An open letter from actor Jon Voight to President Obama:
June 22, 2010
President Obama:
You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies. You have done just the opposite. You have propagandized Israel, until they look like they are everyone's enemy — and it has resonated throughout the world. You are putting Israel in harm's way, and you have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.
You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today. The Jewish people have given the world our greatest scientists and philosophers, and the cures for many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and say are the underdogs. But the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals who want Israel eradicated.
You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.
With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel,
Jon Voight
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
A Preventable Disaster
As everyone in the country now probably knows, the oil spill caused by the Deep Water Horizon explosion is the greatest man made environmental disaster in US history. The environmental impact of this spill sent almost instantaneous ripples through many gulf coast industries affecting thousands of workers whose livelihoods are directly linked to the waters and marshes off of the coast of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. In the current shaky economic climate, this region, which has already been pummeled with many natural disasters in the last decade, is suffering yet another economic blow due to the destruction of the marine habitats on which many residents make their living. While these tragedies alone are enough to cripple the workers in the gulf coast region, the Obama administration has dealt yet another devastating blow in the form of the six month deep water drilling moratorium.
After the oil spill, the Obama administration charged the Secretary of the Interior with producing a safety report on deep water drilling. The report, which has 22 new safety measures, was then presented to fifteen engineers , seven of who were recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, for peer review and approval. The engineers reviewed and signed the report. Then on May 28th the Department of the Interior, as part of the report, issued the six month deep water drilling moratorium, which ordered that all deep water drilling cease and notified all lessees and operators that no new permits would be issued for the next six months.(1) Eight engineers on the peer review panel then came out saying that the six month moratorium was not in the safety report which they had signed off on:
“[T]he experts say they never agreed to the administration’s six-month moratorium on exploratory drilling on the outer continental shelf…” A group of technical experts who advised the Obama administration on how to bolster the safety of offshore drilling operations say they oppose the administration’s moratorium on deepwater drilling. Halting the work risks “harming thousand of workers” who “were and are active responsibly and are providing a product the nation demands,” they said. The eight experts – all longtime petroleum engineers, some affiliated with major universities – are listed in a report published by the Interior Department last month as having “peer reviewed” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s recommendations on improving the safety of drilling on the outer continental shelf in the wake of the April 20 oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. The experts said the language about the moratorium did not appear in the draft they had reviewed. (Wall Street Journal, 6.9.10)(2)
So the moratorium itself was not in the draft, and yet was presented as peer reviewed and approved by petroleum engineers as to lend credibility to the ban. Benton Baugh ,who was on the panel, stated that not only were they not aware of the changes but they didn’t approve of the idea at all. In a letter sent to Baugh on June 3, the U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Interior said, "We did not mean to imply that you also agreed with the decision to impose a moratorium on all new deepwater drilling. We acknowledge that you were not asked to review or comment on the proposed moratorium."(3)
Now the economic impact of the moratorium is starting to become apparent, and although the full financial scope is hard to calculate due to vastness of the oil industry, the preliminary numbers are mind blowing. The oil and gas industry is Louisiana's biggest economic engine and accounts for about 16 percent of the state's gross domestic product, vastly overshadowing fishing (1 percent) and tourism (4 percent), according to the Tulane University Energy Institute.(4) Initial estimates are between tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of lost jobs in the entire region and with one dormant well costing upwards of $750,000 to $1 million of lost income a day, yet another gulf coast industry seems poised for absolute devastation. Companies who can not afford to take such losses, and should not be expected to for that matter, have already begun to move operations out of the gulf to places like Brazil and China, where local laws demand that employees on the rigs come from local countries. Simply put, the jobs will not be going with the rigs.
Unlike the hurricanes and the oil spill, which have ravaged this region, this economic disaster was directly caused by the Obama administration and could be stopped at any time. Instead, the administration has done everything to prolong and uphold the ban, even to the point of trying to delay the ruling on a lawsuit filed to stop the moratorium. Although a judge stated that he will rule on rather or not to impose an injunction on the moratorium by June 23rd, the Obama administration has urged that a ruling not be presented until late July.
This is simply a preventable disaster. If BP could have stopped the leak with the wave of a pen, then they would have. If the numerous hurricanes that have consistently pounded the Gulf Coast could have just disappeared over water with the retraction of a bad federal mandate, then it would have been done. So, why does Obama and his political allies continue to let this moratorium compound an already bleak economic situation in the Gulf Coast? That’s what one must ask themselves.
Calvin Parker
(1)http://www.pennenergy.com/index/articles/display/5097877025/articles/pennenergy/oil-spill-gulf-of-mexico-2010/doi-implements_deepwater.html
(2)http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/06/11/deepwater-gate-administration-modifies-peer-reviewed-report-after-it-was-reviewed-by-scientists/
(3)http://www.khou.com/news/local/Local-expert-says-moratorium-on-new-deepwater-drilling-could-be-detrimental-95909754.html
(4)http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN219887920100621
After the oil spill, the Obama administration charged the Secretary of the Interior with producing a safety report on deep water drilling. The report, which has 22 new safety measures, was then presented to fifteen engineers , seven of who were recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, for peer review and approval. The engineers reviewed and signed the report. Then on May 28th the Department of the Interior, as part of the report, issued the six month deep water drilling moratorium, which ordered that all deep water drilling cease and notified all lessees and operators that no new permits would be issued for the next six months.(1) Eight engineers on the peer review panel then came out saying that the six month moratorium was not in the safety report which they had signed off on:
“[T]he experts say they never agreed to the administration’s six-month moratorium on exploratory drilling on the outer continental shelf…” A group of technical experts who advised the Obama administration on how to bolster the safety of offshore drilling operations say they oppose the administration’s moratorium on deepwater drilling. Halting the work risks “harming thousand of workers” who “were and are active responsibly and are providing a product the nation demands,” they said. The eight experts – all longtime petroleum engineers, some affiliated with major universities – are listed in a report published by the Interior Department last month as having “peer reviewed” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s recommendations on improving the safety of drilling on the outer continental shelf in the wake of the April 20 oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. The experts said the language about the moratorium did not appear in the draft they had reviewed. (Wall Street Journal, 6.9.10)(2)
So the moratorium itself was not in the draft, and yet was presented as peer reviewed and approved by petroleum engineers as to lend credibility to the ban. Benton Baugh ,who was on the panel, stated that not only were they not aware of the changes but they didn’t approve of the idea at all. In a letter sent to Baugh on June 3, the U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Interior said, "We did not mean to imply that you also agreed with the decision to impose a moratorium on all new deepwater drilling. We acknowledge that you were not asked to review or comment on the proposed moratorium."(3)
Now the economic impact of the moratorium is starting to become apparent, and although the full financial scope is hard to calculate due to vastness of the oil industry, the preliminary numbers are mind blowing. The oil and gas industry is Louisiana's biggest economic engine and accounts for about 16 percent of the state's gross domestic product, vastly overshadowing fishing (1 percent) and tourism (4 percent), according to the Tulane University Energy Institute.(4) Initial estimates are between tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of lost jobs in the entire region and with one dormant well costing upwards of $750,000 to $1 million of lost income a day, yet another gulf coast industry seems poised for absolute devastation. Companies who can not afford to take such losses, and should not be expected to for that matter, have already begun to move operations out of the gulf to places like Brazil and China, where local laws demand that employees on the rigs come from local countries. Simply put, the jobs will not be going with the rigs.
Unlike the hurricanes and the oil spill, which have ravaged this region, this economic disaster was directly caused by the Obama administration and could be stopped at any time. Instead, the administration has done everything to prolong and uphold the ban, even to the point of trying to delay the ruling on a lawsuit filed to stop the moratorium. Although a judge stated that he will rule on rather or not to impose an injunction on the moratorium by June 23rd, the Obama administration has urged that a ruling not be presented until late July.
This is simply a preventable disaster. If BP could have stopped the leak with the wave of a pen, then they would have. If the numerous hurricanes that have consistently pounded the Gulf Coast could have just disappeared over water with the retraction of a bad federal mandate, then it would have been done. So, why does Obama and his political allies continue to let this moratorium compound an already bleak economic situation in the Gulf Coast? That’s what one must ask themselves.
Calvin Parker
(1)http://www.pennenergy.com/index/articles/display/5097877025/articles/pennenergy/oil-spill-gulf-of-mexico-2010/doi-implements_deepwater.html
(2)http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/06/11/deepwater-gate-administration-modifies-peer-reviewed-report-after-it-was-reviewed-by-scientists/
(3)http://www.khou.com/news/local/Local-expert-says-moratorium-on-new-deepwater-drilling-could-be-detrimental-95909754.html
(4)http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN219887920100621
Friday, June 18, 2010
Rosie Clucks Anti-Semitic
White House correspondent Helen Thomas’ comments captured international attention a few weeks ago as she suggested that the Israelis should just “get the hell out of Palestine.” Her crass comments have given others in America the courage to stand up and express their opinions about Zionism. Not surprisingly, similar rhetoric came spewing from the gaping chasm between Rosie O’Donnell’s cheeks, as she vehemently expressed that Helen Thomas is right, and that her comments toward Israel were not offensive.
Thankfully, few people actually entertain O’Donnell’s political musings. After all, this is the same woman who once said that “radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam,” a statement so stupid that most Americans don’t dignify it with significant thought, but rather just chalk it up as another idiotic belief held by only the most wacky of the left.
It is worth pointing out in this instance, however, that Rosie O’Donnell clearly has no knowledge of the regional history of the Middle East other than the ludicrously false belief that “the homeland was originally the Palestinians’.”
It appears that Ms. O’Donnell is in dire need of a history lesson if she finds Israel to be an occupier in what was originally a Muslim-Arab land. The land that is now Israel was settled by the Jews nearly two thousand years prior to Muhammad’s birth, when the Israelites fled captivity in Egypt and made it their home. The territory was inhabited by Jews and Christians long before Muhammad’s followers forcibly conquered the land and declared that it would henceforth belong to Allah and his prophet.
Rosie O’Donnell’s comments have no historical base, but it is strikingly odd that Rosie O’Donnell finds herself in opposition to Israel, and thereby in alignment with the Islamic nations that surround it. Would Rosie O’Donnell actually prefer if Israel was stripped of its dominion and the land were turned over to the aggressors that preach the destruction and genocide of the Jewish people? Does Ms. O’Donnell agree with the executions of homosexuals that commonly occur in many Middle Eastern countries, for example? How about the public stonings of accused women adulterers that are not given the privilege of a fair trial? How about the practice of recruiting mentally handicapped women to unwittingly commit suicide bombings? These are among the fundamental practices condoned by entire theocracies in the nations in Arabia, some of which would almost certainly be employed if the Palestinians usurped Israel’s sovereignty.
Something tells me that if Rosie O’Donnell was a gay woman living in Israel, she would not be longing to oust the Israeli government and let the Arab Palestinians take the political helm.
But setting religion and ideology aside, the more sensible spectators of the world can recognize two undeniable truths when they look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The first truth is that Israel has been constantly attacked since its inception by hostile Arab forces that surround it. In a bid for peace and an in an effort to live on their sliver of Middle Eastern soil, Israel has given back acquired lands and it has returned the spoils of defensive wars to its enemies. The nation seeks to live as a sovereign country in coexistence and cooperation with its neighbors, and Israelis allow worship at holy sites within its land to people of all faiths.
The other truth is that Palestinians and their allies in Arabia will not be happy until Israel is either destroyed or engulfed by Arabs.
So the real question is, how can so many Americans like Helen Thomas and Rosie O’Donnell choose to vilify a survivalist Israel and by proxy defend the violent and aggressive forces that encircle it?
For some, the simple answer is because Israel is a supposed symbol of American imperialism, and anti-Americanism is all the rage. Yet for others, it is because anti-Semitism has again become fashionable. Of course, the term “anti-Semitism” has fallen out of favor with a racially sensitive public, and it has been replaced with the term “anti-Zionism.” But most anti-Zionists are clearly anti-Semites, from Mahmoud Amedinejad who recently made another pledge to destroy Israel, to Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose anti-Israel hate speech once filled our president’s ears, to Helen Thomas who thinks the Jews should leave their homes and return to the land where their people were nearly exterminated.
Rosie O’Donnell is simply a useful idiot for the anti-Semitic agenda. She probably does not hate Jews, but she is adamantly anti-American and therefore she finds herself in league with the anti-Semites that do.
And the anti-Semites of the world count their lucky stars that people like Rosie have a microphone, and that other useful idiots listen to her and support the “anti-Zionist” cause.
William Sullivan
Thankfully, few people actually entertain O’Donnell’s political musings. After all, this is the same woman who once said that “radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam,” a statement so stupid that most Americans don’t dignify it with significant thought, but rather just chalk it up as another idiotic belief held by only the most wacky of the left.
It is worth pointing out in this instance, however, that Rosie O’Donnell clearly has no knowledge of the regional history of the Middle East other than the ludicrously false belief that “the homeland was originally the Palestinians’.”
It appears that Ms. O’Donnell is in dire need of a history lesson if she finds Israel to be an occupier in what was originally a Muslim-Arab land. The land that is now Israel was settled by the Jews nearly two thousand years prior to Muhammad’s birth, when the Israelites fled captivity in Egypt and made it their home. The territory was inhabited by Jews and Christians long before Muhammad’s followers forcibly conquered the land and declared that it would henceforth belong to Allah and his prophet.
Rosie O’Donnell’s comments have no historical base, but it is strikingly odd that Rosie O’Donnell finds herself in opposition to Israel, and thereby in alignment with the Islamic nations that surround it. Would Rosie O’Donnell actually prefer if Israel was stripped of its dominion and the land were turned over to the aggressors that preach the destruction and genocide of the Jewish people? Does Ms. O’Donnell agree with the executions of homosexuals that commonly occur in many Middle Eastern countries, for example? How about the public stonings of accused women adulterers that are not given the privilege of a fair trial? How about the practice of recruiting mentally handicapped women to unwittingly commit suicide bombings? These are among the fundamental practices condoned by entire theocracies in the nations in Arabia, some of which would almost certainly be employed if the Palestinians usurped Israel’s sovereignty.
Something tells me that if Rosie O’Donnell was a gay woman living in Israel, she would not be longing to oust the Israeli government and let the Arab Palestinians take the political helm.
But setting religion and ideology aside, the more sensible spectators of the world can recognize two undeniable truths when they look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The first truth is that Israel has been constantly attacked since its inception by hostile Arab forces that surround it. In a bid for peace and an in an effort to live on their sliver of Middle Eastern soil, Israel has given back acquired lands and it has returned the spoils of defensive wars to its enemies. The nation seeks to live as a sovereign country in coexistence and cooperation with its neighbors, and Israelis allow worship at holy sites within its land to people of all faiths.
The other truth is that Palestinians and their allies in Arabia will not be happy until Israel is either destroyed or engulfed by Arabs.
So the real question is, how can so many Americans like Helen Thomas and Rosie O’Donnell choose to vilify a survivalist Israel and by proxy defend the violent and aggressive forces that encircle it?
For some, the simple answer is because Israel is a supposed symbol of American imperialism, and anti-Americanism is all the rage. Yet for others, it is because anti-Semitism has again become fashionable. Of course, the term “anti-Semitism” has fallen out of favor with a racially sensitive public, and it has been replaced with the term “anti-Zionism.” But most anti-Zionists are clearly anti-Semites, from Mahmoud Amedinejad who recently made another pledge to destroy Israel, to Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose anti-Israel hate speech once filled our president’s ears, to Helen Thomas who thinks the Jews should leave their homes and return to the land where their people were nearly exterminated.
Rosie O’Donnell is simply a useful idiot for the anti-Semitic agenda. She probably does not hate Jews, but she is adamantly anti-American and therefore she finds herself in league with the anti-Semites that do.
And the anti-Semites of the world count their lucky stars that people like Rosie have a microphone, and that other useful idiots listen to her and support the “anti-Zionist” cause.
William Sullivan
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Bravo, Yoram Dori!
It’s no secret that anti-Semitism is alive and well, and Helen Thomas’ comments that the Jews should just “go home" to Germany and Poland has proven that such hatred is burrowed even within our “impartial” press corps.
Of course, most anti-Semites in America can’t just be forthright and say that they hate Jews, because those same people are constantly at conservatives’ throats for being racists and against black people, brown people, whatever. So anti-Semitism has become anti-Zionism.
Regardless of how she wants to paint her prejudice, how dare she make light of the sacrifice and hardships the Israelis have suffered for their small plot of Middle Eastern soil! As some sort of purgatorial penance, perhaps when Helen leaves this Earth, it would be fitting for our Maker to exile her to an ethereal version of Germany or Poland. In the guise of a Jew, circa 1939.
Helen Thomas, all Americans, and all Israelis should read this letter found below, written by Yoram Dori. This wonderful letter expresses relevant history, a longing for peace, and a wish that that Israel's enemies prosper in their own endeavors. This is compassion the likes of which I have never seen in any Palestinian representative.
And Ms. Thomas, rather than being blinded by your hatred, perhaps you can pay attention for the few minutes while reading this letter to pick up on the facts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that have eluded you in your decades of “reporting.”
William Sullivan
As published on The Jerusalem Post:
By Yoram Dori
Dear Ms. Thomas, I read on numerous Web sites the remarks attributed to you (and I did not see any denial) that we, the Jews must “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to Germany or Poland. I am convinced that you are aware of the events which took place during the years 1939-1945 but, to be certain, I think it appropriate to tell you a little about my parents and their families.
My mother was sent to Palestine from Germany in 1933 with the rise of the Nazis to power by her farseeing parents. The British blockade, which prevented Jews fleeing the Nazi horrors from entering, made it difficult for her and only the pretext of coming on a tourist visit enabled her to enter and remain alive. Her older sister, Sarah, her husband and three children aged 12, 10 and seven did not succeed in finding a way of coming to Palestine and were sent by the Nazis to Poland and from there, their journey to the Auschwitz gas chambers, was short. I understand that it is there that you wish to send me.
My father, who lived in Austria, also showed resourcefulness and immediately on the German invasion and sailed to Palestine. On the way – again the British blockade – he was forced to throw his passport into the sea so that, heaven forbid, they would not send him back to Austria, another country you wished I was moving to. His older brother and his wife, who did not go with him, were murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators.
My parents, who, as mentioned, with lifesaving initiative, fled from Europe before they were murdered, arrived in a desolated and barren country, worked in orchards, barely supported themselves and, by the way, were happy with their lot. In 1947 upon hearing of the UN resolution on the partitioning of the country, they danced in the streets, even though most of the area of Israel was torn from its sovereignty. For brands who survived the fire, it was enough.
The Palestinians and Arab countries, who gained most of the area, refused to accept the UN resolution and began a war to annihilate us. Only three years had passed since the liberation of Auschwitz and again we – the Jews – faced the danger of annihilation. To our joy, 600,000 Jews were victorious over millions of armed Arabs. It appears that justice has power and strength of its own.
IN THE 62 years of our existence, we have had seven wars, thousands of terror attacks, buses which have exploded in streets, firing into schools, mortars fired on kindergartens. Yet you wish to exile us back to the inferno, as if nothing happened 65 years ago in Europe, as if our hands have not been stretched out for peace since the establishment of the state?
We were victorious in the wars imposed upon us by Egypt and we signed a peace agreement with it after yielding all the territory and all the oil. We signed a peace agreement with Jordan. We yielded all the territory and much water. We withdrew from Lebanon to the international border and, in return, we received Hizbullah katyushas on our citizens. We left Gaza and in return, we received massive firing on our citizens in the South. Are you aware, Ms. Thomas, that many children from Sderot and the area around Gaza wet their beds until a late age out of fear of the Hamas missiles? And it is us that you wish to exile? Why? Because you think that we are weak or because it annoys you that we are not defeated?
As someone, who throughout his adult life has been a member of the Israeli “peace camp,” notwithstanding you and your strange and angering views, my friends and I (and I hope also my government) will continue to turn over every stone and scour every corner to attain peace. Peace, which will enable us to the smallest extent to live and our neighbors, the Palestinians, to establish a country and to flourish and prosper. To achieve this, we are prepared to make great concessions, to give back all the territories gained as a result of wars which our neighbors forced on us. There is only one thing we want in return – life. A quiet life, a life without terror, a life without missiles, a life like the one you have in Washington and which I, in Israel, also deserve.
Original article found here:
http://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-edcontributors/article.aspx?id=177668
Of course, most anti-Semites in America can’t just be forthright and say that they hate Jews, because those same people are constantly at conservatives’ throats for being racists and against black people, brown people, whatever. So anti-Semitism has become anti-Zionism.
Regardless of how she wants to paint her prejudice, how dare she make light of the sacrifice and hardships the Israelis have suffered for their small plot of Middle Eastern soil! As some sort of purgatorial penance, perhaps when Helen leaves this Earth, it would be fitting for our Maker to exile her to an ethereal version of Germany or Poland. In the guise of a Jew, circa 1939.
Helen Thomas, all Americans, and all Israelis should read this letter found below, written by Yoram Dori. This wonderful letter expresses relevant history, a longing for peace, and a wish that that Israel's enemies prosper in their own endeavors. This is compassion the likes of which I have never seen in any Palestinian representative.
And Ms. Thomas, rather than being blinded by your hatred, perhaps you can pay attention for the few minutes while reading this letter to pick up on the facts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that have eluded you in your decades of “reporting.”
William Sullivan
As published on The Jerusalem Post:
By Yoram Dori
Dear Ms. Thomas, I read on numerous Web sites the remarks attributed to you (and I did not see any denial) that we, the Jews must “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to Germany or Poland. I am convinced that you are aware of the events which took place during the years 1939-1945 but, to be certain, I think it appropriate to tell you a little about my parents and their families.
My mother was sent to Palestine from Germany in 1933 with the rise of the Nazis to power by her farseeing parents. The British blockade, which prevented Jews fleeing the Nazi horrors from entering, made it difficult for her and only the pretext of coming on a tourist visit enabled her to enter and remain alive. Her older sister, Sarah, her husband and three children aged 12, 10 and seven did not succeed in finding a way of coming to Palestine and were sent by the Nazis to Poland and from there, their journey to the Auschwitz gas chambers, was short. I understand that it is there that you wish to send me.
My father, who lived in Austria, also showed resourcefulness and immediately on the German invasion and sailed to Palestine. On the way – again the British blockade – he was forced to throw his passport into the sea so that, heaven forbid, they would not send him back to Austria, another country you wished I was moving to. His older brother and his wife, who did not go with him, were murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators.
My parents, who, as mentioned, with lifesaving initiative, fled from Europe before they were murdered, arrived in a desolated and barren country, worked in orchards, barely supported themselves and, by the way, were happy with their lot. In 1947 upon hearing of the UN resolution on the partitioning of the country, they danced in the streets, even though most of the area of Israel was torn from its sovereignty. For brands who survived the fire, it was enough.
The Palestinians and Arab countries, who gained most of the area, refused to accept the UN resolution and began a war to annihilate us. Only three years had passed since the liberation of Auschwitz and again we – the Jews – faced the danger of annihilation. To our joy, 600,000 Jews were victorious over millions of armed Arabs. It appears that justice has power and strength of its own.
IN THE 62 years of our existence, we have had seven wars, thousands of terror attacks, buses which have exploded in streets, firing into schools, mortars fired on kindergartens. Yet you wish to exile us back to the inferno, as if nothing happened 65 years ago in Europe, as if our hands have not been stretched out for peace since the establishment of the state?
We were victorious in the wars imposed upon us by Egypt and we signed a peace agreement with it after yielding all the territory and all the oil. We signed a peace agreement with Jordan. We yielded all the territory and much water. We withdrew from Lebanon to the international border and, in return, we received Hizbullah katyushas on our citizens. We left Gaza and in return, we received massive firing on our citizens in the South. Are you aware, Ms. Thomas, that many children from Sderot and the area around Gaza wet their beds until a late age out of fear of the Hamas missiles? And it is us that you wish to exile? Why? Because you think that we are weak or because it annoys you that we are not defeated?
As someone, who throughout his adult life has been a member of the Israeli “peace camp,” notwithstanding you and your strange and angering views, my friends and I (and I hope also my government) will continue to turn over every stone and scour every corner to attain peace. Peace, which will enable us to the smallest extent to live and our neighbors, the Palestinians, to establish a country and to flourish and prosper. To achieve this, we are prepared to make great concessions, to give back all the territories gained as a result of wars which our neighbors forced on us. There is only one thing we want in return – life. A quiet life, a life without terror, a life without missiles, a life like the one you have in Washington and which I, in Israel, also deserve.
Original article found here:
http://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-edcontributors/article.aspx?id=177668
Monday, May 24, 2010
Amnesty and the Social Security Paradox
Republican governor Charlie Crist, who is running for a Florida Senate seat as an independent after trailing badly in the primary to candidate Marco Rubio, has argued that Social Security and immigration reform go hand in hand, and that the support of immigration reform is a useful step in assuring the solvency of Social Security funding. He uses this argument to campaign for a much shorter path to citizenship for illegal aliens.
The broad idea behind this strategy is that while immigration reform is a heated conflict where two sides of an ideological debate clash, the preservation of Social Security is an endeavor that will likely find backing in the prized body of independent voters. He appears to believe that saving Social Security is a cause that a great number of Americans can rally behind.
There are two problems with this strategy.
First, Americans are sick of hearing that the answer to their prayers is comprehensive federal overhaul, and the legislation of amnesty for illegal aliens would be exactly that. Beyond this, there is a growing anxiety about the taxpayer liability represented by illegal aliens, as millions of them take advantage of healthcare, education, and welfare programs that they are not entitled to exploit as non-citizens.
Second, many Americans are not exactly enamored with Social Security in general. Particularly, younger Americans view it as a complex and obscure investment, and few of them believe that they will reap the benefits of their investment.
Crist’s is among latest suggestions to offer fast tracks to citizenship or amnesty to illegal aliens, which would require them to contribute more into Social Security and thereby help to rectify the universally recognized fiscal shortfall of the Social Security Trust Funds.
On the surface, this seems like a rational hypothesis. If more money goes into the Social Security piggybank, it would seem that there will be more money to spend on the benefits of the program. But this logic is tragically flawed. By legalizing these aliens we would be increasing the burden upon the system by drastically increasing the number of those receiving Social Security benefits. Providing unjustified payment to millions of new recipients that have paid a pittance into the system is not only logistically destructive, but it is also ethically unjust to those who spent their entire lives funding the system.
Beyond this, it is also obvious that the massive influx of low-income wage earners would drain Social Security rather than increase its solvency, because they will inevitably receive far more in benefits than they would contribute to the system.
Amnesty for illegal aliens will certainly not stabilize Social Security, despite the liberal agenda telling us that it will. They appear to be desperately seeking the means to protect Social Security funding, but paradoxically, it is the policymaking of the left that provides the greatest obstacle to the application of more useful solutions.
If immigration law were more tightly enforced, for example, employers would likely offer increased wages for unskilled American laborers. Higher wages and more American workers would yield increased contributions. As another example, if extended entitlement programs like welfare were limited rather than expanded, more Americans would be encouraged to join the workforce, thereby increasing American employment and increasing contributions.
The most significant boon for Social Security would be for Americans to increase fertility rates to assure replacement levels to sustain the system. But even that possibility is stifled by liberal sensibilities. For decades, a European-style agenda has caused a decline in fertility rates that has assured that Social Security cannot support itself, the result of incessant campaigns about detriment to the planet’s resources or carbon footprints. All the while, Democrats in America strive to provide unlimited contraception, and some even advocate federally funded abortions as means to keep our population from growing.
Honestly, it seems apparent that it is the liberal agenda that is both the creator and destroyer of Social Security.
Of course, none of this will be addressed once Congress finds the “appetite” to tackle immigration reform. But I can assure you that we will see the left spewing variations of Crist’s argument that amnesty could provide a boost to Social Security funding. They will suggest in broad tones that it makes sense fiscally, and supporters will be assured of this belief over and over by Barack Obama’s soothing tenor. And educated by nothing beyond the left’s propaganda, legions of zealots will argue the soundness of the idea, and chant their mundane mantra about opposition to amnesty being choreographed by racists.
The argument tying Social Security and immigration reform has taken definite shape, and I would wager it will become common rhetoric for Democrats in their march to legislate amnesty for illegal immigrants. After all, what better way to make a push for amnesty than to argue that we could save Social Security for all Americans by levying a mandatory tax upon the fifteen to twenty million illegal aliens that are working in this country? That way, a massive federal program like Social Security could appear sustainable and illegal aliens could be granted amnesty and a legitimate vote in future elections.
Talk about two birds for the Democratic Party.
William Sullivan
Friday, May 7, 2010
Republic in Reverse
When broken down into its most basic form, the United States’ system of government is a simple one. The founding fathers formed what is known as a federal constitutional republic. By definition this is a nation where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law which limits the government's power over citizens. The fact that the elected officials’ decisions are subject to judicial review makes this form of government a republic. The key principle here is that the elected officials are supposed to be representatives of the people. This is a corner stone that appears to have been ignored, not only by the Obama administration, but also by the Democratic members in both the House and the Senate.
Although poll numbers are not always completely reliable, and can sometimes have a tendency to be skewed due to how the questions are worded, when multiple polls tend to show similar results one can generally believe the information to be accurate. When polling of Americans show the majority are opposed or in favor of legislation, according to the United States system of representative government, logic would follow that the congressional voting on the issue would closely mirror these numbers. After all, a representative’s only job is to vote how the majority of their district or state would vote if every single eligible voter were to cast a ballot on any given issue. Unfortunately this has not been the case with the Obama administration or with the majority of Democrats in Congress, in fact just the opposite has occurred with no foreseeable change in tactics in sight.
The first glaring example of this disturbing trend was evident with the new health care laws. Although many different kinds of questions were thrown out by pollsters, the general consensus was that a majority of Americans disapproved of the actual bill that was passed. The fact that the Democrats had to use reconciliation to pass the bill, which had never been used on any major legislation before, speaks volumes about the laws popularity with citizens.
Now Arizona has passed an immigration enforcement law which closely resembles the existing federal immigration enforcement mandate. This new law is supported by the majority of not only Arizona citizens, but the majority of Americans as well, and yet many Democrats and Obama himself have come out and said that the Arizona state legislature‘s efforts are “misguided“. Misguided? Actually the Arizona legislature is a prime example of how the our government is supposed to work. Politicians are supposed to pass laws that the people want, not pass laws in which they are against. Its truly mind blowing how the overall simplicity of the process seems to escape the liberal powers that be.
With legislation on issues such as “cap and trade” and immigration reform forthcoming, it is imperative to not only recognize but also demand that our “representatives” be just that, representatives. George Washington urged against the forming of political parties. He simply saw no need for them. If every elected official was to vote in a manner consistent with the beliefs of their constituency on every issue, then the whole party system would, in turn, be unnecessary. In his farewell speech in 1789 he stated, “they (political parties) are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
Sound familiar?
Calvin Parker
Although poll numbers are not always completely reliable, and can sometimes have a tendency to be skewed due to how the questions are worded, when multiple polls tend to show similar results one can generally believe the information to be accurate. When polling of Americans show the majority are opposed or in favor of legislation, according to the United States system of representative government, logic would follow that the congressional voting on the issue would closely mirror these numbers. After all, a representative’s only job is to vote how the majority of their district or state would vote if every single eligible voter were to cast a ballot on any given issue. Unfortunately this has not been the case with the Obama administration or with the majority of Democrats in Congress, in fact just the opposite has occurred with no foreseeable change in tactics in sight.
The first glaring example of this disturbing trend was evident with the new health care laws. Although many different kinds of questions were thrown out by pollsters, the general consensus was that a majority of Americans disapproved of the actual bill that was passed. The fact that the Democrats had to use reconciliation to pass the bill, which had never been used on any major legislation before, speaks volumes about the laws popularity with citizens.
Now Arizona has passed an immigration enforcement law which closely resembles the existing federal immigration enforcement mandate. This new law is supported by the majority of not only Arizona citizens, but the majority of Americans as well, and yet many Democrats and Obama himself have come out and said that the Arizona state legislature‘s efforts are “misguided“. Misguided? Actually the Arizona legislature is a prime example of how the our government is supposed to work. Politicians are supposed to pass laws that the people want, not pass laws in which they are against. Its truly mind blowing how the overall simplicity of the process seems to escape the liberal powers that be.
With legislation on issues such as “cap and trade” and immigration reform forthcoming, it is imperative to not only recognize but also demand that our “representatives” be just that, representatives. George Washington urged against the forming of political parties. He simply saw no need for them. If every elected official was to vote in a manner consistent with the beliefs of their constituency on every issue, then the whole party system would, in turn, be unnecessary. In his farewell speech in 1789 he stated, “they (political parties) are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
Sound familiar?
Calvin Parker
Saturday, April 10, 2010
More Daily Propaganda with Jon Stewart
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has not been relevant in years due to its partisan agenda, but in a recent segment entitled “Inethical Basterds,” Jon Stewart hit a new low.
The segment derides insurance companies for seeking loopholes to the new healthcare legislation, which prohibits them from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Jon Stewart contends that looking to deny children coverage is unethical, and comically asserts that the insurance companies must be looking for a fast track to hell, rather than taking the less direct route they have been paving for years.
Though the crowd laughs, this segment isn’t funny. It’s sad, because it is indicative of the widely kept viewpoint of the left. Here Jon Stewart is preaching that insurance companies are devilish entities, somehow responsible for children lacking healthcare coverage. And to give added value to the propaganda, the segment insinuates that those who oppose this healthcare bill are heartless for rejecting legislation that would force insurance companies to cover these children.
But the simple fact is that few rational Americans would oppose federal funding being used to provide underprivileged or unfortunate children the right to healthcare. If this healthcare bill were simply about establishing a charitable pool of federal funds with which these children could be provided care, there would be little to no opposition.
Most aggravating, though, is that Jon Stewart and his audience think that private insurance companies' coffers should be used as that charitable pool of funds. Insurance is a technical and private industry that follows strict policies to maintain profitability. So what right does the federal government have to lay a mandate upon private insurance that they must amend their practices to become charitable institutions?
Yes, Americans are anxious about this healthcare bill. Not because they are afraid that children might get health coverage as Jon Stewart suggests, but because Americans can remember when such federal policies have created huge fiscal problems. After all, we just need to look back a couple of years to see the latest example.
On par with the over-securitization of debt, one of the largest contributing factors in the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008 was the institution of federal policy in the 1990's that required private banks to forego their own business practice regarding restrictions in sub-prime lending. The result was that less-than-qualified applicants received home loans, and later foreclosed in record numbers while the banks were left with huge deficits on their balance sheets. And we all know what happened then. The federal government had to step in and bail out the crumbling banks. The national deficit skyrocketed with the taxpayer being the only one left waiting to pick up the check.
Barack Obama's healthcare bill portends the same result. If insurance companies are forced to go against their own practice by capping premiums and disregarding pre-existing conditions to create their risk-pools, how will they be able to maintain a profitability that will ensure that policyholders' needs will be met? The answer is that they cannot, at least not without the prospect of federal intervention that will raise taxpayer liability.
It’s simply bad business. Just as in hindsight we see that it makes no sense for the government to force a bank to offer a $300K home loan to a family with bad credit earning $35K a year, we should be able to see that it makes no sense to force an insurance company to offer a $100 per month policy to a morbidly obese man who has had two cardiac arrests. This is just common sense.
American business owners are rightfully fearful of the precedent this administration is setting. How far removed are we from the idea of laissez faire capitalism when the federal government can dictate that a private business must amend its practice to meet the redistributive common good? If the government can do this, what is to stop them from deciding that McDonalds makes too much money, and that they must amend their practices by giving homeless loiterers free hamburgers on a daily basis? After all, they are obviously down on their luck and could starve without the help of a rich company like McDonalds. But how long will McDonalds be profitable and provide their services to Americans if they are giving away free hamburgers every day?
No matter how much Barack Obama and his pitchman Jon Stewart want Americans to believe that this is a moral issue for this administration, it can simply never be so. It is about federal government wanting to “control the insurance companies,” as Joe Biden succinctly put it.
If it were truly about ensuring that healthcare is provided to unfortunate children, a 10-page bill would have been drafted and unanimously passed last year to create a federal fund for that explicit purpose. The issue would not have been addressed in an obscure monstrosity of text that concealed mountains of pork, unconstitutional federal mandates, and for some reason we’ll never know, an Easter egg about student loan reform.
Jon Stewart and his apostles need to realize that it is not the insurance companies’ responsibility to see that Americans are insured, children or otherwise. Insurance companies are simply in the business of providing the service of health coverage for those who are willing to pay for it. And they are no more morally obligated to pay for other people’s enjoyment of that service than anyone else.
Jon Stewart is often very funny, but he should be ashamed of himself for stooping to this level to demonize insurance companies.
William Sullivan
The segment derides insurance companies for seeking loopholes to the new healthcare legislation, which prohibits them from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Jon Stewart contends that looking to deny children coverage is unethical, and comically asserts that the insurance companies must be looking for a fast track to hell, rather than taking the less direct route they have been paving for years.
Though the crowd laughs, this segment isn’t funny. It’s sad, because it is indicative of the widely kept viewpoint of the left. Here Jon Stewart is preaching that insurance companies are devilish entities, somehow responsible for children lacking healthcare coverage. And to give added value to the propaganda, the segment insinuates that those who oppose this healthcare bill are heartless for rejecting legislation that would force insurance companies to cover these children.
But the simple fact is that few rational Americans would oppose federal funding being used to provide underprivileged or unfortunate children the right to healthcare. If this healthcare bill were simply about establishing a charitable pool of federal funds with which these children could be provided care, there would be little to no opposition.
Most aggravating, though, is that Jon Stewart and his audience think that private insurance companies' coffers should be used as that charitable pool of funds. Insurance is a technical and private industry that follows strict policies to maintain profitability. So what right does the federal government have to lay a mandate upon private insurance that they must amend their practices to become charitable institutions?
Yes, Americans are anxious about this healthcare bill. Not because they are afraid that children might get health coverage as Jon Stewart suggests, but because Americans can remember when such federal policies have created huge fiscal problems. After all, we just need to look back a couple of years to see the latest example.
On par with the over-securitization of debt, one of the largest contributing factors in the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008 was the institution of federal policy in the 1990's that required private banks to forego their own business practice regarding restrictions in sub-prime lending. The result was that less-than-qualified applicants received home loans, and later foreclosed in record numbers while the banks were left with huge deficits on their balance sheets. And we all know what happened then. The federal government had to step in and bail out the crumbling banks. The national deficit skyrocketed with the taxpayer being the only one left waiting to pick up the check.
Barack Obama's healthcare bill portends the same result. If insurance companies are forced to go against their own practice by capping premiums and disregarding pre-existing conditions to create their risk-pools, how will they be able to maintain a profitability that will ensure that policyholders' needs will be met? The answer is that they cannot, at least not without the prospect of federal intervention that will raise taxpayer liability.
It’s simply bad business. Just as in hindsight we see that it makes no sense for the government to force a bank to offer a $300K home loan to a family with bad credit earning $35K a year, we should be able to see that it makes no sense to force an insurance company to offer a $100 per month policy to a morbidly obese man who has had two cardiac arrests. This is just common sense.
American business owners are rightfully fearful of the precedent this administration is setting. How far removed are we from the idea of laissez faire capitalism when the federal government can dictate that a private business must amend its practice to meet the redistributive common good? If the government can do this, what is to stop them from deciding that McDonalds makes too much money, and that they must amend their practices by giving homeless loiterers free hamburgers on a daily basis? After all, they are obviously down on their luck and could starve without the help of a rich company like McDonalds. But how long will McDonalds be profitable and provide their services to Americans if they are giving away free hamburgers every day?
No matter how much Barack Obama and his pitchman Jon Stewart want Americans to believe that this is a moral issue for this administration, it can simply never be so. It is about federal government wanting to “control the insurance companies,” as Joe Biden succinctly put it.
If it were truly about ensuring that healthcare is provided to unfortunate children, a 10-page bill would have been drafted and unanimously passed last year to create a federal fund for that explicit purpose. The issue would not have been addressed in an obscure monstrosity of text that concealed mountains of pork, unconstitutional federal mandates, and for some reason we’ll never know, an Easter egg about student loan reform.
Jon Stewart and his apostles need to realize that it is not the insurance companies’ responsibility to see that Americans are insured, children or otherwise. Insurance companies are simply in the business of providing the service of health coverage for those who are willing to pay for it. And they are no more morally obligated to pay for other people’s enjoyment of that service than anyone else.
Jon Stewart is often very funny, but he should be ashamed of himself for stooping to this level to demonize insurance companies.
William Sullivan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
