Liberals keep unfairly tarring conservatives with the label “racist.”
Mona Charen
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
On a regular basis, we are enjoined, usually by a leading Democrat, to overcome our reticence — or, in Attorney General Eric Holder’s formulation, “cowardice” — and engage in a hearty national conversation about race.
No, thanks. As anyone with eyes can see, we are far from avoiding the subject — in fact, it often seems that we are unable to talk about anything else. With our national debt ascending like Jack’s beanstalk, our economy coughing blood, a maniacal, extremist regime in Iran close to getting the bomb, a loose worldwide network of Islamic fanatics trying to blow us up, violence flaring along our southern border, the after-effects of a massive oil spill hobbling the Gulf region, and a government in Washington determined to implement a social-democratic agenda despite vigorous public opposition, we are talking, of course, about race.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger gave up her three-decade-old radio program after using the “n” word on the air. Not that she wielded it as an epithet. No, she was just insensitive (no irony intended here, she really was). And racial insensitivity, more than any other kind, is a ticket to American purgatory.
Though Dr. Laura could be flippant and even cruel at times, she was a one-woman corrective to the therapeutic culture that treated everyone as a victim and required responsibility from no one. Over the course of 30 years, she never gave any indication of racist tendencies (and she gave plenty of solid advice to boot). But she touched the third rail one time, and now she’s silenced.
Dr. Laura made it easy for her critics by a lapse of taste and judgment. But even in the absence of such blunders, the Left can make anything about race.
Two rallies were held in Washington over the weekend. One was hosted by TV and radio phenom Glenn Beck to “restore American honor” (whatever that means), and the other by the Rev. Al Sharpton, to whine about the Beck rally.
The Beck rally happened to fall on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “Dream” speech. Okay. Does that make Beck a racist? So said any number of axe-grinders. National Urban League president Marc Morial said Beck’s rally was “an effort to embarrass and poke a finger in the eye of the civil rights community.”
Martin Luther King III, invoking his father, protested that “his dream rejected hateful rhetoric and all forms of bigotry or discrimination.”
A New York Times story about the coincidence of dates started this way: “It seems the ultimate thumb in the eye: that Glenn Beck would summon the Tea Party faithful to a rally on the anniversary of the March on Washington.”
But consider this: The one piece of evidence cited by Beck’s leftist critics to prove that he is a racist is that Beck once called Obama a racist! Oh, and then he apologized. Now we’re really in the weeds of race talk as only 21st-century Americans can do it.
In fact, Beck (who can never be accused of reserve) has become moist (his default mode) when discussing the great legacy of Martin Luther King. He has explained that the timing of the march was accidental but that he has come to think of it as “providential.” His rally was rich with tributes to the civil-rights icon, and included a speech by King’s niece, Alveda King.
Nothing daunted, The New York Times insinuated away. “In the Tea Party’s talk of states’ rights,” wrote reporter Kate Zernike, “critics say they hear an echo of slavery, Jim Crow and George Wallace.” Yes, naturally. Just as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd “heard” the word “boy” when Rep. Joe Wilson blurted “You lie” at President Obama. And just for the record, tea-party groups don’t tend to use the term “states’ rights.”
Times columnist Paul Krugman, too, is in a lather (his default mode). Denouncing the “ugliness” he sees coming down the pike (that would be a big Republican victory in November), Krugman fulminates that “a significant number of Americans just don’t consider government by liberals legitimate.” Krugman is aghast that a Republican majority might initiate a “wave of investigations,” which would be “dangerous.” Well, let’s see, these supposedly lawless Republicans will be exercising their right to vote and will elect representatives who may choose to discharge their congressional oversight responsibility zealously. How is that “dangerous” or “ugly”?
In fact, it is the Left that regards all criticism as illegitimate. No matter what you say, if you hold a rally opposing the liberal agenda, or attend a town-hall meeting critical of a Democrat, you will be tarred as a racist. As the radio host Chris Plante puts it: “The definition of a racist today is anyone who is winning an argument with a liberal.”
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Assemblywoman Jacobs and the Death of New York
Herb London
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Rhoda Jacobs is a Democratic Assistant Speaker of the New York State Assembly representing a district in Brooklyn. She, like many of her colleagues, puts a premium on constituent service. In fact, that is her calling card and her campaign mantra.
In most respects she employs her position to help those in her neighborhood and does so with understandable campaign goals in mind. For Ms. Jacobs governing and campaigns are indistinguishable, a condition she shares with her Assembly brethren.
What Ms. Jacobs does not fully appreciate is that someone has to pay for the services she is eager to promote. Many of her constituents, love the services, but most are in the dark when it comes to determining actual cost. I would guess that Ms. Jacobs, despite her elevated Assembly position, cannot determine cost either. In fact, I’m confident about this assertion.
A recent letter Ms. Jacobs sent to one of her constituents crossed my desk. It says implicitly that the Assemblywoman doesn’t appreciate the tax burden necessary to sustain the government services she is eager to promote and it says explicitly that she will use her office to extend these services.
Let Ms. Jacobs speak for herself since what follows is from her letter:
“My office can provide you and your family with information and assistance on a wide variety of issues including housing, landlord/tenant disputes, unemployment, employment referrals, consumer advocacy, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, utility services, food stamps, and food pantry information, voter registration and much more. We can also help you apply for benefits for which you might be entitled.”
As Assemblywoman Jacobs notes “Especially during this blessed month (Ramadan), I extend to you the services of my office to help you to resolve issues and problems that may be causing you hardship.”
However, there is a problem, almost everyone has issues and problems causing hardship. Are all who fall into this category eligible for Ms. Jacobs assistance? And if so, who is going to pay the bill? Think about this for a moment and consider the list of services: healthcare, food, lodging, retirement insurance, employment and “much more.” This is a great country, but it was also once a rich country, a matter very much in doubt because of pols like Ms. Jacobs.
Austerity doesn’t get you elected. It is not surprising that the Assemblywoman’s office offers voter registration information. Do you think the person receiving these benefits will vote for Ms. Jacobs opponent? Will she even have an opponent? And if so, will that person explain the dangers of an expansive government in inexorable combat with the private sector? The more government expands to accommodate Ms. Jacobs constituents, the more capital is driven out of the private economy until you have an economy Lady Thatcher once described as “running out of other people’s money.”
Ms. Jacobs may not realize the fact that New York State is insolvent and it is insolvent because legislators continue to spend and offer services the state cannot afford. But if legislators want to act responsibly and engage in retrenchment, their constituents, now addicted to the state welfare system for their very existence, would turn on them. As a consequence, the state system is self fulfilling: Give constituents what they want and they in turn will keep you in office.
But the jig is up. The state is broke. In New York City one percent of the population pays 55 percent of the taxes and that one percent can flee and is fleeing. Florida without a state tax looks more appealing every day. Of course, Ms. Jacobs doesn’t care, her goals are short term. She votes routinely against any budget cuts. As she would note, “I’m merely looking out for my constituents.” Alas, that’s true. She is also like George Washington Plunkett of yesteryear, a believer in “the greatest good for the greatest number. Starting, of course, with number one.” Yes, she must get elected before she can engage in her “good deeds.” A few more years with Ms. Jacobs and her majority colleagues in the Assembly and their job will be to turn out the lights when the last New Yorker gets on I-95 heading south for Florida.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Rhoda Jacobs is a Democratic Assistant Speaker of the New York State Assembly representing a district in Brooklyn. She, like many of her colleagues, puts a premium on constituent service. In fact, that is her calling card and her campaign mantra.
In most respects she employs her position to help those in her neighborhood and does so with understandable campaign goals in mind. For Ms. Jacobs governing and campaigns are indistinguishable, a condition she shares with her Assembly brethren.
What Ms. Jacobs does not fully appreciate is that someone has to pay for the services she is eager to promote. Many of her constituents, love the services, but most are in the dark when it comes to determining actual cost. I would guess that Ms. Jacobs, despite her elevated Assembly position, cannot determine cost either. In fact, I’m confident about this assertion.
A recent letter Ms. Jacobs sent to one of her constituents crossed my desk. It says implicitly that the Assemblywoman doesn’t appreciate the tax burden necessary to sustain the government services she is eager to promote and it says explicitly that she will use her office to extend these services.
Let Ms. Jacobs speak for herself since what follows is from her letter:
“My office can provide you and your family with information and assistance on a wide variety of issues including housing, landlord/tenant disputes, unemployment, employment referrals, consumer advocacy, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, utility services, food stamps, and food pantry information, voter registration and much more. We can also help you apply for benefits for which you might be entitled.”
As Assemblywoman Jacobs notes “Especially during this blessed month (Ramadan), I extend to you the services of my office to help you to resolve issues and problems that may be causing you hardship.”
However, there is a problem, almost everyone has issues and problems causing hardship. Are all who fall into this category eligible for Ms. Jacobs assistance? And if so, who is going to pay the bill? Think about this for a moment and consider the list of services: healthcare, food, lodging, retirement insurance, employment and “much more.” This is a great country, but it was also once a rich country, a matter very much in doubt because of pols like Ms. Jacobs.
Austerity doesn’t get you elected. It is not surprising that the Assemblywoman’s office offers voter registration information. Do you think the person receiving these benefits will vote for Ms. Jacobs opponent? Will she even have an opponent? And if so, will that person explain the dangers of an expansive government in inexorable combat with the private sector? The more government expands to accommodate Ms. Jacobs constituents, the more capital is driven out of the private economy until you have an economy Lady Thatcher once described as “running out of other people’s money.”
Ms. Jacobs may not realize the fact that New York State is insolvent and it is insolvent because legislators continue to spend and offer services the state cannot afford. But if legislators want to act responsibly and engage in retrenchment, their constituents, now addicted to the state welfare system for their very existence, would turn on them. As a consequence, the state system is self fulfilling: Give constituents what they want and they in turn will keep you in office.
But the jig is up. The state is broke. In New York City one percent of the population pays 55 percent of the taxes and that one percent can flee and is fleeing. Florida without a state tax looks more appealing every day. Of course, Ms. Jacobs doesn’t care, her goals are short term. She votes routinely against any budget cuts. As she would note, “I’m merely looking out for my constituents.” Alas, that’s true. She is also like George Washington Plunkett of yesteryear, a believer in “the greatest good for the greatest number. Starting, of course, with number one.” Yes, she must get elected before she can engage in her “good deeds.” A few more years with Ms. Jacobs and her majority colleagues in the Assembly and their job will be to turn out the lights when the last New Yorker gets on I-95 heading south for Florida.
Crimes Against Liberty
Frank Turek
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
“Generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” and that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” That, of course, was Barack Obama upon securing his party’s nomination for president.
It didn’t take generations but only a couple of years for a majority of Americans to begin to realize that instead of messianic healing, Barack Obama is inflicting unprecedented injuries on America and the liberties of its citizens. Now there is a book that documents this alarming news in a very comprehensive yet readable way. My friend David Limbaugh’s Crimes Against Liberty is the one book all Americans should read before November.
Before you dismiss Crimes Against Liberty because it is written by a Limbaugh (after all, you’re not a bigot, right?), realize that people can present evidence objectively even if they personally are not neutral. First, neutral people rarely have the interest or expertise to write books! But more importantly, you can’t dismiss what Limbaugh says simply because he might have a conservative agenda. That’s a fallacy that cuts both ways—you’d have to dismiss everything Obama says because he has a liberal agenda. The truth is, everyone has an agenda. The issue is not the agenda, but the evidence one presents!
Like the good attorney he is, Limbaugh presents a wealth of irrefutable evidence for his thesis quoting several liberals along the way. His meticulously researched indictment of Barack Obama and his Administration lays out fact after fact that will educate even political junkies who mistakenly thought they knew it all. I follow politics closely, but I didn’t know the extent to which those currently in power are dismantling our liberties and security until I read this book.
Since Crimes Against Liberty is over 500 pages (including nearly 100 pages of endnotes), I can only summarize a small number of facts that Limbaugh presents about the Obama Administration. You need to get the book to appreciate the breadth of the problem—a problem that most in the major media have failed to report.
Limbaugh documents that Obama usurps rights and laws. For example:
• Obama admitted that he doesn’t care about the lawmaking process just the result. David Axelrod also expressed this same sentiment, which strikes the heart of the American system—the process does matter. We are a nation of laws not men.
• Obama decided to give $140 billion to the IMF without Congressional approval. Even Congressional liberals objected to this.
• His EPA classified carbon dioxide as a toxic air pollutant and then claimed authority to set emissions standards without Congressional approval. (A toxic pollutant? It’s plant food!)
• Obama’s Department of Justice dismissed a case against the new Black Panther party that had clear video evidence of voter intimidation. Todd Graziano, Member of US Commission on Civil Rights, says there is a culture in the DOJ where they “don’t believe the voting rights laws should ever be enforced against blacks and other minorities.” So much for “equal protection” guaranteed by the Constitution.
• Obama threatened legal action against some companies (such as Humana) for informing their customers about the potential problems with Obamacare. That is the government seeking to criminalize free speech!
• The Obama Administration asked Americans to report their friends for circulating emails critical of ObamaCare. Can you say Big Brother?
• Obama also sent unsolicited emails to federal workers urging them to support ObamaCare. Some workers complained privately about the partisan emails but they feared retribution if they went public.
• Obama has been pushing for “Net Neutrality Rules” to seize control of, or to shut down, portions of the Internet.
Limbaugh shows that Obama often leads by slander and intimidation. For example:
• Tom Lauria, an attorney in the Chrysler bailout negotiations, claimed, “One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and, in essence, compelled to withdraw his opposition to the deal under the threat of the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.” Why was Lauria’s client opposing the deal? Because Obama offered his UAW buddies 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debt while offering Lauria’s client only 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debt. This is contrary to fundamental bankruptcy laws. Limbaugh observes, “Here was the President of the United States, again, attacking the reputation and integrity of a private firm merely for asserting its rights in the negotiation…. Obama picks winners and losers based on political allegiance and cronyism—the rule of law be damned.” Even mild-mannered Michael Barone called this “Gangster Government.”
• Obama used civil rights language (“discrimination”) to slander insurance companies for lawfully excluding people with pre-existing conditions. He later inadvertently admitted that’s necessary otherwise patients could game the system and get insurance only after getting sick.
• As if it was his money, Obama threatened to withhold stimulus money from Arizona because Senator Kyl said on TV that the stimulus wasn’t helping the economy.
• Obama abruptly fired Americorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin—who was tasked to ferret out government corruption and to protect whistleblowers—as Walpin was uncovering misuse of a federal grant by an Obama crony. Limbaugh writes of the cover up by the White House after the firing. (It’s alarming that the man tasked to protect government whistleblowers needs whistleblower protection himself from the President of the United States!)
• Obama and others in his Administration have characterized states rights people, pro-lifers, and war veterans as rightwing “extremists” and potential terrorists. (This from a man who in Illinois twice voted against protecting live babies who survived abortion, and who refuses to call real terrorists, like the Fort Hood shooter, what they are.)
• Tea Party people are “tea baggers” and “anti-government” “extremists.” (What a unifier our President is!)
• People who object to homosexual behavior possess “worn arguments and old attitudes.” (Yes, Mr. President, the truth is very old indeed; it’s impervious to hope and change.)
• Doctors are unethical because they do unnecessary surgery to make money. (Obama avoids mentioning unethical behavior by the Democrat-contributing trial lawyers who dramatically drive up health care costs through bogus malpractice lawsuits.)
• Business people are “fat cats” making “immoral” and “obscene” profits (while Obama rakes in $2.5 million in book royalties and pays the Government Motors CEO $9 million).
Limbaugh also documents how Obama:
• Is creating unimaginable debt, and that the average debt under Democrat Congresses is ten times that of Republican Congresses.
• Cooked the books and hid data about the true exploding cost of ObamaCare just a week before the vote.
• Struck a deal that with pharmaceutical companies that lined their pockets but disadvantaged consumers.
• Signed bills that make bailouts and reckless lending more likely.
• Has given nearly a billion dollars to Hamas-ruled Gaza while undermining our ally Israel at almost every turn.
• Continues to weaken our national security by signaling appeasement to Iran and by refusing to acknowledge or confront threats from radical Islam.
• Broke his promises to be transparent and avoided public scrutiny by burying unpopular provisions in other legislation. This includes the reversal of the enormously successful welfare reform and the establishment a super medical bureaucratic board (in effect a “death panel”).
Barack Obama is not the President we’ve been waiting for, but Crimes Against Liberty is the book we’ve been waiting for. If you love America, get the book, read it, and tell your friends before November.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
“Generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” and that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” That, of course, was Barack Obama upon securing his party’s nomination for president.
It didn’t take generations but only a couple of years for a majority of Americans to begin to realize that instead of messianic healing, Barack Obama is inflicting unprecedented injuries on America and the liberties of its citizens. Now there is a book that documents this alarming news in a very comprehensive yet readable way. My friend David Limbaugh’s Crimes Against Liberty is the one book all Americans should read before November.
Before you dismiss Crimes Against Liberty because it is written by a Limbaugh (after all, you’re not a bigot, right?), realize that people can present evidence objectively even if they personally are not neutral. First, neutral people rarely have the interest or expertise to write books! But more importantly, you can’t dismiss what Limbaugh says simply because he might have a conservative agenda. That’s a fallacy that cuts both ways—you’d have to dismiss everything Obama says because he has a liberal agenda. The truth is, everyone has an agenda. The issue is not the agenda, but the evidence one presents!
Like the good attorney he is, Limbaugh presents a wealth of irrefutable evidence for his thesis quoting several liberals along the way. His meticulously researched indictment of Barack Obama and his Administration lays out fact after fact that will educate even political junkies who mistakenly thought they knew it all. I follow politics closely, but I didn’t know the extent to which those currently in power are dismantling our liberties and security until I read this book.
Since Crimes Against Liberty is over 500 pages (including nearly 100 pages of endnotes), I can only summarize a small number of facts that Limbaugh presents about the Obama Administration. You need to get the book to appreciate the breadth of the problem—a problem that most in the major media have failed to report.
Limbaugh documents that Obama usurps rights and laws. For example:
• Obama admitted that he doesn’t care about the lawmaking process just the result. David Axelrod also expressed this same sentiment, which strikes the heart of the American system—the process does matter. We are a nation of laws not men.
• Obama decided to give $140 billion to the IMF without Congressional approval. Even Congressional liberals objected to this.
• His EPA classified carbon dioxide as a toxic air pollutant and then claimed authority to set emissions standards without Congressional approval. (A toxic pollutant? It’s plant food!)
• Obama’s Department of Justice dismissed a case against the new Black Panther party that had clear video evidence of voter intimidation. Todd Graziano, Member of US Commission on Civil Rights, says there is a culture in the DOJ where they “don’t believe the voting rights laws should ever be enforced against blacks and other minorities.” So much for “equal protection” guaranteed by the Constitution.
• Obama threatened legal action against some companies (such as Humana) for informing their customers about the potential problems with Obamacare. That is the government seeking to criminalize free speech!
• The Obama Administration asked Americans to report their friends for circulating emails critical of ObamaCare. Can you say Big Brother?
• Obama also sent unsolicited emails to federal workers urging them to support ObamaCare. Some workers complained privately about the partisan emails but they feared retribution if they went public.
• Obama has been pushing for “Net Neutrality Rules” to seize control of, or to shut down, portions of the Internet.
Limbaugh shows that Obama often leads by slander and intimidation. For example:
• Tom Lauria, an attorney in the Chrysler bailout negotiations, claimed, “One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and, in essence, compelled to withdraw his opposition to the deal under the threat of the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.” Why was Lauria’s client opposing the deal? Because Obama offered his UAW buddies 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debt while offering Lauria’s client only 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debt. This is contrary to fundamental bankruptcy laws. Limbaugh observes, “Here was the President of the United States, again, attacking the reputation and integrity of a private firm merely for asserting its rights in the negotiation…. Obama picks winners and losers based on political allegiance and cronyism—the rule of law be damned.” Even mild-mannered Michael Barone called this “Gangster Government.”
• Obama used civil rights language (“discrimination”) to slander insurance companies for lawfully excluding people with pre-existing conditions. He later inadvertently admitted that’s necessary otherwise patients could game the system and get insurance only after getting sick.
• As if it was his money, Obama threatened to withhold stimulus money from Arizona because Senator Kyl said on TV that the stimulus wasn’t helping the economy.
• Obama abruptly fired Americorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin—who was tasked to ferret out government corruption and to protect whistleblowers—as Walpin was uncovering misuse of a federal grant by an Obama crony. Limbaugh writes of the cover up by the White House after the firing. (It’s alarming that the man tasked to protect government whistleblowers needs whistleblower protection himself from the President of the United States!)
• Obama and others in his Administration have characterized states rights people, pro-lifers, and war veterans as rightwing “extremists” and potential terrorists. (This from a man who in Illinois twice voted against protecting live babies who survived abortion, and who refuses to call real terrorists, like the Fort Hood shooter, what they are.)
• Tea Party people are “tea baggers” and “anti-government” “extremists.” (What a unifier our President is!)
• People who object to homosexual behavior possess “worn arguments and old attitudes.” (Yes, Mr. President, the truth is very old indeed; it’s impervious to hope and change.)
• Doctors are unethical because they do unnecessary surgery to make money. (Obama avoids mentioning unethical behavior by the Democrat-contributing trial lawyers who dramatically drive up health care costs through bogus malpractice lawsuits.)
• Business people are “fat cats” making “immoral” and “obscene” profits (while Obama rakes in $2.5 million in book royalties and pays the Government Motors CEO $9 million).
Limbaugh also documents how Obama:
• Is creating unimaginable debt, and that the average debt under Democrat Congresses is ten times that of Republican Congresses.
• Cooked the books and hid data about the true exploding cost of ObamaCare just a week before the vote.
• Struck a deal that with pharmaceutical companies that lined their pockets but disadvantaged consumers.
• Signed bills that make bailouts and reckless lending more likely.
• Has given nearly a billion dollars to Hamas-ruled Gaza while undermining our ally Israel at almost every turn.
• Continues to weaken our national security by signaling appeasement to Iran and by refusing to acknowledge or confront threats from radical Islam.
• Broke his promises to be transparent and avoided public scrutiny by burying unpopular provisions in other legislation. This includes the reversal of the enormously successful welfare reform and the establishment a super medical bureaucratic board (in effect a “death panel”).
Barack Obama is not the President we’ve been waiting for, but Crimes Against Liberty is the book we’ve been waiting for. If you love America, get the book, read it, and tell your friends before November.
Monday, August 30, 2010
The Future Of Our Health Care System
Bruce Bialosky
Monday, August 30, 2010
Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute has just written a pamphlet entitled Bad Medicine. It’s a comprehensive analysis of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). When you read it, you quickly begin to wonder where the health care system in this country might be headed. One company has already staked out its vision, and just might be establishing the model that all of us will be using in the years ahead.
Les Bider was seeking a new opportunity. He had worked his way up to serving as Chairman and CEO of Warner Chappell, the music publishing end of the record business. The company was sold in 2003, but Bider stayed on through 2005 to run operations for the new owners. After leaving Warner, he kept busy with charitable interests and his family until January, 2008, when he decided he again wanted to do something professionally. But he wanted the right thing because his desire to get involved professionally was more a want than a need.
Within a month, he happened upon PinnacleCare. Bider put his money where his mouth was by investing in the company before he started working with them. Then after some thoughtful analysis and a series of meetings, he decided that he wanted to jump in and became the CEO.
PinnacleCare confronts the complexity of today’s health care system on behalf of its members. The three major aspects of the program that it provides for its members are 1) Simplification of the ever-more-complex health care system, 2) High-level analysis of their personal health, and 3) Notification of the most up-to-date tests and procedures to maintain good health.
The program does this by providing objective third-party advice. They focus on wellness and health care episodic events. If you have a health problem, the company informs you of the best place to get care by analyzing the quality of available health care providers and determining the physician best suited to meet your specific needs. They do what the industry has been missing for years – evaluate the performance of hospitals and doctors. This is where they clearly separate themselves from their competitors, who function more as a referral service without any substantial evaluation.
They start by computerizing your records, and then having a third-party doctor analyze your complete health picture. Depending upon the findings, along with personal factors such as age and family history, tests or procedures are identified that may help maintain or improve your health. In effect, they provide a manager responsible for creating a comprehensive health care program tailored to you.
PinnacleCare then adds a wide-ranging set of services, including travel medical insurance, travel intelligence reports, medical evacuation services (in case you have to get treatment at a critical care center), medical intelligence reports that evaluate doctors, locations of medical centers of excellence and their specialties, along with access to medical advisory boards.
This service does not come cheaply and not all of these services are included in their most basic program. Their basic program for the first year, when the initial analysis is done, costs $5,000 per couple. The second year, the price drops to $2,500. Costs for more comprehensive packages go up from there. Yet they have already enrolled 3,000 members, 90% of whom are American. They have not fully adapted their program to handle changes in the health care system imposed by ObamaCare, but they will make adjustments as they feel it necessary.
Mr. Bider told me that for now, his company would not be going after a larger market by creating a more affordable product. But he does believe that as the company becomes more successful, an entrepreneur will eventually come in and create a similar, but less expensive service. The need for individuals to manage their own health, combined with an ever more complicated health care system and increasingly sophisticated medical procedures, will compel people to do more than just visit their primary care physician for an annual checkup.
The Obama administration wants to take ever greater control over our health care system and create an equality of results for all Americans. As they attempt to dictate our health care options, people will fight back by enlisting companies like PinnacleCare to put them back in charge of their own fate. It has been said many times that “if you don’t have your health, you ain’t got nothing.” Your choice may come down to a faceless bureaucrat or companies like PinnacleCare. Mr. Bider is betting you make the same choice he has made.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute has just written a pamphlet entitled Bad Medicine. It’s a comprehensive analysis of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). When you read it, you quickly begin to wonder where the health care system in this country might be headed. One company has already staked out its vision, and just might be establishing the model that all of us will be using in the years ahead.
Les Bider was seeking a new opportunity. He had worked his way up to serving as Chairman and CEO of Warner Chappell, the music publishing end of the record business. The company was sold in 2003, but Bider stayed on through 2005 to run operations for the new owners. After leaving Warner, he kept busy with charitable interests and his family until January, 2008, when he decided he again wanted to do something professionally. But he wanted the right thing because his desire to get involved professionally was more a want than a need.
Within a month, he happened upon PinnacleCare. Bider put his money where his mouth was by investing in the company before he started working with them. Then after some thoughtful analysis and a series of meetings, he decided that he wanted to jump in and became the CEO.
PinnacleCare confronts the complexity of today’s health care system on behalf of its members. The three major aspects of the program that it provides for its members are 1) Simplification of the ever-more-complex health care system, 2) High-level analysis of their personal health, and 3) Notification of the most up-to-date tests and procedures to maintain good health.
The program does this by providing objective third-party advice. They focus on wellness and health care episodic events. If you have a health problem, the company informs you of the best place to get care by analyzing the quality of available health care providers and determining the physician best suited to meet your specific needs. They do what the industry has been missing for years – evaluate the performance of hospitals and doctors. This is where they clearly separate themselves from their competitors, who function more as a referral service without any substantial evaluation.
They start by computerizing your records, and then having a third-party doctor analyze your complete health picture. Depending upon the findings, along with personal factors such as age and family history, tests or procedures are identified that may help maintain or improve your health. In effect, they provide a manager responsible for creating a comprehensive health care program tailored to you.
PinnacleCare then adds a wide-ranging set of services, including travel medical insurance, travel intelligence reports, medical evacuation services (in case you have to get treatment at a critical care center), medical intelligence reports that evaluate doctors, locations of medical centers of excellence and their specialties, along with access to medical advisory boards.
This service does not come cheaply and not all of these services are included in their most basic program. Their basic program for the first year, when the initial analysis is done, costs $5,000 per couple. The second year, the price drops to $2,500. Costs for more comprehensive packages go up from there. Yet they have already enrolled 3,000 members, 90% of whom are American. They have not fully adapted their program to handle changes in the health care system imposed by ObamaCare, but they will make adjustments as they feel it necessary.
Mr. Bider told me that for now, his company would not be going after a larger market by creating a more affordable product. But he does believe that as the company becomes more successful, an entrepreneur will eventually come in and create a similar, but less expensive service. The need for individuals to manage their own health, combined with an ever more complicated health care system and increasingly sophisticated medical procedures, will compel people to do more than just visit their primary care physician for an annual checkup.
The Obama administration wants to take ever greater control over our health care system and create an equality of results for all Americans. As they attempt to dictate our health care options, people will fight back by enlisting companies like PinnacleCare to put them back in charge of their own fate. It has been said many times that “if you don’t have your health, you ain’t got nothing.” Your choice may come down to a faceless bureaucrat or companies like PinnacleCare. Mr. Bider is betting you make the same choice he has made.
The Real “Radicals”
William Wilson
Monday, August 30, 2010
There was a time in the not-too-distant past – 234 years ago to be precise – when the ideas articulated by the Tea Party movement would have rightly been considered “radical.”
Not just radical in their ideological composition, either, but radical in the more “irrational” sense – in that advancing these ideas was a good way to wind up dead. And that’s exactly what happened to more than 25,000 American Revolutionaries – patriots who gave their lives in order to provide the liberty we enjoy today (and which we now aspire to pass down to future generations).
From its founding documents to the blood that was shed on its battlefields, the American Revolution was by definition “radical.” According to Merriam-Webster, that means it was “marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional,” and “tending or disposed to (making) extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions.”
It was also quite clearly “advocating extreme measures” to bring about a new “state of political affairs.”
And the “radical” idea succeeded – not only in casting off the yoke of Eighteenth Century imperialist oppression, but in forging an entirely unique model of democratic governance. This new nation, “conceived in liberty” two-and-a-quarter centuries ago, followed the blueprint laid out by its Founding Fathers and within a few short generations became the richest, strongest, most freedom-loving nation the world has ever seen.
Meanwhile, nations which were built on counter-ideologies of collectivism, government control, censorship and command economic planning have failed spectacularly – at a tremendous human cost.
In recent decades, however, politicians of both parties in Washington D.C. have inexplicably abandoned America’s founding blueprint and embraced many of these failed ideologies. Thanks to this fundamental ideological shift, the primary source of America’s strength, wealth and freedom – its people – has been greatly diminished.
Now the final “radical” offensive – the one that threatens to bring down our democracy once and for all – is being implemented by Barack Obama and his socialist hordes. In the name of “Wall Street reform,” the federal government has taken over the financial industry (while conveniently ignoring its own starring role in the most recent economic collapse). In the name of “health care reform” it has socialized medicine and mandated that Americans either purchase insurance or pay huge fines to the government. In the name of “environmental protection” it has proposed the largest energy tax increase in American history. And in the name of “economic recovery” it has spent trillions of dollars to grow government while small businesses are going under by the thousands and families are struggling to make ends meet.
As a result of these policies, America’s debt and deficit are at record levels. Meanwhile, millions of Americans remain unemployed with another major economic contraction looming – a “double-dip” recession that will only deepen when dozens of tax increases take effect in 2011.
While both Republican and Democratic politicians have led us here – sacrificing American freedom and prosperity on the altar of government’s insatiable appetite for more money and more power – there is something especially sinister about Obama’s machinations. Like master propagandists of old, Obama has not only veiled his anti-American agenda under the generically-comforting banners of “hope” and “change,” he has also sought to create a foil – a group of antagonists that he can label as the “real radicals.”
In fact, in Obama’s world these “real radicals” are the very people who are fighting to restore fiscal sanity, common sense principles, fundamental fairness and founding wisdom to our government.
“The White House has tried to link the Republican Party with the fledgling conservative-libertarian tea party coalition — and demonize the combination as too extreme for the country,” a recent Associated Press article noted.
Indeed, a full-court press has been initiated by the Obama administration with the goal of portraying the Tea Party as outside of the American “mainstream.” Several establishment Republicans desperate to hold onto their seats at the taxpayer-funded table have joined the chorus, too.
And perhaps Obama – for once – is correct. Not in an ideological sense, obviously, but perhaps our overreaching federal government and its legacy media apologists have successfully branded supporters of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as the real “kooks” in this country.
If that’s the case, then the definition of “radical” has truly come full circle – and the only difference between today’s Tea Partiers and those who gathered in Boston Harbor in 1773 is the source of their oppression.
Such a movement may seem “radical” to Obama and his media elites, but in truth it is not only entirely consistent with American values – it is the last, best hope for their survival.
Monday, August 30, 2010
There was a time in the not-too-distant past – 234 years ago to be precise – when the ideas articulated by the Tea Party movement would have rightly been considered “radical.”
Not just radical in their ideological composition, either, but radical in the more “irrational” sense – in that advancing these ideas was a good way to wind up dead. And that’s exactly what happened to more than 25,000 American Revolutionaries – patriots who gave their lives in order to provide the liberty we enjoy today (and which we now aspire to pass down to future generations).
From its founding documents to the blood that was shed on its battlefields, the American Revolution was by definition “radical.” According to Merriam-Webster, that means it was “marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional,” and “tending or disposed to (making) extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions.”
It was also quite clearly “advocating extreme measures” to bring about a new “state of political affairs.”
And the “radical” idea succeeded – not only in casting off the yoke of Eighteenth Century imperialist oppression, but in forging an entirely unique model of democratic governance. This new nation, “conceived in liberty” two-and-a-quarter centuries ago, followed the blueprint laid out by its Founding Fathers and within a few short generations became the richest, strongest, most freedom-loving nation the world has ever seen.
Meanwhile, nations which were built on counter-ideologies of collectivism, government control, censorship and command economic planning have failed spectacularly – at a tremendous human cost.
In recent decades, however, politicians of both parties in Washington D.C. have inexplicably abandoned America’s founding blueprint and embraced many of these failed ideologies. Thanks to this fundamental ideological shift, the primary source of America’s strength, wealth and freedom – its people – has been greatly diminished.
Now the final “radical” offensive – the one that threatens to bring down our democracy once and for all – is being implemented by Barack Obama and his socialist hordes. In the name of “Wall Street reform,” the federal government has taken over the financial industry (while conveniently ignoring its own starring role in the most recent economic collapse). In the name of “health care reform” it has socialized medicine and mandated that Americans either purchase insurance or pay huge fines to the government. In the name of “environmental protection” it has proposed the largest energy tax increase in American history. And in the name of “economic recovery” it has spent trillions of dollars to grow government while small businesses are going under by the thousands and families are struggling to make ends meet.
As a result of these policies, America’s debt and deficit are at record levels. Meanwhile, millions of Americans remain unemployed with another major economic contraction looming – a “double-dip” recession that will only deepen when dozens of tax increases take effect in 2011.
While both Republican and Democratic politicians have led us here – sacrificing American freedom and prosperity on the altar of government’s insatiable appetite for more money and more power – there is something especially sinister about Obama’s machinations. Like master propagandists of old, Obama has not only veiled his anti-American agenda under the generically-comforting banners of “hope” and “change,” he has also sought to create a foil – a group of antagonists that he can label as the “real radicals.”
In fact, in Obama’s world these “real radicals” are the very people who are fighting to restore fiscal sanity, common sense principles, fundamental fairness and founding wisdom to our government.
“The White House has tried to link the Republican Party with the fledgling conservative-libertarian tea party coalition — and demonize the combination as too extreme for the country,” a recent Associated Press article noted.
Indeed, a full-court press has been initiated by the Obama administration with the goal of portraying the Tea Party as outside of the American “mainstream.” Several establishment Republicans desperate to hold onto their seats at the taxpayer-funded table have joined the chorus, too.
And perhaps Obama – for once – is correct. Not in an ideological sense, obviously, but perhaps our overreaching federal government and its legacy media apologists have successfully branded supporters of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as the real “kooks” in this country.
If that’s the case, then the definition of “radical” has truly come full circle – and the only difference between today’s Tea Partiers and those who gathered in Boston Harbor in 1773 is the source of their oppression.
Such a movement may seem “radical” to Obama and his media elites, but in truth it is not only entirely consistent with American values – it is the last, best hope for their survival.
Is America Only For White People?
Joseph C. Phillips
Monday, August 30, 2010
Is America only for white people? The question stuck in my mind following yet another e-mail exchange with a friend of mine, regarding my conservatism. For this particular gentleman, being black in America is at odds with conservatism. As he put it:
“…Particularly as African-Americans, I feel we are in no real position to idealize the American experience and get too choked up about institutions and symbols that were not created with us in mind. Certainly, we cannot cast our lot with those who are actively seeking to destroy those gains we have made.”
I have a number of issues with the above statement, not the least of which is that the principles that inspired the American founding were always viewed as universal principles, which applied to all of mankind. Curiously, it wasn’t until the introduction of Historicist and Darwinian philosophy (which gave birth to Progressivism) that some Americans began to argue otherwise. And of course, I disagree that conservatives are actively seeking to destroy all of the gains black America has made.
It is important to note that the sentiments that my friend expresses are similar to the political attitudes which continue to permeate much of the black community. These same attitudes are also particularly present in the thinking of the black leftists, who have long held the conviction that the existence of slavery at our nation’s founding renders our Constitution a hollow document; the institutions and symbols that sprang from the founding were bereft of moral authority; the founders were hypocrites and liars, and the American dream is little more than a cruel myth.
From this conviction a kind of “cultural revolutionary defiance” has arisen, that is to say: black authenticity began to be increasingly measured by the degree to which black people defined themselves by way of their ethnicity, expressed anger at historical injuries, and were critical of, or rejected American symbols and institutions.
In this respect, my friend is a true new-revolutionary. But the issue he raises is not a new one, neither is it exclusive to American blacks.
In July of 1858, Abraham Lincoln addressed the question of how almost half of the citizens of this country could take pride and ownership in the accomplishments of the nation when they were not “historically related” to the founders, or those living on these shores at the time of the founding. Lincoln answered: “If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together--that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world."
The essential element that my friend and the black leftists have missed is that what binds us together as Americans is not shared blood, race, ethnicity, or tribe; it is the unshakable belief in certain universal principles. The American experience is not attached to men who were flawed, but is instead fixed to ideas that remain flawless. The institutions and symbols of America are reflective of the revolutionary idea that all men are the property of God, created with an equal right to life, liberty, private property, and the free pursuit of bettering their station in life. Martin Luther King, Jr., put it more succinctly: “The American dream reminds us…that every man is an heir of the legacy of dignity and worth.”
All of us, whether our ancestors arrived through the gates of Ellis Island or survived travel through the Middle Passage are heirs to that grand idea. It is this idea that animates true conservatism and moreover, it is ONLY that idea—those principles—that made possible the huge gains that black Americans have made in this country and indeed in the world. It is, perhaps, also the reason that more Africans have freely chosen to come to America than were ever imported in slave ships.
In response to my friend, all Americans should ask: If not America, where? If not American symbols, which symbols? If not American institutions, which institutions will do? If not the principles of the American founding, upon which principles do the black left propose to build a new America—an America they can “idolize” and “get choked up about”?
Ask Van Jones.
These forward-thinking paragons, nursed on the mother’s-milk of Marx and Mao, would build their new America on the bedrock of economic redistribution and racial favoritism. I believe we tried that once in this country…
Monday, August 30, 2010
Is America only for white people? The question stuck in my mind following yet another e-mail exchange with a friend of mine, regarding my conservatism. For this particular gentleman, being black in America is at odds with conservatism. As he put it:
“…Particularly as African-Americans, I feel we are in no real position to idealize the American experience and get too choked up about institutions and symbols that were not created with us in mind. Certainly, we cannot cast our lot with those who are actively seeking to destroy those gains we have made.”
I have a number of issues with the above statement, not the least of which is that the principles that inspired the American founding were always viewed as universal principles, which applied to all of mankind. Curiously, it wasn’t until the introduction of Historicist and Darwinian philosophy (which gave birth to Progressivism) that some Americans began to argue otherwise. And of course, I disagree that conservatives are actively seeking to destroy all of the gains black America has made.
It is important to note that the sentiments that my friend expresses are similar to the political attitudes which continue to permeate much of the black community. These same attitudes are also particularly present in the thinking of the black leftists, who have long held the conviction that the existence of slavery at our nation’s founding renders our Constitution a hollow document; the institutions and symbols that sprang from the founding were bereft of moral authority; the founders were hypocrites and liars, and the American dream is little more than a cruel myth.
From this conviction a kind of “cultural revolutionary defiance” has arisen, that is to say: black authenticity began to be increasingly measured by the degree to which black people defined themselves by way of their ethnicity, expressed anger at historical injuries, and were critical of, or rejected American symbols and institutions.
In this respect, my friend is a true new-revolutionary. But the issue he raises is not a new one, neither is it exclusive to American blacks.
In July of 1858, Abraham Lincoln addressed the question of how almost half of the citizens of this country could take pride and ownership in the accomplishments of the nation when they were not “historically related” to the founders, or those living on these shores at the time of the founding. Lincoln answered: “If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together--that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world."
The essential element that my friend and the black leftists have missed is that what binds us together as Americans is not shared blood, race, ethnicity, or tribe; it is the unshakable belief in certain universal principles. The American experience is not attached to men who were flawed, but is instead fixed to ideas that remain flawless. The institutions and symbols of America are reflective of the revolutionary idea that all men are the property of God, created with an equal right to life, liberty, private property, and the free pursuit of bettering their station in life. Martin Luther King, Jr., put it more succinctly: “The American dream reminds us…that every man is an heir of the legacy of dignity and worth.”
All of us, whether our ancestors arrived through the gates of Ellis Island or survived travel through the Middle Passage are heirs to that grand idea. It is this idea that animates true conservatism and moreover, it is ONLY that idea—those principles—that made possible the huge gains that black Americans have made in this country and indeed in the world. It is, perhaps, also the reason that more Africans have freely chosen to come to America than were ever imported in slave ships.
In response to my friend, all Americans should ask: If not America, where? If not American symbols, which symbols? If not American institutions, which institutions will do? If not the principles of the American founding, upon which principles do the black left propose to build a new America—an America they can “idolize” and “get choked up about”?
Ask Van Jones.
These forward-thinking paragons, nursed on the mother’s-milk of Marx and Mao, would build their new America on the bedrock of economic redistribution and racial favoritism. I believe we tried that once in this country…
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Ground Zero Mosque Opposition: ‘You Might Be a Bigot If…’
Doug Giles
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Just before London morphed into Londonistan and became the hotbed for international terrorism, the Muslims in the UK cowed the Brits into submission by calling them “bigots” who were being “intolerant” of their “Religion of Peace.”
If you don’t believe me, check out Melanie Phillips’ heavily footnoted book, Londonistan, which spells out with Windex-like clarity how our cousins across the pond fell under the PC spell, got neutered and now have a Muslim mess on their hands. This book will wake you the heck up regarding what’s going on right now in NYC … I ga-ron-tee!
Allow me to continue. Islam, surfing pluralism’s chipper wave of “tolerance” in the former Great Britain, effectively bullied the Brits into submission simply by calling them names. Unbelievable.
Indeed, what Adolph couldn’t do by might Islam has done to the UK by sleight. I’m sure Churchill is turning over in his grave so fast that he could light up South Beach, as the British bulldog has morphed into a capitulating poodle. And y’know what? We could be next. Our bald eagle could become a plucked chicken if we don’t play our cards right.
Check it out: Now in merry old England the Muslims have sharia courts, gargantuan enclaves, and radicals galore. They’re even having Brits’ pet dogs tossed off buses because they’re “unclean” and have just recently had history lessons about the Holocaust tossed from the public school curriculum because the topic is offensive to the Muslim youths who were taught it never happened.
The Muslims who effectively screamed that England was intolerant rose to prominence and, oddly enough, became rabidly, violently—one could say bigotedly—intolerant of the UK’s laws and liberties once they established a cultural beachhead. Golly, who’d a thunk it?
We are currently where GB was: Namely, we are being told that we cannot trust our BS detector when it comes to their reasons behind the Ground Zero Mosque or … or … we are … wait for it … we are … bigots! That’s it. We’re mean ol’ bigots.
I’m sure the Imam is thinking, Hell, the UK fell for it. Maybe, just maybe, the USA will fold like a cheap lawn chair under the weight of a false charge, as well. So, here it comes, America: The stealth jihadists have their label maker ready to go and in full spin mode. Yep, if we don’t bend over backwards and now forwards for this Ground Zero Mosque and whatever else they happen to come up with both now and forevermore then we’re haters, xenophobes, and bigots! You might as well get used to it, people, as these pathetic truth-twisters and their Blame Stream Media are not going to stop vilifying us until we cave.
According to Ground Zero Mosque’s Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan (or is it Con?), we have learned this week that:
- If you scream “bull----” every time you hear Rauf say the Ground Zero Mosque is all about “bridge building” and “healing”… then you might be a bigot.
- If you think caring about the 3,000 Americans slaughtered on 9/11 and their families’ feelings trumps being sensitive to these Mosqueteers … then you might be a bigot.
- If you think St. Nicholas’ Greek Orthodox Church, the Twin Towers and a memorial to those brutally killed on 9/11 should be built way before we even discuss this Mosque … then you might be a bigot.
- If you think turnabout is fair play and that churches and synagogues ought to be erected in Mecca … then you might be a bigot.
- If you yelled, “That figures!” when you heard Obama’s admin sent Rauf, on our dime, to the Middle East on a “Goodwill Tour”… then you might be a bigot.
- If you think it’s really weird that Rauf says he’s a moderate and yet praises Iran’s brutal regime, supports Hamas, and says that America is worse than al-Qaeda … then you might be a bigot.
- If you say “sharia this” when you hear they want our courts sharia-compliant … then you might be a bigot.
America, if being a bigot means that:
- I can’t listen to my gut,
- or suspect their motives,
- or wonder aloud how wrong it is to have a Mosque built in close proximity to such a calamity,
- or I’m disallowed to question and connect the dots with Rauf’s radical associations and statements,
- or if I do not want what has happened in Europe to ever happen here where we lose our national identity and liberties by propping up their preposterous wishes
… then I guess I might be a bigot. However, I prefer a tag of my own choosing, namely, “Islamo-nauseous,” as I am sick of them talking smack about our country while demanding everything from it.
So, just go ahead and add that baseless moniker “bigot” to the mounting and specious list of names you and the BSMedia have already saddled me with (and plenty of others who love this country). I’m cool with that because I’d rather have the pain of being called an unsubstantiated name than the pain of realizing I bought a bunch of PC radical Muslim spin 20 years from now.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Just before London morphed into Londonistan and became the hotbed for international terrorism, the Muslims in the UK cowed the Brits into submission by calling them “bigots” who were being “intolerant” of their “Religion of Peace.”
If you don’t believe me, check out Melanie Phillips’ heavily footnoted book, Londonistan, which spells out with Windex-like clarity how our cousins across the pond fell under the PC spell, got neutered and now have a Muslim mess on their hands. This book will wake you the heck up regarding what’s going on right now in NYC … I ga-ron-tee!
Allow me to continue. Islam, surfing pluralism’s chipper wave of “tolerance” in the former Great Britain, effectively bullied the Brits into submission simply by calling them names. Unbelievable.
Indeed, what Adolph couldn’t do by might Islam has done to the UK by sleight. I’m sure Churchill is turning over in his grave so fast that he could light up South Beach, as the British bulldog has morphed into a capitulating poodle. And y’know what? We could be next. Our bald eagle could become a plucked chicken if we don’t play our cards right.
Check it out: Now in merry old England the Muslims have sharia courts, gargantuan enclaves, and radicals galore. They’re even having Brits’ pet dogs tossed off buses because they’re “unclean” and have just recently had history lessons about the Holocaust tossed from the public school curriculum because the topic is offensive to the Muslim youths who were taught it never happened.
The Muslims who effectively screamed that England was intolerant rose to prominence and, oddly enough, became rabidly, violently—one could say bigotedly—intolerant of the UK’s laws and liberties once they established a cultural beachhead. Golly, who’d a thunk it?
We are currently where GB was: Namely, we are being told that we cannot trust our BS detector when it comes to their reasons behind the Ground Zero Mosque or … or … we are … wait for it … we are … bigots! That’s it. We’re mean ol’ bigots.
I’m sure the Imam is thinking, Hell, the UK fell for it. Maybe, just maybe, the USA will fold like a cheap lawn chair under the weight of a false charge, as well. So, here it comes, America: The stealth jihadists have their label maker ready to go and in full spin mode. Yep, if we don’t bend over backwards and now forwards for this Ground Zero Mosque and whatever else they happen to come up with both now and forevermore then we’re haters, xenophobes, and bigots! You might as well get used to it, people, as these pathetic truth-twisters and their Blame Stream Media are not going to stop vilifying us until we cave.
According to Ground Zero Mosque’s Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan (or is it Con?), we have learned this week that:
- If you scream “bull----” every time you hear Rauf say the Ground Zero Mosque is all about “bridge building” and “healing”… then you might be a bigot.
- If you think caring about the 3,000 Americans slaughtered on 9/11 and their families’ feelings trumps being sensitive to these Mosqueteers … then you might be a bigot.
- If you think St. Nicholas’ Greek Orthodox Church, the Twin Towers and a memorial to those brutally killed on 9/11 should be built way before we even discuss this Mosque … then you might be a bigot.
- If you think turnabout is fair play and that churches and synagogues ought to be erected in Mecca … then you might be a bigot.
- If you yelled, “That figures!” when you heard Obama’s admin sent Rauf, on our dime, to the Middle East on a “Goodwill Tour”… then you might be a bigot.
- If you think it’s really weird that Rauf says he’s a moderate and yet praises Iran’s brutal regime, supports Hamas, and says that America is worse than al-Qaeda … then you might be a bigot.
- If you say “sharia this” when you hear they want our courts sharia-compliant … then you might be a bigot.
America, if being a bigot means that:
- I can’t listen to my gut,
- or suspect their motives,
- or wonder aloud how wrong it is to have a Mosque built in close proximity to such a calamity,
- or I’m disallowed to question and connect the dots with Rauf’s radical associations and statements,
- or if I do not want what has happened in Europe to ever happen here where we lose our national identity and liberties by propping up their preposterous wishes
… then I guess I might be a bigot. However, I prefer a tag of my own choosing, namely, “Islamo-nauseous,” as I am sick of them talking smack about our country while demanding everything from it.
So, just go ahead and add that baseless moniker “bigot” to the mounting and specious list of names you and the BSMedia have already saddled me with (and plenty of others who love this country). I’m cool with that because I’d rather have the pain of being called an unsubstantiated name than the pain of realizing I bought a bunch of PC radical Muslim spin 20 years from now.
Faith, Hope, and Honor at Glenn Beck’s 8-28 Rally
Jillian Bandes
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Glenn Beck's 8/28 rally delivered a swift kick in the rear to anyone who claims he or the conservative grassroots movement is irrelevant or idle.
"Welcome to Restoring Honor. You are standing on the banks of greatness, the banks of American dreams," said Beck, during his initial remarks. "America is a land of opportunity."
Beck's opening salvo set the tune for the rest of the day, which focused on the founding fathers, with a heavy dose of religious reverence and military pride. Somewhere in the ballpark of 500,000 followers crowded the space between the Lincoln and Washington monuments, dwarfing Beck's original estimate of 100,000 people. During the 3 1/2 hour spectacular, there were no long polemics about the follies of the Obama administration or evaluations of our ongoing economic despair. Instead, there were awards: for baseball player Albert Pujols of the St. Louis Cardinals, who was honored for his dedication to his family, to God, and to his charity as a role model to his community; and also for Tom Kirk, an Air Force squadron commander, who spent time in the Hanoi Hilton with Sen. John McCain.
"Something beyond imagination is happening. Something that is beyond man is happening. America today begins to turn back to God," said Beck. "For too long, this country has wandered in darkness and we have wandered in darkness in periods from the beginning. We have had moments of brilliance, and moments of darkness, but this country has spend far too long worrying about scars...today we are going to focus on good things in America."
Sarah Palin was a headlining speaker, and Beck played up her credentials as a mother instead of as a conservative political force. Regardless of whether Palin is even able to avoid politicizing an issue given her activism and personality, she did manage to avoid any sort of policy discussion by focusing on military achievements from her family and from other families across the U.S.
"Say what you want to say about me, but I raised a combat vet, and you can't take that away from me," said Palin. "I'm proud of that distinction, but it is not one that I had imagined, because no woman gives birth thinking that she will hand over her child to her country. But that's what mothers have done, from ancient days."
Palin, along with a host of other speakers, largely upheld Beck's initial mantra of faith, hope, and honor. Justice Raul Gonzalez, retired from the Texas Supreme Court, awarded the Badge of Merit for Charity to Jon Huntsman, the Utah businessman philanthropist.
"Forty years ago, on these very steps, Martin Luther King had a dream. The dream seems a simple one," said Gonzalez. "On that day, 200,000 people — black and white, young and old — gathered across the National Mall to hear King's word. Many had lost faith...[King] knew that this was the day to inspire change."
There were performances by country singer Jo Dee Messina and prayers from Jewish Rabbis; gospel performances by black Christian groups and testimonials from military mothers who praised their sons' commitment to serving our country. Unlike many traditional tea party rallies, participants didn't jump to their feet constantly or gush about politics at the slightest opportunity. There was a palpable calm over most of the crowd for the majority of the event, which was fitting with the many the many groups who offered prayers and preaching.
"People need to — like the old Testament tells us — we need to get on our knees and be humble before God, and take care of the world... so that we can be restored," said Jodie Anderson, from Indiana. "This event is unbelievable."
A plethora of media commentators denounced the message as hokey; none of the 500,000+ attendees seemed to doubt it one bit.
"I'm here honoring my country, and the great things we do in this world in the time of uncertainty," said Jebin Collins, from Virginia. "Seeing this many people come in from all over the country, come together peacefully, honoring God, and their country — it's beyond belief."
Beck's event was the first rally Collins had attended, and he was sporting a United States Marine Corps t-shirt, as were many other people in the crowd. Children relaxed on blankets in the parks adjacent to the Reflecting Pool, though the crowd was decidedly middle-aged. There were virtually no-counter protesters visible from the main stage near the Lincoln memorial, despite well-publicized plans for counter-protests.
Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King' niece, spoke to the crowd in a tone that echoed her uncle. She repeated "I have a dream," again and again, and continued with her desire to end racism, poverty, white privilege, and her desire to continue the foundation of holy matrimony.
"How many of us know that we need to rebuild America?" she asked the crowd. "We need unity to do that."
After a series of presentations, Glenn Beck himself took to the stage for about an hour at the end of the program, delivering further remarks on the founding fathers and military respect.
"Unless we challenge ourselves to be better than what we currently are, we will not grow the next great monument," said Beck, pointing to the monuments around him on the National Mall. "America, now is our moment. Yesterday is gone. This is our challenge. This is our goal. This is the American destiny. With charity towards those who struggle, faith in a God who guides us, and truth in who we really are, we pledge today to restore honor and the promise of America."
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Glenn Beck's 8/28 rally delivered a swift kick in the rear to anyone who claims he or the conservative grassroots movement is irrelevant or idle.
"Welcome to Restoring Honor. You are standing on the banks of greatness, the banks of American dreams," said Beck, during his initial remarks. "America is a land of opportunity."
Beck's opening salvo set the tune for the rest of the day, which focused on the founding fathers, with a heavy dose of religious reverence and military pride. Somewhere in the ballpark of 500,000 followers crowded the space between the Lincoln and Washington monuments, dwarfing Beck's original estimate of 100,000 people. During the 3 1/2 hour spectacular, there were no long polemics about the follies of the Obama administration or evaluations of our ongoing economic despair. Instead, there were awards: for baseball player Albert Pujols of the St. Louis Cardinals, who was honored for his dedication to his family, to God, and to his charity as a role model to his community; and also for Tom Kirk, an Air Force squadron commander, who spent time in the Hanoi Hilton with Sen. John McCain.
"Something beyond imagination is happening. Something that is beyond man is happening. America today begins to turn back to God," said Beck. "For too long, this country has wandered in darkness and we have wandered in darkness in periods from the beginning. We have had moments of brilliance, and moments of darkness, but this country has spend far too long worrying about scars...today we are going to focus on good things in America."
Sarah Palin was a headlining speaker, and Beck played up her credentials as a mother instead of as a conservative political force. Regardless of whether Palin is even able to avoid politicizing an issue given her activism and personality, she did manage to avoid any sort of policy discussion by focusing on military achievements from her family and from other families across the U.S.
"Say what you want to say about me, but I raised a combat vet, and you can't take that away from me," said Palin. "I'm proud of that distinction, but it is not one that I had imagined, because no woman gives birth thinking that she will hand over her child to her country. But that's what mothers have done, from ancient days."
Palin, along with a host of other speakers, largely upheld Beck's initial mantra of faith, hope, and honor. Justice Raul Gonzalez, retired from the Texas Supreme Court, awarded the Badge of Merit for Charity to Jon Huntsman, the Utah businessman philanthropist.
"Forty years ago, on these very steps, Martin Luther King had a dream. The dream seems a simple one," said Gonzalez. "On that day, 200,000 people — black and white, young and old — gathered across the National Mall to hear King's word. Many had lost faith...[King] knew that this was the day to inspire change."
There were performances by country singer Jo Dee Messina and prayers from Jewish Rabbis; gospel performances by black Christian groups and testimonials from military mothers who praised their sons' commitment to serving our country. Unlike many traditional tea party rallies, participants didn't jump to their feet constantly or gush about politics at the slightest opportunity. There was a palpable calm over most of the crowd for the majority of the event, which was fitting with the many the many groups who offered prayers and preaching.
"People need to — like the old Testament tells us — we need to get on our knees and be humble before God, and take care of the world... so that we can be restored," said Jodie Anderson, from Indiana. "This event is unbelievable."
A plethora of media commentators denounced the message as hokey; none of the 500,000+ attendees seemed to doubt it one bit.
"I'm here honoring my country, and the great things we do in this world in the time of uncertainty," said Jebin Collins, from Virginia. "Seeing this many people come in from all over the country, come together peacefully, honoring God, and their country — it's beyond belief."
Beck's event was the first rally Collins had attended, and he was sporting a United States Marine Corps t-shirt, as were many other people in the crowd. Children relaxed on blankets in the parks adjacent to the Reflecting Pool, though the crowd was decidedly middle-aged. There were virtually no-counter protesters visible from the main stage near the Lincoln memorial, despite well-publicized plans for counter-protests.
Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King' niece, spoke to the crowd in a tone that echoed her uncle. She repeated "I have a dream," again and again, and continued with her desire to end racism, poverty, white privilege, and her desire to continue the foundation of holy matrimony.
"How many of us know that we need to rebuild America?" she asked the crowd. "We need unity to do that."
After a series of presentations, Glenn Beck himself took to the stage for about an hour at the end of the program, delivering further remarks on the founding fathers and military respect.
"Unless we challenge ourselves to be better than what we currently are, we will not grow the next great monument," said Beck, pointing to the monuments around him on the National Mall. "America, now is our moment. Yesterday is gone. This is our challenge. This is our goal. This is the American destiny. With charity towards those who struggle, faith in a God who guides us, and truth in who we really are, we pledge today to restore honor and the promise of America."
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Dorsal Fins Surround the White House
Jonah Goldberg
Saturday, August 28, 2010
You've got to wonder when White House political guru David Axelrod will look at the churning pools of poll data and, like Chief Brody in "Jaws," say: "We're gonna need a bigger boat."
The analogy isn't quite right, because in the movie, the shark ultimately loses. It's hard to imagine a scenario where Barack Obama and Axelrod victoriously paddle away on the flotsam of their own political wreckage. But in one sense, the analogy works just fine: This White House is rudderlessly lost at sea and inadequate to the challenges it faces.
At the beginning of the year, retiring seven-term Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., recounted a conversation he had with the president. Obama's unrelenting push for health-care reform in the face of public opposition reminded Berry of the Clinton-era missteps that led to the Republican rout of the Democrats in 1994. "I began to preach last January that we had already seen this movie and we didn't want to see it again because we know how it comes out," Berry told a newspaper.
Or, to quote Brody in "Jaws 2": "But I'm telling you, and I'm telling everybody at this table that that's a shark! And I know what a shark looks like, because I've seen one up close. And you'd better do something about this one, because I don't intend to go through that hell again!"
Convinced that his popularity was eternal, Obama responded by saying, yes, but there's a "big difference" between 1994 and 2010, and that big difference is "you've got me."
The funny thing is, Obama might have been right. Because things might be much worse for Democrats in 2010 than they were in 1994 -- and the big difference might well be Barack Obama.
In fairness, the biggest difference is probably the economy, which in political terms should be fitted for a pine box. Of course, Mr. Credibility, Joe Biden, says it's doing great, sounding a bit like the shopkeeper in the Monty Python "Dead Parrot sketch" who insists the bird's "just resting."
In 1994, when the Contract with America Congress took control, the jobless rate was 5.6 percent. Today it's 9.5 and may well climb higher. More than 18 percent of people who want full-time work can only find part-time jobs. Consumer confidence is falling again, housing sales recently hit a 15-year low, the stock market is off 11 percent since its April highs for the year.
While some people -- such as yours truly -- think Obama and the Democrats deserve much of the blame for the worsening economy, one can be agnostic on all that and recognize that voters have lost faith in the Democratic Party (which is not quite the same thing as saying they have bottomless respect for the GOP). The congressional generic ballot -- asking which party voters prefer -- is as bad for Democrats today as it was in 1994. Stu Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Report -- not exactly an RNC direct-mail operation -- says Obama's approval rating (already below 50 percent) will likely rival Clinton's in November of 1994. Already, Democrats in tight races, including the Senate majority leader, are distancing themselves from the White House, and pretty much everyone has stopped trying to make lemonade out of the ObamaCare lemon.
Moreover, Obama has lost his connection with the American people. He's aloof without inspiring confidence. On issue after issue -- terrorism, immigration, the oil spill, the environment and the ground zero mosque -- he seems determined to craft his responses in a way that will annoy the most people possible.
Liberals are frantically trying to explain away Obama's problems. Some want to protect their investment in Obama, and some want to protect their investment in liberalism. So some claim that his mistakes stem from not being progressive enough, while others insist that he's played his cards right, but we need to wait a bit longer for the payoff.
I'm dubious on both counts. Obama has delivered massively for progressives, and it strikes me as idiotic to say that if he only squeezed a bit more liberalism into his first two years, everything would be better. Moreover, I don't think the payoff is coming, because I think the policies are wrong.
But, again, that's an argument for a different day. What's clear right now is that the president who claimed to be the personification of a world-historical moment has clearly misread his mandate, the mood and the moment. He's lost at sea, and not even a bigger boat will save him.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
You've got to wonder when White House political guru David Axelrod will look at the churning pools of poll data and, like Chief Brody in "Jaws," say: "We're gonna need a bigger boat."
The analogy isn't quite right, because in the movie, the shark ultimately loses. It's hard to imagine a scenario where Barack Obama and Axelrod victoriously paddle away on the flotsam of their own political wreckage. But in one sense, the analogy works just fine: This White House is rudderlessly lost at sea and inadequate to the challenges it faces.
At the beginning of the year, retiring seven-term Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., recounted a conversation he had with the president. Obama's unrelenting push for health-care reform in the face of public opposition reminded Berry of the Clinton-era missteps that led to the Republican rout of the Democrats in 1994. "I began to preach last January that we had already seen this movie and we didn't want to see it again because we know how it comes out," Berry told a newspaper.
Or, to quote Brody in "Jaws 2": "But I'm telling you, and I'm telling everybody at this table that that's a shark! And I know what a shark looks like, because I've seen one up close. And you'd better do something about this one, because I don't intend to go through that hell again!"
Convinced that his popularity was eternal, Obama responded by saying, yes, but there's a "big difference" between 1994 and 2010, and that big difference is "you've got me."
The funny thing is, Obama might have been right. Because things might be much worse for Democrats in 2010 than they were in 1994 -- and the big difference might well be Barack Obama.
In fairness, the biggest difference is probably the economy, which in political terms should be fitted for a pine box. Of course, Mr. Credibility, Joe Biden, says it's doing great, sounding a bit like the shopkeeper in the Monty Python "Dead Parrot sketch" who insists the bird's "just resting."
In 1994, when the Contract with America Congress took control, the jobless rate was 5.6 percent. Today it's 9.5 and may well climb higher. More than 18 percent of people who want full-time work can only find part-time jobs. Consumer confidence is falling again, housing sales recently hit a 15-year low, the stock market is off 11 percent since its April highs for the year.
While some people -- such as yours truly -- think Obama and the Democrats deserve much of the blame for the worsening economy, one can be agnostic on all that and recognize that voters have lost faith in the Democratic Party (which is not quite the same thing as saying they have bottomless respect for the GOP). The congressional generic ballot -- asking which party voters prefer -- is as bad for Democrats today as it was in 1994. Stu Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Report -- not exactly an RNC direct-mail operation -- says Obama's approval rating (already below 50 percent) will likely rival Clinton's in November of 1994. Already, Democrats in tight races, including the Senate majority leader, are distancing themselves from the White House, and pretty much everyone has stopped trying to make lemonade out of the ObamaCare lemon.
Moreover, Obama has lost his connection with the American people. He's aloof without inspiring confidence. On issue after issue -- terrorism, immigration, the oil spill, the environment and the ground zero mosque -- he seems determined to craft his responses in a way that will annoy the most people possible.
Liberals are frantically trying to explain away Obama's problems. Some want to protect their investment in Obama, and some want to protect their investment in liberalism. So some claim that his mistakes stem from not being progressive enough, while others insist that he's played his cards right, but we need to wait a bit longer for the payoff.
I'm dubious on both counts. Obama has delivered massively for progressives, and it strikes me as idiotic to say that if he only squeezed a bit more liberalism into his first two years, everything would be better. Moreover, I don't think the payoff is coming, because I think the policies are wrong.
But, again, that's an argument for a different day. What's clear right now is that the president who claimed to be the personification of a world-historical moment has clearly misread his mandate, the mood and the moment. He's lost at sea, and not even a bigger boat will save him.
Do Not Tolerate the Intolerant
Diana West
Saturday, August 28, 2010
"We are Americans, each with an equal right to worship and pray where we choose," New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this week. "There is nowhere in the five boroughs of New York City that is off limits to any religion."
Our founding documents guarantee that -- and not just in the five boroughs.
But the unprecedented furor over plans for a mosque complex at Ground Zero tells us there is a coalescing sense that Islam is more than a "mere" religion as non-Muslims conceive of "religion." It is becoming clear to people, despite the gag of political correctness, that there's a reason "Islam" means "submission." Islam not only seeks to order the spiritual realm inhabited by a Muslim and Allah, it lays out a doctrine to control every believer's behavior (down to the most intimate bodily functions) as well as the public life of the collective. Doctrinally, Islam is thus "doubly totalitarian," in the words of G.H. Bousquet, a leading scholar of Islamic law, in accordance with the body of law known as Shariah. Under Shariah, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech are outlawed with extreme sanction (those who leave Islam fear death to this day), while non-Muslims and women exist as legal inferiors to the Muslim man. Meanwhile, jihad -- holy war to extend Islamic rule -- is a sacred command. And I have the books that prove it.
In other words, this isn't Islam because I say so, but because its sacred, authoritative, mainstream, non-hijacked, untwisted texts say so. It is the religious and political and legal ideology that inspired the al-Qaida killers on 9/11, and it is the religious and political and legal ideology that inspires the mosque complex at Ground Zero. And I didn't come up with that, folks; I just happened to notice, and thought you should know.
The crucial fact is, whether we are brutalized by acts of jihad or confused by acts of dawa (proselytizing), their goal is identical: more Islamic law. And this end will always justify the means as seen, for example, back in 2005 when hundreds of acclaimed Islamic clerics and heads of state gathered in Amman, Jordan. There, quite anti-climactically, they issued the "Amman Message" that declares that no Muslim who adheres to a recognized school of Islam may be labeled an apostate. Subtext: Not even Osama bin Laden could be, in effect, ex-communicated or otherwise blackballed or removed from good standing by these Islamic authorities. One of the 552 signatories was Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
Bloomberg types are blind to these things, from the Shariah-spreading efforts of Rauf (noted here last week), to dictates of Shariah that subvert constitutional liberties. So, blindly, they sound platitudes in Islam's defense, plucking emotional chords that resonate with Americans about "liberty," "tolerance" and "religious freedom" on behalf of a belief system that, ultra-ironically, outlaws them all.
Bloomberg actually suggested that a failure to erect the mosque complex would "undermine our soldiers," "our foreign policy objectives" -- even "our national security."
"Just as we fought communism by showing the world the power of free markets and free elections," said Bloomberg, "so must we fight terrorism by showing the world the power of religious freedom and cultural tolerance. Freedom and tolerance will always defeat tyranny and terrorism -- that is the great lesson of the 20th century, and we must not abandon it here in the 21st."
It almost sounds wonderful -- until the froth dries and you remember that fighting tyranny is never as easy as show-and-tell. This is something that victims of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, for example, could explain to the mayor. Freedom and tolerance, regardless of how well they are exemplified, don't have a chance against tyranny and terrorism if they aren't vigilantly protected.
Indeed, tolerance is doomed if it is extended to the intolerant, something philosopher Karl Popper worked out in the last century. "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them. ... We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
For the sake of the Twin Towers that's a duty.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
"We are Americans, each with an equal right to worship and pray where we choose," New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this week. "There is nowhere in the five boroughs of New York City that is off limits to any religion."
Our founding documents guarantee that -- and not just in the five boroughs.
But the unprecedented furor over plans for a mosque complex at Ground Zero tells us there is a coalescing sense that Islam is more than a "mere" religion as non-Muslims conceive of "religion." It is becoming clear to people, despite the gag of political correctness, that there's a reason "Islam" means "submission." Islam not only seeks to order the spiritual realm inhabited by a Muslim and Allah, it lays out a doctrine to control every believer's behavior (down to the most intimate bodily functions) as well as the public life of the collective. Doctrinally, Islam is thus "doubly totalitarian," in the words of G.H. Bousquet, a leading scholar of Islamic law, in accordance with the body of law known as Shariah. Under Shariah, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech are outlawed with extreme sanction (those who leave Islam fear death to this day), while non-Muslims and women exist as legal inferiors to the Muslim man. Meanwhile, jihad -- holy war to extend Islamic rule -- is a sacred command. And I have the books that prove it.
In other words, this isn't Islam because I say so, but because its sacred, authoritative, mainstream, non-hijacked, untwisted texts say so. It is the religious and political and legal ideology that inspired the al-Qaida killers on 9/11, and it is the religious and political and legal ideology that inspires the mosque complex at Ground Zero. And I didn't come up with that, folks; I just happened to notice, and thought you should know.
The crucial fact is, whether we are brutalized by acts of jihad or confused by acts of dawa (proselytizing), their goal is identical: more Islamic law. And this end will always justify the means as seen, for example, back in 2005 when hundreds of acclaimed Islamic clerics and heads of state gathered in Amman, Jordan. There, quite anti-climactically, they issued the "Amman Message" that declares that no Muslim who adheres to a recognized school of Islam may be labeled an apostate. Subtext: Not even Osama bin Laden could be, in effect, ex-communicated or otherwise blackballed or removed from good standing by these Islamic authorities. One of the 552 signatories was Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
Bloomberg types are blind to these things, from the Shariah-spreading efforts of Rauf (noted here last week), to dictates of Shariah that subvert constitutional liberties. So, blindly, they sound platitudes in Islam's defense, plucking emotional chords that resonate with Americans about "liberty," "tolerance" and "religious freedom" on behalf of a belief system that, ultra-ironically, outlaws them all.
Bloomberg actually suggested that a failure to erect the mosque complex would "undermine our soldiers," "our foreign policy objectives" -- even "our national security."
"Just as we fought communism by showing the world the power of free markets and free elections," said Bloomberg, "so must we fight terrorism by showing the world the power of religious freedom and cultural tolerance. Freedom and tolerance will always defeat tyranny and terrorism -- that is the great lesson of the 20th century, and we must not abandon it here in the 21st."
It almost sounds wonderful -- until the froth dries and you remember that fighting tyranny is never as easy as show-and-tell. This is something that victims of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, for example, could explain to the mayor. Freedom and tolerance, regardless of how well they are exemplified, don't have a chance against tyranny and terrorism if they aren't vigilantly protected.
Indeed, tolerance is doomed if it is extended to the intolerant, something philosopher Karl Popper worked out in the last century. "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them. ... We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
For the sake of the Twin Towers that's a duty.
How Many Deaths Before Obama Takes Border Security Seriously
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Friday, August 27, 2010
The shocking discovery of 72 murdered Hispanic migrants on a ranch just south of the U.S. border should be a wakeup call to all Americans that the security of our beloved nation begins at home.
Here in Arizona we have seen firsthand the bloody consequences of the crime and violence being imported by criminal aliens across our borders. Peaceful Phoenix has been transformed into the kidnapping capital of America.
A cadre of dedicated state and local officials has attempted to quell the violence. The result has been to watch these local leaders be sued, investigated and harassed by the police powers of the Obama administration.
When will this insanity end?
The migration of farm workers in the 1950s and 60s was transformed into a migration of construction workers, maids and restaurant workers in the 1970s and 80s. But the character of the immigration has changed again, and we ignore these changes at our peril.
Criminal gangs now control the border. Drugs, human trafficking, robbery, extortion and smuggling are profitable motivators escalating violence on both sides of the border.
Until the borderlands of the American Southwest are policed and under the control of authorities, these inexplicably brutal conditions will persist. The drug cartels must be destroyed, and the only way to accomplish this is with serious intervention, manpower and high-tech weaponry.
Obama and his minions ignore the brutality, the pain, the suffering and the long-term consequences of allowing these gangs safe haven in the hopes of scoring political points with immigrant voters.
This issue isn't about the civil rights of migrants -- this issue is about keeping all Americans safe regardless of nation of origin.
This massacre only came to light because a wounded Ecuadorean escaped. With a bullet wound in his neck he struggled to a nearby highway to find a Mexican military roadblock. He told authorities that the migrants' abductors identified themselves as Zetas. Zetas are a drug gang whose control of parts of Mexico is so brutal even many Mexicans avoid traveling on public highways near their territory.
Amnesty International has called the plight of the migrants crossing from Mexico to the U.S. a major world crisis. Their report called our border "one of the most dangerous in the world," and said every year an untold number of migrants disappear without a trace.
Mass unmarked graves near the border hold the key to a complete accounting of these horrors.
Now Mexican authorities are trying to determine whether the 72 victims in Tamaulipas were killed at the same time -- and why. We may never know.
The future is becoming clear. If the United States doesn't reverse course and begin to take border security seriously then these gangs will slowly increase their power in the U.S. They are already said to control several U.S. prisons, and neighborhoods in Phoenix and Los Angeles.
The Obama administration's harassment of local and state officials attempting to secure the border must end immediately. Instead, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security should be assisting these duly-elected local officials in the difficult task. Everyone must work together.
Violence must be met with the swift hand of justice. If we use fences, armed drones and patrols to secure the boarder of Iraq, we need to use that same technology and knowhow on our own border.
The primary objective of the United States Government is to protect our citizens from foreign enemies. These criminal gangs are foreign enemies is every sense.
Friday, August 27, 2010
The shocking discovery of 72 murdered Hispanic migrants on a ranch just south of the U.S. border should be a wakeup call to all Americans that the security of our beloved nation begins at home.
Here in Arizona we have seen firsthand the bloody consequences of the crime and violence being imported by criminal aliens across our borders. Peaceful Phoenix has been transformed into the kidnapping capital of America.
A cadre of dedicated state and local officials has attempted to quell the violence. The result has been to watch these local leaders be sued, investigated and harassed by the police powers of the Obama administration.
When will this insanity end?
The migration of farm workers in the 1950s and 60s was transformed into a migration of construction workers, maids and restaurant workers in the 1970s and 80s. But the character of the immigration has changed again, and we ignore these changes at our peril.
Criminal gangs now control the border. Drugs, human trafficking, robbery, extortion and smuggling are profitable motivators escalating violence on both sides of the border.
Until the borderlands of the American Southwest are policed and under the control of authorities, these inexplicably brutal conditions will persist. The drug cartels must be destroyed, and the only way to accomplish this is with serious intervention, manpower and high-tech weaponry.
Obama and his minions ignore the brutality, the pain, the suffering and the long-term consequences of allowing these gangs safe haven in the hopes of scoring political points with immigrant voters.
This issue isn't about the civil rights of migrants -- this issue is about keeping all Americans safe regardless of nation of origin.
This massacre only came to light because a wounded Ecuadorean escaped. With a bullet wound in his neck he struggled to a nearby highway to find a Mexican military roadblock. He told authorities that the migrants' abductors identified themselves as Zetas. Zetas are a drug gang whose control of parts of Mexico is so brutal even many Mexicans avoid traveling on public highways near their territory.
Amnesty International has called the plight of the migrants crossing from Mexico to the U.S. a major world crisis. Their report called our border "one of the most dangerous in the world," and said every year an untold number of migrants disappear without a trace.
Mass unmarked graves near the border hold the key to a complete accounting of these horrors.
Now Mexican authorities are trying to determine whether the 72 victims in Tamaulipas were killed at the same time -- and why. We may never know.
The future is becoming clear. If the United States doesn't reverse course and begin to take border security seriously then these gangs will slowly increase their power in the U.S. They are already said to control several U.S. prisons, and neighborhoods in Phoenix and Los Angeles.
The Obama administration's harassment of local and state officials attempting to secure the border must end immediately. Instead, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security should be assisting these duly-elected local officials in the difficult task. Everyone must work together.
Violence must be met with the swift hand of justice. If we use fences, armed drones and patrols to secure the boarder of Iraq, we need to use that same technology and knowhow on our own border.
The primary objective of the United States Government is to protect our citizens from foreign enemies. These criminal gangs are foreign enemies is every sense.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
What About the Stupid Lies Democrats Believe?
Larry Elder
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Thirty-one percent of Republicans, according to the Pew Research Center, believe that President Barack Obama is a Muslim. And more Republicans, 74 percent, than Democrats, 39 percent, oppose the construction of a mosque near ground zero. Thus, goes the argument, opposition to the proposed mosque stems from similar "right-wing" ignorance and Islamophobia.
Why do so many people think Obama is a Muslim? Are they lunatics?
Perhaps people base their assumption about Obama's religion on what they believe Islam says about the matter. In a New York Times op-ed, Edward Luttwak, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote that Obama "chose to become a Christian." But, Luttwak wrote: "As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant."
Maybe some follow the lead of Hillary Clinton. When asked on "60 Minutes" whether she believes Obama is a Muslim, then-presidential candidate Clinton said, "Of course not. ... There is no basis for that." She said she goes on "the basis of what he says." But she added, "There is nothing to base that on as far as I know" (emphasis added). She wasn't called anti-Muslim.
Perhaps people believe Obama -- who no longer belongs to a church -- is a Muslim because of his 20-year association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright's church publication honored the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan as a man who "truly epitomized greatness."
Or maybe the more people oppose Obama's policies the less they think of him as a person. Discontent breeds negative feelings. After the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, a majority of Americans believed that Germany was behind it. A large plurality of Americans, despite the lack of evidence, believed President Nixon planned the Watergate break-in that brought down his presidency.
Liberals should be sympathetic. They are quite adept at willfully refusing to face facts, if necessary, to support wrongheaded views. Here are some examples:
"The rich don't pay taxes." False. For the 2007 tax year (the latest income tax data year released by the IRS), the top 1 percent of income earners, those making over $410,000 a year, paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent, those making about $160,000 a year or more, paid 60 percent of all federal income taxes. Yet according to a 2008 IBD/TIPP poll, only 12 percent of Americans knew what the rich, in fact, paid in taxes. And liberals are likelier to get it wrong.
"The rich exclusively benefited from the Bush tax cuts." MSNBC's insufferable lefty Ed Schultz said: "Ninety-eight percent of you, it (the Bush tax cuts) doesn't even affect you." False. In a recent New York Times editorial, the liberal paper said extending the cuts to the non-rich -- a policy it favors -- would "cost" about $140 billion next year. Extending the cuts to the rich -- a policy it opposes -- would "cost" about $40 billion next year. If the tax cuts only benefit the rich, why would the Treasury "lose" more money from the non-rich than it would "lose" from the rich?
"The Bush tax cuts caused the deficit." CNN's liberal host Fareed Zakaria said, "The Bush tax cuts are the single largest part of the black hole that is the federal budget deficit." False. In 2002, tax revenues were $1.85 trillion. In 2007, revenues had grown to $2.57 trillion -- a 39 percent increase. Unfortunately, outlays increased almost as much. In 2002, outlays were $2.01 trillion. In 2007 -- the last year before the recession and before TARP, the various "stimulus" programs, bailouts and ObamaCare -- outlays were $2.73 trillion, a 36 percent increase.
"Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11." Thirty-five percent of Democrats, according to a 2007 Rasmussen poll, believe President Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11, and 26 percent are "not sure." False. This was investigated years earlier and refuted by the 2004 bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report.
"George W. Bush 'stole' the 2000 election." False. In November 2001, The New York Times wrote: "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore."
Mosque opponents can and do distinguish between a right to do something and the appropriateness of doing it. Polls show 60 percent of Americans oppose the mosque near the World Trade Center -- the same percentage that believe the Muslim group has the right to build it.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Thirty-one percent of Republicans, according to the Pew Research Center, believe that President Barack Obama is a Muslim. And more Republicans, 74 percent, than Democrats, 39 percent, oppose the construction of a mosque near ground zero. Thus, goes the argument, opposition to the proposed mosque stems from similar "right-wing" ignorance and Islamophobia.
Why do so many people think Obama is a Muslim? Are they lunatics?
Perhaps people base their assumption about Obama's religion on what they believe Islam says about the matter. In a New York Times op-ed, Edward Luttwak, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote that Obama "chose to become a Christian." But, Luttwak wrote: "As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant."
Maybe some follow the lead of Hillary Clinton. When asked on "60 Minutes" whether she believes Obama is a Muslim, then-presidential candidate Clinton said, "Of course not. ... There is no basis for that." She said she goes on "the basis of what he says." But she added, "There is nothing to base that on as far as I know" (emphasis added). She wasn't called anti-Muslim.
Perhaps people believe Obama -- who no longer belongs to a church -- is a Muslim because of his 20-year association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright's church publication honored the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan as a man who "truly epitomized greatness."
Or maybe the more people oppose Obama's policies the less they think of him as a person. Discontent breeds negative feelings. After the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, a majority of Americans believed that Germany was behind it. A large plurality of Americans, despite the lack of evidence, believed President Nixon planned the Watergate break-in that brought down his presidency.
Liberals should be sympathetic. They are quite adept at willfully refusing to face facts, if necessary, to support wrongheaded views. Here are some examples:
"The rich don't pay taxes." False. For the 2007 tax year (the latest income tax data year released by the IRS), the top 1 percent of income earners, those making over $410,000 a year, paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent, those making about $160,000 a year or more, paid 60 percent of all federal income taxes. Yet according to a 2008 IBD/TIPP poll, only 12 percent of Americans knew what the rich, in fact, paid in taxes. And liberals are likelier to get it wrong.
"The rich exclusively benefited from the Bush tax cuts." MSNBC's insufferable lefty Ed Schultz said: "Ninety-eight percent of you, it (the Bush tax cuts) doesn't even affect you." False. In a recent New York Times editorial, the liberal paper said extending the cuts to the non-rich -- a policy it favors -- would "cost" about $140 billion next year. Extending the cuts to the rich -- a policy it opposes -- would "cost" about $40 billion next year. If the tax cuts only benefit the rich, why would the Treasury "lose" more money from the non-rich than it would "lose" from the rich?
"The Bush tax cuts caused the deficit." CNN's liberal host Fareed Zakaria said, "The Bush tax cuts are the single largest part of the black hole that is the federal budget deficit." False. In 2002, tax revenues were $1.85 trillion. In 2007, revenues had grown to $2.57 trillion -- a 39 percent increase. Unfortunately, outlays increased almost as much. In 2002, outlays were $2.01 trillion. In 2007 -- the last year before the recession and before TARP, the various "stimulus" programs, bailouts and ObamaCare -- outlays were $2.73 trillion, a 36 percent increase.
"Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11." Thirty-five percent of Democrats, according to a 2007 Rasmussen poll, believe President Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11, and 26 percent are "not sure." False. This was investigated years earlier and refuted by the 2004 bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report.
"George W. Bush 'stole' the 2000 election." False. In November 2001, The New York Times wrote: "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore."
Mosque opponents can and do distinguish between a right to do something and the appropriateness of doing it. Polls show 60 percent of Americans oppose the mosque near the World Trade Center -- the same percentage that believe the Muslim group has the right to build it.
A Basic Human Right to Obamacare?
Maggie Gallagher
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Under President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States for the first time joined the U.N.'s Human Rights Council. The U.S. has long steered clear of this council, reluctant to participate in a "human rights" body that despots like Syria and Libya routinely chair.
But Obama brought the U.S. under the council's jurisdiction, and this week his administration submitted for the first time a review of the human rights situation in the U.S. to the council. Many have criticized it for sounding too apologetic about Americans' human rights record.
It is a very revealing document, though, especially on the core question: What counts as a basic human right?
To the American ear, long-schooled to recognize rights as individual freedoms guaranteed by government, not goodies subsidized by taxpayers, the oddest note is the long paean to Obamacare in the middle of this official report on alleged human rights:
"On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. The Act makes great strides toward the goal that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care. ... The law will also help our nation reduce disparities and discrimination in access to care that have contributed to poor health. For example, African Americans are 29 percent more likely to die from heart disease than non-Hispanic whites. Asian American men suffer from stomach cancer 114 percent more often than non-Hispanic white men. ... The Act will reduce disparities like these through access to preventive services; investment in chronic disease control and prevention; enhanced data collection."
Does the president really believe that Obamacare is a basic human right? If a new Congress retools this deeply unpopular bill, does he suggest to the council we are now violating international human rights standards?
To be fair, the State Department account of Obamacare as a "human rights" advance is perfectly consistent with the way the U.N. Human Rights Council thinks about human rights. On Feb. 12 of this year, for example, a special reporter to the Human Rights Council issued her own report on how the U.S. can better meet alleged international human rights standards in housing. (See the full report here:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G10/107/39/PDF/G1010739.pdf
The report recommends, well, more democratic socialism, less Republican free-market values.
More scarce taxpayer money for subsidized housing? That's a human rights given. But the list of remedies grows longer. The report laments that "housing discrimination by income" is permitted in most places in America; it urges Congress to force private landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers, and also urges Congress to give Section 8 tenants and city governments a right of first refusal in the sale of rental properties occupied by subsidized tenants. (This of course would also mean subsidized tenants and governments would acquire a quasi-ownership right over virtually all private rental property, potentially tying up owners of rental properties for years in expensive litigation if they wish to sell.)
The report also suggested that Congress forbid the use of criminal records or drug tests to screen tenants for subsidized housing. Government should also "expand the definition of homelessness" to include people living with their family when times are hard. And she even urges our government to recognize the right of vagrants to camp out in public parks and streets, whenever "shelter is not available." San Francisco values anyone? The proposal by U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., to establish a special federal right to "adequate housing" for children is warmly applauded -- only the report also urges expanding the definition of "child" up to age 25, since many young adults are still youths, "psychosocially" speaking.
Some or all of these proposals may be debatable as matters of public policy. But the point is that the busybodies at the U.N. Human Rights Council would like to transform public policy debates into human rights imperatives, subject to the scrutiny of international organizations like themselves. The report's final, most urgent recommendation is that the U.S. sign onto the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is a brief for a socialized democratic form of government over the American Founders' vision of freedom.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Under President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States for the first time joined the U.N.'s Human Rights Council. The U.S. has long steered clear of this council, reluctant to participate in a "human rights" body that despots like Syria and Libya routinely chair.
But Obama brought the U.S. under the council's jurisdiction, and this week his administration submitted for the first time a review of the human rights situation in the U.S. to the council. Many have criticized it for sounding too apologetic about Americans' human rights record.
It is a very revealing document, though, especially on the core question: What counts as a basic human right?
To the American ear, long-schooled to recognize rights as individual freedoms guaranteed by government, not goodies subsidized by taxpayers, the oddest note is the long paean to Obamacare in the middle of this official report on alleged human rights:
"On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. The Act makes great strides toward the goal that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care. ... The law will also help our nation reduce disparities and discrimination in access to care that have contributed to poor health. For example, African Americans are 29 percent more likely to die from heart disease than non-Hispanic whites. Asian American men suffer from stomach cancer 114 percent more often than non-Hispanic white men. ... The Act will reduce disparities like these through access to preventive services; investment in chronic disease control and prevention; enhanced data collection."
Does the president really believe that Obamacare is a basic human right? If a new Congress retools this deeply unpopular bill, does he suggest to the council we are now violating international human rights standards?
To be fair, the State Department account of Obamacare as a "human rights" advance is perfectly consistent with the way the U.N. Human Rights Council thinks about human rights. On Feb. 12 of this year, for example, a special reporter to the Human Rights Council issued her own report on how the U.S. can better meet alleged international human rights standards in housing. (See the full report here:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G10/107/39/PDF/G1010739.pdf
The report recommends, well, more democratic socialism, less Republican free-market values.
More scarce taxpayer money for subsidized housing? That's a human rights given. But the list of remedies grows longer. The report laments that "housing discrimination by income" is permitted in most places in America; it urges Congress to force private landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers, and also urges Congress to give Section 8 tenants and city governments a right of first refusal in the sale of rental properties occupied by subsidized tenants. (This of course would also mean subsidized tenants and governments would acquire a quasi-ownership right over virtually all private rental property, potentially tying up owners of rental properties for years in expensive litigation if they wish to sell.)
The report also suggested that Congress forbid the use of criminal records or drug tests to screen tenants for subsidized housing. Government should also "expand the definition of homelessness" to include people living with their family when times are hard. And she even urges our government to recognize the right of vagrants to camp out in public parks and streets, whenever "shelter is not available." San Francisco values anyone? The proposal by U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., to establish a special federal right to "adequate housing" for children is warmly applauded -- only the report also urges expanding the definition of "child" up to age 25, since many young adults are still youths, "psychosocially" speaking.
Some or all of these proposals may be debatable as matters of public policy. But the point is that the busybodies at the U.N. Human Rights Council would like to transform public policy debates into human rights imperatives, subject to the scrutiny of international organizations like themselves. The report's final, most urgent recommendation is that the U.S. sign onto the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is a brief for a socialized democratic form of government over the American Founders' vision of freedom.
Prelude to Appeasement
Tony Blankley
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Neoconservatives, Reaganites and other militarily assertive factions in the United States are sometimes accused of thinking it is always 1938 (Britain's appeasement of Hitler at Munich) -- that there is always a Hitler-like aggressor being appeased and about to drag the world into conflict. There is sometimes merit in that charge.
As, likewise, is there sometimes merit in the charge against isolations and other doves that they always see 1914 (start of WWI) or 1964 (beginning of escalation of troops in Vietnam) -- the imminent and foolish entry into or escalation of a war that can't be won -- or even if victory were to be gained, it would be Pyrrhic.
Knowledge of history can be as much a snare as a guide -- if it is wrapped in a dogma that distorts the current facts to match the preferred historic lesson.
Our actions -- if any -- in the Iranian nuclear weapons development controversy cry out to be based on a careful assessment of facts -- and a heartless rooting out of assumptions, hidden or otherwise, that may be driving policy.
Those who are or will be calling for U.S. military action to damage and delay Iran's ability to develop operational nuclear weapons -- that is those for whom it is now 1938 -- make a number of assumptions: 1) The Iranian regime intends to develop nuclear weapons; 2) once it has them, being fanatics, they may actually use them against Israel, as they have repeatedly threatened; 3) even if they doesn't use them, it will change the dynamics of the Middle East by inducing a nuclear arms race between Sunni Muslim countries and Iran, and by giving Iran a huge capacity to intimidate and dominate the region; 4) both Europe and the United States will eventually fall within the missile shadow of a nuclear Iran -- thus giving Iran capacity to be a world player and possible precipitator of nuclear war even beyond the Middle East; 5) the regime is inherently hostile and aggressive, particularly against the U.S. and Israel, and will keep pushing until pushed back; and 6) even tough sanctions will not deter Iran -- moreover, Russia is too invested in Iran to truly cooperate with us, and even Europe will not enforce tough sanctions.
The 1938'ers further believe -- or claim to believe -- that while Iran can create havoc in response to our military action (threaten oil transport out of the Gulf, terrorist attacks in the Middle East, Europe and probably the United States, further harm to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan), they would be even more dangerous -- and just as ill intentioned -- if nuclear armed. And they make the factual assumption that the threat will emerge sooner rather than later. John Bolton warned last week that we have only days.
The Obama administration, on the other hand, holds vastly different assumptions: 1) Iran may actually not want nuclear weapons. 2) If they do want them, Russia will help us stop them. 3) If we settle the Israeli/Palestinian dispute that will reduce any nuclear aspirations Iran may have. 4) If we were to attack Iran, Iran could create more chaos than we can manage. 5) But if Iran did develop their nuclear weapons, we can deter their use by providing a nuclear umbrella for both Arab and Israeli.
And, factually, they assume the danger is off by at least a year -- and that Iran is running into technical problems. Of course, predicting when Iran reaches its nuclear threshold is usually driven by policy goals. The CIA in 2007 -- which did not want war -- actually concluded that Iran had given up its objectives. Now they technically claim we have a year.
Back in 1938, British Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain could have gone down in history as the greatest diplomat of the 20th century -- IF he had been right that Herr Hitler had limited ambitions that could be appeased. There is nothing wrong with appeasement if the aggressor can be appeased at acceptable costs. But as we know, Hitler could not be appeased -- he had to be defeated.
So the question today is not whether to appease Iran or not -- but whether Iran is appeasable. And if not appeasable, whether its threat can be defeated with acceptable costs. Those are factual questions -- although all the facts cannot be known before the event.
For me, having observed the Iranian regime, as we all have, I find the Obama administration's factual assumptions to be mostly wishful thinking, at best. Although, the almost certainty of Iran's terrorist response to a military attack by the United States is a factor to sober the mind and hesitate the hand. Nonetheless, the grim assessment of the 1938'ers seems sadly more realistic.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Neoconservatives, Reaganites and other militarily assertive factions in the United States are sometimes accused of thinking it is always 1938 (Britain's appeasement of Hitler at Munich) -- that there is always a Hitler-like aggressor being appeased and about to drag the world into conflict. There is sometimes merit in that charge.
As, likewise, is there sometimes merit in the charge against isolations and other doves that they always see 1914 (start of WWI) or 1964 (beginning of escalation of troops in Vietnam) -- the imminent and foolish entry into or escalation of a war that can't be won -- or even if victory were to be gained, it would be Pyrrhic.
Knowledge of history can be as much a snare as a guide -- if it is wrapped in a dogma that distorts the current facts to match the preferred historic lesson.
Our actions -- if any -- in the Iranian nuclear weapons development controversy cry out to be based on a careful assessment of facts -- and a heartless rooting out of assumptions, hidden or otherwise, that may be driving policy.
Those who are or will be calling for U.S. military action to damage and delay Iran's ability to develop operational nuclear weapons -- that is those for whom it is now 1938 -- make a number of assumptions: 1) The Iranian regime intends to develop nuclear weapons; 2) once it has them, being fanatics, they may actually use them against Israel, as they have repeatedly threatened; 3) even if they doesn't use them, it will change the dynamics of the Middle East by inducing a nuclear arms race between Sunni Muslim countries and Iran, and by giving Iran a huge capacity to intimidate and dominate the region; 4) both Europe and the United States will eventually fall within the missile shadow of a nuclear Iran -- thus giving Iran capacity to be a world player and possible precipitator of nuclear war even beyond the Middle East; 5) the regime is inherently hostile and aggressive, particularly against the U.S. and Israel, and will keep pushing until pushed back; and 6) even tough sanctions will not deter Iran -- moreover, Russia is too invested in Iran to truly cooperate with us, and even Europe will not enforce tough sanctions.
The 1938'ers further believe -- or claim to believe -- that while Iran can create havoc in response to our military action (threaten oil transport out of the Gulf, terrorist attacks in the Middle East, Europe and probably the United States, further harm to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan), they would be even more dangerous -- and just as ill intentioned -- if nuclear armed. And they make the factual assumption that the threat will emerge sooner rather than later. John Bolton warned last week that we have only days.
The Obama administration, on the other hand, holds vastly different assumptions: 1) Iran may actually not want nuclear weapons. 2) If they do want them, Russia will help us stop them. 3) If we settle the Israeli/Palestinian dispute that will reduce any nuclear aspirations Iran may have. 4) If we were to attack Iran, Iran could create more chaos than we can manage. 5) But if Iran did develop their nuclear weapons, we can deter their use by providing a nuclear umbrella for both Arab and Israeli.
And, factually, they assume the danger is off by at least a year -- and that Iran is running into technical problems. Of course, predicting when Iran reaches its nuclear threshold is usually driven by policy goals. The CIA in 2007 -- which did not want war -- actually concluded that Iran had given up its objectives. Now they technically claim we have a year.
Back in 1938, British Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain could have gone down in history as the greatest diplomat of the 20th century -- IF he had been right that Herr Hitler had limited ambitions that could be appeased. There is nothing wrong with appeasement if the aggressor can be appeased at acceptable costs. But as we know, Hitler could not be appeased -- he had to be defeated.
So the question today is not whether to appease Iran or not -- but whether Iran is appeasable. And if not appeasable, whether its threat can be defeated with acceptable costs. Those are factual questions -- although all the facts cannot be known before the event.
For me, having observed the Iranian regime, as we all have, I find the Obama administration's factual assumptions to be mostly wishful thinking, at best. Although, the almost certainty of Iran's terrorist response to a military attack by the United States is a factor to sober the mind and hesitate the hand. Nonetheless, the grim assessment of the 1938'ers seems sadly more realistic.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Islamophobia? Not Really
Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Here's a thought: The 70 percent of Americans who oppose what amounts to an Islamic Niketown two blocks from ground zero are the real victims of a climate of hate, and the much-ballyhooed anti-Muslim backlash is mostly a myth.
Let's start with some data.
According to the FBI, hate crimes against Muslims increased by a staggering 1,600 percent in 2001. That sounds serious! But wait, the increase is a math mirage. There were 28 anti-Islamic incidents in 2000. That number climbed to 481 the year a bunch of Muslim terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans in the name of Islam on Sept. 11.
Now, that was a hate crime.
Regardless, 2001 was the zenith or, looked at through the prism of our national shame, the nadir of the much-discussed anti-Muslim backlash in the United States -- and civil libertarians and Muslim activists insisted it was 1930s Germany all over again. The following year, the number of anti-Islamic hate-crime incidents (overwhelmingly, nonviolent vandalism and nasty words) dropped to 155. In 2003, there were 149 such incidents. And the number has hovered around the mid-100s or lower ever since.
Sure, even one hate crime is too many. But does that sound like an anti-Muslim backlash to you?
Let's put this in even sharper focus. America is, outside of Israel, probably the most receptive and tolerant country in the world to Jews. And yet, in every year since 9/11, more Jews have been hate-crime victims than Muslims. A lot more.
In 2001, there were twice as many anti-Jewish incidents as there were anti-Muslim, according to the FBI. In 2002 and pretty much every year since, anti-Jewish incidents have outstripped anti-Muslim incidents by at least 6 to 1. Why aren't we talking about the anti-Jewish climate in America?
Because there isn't one. And there isn't an anti-Muslim climate either. Yes, there's a lot of heated rhetoric on the Internet. Absolutely, some Americans don't like Muslims. But if you watch TV or movies, or read, say, the op-ed page of the New York Times -- never mind left-wing blogs -- you'll hear much more open bigotry toward evangelical Christians (in blogspeak, the "Taliban wing of the Republican Party") than you will toward Muslims.
No doubt some American Muslims -- particularly young Muslim men with ties to the Middle East and South Asia -- have been scrutinized at airports more than elderly women of Norwegian extraction, but does that really amount to Islamophobia, given the dangers and complexities of the war on terror?
For 10 years we've been subjected to news stories about the Muslim backlash that's always around the corner. It didn't start with President Obama or with the "ground zero mosque." President George W. Bush was at his most condescending when he explained, in the cadences of a guest reader at kindergarten story time, that "Islam is peace."
But he was right to emphasize America's tolerance and to draw a sharp line between Muslim terrorists and their law-abiding co-religionists.
Meanwhile, to listen to Obama -- say, in his famous Cairo address -- you'd think America has been at war with Islam for 30 years and only now, thanks to him, can we heal the rift. It's an odd argument given that Americans have shed a lot of blood for Muslims over the last three decades: to end the slaughter of Muslims in the Balkans, to feed Somalis and to liberate Kuwaitis, Iraqis and Afghans. Millions of Muslims around the world would desperately like to move to the U.S., this supposed land of intolerance.
Conversely, nowhere is there more open, honest and intentional intolerance -- in words and deeds -- than from certain prominent Muslim leaders around the world. And yet, Americans are the bigots?
And when Muslim fanatics kill Americans -- after, say, the Fort Hood slaughter -- a reflexive response from the Obama administration is to fret over an anti-Islamic backlash.
Obama and Co. automatically proclaim that such orchestrated terrorist attacks are "isolated" events. But when it comes to mainstream Americans, veterans, ObamaCare opponents or (shudder) tea partiers, there's no generalization too broad or too insulting for the left.
It's fine to avoid negative stereotypes of Muslims, but why the rush to embrace them when it comes to Americans?
And now, thanks to the entirely avoidable "ground zero mosque" controversy, we are again discussing America's Islamophobia, which, according to Time magazine, is just another chapter in America's history of intolerance.
When, pray tell, will Time magazine devote an issue to its, and this administration's, intolerance of the American people?
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Here's a thought: The 70 percent of Americans who oppose what amounts to an Islamic Niketown two blocks from ground zero are the real victims of a climate of hate, and the much-ballyhooed anti-Muslim backlash is mostly a myth.
Let's start with some data.
According to the FBI, hate crimes against Muslims increased by a staggering 1,600 percent in 2001. That sounds serious! But wait, the increase is a math mirage. There were 28 anti-Islamic incidents in 2000. That number climbed to 481 the year a bunch of Muslim terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans in the name of Islam on Sept. 11.
Now, that was a hate crime.
Regardless, 2001 was the zenith or, looked at through the prism of our national shame, the nadir of the much-discussed anti-Muslim backlash in the United States -- and civil libertarians and Muslim activists insisted it was 1930s Germany all over again. The following year, the number of anti-Islamic hate-crime incidents (overwhelmingly, nonviolent vandalism and nasty words) dropped to 155. In 2003, there were 149 such incidents. And the number has hovered around the mid-100s or lower ever since.
Sure, even one hate crime is too many. But does that sound like an anti-Muslim backlash to you?
Let's put this in even sharper focus. America is, outside of Israel, probably the most receptive and tolerant country in the world to Jews. And yet, in every year since 9/11, more Jews have been hate-crime victims than Muslims. A lot more.
In 2001, there were twice as many anti-Jewish incidents as there were anti-Muslim, according to the FBI. In 2002 and pretty much every year since, anti-Jewish incidents have outstripped anti-Muslim incidents by at least 6 to 1. Why aren't we talking about the anti-Jewish climate in America?
Because there isn't one. And there isn't an anti-Muslim climate either. Yes, there's a lot of heated rhetoric on the Internet. Absolutely, some Americans don't like Muslims. But if you watch TV or movies, or read, say, the op-ed page of the New York Times -- never mind left-wing blogs -- you'll hear much more open bigotry toward evangelical Christians (in blogspeak, the "Taliban wing of the Republican Party") than you will toward Muslims.
No doubt some American Muslims -- particularly young Muslim men with ties to the Middle East and South Asia -- have been scrutinized at airports more than elderly women of Norwegian extraction, but does that really amount to Islamophobia, given the dangers and complexities of the war on terror?
For 10 years we've been subjected to news stories about the Muslim backlash that's always around the corner. It didn't start with President Obama or with the "ground zero mosque." President George W. Bush was at his most condescending when he explained, in the cadences of a guest reader at kindergarten story time, that "Islam is peace."
But he was right to emphasize America's tolerance and to draw a sharp line between Muslim terrorists and their law-abiding co-religionists.
Meanwhile, to listen to Obama -- say, in his famous Cairo address -- you'd think America has been at war with Islam for 30 years and only now, thanks to him, can we heal the rift. It's an odd argument given that Americans have shed a lot of blood for Muslims over the last three decades: to end the slaughter of Muslims in the Balkans, to feed Somalis and to liberate Kuwaitis, Iraqis and Afghans. Millions of Muslims around the world would desperately like to move to the U.S., this supposed land of intolerance.
Conversely, nowhere is there more open, honest and intentional intolerance -- in words and deeds -- than from certain prominent Muslim leaders around the world. And yet, Americans are the bigots?
And when Muslim fanatics kill Americans -- after, say, the Fort Hood slaughter -- a reflexive response from the Obama administration is to fret over an anti-Islamic backlash.
Obama and Co. automatically proclaim that such orchestrated terrorist attacks are "isolated" events. But when it comes to mainstream Americans, veterans, ObamaCare opponents or (shudder) tea partiers, there's no generalization too broad or too insulting for the left.
It's fine to avoid negative stereotypes of Muslims, but why the rush to embrace them when it comes to Americans?
And now, thanks to the entirely avoidable "ground zero mosque" controversy, we are again discussing America's Islamophobia, which, according to Time magazine, is just another chapter in America's history of intolerance.
When, pray tell, will Time magazine devote an issue to its, and this administration's, intolerance of the American people?
Obama Versus Majority Public Opinion
Phyllis Schlafly
Monday, August 23, 2010
Americans are being treated to welcome entertainment during the dog days of summer as we watch the Democrats wring their hands over Barack Obama's tone deafness about political reality. Their despair about Obama is so painful that they are even calling on George W. Bush to come back and rescue Obama from his own mistakes.
The Democrats are reluctant to admit the truth that Obama is not a smart politician (like Bill Clinton, for example). Obama is a radical ideologue determined to "transform" America into the socialist mold, regardless of voter retaliation against Democratic candidates.
Let's tick off the issues where Obama staked out his lonely position at the same time public opinion polls showed that the majority of Americans lined up on the other side. Obama's determination to achieve "change" doesn't include obeying the wishes of We The People.
Take Obamacare, for example. Ramming it through Congress, overriding regular legislative procedure and the opposition of the American public, he deluded himself into believing that once it became the law of the land, the people would dutifully support it.
But they didn't. Even after passage, the Rasmussen survey reports this month that 66 percent favor repeal of the Health Control Law, and 50 percent say repeal will benefit the economy.
On Aug. 3, 71 percent of voters in Missouri, the bellwether state, approved a referendum to invalidate any Obamacare mandate to force individuals to buy health insurance. The same week, a federal judge ruled that Virginia may proceed with its lawsuit to overturn Obamacare's mandate on individuals to buy insurance.
The Democrats had hoped they could postpone Obama's commitment to Hispanic voters until after the 2010 elections by tucking the contentious immigration issue under the rug this year. But then Obama brought the immigration issue front and center by filing suit against the Arizona law.
A CBS poll shows that 57 percent of Americans think Arizona's law is "about right," and a Rasmussen poll found that 65 percent of Arizonans support the law. A Zogby poll found that 58 percent of Americans nationwide want their own state to adopt a law similar to Arizona's.
Then there's the matter of building the mosque on the ground near the 9/11 attack on New York City. Obama supports it, even though 61 percent of Americans are against it.
The mosque raises another festering issue. The Pew Research Center reports that 18 percent (one in five Americans) think Obama is a Muslim, and Time magazine puts that figure at 24 percent. The number of people who think Obama is a Christian is in a free fall, and 43 percent don't know his religion.
Rush Limbaugh reminded us of Obama's statement quoted in The New York Times that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth" and that he recited it with a first-rate Arabic accent. The translation of the prayer call is "Allah is supreme. Allah is supreme. Allah is supreme. I witness that there is no god but Allah."
Obama chose the most leftwing Supreme Court justice in history, Elena Kagan. He ignored the Gallup poll showing that 42 percent of Americans wanted a new Supreme Court justice who would move the court in the conservative direction, while only 27 percent wanted it to move more liberal.
Obama is even pressing for Card Check, one of his many payoffs to the unions, even though 61 percent of Americans oppose this, according to Voter Consumer Research. Card Check would make it easier for unions to organize workplaces by getting rid of the secret ballot.
Obama is still pushing Cap and Trade, which the voters have dubbed Cap and Tax because it will make electricity and all kinds of energy cost every American thousands of dollars a year. CNN reports that 51 percent of Americans oppose it, and Democratic congressional incumbents who voted for it in the House last year are finding it a big negative in their 2010 campaigns.
Obama is still unwilling to face up to the American people's opposition to his economic policies of big spending, higher deficits, staggering debt and redistribution of wealth. According to a Rasmussen survey, less than one in five voters is willing to pay more taxes to lower the federal deficit because they believe we are already overtaxed.
More than 8 in 10 Americans believe the deficit is the result of overspending, not a lack of tax revenue. And 58 percent believe that if Obama and Congress raise taxes to reduce the deficit, they will just spend the money on new government programs.
When Gallup asked Americans to name the greatest threat facing our country, the national debt tied with terrorism as the top choice. No wonder Zogby reports that 52 percent of Americans say Obama's change has made the country worse.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Americans are being treated to welcome entertainment during the dog days of summer as we watch the Democrats wring their hands over Barack Obama's tone deafness about political reality. Their despair about Obama is so painful that they are even calling on George W. Bush to come back and rescue Obama from his own mistakes.
The Democrats are reluctant to admit the truth that Obama is not a smart politician (like Bill Clinton, for example). Obama is a radical ideologue determined to "transform" America into the socialist mold, regardless of voter retaliation against Democratic candidates.
Let's tick off the issues where Obama staked out his lonely position at the same time public opinion polls showed that the majority of Americans lined up on the other side. Obama's determination to achieve "change" doesn't include obeying the wishes of We The People.
Take Obamacare, for example. Ramming it through Congress, overriding regular legislative procedure and the opposition of the American public, he deluded himself into believing that once it became the law of the land, the people would dutifully support it.
But they didn't. Even after passage, the Rasmussen survey reports this month that 66 percent favor repeal of the Health Control Law, and 50 percent say repeal will benefit the economy.
On Aug. 3, 71 percent of voters in Missouri, the bellwether state, approved a referendum to invalidate any Obamacare mandate to force individuals to buy health insurance. The same week, a federal judge ruled that Virginia may proceed with its lawsuit to overturn Obamacare's mandate on individuals to buy insurance.
The Democrats had hoped they could postpone Obama's commitment to Hispanic voters until after the 2010 elections by tucking the contentious immigration issue under the rug this year. But then Obama brought the immigration issue front and center by filing suit against the Arizona law.
A CBS poll shows that 57 percent of Americans think Arizona's law is "about right," and a Rasmussen poll found that 65 percent of Arizonans support the law. A Zogby poll found that 58 percent of Americans nationwide want their own state to adopt a law similar to Arizona's.
Then there's the matter of building the mosque on the ground near the 9/11 attack on New York City. Obama supports it, even though 61 percent of Americans are against it.
The mosque raises another festering issue. The Pew Research Center reports that 18 percent (one in five Americans) think Obama is a Muslim, and Time magazine puts that figure at 24 percent. The number of people who think Obama is a Christian is in a free fall, and 43 percent don't know his religion.
Rush Limbaugh reminded us of Obama's statement quoted in The New York Times that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth" and that he recited it with a first-rate Arabic accent. The translation of the prayer call is "Allah is supreme. Allah is supreme. Allah is supreme. I witness that there is no god but Allah."
Obama chose the most leftwing Supreme Court justice in history, Elena Kagan. He ignored the Gallup poll showing that 42 percent of Americans wanted a new Supreme Court justice who would move the court in the conservative direction, while only 27 percent wanted it to move more liberal.
Obama is even pressing for Card Check, one of his many payoffs to the unions, even though 61 percent of Americans oppose this, according to Voter Consumer Research. Card Check would make it easier for unions to organize workplaces by getting rid of the secret ballot.
Obama is still pushing Cap and Trade, which the voters have dubbed Cap and Tax because it will make electricity and all kinds of energy cost every American thousands of dollars a year. CNN reports that 51 percent of Americans oppose it, and Democratic congressional incumbents who voted for it in the House last year are finding it a big negative in their 2010 campaigns.
Obama is still unwilling to face up to the American people's opposition to his economic policies of big spending, higher deficits, staggering debt and redistribution of wealth. According to a Rasmussen survey, less than one in five voters is willing to pay more taxes to lower the federal deficit because they believe we are already overtaxed.
More than 8 in 10 Americans believe the deficit is the result of overspending, not a lack of tax revenue. And 58 percent believe that if Obama and Congress raise taxes to reduce the deficit, they will just spend the money on new government programs.
When Gallup asked Americans to name the greatest threat facing our country, the national debt tied with terrorism as the top choice. No wonder Zogby reports that 52 percent of Americans say Obama's change has made the country worse.
The Real Radio Hatemongers
Brent Bozell
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Last week, Dr. Laura Schlessinger announced on CNN that she was hanging up her headphones at the end of the year. If she could not exercise her freedom of speech, she said, she was not interested in the job.
Watchdogs on the left had pounced on a conversation she had with a black woman in which she proclaimed something that everyone with cable TV knows is true. The N-word is acceptable vernacular for black comedians on HBO, but it's not something you can ever, ever say if you're not black.
While making this point, Dr. Laura purposely said the N-word repeatedly during this proclamation, and that was all the left needed to start contacting sponsors, suggesting they shouldn't want their products associated with this viciously racist talk show. It didn't matter that even liberal editorialists in The Washington Post declared that there was nothing at all racist in what the doctor said.
The left had found their to chance to silence her, and they pounced. All they needed to do was distort the context completely, and they did so masterfully.
The hypocrites. Leftists say outrageous things on the radio routinely, things they truly mean, too, and those remarks never see the light of day on ABC, CBS and NBC. Talking about the N-word is wrong but wishing death on political enemies is OK when the rhetorical bombs are dropped on conservatives. The Media Research Center has a new report chronicling who the real radio hatemongers are.
Start with Ed Schultz, perpetually out of control on MSNBC. On June 16, 2009, Joe Scarborough asked Schultz if he felt Dick Cheney hoped Americans would die in a terrorist attack so it would benefit Republicans. "Absolutely, absolutely," said Schultz. "I think Dick Cheney is all about seeing this country go conservative on a hard-right wing, and I think he'll do anything to get it there."
On the radio Aug. 11, 2009, Schultz spewed: "Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot. I do. I think that there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out." This might be what they call projection coming from Schultz, since he begged for Cheney to die. "Lord, take him to the promised land," he proclaimed on May 11, 2009.
Or take Montel Williams, the former TV talk-show host who had a brief tenure on Air America radio before it imploded. On July 21, 2009, he explained what conservatives had planned for uninsured Americans: "When they show up at the emergency room, just shoot 'em! Kill them! ... Do we have enough body bags? I don't know."
Reporters scream in protest over anyone calling Obama a socialist but they don't find anything scandalous in vicious lies like these.
Randi Rhodes aired a February 2008 radio skit where she bizarrely imagined the Mitt Romney campaign saying they would go on a shooting rampage and commit mass suicide if John McCain won the GOP nomination. She had one Republican claim: "As a true Republican, I'm prepared to poison my own children if John McCain is the nominee."
Left-wing radio hosts even blame their conservative counterparts for 9/11. I'm not kidding. Mike Malloy shouted at his opponents on Jan. 19, 2010: "Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are as complicit of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of the dumb-ass 15 who came from Saudi Arabia?"
Has any conservative ever said anything remotely similar to this?
He also claimed on April 19, 2010 that Beck and Limbaugh rejoiced over the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995: "This is what Beck and Limbaugh and the rest of these right-wing freaks want to see happen again. And again. And again. Endlessly."
Perhaps Malloy is granted an exception because he sounds clinically insane. He has claimed Rep. Michele Bachmann "would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps." He has claimed Cheney "must have feasted on a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby." He has claimed that the mild-mannered Fred Barnes "is beyond crazy. I'm sure he eats children's arms or legs for afternoon snacks."
Then consider this: Malloy was a news writer for CNN for years. Schultz was awarded a platform on MSNBC for his hatred. Those supposed guardians of civility in our liberal media are not bowing their heads in embarrassment. They are nodding their heads in agreement.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Last week, Dr. Laura Schlessinger announced on CNN that she was hanging up her headphones at the end of the year. If she could not exercise her freedom of speech, she said, she was not interested in the job.
Watchdogs on the left had pounced on a conversation she had with a black woman in which she proclaimed something that everyone with cable TV knows is true. The N-word is acceptable vernacular for black comedians on HBO, but it's not something you can ever, ever say if you're not black.
While making this point, Dr. Laura purposely said the N-word repeatedly during this proclamation, and that was all the left needed to start contacting sponsors, suggesting they shouldn't want their products associated with this viciously racist talk show. It didn't matter that even liberal editorialists in The Washington Post declared that there was nothing at all racist in what the doctor said.
The left had found their to chance to silence her, and they pounced. All they needed to do was distort the context completely, and they did so masterfully.
The hypocrites. Leftists say outrageous things on the radio routinely, things they truly mean, too, and those remarks never see the light of day on ABC, CBS and NBC. Talking about the N-word is wrong but wishing death on political enemies is OK when the rhetorical bombs are dropped on conservatives. The Media Research Center has a new report chronicling who the real radio hatemongers are.
Start with Ed Schultz, perpetually out of control on MSNBC. On June 16, 2009, Joe Scarborough asked Schultz if he felt Dick Cheney hoped Americans would die in a terrorist attack so it would benefit Republicans. "Absolutely, absolutely," said Schultz. "I think Dick Cheney is all about seeing this country go conservative on a hard-right wing, and I think he'll do anything to get it there."
On the radio Aug. 11, 2009, Schultz spewed: "Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot. I do. I think that there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out." This might be what they call projection coming from Schultz, since he begged for Cheney to die. "Lord, take him to the promised land," he proclaimed on May 11, 2009.
Or take Montel Williams, the former TV talk-show host who had a brief tenure on Air America radio before it imploded. On July 21, 2009, he explained what conservatives had planned for uninsured Americans: "When they show up at the emergency room, just shoot 'em! Kill them! ... Do we have enough body bags? I don't know."
Reporters scream in protest over anyone calling Obama a socialist but they don't find anything scandalous in vicious lies like these.
Randi Rhodes aired a February 2008 radio skit where she bizarrely imagined the Mitt Romney campaign saying they would go on a shooting rampage and commit mass suicide if John McCain won the GOP nomination. She had one Republican claim: "As a true Republican, I'm prepared to poison my own children if John McCain is the nominee."
Left-wing radio hosts even blame their conservative counterparts for 9/11. I'm not kidding. Mike Malloy shouted at his opponents on Jan. 19, 2010: "Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are as complicit of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of the dumb-ass 15 who came from Saudi Arabia?"
Has any conservative ever said anything remotely similar to this?
He also claimed on April 19, 2010 that Beck and Limbaugh rejoiced over the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995: "This is what Beck and Limbaugh and the rest of these right-wing freaks want to see happen again. And again. And again. Endlessly."
Perhaps Malloy is granted an exception because he sounds clinically insane. He has claimed Rep. Michele Bachmann "would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps." He has claimed Cheney "must have feasted on a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby." He has claimed that the mild-mannered Fred Barnes "is beyond crazy. I'm sure he eats children's arms or legs for afternoon snacks."
Then consider this: Malloy was a news writer for CNN for years. Schultz was awarded a platform on MSNBC for his hatred. Those supposed guardians of civility in our liberal media are not bowing their heads in embarrassment. They are nodding their heads in agreement.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
For the Left, Opponents Cannot Have Decent Motives: The Ground Zero Example
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
I recently wrote about leftists' hatred for conservatives as people, not merely for conservative ideas. Demonization of opponents is a fundamental characteristic of the left. It is not merely tactical; they believe people on the right are bad. (Here's a test: Ask someone on the left if active support of California Proposition 8 -- retaining the man-woman definition of marriage -- was an act of hate.)
A related defining characteristic of the left is the ascribing of nefarious motives to conservatives. For the left, a dismissal of conservatives' motives is as important as is dismissal of the conservatives as people. It is close to impossible for almost anyone on the left -- and I mean the elite left, not merely left-wing blogs -- to say "There are good people on both of sides of this issue." From Karl Marx to Frank Rich of The New York Times, this has always been the case.
In the left's worldview, conservative opponents of affirmative action cannot be driven by concern for blacks -- opposition is animated by racists; conservative opponents of illegal immigration are animated by racism and xenophobia; opposition to abortion is a function of sexism; President Bush went to war for oil and American imperialism; and conservative supporters of retaining man-woman marriage hate gays.
This is not true of elite conservatives. Leading conservative columnists, leading Republicans, etc., rarely depict liberals as motivated by evil. Conservatives can say "There are good people on both sides of the issue" because we actually believe it.
Almost any contentious issue would provide proof of the left's need to attack motives, but the proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero provides a particularly excellent example.
I have not come across a mainstream leftist description of opponents of the mosque/Islamic center being built near ground zero that has not ascribed hate-filled, intolerant, bigoted, "Islamophobic" or xenophobic motives to those who oppose the mosque. Contrast this with how mainstream opponents of the mosque describe the proponents of the mosque and you will see an immense divide between right and left in the way they talk about each other.
Here are but a few examples of how mainstream proponents of the mosque describe opponents and their motives:
Michael Kinsley, editor at large, The Atlantic: "Is there any reason to oppose the mosque that isn't bigoted, or demagogic, or unconstitutional? None that I've heard or read."
Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times Blog, Aug. 19, 2010: "The far right wing has seized on the issue as an occasion for fanning hatred against Muslims."
Tony Norman, columnist, Pittsburgh Post Gazette: "... a handful of politicians who cynically conflate the religion of American Muslims with the nihilism of the 9/11 terrorists."
Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic blog: "The pursuit of power through demagoguery."
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York (in a column titled "America Has Disgraced Itself"): "In today's GOP, even bigotry doesn't spare you from bigotry."
"GOP leaders call them (those building the mosque) terrorists because they don't share Benjamin Netanyahu's view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
"And oh yes, my fellow Jews, who are so thrilled to be locked arm in arm with the heirs of Pat Robertson and Father Coughlin against the Islamic threat."
And in a Politico column titled "Decency Lost": "Republicans are clawing over each other to demonize Muslims."
HuffingtonPost, Allison Kilkenny: "This mock piety is really a cover for Islamophobia."
"Indeed, America is extremely hostile -- not only to Islam -- but to anyone who gives off the air of being exotic, or different."
"Xenophobia is really a convenient cover for a deeper bigotry."
HuffingtonPost, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute: "Shame. Your bigoted appeals to fear and intolerance disgrace us all and put our country at risk in the world."
HuffingtonPost, Michael Hughes: "Even more hideous is the way in which these bigots try to hide their overt prejudice in the emotional guise of love and caring, purportedly because they believe we must be 'sensitive' to the families of the victims of 9/11."
New York Times editorial: "Republican ideologues, predictably ... spew more of their intolerant rhetoric.
"The country ignores such cynicism and ugliness at its own peril."
"Too many Republican leaders are determined to whip up as much false controversy and anguish as they can."
New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof: "Why do so many Republicans find strip clubs appropriate for the ground zero neighborhood but object to a house of worship?"
"(They) are cynically turning the Islamic center into a nationwide issue in hopes of votes. ... They're just like the Saudi officials who ban churches, and even confiscate Bibles, out of sensitivity to local feelings."
"Today's crusaders against the Islamic community center are promoting a similar paranoid intolerance."
Keith Olbermann, MSNBC: "(The) country has begun to run on a horrible fuel of hatred -- magnified, amplified, multiplied, by politicians and zealots, within government and without."
New York Times columnist Frank Rich: "This month's incessant and indiscriminate orgy of Muslim-bashing."
"So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right -- abetted by the useful idiocy of the Anti-Defamation League ..."
"The ginned-up rage over the 'ground zero mosque' (was motivated) by the potential short-term rewards of winning votes by pandering to fear during an election season."
It started with "a New York Post jihad."
"The Islamophobia command center, Murdoch's News Corporation..."
Why does the left attribute only nefarious motives to those who believe that the Islamic center does not belong near ground zero?
Because leftism holds these beliefs:
1. Those who hold leftist positions are, by definition, better people than their opponents.
2. Those who hold leftist positions have, by definition, pure motives; therefore, the motives of their opponents must be impure.
I conclude with this: I believe that a wiser man than the present imam would have decided to avoid precisely what he has inspired -- intense division in America -- and would have immediately retracted his decision to erect an Islamic center and mosque right by the slaughterhouse of 9/11 which happened to have been caused by his co-religionists.
But I also believe that there are good arguments and good people on both sides of this issue.
I can say that, however, for one reason.
I am not on the left.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
I recently wrote about leftists' hatred for conservatives as people, not merely for conservative ideas. Demonization of opponents is a fundamental characteristic of the left. It is not merely tactical; they believe people on the right are bad. (Here's a test: Ask someone on the left if active support of California Proposition 8 -- retaining the man-woman definition of marriage -- was an act of hate.)
A related defining characteristic of the left is the ascribing of nefarious motives to conservatives. For the left, a dismissal of conservatives' motives is as important as is dismissal of the conservatives as people. It is close to impossible for almost anyone on the left -- and I mean the elite left, not merely left-wing blogs -- to say "There are good people on both of sides of this issue." From Karl Marx to Frank Rich of The New York Times, this has always been the case.
In the left's worldview, conservative opponents of affirmative action cannot be driven by concern for blacks -- opposition is animated by racists; conservative opponents of illegal immigration are animated by racism and xenophobia; opposition to abortion is a function of sexism; President Bush went to war for oil and American imperialism; and conservative supporters of retaining man-woman marriage hate gays.
This is not true of elite conservatives. Leading conservative columnists, leading Republicans, etc., rarely depict liberals as motivated by evil. Conservatives can say "There are good people on both sides of the issue" because we actually believe it.
Almost any contentious issue would provide proof of the left's need to attack motives, but the proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero provides a particularly excellent example.
I have not come across a mainstream leftist description of opponents of the mosque/Islamic center being built near ground zero that has not ascribed hate-filled, intolerant, bigoted, "Islamophobic" or xenophobic motives to those who oppose the mosque. Contrast this with how mainstream opponents of the mosque describe the proponents of the mosque and you will see an immense divide between right and left in the way they talk about each other.
Here are but a few examples of how mainstream proponents of the mosque describe opponents and their motives:
Michael Kinsley, editor at large, The Atlantic: "Is there any reason to oppose the mosque that isn't bigoted, or demagogic, or unconstitutional? None that I've heard or read."
Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times Blog, Aug. 19, 2010: "The far right wing has seized on the issue as an occasion for fanning hatred against Muslims."
Tony Norman, columnist, Pittsburgh Post Gazette: "... a handful of politicians who cynically conflate the religion of American Muslims with the nihilism of the 9/11 terrorists."
Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic blog: "The pursuit of power through demagoguery."
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York (in a column titled "America Has Disgraced Itself"): "In today's GOP, even bigotry doesn't spare you from bigotry."
"GOP leaders call them (those building the mosque) terrorists because they don't share Benjamin Netanyahu's view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
"And oh yes, my fellow Jews, who are so thrilled to be locked arm in arm with the heirs of Pat Robertson and Father Coughlin against the Islamic threat."
And in a Politico column titled "Decency Lost": "Republicans are clawing over each other to demonize Muslims."
HuffingtonPost, Allison Kilkenny: "This mock piety is really a cover for Islamophobia."
"Indeed, America is extremely hostile -- not only to Islam -- but to anyone who gives off the air of being exotic, or different."
"Xenophobia is really a convenient cover for a deeper bigotry."
HuffingtonPost, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute: "Shame. Your bigoted appeals to fear and intolerance disgrace us all and put our country at risk in the world."
HuffingtonPost, Michael Hughes: "Even more hideous is the way in which these bigots try to hide their overt prejudice in the emotional guise of love and caring, purportedly because they believe we must be 'sensitive' to the families of the victims of 9/11."
New York Times editorial: "Republican ideologues, predictably ... spew more of their intolerant rhetoric.
"The country ignores such cynicism and ugliness at its own peril."
"Too many Republican leaders are determined to whip up as much false controversy and anguish as they can."
New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof: "Why do so many Republicans find strip clubs appropriate for the ground zero neighborhood but object to a house of worship?"
"(They) are cynically turning the Islamic center into a nationwide issue in hopes of votes. ... They're just like the Saudi officials who ban churches, and even confiscate Bibles, out of sensitivity to local feelings."
"Today's crusaders against the Islamic community center are promoting a similar paranoid intolerance."
Keith Olbermann, MSNBC: "(The) country has begun to run on a horrible fuel of hatred -- magnified, amplified, multiplied, by politicians and zealots, within government and without."
New York Times columnist Frank Rich: "This month's incessant and indiscriminate orgy of Muslim-bashing."
"So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right -- abetted by the useful idiocy of the Anti-Defamation League ..."
"The ginned-up rage over the 'ground zero mosque' (was motivated) by the potential short-term rewards of winning votes by pandering to fear during an election season."
It started with "a New York Post jihad."
"The Islamophobia command center, Murdoch's News Corporation..."
Why does the left attribute only nefarious motives to those who believe that the Islamic center does not belong near ground zero?
Because leftism holds these beliefs:
1. Those who hold leftist positions are, by definition, better people than their opponents.
2. Those who hold leftist positions have, by definition, pure motives; therefore, the motives of their opponents must be impure.
I conclude with this: I believe that a wiser man than the present imam would have decided to avoid precisely what he has inspired -- intense division in America -- and would have immediately retracted his decision to erect an Islamic center and mosque right by the slaughterhouse of 9/11 which happened to have been caused by his co-religionists.
But I also believe that there are good arguments and good people on both sides of this issue.
I can say that, however, for one reason.
I am not on the left.
GOP vs. Dems: Who’s Best for the Economy?
Michael Medved
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The choice for voters in this year's fierce fight for congressional control will come down to a single question: Which political party -- Democrats or Republicans -- will do a better job coping with crippling unemployment and a devastating deficit?
To Democrats, the answer is obvious. Just look at the recent record. Bill Clinton took the White House at a time of financial turmoil and during the course of his eight years in office steered the nation to sharply lower unemployment while turning deep deficits into budget surpluses.
Liberals believe the good times ended abruptly with George W. Bush, who turned the nation from the grandeur of its Clintonian golden age to the fiscal wreckage that characterized his two terms of conservative misrule.
As President Barack Obama plaintively inquires on the campaign trail, "Why would anyone want to go back to the economic policies that got us into this mess in the first place?"
Though endlessly regurgitated by mass media, this melodramatic (and highly partisan) storyline amounts to a misleading simplification of the historical record.
Indeed, looking at the data, it would be more accurate to talk about the "Gingrich boom" and the "Pelosi collapse," than to rant so endlessly about the "Clinton boom" and the "Bush collapse."
Official U.S. government figures show that the two presidents each experienced decisive turning points that shifted the fiscal fate of the nation when voters in midterm elections rejected the party in power.
In Clinton's case, the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 saved his floundering presidency and brought about his reputation for savvy financial management. For George W. Bush, however, the 2006 triumph of Pelosi's Democrats (based largely on Iraq war disillusionment) led straight to disaster, turning a president with a solid economic record into a symbol of catastrophic collapse.
During the first two years of Clinton's term of office, while Democrats enjoyed overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, the average unemployment was rate 6.5 percent -- even worse than the 6.3 percent four-year average of his predecessor, George H.W. Bush, who'd been voted out of office because of economic hard times. Following the 1994 GOP congressional takeover (for the first time in 40 years), business conditions dramatically improved, with the unemployment rate declining to an average of 4.77 percent (during the six years the Republicans and Clinton exercised divided rule).
The deficit picture also brightened after tight-fisted Newt Gingrich and his allies captured 53 Democratic House seats and took the initiative on government spending. During two years of all-Democratic rule (1993-94), the federal deficit averaged 3.35 percent of the gross domestic product, but the subsequent six years (under GOP congressional leadership) brought deficits averaging less than zero -- with surpluses from 1998 through 2001.
Some commentators suggest that these figures show that Washington works best when different parties control White House and Congress, but the 2006 midterm victory for Democrats during George W. Bush's presidency spelled economic calamity.
In W's first six years, with his GOP allies dominating Capitol Hill, Bush deficits averaged 1.91 percent of the GDP -- well below the 60-year postwar average. After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., brought their free- spending ways to House and Senate, deficits soared to a dangerous 4.74 percent over the next two years -- and continued to skyrocket to a projected (and appalling) 10.27 percent for the first two years of Obama.
The unemployment rate went from an average of 5.29 percent during Bush's first six years (with Republican majorities) to 6.57 percent after the Dems came to power -- and an excruciating 9.4 percent (average) during the first 18 months of Obama.
All this highlights the huge stakes in the upcoming congressional elections.
A change of power on Capitol Hill can influence the economic direction of the nation at least as decisively as a shift of control in the White House. After all, it's the Congress, not the president, that makes final decisions on spending and taxes.
In terms of current partisan battles, neither side counts as blameless or masterful. Within 10 years of winning congressional majorities, the Republicans eventually lost sight of the party's traditional values of fiscal responsibility and spending restraint, contributing to their electoral fiasco in 2006. But the resurgent Democrats quickly outdid their GOP predecessors in terms of reckless expenditures while watching unemployment shoot up dramatically.
In other words, those who insist that continued Democratic congressional control will improve prospects for job creation and deficit reduction cling to a naive misinterpretation of the past. They ought to examine the actual record of the past two decades and begin to reconsider their assumptions.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The choice for voters in this year's fierce fight for congressional control will come down to a single question: Which political party -- Democrats or Republicans -- will do a better job coping with crippling unemployment and a devastating deficit?
To Democrats, the answer is obvious. Just look at the recent record. Bill Clinton took the White House at a time of financial turmoil and during the course of his eight years in office steered the nation to sharply lower unemployment while turning deep deficits into budget surpluses.
Liberals believe the good times ended abruptly with George W. Bush, who turned the nation from the grandeur of its Clintonian golden age to the fiscal wreckage that characterized his two terms of conservative misrule.
As President Barack Obama plaintively inquires on the campaign trail, "Why would anyone want to go back to the economic policies that got us into this mess in the first place?"
Though endlessly regurgitated by mass media, this melodramatic (and highly partisan) storyline amounts to a misleading simplification of the historical record.
Indeed, looking at the data, it would be more accurate to talk about the "Gingrich boom" and the "Pelosi collapse," than to rant so endlessly about the "Clinton boom" and the "Bush collapse."
Official U.S. government figures show that the two presidents each experienced decisive turning points that shifted the fiscal fate of the nation when voters in midterm elections rejected the party in power.
In Clinton's case, the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 saved his floundering presidency and brought about his reputation for savvy financial management. For George W. Bush, however, the 2006 triumph of Pelosi's Democrats (based largely on Iraq war disillusionment) led straight to disaster, turning a president with a solid economic record into a symbol of catastrophic collapse.
During the first two years of Clinton's term of office, while Democrats enjoyed overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, the average unemployment was rate 6.5 percent -- even worse than the 6.3 percent four-year average of his predecessor, George H.W. Bush, who'd been voted out of office because of economic hard times. Following the 1994 GOP congressional takeover (for the first time in 40 years), business conditions dramatically improved, with the unemployment rate declining to an average of 4.77 percent (during the six years the Republicans and Clinton exercised divided rule).
The deficit picture also brightened after tight-fisted Newt Gingrich and his allies captured 53 Democratic House seats and took the initiative on government spending. During two years of all-Democratic rule (1993-94), the federal deficit averaged 3.35 percent of the gross domestic product, but the subsequent six years (under GOP congressional leadership) brought deficits averaging less than zero -- with surpluses from 1998 through 2001.
Some commentators suggest that these figures show that Washington works best when different parties control White House and Congress, but the 2006 midterm victory for Democrats during George W. Bush's presidency spelled economic calamity.
In W's first six years, with his GOP allies dominating Capitol Hill, Bush deficits averaged 1.91 percent of the GDP -- well below the 60-year postwar average. After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., brought their free- spending ways to House and Senate, deficits soared to a dangerous 4.74 percent over the next two years -- and continued to skyrocket to a projected (and appalling) 10.27 percent for the first two years of Obama.
The unemployment rate went from an average of 5.29 percent during Bush's first six years (with Republican majorities) to 6.57 percent after the Dems came to power -- and an excruciating 9.4 percent (average) during the first 18 months of Obama.
All this highlights the huge stakes in the upcoming congressional elections.
A change of power on Capitol Hill can influence the economic direction of the nation at least as decisively as a shift of control in the White House. After all, it's the Congress, not the president, that makes final decisions on spending and taxes.
In terms of current partisan battles, neither side counts as blameless or masterful. Within 10 years of winning congressional majorities, the Republicans eventually lost sight of the party's traditional values of fiscal responsibility and spending restraint, contributing to their electoral fiasco in 2006. But the resurgent Democrats quickly outdid their GOP predecessors in terms of reckless expenditures while watching unemployment shoot up dramatically.
In other words, those who insist that continued Democratic congressional control will improve prospects for job creation and deficit reduction cling to a naive misinterpretation of the past. They ought to examine the actual record of the past two decades and begin to reconsider their assumptions.
Medical Care Facts and Fables
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
There is so much political spin, and so many numbers games being played, when it comes to medical care, that we have to go back to square one and the simplest common sense, in order to get some rational idea of what government-run medical care means. In particular, we need to examine the claim that the government can "bring down the cost of medical care."
The most basic fact is that it is cheaper to remain sick than to get medical treatment. What is cheapest of all is to die instead of getting life-saving medications and treatment, which can be very expensive.
Despite these facts, most of us tend to take a somewhat more parochial view of the situation when it is we ourselves who are sick or who face a potentially fatal illness. But what if that decision is taken out of your hands under ObamaCare and is being made for you by a bureaucrat in Washington?
We won't know what that leads to until the time comes. As Nancy Pelosi said, we will find out what is in the bill after it has passed. But even now, after ObamaCare has been passed, not many people want to read its 2,400 pages. Even if you did, you would still not know what it would be like in practice, after more than 150 boards and commissions issue their specific regulations.
Fortunately-- in fact, very fortunately-- you don't have to slog through 2,400 pages of legalistic jargon or turn to a fortune teller to divine the future. A new book, "The Truth About ObamaCare" by Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute lays out the facts in the plainest English.
While she can't tell you the future, she can tell you enough about government-run medical systems in other countries that it will not take a rocket scientist to figure out what is in store for us if ObamaCare doesn't get repealed before it takes full effect in 2014. It is not a pretty picture.
We hear a lot about how wonderful it is that the Canadians or the British or the Swedes get free medical treatment because the government runs the system. But we don't hear much about the quality of that medical care.
We don't hear about more than 4,000 expectant mothers who gave birth inside a hospital, but not in the maternity ward, in Britain in just one year. They had their babies in hallways, bathrooms and even elevators.
British newspapers have for years carried stories about the neglect of patients under the National Health Service, of which this is just one. When nurses don't get around to taking a pregnant woman to the maternity ward in time, the baby doesn't wait.
But the American media don't tell you about such things when they are gushing over the wonders of "universal health care" that will "bring down the cost of medical care."
Instead, the media spin is that various countries with government-run medical systems have life expectancies that are as long as ours, or longer. That is very clever as media spin, if you don't bother to stop and think about it.
Author Sally Pipes did bother to stop and think about it in her book, "The Truth About ObamaCare." She points out that medical care is just one of the factors in life expectancy.
She cites a study by Professors Ohsfeldt and Schneider at the University of Iowa, which shows that, if you leave out people who are victims of homicide or who die in automobile accidents, Americans live longer than people in any other Western country.
Doctors do not prevent homicides or car crashes. In the things that doctors can affect, such as the survival rates of cancer patients, the United States leads the world.
Americans get the latest pharmaceutical drugs, sometimes years before those drugs are available to people in Britain or in other countries where the government runs the medical system. Why? Because the latest drugs cost more and it is cheaper to let people die.
The media have often said that we have higher infant mortality rates than other countries with government medical care systems. But we count every baby that dies and other countries do not. If the media don't tell you that, so much the better for ObamaCare.
But is life and death something to play spin games about?
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
There is so much political spin, and so many numbers games being played, when it comes to medical care, that we have to go back to square one and the simplest common sense, in order to get some rational idea of what government-run medical care means. In particular, we need to examine the claim that the government can "bring down the cost of medical care."
The most basic fact is that it is cheaper to remain sick than to get medical treatment. What is cheapest of all is to die instead of getting life-saving medications and treatment, which can be very expensive.
Despite these facts, most of us tend to take a somewhat more parochial view of the situation when it is we ourselves who are sick or who face a potentially fatal illness. But what if that decision is taken out of your hands under ObamaCare and is being made for you by a bureaucrat in Washington?
We won't know what that leads to until the time comes. As Nancy Pelosi said, we will find out what is in the bill after it has passed. But even now, after ObamaCare has been passed, not many people want to read its 2,400 pages. Even if you did, you would still not know what it would be like in practice, after more than 150 boards and commissions issue their specific regulations.
Fortunately-- in fact, very fortunately-- you don't have to slog through 2,400 pages of legalistic jargon or turn to a fortune teller to divine the future. A new book, "The Truth About ObamaCare" by Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute lays out the facts in the plainest English.
While she can't tell you the future, she can tell you enough about government-run medical systems in other countries that it will not take a rocket scientist to figure out what is in store for us if ObamaCare doesn't get repealed before it takes full effect in 2014. It is not a pretty picture.
We hear a lot about how wonderful it is that the Canadians or the British or the Swedes get free medical treatment because the government runs the system. But we don't hear much about the quality of that medical care.
We don't hear about more than 4,000 expectant mothers who gave birth inside a hospital, but not in the maternity ward, in Britain in just one year. They had their babies in hallways, bathrooms and even elevators.
British newspapers have for years carried stories about the neglect of patients under the National Health Service, of which this is just one. When nurses don't get around to taking a pregnant woman to the maternity ward in time, the baby doesn't wait.
But the American media don't tell you about such things when they are gushing over the wonders of "universal health care" that will "bring down the cost of medical care."
Instead, the media spin is that various countries with government-run medical systems have life expectancies that are as long as ours, or longer. That is very clever as media spin, if you don't bother to stop and think about it.
Author Sally Pipes did bother to stop and think about it in her book, "The Truth About ObamaCare." She points out that medical care is just one of the factors in life expectancy.
She cites a study by Professors Ohsfeldt and Schneider at the University of Iowa, which shows that, if you leave out people who are victims of homicide or who die in automobile accidents, Americans live longer than people in any other Western country.
Doctors do not prevent homicides or car crashes. In the things that doctors can affect, such as the survival rates of cancer patients, the United States leads the world.
Americans get the latest pharmaceutical drugs, sometimes years before those drugs are available to people in Britain or in other countries where the government runs the medical system. Why? Because the latest drugs cost more and it is cheaper to let people die.
The media have often said that we have higher infant mortality rates than other countries with government medical care systems. But we count every baby that dies and other countries do not. If the media don't tell you that, so much the better for ObamaCare.
But is life and death something to play spin games about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)