I've added a new link to the Blog List. FreeThemm.com is a sight dedicated to Marzieh Amirizadeh Esmaeilabad, and Miss Maryam Rustampoor, two women imprisoned in Iran without charge since March 5, 2009. Like too many others, they currently languish in Iran's notorious Evin Prison where they are reportedly in poor health.
The reasons for their imprisonment is difficult to ascertain. The government offers some vague label of "anti-government activists," while those demanding their release assert it is because both women are Christian.
Whatever the truth (the government of Iran does actively discriminate and intimidate non-Muslims), these two women are like many other prisoners in Iran, held with neither formal charge nor trial.
Visit this sight, do research on your own, but don't simply ignore Miss Rustampoor and Miss Esmaeilabad.
My thanks and h/t to Quite Rightly at Bread Upon the Waters for keeping up with this story, and humanizing it, for many weeks now.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Recommended Essay on Free Speech
Check out Derek Hunter's "You Don't Have a Constitutional Right to Free Speech" from BigGovernment.com.
Hunter discusses how the Constitution does not grant the right to free speech, but protects the right from abridgement. So really, we should say we have the Constitutionally protected right of free speech. It's a subtle difference in grammar, but creates a huge difference within legal and political theory. The legal rights of the First Amendment are not granted, but protected by the Constitution.
Give it a read. It's worth your time.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Obama's Health Care Address to Congress Part 1: Lies
Obama rolled out the big guns to save the flailing health care reforms. Piling on the trappings of office and expecting Washington decorum to buoy his unpopular health care reforms, Obama strode out chin high to address the Joint Sessions of Congress. While many in the media buzzed with anticipation at this chance to revel in Obama's oratory skills-- and indeed their tween-like superlatives have been giddily shouted with a Miley-Cyrus-fan-like devotion-- the actual content of Obama's speech (transcript here) was thin on fact, thick on unrealistic promises, alarmist, intentionally distorted and ultimately disturbing.
After amazingly hailing the stimulus bill a success (the unemployment rate topped at 9.7%-- thus far-- higher than White House projections if the stimulus was not passed and far in excess of the promised 8% should the stimulus bill be passed), Obama then disingeniously paints the health care issue as though it were a single puzzle, a Gordian Knot, that no one has ever solved. And now, like Alexander the Great, he steps up to cleave these health problems in two and forever fix our health care issues.
His words: "I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. (Applause.) It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session. (Applause.)
"Our collective failure to meet this challenge -- year after year, decade after decade -- has led us to the breaking point [emphasis mine]."
Notice the way in which he talks about historic health care reform. "This cause..." "This challenge..." And my personal favorite "Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform..." It's as if health care has been a single issue for the past century, as though the health care issues that Theodore Roosevelt faced in 1901 were, ridiculously, the same as today. "[Y]ear after year, decade after decade--" of collective failure "-- has led us to the breaking point."
While painting a picture of historic urgency, Obama has reduced a century of health care issues into being a single problem, a singular challenge that has never been resolved. It has been a "collective failure."
Well that is nonsense, of course. As common sense will tell you, great strides have been made across the board in health care over the last century. X-rays, MRIs, CT scans, fiber optic cameras and other diagnostic techniques and devices have made the dreaded phrase "exploratory surgery" an almost foreign term. The average life expectancy of Americans has steadily increased in the last century (white male in 1901: 48.23 and in 2004 75.7), the survival rates for cancer patients has steadily increased, the death rate and instances of cardiovascular disease has steadily decreased. Dreaded diseases such as polio, typhoid fever, small pox, typhus, and numerous other killers have been brought to heel.
The likelihood of becoming sick or dying from tainted food (a dire problem before and during the 19th and early 20th Centuries) has likewise vastly decreased. As Ronald Bailey points out, "In 1900, six years before Upton Sinclair wrote his great muckraking book, The Jungle, about the filthy conditions in the meatpacking industry, the death rate from gastritis, duodentitis, enteritis, and colitis was 142.7 people per 100,000. It is likely that most people experienced bouts of intestinal distress several times a year. Today, accepting CDC calculations of 5000 deaths per year implies a hundred-fold reduction, to just 1.4 deaths per 100,000 people."
A "collective failure" indeed... The reforms that Theodore Roosevelt called for "nearly a century" ago have nothing to do with the health care debate of today. The many issues Roosevelt was concerned with have been largely solved for all Americans. To draw a direct historical line from HR3200 to Theodore Roosevelt is manipulative, disingenuous, and foolish.
Obama illustrates the need for reform and the evils of private health insurers with this tale of woe. "One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."
That indeed does sound horrible. Unfortunately for Obama, it isn't true.
From Sweetness and Light (h/t Pundit & Pundette): "This is the sad story of Mr. Otto Raddatz, a case that Mr. Obama has cited several times before, including in his August 16th editorial in the New York Times.
"For the record, however, the case is not exactly the way Mr. Obama has characterized it, at least according to the sworn testimony of Mr. Raddatz’s sister.
"From Ms. Raddatz’s opening statement, from pages 58-59 of the transcript (a pdf file) of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation Committee hearings on 'The Termination Of Individual Health Policies By Insurance Companies,' Tuesday, June 16, 2009:
"'Otto began more chemotherapy for purposes of preparing him for a stem cell transplant. In the midst of his chemo treatments, Otto received a phone call and letter from Fortis Insurance Company stating his insurance was canceled. It was rescinded all the way back to the effective date of August 7, 2004.'
"'This meant none of his cancer treatments would be covered. Most importantly, he would not be able to receive the stem cell transplant need [sic] to save his life. My brother only had a very small window of time in which to have the stem cell transplant. He needed to be scheduled within the next 3 to 4 weeks.'
"'My brother was told he was canceled during what they called a "routine review" during which they claimed to discover a "material failure to disclose". Apparently in 2000 his doctor had done a CT scan which showed an aneurysm and gall stones. My brother was never told of either one of these conditions nor was he ever treated for them and he never reported any symptoms for them either.'
"'After months of preparation, the stem cell transplant could not be scheduled. My brother’s hope for being a cancer survivor were dashed. His prognosis was only a matter of months without the procedure.'
"Mr. Radditz was faced with having to pay for the stem cell transplant himself in order to save his life.
"However, Mr. Raddatz’s lawyer sister contacted the Illinois Attorney General’s Office. They investigated and found that the doctor who did the CT scans could not remember whether he had ever told Mr. Raddatz about his findings.
"Consequently, the insurance company overturned their original decision to rescind her brother’s coverage, and he was reinstated in the words of his sister, "without [any] lapse."
Again, from Ms. Raddatz’s sworn testimony:
"'After two appeals by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, Fortis Insurance Company finally overturned their original decision to rescind my brother’s coverage and he was reinstated without lapse. This is after weeks of constant phone calls between myself and the Attorney General’s Office and we were literally scrambling hour by hour to get this accomplished so that my brother wouldn’t lose his 3- to 4-week window of opportunity that he had prepared for and lose his opportunity to have the procedure.'
"In other words, Mr. Raddatz’s did receive the stem cell transplant without delay.
"Indeed, Ms. Raddatz does not seem to claim anywhere in her testimony that the insurance company’s actions shortened her brother’s life. (Though she does accuse them of having been cruel and unethical.)"
Later Ms. Radditz says "He did indeed receive the stem cell transplant. It was extremely successful. It extended his life approximately 3-1/2 years. He did pass away January 6, 2009, and he was about to have a second stem cell transplant. Unfortunately, due to certain situations, his donor became ill at the last minute and so he did pass away on January 6. But again, it extended his life nearly 3-1/2 years and at his age, each day meant everything to him…"
This is a sad event, needlessly stressful for those involved, and an example of an unsympathetic bureaucracy's bungling. But the event is not how Obama described it. Obama lied. While Mr. Raddatz did pass away --3 1/2 years after the incident-- his treatment was not delayed and he did not die because of his insurer's actions. To state otherwise, as Obama did, is a deliberate misrepresentation (not a distortion nor oversimplification, but a lie) to fit Obama's narrative.
As Sweetness and Light notes "Meanwhile, in this very same speech Mr. Obama accused others of misrepresenting the facts."
Notable from Mr. Raddatz's story is:
1) The fact that Mr. Raddatz had an outside legal force to appeal to (the Attorney General's Office) which HR3200 severely limits
2) That current health proposals create dozens more governmental bureaucracies to administer health benefits (are government bureaucracies known to be more responsive and humane?)
Obama goes on to denounce any opposition as some of the worst Washington has to offer. "During that time, we've seen Washington at its best and at its worst."
[...]
"But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned."
Blaming opposition to these reforms merely on partisanship is a bit of a laugh. The fact is the Democrats control both the House and Senate, and the Republicans couldn't stop these proposals if they were completely united. It is dissension in the ranks of the Democrats that holds back the bill. A fair amount of this dissension is caused at the grassroots level by angry local town halls, unfavorable polls, and the widespread American disbelief that federal bureaucracies can administer health care with such efficiency that we save money. It is the belief that American citizens do not want this sort of government health care that holds back Democrat politicians from voting along party lines.
Obama once again reiterates that bureaucrats will not be involved with important decisions about your health. "And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need."
This is simply untrue. As I have posted before, HR3200 sets up a Health Benefits Advisory Committee (HBAC). The HBAC would be stacked with presidential appointments. And what is the function of the HBAC? According to the language of the bill itself (pg. 32) "The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services [...] benefit standards [...], and periodic updates to such standards." In other words, they will determine what is covered and not covered by a government approved health plan. Okay, granted they will "recommend" benefit standards to the Secretary of Health and Human Service, but what are the odds that Kathleen Sebelius won't take a recommendation from a board made up almost exclusively of Obama appointees? The "care that you need" is determined by them-- not by you and not by your doctor.
The Senate HELP Committee bill has a similar provision, the establishment of the Medical Advisory Council (MAC). MAC would essentially perform the same function as the HR 3200's HBAC, namely determine benefit standards.
Once again, can we not see the unavoidable lobbying for diseases to be covered? Health benefits will become political currency, various groups with some vested interest will be lobbying the HBAC, or MAC, or whatever alphabet soup council the plan will come up with for coverage and money. In other words, not only will bureaucrats be in the way of you and the care you need, but so will lobbyists, the media (depending on what disease they wish to illuminate), and special interest groups. This has happened in Britain under the yoke of its NHS and National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) as the following article, merely one of many, illustrates.
Britain's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)-- great acronym, huh?-- decided to not offer some drugs to NHS kidney cancer patients. "It concluded that the drugs - bevacizumab, sorafenib, sunitinib and temsirolimus - did not offer value for money [bang for the buck in American bailout jargon]." This prompted some of the "UK's top cancer consultants to warn that NHS drug 'rationing' is forcing patients to remortgage their homes to pay for treatment."
NICE's response? "Andrew Dillon, the NICE chief executive, and Sir Michael Rawlins, NICE's chairman, told the Sunday Times the NHS did not have unlimited funds to provide all available treatments.
"'There is a finite pot of money for the NHS, which is determined annually by parliament,' they said."'If one group of patients is provided with cost-ineffective care, other groups - lacking powerful lobbyists - will be denied cost-effective care for miserable conditions like schizophrenia, Crohn's disease or cystic fibrosis.'"
Health care is degraded into a matter of lobbying the government for funds. This is what the Left and Obama want for America?
NICE also has banned life prolonging cancer drugs due to cost. "Thousands of patients with terminal cancer were dealt a blow last night after a decision was made to deny them life prolonging drugs."The Government's rationing body said two drugs for advanced breast cancer and a rare form of stomach cancer were too expensive for the NHS [National Health Services]."
The number of lies, distortions and half-truths that Obama has packed into this speech is really quite amazing. My posting hasn't even covered half of them. But perhaps some of these fallacies come from the most essential lie that he has told: namely that there is "a plan." The only "plan" that has been voted on in Congress is HR 3200, a badly written 1018 page monstrosity, which doesn't even come close to fulfilling any of Obama's stated requirements-- and will incur massive deficits in the process of failing. As far as I know, the copious number of Senate bills (at least four) are still in committee.
So while Obama can promise all of us lower rates, higher quality of care, universal coverage, and that it will all be paid for by trimming away waste and taxing the wealthy, he has no way to show how this will be accomplished. THERE IS NO PLAN like the one he's described. There's nothing even close.
This speech seems more like an exercise in political philosophy than a serious proposal; a rebuttal to middle-right concerns that is founded more in wishes and unrealistic expectations of government efficiency than nuts-and-bolts reality. He appears to be like a poli-sci professor assigning an essay topic-- not a president with a real and horrifically important proposal.
More coming in Part 2: Demanding Conformity for "Social Justice"
After amazingly hailing the stimulus bill a success (the unemployment rate topped at 9.7%-- thus far-- higher than White House projections if the stimulus was not passed and far in excess of the promised 8% should the stimulus bill be passed), Obama then disingeniously paints the health care issue as though it were a single puzzle, a Gordian Knot, that no one has ever solved. And now, like Alexander the Great, he steps up to cleave these health problems in two and forever fix our health care issues.
His words: "I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. (Applause.) It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session. (Applause.)
"Our collective failure to meet this challenge -- year after year, decade after decade -- has led us to the breaking point [emphasis mine]."
Notice the way in which he talks about historic health care reform. "This cause..." "This challenge..." And my personal favorite "Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform..." It's as if health care has been a single issue for the past century, as though the health care issues that Theodore Roosevelt faced in 1901 were, ridiculously, the same as today. "[Y]ear after year, decade after decade--" of collective failure "-- has led us to the breaking point."
While painting a picture of historic urgency, Obama has reduced a century of health care issues into being a single problem, a singular challenge that has never been resolved. It has been a "collective failure."
Well that is nonsense, of course. As common sense will tell you, great strides have been made across the board in health care over the last century. X-rays, MRIs, CT scans, fiber optic cameras and other diagnostic techniques and devices have made the dreaded phrase "exploratory surgery" an almost foreign term. The average life expectancy of Americans has steadily increased in the last century (white male in 1901: 48.23 and in 2004 75.7), the survival rates for cancer patients has steadily increased, the death rate and instances of cardiovascular disease has steadily decreased. Dreaded diseases such as polio, typhoid fever, small pox, typhus, and numerous other killers have been brought to heel.
The likelihood of becoming sick or dying from tainted food (a dire problem before and during the 19th and early 20th Centuries) has likewise vastly decreased. As Ronald Bailey points out, "In 1900, six years before Upton Sinclair wrote his great muckraking book, The Jungle, about the filthy conditions in the meatpacking industry, the death rate from gastritis, duodentitis, enteritis, and colitis was 142.7 people per 100,000. It is likely that most people experienced bouts of intestinal distress several times a year. Today, accepting CDC calculations of 5000 deaths per year implies a hundred-fold reduction, to just 1.4 deaths per 100,000 people."
A "collective failure" indeed... The reforms that Theodore Roosevelt called for "nearly a century" ago have nothing to do with the health care debate of today. The many issues Roosevelt was concerned with have been largely solved for all Americans. To draw a direct historical line from HR3200 to Theodore Roosevelt is manipulative, disingenuous, and foolish.
Obama illustrates the need for reform and the evils of private health insurers with this tale of woe. "One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."
That indeed does sound horrible. Unfortunately for Obama, it isn't true.
From Sweetness and Light (h/t Pundit & Pundette): "This is the sad story of Mr. Otto Raddatz, a case that Mr. Obama has cited several times before, including in his August 16th editorial in the New York Times.
"For the record, however, the case is not exactly the way Mr. Obama has characterized it, at least according to the sworn testimony of Mr. Raddatz’s sister.
"From Ms. Raddatz’s opening statement, from pages 58-59 of the transcript (a pdf file) of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation Committee hearings on 'The Termination Of Individual Health Policies By Insurance Companies,' Tuesday, June 16, 2009:
"'Otto began more chemotherapy for purposes of preparing him for a stem cell transplant. In the midst of his chemo treatments, Otto received a phone call and letter from Fortis Insurance Company stating his insurance was canceled. It was rescinded all the way back to the effective date of August 7, 2004.'
"'This meant none of his cancer treatments would be covered. Most importantly, he would not be able to receive the stem cell transplant need [sic] to save his life. My brother only had a very small window of time in which to have the stem cell transplant. He needed to be scheduled within the next 3 to 4 weeks.'
"'My brother was told he was canceled during what they called a "routine review" during which they claimed to discover a "material failure to disclose". Apparently in 2000 his doctor had done a CT scan which showed an aneurysm and gall stones. My brother was never told of either one of these conditions nor was he ever treated for them and he never reported any symptoms for them either.'
"'After months of preparation, the stem cell transplant could not be scheduled. My brother’s hope for being a cancer survivor were dashed. His prognosis was only a matter of months without the procedure.'
"Mr. Radditz was faced with having to pay for the stem cell transplant himself in order to save his life.
"However, Mr. Raddatz’s lawyer sister contacted the Illinois Attorney General’s Office. They investigated and found that the doctor who did the CT scans could not remember whether he had ever told Mr. Raddatz about his findings.
"Consequently, the insurance company overturned their original decision to rescind her brother’s coverage, and he was reinstated in the words of his sister, "without [any] lapse."
Again, from Ms. Raddatz’s sworn testimony:
"'After two appeals by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, Fortis Insurance Company finally overturned their original decision to rescind my brother’s coverage and he was reinstated without lapse. This is after weeks of constant phone calls between myself and the Attorney General’s Office and we were literally scrambling hour by hour to get this accomplished so that my brother wouldn’t lose his 3- to 4-week window of opportunity that he had prepared for and lose his opportunity to have the procedure.'
"In other words, Mr. Raddatz’s did receive the stem cell transplant without delay.
"Indeed, Ms. Raddatz does not seem to claim anywhere in her testimony that the insurance company’s actions shortened her brother’s life. (Though she does accuse them of having been cruel and unethical.)"
Later Ms. Radditz says "He did indeed receive the stem cell transplant. It was extremely successful. It extended his life approximately 3-1/2 years. He did pass away January 6, 2009, and he was about to have a second stem cell transplant. Unfortunately, due to certain situations, his donor became ill at the last minute and so he did pass away on January 6. But again, it extended his life nearly 3-1/2 years and at his age, each day meant everything to him…"
This is a sad event, needlessly stressful for those involved, and an example of an unsympathetic bureaucracy's bungling. But the event is not how Obama described it. Obama lied. While Mr. Raddatz did pass away --3 1/2 years after the incident-- his treatment was not delayed and he did not die because of his insurer's actions. To state otherwise, as Obama did, is a deliberate misrepresentation (not a distortion nor oversimplification, but a lie) to fit Obama's narrative.
As Sweetness and Light notes "Meanwhile, in this very same speech Mr. Obama accused others of misrepresenting the facts."
Notable from Mr. Raddatz's story is:
1) The fact that Mr. Raddatz had an outside legal force to appeal to (the Attorney General's Office) which HR3200 severely limits
2) That current health proposals create dozens more governmental bureaucracies to administer health benefits (are government bureaucracies known to be more responsive and humane?)
Obama goes on to denounce any opposition as some of the worst Washington has to offer. "During that time, we've seen Washington at its best and at its worst."
[...]
"But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned."
Blaming opposition to these reforms merely on partisanship is a bit of a laugh. The fact is the Democrats control both the House and Senate, and the Republicans couldn't stop these proposals if they were completely united. It is dissension in the ranks of the Democrats that holds back the bill. A fair amount of this dissension is caused at the grassroots level by angry local town halls, unfavorable polls, and the widespread American disbelief that federal bureaucracies can administer health care with such efficiency that we save money. It is the belief that American citizens do not want this sort of government health care that holds back Democrat politicians from voting along party lines.
Obama once again reiterates that bureaucrats will not be involved with important decisions about your health. "And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need."
This is simply untrue. As I have posted before, HR3200 sets up a Health Benefits Advisory Committee (HBAC). The HBAC would be stacked with presidential appointments. And what is the function of the HBAC? According to the language of the bill itself (pg. 32) "The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services [...] benefit standards [...], and periodic updates to such standards." In other words, they will determine what is covered and not covered by a government approved health plan. Okay, granted they will "recommend" benefit standards to the Secretary of Health and Human Service, but what are the odds that Kathleen Sebelius won't take a recommendation from a board made up almost exclusively of Obama appointees? The "care that you need" is determined by them-- not by you and not by your doctor.
The Senate HELP Committee bill has a similar provision, the establishment of the Medical Advisory Council (MAC). MAC would essentially perform the same function as the HR 3200's HBAC, namely determine benefit standards.
Once again, can we not see the unavoidable lobbying for diseases to be covered? Health benefits will become political currency, various groups with some vested interest will be lobbying the HBAC, or MAC, or whatever alphabet soup council the plan will come up with for coverage and money. In other words, not only will bureaucrats be in the way of you and the care you need, but so will lobbyists, the media (depending on what disease they wish to illuminate), and special interest groups. This has happened in Britain under the yoke of its NHS and National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) as the following article, merely one of many, illustrates.
Britain's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)-- great acronym, huh?-- decided to not offer some drugs to NHS kidney cancer patients. "It concluded that the drugs - bevacizumab, sorafenib, sunitinib and temsirolimus - did not offer value for money [bang for the buck in American bailout jargon]." This prompted some of the "UK's top cancer consultants to warn that NHS drug 'rationing' is forcing patients to remortgage their homes to pay for treatment."
NICE's response? "Andrew Dillon, the NICE chief executive, and Sir Michael Rawlins, NICE's chairman, told the Sunday Times the NHS did not have unlimited funds to provide all available treatments.
"'There is a finite pot of money for the NHS, which is determined annually by parliament,' they said."'If one group of patients is provided with cost-ineffective care, other groups - lacking powerful lobbyists - will be denied cost-effective care for miserable conditions like schizophrenia, Crohn's disease or cystic fibrosis.'"
Health care is degraded into a matter of lobbying the government for funds. This is what the Left and Obama want for America?
NICE also has banned life prolonging cancer drugs due to cost. "Thousands of patients with terminal cancer were dealt a blow last night after a decision was made to deny them life prolonging drugs."The Government's rationing body said two drugs for advanced breast cancer and a rare form of stomach cancer were too expensive for the NHS [National Health Services]."
The number of lies, distortions and half-truths that Obama has packed into this speech is really quite amazing. My posting hasn't even covered half of them. But perhaps some of these fallacies come from the most essential lie that he has told: namely that there is "a plan." The only "plan" that has been voted on in Congress is HR 3200, a badly written 1018 page monstrosity, which doesn't even come close to fulfilling any of Obama's stated requirements-- and will incur massive deficits in the process of failing. As far as I know, the copious number of Senate bills (at least four) are still in committee.
So while Obama can promise all of us lower rates, higher quality of care, universal coverage, and that it will all be paid for by trimming away waste and taxing the wealthy, he has no way to show how this will be accomplished. THERE IS NO PLAN like the one he's described. There's nothing even close.
This speech seems more like an exercise in political philosophy than a serious proposal; a rebuttal to middle-right concerns that is founded more in wishes and unrealistic expectations of government efficiency than nuts-and-bolts reality. He appears to be like a poli-sci professor assigning an essay topic-- not a president with a real and horrifically important proposal.
More coming in Part 2: Demanding Conformity for "Social Justice"
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Added New Link: Andrew Breitbart's "Big Government"
From the makers of BigHollywood comes this brand new website. Here it is: BigGovernment.com-- also available on the Blog List.
Right now they're headlining a story about an indie undercover investigation of Baltimore's ACORN office. It's a bit distressing. Check it out.
Right now they're headlining a story about an indie undercover investigation of Baltimore's ACORN office. It's a bit distressing. Check it out.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Sarah Palin Responds to Obama's Speech
Sarah Palin gives a deft response to Obama's overwrought plea for health care reform and conformity. This was posted on facebook this evening (h/t NewsBusters.org).
"After all the rhetoric is put aside, one principle ran through President Obama’s speech tonight: that increased government involvement in health care can solve its problems.
"Many Americans fundamentally disagree with this idea. We know from long experience that the creation of a massive new bureaucracy will not provide us with 'more stability and security,' but just the opposite. It's hard to believe the President when he says that this time he and his team of bureaucrats have finally figured out how to do things right if only we’ll take them at their word.
"Our objections to the Democrats’ health care proposals are not mere 'bickering' or 'games.' They are not an attempt to 'score short term political points.' And it’s hard to listen to the President lecture us not to use 'scare tactics' when in the next breath he says that 'more will die' if his proposals do not pass.
"In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns 'bogus,' 'irresponsible,' and 'a lie' -- so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.
"In fact, after promising to 'make sure that no government bureaucrat .... gets between you and the health care you need,' the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council -- an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of 'normal political channels,' should guide decisions regarding that 'huge driver of cost ... the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives....' He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.
"It was heartening to hear the President finally recognize that tort reform is an important part of any solution. But this concession shouldn’t lead us to take our eye off the ball: the Democrats’ proposals will not reduce costs, and they will not deliver better health care. It’s this kind of 'healthy skepticism of government' that truly reflects a 'concern and regard for the plight of others.' We can’t wait to hear the details on that; we look forward to working with you on tort reform.
"Finally, President Obama delivered an offhand applause line tonight about the cost of the War on Terror. As we approach the anniversary of the September 11th attacks and honor those who died that day and those who have died since in the War on Terror, in order to secure our freedoms, we need to remember their sacrifices and not demonize them as having had too high a price tag.
"Remember, Mr. President, elected officials work for the people. Forcing a conclusion in order to claim a 'victory' is not healthy for our country. We hear you say government isn’t always the answer; now hear us -- that’s what we’ve been saying all along.
- Sarah Palin"
Again, Palin has hit the nail on the head. And that's probably why the Left hate her with such venom.
"After all the rhetoric is put aside, one principle ran through President Obama’s speech tonight: that increased government involvement in health care can solve its problems.
"Many Americans fundamentally disagree with this idea. We know from long experience that the creation of a massive new bureaucracy will not provide us with 'more stability and security,' but just the opposite. It's hard to believe the President when he says that this time he and his team of bureaucrats have finally figured out how to do things right if only we’ll take them at their word.
"Our objections to the Democrats’ health care proposals are not mere 'bickering' or 'games.' They are not an attempt to 'score short term political points.' And it’s hard to listen to the President lecture us not to use 'scare tactics' when in the next breath he says that 'more will die' if his proposals do not pass.
"In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns 'bogus,' 'irresponsible,' and 'a lie' -- so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.
"In fact, after promising to 'make sure that no government bureaucrat .... gets between you and the health care you need,' the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council -- an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of 'normal political channels,' should guide decisions regarding that 'huge driver of cost ... the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives....' He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.
"It was heartening to hear the President finally recognize that tort reform is an important part of any solution. But this concession shouldn’t lead us to take our eye off the ball: the Democrats’ proposals will not reduce costs, and they will not deliver better health care. It’s this kind of 'healthy skepticism of government' that truly reflects a 'concern and regard for the plight of others.' We can’t wait to hear the details on that; we look forward to working with you on tort reform.
"Finally, President Obama delivered an offhand applause line tonight about the cost of the War on Terror. As we approach the anniversary of the September 11th attacks and honor those who died that day and those who have died since in the War on Terror, in order to secure our freedoms, we need to remember their sacrifices and not demonize them as having had too high a price tag.
"Remember, Mr. President, elected officials work for the people. Forcing a conclusion in order to claim a 'victory' is not healthy for our country. We hear you say government isn’t always the answer; now hear us -- that’s what we’ve been saying all along.
- Sarah Palin"
Again, Palin has hit the nail on the head. And that's probably why the Left hate her with such venom.
Immediate Personal Reaction to Obama's Health Care Address
Obama once again trots out his vaunted oratory skills. Determined to save his lauded medical reforms, Obama poured on the emotions invoking the deaths of unnamed citizens and Ted Kennedy.
But all that aside, Obama offers nothing new to a debate that has been raging for months now. While he calls for calm and blames partisan bickering (all but calling out Sarah Palin) for the failure to jam through massive-scale "reform" at any financial cost in record time, Obama says nothing new. Instead he follows a commonly tried-and-true political course (which he hypocritically lambastes in his speech as "timidity") and presents these intrusive measures as moderate.
Obama has failed to address the concerns of citizens in a variety of ways.
1) Cost. While Obama promises not to sign anything that will increase budget deficits (he has a real great history of that), he does not present any new argument as to where the money for the massive funds that will be required will come from. He instead restates the stale and disproven argument that eliminating Medicare's waste and abuse, combined with an increase in efficiency (hardly a hallmark of federal legislation) will somehow pay for it all.
Sorry, but people didn't believe it then and they are unlikely to believe it now. Increasing numbers of insured and increasing benefits demands spending money. Government bureaucracies have never had a history of bringing down costs by simply trimming waste. Such beliefs are nonsense and not based in any reputable history or fact.
2) The Blame Game. Obama once again accuses partisan bickering for blocking this legislation. Nonsense. The Dems have an enormous majority in both the House and Senate. What has blocked this hard-Left legislation is moderate Dem concerns, and the concerns of American citizens who have made their displeasure known at town-hall meetings, demonstrations, and other vocal means.
3) Government Over-Regulation. Obama repeats the call for government regulation of the insurance industries, echoing the Left conviction that more government is the answer in the situation. Currently, the medical industry is under some of the tightest federal regulation around. Health insurers are legally restricted from competing across state lines. The results have been the current state of affairs. Obama would have us believe that tighter regulation would a) increase competition and b) improve costs and care. This hasn't happened with past regulation and governments that have put very tight restrictions on health insurers, such as Canada and Britain, have created "imploding" or "draconian" systems.
Many people do not have faith in federal government bureaucracies and do not believe that further regulation will do anything but harm the current system. Obama offers nothing but personal assurances that his view is right. Sorry-- but that's not enough to overcome history, foreign examples, and common sense.
4) Government Coercion. Obama proposes to force all Americans to purchase health care. People don't generally like being coerced into doing anything, especially purchasing something they feel they can do without. Invoking the nebulous term "social justice," Obama believes that people can be penalized and taxed into doing what is right-- in this case buy health insurance.
He rather laughably uses the idea that since we have to purchase car insurance, we should likewise have to purchase health insurance. No one has to purchase auto accident insurance (as far as I know). What must be purchased is liability insurance. In other words, if you cause an accident or an injury to someone else, you have to show the ability for someone to pay for your negligence. This doesn't mean that if your car breaks down, you must have insurance to fix it or purchase you a new car. His analogy is either deliberately manipulative or patently foolish.
5) Public Plan. While Obama addresses the public plan option at some length, he does not go into detail on how it is to be implemented. Moreover, he does not dispel any misgivings the American people have of it. They need reassurance through details and examples, something specific. Instead he merely gives us numbers and personal reassurances of a non-existing plan. That doesn't cut it.
6) Attacking Individualism for the Greater Good. My favorite part of the address is the end, however. I will go into more detail in a later post with a transcript, citations, and links, but for now I'm working from notes and memory.
To climax his speech, Obama emotionally juxtaposes American "rugged individualism" with social justice as embodied in Ted Kennedy. While going out of his way to not denounce individualism, Obama seems to paint a picture of social justice being at odds with individuality while invoking universal health care as a "moral" imperative. Basically he seems to say, put aside your individual opinions so that we can pass this moral bill to cover all Americans with "secure" health care. Do it for Ted.
In other words, American individualism is fine, but for now shut up, don't question me, my nebulous plan, nor Congress' gargantuan and bloated bills. Ted's a good guy and wouldn't want you to.
Nice.
I'll put up a longer, more detailed post later with a transcript, quotes, citations, etc. For now, this is just a quickie personal reaction.
But all that aside, Obama offers nothing new to a debate that has been raging for months now. While he calls for calm and blames partisan bickering (all but calling out Sarah Palin) for the failure to jam through massive-scale "reform" at any financial cost in record time, Obama says nothing new. Instead he follows a commonly tried-and-true political course (which he hypocritically lambastes in his speech as "timidity") and presents these intrusive measures as moderate.
Obama has failed to address the concerns of citizens in a variety of ways.
1) Cost. While Obama promises not to sign anything that will increase budget deficits (he has a real great history of that), he does not present any new argument as to where the money for the massive funds that will be required will come from. He instead restates the stale and disproven argument that eliminating Medicare's waste and abuse, combined with an increase in efficiency (hardly a hallmark of federal legislation) will somehow pay for it all.
Sorry, but people didn't believe it then and they are unlikely to believe it now. Increasing numbers of insured and increasing benefits demands spending money. Government bureaucracies have never had a history of bringing down costs by simply trimming waste. Such beliefs are nonsense and not based in any reputable history or fact.
2) The Blame Game. Obama once again accuses partisan bickering for blocking this legislation. Nonsense. The Dems have an enormous majority in both the House and Senate. What has blocked this hard-Left legislation is moderate Dem concerns, and the concerns of American citizens who have made their displeasure known at town-hall meetings, demonstrations, and other vocal means.
3) Government Over-Regulation. Obama repeats the call for government regulation of the insurance industries, echoing the Left conviction that more government is the answer in the situation. Currently, the medical industry is under some of the tightest federal regulation around. Health insurers are legally restricted from competing across state lines. The results have been the current state of affairs. Obama would have us believe that tighter regulation would a) increase competition and b) improve costs and care. This hasn't happened with past regulation and governments that have put very tight restrictions on health insurers, such as Canada and Britain, have created "imploding" or "draconian" systems.
Many people do not have faith in federal government bureaucracies and do not believe that further regulation will do anything but harm the current system. Obama offers nothing but personal assurances that his view is right. Sorry-- but that's not enough to overcome history, foreign examples, and common sense.
4) Government Coercion. Obama proposes to force all Americans to purchase health care. People don't generally like being coerced into doing anything, especially purchasing something they feel they can do without. Invoking the nebulous term "social justice," Obama believes that people can be penalized and taxed into doing what is right-- in this case buy health insurance.
He rather laughably uses the idea that since we have to purchase car insurance, we should likewise have to purchase health insurance. No one has to purchase auto accident insurance (as far as I know). What must be purchased is liability insurance. In other words, if you cause an accident or an injury to someone else, you have to show the ability for someone to pay for your negligence. This doesn't mean that if your car breaks down, you must have insurance to fix it or purchase you a new car. His analogy is either deliberately manipulative or patently foolish.
5) Public Plan. While Obama addresses the public plan option at some length, he does not go into detail on how it is to be implemented. Moreover, he does not dispel any misgivings the American people have of it. They need reassurance through details and examples, something specific. Instead he merely gives us numbers and personal reassurances of a non-existing plan. That doesn't cut it.
6) Attacking Individualism for the Greater Good. My favorite part of the address is the end, however. I will go into more detail in a later post with a transcript, citations, and links, but for now I'm working from notes and memory.
To climax his speech, Obama emotionally juxtaposes American "rugged individualism" with social justice as embodied in Ted Kennedy. While going out of his way to not denounce individualism, Obama seems to paint a picture of social justice being at odds with individuality while invoking universal health care as a "moral" imperative. Basically he seems to say, put aside your individual opinions so that we can pass this moral bill to cover all Americans with "secure" health care. Do it for Ted.
In other words, American individualism is fine, but for now shut up, don't question me, my nebulous plan, nor Congress' gargantuan and bloated bills. Ted's a good guy and wouldn't want you to.
Nice.
I'll put up a longer, more detailed post later with a transcript, quotes, citations, etc. For now, this is just a quickie personal reaction.
A New Political Spectrum?
Check out "Rethinking the Political Spectrum" by David G. Muller, Jr. in American Thinker.
Muller discusses the inherent problems of the current political spectrum (Communism on the far-Left, Fascism on the far-Right) and suggests an alternative. "The mental framing device of a political spectrum is not a bad idea in itself. There are indeed relationships among tyranny, liberalism, conservatism, and other political phenomena that lend themselves to depiction on a spectrum. But the spectrum must reflect reality.
"There is something nonsensical about a political spectrum that spans the range between tyranny and ... tyranny. If one end of the spectrum is the home of tyranny, then shouldn't the opposite end of the spectrum be the home of liberty, tyranny's opposite? The new spectrum is a rough measurement of liberty: very little liberty on the left end, quite a bit on the right end. At the left extreme reside the hard tyrannies of communism and fascism, as seen historically in such places as the Soviet Union, China, Germany, or North Korea. A bit to the right are the softer tyrannies of socialism, as commonly practiced in Western Europe. Liberalism comes next, then 'moderation.' Moving further along the spectrum toward greater liberty, one finds conservatism, and finally libertarianism."
In a previous post, "Fascism: the Badly Understood Insult" back in April, I discussed how Fascism is not a product of American Right thought (obviously one must distinguish from American Right and other countries' Right as conservatism is, to a debatable degree, dependant upon the current regime as well as a country's unique political history), but of Marx-influenced socialist ideals.
Muller asserts this confusion is based upon Stalin's need to justify his betrayal by Hitler in WWII. "Indirectly yet powerfully, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin is responsible for the classic political spectrum commonly used to show the relationships between schools of political thought and the systems they engender. This is what happened:
"Adolf Hitler's National Socialist movement was, as the name clearly says, a party of the left. While not explicitly Marxist-Leninist, National Socialism accepted the essentials of that worldview while adding Germanic racial supremacism to the mix. This is not the place to lay this out in detail, but it is part of the historical record. Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism includes the best recent treatment of the subject. Thus it was not astonishing that in 1939 Hitler and Stalin found ample common interests to establish an alliance, nor did it astonish that Communist Party members in the West almost unanimously took up support for Nazi Germany. The alliance simply recognized the ideological kinship between the two.
"Then in 1941, Hitler turned on his fellow socialist and invaded the Soviet Union. How was Stalin to explain or rationalize this turnabout? What ideological signboard could he put around Hitler's neck that would make sense in the Soviet political context? Certainly Stalin could not let it appear he had been duped by a fellow socialist, nor could he allow Hitler to give socialism a bad name. The solution was to label the bad guys, Hitler and the Nazis, as polar opposites of the good guys, Stalin and the Communists. Fascism - a leftist, socialist doctrine - was abruptly and absurdly labeled a phenomenon of the extreme right.
"From 1941 onward into the postwar era, Soviet propaganda, diplomacy, and scholarship consistently depicted Nazism as a right-wing phenomenon, communism on the left, with the Western powers arrayed on a vague spectrum somewhere in between. Western academics and journalists fell into the same practice, often but not always because of their own leftist sympathies. Few bothered to contest the analysis and assumptions that underlay the new model, and it was a convenient way to depict and describe political camps. Thus the classic political spectrum of the 20th century became second nature to everyone, not just to communists."
I'm not about this assertion, but it does deserve some of my time for research. One must look at the political theory pre-Stalin, perhaps even pre-Lenin, from source material written in that era, but this is not quite as simple as it may seem. Usually (undoubtedly in this case), one has to do a great deal of translation. It must be realized that the presuppositions of the era are wholly different from presuppositions we have now, but that, like now, these presuppositions are presented as truth.
Muller may be onto something, but his article is far too short for the subject matter, too broad and vague and makes a basic error in language. Muller attempts to frame his new political spectrum on gradient levels of tyranny (moving from libertarianism on one end to Fascism/Communism on the other). This makes makes for an easy light side/dark side comparison, after all tyranny is firmly on the side of the Left. Yet, this is merely an anarchist's view (anarchy as a semi-formal theory is given no place in Muller's political spectrum) in which any regulation is necessarily a form of tyranny and oppression.
Gone is the historically demonstrable reality that when there is a lack of any form of regulation tyranny invariably develops. Whether in the political form of a strong man leader, the rule of an aristocratic elite, or the economic form of monopolies and trusts, authority (in some form) asserts itself either from the outset as highly oppressive force, or eventually developing into systemic oppression. It is one of the reasons behind the American Constitution's writing and inception.
Muller should have said that the new political spectrum's gradient is dependant on governmental control rather than tyranny-- or if Muller insists upon using the word, governmental tyranny. After all, the tyranny of monopolies and trusts can and often do operate outside of formal political control.
While Muller is quite correct in his assertion that the current political spectrum is inaccurate and in need of revision, Muller needs to treat the matter with more time and detailed thought if he is to truly challenge such a widely established and broadly accepted theory. What must likewise be gone is the ideological stance that Muller clearly rests upon as he writes his article. One must separate oneself, as much as possible, from ideological notions when writing theory-- even at the expense of personal convictions.
Muller discusses the inherent problems of the current political spectrum (Communism on the far-Left, Fascism on the far-Right) and suggests an alternative. "The mental framing device of a political spectrum is not a bad idea in itself. There are indeed relationships among tyranny, liberalism, conservatism, and other political phenomena that lend themselves to depiction on a spectrum. But the spectrum must reflect reality.
"There is something nonsensical about a political spectrum that spans the range between tyranny and ... tyranny. If one end of the spectrum is the home of tyranny, then shouldn't the opposite end of the spectrum be the home of liberty, tyranny's opposite? The new spectrum is a rough measurement of liberty: very little liberty on the left end, quite a bit on the right end. At the left extreme reside the hard tyrannies of communism and fascism, as seen historically in such places as the Soviet Union, China, Germany, or North Korea. A bit to the right are the softer tyrannies of socialism, as commonly practiced in Western Europe. Liberalism comes next, then 'moderation.' Moving further along the spectrum toward greater liberty, one finds conservatism, and finally libertarianism."
In a previous post, "Fascism: the Badly Understood Insult" back in April, I discussed how Fascism is not a product of American Right thought (obviously one must distinguish from American Right and other countries' Right as conservatism is, to a debatable degree, dependant upon the current regime as well as a country's unique political history), but of Marx-influenced socialist ideals.
Muller asserts this confusion is based upon Stalin's need to justify his betrayal by Hitler in WWII. "Indirectly yet powerfully, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin is responsible for the classic political spectrum commonly used to show the relationships between schools of political thought and the systems they engender. This is what happened:
"Adolf Hitler's National Socialist movement was, as the name clearly says, a party of the left. While not explicitly Marxist-Leninist, National Socialism accepted the essentials of that worldview while adding Germanic racial supremacism to the mix. This is not the place to lay this out in detail, but it is part of the historical record. Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism includes the best recent treatment of the subject. Thus it was not astonishing that in 1939 Hitler and Stalin found ample common interests to establish an alliance, nor did it astonish that Communist Party members in the West almost unanimously took up support for Nazi Germany. The alliance simply recognized the ideological kinship between the two.
"Then in 1941, Hitler turned on his fellow socialist and invaded the Soviet Union. How was Stalin to explain or rationalize this turnabout? What ideological signboard could he put around Hitler's neck that would make sense in the Soviet political context? Certainly Stalin could not let it appear he had been duped by a fellow socialist, nor could he allow Hitler to give socialism a bad name. The solution was to label the bad guys, Hitler and the Nazis, as polar opposites of the good guys, Stalin and the Communists. Fascism - a leftist, socialist doctrine - was abruptly and absurdly labeled a phenomenon of the extreme right.
"From 1941 onward into the postwar era, Soviet propaganda, diplomacy, and scholarship consistently depicted Nazism as a right-wing phenomenon, communism on the left, with the Western powers arrayed on a vague spectrum somewhere in between. Western academics and journalists fell into the same practice, often but not always because of their own leftist sympathies. Few bothered to contest the analysis and assumptions that underlay the new model, and it was a convenient way to depict and describe political camps. Thus the classic political spectrum of the 20th century became second nature to everyone, not just to communists."
I'm not about this assertion, but it does deserve some of my time for research. One must look at the political theory pre-Stalin, perhaps even pre-Lenin, from source material written in that era, but this is not quite as simple as it may seem. Usually (undoubtedly in this case), one has to do a great deal of translation. It must be realized that the presuppositions of the era are wholly different from presuppositions we have now, but that, like now, these presuppositions are presented as truth.
Muller may be onto something, but his article is far too short for the subject matter, too broad and vague and makes a basic error in language. Muller attempts to frame his new political spectrum on gradient levels of tyranny (moving from libertarianism on one end to Fascism/Communism on the other). This makes makes for an easy light side/dark side comparison, after all tyranny is firmly on the side of the Left. Yet, this is merely an anarchist's view (anarchy as a semi-formal theory is given no place in Muller's political spectrum) in which any regulation is necessarily a form of tyranny and oppression.
Gone is the historically demonstrable reality that when there is a lack of any form of regulation tyranny invariably develops. Whether in the political form of a strong man leader, the rule of an aristocratic elite, or the economic form of monopolies and trusts, authority (in some form) asserts itself either from the outset as highly oppressive force, or eventually developing into systemic oppression. It is one of the reasons behind the American Constitution's writing and inception.
Muller should have said that the new political spectrum's gradient is dependant on governmental control rather than tyranny-- or if Muller insists upon using the word, governmental tyranny. After all, the tyranny of monopolies and trusts can and often do operate outside of formal political control.
While Muller is quite correct in his assertion that the current political spectrum is inaccurate and in need of revision, Muller needs to treat the matter with more time and detailed thought if he is to truly challenge such a widely established and broadly accepted theory. What must likewise be gone is the ideological stance that Muller clearly rests upon as he writes his article. One must separate oneself, as much as possible, from ideological notions when writing theory-- even at the expense of personal convictions.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Stifling Conservative Best-Sellers in the Media
Check out this essay from the Culture and Media Institute (h/t Michelle Malkin). It addresses the "glaring imbalance in network coverage of liberal best-sellers and comparable conservative titles."
From the piece: "During the first six months of 2009, 25 books that can be described as 'liberal' or 'conservative' appeared on the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction Best-Seller List. More of those books (14) were liberal, but conservative authors enjoyed a combined total of 95 weeks on the List. Liberals had 80. At this writing Michelle Malkin’s 'Culture of Corruption' had been on the list for four weeks, and was currently at No.1.
"But no matter how commercially successful conservative books and authors have been, they were slighted by the three broadcast networks. The most glaring evidence of bias against conservative books was the networks’ complete neglect of the single most successful book on the list, radio host Mark Levin’s 'Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto.' Levin’s book spent 12 weeks at No.1, and as of this writing had yet to fall out of the top 10.
"The Culture and Media Institute analyzed how ABC, CBS and NBC covered those 25 hardcover nonfiction best-sellers, and found that the networks gave liberal books and authors dramatically more (and more favorable) coverage than their conservative counterparts. Of the 11 conservative authors on the list, just four received any coverage on the networks.
"On the other hand, the networks covered 11 out of 14 liberal authors. Of the three not covered, one was not an author in the conventional sense – it was President Obama, and the 'book' was his January 20 inauguration speech.
"When authors appeared on the networks for interviews, conservatives received markedly different treatment than liberals. From Matt Lauer calling Elizabeth Edwards’ book 'stirring,' to Harry Smith telling Ann Coulter, 'You have this kind of sophomoric sort of simplistic kind of view of so many things,' hosts made it clear where their ideological sympathies lay."
Read the whole piece. It is highly recommended.
From the piece: "During the first six months of 2009, 25 books that can be described as 'liberal' or 'conservative' appeared on the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction Best-Seller List. More of those books (14) were liberal, but conservative authors enjoyed a combined total of 95 weeks on the List. Liberals had 80. At this writing Michelle Malkin’s 'Culture of Corruption' had been on the list for four weeks, and was currently at No.1.
"But no matter how commercially successful conservative books and authors have been, they were slighted by the three broadcast networks. The most glaring evidence of bias against conservative books was the networks’ complete neglect of the single most successful book on the list, radio host Mark Levin’s 'Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto.' Levin’s book spent 12 weeks at No.1, and as of this writing had yet to fall out of the top 10.
"The Culture and Media Institute analyzed how ABC, CBS and NBC covered those 25 hardcover nonfiction best-sellers, and found that the networks gave liberal books and authors dramatically more (and more favorable) coverage than their conservative counterparts. Of the 11 conservative authors on the list, just four received any coverage on the networks.
"On the other hand, the networks covered 11 out of 14 liberal authors. Of the three not covered, one was not an author in the conventional sense – it was President Obama, and the 'book' was his January 20 inauguration speech.
"When authors appeared on the networks for interviews, conservatives received markedly different treatment than liberals. From Matt Lauer calling Elizabeth Edwards’ book 'stirring,' to Harry Smith telling Ann Coulter, 'You have this kind of sophomoric sort of simplistic kind of view of so many things,' hosts made it clear where their ideological sympathies lay."
Read the whole piece. It is highly recommended.
Sarah Palin Opinion Piece in The Wall Street Journal
Check out this opinion piece by Sarah Palin published in The Wall Street Journal. I'm often amused (in sort of an appalling way) at how Palin is under constant attack from the Left. I wonder if it has anything to do with a sort-of gender spin on the idea of "inauthentic." A previous post covered what I believe is the source of much of this Left ire (in this case regarding black conservatives).
This opinion piece probably reflects how a great deal of Americans feel, and the distrust that they have in the government-- not as an entity as the Left would have you believe, but in the federal government's efficiency and its ability to cost-control. Anyone that possesses even a little knowledge of history and bureaucracy knows the dubious history of the fed's track record in those departments.
Palin writes: "How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.
"Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals 'will provide more stability and security to every American.'
"With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep."
[...]
"First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such 'waste and inefficiency' and 'unwarranted subsidies' in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that 'in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.'
"Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of 'normal political channels,' should guide decisions regarding that 'huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .'
"Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration."
Check out the whole thing. It's a good read.
This opinion piece probably reflects how a great deal of Americans feel, and the distrust that they have in the government-- not as an entity as the Left would have you believe, but in the federal government's efficiency and its ability to cost-control. Anyone that possesses even a little knowledge of history and bureaucracy knows the dubious history of the fed's track record in those departments.
Palin writes: "How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.
"Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals 'will provide more stability and security to every American.'
"With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep."
[...]
"First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such 'waste and inefficiency' and 'unwarranted subsidies' in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that 'in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.'
"Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of 'normal political channels,' should guide decisions regarding that 'huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .'
"Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration."
Check out the whole thing. It's a good read.
Van Jones Declared US Brought 9/11 upon Itself
After Van Jones was ushered out of the White House in the dead of night (oh, I'm sorry... he voluntarily resigned), I thought that I would post no more on Jones for a while-- maybe even forever more. I was wrong.
Check out this post by Tom Blumer at NewsBusters.org. It turns out Jones was blaming the US for bringing the attacks on itself the day after 9/11. A summary of a rally held on 9/12/01 posted at indybay.org has several interesting quotes from Jones.
From the summary by gkt: "A recurring theme of the speakers was the brutal violence committed by or supported by the United States government on a daily basis. 'The bombs the government drops in Iraq are the bombs that blew up in New York City,' said Van Jones, director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, who also warned against forthcoming violence by the Bush Administration. 'The US cannot bomb its way out of this one. Safety at home requires justice abroad.'"
An interesting assertion. Apparently safety at home requires conforming to the wishes of terrorists abroad.
Later Jones is quoted again amid gkt's pontificating. "Those present were determined to make their voices heard in an increasingly hostile, war-mongering climate scripted by the government and recited by corporate media. They also vowed to fight within their own communities against racism and hostility towards Arab-Americans. Everyone sensed that this was an important time in history, and that the stuggle against injustice requires international solidarity. 'Everyone should be as wise as these inner-city youth here today,' Van Jones concluded. 'We all have more in common with the working people of the earth than we do with George Bush or Colin Powell.'"
Nice Marxist statement at the end there. Of course Jones changed his tune, actually just jumped onto another popular band wagon, when he helped organize a truther march a mere four months later in January 2002. During that public event, in a complete 180 of his previous sentiment, Jones and company suggested that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush and the CIA rather than being a foreign blow for international justice.
As Blumer at NewsBusters points out, this was originally reported by Scott Johnson at Powerline Sept. 5 2009. Within six hours Jones was gone.
Blumer suggests that the abruptness of Jones' resignation may have had something to do with this report. The Obama Administration wanted him out before this new information had a chance to circulate.
Maybe-- but I'm not sure. Jones was nothing but political dead weight, and this one more example of his opportunist radicalism was hardly the straw that broke the camel's back. Jones was finished once he was exposed to any serious scrutiny.
The real and significant issue here, is not the that Jones is a radical. Jones, deprived of White House patronage, is once again merely a blustering "community organizer." Once again the real story, as Blumer himself notes, is that Jones and his radical views were both well known by the Obama administration. Blumer echoes the same quote from Valerie Jarrett (Obama's "BFF" and "the ultimate insider") that I used in my own posts about Jones. Jarret said to a crowd of dKos bloggers "Oooh. Van Jones, alright! So, Van Jones. We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We were watching him, uh, really, he’s not that old, for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland. And all the creative ideas he has. And so now, we have captured that. And we have all that energy in the White House[emphasis mine]."
If one takes into account Obama's international apologist/half-hearted appeasement tour, his failed open hand policy to Iran, and his blatant antipathy of Israel, it would seem his own sentiments are not dissimilar from Jones'.
UPDATE: The WSJ has a pretty interesting op/ed regarding Van Jones and his background within the Left's establishment (h/t Anne Leary at Backyard Conservative). The whole incident is a pretty good indication that mainstream America ignores the Left and its own peril.
Check out this post by Tom Blumer at NewsBusters.org. It turns out Jones was blaming the US for bringing the attacks on itself the day after 9/11. A summary of a rally held on 9/12/01 posted at indybay.org has several interesting quotes from Jones.
From the summary by gkt: "A recurring theme of the speakers was the brutal violence committed by or supported by the United States government on a daily basis. 'The bombs the government drops in Iraq are the bombs that blew up in New York City,' said Van Jones, director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, who also warned against forthcoming violence by the Bush Administration. 'The US cannot bomb its way out of this one. Safety at home requires justice abroad.'"
An interesting assertion. Apparently safety at home requires conforming to the wishes of terrorists abroad.
Later Jones is quoted again amid gkt's pontificating. "Those present were determined to make their voices heard in an increasingly hostile, war-mongering climate scripted by the government and recited by corporate media. They also vowed to fight within their own communities against racism and hostility towards Arab-Americans. Everyone sensed that this was an important time in history, and that the stuggle against injustice requires international solidarity. 'Everyone should be as wise as these inner-city youth here today,' Van Jones concluded. 'We all have more in common with the working people of the earth than we do with George Bush or Colin Powell.'"
Nice Marxist statement at the end there. Of course Jones changed his tune, actually just jumped onto another popular band wagon, when he helped organize a truther march a mere four months later in January 2002. During that public event, in a complete 180 of his previous sentiment, Jones and company suggested that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush and the CIA rather than being a foreign blow for international justice.
As Blumer at NewsBusters points out, this was originally reported by Scott Johnson at Powerline Sept. 5 2009. Within six hours Jones was gone.
Blumer suggests that the abruptness of Jones' resignation may have had something to do with this report. The Obama Administration wanted him out before this new information had a chance to circulate.
Maybe-- but I'm not sure. Jones was nothing but political dead weight, and this one more example of his opportunist radicalism was hardly the straw that broke the camel's back. Jones was finished once he was exposed to any serious scrutiny.
The real and significant issue here, is not the that Jones is a radical. Jones, deprived of White House patronage, is once again merely a blustering "community organizer." Once again the real story, as Blumer himself notes, is that Jones and his radical views were both well known by the Obama administration. Blumer echoes the same quote from Valerie Jarrett (Obama's "BFF" and "the ultimate insider") that I used in my own posts about Jones. Jarret said to a crowd of dKos bloggers "Oooh. Van Jones, alright! So, Van Jones. We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We were watching him, uh, really, he’s not that old, for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland. And all the creative ideas he has. And so now, we have captured that. And we have all that energy in the White House[emphasis mine]."
If one takes into account Obama's international apologist/half-hearted appeasement tour, his failed open hand policy to Iran, and his blatant antipathy of Israel, it would seem his own sentiments are not dissimilar from Jones'.
UPDATE: The WSJ has a pretty interesting op/ed regarding Van Jones and his background within the Left's establishment (h/t Anne Leary at Backyard Conservative). The whole incident is a pretty good indication that mainstream America ignores the Left and its own peril.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
...and Van Jones has Resigned
Green Jobs czar Van Jones has announced his resignation. Story from Will Lester of the AP here. During his resignation Jones declared "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."
Jones had the gall to claim that critics were "using lies and distortions to distract and divide"? This coming from a man who signed a 9/11 truther petition in 2004, now claims that he had no idea what he was signing and that "it certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever"-- despite the fact that he had helped organize a 9/11 truther march in January of 2002? "Lies and distortions to distract and divide," indeed. This leaves out his long career of race baiting and name calling (divisive anyone?). It's not that I'm surprised that Jones would say any of this, it's that I'm surprised that he thinks anyone would listen to him. Ah, well...
While Jones' resignation is not surprising, what is particularly interesting in that Jones' resignation comes despite the fact that the MSM (outside of Fox News and certain print papers) gave the story little play. Obama's duck and cover tactics while the MSM extols him, didn't work at all this time around. Maybe, hopefully, a sign of things to come...?
It should be remembered (a I argued in my last post) that Jones did not fly in under the Obama Administration's radar. They had full knowledge of his radical, Left-fringe beliefs. They had, according to Valerie Jarrett, been "watching him, uh, really, he’s not that old, for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland." Jones radicalism wasn't a fluke, and his resignation does not indicate a change in course of the Obama Administration's own hard-Left agendas.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Van Jones: "Truther" from 2002 and the Obama Admin. is "Delighted" to have "Recruited Him"
We all know about the Van Jones (Obama's "Green Jobs Czar") story-- the communist background, inflammatory statements (more here), his practice of hurling insults at Republicans, and the signature to the "9/11 Truth.org" petition.
Jones' response was a perfunctory apology in which he said "In recent days some in the news media have reported on past statements I made before I joined the administration – some of which were made years ago. If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize. As for the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."
So at this point we are left with the inescapable conclusion that Jones is either a liar (if he did, in fact, sign the 9/11 truther petition out of a belief that the federal government caused or permitted the attacks to happen) or a fool (if we are to believe that he signed a petition while being unaware of its central message).
Either way, Jones seems wholly unqualified to advise anyone on anything of a legal or governmental matter-- let alone a president. Opportunistic liars are untrustworthy and fools are... well fools.
Yet now there is further evidence of Jones' ties to the truthers. Gateway Pundit has this little gem from Rense.com way back in 2002. A "San Francisco March to Demand Inquiry of 9/11" lists Van Jones as a member of the organizing committee.
In a document dated 1-11-2002, a march to Sen. Feinstein's SF office was declared and "[t]he delegation will demand that these questions (and others) be raised and answered publicly-"
An edited list of their copious questions that they demand answers to:
"What is the relationship between Bin Laden, his family and the Bush family and the Carlyle Group?"
"Why were no fighter planes dispatched to intercept the four hijacked planes on September 11h , in violation of standard procedures?"
"Who actually was in control of the 'hijacked planes'?"
"Did the CIA have foreknowledge of the attack, who tried to profit with put options on American, United, Merrill Lynch stock just before the attack?"
"Why were the FBI told to not investigate the Bin Laden family links in the US?"
"Why are we bombing Afghanistan, when none of the alleged bombers actually came from there, could there be another reason for our presence in that region, like oil?" Oil in Afghanistan? Huh...
"Is the war against Afghanistan illegal?"
"What are Bush's, Cheney's and Rice's connections to the oil industry?"
"Why is the evidence being destroyed when an investigation of the World Trade Center collapse is needed?"
"What relationship did various U.S. agencies and their contractors have with the Taliban, either directly or through Pakistani or Saudi agencies or contractors?"
Van Jones is seventh on the list of members of the "Organizing Committee" for this march. This document indicates Jones was involved with the truther movement at the movement's beginnings.
Given that he was organizing truther marches in early 2002, I think it is safe to assume that Jones' signature on the 9/11 truth petition did reflect his true views. And that Jones is lying when he states, during an inauthentic apology, that the 9/11 truther petition he signed did not reflect his own beliefs and that he simply didn't read it carefully. So he is a liar. Whether he is a fool or not I leave to your own musing.
Currently, Republicans are calling for Jones to step down. Whether this actually happens or not is a coin toss. I would say it's a no-brainer, but Obama's "hope" (as in I hope they don't notice any of this) and "change" (as in I'll play this down and pray that they'll eventually change their minds) political strategy has proven depressingly effective-- especially with a press corp still largely smitten with Obama.
The significance of all this goes beyond the fringe-beliefs of one of Obama's advisers (let's ignore science czar John Holdren's fringe beliefs for now). Van Jones is not someone who flew in under the Obama Administration's radar. I'm sure there will be a distancing from him, whether they encourage his resignation or not, and the administration's spokespeople will suggest that this is not the Jones they know a la Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Yet, as Charles Krauthammer points out (h/t Anne Leary at Backyard Conservative) this patently false. From an editorial today in The Washington Post not about Van Jones Krauthammer notes "The conventional wisdom is that Obama made a tactical mistake by farming out his agenda to Congress and allowing himself to be pulled left by the doctrinaire liberals of the Democratic congressional leadership. But the idea of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pulling Obama left is quite ridiculous. Where do you think he came from, this friend of Chávista ex-terrorist William Ayers, of PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi, of racialist inciter Jeremiah Wright?"
As Michelle Malkin points out, Jones has been publicly lauded by Valerie Jarrett at a dKos blogger convention ("Obama's BFF" and "The Ultimate Insider" according to The New York Times Magazine's idolizing expose):
"JARRETT:. You guys know Van Jones? [Applause. Moderator injects: "This is his house apparently."]
"JARRETT: Oooh. Van Jones, alright! So, Van Jones. We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We were watching him, uh, really, he’s not that old, for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland. And all the creative ideas he has. And so now, we have captured that. And we have all that energy in the White House [emphasis mine]."
Make no mistake, Jones was selected by the Obama Administration with full knowledge of his radical, divisive and fringe beliefs. I would argue he was selected, not in spite of his radical views, but because of them. After all, what area of expertise does he actually bring to the table? Is he a scientist who can demonstrate the need for "green jobs" (a term that no one, including Jones himself, has a definition for)? No. Is Jones an industry leader with a proven record of creating jobs, green or otherwise? No. He does, however, have a demonstrable history of organizing SF truther marches, likening supporters of murdered police officer Daniel Faulkner to the KKK, (h/t Michelle Making again), and other hard-Left and/or race baiting causes.
The Obama Administration have shackled themselves at the wrist to fringe-dwelling Van Jones. Although there is no doubt they will saw off Jones' arm rather than sink with him, if it comes to that, the confirmation of Obama's unreasonable, hard-Left position is inescapable.
I'm willing to bet money that Van Jones is simply the first of many ugly hard-Left exposes that will dog White House, irrespective of the issues of socialized medicine, Cap & Trade, and Obama's open hostility to countries such as Israel and Honduras. How Obama handles this current issue, and how much it hurts his credibility will give great insight into what the next 3 1/2 years will be like in America.
Jones' response was a perfunctory apology in which he said "In recent days some in the news media have reported on past statements I made before I joined the administration – some of which were made years ago. If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize. As for the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."
So at this point we are left with the inescapable conclusion that Jones is either a liar (if he did, in fact, sign the 9/11 truther petition out of a belief that the federal government caused or permitted the attacks to happen) or a fool (if we are to believe that he signed a petition while being unaware of its central message).
Either way, Jones seems wholly unqualified to advise anyone on anything of a legal or governmental matter-- let alone a president. Opportunistic liars are untrustworthy and fools are... well fools.
Yet now there is further evidence of Jones' ties to the truthers. Gateway Pundit has this little gem from Rense.com way back in 2002. A "San Francisco March to Demand Inquiry of 9/11" lists Van Jones as a member of the organizing committee.
In a document dated 1-11-2002, a march to Sen. Feinstein's SF office was declared and "[t]he delegation will demand that these questions (and others) be raised and answered publicly-"
An edited list of their copious questions that they demand answers to:
"What is the relationship between Bin Laden, his family and the Bush family and the Carlyle Group?"
"Why were no fighter planes dispatched to intercept the four hijacked planes on September 11h , in violation of standard procedures?"
"Who actually was in control of the 'hijacked planes'?"
"Did the CIA have foreknowledge of the attack, who tried to profit with put options on American, United, Merrill Lynch stock just before the attack?"
"Why were the FBI told to not investigate the Bin Laden family links in the US?"
"Why are we bombing Afghanistan, when none of the alleged bombers actually came from there, could there be another reason for our presence in that region, like oil?" Oil in Afghanistan? Huh...
"Is the war against Afghanistan illegal?"
"What are Bush's, Cheney's and Rice's connections to the oil industry?"
"Why is the evidence being destroyed when an investigation of the World Trade Center collapse is needed?"
"What relationship did various U.S. agencies and their contractors have with the Taliban, either directly or through Pakistani or Saudi agencies or contractors?"
Van Jones is seventh on the list of members of the "Organizing Committee" for this march. This document indicates Jones was involved with the truther movement at the movement's beginnings.
Given that he was organizing truther marches in early 2002, I think it is safe to assume that Jones' signature on the 9/11 truth petition did reflect his true views. And that Jones is lying when he states, during an inauthentic apology, that the 9/11 truther petition he signed did not reflect his own beliefs and that he simply didn't read it carefully. So he is a liar. Whether he is a fool or not I leave to your own musing.
Currently, Republicans are calling for Jones to step down. Whether this actually happens or not is a coin toss. I would say it's a no-brainer, but Obama's "hope" (as in I hope they don't notice any of this) and "change" (as in I'll play this down and pray that they'll eventually change their minds) political strategy has proven depressingly effective-- especially with a press corp still largely smitten with Obama.
The significance of all this goes beyond the fringe-beliefs of one of Obama's advisers (let's ignore science czar John Holdren's fringe beliefs for now). Van Jones is not someone who flew in under the Obama Administration's radar. I'm sure there will be a distancing from him, whether they encourage his resignation or not, and the administration's spokespeople will suggest that this is not the Jones they know a la Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Yet, as Charles Krauthammer points out (h/t Anne Leary at Backyard Conservative) this patently false. From an editorial today in The Washington Post not about Van Jones Krauthammer notes "The conventional wisdom is that Obama made a tactical mistake by farming out his agenda to Congress and allowing himself to be pulled left by the doctrinaire liberals of the Democratic congressional leadership. But the idea of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pulling Obama left is quite ridiculous. Where do you think he came from, this friend of Chávista ex-terrorist William Ayers, of PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi, of racialist inciter Jeremiah Wright?"
As Michelle Malkin points out, Jones has been publicly lauded by Valerie Jarrett at a dKos blogger convention ("Obama's BFF" and "The Ultimate Insider" according to The New York Times Magazine's idolizing expose):
"JARRETT:. You guys know Van Jones? [Applause. Moderator injects: "This is his house apparently."]
"JARRETT: Oooh. Van Jones, alright! So, Van Jones. We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We were watching him, uh, really, he’s not that old, for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland. And all the creative ideas he has. And so now, we have captured that. And we have all that energy in the White House [emphasis mine]."
Make no mistake, Jones was selected by the Obama Administration with full knowledge of his radical, divisive and fringe beliefs. I would argue he was selected, not in spite of his radical views, but because of them. After all, what area of expertise does he actually bring to the table? Is he a scientist who can demonstrate the need for "green jobs" (a term that no one, including Jones himself, has a definition for)? No. Is Jones an industry leader with a proven record of creating jobs, green or otherwise? No. He does, however, have a demonstrable history of organizing SF truther marches, likening supporters of murdered police officer Daniel Faulkner to the KKK, (h/t Michelle Making again), and other hard-Left and/or race baiting causes.
The Obama Administration have shackled themselves at the wrist to fringe-dwelling Van Jones. Although there is no doubt they will saw off Jones' arm rather than sink with him, if it comes to that, the confirmation of Obama's unreasonable, hard-Left position is inescapable.
I'm willing to bet money that Van Jones is simply the first of many ugly hard-Left exposes that will dog White House, irrespective of the issues of socialized medicine, Cap & Trade, and Obama's open hostility to countries such as Israel and Honduras. How Obama handles this current issue, and how much it hurts his credibility will give great insight into what the next 3 1/2 years will be like in America.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
U.S. Continues Applying Pressure to Honduras for Upholding its Constitution
The US continues its support for potential Central American Marxist dictators. Ratcheting up the financial pressure, the State Department is cutting off all non-humanitarian aid to the country.
From hondurasnews.com: "At the end of US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s meeting with Mr. Manuel Zelaya, former President of Honduras, the State Department announced today it will stop $22 Million in Non-Humanitarian Aid to Honduras, and stated that 'Restoration of the terminated assistance will be predicated upon a return to democratic, constitutional governance in Honduras.'"
That last line is loaded with unintentional humor, of course. After all Zelaya was removed by the military under orders from the Honduran Supreme Court and with the blessings of the Honduran legislature. This occurred soon after Zelaya illegally attempted to change the Constitution to stay in power. "Return to democratic, constitutional governance" indeed...
The post goes on: "In addition to the terminated $22 million, as much as $200 million in Millennium Challenge funds could be halted as well. Mrs. Clinton is the chairperson on the board, who will discuss its funds earmarked for Honduras in next week’s meeting."
Meanwhile, Hugo Llorens, the US ambassador to Honduras, was gracious enough to do an interview with Global Exchange a group founded by Medea Benjamin co-founder of CODEPINK. (h/t Gateway Pundit for info and links).
"While awaiting the arrival of United States Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens to a meeting at the US embassy in Tegucigalpa Friday morning, Deputy Mission Chief Simon Henshaw spoke to an American human rights delegation from Global Exchange. The meeting had been organized by Andrés Conteris, founder of Democracy Now! en Español, who had managed to get me into the embassy despite the fact that I was not on the list and that my shoes set off the metal detector.
"In response to Global Exchange’s concern for current human rights violations in Honduras such as police beating of marchers opposed to the coup that ousted President Manuel Zelaya on June 28, Henshaw announced that the delegation was 'preaching to the converted' and that 'we condemn the [coup] regime and think they’re thugs.' Henshaw’s subsequent declaration that 'the first issue is that [the Honduran coup] was a coup and that it was a military coup and that it was wrong' suggested that the US State Department had finally reached a consensus on the nature of the events of June 28 after debating for 48 days whether the coup was military. The consensus was called into question with the arrival of Ambassador Llorens and his exchange with Joe Shansky of Democracy Now! en Español:
"LLORENS: It’s a clear-cut case of a coup.
"SHANSKY: Military coup.
"LLORENS: Well, whatever you call it.
"Llorens went on to explain that—regardless of whether you called it a coup, a military coup, or a coup d’état—'it’s horrible,' and that coup President Roberto Micheletti was comparable to Napoleon given the zeal with which he had grabbed the Bible and sworn himself in as president of Honduras. As for why Napoleonic behavior had not triggered the freeze in US aid required by Section 7008 of the US Foreign Operations Law, Llorens momentarily supplanted the discussion of millions of dollars flowing into Honduras courtesy of US-funded Millenium Change Corporation (MCC) with a discussion of how the joint US-Honduran military base at Soto Cano had been shut down [emphasis mine]."
So the US ambassador is suggesting that the man who took over Honduras with the consent of the Honduran legislature and Supreme Court is involved in a coup and is "Napoleon given the zeal..." This would merely be embarrassing if the injustice and ramifications of the US's response to the Honduras situation were not so dire.
UPDATE: William A. Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection is keeping tabs on the Honduras issue. He's got some good links I will share as well.
"The Obama Administration formally cut off aid to the impoverished nation of Honduras today, and announced other impending sanctions, to pressure the country to accept the return of its ex-president and would-be dictator. The Administration did this even though its legal basis for doing so had been debunked and abandoned.
"Earlier, the State Department planned to cut off aid to Honduras based on the false claim that its removal of ex-president Manuel Zelaya was a 'military coup.' But this claim was easily debunked, because Honduras replaced the ex-president with a civilian successor (a Congressman installed by Honduras’s Congress), who is backed by a democratically-elected legislature and a unanimous vote by the country’s supreme court. (Indeed, the Honduras Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for the former president’s arrest, which soldiers duly carried out, and recently issued a ruling reaffirming that the ex-president’s removal from office was valid. The Obama Administration retaliated against Honduras for this ruling by imposing travel sanctions against the Honduran people). Moreover, Honduras’ removal of its ex-president was legal.
"Now, the State Department more or less admits that admits that there was no military coup, citing 'the participation of both the legislative and judicial branches of government' in the president’s removal.
"But while its original justification for cutting off the aid has disappeared, the Obama Administration was determined to cut off aid anyway, logic be damned. The Associated Press now reports that 'the Obama administration on Thursday cut off all aid to the Honduran government over the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya, making permanent a temporary suspension of U.S. assistance put in place after he was deposed in June.'
"U.S. sanctions are causing suffering, malnutrition, and widespread unemployment in Honduras, blocking needed projects such as the construction of orphanages."
Hans Bader's article in the Portland Examiner will start to give an idea of the plight of the Honduran people. And as he points out "Right now, all the left-wing groups that complained about U.S. interference in Latin America in the 1980s are hypocritically demanding that the U.S. interfere in Honduras to force it to accept the return of its would-be dictator. (Latin American dictators like Cuba’s Castro, who usually complain about any American presence in Latin America, are now demanding that America force the return of Zelaya to power).
"All their past rhetoric about imperialism was disingenuous. There could be no more obvious example of imperialism than the Obama Administration trying to force Honduras’s legislature, courts, and people to accept the return of its bullying ex-president, and Obama’s claim that his removal was 'illegal,' when it has been upheld his country’s highest court, and was expressly mandated by Article 239 of the Honduras Constitution (which Article 272 gave the military the authority to enforce)."
Obama Brand Imperialism: no apologies are forthcoming-- at least not from him.
UPDATE 2: And the US looks like it's not going to recognize Honduras' election results in November per the Washington Post.
As Jacobson points out, this is coming from an administration that does not refuse to recognize Iran's fraudulent election nor condemn its violently repressive aftermath.
Japan's Future First Lady Believes she has Visited Venus
Okay. Here's an article from the UK's The Independant (h/t The Drudge Report). The wife of Prime Minister-elect Yukio Hatoyama, Miyuki, apparently believes that her soul was taken by aliens to visit the planet Venus. Hmmm.
From the article by Peter Popham: "The 62-year-old [Miyuki Hatoyama] also knew Tom Cruise in a former incarnation – when he was Japanese – and is now looking forward to making a Hollywood movie with him. 'I believe he'd get it if I said to him, "Long time no see", when we meet,' she said in a recent interview. But it is her claim in a book entitled 'Very Strange Things I've Encountered' that she was abducted by aliens while she slept one night 20 years ago, that has suddenly drawn attention following last Sunday's poll.
'While my body was asleep, I think my soul rode on a triangular-shaped UFO and went to Venus," she explains in the tome she published last year. "It was a very beautiful place, and it was very green.'
"When the new Japanese first lady related her adventures to her then husband, he told her flatteningly that it was probably just a dream. But she is confident that Yukio, the man now entrusted with the task of hauling Japan out of its deepest recession, would have reacted very differently. 'My current husband has a different way of thinking. He would surely say, "Oh, that's great",' she wrote."
So Tom Cruise was Japanese in a former life? No wonder his attraction to that atrocious bit of cinema "The Last Samurai."
I have a have a general rule that there are three subjects not to discuss with non-intimates in polite conversation: politics, religion, and UFOs. Mrs. Hatoyama illustrates why I have that third one.
Hideous "I Pledge..." Video Shown at School Assembly
Remember that creepy Ashton Kutcher "I Pledge..." video? It was like my fifth or sixth blog entry back in January. In it various celebrities stand around talking about how wonderful they're going to be and all the wonderful things they're going to do as an electronic piano sentimentally plays. Then they all pledge to be a servant to Barack Obama. Yeah... That happens at the end when the camera zooms out and we find out that all of them are actually a part of Obama's cheek. Film making at it's finest there...
Well apparently a PTA Board in Utah found it necessary and appropriate to show that video at an assembly. Michelle Malkin has the an excerpt from The Salt Lake Tribune story by Lisa Schencker.
"A school principal has apologized for showing a video at an assembly that a politically conservative group leader is calling 'radical, leftist propaganda.' "
"Children at Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington were shown a short video called 'I pledge' on Aug. 28. The video opens with an image of President Barack Obama and part of a speech in which he says, 'Let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.' The video then features celebrities making pledges about how they will help the president and the world -- and that's where some say the problem lies."
[...]
"Chris Williams, Davis School District spokesman, said school principal Ofelia Wade and school PTA leaders decided to show the video as part of an assembly about the school's theme for the year, service. He said the PTA board chose the video and Wade did not see it before it was shown in the assembly.
"'It got to a point where she turned to her assistant and said, "Oops, I wish I would have seen this before. I don't think I would have shown it,"' Williams said. He said Wade could see how some adults might find the video political."
Political? Really? Who woulda thunk it? Next time, take the 4 1/2 minutes to watch the thing...
Anytime I see this "I Pledge..." thing I have to go check out Iowahawk's very funny "transcript" of the video. Enjoy. It's good for a few laughs.
Well apparently a PTA Board in Utah found it necessary and appropriate to show that video at an assembly. Michelle Malkin has the an excerpt from The Salt Lake Tribune story by Lisa Schencker.
"A school principal has apologized for showing a video at an assembly that a politically conservative group leader is calling 'radical, leftist propaganda.' "
"Children at Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington were shown a short video called 'I pledge' on Aug. 28. The video opens with an image of President Barack Obama and part of a speech in which he says, 'Let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.' The video then features celebrities making pledges about how they will help the president and the world -- and that's where some say the problem lies."
[...]
"Chris Williams, Davis School District spokesman, said school principal Ofelia Wade and school PTA leaders decided to show the video as part of an assembly about the school's theme for the year, service. He said the PTA board chose the video and Wade did not see it before it was shown in the assembly.
"'It got to a point where she turned to her assistant and said, "Oops, I wish I would have seen this before. I don't think I would have shown it,"' Williams said. He said Wade could see how some adults might find the video political."
Political? Really? Who woulda thunk it? Next time, take the 4 1/2 minutes to watch the thing...
Anytime I see this "I Pledge..." thing I have to go check out Iowahawk's very funny "transcript" of the video. Enjoy. It's good for a few laughs.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Added New Link! "Black and Red" Now on the Blog List
Check out the blog Black and Red by J. Thomas Hunter. Right now he's in the middle of a series on posts regarding the GOP connecting with racial minorities and the challenges and issues that are faced. It's very interesting so far and recommended reading.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
OFA Website Goes Wild
What a day for the Organizing for America website. Where to begin...?
Well let's start with this gem from their site as reported by The Foundry. The OFA seems to be planning a coordinated phone campaign for health care by calling their U.S. Senators on September 11. Right before the script callers are to work from-- "TELL THEM: 'I'm calling from the city of [xxx] - and I AM mad as Hell - and I AM NOT going to take it anymore [way to quote the blithering idiot from Network] , If you don't mind!'"-- is this little gem. "All 50 States are coordinating in this [the phone campaign] – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders [emphasis mine].”
Yeah... that went out to the public on the internet. The OFA site this is from has been pulled but The Foundry has provided the screenshot of it.
Rory Cooper of The Foundry offers a sane and calm response to this reprehensible bile spit out by the OFA and I encourage you to read it.
So the OFA believes that:
a) people who disagree with the 1000+ page HR 3200 bill are "Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists." I see somebody's been reading the DHS's Report (remember that way back in April?).
b) voicing opposition to a sweeping bill (the second in a series -- remember Cap & Trade is on the table) being madly rushed through Congress is "subverting the American Democratic Process."
c) news organizations that don't toe the Obama line are "Propaganda Network[s] ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders."
Hmm... Stop me if I'm wrong, but the frenzy I'm most seeing being whipped up is the one OFA is openly calling for with inflammatory language-- "I AM mad as Hell - and I AM NOT going to take it anymore...!"
And next comes this treat from the OFA. Gateway Pundit has this message from the OFA, also regarding their 9/11 phone blitz. (Oops. the OFA also pulled that webpage, but Gateway Pundit once again provided the screenshot.)
And next comes this treat from the OFA. Gateway Pundit has this message from the OFA, also regarding their 9/11 phone blitz. (Oops. the OFA also pulled that webpage, but Gateway Pundit once again provided the screenshot.)
Here's the text:
"---* RECLAIM OUR LAND FROM THE HEIRS OF, YES: BIN LADEN *---* YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE *---
"In case you haven't seen it in the News: Republican Representatives, Senators, GOP Party Leader, GOP Political Machine top personnel (e.g., Gingritch), etc etc etc --- they're ALL every one of them applauding and encouraging their zealot-horde by merrily referring to them as 'Proud Right-Wing Terrorists'. Google it - I'm not pulling your leg.
"But don't hate them: Misguided citizens are easy-pickings for demagogues, whom they blindly follow because they’ve been trained all their lives not to question the dogma of their religion, so it’s natural for them NOT TO QUESTION what’s being spoon-fed to them by their FALSE PROPHETS who, themselves, shamelessly seek Worldly Glory.
"They don’t apply the simple Test: 'Am I being led closer to God, when I do what these folks say? – Or, am I on a Bullet-Train to the Devil, and I’m just a pawn to make these folks richer and more powerful?' Because, you know: the Faith one has in God, is different from faith one should have in Man. And you need to be even MORE skeptical, when one of ‘em says that God picked them for something or another. You can bet whatever they’re doing is making them more powerful/ more wealthy, and certainly less pious, no? Ooops, and following them is making YOU less pious too, in thought, and in deed. Yesseree, it’s a real thing to chew on.
"Just remember: We Are The Super-Heroes Who Yes WE DID, and YES, WE SHALL commence administering Super-Hero Karate Chops, beginning now.
"Oh, and can some of you facebook and tweat this around? I'm not that good at it yet. IF YOU MISS THIS DAY, JUST DO IT OVER THE WEEKEND – IT'LL ALL GET REPORTED TO THE RESPECTIVE SENATORS ON MONDAY, ANYWAY."
Yep... That went out over the internet too.
Super-Hero Karate Chops! OH boy! I'm gonna CHOP me down an Old Man (preferably White) right away! Yay! And the "HEIRS OF BIN LADEN" I didn't know bin Laden had strong feelings about America's health care... Silly me.
If these two pages are any indicator, the OFA plays pretty fast and loose with the rules for capitalization...
There's so much wrong with madly ranting that those who oppose health reform are domestic terrorists etc., so I'm just not going to go there for now. That's fodder for a much longer post later. However, this nonsense is apparently what passes for community organizing in the realm of the Obama's OFA. Demonize the opposition (literally in this case), use inflammatory language to whip followers into frenzy, then set them loose on the public.
Huh? Where has that strategy been used in the past with great success? I would answer, but then I would be accused of being a racist, right-wing, domestic terrorist...
UPDATE: GRRR... I can't get these pics to click to enlarge when I position outside of their default placement at the top of the screen. So the top pic is the one I pulled from The Foundry (the Domestic Terrorist rant) and the second is the one from Gateway Pundit (Karate Chops).
Black Professors Author Memo Urging Blacks to Vote Black
Michelle Malkin (among others) is following the story about the memo (full text here) circulated through the Internet and Atlanta area which urges race-based voting.
From the memo: "The view that the times are too serious to stand on the sidelines is absolutely correct from the perspective of a black mayor at all cost. In fact, if a white candidate were to win the 2009 mayoral race, it would be just as significant in political terms as Maynard Jacksons [the first black mayor of Atlanta] victory in 1973.
[...]
"The changing demographics which show a more rapid growth in the citys white population (faster and a higher percentage than anywhere else in the country) requires that we critically evaluate all candidates;
[...]
"We need an overall governance strategy and a definition of who really governs in Atlanta. In other words, in 2009 we have arrived at a place in time where we can no longer afford to just look at race in the Mayors race or individual council races.
"At the end of the day, when the morning comes, a black agenda would better enable us to have our interests respected by and our influence realized in any administration."
Check out the video on WSBTV's website in which has three (Borders, Reed, and Norwood) of the mayoral candidates' reactions in soundbite format.
The authors of the memo, doctors William Boone and Keith Jennings both purportedly of Clark Atlanta University (I cannot find a listing for a Keith Jennings in the CAU website's faculty directory and a search of the site proved fruitless), plan to hold a press conference to clear up certain perceptions. I rather eagerly await their statements.
While reporting on the announced press conference the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote: "Boone and Jennings shot back Monday calling claims of racism 'patently false' and a 'red herring,' because they were presenting, 'views that have been articulated in various parts of the community.'
"'We stand by our belief that "a black agenda would enable African American interests to be respected by any administration,"' they wrote. 'The interests of African American voters are just as legitimate as other Atlanta voters, and the notion that we must apologize for highlighting those interests is absurd.'"
As Michelle Malkin observes "And I’m so very sure they’d be the first to defend a pair of white professors who wrote up a memo about the 'white agenda' and strategized about how to rally voters behind the strongest white candidate to defeat non-white politicians."
Yet, what Boone (a professor of Political Science) and the elusive Jennings present is not terribly unusual in black politics. As distasteful as it is to rally around skin color, the black community has been doing this for almost a century-and-a-half. While historically borne of necessity, outside white oppression, and circumstance, this practice is now for keeping the status quo within the political structures of the black community.
Boone and Jennings' attitude is a throwback to the sort of separatist and reactionary thinking ("The sevenfold path of blackness is think black, talk black, act black, create black, buy black, vote black, and live black") of people like Ron Everett (aka Maulana Karenga) the inventor of Kwanzaa.
It appears to me that the call for and efforts to create a "black agenda" to unify the splintering black communities in Atlanta is little more than an effort to reassert their own values and agendas. To legitimize their views, they label them as a "black agenda" and then urge black individuals to forsake or compromise their own values, beliefs, and, most importantly for them, their votes, for the sake of the "black community."
Is it any wonder that the seven principles of Kwanzaa are unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity, and faith?
From the memo: "The view that the times are too serious to stand on the sidelines is absolutely correct from the perspective of a black mayor at all cost. In fact, if a white candidate were to win the 2009 mayoral race, it would be just as significant in political terms as Maynard Jacksons [the first black mayor of Atlanta] victory in 1973.
[...]
"The changing demographics which show a more rapid growth in the citys white population (faster and a higher percentage than anywhere else in the country) requires that we critically evaluate all candidates;
[...]
"We need an overall governance strategy and a definition of who really governs in Atlanta. In other words, in 2009 we have arrived at a place in time where we can no longer afford to just look at race in the Mayors race or individual council races.
"At the end of the day, when the morning comes, a black agenda would better enable us to have our interests respected by and our influence realized in any administration."
Check out the video on WSBTV's website in which has three (Borders, Reed, and Norwood) of the mayoral candidates' reactions in soundbite format.
The authors of the memo, doctors William Boone and Keith Jennings both purportedly of Clark Atlanta University (I cannot find a listing for a Keith Jennings in the CAU website's faculty directory and a search of the site proved fruitless), plan to hold a press conference to clear up certain perceptions. I rather eagerly await their statements.
While reporting on the announced press conference the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote: "Boone and Jennings shot back Monday calling claims of racism 'patently false' and a 'red herring,' because they were presenting, 'views that have been articulated in various parts of the community.'
"'We stand by our belief that "a black agenda would enable African American interests to be respected by any administration,"' they wrote. 'The interests of African American voters are just as legitimate as other Atlanta voters, and the notion that we must apologize for highlighting those interests is absurd.'"
As Michelle Malkin observes "And I’m so very sure they’d be the first to defend a pair of white professors who wrote up a memo about the 'white agenda' and strategized about how to rally voters behind the strongest white candidate to defeat non-white politicians."
Yet, what Boone (a professor of Political Science) and the elusive Jennings present is not terribly unusual in black politics. As distasteful as it is to rally around skin color, the black community has been doing this for almost a century-and-a-half. While historically borne of necessity, outside white oppression, and circumstance, this practice is now for keeping the status quo within the political structures of the black community.
Boone and Jennings' attitude is a throwback to the sort of separatist and reactionary thinking ("The sevenfold path of blackness is think black, talk black, act black, create black, buy black, vote black, and live black") of people like Ron Everett (aka Maulana Karenga) the inventor of Kwanzaa.
It appears to me that the call for and efforts to create a "black agenda" to unify the splintering black communities in Atlanta is little more than an effort to reassert their own values and agendas. To legitimize their views, they label them as a "black agenda" and then urge black individuals to forsake or compromise their own values, beliefs, and, most importantly for them, their votes, for the sake of the "black community."
Is it any wonder that the seven principles of Kwanzaa are unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity, and faith?
Added New Blog! Check Out "A Conservative Teacher"
I've just added a new blog to the Blog List. Check out A Conservative Teacher and especially the most recent entry regarding grade school social studies projects (h/t Pundit and Pundette).
I've been concerned about the highly partisan nature of universities and colleges for some time now, but partisan politics at the elementry level (when student are just beginning to lay down the foundations of their beliefs) could be a far more serious problem. After all, college students are supposed to be well-practiced and educated critical thinkers, right?
I've been concerned about the highly partisan nature of universities and colleges for some time now, but partisan politics at the elementry level (when student are just beginning to lay down the foundations of their beliefs) could be a far more serious problem. After all, college students are supposed to be well-practiced and educated critical thinkers, right?
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Obama Setting up Israel to Take a Fall
With all the excitement over Obama's various domestic proposals (health care, Cap & Trade etc.), it is easy to forget the realm of international relations. Obama's policy of apologies (for the actions of others) and appeasement have so far proven to be a dismal failure. To make matters worse, Obama now seems to be intent to blame Israel for his failures (more convenient than Republicans I suppose).
Check out this piece "The rigged game" by Caroline Glick.
From Glick's op/ed:
"What the Guardian account shows is an Obama administration looking to blame Israel for the failure of its policy of attempting to appease the likes of Iranian dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"Come September, US President Barack Obama is going to have a difficult time of it. He set a September deadline for his strategy of diplomatically courting the mullahs. This policy involves deferring further sanctions against Teheran and all but openly renouncing the option of using military force to destroy Iran's nuclear installations while waiting politely for the mullahs to sit down for tea with US officials.
"Far from accepting Obama's offer, the Iranians have spit on it. Indeed, they have been too busy brutalizing their own people and building bombs and missiles to even respond to him directly. Instead, they have signaled their contempt for Obama by promoting known arch-terrorists to high office. For instance, Ahmadinejad just appointed Ahmad Vahidi, the suspected mastermind of the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia where 19 US servicemen and women were murdered to serve as defense minister.
"In support of Obama's appeasement efforts, both the House and the Senate Foreign Relations committees set aside veto-proof bills that would place sanctions on companies exporting refined fuel to Iran. But Congress, now on summer recess, reconvenes in September and members are anxiously awaiting a green light from the White House to put the bills before a vote.
"So unless something saves him, Obama will look like quite a fool next month. His appeasement policy has given the mullahs eight precious months of unimpeded work at their nuclear installations. Their uranium enrichment facility at Natanz is now operating some 5,000 centrifuges, with another 2,400 centrifuges about to go on line. That is an eightfold increase in centrifuge activity from a year ago.
"Obama now turns to Israel to avoid embarrassment. If he can convince Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that the White House will only get serious about Iran's nuclear weapons program if Netanyahu freezes Jewish building in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, then Obama can present his sudden willingness to sign on to veto-proof congressional sanctions legislation not as a consequence of his own failure, but as a result of Israeli pressure.
"If Obama succeeds in getting Netanyahu on board, the American media discussion of sanctions will focus on the issue of Israeli power over US policy. The so-called Israel lobby will be pummeled as pundits argue about whether Obama was right or wrong to succumb to Israeli pressure to support congressional sanctions. No one will remember that Obama was forced to support the sanctions because he had no other choice, since next month his engagement policy will become indefensible.
"On the other hand, if Israel refuses to play ball and doesn't provide Obama with a concession which he will be 'forced' to pay for with a harder line on Iran, then he will still have to adopt a harder line. In this case, however, it will be attributed to the failure of his appeasement policy toward Iran rather than to the success of his Middle East diplomacy against Israel.
"Obama's apparent interest in setting Israel up as the fall guy for the failure of his engagement policy is the same policy he will doubtless follow if matters continue on course and Teheran acquires nuclear weapons. At that point, Obama can be counted on to claim that it was Israel's recalcitrance in the negotiations with the Palestinians or the Syrians or the Lebanese that forced the mullahs' hands. That is, he will say it is the absence of 'progress' in the 'peace process' due to whatever imagined Israeli intransigence that made it impossible for the Iranian 'moderates' to convince the 'hardliners' to give up their nuclear weapons program.
"In Obama's defense, it should be noted that at least he worries about being embarrassed by the failure of his Iran policy. He knows that the overwhelming majority of Americans consider Iran to be an enemy of their country. In a poll of US voters taken in May, some 80 percent of Americans claimed that a nuclear-armed Iran would constitute a threat to US national security and 57% said that Israel would be justified in launching a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear installations."
Read the entirety of Glick's analysis. It is well worth the time.
Obama's realization that his dogmas and agendas are so out-of-step with the majority American people has caused him to fall back upon his blame-the-others strategies. This is hardly surprising, especially to those familiar with academic circles. In the privileged and sequestered realm of academia, egos, grants, budgets and emotional attachments to pet theories combine to produce a constant wrangling which often results in the more pedestrian forms of political deceit-- namely blaming others and loudly calling opponents liars. This is especially true when dealing with the highly interpretive soft sciences (such as literary theory).
Much has been made of Obama's scholarly background, mostly by those who have little actual understanding of the internal workings of academia. Perhaps they're correct in ways they never meant. After all, the pettiness, arrogance, and simplistic outlook the Obama administration regularly displays is right out of faculty hallways.
Check out this piece "The rigged game" by Caroline Glick.
From Glick's op/ed:
"What the Guardian account shows is an Obama administration looking to blame Israel for the failure of its policy of attempting to appease the likes of Iranian dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"Come September, US President Barack Obama is going to have a difficult time of it. He set a September deadline for his strategy of diplomatically courting the mullahs. This policy involves deferring further sanctions against Teheran and all but openly renouncing the option of using military force to destroy Iran's nuclear installations while waiting politely for the mullahs to sit down for tea with US officials.
"Far from accepting Obama's offer, the Iranians have spit on it. Indeed, they have been too busy brutalizing their own people and building bombs and missiles to even respond to him directly. Instead, they have signaled their contempt for Obama by promoting known arch-terrorists to high office. For instance, Ahmadinejad just appointed Ahmad Vahidi, the suspected mastermind of the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia where 19 US servicemen and women were murdered to serve as defense minister.
"In support of Obama's appeasement efforts, both the House and the Senate Foreign Relations committees set aside veto-proof bills that would place sanctions on companies exporting refined fuel to Iran. But Congress, now on summer recess, reconvenes in September and members are anxiously awaiting a green light from the White House to put the bills before a vote.
"So unless something saves him, Obama will look like quite a fool next month. His appeasement policy has given the mullahs eight precious months of unimpeded work at their nuclear installations. Their uranium enrichment facility at Natanz is now operating some 5,000 centrifuges, with another 2,400 centrifuges about to go on line. That is an eightfold increase in centrifuge activity from a year ago.
"Obama now turns to Israel to avoid embarrassment. If he can convince Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that the White House will only get serious about Iran's nuclear weapons program if Netanyahu freezes Jewish building in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, then Obama can present his sudden willingness to sign on to veto-proof congressional sanctions legislation not as a consequence of his own failure, but as a result of Israeli pressure.
"If Obama succeeds in getting Netanyahu on board, the American media discussion of sanctions will focus on the issue of Israeli power over US policy. The so-called Israel lobby will be pummeled as pundits argue about whether Obama was right or wrong to succumb to Israeli pressure to support congressional sanctions. No one will remember that Obama was forced to support the sanctions because he had no other choice, since next month his engagement policy will become indefensible.
"On the other hand, if Israel refuses to play ball and doesn't provide Obama with a concession which he will be 'forced' to pay for with a harder line on Iran, then he will still have to adopt a harder line. In this case, however, it will be attributed to the failure of his appeasement policy toward Iran rather than to the success of his Middle East diplomacy against Israel.
"Obama's apparent interest in setting Israel up as the fall guy for the failure of his engagement policy is the same policy he will doubtless follow if matters continue on course and Teheran acquires nuclear weapons. At that point, Obama can be counted on to claim that it was Israel's recalcitrance in the negotiations with the Palestinians or the Syrians or the Lebanese that forced the mullahs' hands. That is, he will say it is the absence of 'progress' in the 'peace process' due to whatever imagined Israeli intransigence that made it impossible for the Iranian 'moderates' to convince the 'hardliners' to give up their nuclear weapons program.
"In Obama's defense, it should be noted that at least he worries about being embarrassed by the failure of his Iran policy. He knows that the overwhelming majority of Americans consider Iran to be an enemy of their country. In a poll of US voters taken in May, some 80 percent of Americans claimed that a nuclear-armed Iran would constitute a threat to US national security and 57% said that Israel would be justified in launching a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear installations."
Read the entirety of Glick's analysis. It is well worth the time.
Obama's realization that his dogmas and agendas are so out-of-step with the majority American people has caused him to fall back upon his blame-the-others strategies. This is hardly surprising, especially to those familiar with academic circles. In the privileged and sequestered realm of academia, egos, grants, budgets and emotional attachments to pet theories combine to produce a constant wrangling which often results in the more pedestrian forms of political deceit-- namely blaming others and loudly calling opponents liars. This is especially true when dealing with the highly interpretive soft sciences (such as literary theory).
Much has been made of Obama's scholarly background, mostly by those who have little actual understanding of the internal workings of academia. Perhaps they're correct in ways they never meant. After all, the pettiness, arrogance, and simplistic outlook the Obama administration regularly displays is right out of faculty hallways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)