President Obama has brought thousands of Muslim refugees to this country. He intends on bringing thousands more. Hillary Clinton says she will bring at least 65,000 more Muslim refugees, and Bernie Sanders wants to bring more than that.
In yet another release of Hillary Clinton's emails there was quite an interesting one from former US Ambassador Thomas Pickering to the then Secretary of State. Pickering suggested using left-wing NGOs (non-governmental organizations) in Israel for the purpose of destabilizing Israel and bringing pressure on the government to establish yet another Muslim state - Palestine. The US has already provided $68,000 to B'Tselem, an NGO whose sole purpose is to document alleged human rights abuses in the West Bank (or, as they say, the "occupied territories").
The Democrats invited two members of CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) to Obama's January 12 State of the Union address. In 2007/08 CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. That Foundation was found to be funneling money to Hamas. The founders of the organization were given lengthy prison sentences. The FBI considered CAIR to be a Hamas front. The FBI still refuses contact with CAIR. Hamas runs the Gaza strip in a dictatorial, Islamist fashion. As an aside, the LA Times just editorialized about a reporter there being arrested and beaten for the sin of reporting on actual conditions in Gaza. (January 15, 2016 editorial.)
At his State of the Union address Obama said this: "When politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or our fellow citizens, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid is called names, that doesn't make us safer...It betrays who we are as a country." Clearly, Obama's comments were directed at Trump and those who support him. Trump called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, given what is happening all around the world, and just recently in San Bernardino.
Let's take a look at Obama's assertions. What is the insult to Islam - calling for a moratorium on Islamic immigration? And why doesn't that make us safer. Think of all the terrorist attacks that would not have occurred here. Furthermore, why is he only concerned about mosques being vandalized? Are Muslims singled out more than other religious groups for hate crimes? Far from it. According to FBI statistics, in 2012 Jews were the victims of 62.4% of the religious hate crimes, Muslims were victims 11.6% of the time. In 2013, the number was 60.3% for Jews, and 13.7% for Muslims. In 2014, 56.8% for Jews, 16.1% for Muslims.
And what do the American people think of Trump's proposal? According to a new IBD-TIPP poll, the country is split: 48% favor a temporary ban on Muslim immigration and 48% are opposed. However, a majority, 53% to 43%, favor greater monitoring of mosques for radical activity. That last number even includes 40% of Democrats; with 33% of Democrats supporting the moratorium.
Recently, a Philadelphia police officer was shot while sitting in his patrol car. After being captured, the perpetrator said that he attacked the officer in the name of Islam. He purportedly said that "the police defend laws that are contrary to Islam." Yet, the Democratic Mayor, Jim Kenney, said this: "In no way, shape or form does anybody in this room (apparently at a press conference with the police commissioner and others) believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam" was related to the attempted murder on the officer. When Democratic elected officials so obviously lie (the man admitted he attacked in the name of Islam) is it any wonder why Trump is doing as well as he is.
As to the question raised in the title of this post, let's recap. The Democrats have and will continue to bring in tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants. The Democrats invited members of CAIR to the State of the Union address. The Democrats refuse to acknowledge the threat from radical Islamists, and their ability to radicalize other Muslims. Yet, most of my fellow Jews will vote for Hillary (or Bernie if he wins the nomination). Many non-Jewish fellow Americans will do the same.
It is apparent that left wing ideology prevails over the instinct to survive. Political correctness prevails over the instinct to survive. It is especially frustrating when fellow Jews tell me that they could not possibly vote for Trump or Cruz because...whatever. Large Muslim populations are generally not safe for Jews. Yet, they will vote to increase the risk to themselves and their families. Go figure.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
The Lost Instinct to Survive, Part I
I am often asked by my Christian friends and readers why my fellow Jews so frequently vote for Democrats, especially given the Democrats' decreasing support for Israel. And while many have commented on that issue - and there are multiple reasons I believe - we are now way past that. We are now at the point where many Jews (and other Americans) do not seem to care about their own personal survival, nor that of their children and grandchildren.
We already know that Jews have been under attack both verbally and physically throughout Europe. Marseilles, France had been an exception, as Jews felt relatively safe there. But since last October there have been stabbings of Jews there as well. Recently, one of the perpetrators was a 15 year-old boy of Turkish Kurd origin, who explained that his attack had been inspired by ISIS. In October, a Rabbi and two congregants were stabbed outside a synagogue. There have been other attacks as well.
Said one former Jewish leader: "Now every aspect of communal life happens under protection by the military. They are in our schools, in our shuls (temples), reminding us that we are no less threatened here than in Paris - or Israel." A recent French poll (by Etude IFOP) found that 43% of French Jews said they had been attacked for being Jewish, 51% were threatened for being Jewish, and 63% were ridiculed for being Jewish.
The persecution, murder and displacement of Christians living in North Africa and the Middle East is happening to the Jews of Europe. More French Jews left France last year for Israel than ever before. I suspect 2016 will end up with even greater numbers leaving for Israel. The perpetrators against the Christians and Jews have virtually always been Muslims.
Even one who only casually follows the news will undoubtedly know of many of the attacks around the world carried out by Muslims. Jakarta, Istanbul, Cairo, Paris, London, Ankara, Mumbai - to name just a few - have all been targeted by radical Muslims. And now, we can add the small African nation of Burkina Faso to the list.
But there have been many attacks right here in the USA as well. It would take up too much space to list every Islamic terror attack in the USA since 9/11/01. So, here are just a few of the most recent ones. December, 2015, a Jewish shop owner in the upper west side of Manhattan was attacked and hit in the face. Yelled the Muslim attacker: "Fuck the Jews." Also, we had the San Bernardino attack. In July, 2015, four US marines were shot and killed in Chattanooga, Tennessee. In September, 2014, a woman was beheaded in Oklahoma. In April, 2014, two men in Seattle and one in NJ were shot and killed. In April, 2013, we had the Boston marathon bombers. In February, 2013, two Coptic Christians were shot and killed and then beheaded. And in September, 2013, three Jews had their throats slashed in Massachusetts.
Again, this is a very limited list. Then there is the list of Muslims killing other Muslims (again, here in the USA) for dishonoring Islam by doing the following: dating a non-Muslim, refusing to convert to Islam, filing for divorce, going to a strip club, becoming too Westernized, not adhering to Islamic customs, renouncing and denouncing Islam, being a woman who was molested by another, and being a lesbian.
So how is any of this related to the title of the post - "The Lost Instinct to Survive"? Please see Part II.
We already know that Jews have been under attack both verbally and physically throughout Europe. Marseilles, France had been an exception, as Jews felt relatively safe there. But since last October there have been stabbings of Jews there as well. Recently, one of the perpetrators was a 15 year-old boy of Turkish Kurd origin, who explained that his attack had been inspired by ISIS. In October, a Rabbi and two congregants were stabbed outside a synagogue. There have been other attacks as well.
Said one former Jewish leader: "Now every aspect of communal life happens under protection by the military. They are in our schools, in our shuls (temples), reminding us that we are no less threatened here than in Paris - or Israel." A recent French poll (by Etude IFOP) found that 43% of French Jews said they had been attacked for being Jewish, 51% were threatened for being Jewish, and 63% were ridiculed for being Jewish.
The persecution, murder and displacement of Christians living in North Africa and the Middle East is happening to the Jews of Europe. More French Jews left France last year for Israel than ever before. I suspect 2016 will end up with even greater numbers leaving for Israel. The perpetrators against the Christians and Jews have virtually always been Muslims.
Even one who only casually follows the news will undoubtedly know of many of the attacks around the world carried out by Muslims. Jakarta, Istanbul, Cairo, Paris, London, Ankara, Mumbai - to name just a few - have all been targeted by radical Muslims. And now, we can add the small African nation of Burkina Faso to the list.
But there have been many attacks right here in the USA as well. It would take up too much space to list every Islamic terror attack in the USA since 9/11/01. So, here are just a few of the most recent ones. December, 2015, a Jewish shop owner in the upper west side of Manhattan was attacked and hit in the face. Yelled the Muslim attacker: "Fuck the Jews." Also, we had the San Bernardino attack. In July, 2015, four US marines were shot and killed in Chattanooga, Tennessee. In September, 2014, a woman was beheaded in Oklahoma. In April, 2014, two men in Seattle and one in NJ were shot and killed. In April, 2013, we had the Boston marathon bombers. In February, 2013, two Coptic Christians were shot and killed and then beheaded. And in September, 2013, three Jews had their throats slashed in Massachusetts.
Again, this is a very limited list. Then there is the list of Muslims killing other Muslims (again, here in the USA) for dishonoring Islam by doing the following: dating a non-Muslim, refusing to convert to Islam, filing for divorce, going to a strip club, becoming too Westernized, not adhering to Islamic customs, renouncing and denouncing Islam, being a woman who was molested by another, and being a lesbian.
So how is any of this related to the title of the post - "The Lost Instinct to Survive"? Please see Part II.
Friday, January 1, 2016
Opposing World Views
I was recently speaking with a very nice, intelligent man who is on the left. This is a man who has served our country in uniform. But our perceptions of the world were quite different. For the purpose of this blog, I will refer to him as Mr. X.
For example, I was told by Mr. X that racism is nearly as bad today as it was 50 years ago. I questioned that viewpoint and indicated that Obama won election twice, with the support of many white voters. It reminded me of another conversation I had back in 2008 with a different person on the left, who stated that Obama could never win the election because the US was so racist. At that time I said that was ridiculous. It seems to me that the left never fails to see the bad in America.
Anyway, I decided to check it out. According to a report by NBC on 11/19/12, it turns out that Obama did just fine among white voters. From 1976 through 2012, Democrats have never won a majority of white voters, with the average being 40.6% of the white vote. Obama garnered 43% of the white vote in 2008, beating the average. In 2012, Obama got 39% of the white vote, just under the average. (Article by Domenico Montanaro on nbcnews.com.)
I guess white voters were racist against all the white candidates since 1976 - all of whom failed to get a majority of white votes. Carter got 48%, Clinton 44%, Gore 42%, Kerry 41%, Dukakis 40%, Clinton 39% (his first election), Carter 36% (when he lost to Reagan), and Mondale 34%.
We also discussed an issue raised in a couple of my earlier posts about various big city democrats (mayors and city council members) wanting to deny Chick-Fil-A the right to open new franchises in their cities because the owner had expressed his belief in the traditional definition of marriage. I indicated that such a political litmus test was totally anti-American, and asked Mr. X if he would condemn such comments by these democrats. After telling me that republicans do the same thing, he said he disagreed with them, but would not condemn them.
As best I could understand, the reluctance to condemn the democrats was based on his belief that republicans do the same thing. First, I do not believe that is true and asked for examples. Mr. X said he would have to look into it. Second, so what? If it's wrong, it's wrong, regardless of who is doing it. However, Mr. X claimed that such a political litmus test was not anti-American; but, rather, was unfortunately typical of America. To me, that was just another negative view of this country. But, Mr. X would be right if we postulate that Joe McCarthy was typical of America. I do not think many people would agree with that.
Towards the end of the conversation with Mr. X, I mentioned that I listen to talk radio. I said that I did not listen to Rush Limbaugh, preferring instead those hosts that have more of a give and take with their callers. I expressed the view that there were many smart people out there and I enjoyed hearing the different viewpoints. For the same reason, I said that I also enjoyed reading letters to the editor in the various papers that I read. Mr. X disagreed and seemed to feel that most people either had their canned talking points/letters, or were just not that bright.
I do not disagree that there are people who are not that bright, or who do not reason through their arguments. But I do believe, from what I have heard on talk radio and read in the letters to the editor, that there are in fact many bright people out there. Some may not have much formal education, but so what. They can still be well read, they can still have common sense, and they can still make excellent points.
But the left is generally disdainful of people's intelligence and ability to take care of themselves. That is why they feel the need to control every aspect of our lives - because they know what is best for us and we are too stupid to know. It is an elitist attitude prevalent on the left. I am reminded of that quote from William Buckley, who said essentially that he would rather be governed by the first 400 names in the Boston telephone directory than the faculty of Harvard. Common sense over the intelligentsia. I'm with Buckley.
For example, I was told by Mr. X that racism is nearly as bad today as it was 50 years ago. I questioned that viewpoint and indicated that Obama won election twice, with the support of many white voters. It reminded me of another conversation I had back in 2008 with a different person on the left, who stated that Obama could never win the election because the US was so racist. At that time I said that was ridiculous. It seems to me that the left never fails to see the bad in America.
Anyway, I decided to check it out. According to a report by NBC on 11/19/12, it turns out that Obama did just fine among white voters. From 1976 through 2012, Democrats have never won a majority of white voters, with the average being 40.6% of the white vote. Obama garnered 43% of the white vote in 2008, beating the average. In 2012, Obama got 39% of the white vote, just under the average. (Article by Domenico Montanaro on nbcnews.com.)
I guess white voters were racist against all the white candidates since 1976 - all of whom failed to get a majority of white votes. Carter got 48%, Clinton 44%, Gore 42%, Kerry 41%, Dukakis 40%, Clinton 39% (his first election), Carter 36% (when he lost to Reagan), and Mondale 34%.
We also discussed an issue raised in a couple of my earlier posts about various big city democrats (mayors and city council members) wanting to deny Chick-Fil-A the right to open new franchises in their cities because the owner had expressed his belief in the traditional definition of marriage. I indicated that such a political litmus test was totally anti-American, and asked Mr. X if he would condemn such comments by these democrats. After telling me that republicans do the same thing, he said he disagreed with them, but would not condemn them.
As best I could understand, the reluctance to condemn the democrats was based on his belief that republicans do the same thing. First, I do not believe that is true and asked for examples. Mr. X said he would have to look into it. Second, so what? If it's wrong, it's wrong, regardless of who is doing it. However, Mr. X claimed that such a political litmus test was not anti-American; but, rather, was unfortunately typical of America. To me, that was just another negative view of this country. But, Mr. X would be right if we postulate that Joe McCarthy was typical of America. I do not think many people would agree with that.
Towards the end of the conversation with Mr. X, I mentioned that I listen to talk radio. I said that I did not listen to Rush Limbaugh, preferring instead those hosts that have more of a give and take with their callers. I expressed the view that there were many smart people out there and I enjoyed hearing the different viewpoints. For the same reason, I said that I also enjoyed reading letters to the editor in the various papers that I read. Mr. X disagreed and seemed to feel that most people either had their canned talking points/letters, or were just not that bright.
I do not disagree that there are people who are not that bright, or who do not reason through their arguments. But I do believe, from what I have heard on talk radio and read in the letters to the editor, that there are in fact many bright people out there. Some may not have much formal education, but so what. They can still be well read, they can still have common sense, and they can still make excellent points.
But the left is generally disdainful of people's intelligence and ability to take care of themselves. That is why they feel the need to control every aspect of our lives - because they know what is best for us and we are too stupid to know. It is an elitist attitude prevalent on the left. I am reminded of that quote from William Buckley, who said essentially that he would rather be governed by the first 400 names in the Boston telephone directory than the faculty of Harvard. Common sense over the intelligentsia. I'm with Buckley.
Friday, December 25, 2015
Year End Reflections, Part III (On Obama)
Recently, President Obama said there are "...specific strains in the Republican Party that suggest that somehow I'm different, I'm Muslim, I'm disloyal to the country..." Different? Yes, you are a far left ideologue Mr. President. No one thinks you are different because you are black, as you are implying. As Dennis Prager has pointed out, when he asks a room full of conservatives if they would rather have nine white liberal men on the Supreme Court, or nine black lesbian conservatives, the audience always prefers the nine black lesbian conservative women. Because conservatives care about values; it is the left that is always dividing people into groups based on race, ethnicity, religion, economic status and so on.
But since you raised the issue Mr. President, let's discuss your "I'm a Muslim" comment. No, I am not going to argue that Obama is a Muslim - this blog has never addressed that. What I have said is that just look at the groups with which Obama aligns himself. So, seven years into the Obama Presidency, here is a little recap of Obama's words and deeds.
"Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding generations."
"We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."
Recall Obama's first telephone call from the White House was to Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas is a Holocaust denier, and refuses to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. But he is a Muslim. Remember when Obama bowed to the Saudi King. Remember his speech to the Muslim World from Cairo, where he invited the outlawed terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood to attend.
And what's up with the use of ISIL to describe the Islamic State terrorist group? The rest of the world uses ISIS, but Obama uses ISIL. This is not just a personal preference as Obama has clearly instructed his entire Administration to say ISIL. Is it because the 'L' stands for Levant, an area used to describe the eastern end of the Mediterranean that predated Israel? And why has Obama so frequently said the goal is to "degrade" and defeat ISIL? Did Roosevelt or Churchill speak about "degrading" the Nazis?
"Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance."
"I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
"In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education."
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
Obama ordered the removal of the word "jihad" from FBI and military training manuals. He will not say "radical Islam" or "Islamic terror." Obama has made a deal with the Iranians that will allow them to get nuclear weapons, an existential threat to our greatest Mid-East ally, Israel. He does nothing while Iran keeps developing ballistic missiles. He said he would veto any new Congressional sanctions against Iran.
Groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood have been invited to the White House. Worse, people with radical ties are employed in some of our federal agencies.
Obama wants to bring Syrian refugees to the U.S. I understand the pros and cons of the argument. But the worst thing is that he has had precious little to say about the elimination of Christianity from the Muslim Middle East and North Africa. We are talking about some Christian communities that have lived there since the time of Jesus. Christian holy sites dating to antiquity have been destroyed. What is Obama's plan for the approximately one million Christians who have been displaced?
So, Obama wants to bring Syrian refugees here. He wants to make sure that a new Muslim state of Palestine is created on Israel's border, even as those Arabs continue to proclaim their desire to wipe Israel off the map. But what is Obama's plan for the Christians? Anybody?
Meanwhile, as large numbers of Muslims have been flooding into Europe, that continent has become an increasingly dangerous place for Jews. This year more Jews have left France for Israel than ever before.
Obama wanted to "fundamentally change" our country and the world. The world is indeed fundamentally changed under his watch. The few Christians left in the Muslim Middle Eastern and North African countries will soon be gone. The Jews may last somewhat longer in Europe, but they too may end up leaving. On the other hand, Muslims have moved in increasing numbers throughout the Western world. Part of Obama's plan to fundamentally change the world? You tell me.
But since you raised the issue Mr. President, let's discuss your "I'm a Muslim" comment. No, I am not going to argue that Obama is a Muslim - this blog has never addressed that. What I have said is that just look at the groups with which Obama aligns himself. So, seven years into the Obama Presidency, here is a little recap of Obama's words and deeds.
"Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding generations."
"We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."
Recall Obama's first telephone call from the White House was to Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas is a Holocaust denier, and refuses to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. But he is a Muslim. Remember when Obama bowed to the Saudi King. Remember his speech to the Muslim World from Cairo, where he invited the outlawed terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood to attend.
And what's up with the use of ISIL to describe the Islamic State terrorist group? The rest of the world uses ISIS, but Obama uses ISIL. This is not just a personal preference as Obama has clearly instructed his entire Administration to say ISIL. Is it because the 'L' stands for Levant, an area used to describe the eastern end of the Mediterranean that predated Israel? And why has Obama so frequently said the goal is to "degrade" and defeat ISIL? Did Roosevelt or Churchill speak about "degrading" the Nazis?
"Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance."
"I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
"In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education."
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
Obama ordered the removal of the word "jihad" from FBI and military training manuals. He will not say "radical Islam" or "Islamic terror." Obama has made a deal with the Iranians that will allow them to get nuclear weapons, an existential threat to our greatest Mid-East ally, Israel. He does nothing while Iran keeps developing ballistic missiles. He said he would veto any new Congressional sanctions against Iran.
Groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood have been invited to the White House. Worse, people with radical ties are employed in some of our federal agencies.
Obama wants to bring Syrian refugees to the U.S. I understand the pros and cons of the argument. But the worst thing is that he has had precious little to say about the elimination of Christianity from the Muslim Middle East and North Africa. We are talking about some Christian communities that have lived there since the time of Jesus. Christian holy sites dating to antiquity have been destroyed. What is Obama's plan for the approximately one million Christians who have been displaced?
So, Obama wants to bring Syrian refugees here. He wants to make sure that a new Muslim state of Palestine is created on Israel's border, even as those Arabs continue to proclaim their desire to wipe Israel off the map. But what is Obama's plan for the Christians? Anybody?
Meanwhile, as large numbers of Muslims have been flooding into Europe, that continent has become an increasingly dangerous place for Jews. This year more Jews have left France for Israel than ever before.
Obama wanted to "fundamentally change" our country and the world. The world is indeed fundamentally changed under his watch. The few Christians left in the Muslim Middle Eastern and North African countries will soon be gone. The Jews may last somewhat longer in Europe, but they too may end up leaving. On the other hand, Muslims have moved in increasing numbers throughout the Western world. Part of Obama's plan to fundamentally change the world? You tell me.
Thursday, December 24, 2015
Year End Reflections, Part II
In a win for the First Amendment's right to free speech, a Federal Court of Appeal has ruled in favor of the Washington Redskins. In trying to ban "disparaging" trademarks, the government overstepped its authority and violated the Constitution. Said the Court: "It is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment that the government may not penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys." I know many on the left would just as soon do away with the Constitution, so score one for freedom.
Following Obama's speech intended to calm an anxious nation after the San Bernardino attacks, the New York Times saved their criticism for the Republican presidential candidates, not the lack of substance put forth by Obama. Their criticisms are, as is frequently the case for those who engage in such tactics, childlike. For example, Ted Cruz was described as the "Twitter warrior," Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush went on Fox News (the old guilt by association ploy), and Donald Trump was the "bigot without foreign policy experience." What foreign policy experience did Obama or Bill Clinton have? Just asking.
On the 12/22/15 episode of the O'Reilly Factor was a debate between Zuhdi Jasser and Osama Siblani. Jasser is a medical doctor, a former lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy and an American Muslim. He runs the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and is stridently anti-Islamist. Siblani, on the other hand, runs the Arab American News. According to the Anti-Defamation League, that paper has had many articles expressing sympathy and even support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Not surprising, therefore, to hear this ridiculous claim from Siblani: "radicalization is on equal footing among all the religions and ideologies - Christianity, Judaism and Islam." Sure.
Of course there is no war on Christmas. Except in Johnson County, Kentucky the school district did not approve of an elementary school putting on a production of "A Charlie Brown Christmas." According to Fox, schools in that district were "ordered to remove all religious references from their upcoming Christmas productions." Isn't that taking the "Christmas" out of "Christmas?" And in another school district one principal changed Thanksgiving to the "harvest festival" and Christmas parties became "winter celebrations." As Prager noted in a recent column, how often do you hear "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year?" As a Jew I still go with the latter.
What's up with the Republicans? They pass a budget of $1.1 trillion dollars, adding/keeping taxes, funding all of Obama's programs, and put it all in an omnibus bill of over 2000 pages. It passed in the Senate with the support of 27 Republicans. 26 Republicans opposed, including Cruz and Paul. Rubio was apparently on the campaign trail. So, we voted in a Republican Congress to get more Democratic legislation?
After the worst attack on Paris since World War II, nearly every country in the world came together in Paris to fight terrorism. Nope. They came together to fight climate change. Following passage of the non-binding agreement, our President was patting himself on the back for leading the way. Just as Obamacare was a way to redistribute wealth within the country, this climate accord is a way to redistribute wealth internationally. In order to pay for this it will require higher taxes for citizens of the wealthier countries, such as the U.S.
Reflecting the scare tactics of the mainstream media, the USA Today opined in their 12/14/15 editorial that "barring a technological miracle, global warming will continue unabated and wreak havoc on the planet." As I was listening to the local news the other night, they were reporting that this was the hottest month or year since some time in the 1880s. Instead of panicking, I thought - so did the earth burn out then? Did life as we know it end then? Of course not.
In response to the hysteria, Jay Ambrose wrote in the 12/19/15 Ventura County Star: "Cheap, powerfully efficient fossil fuels are one of the best things ever to happen to humanity. Oil, natural gas and coal make the modern, industrialized world go. Without them, we wouldn't have affordable computers, electric lights, TVs, effectively functioning hospitals, machines helping to produce gobs of needed food, transportation that gets you here, there and everywhere and more, much more, endlessly more." (Citing Alex Epstein in "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.")
The Investor's Business Daily concurred. "Sustained economic growth, a necessary prerequisite for scientific and technological dynamism, became possible when humanity was able to rely on 'non-renewable, non-green, non-clean power'," citing Matt Ridley, author of "The Rational Optimist." But the left cares far more for the planet than they do for humanity. And they have almost no concern for the economic consequences of their policies. If they wanted to eliminate carbon-based fuels they would push for more nuclear power, but don't hold your breath on that one.
Following Obama's speech intended to calm an anxious nation after the San Bernardino attacks, the New York Times saved their criticism for the Republican presidential candidates, not the lack of substance put forth by Obama. Their criticisms are, as is frequently the case for those who engage in such tactics, childlike. For example, Ted Cruz was described as the "Twitter warrior," Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush went on Fox News (the old guilt by association ploy), and Donald Trump was the "bigot without foreign policy experience." What foreign policy experience did Obama or Bill Clinton have? Just asking.
On the 12/22/15 episode of the O'Reilly Factor was a debate between Zuhdi Jasser and Osama Siblani. Jasser is a medical doctor, a former lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy and an American Muslim. He runs the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and is stridently anti-Islamist. Siblani, on the other hand, runs the Arab American News. According to the Anti-Defamation League, that paper has had many articles expressing sympathy and even support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Not surprising, therefore, to hear this ridiculous claim from Siblani: "radicalization is on equal footing among all the religions and ideologies - Christianity, Judaism and Islam." Sure.
Of course there is no war on Christmas. Except in Johnson County, Kentucky the school district did not approve of an elementary school putting on a production of "A Charlie Brown Christmas." According to Fox, schools in that district were "ordered to remove all religious references from their upcoming Christmas productions." Isn't that taking the "Christmas" out of "Christmas?" And in another school district one principal changed Thanksgiving to the "harvest festival" and Christmas parties became "winter celebrations." As Prager noted in a recent column, how often do you hear "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year?" As a Jew I still go with the latter.
What's up with the Republicans? They pass a budget of $1.1 trillion dollars, adding/keeping taxes, funding all of Obama's programs, and put it all in an omnibus bill of over 2000 pages. It passed in the Senate with the support of 27 Republicans. 26 Republicans opposed, including Cruz and Paul. Rubio was apparently on the campaign trail. So, we voted in a Republican Congress to get more Democratic legislation?
After the worst attack on Paris since World War II, nearly every country in the world came together in Paris to fight terrorism. Nope. They came together to fight climate change. Following passage of the non-binding agreement, our President was patting himself on the back for leading the way. Just as Obamacare was a way to redistribute wealth within the country, this climate accord is a way to redistribute wealth internationally. In order to pay for this it will require higher taxes for citizens of the wealthier countries, such as the U.S.
Reflecting the scare tactics of the mainstream media, the USA Today opined in their 12/14/15 editorial that "barring a technological miracle, global warming will continue unabated and wreak havoc on the planet." As I was listening to the local news the other night, they were reporting that this was the hottest month or year since some time in the 1880s. Instead of panicking, I thought - so did the earth burn out then? Did life as we know it end then? Of course not.
In response to the hysteria, Jay Ambrose wrote in the 12/19/15 Ventura County Star: "Cheap, powerfully efficient fossil fuels are one of the best things ever to happen to humanity. Oil, natural gas and coal make the modern, industrialized world go. Without them, we wouldn't have affordable computers, electric lights, TVs, effectively functioning hospitals, machines helping to produce gobs of needed food, transportation that gets you here, there and everywhere and more, much more, endlessly more." (Citing Alex Epstein in "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.")
The Investor's Business Daily concurred. "Sustained economic growth, a necessary prerequisite for scientific and technological dynamism, became possible when humanity was able to rely on 'non-renewable, non-green, non-clean power'," citing Matt Ridley, author of "The Rational Optimist." But the left cares far more for the planet than they do for humanity. And they have almost no concern for the economic consequences of their policies. If they wanted to eliminate carbon-based fuels they would push for more nuclear power, but don't hold your breath on that one.
Year End Reflections, Part I
Following the San Bernardino murders by two Islamic terrorists, one letter writer to the New York Times opined as follows: "I am furious with the gun-crazed National Rifle Association...I am furious with the politicians who caved in to the demands of the N.R.A. I am furious with the Republican Party for making support of the gun lobby an immutable policy position. I am disgusted with the Republican candidates for president when they issue their "thoughts and prayers" comments on the San Bernardino shootings."
To this letter writer, like many leftists, the shooting was all about guns, the N.R.A. and Republicans. I am of a different mindset - I am furious with the shooters, the evil ideology that motivated them, and a President who wants to bring more potential terrorists to our shores. But that's just me.
But as L. Gordon Grovitz noted in a column in the 12/7/15 Wall Street Journal: "The U.S. won't deter Saudi Arabia from exporting its toxic Wahhabi teachings so long as Washington keeps pretending that radical Islam has nothing to do with terrorism." And, I would add, the same applies to any Islamic group dedicated to the spread of Shariah Law.
In support of the aforementioned letter writer, here is another. These letters are, of course, a reflection of the far left readership to which the Times caters. "I despair. Not so much of ISIS, as of our leaders who deny that the unfettered proliferation of guns is a danger to our society." I would ask this letter writer: had the two Islamic terrorists not murdered those 14 people in San Bernardino, are you of the opinion that the guns would have gotten themselves up and gone on a shooting spree on their own?
While I would not give much credence to a presidential poll nearly a year ahead of the election, just for fun here the results of the latest Quinnipiac Poll. Hillary is in a dead heat with Cruz, each garnering 44% support. She edges out Rubio 44% to 43%, which is well within the margin of error. She beats Trump 47% to 40%. I suspect not a single commentator would have predicted that Trump would not only last this long, but would be doing so well.
I have previously used scientific rules to explain the world of politics and international affairs. For example, Obama's "lead from behind" strategy of withdrawing from the world has allowed countries like Russia, China and Iran to assert their influence, because "nature abhors a vacuum." Similarly, another rule of physics is that "for every action there is a reaction, equal in force and opposite in direction." I believe that rule fairly sums up the appeal of Donald Trump.
Yes, Trump can be nasty and abrasive, and unnecessarily insulting. He can be like a tempestuous Junior High School kid. But he is speaking to people's concerns about immigration and terrorists because of Obama's weak stance on those issues. Obama has moved full steam ahead on many issues regardless of the opposition of the American people. From the Affordable Care Act to immigration to fighting ISIS and terrorism, his policies have not been shared by the majority of the citizenry. But Trump speaks to those issues. Trump cannot be bought, given his wealth. And Trump speaks plainly.
What is up with the Democrats, holding their debates on Saturday nights? I have to assume that the party leaders are desperate for a Hillary win. It appears they do not want to risk giving Bernie the media coverage that Trump gets. Keep him out of the spotlight, and keep any potential miscues of Hillary from being seen by a wide audience. I keep seeing more and more Bernie bumper stickers, even on rather costly automobiles. I am trying to work up the courage to ask one of those people if they would share their wealth with me.
To this letter writer, like many leftists, the shooting was all about guns, the N.R.A. and Republicans. I am of a different mindset - I am furious with the shooters, the evil ideology that motivated them, and a President who wants to bring more potential terrorists to our shores. But that's just me.
But as L. Gordon Grovitz noted in a column in the 12/7/15 Wall Street Journal: "The U.S. won't deter Saudi Arabia from exporting its toxic Wahhabi teachings so long as Washington keeps pretending that radical Islam has nothing to do with terrorism." And, I would add, the same applies to any Islamic group dedicated to the spread of Shariah Law.
In support of the aforementioned letter writer, here is another. These letters are, of course, a reflection of the far left readership to which the Times caters. "I despair. Not so much of ISIS, as of our leaders who deny that the unfettered proliferation of guns is a danger to our society." I would ask this letter writer: had the two Islamic terrorists not murdered those 14 people in San Bernardino, are you of the opinion that the guns would have gotten themselves up and gone on a shooting spree on their own?
While I would not give much credence to a presidential poll nearly a year ahead of the election, just for fun here the results of the latest Quinnipiac Poll. Hillary is in a dead heat with Cruz, each garnering 44% support. She edges out Rubio 44% to 43%, which is well within the margin of error. She beats Trump 47% to 40%. I suspect not a single commentator would have predicted that Trump would not only last this long, but would be doing so well.
I have previously used scientific rules to explain the world of politics and international affairs. For example, Obama's "lead from behind" strategy of withdrawing from the world has allowed countries like Russia, China and Iran to assert their influence, because "nature abhors a vacuum." Similarly, another rule of physics is that "for every action there is a reaction, equal in force and opposite in direction." I believe that rule fairly sums up the appeal of Donald Trump.
Yes, Trump can be nasty and abrasive, and unnecessarily insulting. He can be like a tempestuous Junior High School kid. But he is speaking to people's concerns about immigration and terrorists because of Obama's weak stance on those issues. Obama has moved full steam ahead on many issues regardless of the opposition of the American people. From the Affordable Care Act to immigration to fighting ISIS and terrorism, his policies have not been shared by the majority of the citizenry. But Trump speaks to those issues. Trump cannot be bought, given his wealth. And Trump speaks plainly.
What is up with the Democrats, holding their debates on Saturday nights? I have to assume that the party leaders are desperate for a Hillary win. It appears they do not want to risk giving Bernie the media coverage that Trump gets. Keep him out of the spotlight, and keep any potential miscues of Hillary from being seen by a wide audience. I keep seeing more and more Bernie bumper stickers, even on rather costly automobiles. I am trying to work up the courage to ask one of those people if they would share their wealth with me.
Saturday, December 5, 2015
San Bernardino, Part III
In earlier posts, I commented on how after 9/11, the left and the mainstream media made Muslims the victims. The attacks that killed nearly 3000 Americans were carried out by men - all of whom were Muslims. Yet, in the twisted thinking of the left the Muslims were the victims.
And the left is at it again. After the San Bernardino murders, Attorney General Loretta Lynch spoke at the Muslim Advocates Dinner. Lynch: "Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals...when we see that, we will take action."
Did the Attorney General of the United States say she would prosecute anti-Muslim "rhetoric?" And what does "edges towards violence" mean? Surely, the Attorney General must know that the Supreme Court has given the legal standard for not protecting such types of speech - and that standard is not what she has articulated. What was once a "clear and present danger" standard was subsequently modified to speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action...and is likely to incite or produce such action."
So the speech must not only incite but be likely to lead to imminent lawless action. But we have a bigger issue. Lynch also commented on "an incredibly disturbing rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric...the fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor." Why is that your biggest fear, Ms. Lynch? Your FBI Director says he has 900 open investigations, spread out through all 50 states, looking into ISIS threats. So why isn't the threat of further attacks by ISIS and other radical Muslims your biggest fear, Ms. Lynch?
Everybody probably recalls the story out of Texas about the "clock boy." 14 year old Mohamed brought a clock to school which he claimed he had built himself. Others disputed that and said it was simply a store purchased clock. In any event, he brought it to school - with wires hanging out of it. His science teacher told him not to display the clock in other classes, but, of course, he did. One teacher called the police and Mohamed found himself under arrest.
Currently, Mohamed (after being invited to the White House and moving to Qatar) has a $15 million lawsuit against the Irving Independent School District and the City of Irving. He also wants written apologies from the city's Mayor and Police Chief, and the School District.
What does any of this have to do with the San Bernardino shootings? Plenty. You see, there has been an effort by those Muslims who support the terrorists to prevent any speech that is critical of Islam, and to prevent any actions that they say are discriminatory towards Muslims. In actuality, their goal is to intimidate other Americans from speaking out against radical Islam, or even reporting suspicious activity when they see it.
And the left joins in as the useful idiots of those Muslims supporting terrorist acts, by declaring any anti-Muslim speech as being hateful. And now the Attorney General has taken it one step further by threatening prosecution of those who engage in "anti-Muslim rhetoric." You see, this fear of either being sued or prosecuted or just not being politically correct and appearing racist all have the same intended effect - discourage Americans from speaking up and taking action.
So, maybe we should not just blame the Muslim perpetrators of this horrific crime in San Bernardino; maybe we should also blame political correctness. It has been reported that at least one neighbor was suspicious of some of the killers' activities, but did not report it to anyone for fear of being seen as a "racist." Another site reported a man working in the area was also suspicious - but again said nothing for fear of being accused of racial profiling. And it has happened before when the Army knew of Major Nidal Hasan's radical leanings - but did nothing because of political correctness.
Again, for my concerned liberal readers, I fully acknowledge that not all Muslims support terrorism. I acknowledge that the male shooter's brother served this country honorably in the Navy. But if mere political correctness - being seen as a bigot, or being called an Islamophobe - is enough to prevent people from reporting suspicious activity, how much more so is the deterrent effect of a $15 million lawsuit, or the threat of criminal prosecution? So, if it's your chance to speak up and do something, will you?
And the left is at it again. After the San Bernardino murders, Attorney General Loretta Lynch spoke at the Muslim Advocates Dinner. Lynch: "Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals...when we see that, we will take action."
Did the Attorney General of the United States say she would prosecute anti-Muslim "rhetoric?" And what does "edges towards violence" mean? Surely, the Attorney General must know that the Supreme Court has given the legal standard for not protecting such types of speech - and that standard is not what she has articulated. What was once a "clear and present danger" standard was subsequently modified to speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action...and is likely to incite or produce such action."
So the speech must not only incite but be likely to lead to imminent lawless action. But we have a bigger issue. Lynch also commented on "an incredibly disturbing rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric...the fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor." Why is that your biggest fear, Ms. Lynch? Your FBI Director says he has 900 open investigations, spread out through all 50 states, looking into ISIS threats. So why isn't the threat of further attacks by ISIS and other radical Muslims your biggest fear, Ms. Lynch?
Everybody probably recalls the story out of Texas about the "clock boy." 14 year old Mohamed brought a clock to school which he claimed he had built himself. Others disputed that and said it was simply a store purchased clock. In any event, he brought it to school - with wires hanging out of it. His science teacher told him not to display the clock in other classes, but, of course, he did. One teacher called the police and Mohamed found himself under arrest.
Currently, Mohamed (after being invited to the White House and moving to Qatar) has a $15 million lawsuit against the Irving Independent School District and the City of Irving. He also wants written apologies from the city's Mayor and Police Chief, and the School District.
What does any of this have to do with the San Bernardino shootings? Plenty. You see, there has been an effort by those Muslims who support the terrorists to prevent any speech that is critical of Islam, and to prevent any actions that they say are discriminatory towards Muslims. In actuality, their goal is to intimidate other Americans from speaking out against radical Islam, or even reporting suspicious activity when they see it.
And the left joins in as the useful idiots of those Muslims supporting terrorist acts, by declaring any anti-Muslim speech as being hateful. And now the Attorney General has taken it one step further by threatening prosecution of those who engage in "anti-Muslim rhetoric." You see, this fear of either being sued or prosecuted or just not being politically correct and appearing racist all have the same intended effect - discourage Americans from speaking up and taking action.
So, maybe we should not just blame the Muslim perpetrators of this horrific crime in San Bernardino; maybe we should also blame political correctness. It has been reported that at least one neighbor was suspicious of some of the killers' activities, but did not report it to anyone for fear of being seen as a "racist." Another site reported a man working in the area was also suspicious - but again said nothing for fear of being accused of racial profiling. And it has happened before when the Army knew of Major Nidal Hasan's radical leanings - but did nothing because of political correctness.
Again, for my concerned liberal readers, I fully acknowledge that not all Muslims support terrorism. I acknowledge that the male shooter's brother served this country honorably in the Navy. But if mere political correctness - being seen as a bigot, or being called an Islamophobe - is enough to prevent people from reporting suspicious activity, how much more so is the deterrent effect of a $15 million lawsuit, or the threat of criminal prosecution? So, if it's your chance to speak up and do something, will you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)