I could easily do an entire post on the left wing propaganda permeating mainstream TV shows. But this latest example is too good to pass up. On a recent episode of "Quantico," some well armed gunmen attacked the FBI's training grounds, killing some agents. A US Senator, speaking to the trainees, claimed there had been 330 mass shootings in 2015. (Of course, it depends on how one defines mass shootings.) Then the Senator said this: "I am tired of this. And you should be too. You are being trained to carry a weapon, to respect the power of a gun, to understand that it is a privilege to be earned - not a right given to anyone..."
I wonder if those on the left even notice this type of subtle propaganda. It is, of course, a total lie - as the Supreme Court has, in fact, said there is a RIGHT to gun ownership. But this is the type of bias that is seen across both the entertainment media and the news media. It is pervasive.
According to Fox, the Food and Nutrition Service of the US Department of Agriculture has proposed a new rule dealing with food at schools. For schools that do not follow the sodium and calorie limits in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, and "persistently disregard" the lunch rules, they will be fined. This is akin to Eric Holder threatening schools across the country for excessively disciplining misbehaving (Holder meant black) children.
So I ask, does it even occur to a liberal to ask if local school lunches should be dictated by a federal bureaucracy? Are my friends on the left even aware of the ever growing behemoth that is the federal government? Or, do those people simply say if the goal is worthy, then so what if the feds are involved. So what if the feds preempt the states in what should be a local issue. And do those on the left ever ask if any branch of government should be involved, or is a child's lunch something that a parent gets to decide. Do you want the feds inspecting the contents of your refrigerator?
Senator Patrick Leahy was joined by 10 members of Congress in seeking an investigation into the cessation of military aid to Israel and Egypt. There is a statute that allows the US government to stop military aid to countries guilty of human rights abuses. Under current military rule, Egypt clearly has some issues. But Israel? Israel will kill terrorists in the act of committing terrorism. And, even if there are a few instances where a soldier is second-guessed about whether the shooting was necessary, there is no pattern of misbehavior by the IDF.
Not surprisingly, each and every one of the Congressmen and women joining Leahy, is a democrat. As is Leahy. Jonathan Tobin recently wrote a piece in Commentary magazine about the shift by Democrats away from supporting Israel. A companion article discussed the shift by Republicans towards support for Israel. This quote from Tobin is instructive:
"...if the Democratic Party is divided it is between those who think pressuring Israel into suicidal concessions is for its own good and those growing voices on the left that support BDS and other measures intended to destroy the Jewish state altogether." Do my Jewish friends on the left get this - or will you keep voting Democrat?
With Scalia gone from the Supreme Court, the Court issued a 4-4 decision in the case of Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association. The tie vote left the lower court holding in place, enforcing a California law. Some teachers who had not joined the union did not wish to pay the "fair share service fee" or "agency fee" that state law allows unions to collect from non-members. Those "fees" are equivalent to paying "dues." Many states have similar laws. In any event, the non-member teachers objected to having to pay the fees but lost in the lower court.
Not surprisingly, the four liberal justices saw no problem in allowing a union to take the money of someone who did not voluntarily sign up as a member. But those non-members benefit from the union negotiating pay increases and benefits. So what? Since when does a private organization that I do not belong to have a right to take my money? Do you come down on the side of liberty (as conservatives do), or tyranny (as liberals do)? Or, does the issue not even occur to you? This provides yet another example of the importance of not confirming a fifth liberal Justice to the Court.
The European Union is obsessed with what goes on in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Now, the EU wants a list of all businesses operating in the West Bank, because the EU believes the land is being illegally occupied by Israel. Or, is the EU obsession based on anti-Semitism?
As pointed out in a recent article in the Jewish Press, Cyprus is actually a member of the EU, and Northern Cyprus has been illegally occupied by Turks since the Turkish invasion in 1974. Except for Turkey, the rest of the world considers Turkey's occupation to be illegal. So what, you say? How is it that the EU does not care about the illegal occupation of an EU member country, but is obsessed over what happens in a non-member state? How is it that the EU seeks what amounts to a boycott of Israel, while continuing relations with Turkey? Is there any possible explanation other than anti-Semitism? The same factor likely motivating the above-referenced Congress members.
I suggest to my liberal friends and readers, it is time to start thinking about issues beyond gay marriage and abortion. Or, will you support tyranny and anti-Semitism?
Sunday, April 3, 2016
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Yet More Insanity
I've said it before. Liberal ideology trumps brilliance; it interferes with one's ability to perceive the world accurately. In a 3/16/16 article by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. in the Wall Street Journal, he discusses Obama's economic policies. He quotes a Nobel Prize winner, Robert Lucas, as follows: "I thought he (Obama) was going to be more Clinton-like in his economics and politics. I was caught by surprise by how far left the guy is." Caught by surprise? How? Did Mr. Lucas sleep through 2008?
How many times did Obama say he wanted to "fundamentally" change America? Clinton never said that. What did Obama tell Joe the Plumber? "It's a good idea to spread the wealth around." Clinton did not say that. What about the man Obama called his "mentor," the radical left-wing Reverend Wright, famously known for his "g-d damn America" speech. Clinton did not attend a church with such a radical leader. So, how can Lucas say he was "caught by surprise?" No, like many Americans, he clearly was either not paying attention, or ideologically he could not perceive the world accurately.
In a story related by Caroline Glick, we learn of pro-Israel, Zionist, Jewish parents who sent their children to a local Jewish day school in Durham, North Carolina. Needless to say, they were rather shocked when their 5 year old came home and asked why the map of Israel hurts some people's feelings, and had to be taken down. It turns out that one teacher there was active in the anti-Israel BDS movement. Worse, the development director was aligned with various anti-Israel groups. The parents, of course, complained, but the Board President accused them of bigotry for opposing the Boycott-Divest-Sanction movement against Israel.
See how it works for the left? Any time you oppose them on any issue you are at least a "bigot," if not a "racist" and a "hater." The true haters are those who support the BDS movement against Israel, but have nothing to say about the treatment of Christians by the Palestinians. They have nothing to say about the treatment of women, gays, and other religions throughout the Muslim world. The true haters are the anti-Semitic BDS followers.
But it is always the same for the left. Oppose Obama's policies? You are a racist. Oppose gay marriage? You are a bigot, a homophobe and a hater. Oppose open borders? You are an anti-Latino racist and hater. Oppose gun control? You hate kids and want to see them killed. Oppose abortion? Clearly you hate women. And on and on it goes.
In a sad story out of Scotland, a Glasgow shopkeeper - a Muslim - was brutally stabbed to death. The police are investigating his killing as possibly being religiously motivated. No, he was not killed by a Christian; he was murdered by another Muslim. However, the murder occurred shortly the shopkeeper put on Facebook: "Good Friday and a very Happy Easter, especially to my beloved Christian nation." How many times has Obama told us that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?
I have to imagine that any rational person that heard about Lexi, the young girl in Santa Clarita, was heartbroken. You see, the government had to remove her from the Page family. The Pages have been acting as foster parents to Lexi for 4 years. They wanted to adopt her. They also have three of their own children. The problem was not abuse or mistreatment or neglect. No, you see Lexi is 1/64 (1.5%) Native American. Under a federal law, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1974, Lexi apparently qualifies as Native American. So the government took her away from the family she has known for 4 of her 6 years.
Yes, I know she has had contact for the last three years with the family that is taking her in. But she is being moved to Utah, to live with a family who themselves are not Native American - but related by marriage to the Native American father. The father has a criminal record, and the mother has substance abuse issues, making them unfit to raise their daughter.
For new readers, I posted on January 31, 2016 "The Insanity Continues." My only question is, can we stop the insanity, or is it too late? Are our educational and media institutions so overrun by left-wing ideologues that an ill-informed public, reading only the New York Times or LA Times, has been so brainwashed into believing all the left-wing propaganda? Say it ain't so.
How many times did Obama say he wanted to "fundamentally" change America? Clinton never said that. What did Obama tell Joe the Plumber? "It's a good idea to spread the wealth around." Clinton did not say that. What about the man Obama called his "mentor," the radical left-wing Reverend Wright, famously known for his "g-d damn America" speech. Clinton did not attend a church with such a radical leader. So, how can Lucas say he was "caught by surprise?" No, like many Americans, he clearly was either not paying attention, or ideologically he could not perceive the world accurately.
In a story related by Caroline Glick, we learn of pro-Israel, Zionist, Jewish parents who sent their children to a local Jewish day school in Durham, North Carolina. Needless to say, they were rather shocked when their 5 year old came home and asked why the map of Israel hurts some people's feelings, and had to be taken down. It turns out that one teacher there was active in the anti-Israel BDS movement. Worse, the development director was aligned with various anti-Israel groups. The parents, of course, complained, but the Board President accused them of bigotry for opposing the Boycott-Divest-Sanction movement against Israel.
See how it works for the left? Any time you oppose them on any issue you are at least a "bigot," if not a "racist" and a "hater." The true haters are those who support the BDS movement against Israel, but have nothing to say about the treatment of Christians by the Palestinians. They have nothing to say about the treatment of women, gays, and other religions throughout the Muslim world. The true haters are the anti-Semitic BDS followers.
But it is always the same for the left. Oppose Obama's policies? You are a racist. Oppose gay marriage? You are a bigot, a homophobe and a hater. Oppose open borders? You are an anti-Latino racist and hater. Oppose gun control? You hate kids and want to see them killed. Oppose abortion? Clearly you hate women. And on and on it goes.
In a sad story out of Scotland, a Glasgow shopkeeper - a Muslim - was brutally stabbed to death. The police are investigating his killing as possibly being religiously motivated. No, he was not killed by a Christian; he was murdered by another Muslim. However, the murder occurred shortly the shopkeeper put on Facebook: "Good Friday and a very Happy Easter, especially to my beloved Christian nation." How many times has Obama told us that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?
I have to imagine that any rational person that heard about Lexi, the young girl in Santa Clarita, was heartbroken. You see, the government had to remove her from the Page family. The Pages have been acting as foster parents to Lexi for 4 years. They wanted to adopt her. They also have three of their own children. The problem was not abuse or mistreatment or neglect. No, you see Lexi is 1/64 (1.5%) Native American. Under a federal law, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1974, Lexi apparently qualifies as Native American. So the government took her away from the family she has known for 4 of her 6 years.
Yes, I know she has had contact for the last three years with the family that is taking her in. But she is being moved to Utah, to live with a family who themselves are not Native American - but related by marriage to the Native American father. The father has a criminal record, and the mother has substance abuse issues, making them unfit to raise their daughter.
For new readers, I posted on January 31, 2016 "The Insanity Continues." My only question is, can we stop the insanity, or is it too late? Are our educational and media institutions so overrun by left-wing ideologues that an ill-informed public, reading only the New York Times or LA Times, has been so brainwashed into believing all the left-wing propaganda? Say it ain't so.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Hear No Evil, See No Evil
Brussels. Ankara. San Bernardino. Paris. Chattanooga. Garland, Texas. Moore, Oklahoma. Seattle. Boston. Buena Vista, N.J. Waltham. Mass. Warren, Michigan. Marquette Park, Illinois. Fort Hood, Texas. Little Rock, Arkansas. Irving, Texas. Denver, Colorado. Chapel Hill, N.C. Moscow. Madrid. London. Arlington, Virginia. New York City. Countless locations throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and other locales around the world.
All have been hit by either terrorist attacks or other killings in the name of Islam. Yet, we have a President who will not say "radical Islam" or "Islamic terror." Recall Obama told us that "ISIL (ISIS for everyone else) does not speak for Islam." Rather, ISIS consists of "thugs and killers." Well, yes - thugs and killers all motivated by the same Islamic ideology.
The day before the major attack on Paris, Obama told us that ISIS was "contained." After all, they were the "J.V." team. Obama's oft repeated goal was to "degrade and defeat" ISIS. Degrade? Clearly, Obama has never gotten too worked up over Islamic terrorists murdering innocents. He was on the golf course minutes after announcing the beheading of American reporter Daniel Pearl. The murders at Charlie Hebdo and the kosher Jewish market did not warrant his standing in unison in Paris with other world leaders.
Obama: "...there is a violent, radical, fanatical, nihilistic interpretation of Islam by a faction - a tiny faction - within the Muslim community that is our enemy, and that has to be defeated." (Obama interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, in the Atlantic magazine.) Tiny? I would say small to now moderate in size, and growing. Besides, what is the difference? If it is 40,000 and growing, with thousands more supporters, is not the real issue the impact they are having on the West and the rest of the world? They are changing the way we live. They are costing us billions of dollars in defense and counter-terrorism spending. Is that a "tiny" effect?
But not to worry. Obama tells us that "the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are a lot lower than they are of dying in a car accident..." After the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR spoke to an anxious nation before a joint session of Congress. "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan...No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory...I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire." An inspiring and motivating speech.
Now, imagine if you will, that Barack Hussain Obama was the President on December 7, 1941. Unlikely he would speak before a joint session of Congress and seek a declaration of war, as FDR did. I imagine Obama might give a radio address such as this: "I am here to tell the American people that, while 2,403 Americans were killed by some Japanese, it was done by a small number of the Japanese people. I ask that the American people not get too worked up and not live in fear. Let me remind you that the odds of dying from another Japanese attack are a lot lower than they are of dying in a car accident...After all, 32,914 Americans died in auto accidents in 1940, and we are on track for a total of 38,142 dying from auto accidents in 1941."
In that interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, Mr. Obama said something about human nature that is typical of leftists: "Look, I am not of the view that human beings are inherently evil. I believe that there's more good than bad in humanity. And if you look at the trajectory of history, I am optimistic." Well, I guess if we exclude the 20th century, maybe he can make that argument. Maybe. But the 20th century gave us Stalin and Mao and Hitler and Pol Pot, and the Great War and World War II and the killing fields of Cambodia. More recently, we had Rwanda, Sudan, and the sheer barbarism of ISIS wiping out Christian and other communities throughout the Middle East.
Are humans inherently evil? Clearly, humans are not inherently good. I do not know how many more examples Obama might need to understand that. Goodness needs to be taught, it has to be inculcated. People are more likely, by nature, to be selfish. And we have seen how little it takes for people to rationalize the most horrific murderous acts. Ordinary Germans were able to carry out the Holocaust. ISIS is able to convince young people that they should have but one goal in life - to kill infidels. Killing others as the only goal in one's life. But Obama can hear no evil and see no evil.
All have been hit by either terrorist attacks or other killings in the name of Islam. Yet, we have a President who will not say "radical Islam" or "Islamic terror." Recall Obama told us that "ISIL (ISIS for everyone else) does not speak for Islam." Rather, ISIS consists of "thugs and killers." Well, yes - thugs and killers all motivated by the same Islamic ideology.
The day before the major attack on Paris, Obama told us that ISIS was "contained." After all, they were the "J.V." team. Obama's oft repeated goal was to "degrade and defeat" ISIS. Degrade? Clearly, Obama has never gotten too worked up over Islamic terrorists murdering innocents. He was on the golf course minutes after announcing the beheading of American reporter Daniel Pearl. The murders at Charlie Hebdo and the kosher Jewish market did not warrant his standing in unison in Paris with other world leaders.
Obama: "...there is a violent, radical, fanatical, nihilistic interpretation of Islam by a faction - a tiny faction - within the Muslim community that is our enemy, and that has to be defeated." (Obama interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, in the Atlantic magazine.) Tiny? I would say small to now moderate in size, and growing. Besides, what is the difference? If it is 40,000 and growing, with thousands more supporters, is not the real issue the impact they are having on the West and the rest of the world? They are changing the way we live. They are costing us billions of dollars in defense and counter-terrorism spending. Is that a "tiny" effect?
But not to worry. Obama tells us that "the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are a lot lower than they are of dying in a car accident..." After the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR spoke to an anxious nation before a joint session of Congress. "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan...No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory...I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire." An inspiring and motivating speech.
Now, imagine if you will, that Barack Hussain Obama was the President on December 7, 1941. Unlikely he would speak before a joint session of Congress and seek a declaration of war, as FDR did. I imagine Obama might give a radio address such as this: "I am here to tell the American people that, while 2,403 Americans were killed by some Japanese, it was done by a small number of the Japanese people. I ask that the American people not get too worked up and not live in fear. Let me remind you that the odds of dying from another Japanese attack are a lot lower than they are of dying in a car accident...After all, 32,914 Americans died in auto accidents in 1940, and we are on track for a total of 38,142 dying from auto accidents in 1941."
In that interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, Mr. Obama said something about human nature that is typical of leftists: "Look, I am not of the view that human beings are inherently evil. I believe that there's more good than bad in humanity. And if you look at the trajectory of history, I am optimistic." Well, I guess if we exclude the 20th century, maybe he can make that argument. Maybe. But the 20th century gave us Stalin and Mao and Hitler and Pol Pot, and the Great War and World War II and the killing fields of Cambodia. More recently, we had Rwanda, Sudan, and the sheer barbarism of ISIS wiping out Christian and other communities throughout the Middle East.
Are humans inherently evil? Clearly, humans are not inherently good. I do not know how many more examples Obama might need to understand that. Goodness needs to be taught, it has to be inculcated. People are more likely, by nature, to be selfish. And we have seen how little it takes for people to rationalize the most horrific murderous acts. Ordinary Germans were able to carry out the Holocaust. ISIS is able to convince young people that they should have but one goal in life - to kill infidels. Killing others as the only goal in one's life. But Obama can hear no evil and see no evil.
Monday, March 14, 2016
Sickening!
On March 8, Israel suffered terror attacks in Jerusalem, Petah Tikvah and Jaffa. An American citizen was murdered in one of the attacks. Taylor Force was a 29 year old graduate student at Vanderbilt University. He was a US Army veteran, having served in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he was stabbed to death by a Palestinian terrorist. His wife was also injured and is in critical condition.
State Department spokesman, John Kirby, said this: "The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms today's outrageous terrorist attacks in Jaffa, Petah Tikvah, and Jerusalem, which tragically claimed the life of U.S. citizen Taylor Allen Force and left many others severely injured. We offer our heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Taylor and all those affected by these senseless attacks, and we wish a speedy recovery for the injured. As we have said many times, there is absolutely no justification for terrorism. We continue to encourage all parties to take affirmative steps to reduce tensions and restore calm."
Sounds nice? It's a bunch of crap! Guess who's funding these Palestinian terrorists? You and I are. Our taxes help to fund the Palestinian Authority. Vice President Biden was in the Middle East at the time, not far from one of the attacks. In his meeting with PA President Abbas, he asked Abbas to condemn the attacks. Abbas expressed his condolences for the death of an American, but would not condemn the attacks. Of course not. Abbas encourages the attacks. And the US gives him hundreds of millions of dollars. So, we not only fund the s.o.b.'s who kill Israelis, but those who kill Americans as well.
Kirby "encourages all parties to take affirmative steps to reduce tensions and restore clam." What kind of lame comment is that? Palestinian terrorists are murdering Israelis (34 dead with hundreds injured since the third intifada began in September), and Israelis defend themselves, but you can always count on Obama and Kerry and the rest making the moral equivalency argument. Both sides need to reduce tensions? No, the Palestinians need to stop murdering Jews.
No surprise, therefore, that a Pew Research Center poll of Israelis conducted from late to 2014 to early 2015 found that 48% of Israeli Jews believe that Arabs should be either transferred or expelled from Israel. 46% disagreed with that. Imagine, however, if that same poll were to be conducted today, about 6 months into the current intifada. I would imagine well over half of Israeli Jews would agree on the expulsion of Arabs today. And why not? The attacks in Jerusalem, Petah Tikvah and Jaffa were all in Israel proper. Who wants to live with neighbors who have the goal of killing as many in your family as they possibly can? Only 10% of Israeli Jews believe that the PA is sincere in seeking a peaceful settlement. To which I would add: what's wrong with those 10%? Are they delusional?
In a 2013 Pew poll of American Jews, 30% said they were very emotionally attached to Israel, with 39% who said they were somewhat emotionally attached to Israel. As a reminder, most of these polls show about only 50% of Democrats support Israel over the Palestinians, whereas 80% or so of Republicans support Israel over the Palestinians.
Meanwhile, Iran test fired two ballistic missiles with the following inscription on each, in Hebrew: "Israel must be wiped out." The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard said: "The 1240 mile range of our missiles is to confront the Zionist regime...Israel is surrounded by Islamic countries and it will not last long in a war. It will collapse even before being hit by missiles." And the Democrats in Congress, and generally, pilloried Netanyahu for speaking to Congress about the dangers of Iran getting nukes.
So, I find it sickening that our tax dollars go to those who murder Jews and Americans. It is sickening that we made a deal with Iran and released nearly $150 billion dollars to them, allowing them to buy advanced weaponry. It is sickening that the Democrats condemned Netanyahu for speaking the truth. It is sickening that today's Democrats barely support Israel by slightly over 50%. And it is sickening that not all American Jews have an affinity for the Jewish homeland. But that's just me.
State Department spokesman, John Kirby, said this: "The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms today's outrageous terrorist attacks in Jaffa, Petah Tikvah, and Jerusalem, which tragically claimed the life of U.S. citizen Taylor Allen Force and left many others severely injured. We offer our heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Taylor and all those affected by these senseless attacks, and we wish a speedy recovery for the injured. As we have said many times, there is absolutely no justification for terrorism. We continue to encourage all parties to take affirmative steps to reduce tensions and restore calm."
Sounds nice? It's a bunch of crap! Guess who's funding these Palestinian terrorists? You and I are. Our taxes help to fund the Palestinian Authority. Vice President Biden was in the Middle East at the time, not far from one of the attacks. In his meeting with PA President Abbas, he asked Abbas to condemn the attacks. Abbas expressed his condolences for the death of an American, but would not condemn the attacks. Of course not. Abbas encourages the attacks. And the US gives him hundreds of millions of dollars. So, we not only fund the s.o.b.'s who kill Israelis, but those who kill Americans as well.
Kirby "encourages all parties to take affirmative steps to reduce tensions and restore clam." What kind of lame comment is that? Palestinian terrorists are murdering Israelis (34 dead with hundreds injured since the third intifada began in September), and Israelis defend themselves, but you can always count on Obama and Kerry and the rest making the moral equivalency argument. Both sides need to reduce tensions? No, the Palestinians need to stop murdering Jews.
No surprise, therefore, that a Pew Research Center poll of Israelis conducted from late to 2014 to early 2015 found that 48% of Israeli Jews believe that Arabs should be either transferred or expelled from Israel. 46% disagreed with that. Imagine, however, if that same poll were to be conducted today, about 6 months into the current intifada. I would imagine well over half of Israeli Jews would agree on the expulsion of Arabs today. And why not? The attacks in Jerusalem, Petah Tikvah and Jaffa were all in Israel proper. Who wants to live with neighbors who have the goal of killing as many in your family as they possibly can? Only 10% of Israeli Jews believe that the PA is sincere in seeking a peaceful settlement. To which I would add: what's wrong with those 10%? Are they delusional?
In a 2013 Pew poll of American Jews, 30% said they were very emotionally attached to Israel, with 39% who said they were somewhat emotionally attached to Israel. As a reminder, most of these polls show about only 50% of Democrats support Israel over the Palestinians, whereas 80% or so of Republicans support Israel over the Palestinians.
Meanwhile, Iran test fired two ballistic missiles with the following inscription on each, in Hebrew: "Israel must be wiped out." The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard said: "The 1240 mile range of our missiles is to confront the Zionist regime...Israel is surrounded by Islamic countries and it will not last long in a war. It will collapse even before being hit by missiles." And the Democrats in Congress, and generally, pilloried Netanyahu for speaking to Congress about the dangers of Iran getting nukes.
So, I find it sickening that our tax dollars go to those who murder Jews and Americans. It is sickening that we made a deal with Iran and released nearly $150 billion dollars to them, allowing them to buy advanced weaponry. It is sickening that the Democrats condemned Netanyahu for speaking the truth. It is sickening that today's Democrats barely support Israel by slightly over 50%. And it is sickening that not all American Jews have an affinity for the Jewish homeland. But that's just me.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Democracy? Fuhgeddaboutit!
It's time for the Democrats and Republicans to come clean. After over a half century of presidential primaries, they should just drop the charade and return to the old smoke-filled rooms. The rooms where the party bosses selected the nominee for the delegates on the convention floor to then give their rubber stamp approval. The people cannot be trusted.
The Democrats do not trust the people. If they did, Hillary would still be leading Bernie, but by the much smaller margin of 596 to 407. But, because the people cannot be trusted, the Democrats came up with the idea of "super delegates." Those delegates are not assigned based on primary victories. No, those delegates are aligned with the party bosses to make sure that the "right" candidate becomes the eventual nominee. Thanks to the super delegates, Clinton leads Sanders 1058 to 431. That's a more comfortable margin, don't you think?
But, let's be honest, the Republicans do not trust the people either. I have previously indicated that Trump was not in my top three choices. Cruz has been my first choice. But Trump has won 10 of the 15 contests to date. So, the elites in the Republican Party have gotten quite nervous. Not only did the party bosses bring out Romney to attack Trump, but - shockingly - Romney made the same false attack on Trump that Harry Reid made on Romney.
Recall that Reid accused Romney of not releasing his tax returns because he (Romney) had not paid any taxes. It was a lie, of course. So what does Romney do? He suggests Trump is hiding some problem with his taxes because Trump has not released his returns yet. One might think that Romney would be sensitive to the false accusations regarding taxes. Apparently not. Apparently a man I had referred to as one of the most decent people to ever run for president, is also not above the same political mudslinging that others are wont to do.
Today, Romney called Trump "a fraud," and "a phony." Romney said Trump was playing the American public for "suckers." And there you have it; the elites view the public as fools and "suckers." What if the public elects a demagogue? Why are so many Republicans saying they would never vote for Trump. If the election is Trump versus Clinton, then these Republicans should openly acknowledge they support Clinton.
Clinton is so much more presidential. Let's see. She lied to the American public and to the families of the murdered Benghazi victims, by saying the attack was due to some movie video, even though the emails released prove Clinton knew immediately it was a terrorist attack. But Obama was up for reelection, and Obama told the people that terrorism had been defeated. So, lie. Just lie. For that matter, Clinton could end up being prosecuted regarding her use of her personal email server to send classified emails. That's presidential.
And Clinton was such a great Secretary of State. Let's see. She had the "reset button" with Russia. That worked out well. Russia took the Crimea, invaded eastern Ukraine, has helped Iran build their nuclear facilities, and is now selling advanced arms to Iranians - which the Iranians are able to buy with the money Obama gave them. But Obama is so much more Presidential as well. He constantly lies, he has shown no respect for the Constitution nor for our system of checks and balances. Obama caved in to the Russians, he caved in to the Syrians even, and he caved in to the Iranians. Great job!
Getting back to Clinton, what else has she accomplished? She pushed the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya; that worked out well. She supported a Palestinian state when the Arabs of Palestine have never stopped attacking Israel and Jews, and refuse to acknowledge the Jewish state's right to exist. (Yes, I know Trump tracks Hillary on this and other issues.) Then, we have what may be Clinton's best line, when testifying before Congress on Benghazi: "What difference does it make?" Well, given that she and her boss are both pathological liars, and given their failure to protect Americans, probably no difference to them.
So the question is - how far are the party bosses willing to go to stop Trump? Is it because they believe he is unfit for the office? Maybe. But how much of it is because they cannot control him? He is not beholden to the Party because he does not need their money. Recall the pressure the Party put on Trump to give his agreement to support the eventual nominee? Now that it appears that Trump may be that nominee, the Party no longer has any interest in that agreement.
Shame on the Republicans. Shame on the Democrats. Let's just have each state legislature select their own electors who then vote accordingly for a candidate picked by the party bosses. The good old days. What's your preference? The people? Or the bosses?
The Democrats do not trust the people. If they did, Hillary would still be leading Bernie, but by the much smaller margin of 596 to 407. But, because the people cannot be trusted, the Democrats came up with the idea of "super delegates." Those delegates are not assigned based on primary victories. No, those delegates are aligned with the party bosses to make sure that the "right" candidate becomes the eventual nominee. Thanks to the super delegates, Clinton leads Sanders 1058 to 431. That's a more comfortable margin, don't you think?
But, let's be honest, the Republicans do not trust the people either. I have previously indicated that Trump was not in my top three choices. Cruz has been my first choice. But Trump has won 10 of the 15 contests to date. So, the elites in the Republican Party have gotten quite nervous. Not only did the party bosses bring out Romney to attack Trump, but - shockingly - Romney made the same false attack on Trump that Harry Reid made on Romney.
Recall that Reid accused Romney of not releasing his tax returns because he (Romney) had not paid any taxes. It was a lie, of course. So what does Romney do? He suggests Trump is hiding some problem with his taxes because Trump has not released his returns yet. One might think that Romney would be sensitive to the false accusations regarding taxes. Apparently not. Apparently a man I had referred to as one of the most decent people to ever run for president, is also not above the same political mudslinging that others are wont to do.
Today, Romney called Trump "a fraud," and "a phony." Romney said Trump was playing the American public for "suckers." And there you have it; the elites view the public as fools and "suckers." What if the public elects a demagogue? Why are so many Republicans saying they would never vote for Trump. If the election is Trump versus Clinton, then these Republicans should openly acknowledge they support Clinton.
Clinton is so much more presidential. Let's see. She lied to the American public and to the families of the murdered Benghazi victims, by saying the attack was due to some movie video, even though the emails released prove Clinton knew immediately it was a terrorist attack. But Obama was up for reelection, and Obama told the people that terrorism had been defeated. So, lie. Just lie. For that matter, Clinton could end up being prosecuted regarding her use of her personal email server to send classified emails. That's presidential.
And Clinton was such a great Secretary of State. Let's see. She had the "reset button" with Russia. That worked out well. Russia took the Crimea, invaded eastern Ukraine, has helped Iran build their nuclear facilities, and is now selling advanced arms to Iranians - which the Iranians are able to buy with the money Obama gave them. But Obama is so much more Presidential as well. He constantly lies, he has shown no respect for the Constitution nor for our system of checks and balances. Obama caved in to the Russians, he caved in to the Syrians even, and he caved in to the Iranians. Great job!
Getting back to Clinton, what else has she accomplished? She pushed the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya; that worked out well. She supported a Palestinian state when the Arabs of Palestine have never stopped attacking Israel and Jews, and refuse to acknowledge the Jewish state's right to exist. (Yes, I know Trump tracks Hillary on this and other issues.) Then, we have what may be Clinton's best line, when testifying before Congress on Benghazi: "What difference does it make?" Well, given that she and her boss are both pathological liars, and given their failure to protect Americans, probably no difference to them.
So the question is - how far are the party bosses willing to go to stop Trump? Is it because they believe he is unfit for the office? Maybe. But how much of it is because they cannot control him? He is not beholden to the Party because he does not need their money. Recall the pressure the Party put on Trump to give his agreement to support the eventual nominee? Now that it appears that Trump may be that nominee, the Party no longer has any interest in that agreement.
Shame on the Republicans. Shame on the Democrats. Let's just have each state legislature select their own electors who then vote accordingly for a candidate picked by the party bosses. The good old days. What's your preference? The people? Or the bosses?
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Obama's Choice for the Supreme Court
You have to give him credit. Obama always knows what to say when he wants to sound so reasonable. And, over the last seven years, most people have bought into it. When it comes to the type of judge he wants for the Supreme Court, Obama knew all the right words and phrases.
"I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand." Let's be honest, that sounds very reasonable. Of course, Obama does not mean it, but he knows how to convince people to view him as reasonable. If Obama really wanted judges with no particular ideology, he would not have appointed two leftist judges to the Court already - Kagan and Sotomayor.
The thing about Obama is, if you just listen, he will tell you what he really wants. "Justice is not about abstract legal theory..." "It's the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom, experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people's lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times."
So we see how Obama went from "impartial justice" to the need to see how court decisions "affects the daily reality of people's lives..." What Obama really wants is a goal-oriented court, not a court administering impartial justice. That is why he nominated Kagan and Sotomayor, two Justices who will reliably vote for the "liberal" outcome in court cases. What Obama seeks is an activist Court that will act as a super legislative body.
And look how he went from seeking judges who "respect precedent," to seeking judges who understand the "rapidly changing times." In other words, forget about about precedent; we need a living, breathing Constitution to keep up with the times. As I say, you have to give him credit. Obama knows how to mix his platitudes with his real message.
Meanwhile, we hear that "...the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over." Oh no, that was not Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell; nor was it Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. Those words were uttered in 1992 by then Senator Joe Biden.
For those of you inclined to think that Obama is being treated unfairly by the Senate Republicans, think again. According to John Lott, Jr., in an article in the 2/23/16 Investor's Business Daily, during Obama's first six years in office, his nominees to the appeals courts got approved 90% of the time. Far higher than Bush's 72% approval rate.
Per Lott, "Bush's nominees to the prestigious District of Columbia Circuit Court faced an average wait of 707 days, Obama's were approved in an average of 324 days." Many cases involving the immense regulatory system that runs much of the country come out of the D.C. court.
Protecting the Constitution, protecting American's First and Second Amendment rights, is of far greater significance than the idea that a sitting President in his final months in office is automatically entitled to consideration of his appointee to the highest Court in the land.
"I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand." Let's be honest, that sounds very reasonable. Of course, Obama does not mean it, but he knows how to convince people to view him as reasonable. If Obama really wanted judges with no particular ideology, he would not have appointed two leftist judges to the Court already - Kagan and Sotomayor.
The thing about Obama is, if you just listen, he will tell you what he really wants. "Justice is not about abstract legal theory..." "It's the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom, experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people's lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times."
So we see how Obama went from "impartial justice" to the need to see how court decisions "affects the daily reality of people's lives..." What Obama really wants is a goal-oriented court, not a court administering impartial justice. That is why he nominated Kagan and Sotomayor, two Justices who will reliably vote for the "liberal" outcome in court cases. What Obama seeks is an activist Court that will act as a super legislative body.
And look how he went from seeking judges who "respect precedent," to seeking judges who understand the "rapidly changing times." In other words, forget about about precedent; we need a living, breathing Constitution to keep up with the times. As I say, you have to give him credit. Obama knows how to mix his platitudes with his real message.
Meanwhile, we hear that "...the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over." Oh no, that was not Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell; nor was it Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. Those words were uttered in 1992 by then Senator Joe Biden.
For those of you inclined to think that Obama is being treated unfairly by the Senate Republicans, think again. According to John Lott, Jr., in an article in the 2/23/16 Investor's Business Daily, during Obama's first six years in office, his nominees to the appeals courts got approved 90% of the time. Far higher than Bush's 72% approval rate.
Per Lott, "Bush's nominees to the prestigious District of Columbia Circuit Court faced an average wait of 707 days, Obama's were approved in an average of 324 days." Many cases involving the immense regulatory system that runs much of the country come out of the D.C. court.
Protecting the Constitution, protecting American's First and Second Amendment rights, is of far greater significance than the idea that a sitting President in his final months in office is automatically entitled to consideration of his appointee to the highest Court in the land.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
A Single Lifetime Later, Part II
At a recent conference, I was having lunch with 3 other Jews. One, was a conservative male. The 2 females were liberal and leftist. One of the women mentioned that not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Of course that is true. Any country, any individual, is subject to legitimate criticism. But that comment missed the point entirely - as most criticism of Israel is, in fact, anti-Semitic. And that anti-Israel criticism has helped bring about anti-Jewish attitudes worldwide. After all, when one country is held to a standard that no other country is held to, and when the people of that country are repeatedly demonized, well, the outcome is rather predictable.
The Dutch have been having a problem with anti-Semitism and Jew hatred in their schools. One teacher was giving a lesson on democratic values. A female student of Moroccan descent said: "If I had a Kalashnikov I'd gun down all the Jews." The teacher, taken aback, tried to get an expression of empathy from this student. So, the teacher asked what a 5 year old living in the Netherlands had to do with Israeli policies. Said the same student: "The Jews should die."
You see, when Israel is demonized, when world leaders including Ban Ki-Moon justify or seek to understand Palestinian violence against Jews, then the lines ultimately get blurred. Israel is Jews, Jews are Israel, Israel is the worst country on earth, Jews therefore are the worst people and should die.
As the demonization of Israel grows, so do the number of anti-Israel NGOs. Here in the US, we have groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim American Society, Jewish Voice for Peace, If Americans Knew, CAIR, and others. At the UK's Oxford University, one member of the Labour Club just resigned in protest. The Club endorsed the "Israel Apartheid Week" on campus, a week that also occurs on many US college campuses. In addition to inviting anti-Semitic speakers to campus during that week, Jewish students are harassed as well.
Some members of the Club not only have expressed their solidarity with Hamas, they have defended Hamas' murdering of Israeli civilians. One student claimed that "most accusations of anti-Semitism are just the Zionists crying wolf." Just imagine college students in the UK and US during WWII announcing their support for Hitler - especially as the bombs were falling on London. One must ask how support for Hamas has reached this point. Hamas, non-democratic, anti-women, anti-gays, where allegations of providing information to Israel can result in immediate execution without a trial - how does an anti-Western group like that garner such support? By convincing the world that Israel and Jews are evil. But why do Westerners buy into such lies?
There are Arab members of the Knesset (Parliament) in Israel. One, Haneen Zoabi, said this: "The occupier (Israel) does not have the right to self-defense." So, according to this Arab member of the Knesset, Israelis only have the right to die. As much of the world has come to believe the same thing, we see how anti-Semitism has reached its highest level since the end of WWII.
At the above mentioned lunch, I replied to the woman who said not all anti-Israel criticism is anti-Semitic. After agreeing, I started to tell her some of the history of the Middle East, as I suspected she had no clue. As I was simply giving dates and what occurred (see Part I), the other woman got a disgusted look on her face and got up and excused herself. I am used to liberals not being able to tolerate hearing facts that are contrary to their world views.
But how sad when my fellow Jews not only have no interest in hearing the truth, but will automatically align with the Palestinians as the underdogs. How sad that they accept without hesitation all the anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian propaganda. I would love to ask the woman who walked why she supports a group that is anti-feminist and anti-gay. I suspect I would be told that that's not true, that Hamas and the Palestinians love women and gays. Other Jews post pro-Palestinian articles on their Facebook pages. One such link to an article that was on the Huffington Post was by a Palestinian and was entitled "The US Must Accept that Israeli Leadership Wants Apartheid not Peace."
The title of this article is akin to Jimmy Carter's book, "Israel, Peace not Apartheid." Not surprisingly, the article makes no mention of Palestinian terrorism and murder of Israeli civilians. Only a few days ago, an off duty 21 year old Israeli soldier, a husband and father to a baby girl, was murdered by Palestinian terrorists. He was stabbed to death, stabbing being the preferred method of killing in this third intifada. The murderer was 14 years old.
Also recently, after the murder of a 19 year old Israeli border policewoman, the father of the attacker said this: "We received the news with joy, a martyr, our lord chose him from among the people to be a martyr, Allah will pardon him..." Want to know why there is no peace? Because today, as in 1947, as in 1948, as in 1956, as in 1967, as in 1973, as in 2000, as in 2008, the Arabs prefer to kill Jews rather than have their own state. When children are taught to murder, when parents are happy that their children are martyred (killed when attacking Jews) how is peace even conceivable? Peace does not happen when only one side desires it. Maybe somebody can explain that to Fabius, Moon, Kerry and Obama, and the rest of the liberal establishment.
The Dutch have been having a problem with anti-Semitism and Jew hatred in their schools. One teacher was giving a lesson on democratic values. A female student of Moroccan descent said: "If I had a Kalashnikov I'd gun down all the Jews." The teacher, taken aback, tried to get an expression of empathy from this student. So, the teacher asked what a 5 year old living in the Netherlands had to do with Israeli policies. Said the same student: "The Jews should die."
You see, when Israel is demonized, when world leaders including Ban Ki-Moon justify or seek to understand Palestinian violence against Jews, then the lines ultimately get blurred. Israel is Jews, Jews are Israel, Israel is the worst country on earth, Jews therefore are the worst people and should die.
As the demonization of Israel grows, so do the number of anti-Israel NGOs. Here in the US, we have groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim American Society, Jewish Voice for Peace, If Americans Knew, CAIR, and others. At the UK's Oxford University, one member of the Labour Club just resigned in protest. The Club endorsed the "Israel Apartheid Week" on campus, a week that also occurs on many US college campuses. In addition to inviting anti-Semitic speakers to campus during that week, Jewish students are harassed as well.
Some members of the Club not only have expressed their solidarity with Hamas, they have defended Hamas' murdering of Israeli civilians. One student claimed that "most accusations of anti-Semitism are just the Zionists crying wolf." Just imagine college students in the UK and US during WWII announcing their support for Hitler - especially as the bombs were falling on London. One must ask how support for Hamas has reached this point. Hamas, non-democratic, anti-women, anti-gays, where allegations of providing information to Israel can result in immediate execution without a trial - how does an anti-Western group like that garner such support? By convincing the world that Israel and Jews are evil. But why do Westerners buy into such lies?
There are Arab members of the Knesset (Parliament) in Israel. One, Haneen Zoabi, said this: "The occupier (Israel) does not have the right to self-defense." So, according to this Arab member of the Knesset, Israelis only have the right to die. As much of the world has come to believe the same thing, we see how anti-Semitism has reached its highest level since the end of WWII.
At the above mentioned lunch, I replied to the woman who said not all anti-Israel criticism is anti-Semitic. After agreeing, I started to tell her some of the history of the Middle East, as I suspected she had no clue. As I was simply giving dates and what occurred (see Part I), the other woman got a disgusted look on her face and got up and excused herself. I am used to liberals not being able to tolerate hearing facts that are contrary to their world views.
But how sad when my fellow Jews not only have no interest in hearing the truth, but will automatically align with the Palestinians as the underdogs. How sad that they accept without hesitation all the anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian propaganda. I would love to ask the woman who walked why she supports a group that is anti-feminist and anti-gay. I suspect I would be told that that's not true, that Hamas and the Palestinians love women and gays. Other Jews post pro-Palestinian articles on their Facebook pages. One such link to an article that was on the Huffington Post was by a Palestinian and was entitled "The US Must Accept that Israeli Leadership Wants Apartheid not Peace."
The title of this article is akin to Jimmy Carter's book, "Israel, Peace not Apartheid." Not surprisingly, the article makes no mention of Palestinian terrorism and murder of Israeli civilians. Only a few days ago, an off duty 21 year old Israeli soldier, a husband and father to a baby girl, was murdered by Palestinian terrorists. He was stabbed to death, stabbing being the preferred method of killing in this third intifada. The murderer was 14 years old.
Also recently, after the murder of a 19 year old Israeli border policewoman, the father of the attacker said this: "We received the news with joy, a martyr, our lord chose him from among the people to be a martyr, Allah will pardon him..." Want to know why there is no peace? Because today, as in 1947, as in 1948, as in 1956, as in 1967, as in 1973, as in 2000, as in 2008, the Arabs prefer to kill Jews rather than have their own state. When children are taught to murder, when parents are happy that their children are martyred (killed when attacking Jews) how is peace even conceivable? Peace does not happen when only one side desires it. Maybe somebody can explain that to Fabius, Moon, Kerry and Obama, and the rest of the liberal establishment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)