirez is a well known political cartoonist. In today's Ventura County Star is a six frame cartoon that shows Obama in each frame saying the following: 1. "This will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons..." 2. "And prevent a nuclear arms race." 3. "And create shovel ready jobs..." 4. And lower your premiums by $2500..." 5. "And if you like your doctor..." 6. "Uh, where was I again?" Where indeed.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Some Deal
Given that Russia and Syria are speaking very highly of the newly announced nuclear arms deal between the Western powers and Iran, one might think that seeing who supports the deal tells you all you need to know. Never mind that our allies in the region say it's a bad deal.
Iran can continue to enrich uranium - up to a point. Iran can still develop advanced centrifuges. The Arak heavy water reactor stays open, with some modifications. The IAEA does not get complete access to all sites. Sanctions will be ending soon, and Iran will see an infusion of $100-150 billion, all of which can be used to continue their unprecedented sponsorship of terrorism.
That's right. We did not ask any change in Iran's behavior. Just this past weekend, at a rally attended by the Iranian President, the crowd was chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Iran may continue its support of terrorism, and continue to threaten to wipe Israel off the map. As for the Americans being held hostage by Iran (Pastor Saeed, former Marine Amir Hekmati, Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, and retired FBI agent Robert Levinson)? You don't think Obama insisted on their release, do you?
As for the Israelis, there is no separation of opinion from left to right to center of the political spectrum. Isaac Herzog, of the left wing Zionist Union Party (formerly Labor), said: "...with regard to security, I am more extreme than Netanyahu." Conservative Education Minister Naftali Bennett said: "...this day will be remembered as a black day in the history of the free world."
Centrist Yair Lapid of Yesh Atid said it's "a bad day for the Jewish people." Right wing former Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said "the agreement with Iran will be remembered in history the same way as the Munich Agreement that led to World War II and the agreement with North Korea that led to its nuclearization."
Obama today, in announcing the deal, said the US negotiated from a position of strength. While the US was clearly the stronger power, we acted like the far weaker power. One concession after the next was given to Iran. Virtually none of the original red lines drawn by Obama made it into the final deal.
In 1939, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler, the deal then was that Germany would be able to take over part of Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland). Chamberlain triumphantly returned to Britain famously announcing that he had achieved "peace in our time." Signing off on the deal with Britain were France and the US. Starting to sound familiar? Czechoslovakia was not invited; rather, they were sold out by the other Western powers. Only, history has shown that appeasing a tyrant like Hitler did not lesson the likelihood of war. Those odds were enhanced as Germany perceived the West as being weak. What do you think Iran thinks of the West, after they made one concession after the next?
Guess who was not included in the negotiations with Iran? Israel. Out of a tragic past, and therefore necessity, the Israelis are, if nothing else, students of history. There is no doubt that they see themselves as the Czechoslovakia of the Iranian deal. A nuclear armed Iran constitutes the greatest threat to Israel's very existence.
I could not get two different scenarios out of my mind today. The first: In six months or so, a White House aide goes running into the Oval Office. "Mr. President! Iran secretly developed nukes and has launched them at Israel. Millions of Israelis may be dead." Obama: "This won't delay my golf game I hope. We tee off in 5 minutes." The second: The aide runs into the Oval Office and announces "Mr. President! Israel has launched a major assault on Iran's nuclear facilities." Obama: "That son of a bitch Netanyahu! Send in the 6th Fleet and have them bomb Israel's nuclear facilities. I'll show Netanyahu who the boss is!"
Far fetched? Impossible? What's most scary to me is that I could not imagine ever getting to the point where such things are even imaginable. Yet here we are. What do you think Obama would do if Israel "ruined" his major foreign policy achievement and bombed Iran? Think Obama would stand by Israel then? Who would you stand with - Obama or Israel?
Iran can continue to enrich uranium - up to a point. Iran can still develop advanced centrifuges. The Arak heavy water reactor stays open, with some modifications. The IAEA does not get complete access to all sites. Sanctions will be ending soon, and Iran will see an infusion of $100-150 billion, all of which can be used to continue their unprecedented sponsorship of terrorism.
That's right. We did not ask any change in Iran's behavior. Just this past weekend, at a rally attended by the Iranian President, the crowd was chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Iran may continue its support of terrorism, and continue to threaten to wipe Israel off the map. As for the Americans being held hostage by Iran (Pastor Saeed, former Marine Amir Hekmati, Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, and retired FBI agent Robert Levinson)? You don't think Obama insisted on their release, do you?
As for the Israelis, there is no separation of opinion from left to right to center of the political spectrum. Isaac Herzog, of the left wing Zionist Union Party (formerly Labor), said: "...with regard to security, I am more extreme than Netanyahu." Conservative Education Minister Naftali Bennett said: "...this day will be remembered as a black day in the history of the free world."
Centrist Yair Lapid of Yesh Atid said it's "a bad day for the Jewish people." Right wing former Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said "the agreement with Iran will be remembered in history the same way as the Munich Agreement that led to World War II and the agreement with North Korea that led to its nuclearization."
Obama today, in announcing the deal, said the US negotiated from a position of strength. While the US was clearly the stronger power, we acted like the far weaker power. One concession after the next was given to Iran. Virtually none of the original red lines drawn by Obama made it into the final deal.
In 1939, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler, the deal then was that Germany would be able to take over part of Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland). Chamberlain triumphantly returned to Britain famously announcing that he had achieved "peace in our time." Signing off on the deal with Britain were France and the US. Starting to sound familiar? Czechoslovakia was not invited; rather, they were sold out by the other Western powers. Only, history has shown that appeasing a tyrant like Hitler did not lesson the likelihood of war. Those odds were enhanced as Germany perceived the West as being weak. What do you think Iran thinks of the West, after they made one concession after the next?
Guess who was not included in the negotiations with Iran? Israel. Out of a tragic past, and therefore necessity, the Israelis are, if nothing else, students of history. There is no doubt that they see themselves as the Czechoslovakia of the Iranian deal. A nuclear armed Iran constitutes the greatest threat to Israel's very existence.
I could not get two different scenarios out of my mind today. The first: In six months or so, a White House aide goes running into the Oval Office. "Mr. President! Iran secretly developed nukes and has launched them at Israel. Millions of Israelis may be dead." Obama: "This won't delay my golf game I hope. We tee off in 5 minutes." The second: The aide runs into the Oval Office and announces "Mr. President! Israel has launched a major assault on Iran's nuclear facilities." Obama: "That son of a bitch Netanyahu! Send in the 6th Fleet and have them bomb Israel's nuclear facilities. I'll show Netanyahu who the boss is!"
Far fetched? Impossible? What's most scary to me is that I could not imagine ever getting to the point where such things are even imaginable. Yet here we are. What do you think Obama would do if Israel "ruined" his major foreign policy achievement and bombed Iran? Think Obama would stand by Israel then? Who would you stand with - Obama or Israel?
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Israel, Anti-Semitism and the Left
As Obama has taken his party and the country further and further to the left, the support for Israel from his party has continued to decline. Frank Luntz conducted a poll of what he referred to as the "opinion elite." Those were defined as people being highly educated, high earners and publicly active. I suspect a number of my readers would qualify.
The poll asked people various questions about Israel. Here is how the "opinion elite" of the 2 parties answered. Does Israel have too much influence on US foreign policy? Dems - 76% say yes, Repubs - 20% agree. Does Israel want peace with its neighbors? Dems - 48% say yes, Repubs - 88% agree. Are settlements an impediment to peace? Dems - 75% say yes, Repubs - only 25% agree. Notice how the Dems answers tend to track with Obama's stated positions on these issues.
Do you support the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. 31% of Dems do, while a mere 3% of Repubs do. Curiously, the poll found that 60% were unaware of what BDS was. Asked if Jews were oversensitive and claimed that legitimate criticisms of Israel were anti-Semitic, 50% of Dems agreed. Only 18% of Repubs agreed.
In an interesting pair of related questions, people were asked if the US should support Israel or the Palestinians. 51% of Dems said Israel, while a whopping 90% of Repubs said Israel. But, when asked who they personally supported, only a minority of Dems - 46% - said Israel. But an overwhelming 88% of Repubs personally supported Israel.
As Obama has sought to distance himself and his Administration away from Israel (which he has done since entering office), he has concurrently aligned himself with pro-Palestinian groups. It is not just that the radical Islamist groups, such as CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) and the ISNA (the Islamic Society of North America), are frequent visitors to the White House. No, Obama looks to support his anti-Israel agenda by getting left-wing Jewish groups to side with him.
Whereas AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Council) is a true supporter of Israel, and non-partisan with regards to the 2 parties; Obama prefers to invite groups such as "J Street" to the White House. J Street claims to identify as a pro-Israel organization, yet is a far left group that has adopted virtually all the Palestinian talking points - the same as Obama. Now, there is another allegedly pro-Israel, but actually pro-Palestinian group, called "Breaking the Silence," that also gets White House access.
So let's see. Radical Islamic groups get access to the White House. Far left pro-Palestinian Jewish groups get access to the White House. But hey, Al Sharpton is described as a trusted adviser, so...
Meanwhile, the UN Human Rights Council was at it again. This joke of an organization has passed more anti-Israel measures than against any other member nation, and possibly more against Israel than all the other nations combined. Under Bush, the US was not a member of the Council; but Obama has a far greater affinity for all things international. This time, they adopted a report concerning last year's war between Israel and Hamas. The vote was 47-1, with 5 abstentions. Those abstaining were Kenya, Ethiopia, Paraguay, Macedonia and India. Israel has made an effort to create closer ties with India; and the Palestinians were apoplectic that India this time did not vote how they had hoped.
The 8 European countries on the Council all voted against Israel. No surprise there. They are the UK, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Latvia and Estonia. Think about that the next time you want to travel to one of these countries. There were reports that Israel asked the UK and Germany to vote for the resolution, fearing that a worse resolution might be enacted if the current one was not. The one no vote - the US. But at the Security Council, where it really counts, Obama has said he would no longer guarantee protection of Israel.
Well, at least those countries voting against Israel all have stellar human rights records themselves. That would be countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, to name a few.
I'll leave you with this quote from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, regarding the UNHRC resolution. "On a day when Israel is hit by fire from the Sinai (by ISIS), when Islamic State is carrying out cruel terror attacks inside Egypt, in Syria Assad is slaughtering his people, and in Iran the number of arbitrary executions rises on an annual basis, the Council decides to condemn Israel that has committed no sins." But maybe the Dems would say that I'm just oversensitive to legitimate criticisms of Israel.
The poll asked people various questions about Israel. Here is how the "opinion elite" of the 2 parties answered. Does Israel have too much influence on US foreign policy? Dems - 76% say yes, Repubs - 20% agree. Does Israel want peace with its neighbors? Dems - 48% say yes, Repubs - 88% agree. Are settlements an impediment to peace? Dems - 75% say yes, Repubs - only 25% agree. Notice how the Dems answers tend to track with Obama's stated positions on these issues.
Do you support the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. 31% of Dems do, while a mere 3% of Repubs do. Curiously, the poll found that 60% were unaware of what BDS was. Asked if Jews were oversensitive and claimed that legitimate criticisms of Israel were anti-Semitic, 50% of Dems agreed. Only 18% of Repubs agreed.
In an interesting pair of related questions, people were asked if the US should support Israel or the Palestinians. 51% of Dems said Israel, while a whopping 90% of Repubs said Israel. But, when asked who they personally supported, only a minority of Dems - 46% - said Israel. But an overwhelming 88% of Repubs personally supported Israel.
As Obama has sought to distance himself and his Administration away from Israel (which he has done since entering office), he has concurrently aligned himself with pro-Palestinian groups. It is not just that the radical Islamist groups, such as CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) and the ISNA (the Islamic Society of North America), are frequent visitors to the White House. No, Obama looks to support his anti-Israel agenda by getting left-wing Jewish groups to side with him.
Whereas AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Council) is a true supporter of Israel, and non-partisan with regards to the 2 parties; Obama prefers to invite groups such as "J Street" to the White House. J Street claims to identify as a pro-Israel organization, yet is a far left group that has adopted virtually all the Palestinian talking points - the same as Obama. Now, there is another allegedly pro-Israel, but actually pro-Palestinian group, called "Breaking the Silence," that also gets White House access.
So let's see. Radical Islamic groups get access to the White House. Far left pro-Palestinian Jewish groups get access to the White House. But hey, Al Sharpton is described as a trusted adviser, so...
Meanwhile, the UN Human Rights Council was at it again. This joke of an organization has passed more anti-Israel measures than against any other member nation, and possibly more against Israel than all the other nations combined. Under Bush, the US was not a member of the Council; but Obama has a far greater affinity for all things international. This time, they adopted a report concerning last year's war between Israel and Hamas. The vote was 47-1, with 5 abstentions. Those abstaining were Kenya, Ethiopia, Paraguay, Macedonia and India. Israel has made an effort to create closer ties with India; and the Palestinians were apoplectic that India this time did not vote how they had hoped.
The 8 European countries on the Council all voted against Israel. No surprise there. They are the UK, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Latvia and Estonia. Think about that the next time you want to travel to one of these countries. There were reports that Israel asked the UK and Germany to vote for the resolution, fearing that a worse resolution might be enacted if the current one was not. The one no vote - the US. But at the Security Council, where it really counts, Obama has said he would no longer guarantee protection of Israel.
Well, at least those countries voting against Israel all have stellar human rights records themselves. That would be countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, to name a few.
I'll leave you with this quote from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, regarding the UNHRC resolution. "On a day when Israel is hit by fire from the Sinai (by ISIS), when Islamic State is carrying out cruel terror attacks inside Egypt, in Syria Assad is slaughtering his people, and in Iran the number of arbitrary executions rises on an annual basis, the Council decides to condemn Israel that has committed no sins." But maybe the Dems would say that I'm just oversensitive to legitimate criticisms of Israel.
More Evidence That "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"
Sometimes, and for some of us, it does not seem possible that certain news stories could possibly have an element of truth to them. Yet, Fox reported that in Seattle girls as young as 11 years old are able to obtain IUDs, without parental consent.
As if that were not bad enough, Fox also reported that 15 year-olds in Oregon may get gender reassignment surgery without parental consent, and paid for by the State's Medicaid program. Fox noted that a 15 year-old in Oregon could not drive, smoke, donate blood, get a tattoo or go to a tanning salon. Snopes took issue with the Fox story. Yet, they did not disprove nor negate the essential elements of the story. Snopes reported that the age of consent for medical treatment in Oregon has been 15 since 1971. (My guess would be that such a measure was enacted to allow for abortions.)
However, Snopes also agreed that in early 2015 Oregon did include "gender dysphoria" as one of the conditions covered by the state's Medicaid program. The real beef that Snopes seemed to have was the way the article was written - the spin. There was no proof that a 15 year-old had yet undergone such a surgery. There was no indication that a doctor would be willing to perform such a surgery without parental consent.
So, accepting the Snopes' version - so what? Who actually believes that a 15 year-old is mature enough, with enough life experience, to make a decision that will affect them for the rest of their lives? Who believes that a 15 year-old should even have the power to make such a decision? This is insanity; or, as Michael Savage says, a "mental disorder."
Reference was made to an article by the "Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry." That article referred to a 2008 study claiming that "most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty." Johns Hopkins Medical Center apparently stopped performing gender reassignment surgeries after at least one study revealed that, long term, the suicide rate for transgendered individuals was about 20 times higher than that for a comparable non-transgendered population.
Just a thought. Notice has Obama has no problem linking the deaths of blacks to racism. It does not matter that so many blacks are killed by other blacks. It's racism. So how come Obama is unable to see the connection between the deaths of thousands around the world with radical Islam. I guess racism is rampant, but radical Islam is non-existent. Or, does Obama, as a leftist, let his beliefs dictate his reality? Such a refusal/inability to view the world accurately might just be considered a mental disorder.
Whoever thought that the idea of "sanctuary cities" made any sense? As noted in my 3 part series entitled "The Continuing Slide Into Tyranny," we are no longer a country of laws applied equally. If we were, certain people (Lois Lerner? Hillary Clinton?) might face prosecution. The idea of sanctuary cities merely reinforces the notion that anybody can do what they want. It is outrageous for local governments to claim that they do not need to comply with federal immigration laws. Well, mostly outrageous.
Part of the problem is that the federal government often will not enforce their own immigration laws. Now, an illegal immigrant who was a convicted felon and deported 5 times, was free to roam the streets of San Francisco and murder a 32 year-old woman named Kathryn Steinle. The Feds, specifically ICE, asked SF to keep the perpetrator in custody if they were going to release him. ICE had turned him over to the local authorities for prosecution on a drug charge. But the locals decided not to prosecute and released the soon to be murderer.
The locals decided they had no obligation to hold the man absent a warrant or court order. In fact, based on one federal district judge's decision, the locals felt it was illegal to detain the man. This is all insanity. If someone who is a convicted felon and who has been deported 5 times cannot be held by local authorities until ICE can pick him up, there is something very wrong and laws need to be changed.
The first change should be eliminating all federal aid to cities or states that pass sanctuary laws. The next obvious problem is the porous border. This perpetrator was deported 5 times and made it back in a sixth time, allowing him to commit murder. Deporting him again would have been meaningless. We need to strengthen our border security; and if the only way to do so is to build a wall then let's do it. If our border is that porous, then perhaps we need to institute prison time for violation of our immigration laws.
I would exclude minors from any prison time. And I would not agree with a 5 year sentence for an initial violation, as some have proposed. Rather, if we pursue such a policy, I would give increasing amounts of time for each new violation. Perhaps 6 months initially, then 1 1/2 years, then 3 years, then 5 years. It appears that some deterrent is needed.
But, now you sound like Donald Trump. No. No one has been able to explain to me why those citizens of nearby countries should be allowed to come here illegally, just because they can walk across the border, while citizens of far away countries mostly wait in line for the proper paperwork and opportunity to come. Do you allow your neighbors where you live to sneak into your house anytime they want to do so? I doubt anyone does - not even liberals.
As if that were not bad enough, Fox also reported that 15 year-olds in Oregon may get gender reassignment surgery without parental consent, and paid for by the State's Medicaid program. Fox noted that a 15 year-old in Oregon could not drive, smoke, donate blood, get a tattoo or go to a tanning salon. Snopes took issue with the Fox story. Yet, they did not disprove nor negate the essential elements of the story. Snopes reported that the age of consent for medical treatment in Oregon has been 15 since 1971. (My guess would be that such a measure was enacted to allow for abortions.)
However, Snopes also agreed that in early 2015 Oregon did include "gender dysphoria" as one of the conditions covered by the state's Medicaid program. The real beef that Snopes seemed to have was the way the article was written - the spin. There was no proof that a 15 year-old had yet undergone such a surgery. There was no indication that a doctor would be willing to perform such a surgery without parental consent.
So, accepting the Snopes' version - so what? Who actually believes that a 15 year-old is mature enough, with enough life experience, to make a decision that will affect them for the rest of their lives? Who believes that a 15 year-old should even have the power to make such a decision? This is insanity; or, as Michael Savage says, a "mental disorder."
Reference was made to an article by the "Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry." That article referred to a 2008 study claiming that "most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty." Johns Hopkins Medical Center apparently stopped performing gender reassignment surgeries after at least one study revealed that, long term, the suicide rate for transgendered individuals was about 20 times higher than that for a comparable non-transgendered population.
Just a thought. Notice has Obama has no problem linking the deaths of blacks to racism. It does not matter that so many blacks are killed by other blacks. It's racism. So how come Obama is unable to see the connection between the deaths of thousands around the world with radical Islam. I guess racism is rampant, but radical Islam is non-existent. Or, does Obama, as a leftist, let his beliefs dictate his reality? Such a refusal/inability to view the world accurately might just be considered a mental disorder.
Whoever thought that the idea of "sanctuary cities" made any sense? As noted in my 3 part series entitled "The Continuing Slide Into Tyranny," we are no longer a country of laws applied equally. If we were, certain people (Lois Lerner? Hillary Clinton?) might face prosecution. The idea of sanctuary cities merely reinforces the notion that anybody can do what they want. It is outrageous for local governments to claim that they do not need to comply with federal immigration laws. Well, mostly outrageous.
Part of the problem is that the federal government often will not enforce their own immigration laws. Now, an illegal immigrant who was a convicted felon and deported 5 times, was free to roam the streets of San Francisco and murder a 32 year-old woman named Kathryn Steinle. The Feds, specifically ICE, asked SF to keep the perpetrator in custody if they were going to release him. ICE had turned him over to the local authorities for prosecution on a drug charge. But the locals decided not to prosecute and released the soon to be murderer.
The locals decided they had no obligation to hold the man absent a warrant or court order. In fact, based on one federal district judge's decision, the locals felt it was illegal to detain the man. This is all insanity. If someone who is a convicted felon and who has been deported 5 times cannot be held by local authorities until ICE can pick him up, there is something very wrong and laws need to be changed.
The first change should be eliminating all federal aid to cities or states that pass sanctuary laws. The next obvious problem is the porous border. This perpetrator was deported 5 times and made it back in a sixth time, allowing him to commit murder. Deporting him again would have been meaningless. We need to strengthen our border security; and if the only way to do so is to build a wall then let's do it. If our border is that porous, then perhaps we need to institute prison time for violation of our immigration laws.
I would exclude minors from any prison time. And I would not agree with a 5 year sentence for an initial violation, as some have proposed. Rather, if we pursue such a policy, I would give increasing amounts of time for each new violation. Perhaps 6 months initially, then 1 1/2 years, then 3 years, then 5 years. It appears that some deterrent is needed.
But, now you sound like Donald Trump. No. No one has been able to explain to me why those citizens of nearby countries should be allowed to come here illegally, just because they can walk across the border, while citizens of far away countries mostly wait in line for the proper paperwork and opportunity to come. Do you allow your neighbors where you live to sneak into your house anytime they want to do so? I doubt anyone does - not even liberals.
We're Back in the USSR...
...or maybe we're in Oceania, that "1984" country where the Party controls history and language and bars all individuality. Maybe, if we're real quiet, we can take a peek into what's happening in Oceania, formerly known as the United States of America.
Let's take a look at what's happening in the Ministry of Truth, which alters historical truths in order to accommodate the Party's current needs. Once the Party changed the definition of marriage as now being between any two people, those slow to adopt to the new rule were, of course, rightly called bigots and haters and enemies of the Party. Those who tried to "cling to their religion," religion having been banned, were the most difficult to persuade.
But Party loyalists were busy admonishing those recalcitrant few. Said one Rekhu Basu: "Of course some institutions, especially religious ones, will need time to adapt and change, and figure out how to reconcile their teachings with the law." (Mandatory reading in one of the Party's news organs, the Ventura County Star, 7/2/15 edition.) You see, the Party will not accept deviation from the Party's political dogma. Any group believing in the traditional definition of marriage must "adapt and change" their beliefs, even if those beliefs had been part of their religious tenets for thousands of years.
Some, such as a few who used to belong to the now outlawed Republican Party, were outraged that the Party could tell them to change such fundamental beliefs. Most, however, agreed that it was the government's duty to tell people how to think - that group having long forgotten how to engage in independent thought.
Let's see what else is going on in the Ministry Truth. It seems that any evidence of the existence of the Confederate States (which fought against the former United States) will be eliminated from all books; and any and all paraphernalia or references to the Confederacy or individual slave owners will also be banned.
One news organ reported that many steps were already being taken. The former Confederate flag was banned from all local governments and retail outlets. In Connecticut, there was an effort to change the name of Calhoun College (part of Yale University, one of the Party's many propaganda schools existing throughout Oceania), because former Vice President John C. Calhoun was a supporter of slavery. In an area that used to be known as Southern California, the local residents were following the Party's lead in removing the name "Robert E. Lee" from all schools.
Meanwhile, throughout Oceania, efforts were underway to take down all statues depicting any Confederate officers. At Party headquarters (formerly known as the Capitol building in what was once Washington, D.C.), it was decided that the flags of the former states would have to come down, as many depicted the Confederate symbol. It was also decided that the Father of our country would now be, and always was, John Adams. George Washington, having been considered the Father of the country for many years, used to be a slave owner. Therefore, his name and likeness was ordered off all buildings, currency and coinage. All books mentioning the name George Washington were ordered destroyed.
Let's see if we can find anything else that the Ministry of Truth is working on. One sports team by the name of the Washington Redskins, lost their trademark registration, on order of one of the Party's judges. It was determined that the name "Redskins" was disparaging to some of the citizens. While the First Amendment to the Constitution of the former United States used to protect a wide range of speech, especially speech that was "disparaging," the Party decided that such speech might create unnecessary conflict. Besides, the Party had long abandoned the Constitution as having any force of law; as the only law now is what the Party orders.
We need to leave the Ministry of Truth now; if we stay too long we might get caught. The punishment could be to remove all references to our ever having existed from all official records. Maybe we can sneak in another time, but the punishments are becoming increasingly severe for not following the Party line.
Let's take a look at what's happening in the Ministry of Truth, which alters historical truths in order to accommodate the Party's current needs. Once the Party changed the definition of marriage as now being between any two people, those slow to adopt to the new rule were, of course, rightly called bigots and haters and enemies of the Party. Those who tried to "cling to their religion," religion having been banned, were the most difficult to persuade.
But Party loyalists were busy admonishing those recalcitrant few. Said one Rekhu Basu: "Of course some institutions, especially religious ones, will need time to adapt and change, and figure out how to reconcile their teachings with the law." (Mandatory reading in one of the Party's news organs, the Ventura County Star, 7/2/15 edition.) You see, the Party will not accept deviation from the Party's political dogma. Any group believing in the traditional definition of marriage must "adapt and change" their beliefs, even if those beliefs had been part of their religious tenets for thousands of years.
Some, such as a few who used to belong to the now outlawed Republican Party, were outraged that the Party could tell them to change such fundamental beliefs. Most, however, agreed that it was the government's duty to tell people how to think - that group having long forgotten how to engage in independent thought.
Let's see what else is going on in the Ministry Truth. It seems that any evidence of the existence of the Confederate States (which fought against the former United States) will be eliminated from all books; and any and all paraphernalia or references to the Confederacy or individual slave owners will also be banned.
One news organ reported that many steps were already being taken. The former Confederate flag was banned from all local governments and retail outlets. In Connecticut, there was an effort to change the name of Calhoun College (part of Yale University, one of the Party's many propaganda schools existing throughout Oceania), because former Vice President John C. Calhoun was a supporter of slavery. In an area that used to be known as Southern California, the local residents were following the Party's lead in removing the name "Robert E. Lee" from all schools.
Meanwhile, throughout Oceania, efforts were underway to take down all statues depicting any Confederate officers. At Party headquarters (formerly known as the Capitol building in what was once Washington, D.C.), it was decided that the flags of the former states would have to come down, as many depicted the Confederate symbol. It was also decided that the Father of our country would now be, and always was, John Adams. George Washington, having been considered the Father of the country for many years, used to be a slave owner. Therefore, his name and likeness was ordered off all buildings, currency and coinage. All books mentioning the name George Washington were ordered destroyed.
Let's see if we can find anything else that the Ministry of Truth is working on. One sports team by the name of the Washington Redskins, lost their trademark registration, on order of one of the Party's judges. It was determined that the name "Redskins" was disparaging to some of the citizens. While the First Amendment to the Constitution of the former United States used to protect a wide range of speech, especially speech that was "disparaging," the Party decided that such speech might create unnecessary conflict. Besides, the Party had long abandoned the Constitution as having any force of law; as the only law now is what the Party orders.
We need to leave the Ministry of Truth now; if we stay too long we might get caught. The punishment could be to remove all references to our ever having existed from all official records. Maybe we can sneak in another time, but the punishments are becoming increasingly severe for not following the Party line.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
The Continuing Slide Into Tyranny, Part III
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)