Is the United States government broken? It is a big topic of discussion among the pundits, and a regular source of journalistic fodder. Many people are claiming that the government can't seem to get its act together and work out bipartisan solutions to the many problems facing our country, and that our political system is broken. CNN, in fact, is currently running a series of articles analyzing this very claim.
America's political system, however, is not broken. It is operating just as it should. There cannot, and should not, be consensus in Congress where there is no consensus among the people.
David Gergen, in his article, "Is America becoming a house divided against itself?" has stated only the symptoms of America's current situation. For example, he quotes a NY Times columnist who laments "that by the late 1960s, 'the bipartisan national consensus over the central role of government -- which had held firm through the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administrations -- was kaput. The Reagan revolution was in the wings.'" Interesting that he would choose that spate of Presidents. Roosevelt was himself a revolutionary President, injecting a dose of socialism into America, and those Presidents listed pretty much followed that lead. Even Eisenhower was far enough Left that Truman approached him as a potential running mate in 1948. And even at that, America had to stumble through the egocentric Presidency of Nixon and the largely inept Presidencies of Ford and Carter before rising up in 1980 to elect Reagan.
Yet that columnist's comment probably best suggests the course that America has taken and which brought us to where we are. Up until the time of Roosevelt, government was understood to be limited. It was not thought that government "solved" social problems or "controlled" the economy. However, only a few years prior to Roosevelt, the Good Socialist Ship Utopia had been launched by Marx and Lenin under the banner of Socialist Ideology. It was widely accepted then as today by those who deem themselves the intellectual Elite. With the '29 crash came an opportunity for change, and Roosevelt responded throughout the 1930's Great Depression, as government officials jumped from the dock of traditional America to the SS Utopia, with tremendous extensions of government power into areas previously unimagined.
Arguably, those "socialist injections" merely prolonged and aggravated the depression, and possibly contributed to the worldwide conditions which enabled the rise of Hitler's Fascist Socialism and WWII, since America did not really recover until after the war. Yet, whether those ideas worked or not, the Elites and their liberal cohort have since been bent on a course of government expansion toward the socialist model.
By the 1960's, the public educators and the jurists had also jumped from the dock to the SS Utopia. Since then, they have fired the boilers and are ready to steam to the promised land of the Worker's Paradise. They have no use for the "regressive," old-fashioned ideas of the traditional American; they want to outlaw those ideas and legislate a new society, an amoral, government-dependent people led by enlightened elite. The American traditionalist, still on the dock, holds to the ideas of the founders; a culture seeking to rely on moral, independent people, rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic, employing public servants to complete the minimal tasks of government.
And where is the moderate? Trying to bridge the gap between ship and dock, with one foot on each, hoping to compromise irreconcilable differences. Mr. Gergen wonders why there are fewer moderates every year, but the answer is simple - their legs just aren't long enough anymore. The liberals are on the move, the conservatives are holding fast, and society is forcing a choice. There are no bipartisan solutions; the laws and policies which make socialism work and those which make a republic work are mutually exclusive. Muddled moderates simply make matters worse with their indecision. It is not a broken government - it is a broken culture. And Congress can't move on the issues before it until the American public makes up its mind.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Uncomfortable when it's close to home
There are so many Federal and State policies and practices out there, and of course, they are all intended to do good things. Maybe on the whole, they do. However, some of these leave a sour taste if they are reduced to the personal level. In fact, the "good things" the government tries to accomplish can become downright uncomfortable, close to home.
Our government spends a lot of money, and with a budget in the trillions, the numbers can become quickly incomprehensible. In fact, it's easy to lose all sense of perspective about the budget. Mr. Obama's proposed Federal Budget for 2011 would spend 3.83 Trillion Dollars; America currently has a national debt of $14,771,565,000,000. By comparison, the nearest star to the sun is 25.8 trillion miles away. To make sense of that, understand that a laser beam fired toward that star would take 4.3 years to cover that distance. Well, a Tea Party group has reduced the Federal Budget to an understandable level by reducing it to a proportionate household budget.
A household budget based on the Federal Budget would look like this:
Annual Family Income - $21,737
Annual Family Expenses - $38,188
Annual Additional Debt - $16,451
Recent Budget Cuts - $ 385
Current Outstanding Debt - $142,000
Does anyone think that a family with this proposed budget would ever be allowed to borrow that additional $16,451 in spending money? Even for the very best of reasons, even though the family "only" owes a modest $142,000, and even though the family is promising to cut all of $385 from the proposed spending, it hardly seems likely that any lender would not laugh them out of the bank when they ask for that $16,451 annual loan. Then also, there is that $142,000 outstanding debt. In housing purchases, a rough estimate for the maximum loan that can reasonably be paid back is about three times annual income. This debt is more than six and a half times the income. No rational mortgage lender would loan that. Of course, this is actually the government borrowing the money, and the full faith and credit of the United States is pledged against these debts. So, the situation is different. After all, a family might have trouble getting enough more income to repay that debt, but the government won't. If you pay taxes, you know where the government will go to raise its income, and that will hit uncomfortably close to home.
There's another one that hits pretty close to home. A Bake Sale being put on by the Berkeley College Republicans that has made national news. Why? Because the price of purchasing the product is based solely upon the race of the purchaser. The student group has styled this sale the "Increase Diversity Bake Sale," and the liberals are up in arms about it. One Professor even tried to buy all the products and end the sale, but the students refused. The Professor chided the students, saying she thought "Republicans were free enterprise, but they won't let me buy all the cupcakes." Nor should they; they're acting like liberals here, doling out the goodies as they deem best. The whole point of this sale is to protest an extension of Affirmative Action in California under CA Senate Bill 185, which will make race, ethnicity, and gender factors to be considered in California college admissions - despite a provision in the California Constitution which prohibits discrimination based on these factors.
The real question is why liberals would be offended by this little sale. The premise underlying the sale and our national policy of Affirmative Action are exactly the same - that people of certain skin colors have less ability solely because of their skin color, or less access to certain goods or services solely because of skin color. You would think liberals would be cheering this bake sale and promoting its adoption statewide, enforcing it in businesses and on college campuses, but instead they are offended. The External Affairs VP of UC Berkeley even went so far as to suggest that the sale is "harming the campus climate" and that these students should avoid being "purposefully offensive." Maybe the problem is that the "feel good" policy of Affirmative Action is too uncomfortable when it's close to home, because it shows Affirmative Action for what it is: discrimination.
Our government spends a lot of money, and with a budget in the trillions, the numbers can become quickly incomprehensible. In fact, it's easy to lose all sense of perspective about the budget. Mr. Obama's proposed Federal Budget for 2011 would spend 3.83 Trillion Dollars; America currently has a national debt of $14,771,565,000,000. By comparison, the nearest star to the sun is 25.8 trillion miles away. To make sense of that, understand that a laser beam fired toward that star would take 4.3 years to cover that distance. Well, a Tea Party group has reduced the Federal Budget to an understandable level by reducing it to a proportionate household budget.
A household budget based on the Federal Budget would look like this:
Annual Family Income - $21,737
Annual Family Expenses - $38,188
Annual Additional Debt - $16,451
Recent Budget Cuts - $ 385
Current Outstanding Debt - $142,000
Does anyone think that a family with this proposed budget would ever be allowed to borrow that additional $16,451 in spending money? Even for the very best of reasons, even though the family "only" owes a modest $142,000, and even though the family is promising to cut all of $385 from the proposed spending, it hardly seems likely that any lender would not laugh them out of the bank when they ask for that $16,451 annual loan. Then also, there is that $142,000 outstanding debt. In housing purchases, a rough estimate for the maximum loan that can reasonably be paid back is about three times annual income. This debt is more than six and a half times the income. No rational mortgage lender would loan that. Of course, this is actually the government borrowing the money, and the full faith and credit of the United States is pledged against these debts. So, the situation is different. After all, a family might have trouble getting enough more income to repay that debt, but the government won't. If you pay taxes, you know where the government will go to raise its income, and that will hit uncomfortably close to home.
There's another one that hits pretty close to home. A Bake Sale being put on by the Berkeley College Republicans that has made national news. Why? Because the price of purchasing the product is based solely upon the race of the purchaser. The student group has styled this sale the "Increase Diversity Bake Sale," and the liberals are up in arms about it. One Professor even tried to buy all the products and end the sale, but the students refused. The Professor chided the students, saying she thought "Republicans were free enterprise, but they won't let me buy all the cupcakes." Nor should they; they're acting like liberals here, doling out the goodies as they deem best. The whole point of this sale is to protest an extension of Affirmative Action in California under CA Senate Bill 185, which will make race, ethnicity, and gender factors to be considered in California college admissions - despite a provision in the California Constitution which prohibits discrimination based on these factors.
The real question is why liberals would be offended by this little sale. The premise underlying the sale and our national policy of Affirmative Action are exactly the same - that people of certain skin colors have less ability solely because of their skin color, or less access to certain goods or services solely because of skin color. You would think liberals would be cheering this bake sale and promoting its adoption statewide, enforcing it in businesses and on college campuses, but instead they are offended. The External Affairs VP of UC Berkeley even went so far as to suggest that the sale is "harming the campus climate" and that these students should avoid being "purposefully offensive." Maybe the problem is that the "feel good" policy of Affirmative Action is too uncomfortable when it's close to home, because it shows Affirmative Action for what it is: discrimination.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Abbas gave the game away.
Abbas gave the game away in his speech at the United Nations. The Palestinian Authority is making a bid for statehood recognition at the U.N., bypassing the peace negotiations championed by the United States entirely. Netanyahu also made a speech at the U.N., asking Abbas to return to the peace negotiations, extending the hand of peace to the P.A., practically begging Abbas to return to peace negotiations.
That will not happen, however. Earlier in the week, the Palestinian Ambassador to the United States said the new Nation of Palestine should have no Jews in it, a comment which raised some eyebrows and suggested concerns of potential Anti-semitic discrimination against Jews in the Palestinian State, wherever it should eventually come to be. The Ambassador demurred on the charge of discrimination, commenting that he merely meant that the decades of animosity between Palestinians and Jews suggested that some separation would allow hostile feelings to cool, and offered assurances that no discrimination was intended or implied.
Perhaps one should give the benefit of the doubt and grant that is what the Ambassador meant. Abbas was less ambiguous in his U.N. address, however, when he said, "They talk to us about the Jewish state, but I respond to them with a final answer: We shall not recognize a Jewish state." If that is not a flat refusal to consider negotiations with Israel, it is virtually impossible to imagine what would be. Netanyahu is often accused of not adequately extending the hand of peace, but it is Abbas who has clearly slapped away any offer of the hand of peace
Abbas gave the game away: he is making an open statement to the world that the "final answer" is that Israel cannot exist. Can any rational person think that peace negotiations can occur as long as the Palestinians maintain this attitude? No people, neither the Jews nor anyone else, should be expected to negotiate a death sentence for themselves to "bring peace." No infidel (i.e., non-Muslim) should be foolish enough to think that the death of the Jewish nation, as Abbas, Ahmadinejad and other radical Islamists have now proposed, would bring peace, either. September 11, 2001, was a very clear statement of who is next on their agenda.
If the United Nations is going to be anything more than a farce, it should deny the Palestinian bid for statehood until the Palestinians agree to recognize Israel and to negotiate a real two-state solution.
That will not happen, however. Earlier in the week, the Palestinian Ambassador to the United States said the new Nation of Palestine should have no Jews in it, a comment which raised some eyebrows and suggested concerns of potential Anti-semitic discrimination against Jews in the Palestinian State, wherever it should eventually come to be. The Ambassador demurred on the charge of discrimination, commenting that he merely meant that the decades of animosity between Palestinians and Jews suggested that some separation would allow hostile feelings to cool, and offered assurances that no discrimination was intended or implied.
Perhaps one should give the benefit of the doubt and grant that is what the Ambassador meant. Abbas was less ambiguous in his U.N. address, however, when he said, "They talk to us about the Jewish state, but I respond to them with a final answer: We shall not recognize a Jewish state." If that is not a flat refusal to consider negotiations with Israel, it is virtually impossible to imagine what would be. Netanyahu is often accused of not adequately extending the hand of peace, but it is Abbas who has clearly slapped away any offer of the hand of peace
Abbas gave the game away: he is making an open statement to the world that the "final answer" is that Israel cannot exist. Can any rational person think that peace negotiations can occur as long as the Palestinians maintain this attitude? No people, neither the Jews nor anyone else, should be expected to negotiate a death sentence for themselves to "bring peace." No infidel (i.e., non-Muslim) should be foolish enough to think that the death of the Jewish nation, as Abbas, Ahmadinejad and other radical Islamists have now proposed, would bring peace, either. September 11, 2001, was a very clear statement of who is next on their agenda.
If the United Nations is going to be anything more than a farce, it should deny the Palestinian bid for statehood until the Palestinians agree to recognize Israel and to negotiate a real two-state solution.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Obama Administration Diplomacy - Amazing.
The Obama Administration has its moments.
Obama bows to Muslim leaders of other countries.
Obama bows to Japanese Emperor Akihito.
Obama bows to the Chinese Leader, and apparently just about everyone.
Then there's the obvious understanding of other issues of diplomatic protocol.
The Queen of England receives an iPod with pictures of one her visits to America, and incidentally loaded with copies of the Best of Obama Speeches.
And then there was a gift of classic American movies for England's Mr. Brown, apparently purchased in America, that aren't compatible with English DVD players.
Now there is this. It is a photo taken at the Open Government Partnership, and it's another (hilarious) example of this Administration's "seventh-grade schoolboy" approach to diplomacy. After all, iPods and old movies? Amazing.
And the world thinks we elected this guy because of his genius, leadership, and experience? Amazing.
Of course, they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize practically before he even uttered a word as President, so I guess we aren't the only ones who should be embarrassed.
Just smile and wave, boys, smile and wave.
Obama bows to Muslim leaders of other countries.
Obama bows to Japanese Emperor Akihito.
Obama bows to the Chinese Leader, and apparently just about everyone.
Then there's the obvious understanding of other issues of diplomatic protocol.
The Queen of England receives an iPod with pictures of one her visits to America, and incidentally loaded with copies of the Best of Obama Speeches.
And then there was a gift of classic American movies for England's Mr. Brown, apparently purchased in America, that aren't compatible with English DVD players.
Now there is this. It is a photo taken at the Open Government Partnership, and it's another (hilarious) example of this Administration's "seventh-grade schoolboy" approach to diplomacy. After all, iPods and old movies? Amazing.
And the world thinks we elected this guy because of his genius, leadership, and experience? Amazing.
Of course, they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize practically before he even uttered a word as President, so I guess we aren't the only ones who should be embarrassed.
Just smile and wave, boys, smile and wave.
Monday, September 19, 2011
The Three Trillion Dollar Illusion
Mr. Obama has today delivered a plan to cut the debt by, according to him, $3 Trillion Dollars. His usual guideline is "I want to spend trillions now, someone else can make the hard choices to repay that debt later," so the timing of implementation of all these alleged debt reduction strategies is not clear for all the items he has proposed.
In broad outline, the plan appears to be:
$1.1 Trillion in savings from the ending of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The wars are over, then? You could say the wars are over if stable governance has been achieved, but it hasn't. This appears to be a callous political device to claim credit for ending the wars. Obama hopes to claim victory during his term of office by drawing down the troop count and hoping violence doesn't blow up in those countries prior to the election. Also, it's not really a proper part of a debt reduction plan; wars are not really part of the normal cycle of taxation and spending. Wilson and Truman at the end of WWI and WWII did not claim they had "discovered" how to reduce the deficit. It is only a phony political ploy, nothing more than an illusion - another case of Obama claiming unearned credit.
$430 Billion in savings- from all of his debt reduction proposals! Another illusion. Yes, you do save money if the debt is reduced, but that really isn't a proposal on how to reduce actual debt.
At this point, it's clear that about half of the debt reduction program is an accounting illusion. These aren't debt reduction programs, merely consequences of other events that, if they occur, also happen to save money. That's not quite true of the rest of his proposal.
$580 Billion in spending cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs. That is in addition to and above the $638 Billion being cut from these programs under Obamacare. Fortunately for the senior population, these small (trillion dollar) cuts are being enacted by compassionate liberal Democrats, so the cuts will undoubtedly not be felt - or at least, won't be reported by the media.
$1.5 Trillion in new taxes. The White House says that proposal is different than the proposals they made during the debt-ceiling talks. Perhaps it is, but the only tangible difference is that Obama is asking for a greater tax increase now than the trillion dollar tax hike he asked for in those talks, or the trillion dollar tax hike he sought in his Feb. 2009 budget proposal. The plan is to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and to raise taxes on "millionaires." There is nothing new in any of this. While the "Buffet rule" of requiring a minimum tax rate on all income, whether earned or unearned, is appealing, there is a counterbalancing concern of capital flight from the U.S. If the tax rate in the U.S. suddenly goes up, millionaires will simply take their money and leave, just as they have fled California. The same is true of corporations. After making record profits, they are holding on to that money while they watch the tax and regulatory environment. If they see those costs increasing substantially, they will offshore more facilities and more jobs. As Obama once said, it's a bad idea to raise taxes in a recession. http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=21224
No wonder Republicans are attacking this "new plan" as nothing but a tax increase wrapped in talk about debt reduction. Aside from doubling down the cuts on seniors' health care programs, there is nothing but taxation in this proposal. With Obama's record of spending, is anyone gullible enough to believe that a trillion dollars in his hands would be used to pay down debt, anyway?
In broad outline, the plan appears to be:
$1.1 Trillion in savings from the ending of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The wars are over, then? You could say the wars are over if stable governance has been achieved, but it hasn't. This appears to be a callous political device to claim credit for ending the wars. Obama hopes to claim victory during his term of office by drawing down the troop count and hoping violence doesn't blow up in those countries prior to the election. Also, it's not really a proper part of a debt reduction plan; wars are not really part of the normal cycle of taxation and spending. Wilson and Truman at the end of WWI and WWII did not claim they had "discovered" how to reduce the deficit. It is only a phony political ploy, nothing more than an illusion - another case of Obama claiming unearned credit.
$430 Billion in savings- from all of his debt reduction proposals! Another illusion. Yes, you do save money if the debt is reduced, but that really isn't a proposal on how to reduce actual debt.
At this point, it's clear that about half of the debt reduction program is an accounting illusion. These aren't debt reduction programs, merely consequences of other events that, if they occur, also happen to save money. That's not quite true of the rest of his proposal.
$580 Billion in spending cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs. That is in addition to and above the $638 Billion being cut from these programs under Obamacare. Fortunately for the senior population, these small (trillion dollar) cuts are being enacted by compassionate liberal Democrats, so the cuts will undoubtedly not be felt - or at least, won't be reported by the media.
$1.5 Trillion in new taxes. The White House says that proposal is different than the proposals they made during the debt-ceiling talks. Perhaps it is, but the only tangible difference is that Obama is asking for a greater tax increase now than the trillion dollar tax hike he asked for in those talks, or the trillion dollar tax hike he sought in his Feb. 2009 budget proposal. The plan is to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and to raise taxes on "millionaires." There is nothing new in any of this. While the "Buffet rule" of requiring a minimum tax rate on all income, whether earned or unearned, is appealing, there is a counterbalancing concern of capital flight from the U.S. If the tax rate in the U.S. suddenly goes up, millionaires will simply take their money and leave, just as they have fled California. The same is true of corporations. After making record profits, they are holding on to that money while they watch the tax and regulatory environment. If they see those costs increasing substantially, they will offshore more facilities and more jobs. As Obama once said, it's a bad idea to raise taxes in a recession. http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=21224
No wonder Republicans are attacking this "new plan" as nothing but a tax increase wrapped in talk about debt reduction. Aside from doubling down the cuts on seniors' health care programs, there is nothing but taxation in this proposal. With Obama's record of spending, is anyone gullible enough to believe that a trillion dollars in his hands would be used to pay down debt, anyway?
Friday, September 16, 2011
Mideast Peace Process takes a detour
There is some talk in the media, but not enough, about an issue threading its way into the United Nations. The Palestinians are moving towards a push for official recognition of statehood in the international community.
It is important at the outset to recognize the misinformation that has been disseminated as truth. As every schoolchild and most adults "know," the people of the nation of Palestine were attacked and driven from their homeland sometime after the Second World War by radical Zionist Jews who established a new Jewish state in a land where there really had not been a significant Jewish presence for centuries. The Palestinians, as everyone "knows," are merely seeking a bit of their land back so that they may live in peace, away from the attacks they regularly suffer from the Jews in Israel. That, at least, is the media version. To paraphrase President Reagan's comment about liberals, it's not that the people don't know anything, but that they know so much that isn't so, because the media version, while it tugs at the heartstrings and cries out for a righting of wrongs to the poor Palestinians, just isn't so.
It's partly a result of the absurdly biased reporting from the Middle East that anyone believes the Israelis are going out of their way to attack anyone. Think about how many of the stories on Israel are reported. A headline will read: Israeli soldiers kill people in an attack. In the body of the story, there will be a notation that these were counterattacks in response to attacks on Israel. Doesn't happen? What about this headline: "Egypt decries Israeli attack that killed 3 of its soldiers" in the LA Times, August 20, 2011. Israel was defending itself from attacks on its own people, and that just isn't unbiased reporting.
It's also a result of a careful revision of history. The Jew's homeland is the land of Israel; they were forcibly disposessed by the Romans and scattered abroad throughout the world after the Jewish revolts of circa 70 A.D. and 130 A.D. against Roman occupation.
Palestine is an ancient land, and many peoples have been "Palestinians." This is a quote from The Historical Atlas of the Bible, by Dr Ian Barnes,
"The Holy Land has long been a route for invasion and trade, a cockpit of war over which empires have always sought dominance. Conquered by Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Alexander the Great, and the Ptolemaic Empire, the region finally fell to Rome in 63 BC. The Persian Sanassid Empire followed, destroying the Byzantine presence. This was in turn overthrown by the Arab Conquests of the Seventh Century, eventually creating the Ottoman Empire. The Crusader states were a minor interim period during this process. Turkish defeat by the Allies during the First World War witnessed the Fertile Crescent becoming the bounty of the Western imperial powers. The Ottoman Empire was carved up into League of Nation mandates. France gained control of Syria and Lebanon.... Britain was awarded Palestine, Iraq, and Transjordan.... Meanwhile, Britain promised Jews a national home in Palestine, embodied in the 1920 (sic) Balfour Declaration...."
The Balfour Declaration was included in the "British Mandate for Palestine" approved in the League of Nations in 1922. Under that Mandate, about 23% was set aside for a Jewish state which, including the Golan Heights and Gaza, closely matches modern Israel's borders. The remaining 77% was set aside for a Palestinian state for the Arab population. Under the mandate, the League tried to establish a Nation of Palestine. The Arabs rejected it, apparently for the reason that it allowed the existence of a Jewish state. The entire plan collapsed into an Arab-Jewish conflict, and as a result, there has never really been a nation of Palestine.
In short, the Arabs are going to the UN to vote to get a "nation," which they were offered in 1922. But don't think things have changed. This "Nation of Palestine," being created out of whole cloth and without defined borders, will have standing to go to the World Court with civil and criminal complaints, allowing another forum to attack Israel. Furthermore, when asked about the presence of Jews, the PLO Ambassador said it would be best if there were no Jews in Palestine. Perhaps that's mere hyperbole, but it sounds eerily similar in sentiment to Iran's more vitriolic rhetoric.
This bid for nationhood seems more like a detour around the negotiated peace process than a good faith effort to co-exist with Israel. In that case, the establishment of a nation of Palestine combined with increasing fundamentalism in the neighboring nations may well create a volatile situation. Let's hope this isn't a detour into war.
It is important at the outset to recognize the misinformation that has been disseminated as truth. As every schoolchild and most adults "know," the people of the nation of Palestine were attacked and driven from their homeland sometime after the Second World War by radical Zionist Jews who established a new Jewish state in a land where there really had not been a significant Jewish presence for centuries. The Palestinians, as everyone "knows," are merely seeking a bit of their land back so that they may live in peace, away from the attacks they regularly suffer from the Jews in Israel. That, at least, is the media version. To paraphrase President Reagan's comment about liberals, it's not that the people don't know anything, but that they know so much that isn't so, because the media version, while it tugs at the heartstrings and cries out for a righting of wrongs to the poor Palestinians, just isn't so.
It's partly a result of the absurdly biased reporting from the Middle East that anyone believes the Israelis are going out of their way to attack anyone. Think about how many of the stories on Israel are reported. A headline will read: Israeli soldiers kill people in an attack. In the body of the story, there will be a notation that these were counterattacks in response to attacks on Israel. Doesn't happen? What about this headline: "Egypt decries Israeli attack that killed 3 of its soldiers" in the LA Times, August 20, 2011. Israel was defending itself from attacks on its own people, and that just isn't unbiased reporting.
It's also a result of a careful revision of history. The Jew's homeland is the land of Israel; they were forcibly disposessed by the Romans and scattered abroad throughout the world after the Jewish revolts of circa 70 A.D. and 130 A.D. against Roman occupation.
Palestine is an ancient land, and many peoples have been "Palestinians." This is a quote from The Historical Atlas of the Bible, by Dr Ian Barnes,
"The Holy Land has long been a route for invasion and trade, a cockpit of war over which empires have always sought dominance. Conquered by Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Alexander the Great, and the Ptolemaic Empire, the region finally fell to Rome in 63 BC. The Persian Sanassid Empire followed, destroying the Byzantine presence. This was in turn overthrown by the Arab Conquests of the Seventh Century, eventually creating the Ottoman Empire. The Crusader states were a minor interim period during this process. Turkish defeat by the Allies during the First World War witnessed the Fertile Crescent becoming the bounty of the Western imperial powers. The Ottoman Empire was carved up into League of Nation mandates. France gained control of Syria and Lebanon.... Britain was awarded Palestine, Iraq, and Transjordan.... Meanwhile, Britain promised Jews a national home in Palestine, embodied in the 1920 (sic) Balfour Declaration...."
The Balfour Declaration was included in the "British Mandate for Palestine" approved in the League of Nations in 1922. Under that Mandate, about 23% was set aside for a Jewish state which, including the Golan Heights and Gaza, closely matches modern Israel's borders. The remaining 77% was set aside for a Palestinian state for the Arab population. Under the mandate, the League tried to establish a Nation of Palestine. The Arabs rejected it, apparently for the reason that it allowed the existence of a Jewish state. The entire plan collapsed into an Arab-Jewish conflict, and as a result, there has never really been a nation of Palestine.
In short, the Arabs are going to the UN to vote to get a "nation," which they were offered in 1922. But don't think things have changed. This "Nation of Palestine," being created out of whole cloth and without defined borders, will have standing to go to the World Court with civil and criminal complaints, allowing another forum to attack Israel. Furthermore, when asked about the presence of Jews, the PLO Ambassador said it would be best if there were no Jews in Palestine. Perhaps that's mere hyperbole, but it sounds eerily similar in sentiment to Iran's more vitriolic rhetoric.
This bid for nationhood seems more like a detour around the negotiated peace process than a good faith effort to co-exist with Israel. In that case, the establishment of a nation of Palestine combined with increasing fundamentalism in the neighboring nations may well create a volatile situation. Let's hope this isn't a detour into war.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
District 9, the other (possible) Awakening
In Congressional District 9, New York, the voters have elected a Republican to Congress. It seems that, in the history of that District, that has never happened before. It's gotten attention nationally, and, coupled with the loss of a special election in Nevada, is causing a stir in the Democratic party. Of course, it has sent Democrat Party machinery into full spin mode. The head of the Democratic National Convention, Wasserman-Schultz,says the 9th District is a "difficult district," and the White House Jay Carney says that special elections are unique and don't say much about the electorate in general. Perhaps. Democrat voters outnumber Republicans in the district by a three-to-one margin, so the "difficult" part appears to be convincing Democrats to vote for a Democrat. It might be a wake-up call for Obama's re-election chances.
On the other hand, that might not be all there is to this election. Turner, the Republican, ran primarily on Obama's abysmal policies toward Israel, appealing to a large constituency of Orthodox Jews. Orthodox Jews, it is said, are more conservative than some other groups of Jews, and were upset not only by Obama's Mideast foreign policies but by the Democrat candidate's votes for gay marriage in the New York state legislature.
Now, this is a delicate subject, and hopefully can be analyzed without offending anyone. Historically, the bulk of the Jewish population in America seems to have voted for liberal policies and politicians - groups which drag America down into socialism. Yet those policies will be, in the long run, detrimental to the interests of the Jewish people. Need an example? Where have pogroms and purges taken place - America, or the Soviet Union? Which one promoted socialism and leadership not by the people but by an enlightened elite? Not America. Of course, there's Hitler and the Fascists, but remember that was Quadrant IV, the right wing of socialism, as well. That's not traditional America, either.
Perhaps another example. Obama's Mideast policies typify much of what the American Left has been propounding for years, particularly since the Sixties. America has for decades either supported, or left in place, dictators in middle-eastern countries. Obama's vapid leadership has assisted in collapsing those governments on the baseless assumption that Muslims in those nations will then turn to the West as an example of Democratic government, rather than vote into power their religious Imams and Shari'a Law. These nations are rapidly moving into Islamic fundamentalism, among whom are found few friends of the Jew. American liberals likewise do not understand the effect that the demise of Israel would have on the U.S., with the rise of a unified Mideastern bloc of nations directed by fundamentalists, and not one friend of America in the region.
Conservative American values and traditional Jewish values have much in common, and conservative Americans tend to be the more ardent supporters of the right of both the Jew and of Israel to exist. To be sure, there is a vast theological chasm between Jews and Christians on the issues surrounding Jesus, and it would be disingenuous to claim there is no anti-Semitism in some Christians - or no anti-Christian sentiment among some Jews. This is not a call for an ecumenical council. Rather, it is an attempt to highlight the fact that the cultural moral values taught in each of the faiths are much the same, and thus the interests of the two faiths, from a political standpoint, may have similar interests. It is to be hoped that the Jewish community in America might become aware of this fact. That is the other possible awakening, because the nations rising as a result of America's weak liberal leadership and the resulting Arab Spring represents an immediate threat to Jewish existence and, possibly, eventually to American existence.
On the other hand, that might not be all there is to this election. Turner, the Republican, ran primarily on Obama's abysmal policies toward Israel, appealing to a large constituency of Orthodox Jews. Orthodox Jews, it is said, are more conservative than some other groups of Jews, and were upset not only by Obama's Mideast foreign policies but by the Democrat candidate's votes for gay marriage in the New York state legislature.
Now, this is a delicate subject, and hopefully can be analyzed without offending anyone. Historically, the bulk of the Jewish population in America seems to have voted for liberal policies and politicians - groups which drag America down into socialism. Yet those policies will be, in the long run, detrimental to the interests of the Jewish people. Need an example? Where have pogroms and purges taken place - America, or the Soviet Union? Which one promoted socialism and leadership not by the people but by an enlightened elite? Not America. Of course, there's Hitler and the Fascists, but remember that was Quadrant IV, the right wing of socialism, as well. That's not traditional America, either.
Perhaps another example. Obama's Mideast policies typify much of what the American Left has been propounding for years, particularly since the Sixties. America has for decades either supported, or left in place, dictators in middle-eastern countries. Obama's vapid leadership has assisted in collapsing those governments on the baseless assumption that Muslims in those nations will then turn to the West as an example of Democratic government, rather than vote into power their religious Imams and Shari'a Law. These nations are rapidly moving into Islamic fundamentalism, among whom are found few friends of the Jew. American liberals likewise do not understand the effect that the demise of Israel would have on the U.S., with the rise of a unified Mideastern bloc of nations directed by fundamentalists, and not one friend of America in the region.
Conservative American values and traditional Jewish values have much in common, and conservative Americans tend to be the more ardent supporters of the right of both the Jew and of Israel to exist. To be sure, there is a vast theological chasm between Jews and Christians on the issues surrounding Jesus, and it would be disingenuous to claim there is no anti-Semitism in some Christians - or no anti-Christian sentiment among some Jews. This is not a call for an ecumenical council. Rather, it is an attempt to highlight the fact that the cultural moral values taught in each of the faiths are much the same, and thus the interests of the two faiths, from a political standpoint, may have similar interests. It is to be hoped that the Jewish community in America might become aware of this fact. That is the other possible awakening, because the nations rising as a result of America's weak liberal leadership and the resulting Arab Spring represents an immediate threat to Jewish existence and, possibly, eventually to American existence.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
9/11- They Forgot
Perhaps it really isn't fair to say they forgot. After all, they are celebrating 9/11- it's Patriot Day, it's a day of compassion, a day for service. So, it may be unfair to say the liberals forgot. They just never understood it in the first place.
After all, CNN has been running a weeklong series of articles about 9/11- on the sufferings of Muslims since 9/11. There will be a program at the site of the Twin Towers, but with no mention of religion permitted, and the families of first responders and victims are neither invited nor welcome. A vigil was scheduled at the National Cathedral with Mr. Obama expected to attend. It was to be an interfaith service, with "two Episcopal bishops, a rabbi, a Tibetan monk, a Buddhist nun, a Buddhist lama, a Hindu priest and a controversial Muslim imam from a mosques (sic) whose former leader was charged with a terror offense shortly after 9/11. The vigil also featured an Afghan musician, Humayun Khan." No Catholic or Evangelical Christians welcome there, either. Interestingly, the service had to be moved after a gust of wind blew a crane over at the National Cathedral. In the law, that's called an "Act of God," but of course it couldn't really be, could it?
The liberals in the government, the liberals who plan these programs, the liberals reporting in the media, and the liberals in the general population just never got it, and they still don't.
It is an article of faith in Liberalism that all fundamentalists of any religion are just uneducated and superstitious. They also accept as an article of faith that it is the Christians who are dangerous- not because they are generally physically dangerous (you can make fun of them all you want), but because of their crazy ideas. Given those premises, all religions opposing Christianity are good, and must obviously be on the side of Liberalism.
That's why you see stories all over the place where the media is showing us how Tolerant and long-suffering the Muslims are, and explaining that the "terrorists" are not "real" Muslims. They tell us that the poor terrorists don't really understand their own religion. They omit any mention of Islam as a support for the cause of terrorism. When they recap the events of 9/11, they omit all of the dancing in the streets in the Muslim world which was recorded, and so utterly puzzled them, on 9/11.
Liberals, due to their philosophical prejudices, cannot even comprehend the idea that the Prophet pronounced death to infidels, that refusing to openly accept and practice Islam marks them as infidels, and that fundamental practitioners of Islam do actually intend to kill them along with all other infidels. That is one of the components of jihad. Nobody gets a pass; there are no "civilians" since all must accept Islam, and any true Muslim who dies in the jihad becomes a martyr entitled to enter Allah's Heaven.
After the bombing at Pearl Harbor in 1941, there was virtually unanimous resolution to combat the enemy which assailed the U.S. There was only one dissenting vote to the declaration of war on an enemy which had openly attacked. Now, however, the confusion sown by Liberalism has grown to dangerous proportions. Paul Krugman, in a Times editorial demonstrating liberal "thought," calls Bush a "fake hero" who just cashed in on the publicity to fight a war he wanted to fight. We have elected a President who openly celebrates Islamic holidays, but "forgets" or is "too busy" to celebrate Christian holidays as America has historically done, and we have a government generating thousands of pages of policies promoting outreach to Muslims. Rather than combating the ideology which threatens us, our government and media pretend it doesn't even exist, and that it is only our intolerant failure to embrace Muslims that drove these misguided men to terrorism.
The suffering and death that occurred on and since 9/11 must be remembered, and if those who died are not to be mocked, the true cause must be likewise remembered. America must resolve to step out of the blind faith of the liberals, and recognize that the ideology of fundamentalist Islamism represents the ongoing threat to not only the U.S. but to all the free world.
After all, CNN has been running a weeklong series of articles about 9/11- on the sufferings of Muslims since 9/11. There will be a program at the site of the Twin Towers, but with no mention of religion permitted, and the families of first responders and victims are neither invited nor welcome. A vigil was scheduled at the National Cathedral with Mr. Obama expected to attend. It was to be an interfaith service, with "two Episcopal bishops, a rabbi, a Tibetan monk, a Buddhist nun, a Buddhist lama, a Hindu priest and a controversial Muslim imam from a mosques (sic) whose former leader was charged with a terror offense shortly after 9/11. The vigil also featured an Afghan musician, Humayun Khan." No Catholic or Evangelical Christians welcome there, either. Interestingly, the service had to be moved after a gust of wind blew a crane over at the National Cathedral. In the law, that's called an "Act of God," but of course it couldn't really be, could it?
The liberals in the government, the liberals who plan these programs, the liberals reporting in the media, and the liberals in the general population just never got it, and they still don't.
It is an article of faith in Liberalism that all fundamentalists of any religion are just uneducated and superstitious. They also accept as an article of faith that it is the Christians who are dangerous- not because they are generally physically dangerous (you can make fun of them all you want), but because of their crazy ideas. Given those premises, all religions opposing Christianity are good, and must obviously be on the side of Liberalism.
That's why you see stories all over the place where the media is showing us how Tolerant and long-suffering the Muslims are, and explaining that the "terrorists" are not "real" Muslims. They tell us that the poor terrorists don't really understand their own religion. They omit any mention of Islam as a support for the cause of terrorism. When they recap the events of 9/11, they omit all of the dancing in the streets in the Muslim world which was recorded, and so utterly puzzled them, on 9/11.
Liberals, due to their philosophical prejudices, cannot even comprehend the idea that the Prophet pronounced death to infidels, that refusing to openly accept and practice Islam marks them as infidels, and that fundamental practitioners of Islam do actually intend to kill them along with all other infidels. That is one of the components of jihad. Nobody gets a pass; there are no "civilians" since all must accept Islam, and any true Muslim who dies in the jihad becomes a martyr entitled to enter Allah's Heaven.
After the bombing at Pearl Harbor in 1941, there was virtually unanimous resolution to combat the enemy which assailed the U.S. There was only one dissenting vote to the declaration of war on an enemy which had openly attacked. Now, however, the confusion sown by Liberalism has grown to dangerous proportions. Paul Krugman, in a Times editorial demonstrating liberal "thought," calls Bush a "fake hero" who just cashed in on the publicity to fight a war he wanted to fight. We have elected a President who openly celebrates Islamic holidays, but "forgets" or is "too busy" to celebrate Christian holidays as America has historically done, and we have a government generating thousands of pages of policies promoting outreach to Muslims. Rather than combating the ideology which threatens us, our government and media pretend it doesn't even exist, and that it is only our intolerant failure to embrace Muslims that drove these misguided men to terrorism.
The suffering and death that occurred on and since 9/11 must be remembered, and if those who died are not to be mocked, the true cause must be likewise remembered. America must resolve to step out of the blind faith of the liberals, and recognize that the ideology of fundamentalist Islamism represents the ongoing threat to not only the U.S. but to all the free world.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Democrats and Civil Discourse
More and more examples of civil discourse, as understood by the Democrats, keep showing up in the media.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D)- Tea Party can "go to hell."
Rep. Andre' Carson (D)- Tea Party wants blacks "hanging on a tree."
More recently, Jimmy Hoffa's promise to Obama, at an event attended by Obama, to go to war on those "S. O. B's." At the same event, Biden exhorted the union workers, stating that only they were keeping the "barbarians from the gates." Hoffa says he'd say it all again, and the only response from the White House is that Hoffa has a right to express his opinions.
As in all things, the liberal leadership of the Democratic Party seems to have a schizophrenic view of the world. Apparently, these liberals believe everyone else should do as they are told, while they do as they darn well please, thank you.
=The President gets in the news chowing down every kind of fatty fast food, the First Lady tells us eat more kale.
-Pelosi, and "Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore, for that matter, busily promote pro-environmental legislation to cut our carbon footprint while riding pollution-spewing (and in Pelosi's case, government-paid) jets around the nation.
-While Americans battle massive un- and under-employment and a recession, the First Lady has spent $10 Million dollars of public funds on vacations.
-Democrats complain loudly about Republican big-business favoritism, while filling Democrat campaign coffers with corporate donations.
One advantage granted by schizophrenia is the ability to embrace relative truth and contradictory claims. You know, the "I don't remember, I wasn't there, what is 'is', that was true then" approach to truth. For a politician, it's an advantage because it keeps opponents off-balance; it makes them appear petty when they are always dredging up the past and pointing fingers. However, American doesn't need more politicians: it needs Statesmen- people who have principles and mean to live by them even at personal cost, as America's founders did- and there does not seem to be many.
Americans need to hold their elected officials to a higher standard, and the Democrat Party needs to hold its members accountable, too.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D)- Tea Party can "go to hell."
Rep. Andre' Carson (D)- Tea Party wants blacks "hanging on a tree."
More recently, Jimmy Hoffa's promise to Obama, at an event attended by Obama, to go to war on those "S. O. B's." At the same event, Biden exhorted the union workers, stating that only they were keeping the "barbarians from the gates." Hoffa says he'd say it all again, and the only response from the White House is that Hoffa has a right to express his opinions.
As in all things, the liberal leadership of the Democratic Party seems to have a schizophrenic view of the world. Apparently, these liberals believe everyone else should do as they are told, while they do as they darn well please, thank you.
=The President gets in the news chowing down every kind of fatty fast food, the First Lady tells us eat more kale.
-Pelosi, and "Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore, for that matter, busily promote pro-environmental legislation to cut our carbon footprint while riding pollution-spewing (and in Pelosi's case, government-paid) jets around the nation.
-While Americans battle massive un- and under-employment and a recession, the First Lady has spent $10 Million dollars of public funds on vacations.
-Democrats complain loudly about Republican big-business favoritism, while filling Democrat campaign coffers with corporate donations.
One advantage granted by schizophrenia is the ability to embrace relative truth and contradictory claims. You know, the "I don't remember, I wasn't there, what is 'is', that was true then" approach to truth. For a politician, it's an advantage because it keeps opponents off-balance; it makes them appear petty when they are always dredging up the past and pointing fingers. However, American doesn't need more politicians: it needs Statesmen- people who have principles and mean to live by them even at personal cost, as America's founders did- and there does not seem to be many.
Americans need to hold their elected officials to a higher standard, and the Democrat Party needs to hold its members accountable, too.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Speechgate: Liberal Cluelessness and Obama's Imperial Presidency
The 2012 Presidential Campaign is underway, and both parties are trying to get their message in front of the voters. The Republicans started with the Iowa Straw Poll and a long-scheduled series of debates between Primary contenders. Mr. Obama also started campaigning long ago, using the power of the Presidency to schedule fundraisers all over the nation.
Mr. Obama, with his recent request to schedule a speech to Congress, attempted to employ another Presidential prerogative for purely political gain. For several weeks, Mr. Obama had made references to his intention to announce a new plan to stimulate the economy and create jobs, so it was clear that he had ample opportunity to quietly contact Congressional leaders and negotiate a suitable date for a joint session. Instead, he chose to make a public announcement that he expected to address Congress on September 7 at 8:00 PM.
Democrats in Congress reacted with predictable delight in welcoming the President, but the Republicans were placed in a quandary. Republicans do want to know what, if anything, the President wants to do about the economy. Is he proposing a new stimulus to keep unemployment high, raise the tax burden, and dig the debt grave deeper? New regulations to drive out America's business? No one knows.
Speaker Boehner, however, sent a letter asking Mr. Obama to present his program on September 8, and the media has simply lit up about what is now called "Speechgate," with commentary about the disrespect being shown to Obama for refusing his request.
Much of the commentary displays two fundamental characteristics. One is liberal cluelessness. CNN's LZ Granderson exemplifies this in an opinion piece in which he states, "But here's the thing: (Obama is) president of the United States. He gets to call such meetings.... Not because Obama said so, but because the president of the United States said so." No, the President does not. Not only has he no right to dictate the time of such a meeting, he cannot "call" a meeting. Remember checks and balances? Three co-equal branches? Evidently not. Granderson rants on,
"By publicly requesting another day -- as opposed to privately approaching the White House with scheduling concerns -- Boehner has essentially announced what many Americans suspected the night Rep. Joe Wilson yelled "you lie" during the president's health care reform speech back in 2009. This GOP has no respect for Obama. There are members of the right who will stop at nothing to discredit him."
A President who wants to address Congress is expected to first privately approach Congress and work out a mutually acceptable date and time. Do you think Congress has the right to walk in and make demands on or conduct business at the White House or the Supreme Court whenever they want? Hint: no.
In even the most charitable light, the President blundered, not Congress. This was not a case of Boehner challenging Obama's authority, as the confused Granderson believes. Rather, it was a case of a power-grabbing President pretending to authority he does not have.
Which brings up the second characteristic. This request is characteristic of the extreme and pervasive disrespect Obama and his cohorts have and repeatedly show, not only for any who disagree with them, but for America's Constitution and her institutions. While the White House has asserted that they previously contacted Speaker Boehner about the date, the Speaker's office says not so. Somebody is not accurately stating the facts, and the Obama administration does not have an excellent track record in that regard.
America does not have an Imperial Presidency, and Obama has no authority to trample upon and dictate to the other branches of government. Furthermore, Obama should, but obviously doesn't, respect the political process. Obama should not seek to both upstage the long-scheduled GOP debates and simultaneously deprive the American people of an opportunity to hear his rivals speak. Open debate is a cornerstone of American politics, and as President, he has the benefit of incumbency to give him a platform for airing his positions. Yet, the current administration has no respect for this process at all. This is not a question of Obama rolling over for the GOP, as the clueless liberal pundits are framing it, but of his learning to respect the American Institutions and the American people rather than using the "presumed" power of his office for his personal political benefit.
Mr. Obama, with his recent request to schedule a speech to Congress, attempted to employ another Presidential prerogative for purely political gain. For several weeks, Mr. Obama had made references to his intention to announce a new plan to stimulate the economy and create jobs, so it was clear that he had ample opportunity to quietly contact Congressional leaders and negotiate a suitable date for a joint session. Instead, he chose to make a public announcement that he expected to address Congress on September 7 at 8:00 PM.
Democrats in Congress reacted with predictable delight in welcoming the President, but the Republicans were placed in a quandary. Republicans do want to know what, if anything, the President wants to do about the economy. Is he proposing a new stimulus to keep unemployment high, raise the tax burden, and dig the debt grave deeper? New regulations to drive out America's business? No one knows.
Speaker Boehner, however, sent a letter asking Mr. Obama to present his program on September 8, and the media has simply lit up about what is now called "Speechgate," with commentary about the disrespect being shown to Obama for refusing his request.
Much of the commentary displays two fundamental characteristics. One is liberal cluelessness. CNN's LZ Granderson exemplifies this in an opinion piece in which he states, "But here's the thing: (Obama is) president of the United States. He gets to call such meetings.... Not because Obama said so, but because the president of the United States said so." No, the President does not. Not only has he no right to dictate the time of such a meeting, he cannot "call" a meeting. Remember checks and balances? Three co-equal branches? Evidently not. Granderson rants on,
"By publicly requesting another day -- as opposed to privately approaching the White House with scheduling concerns -- Boehner has essentially announced what many Americans suspected the night Rep. Joe Wilson yelled "you lie" during the president's health care reform speech back in 2009. This GOP has no respect for Obama. There are members of the right who will stop at nothing to discredit him."
A President who wants to address Congress is expected to first privately approach Congress and work out a mutually acceptable date and time. Do you think Congress has the right to walk in and make demands on or conduct business at the White House or the Supreme Court whenever they want? Hint: no.
In even the most charitable light, the President blundered, not Congress. This was not a case of Boehner challenging Obama's authority, as the confused Granderson believes. Rather, it was a case of a power-grabbing President pretending to authority he does not have.
Which brings up the second characteristic. This request is characteristic of the extreme and pervasive disrespect Obama and his cohorts have and repeatedly show, not only for any who disagree with them, but for America's Constitution and her institutions. While the White House has asserted that they previously contacted Speaker Boehner about the date, the Speaker's office says not so. Somebody is not accurately stating the facts, and the Obama administration does not have an excellent track record in that regard.
America does not have an Imperial Presidency, and Obama has no authority to trample upon and dictate to the other branches of government. Furthermore, Obama should, but obviously doesn't, respect the political process. Obama should not seek to both upstage the long-scheduled GOP debates and simultaneously deprive the American people of an opportunity to hear his rivals speak. Open debate is a cornerstone of American politics, and as President, he has the benefit of incumbency to give him a platform for airing his positions. Yet, the current administration has no respect for this process at all. This is not a question of Obama rolling over for the GOP, as the clueless liberal pundits are framing it, but of his learning to respect the American Institutions and the American people rather than using the "presumed" power of his office for his personal political benefit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)