Phoenix Jewish Alternative Views

Obama to Israel: DROP DEAD

2011-05-20T12:07:00.000-07:00

Obama's speech at the State Department about Middle East policy exposed the fact that he is either naive or evil.

His statement that Israel was expected to go back to the 1967 borders, that the US would support Israel's right to exist, and a viable Palestinian state would be established is nothing more than a sugar coated cyanide pill for Israel.

First of all, the 1967 borders are not defensible, so forcing Israel to go back to those borders creates a situation that, de facto, denies Israel the right to exist. Requiring that Palestinians get a land connection between Gaza and the West Bank would cut right through Israel and deny Israel land that is contiguous which is an obvious threat to Israeli security.

More importantly, Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank was part of Jordan. There never was an independent Palestinian state. The Palestinians are actually citizens of Egypt or Jordan and should be repatriated to Egypt or Jordan if they have an issue living under Israeli rule.

Telling Israel to give up East Jerusalem which has been annexed and is now part of the capital of Israel, is patently offensive and disrespectful to Israel and anyone who is not a Moslem. Under Moslem control, sites holy to all religions were allowed access only to Moslems. It was rarely granted to others only if special arrangements and permission were provided. Israel allows access to people of all faiths who behave in a peaceful manner.

It is also disgusting that Obama is pushing Israel into concessions before Hamas has stopped saying its goal is the destruction of Israel. There is no basis for a permanent peace agreement with someone who lives for your destruction.

Lest anyone think that this is a decision about whether to put America or Israel first, it must be remembered that Palestinians cheered about American deaths on 9/11 and Hamas has forcefully condemned America's assassination of Bin Laden. The Palestinians are not America's allies; they are America's implacable enemies. Israel is America's ally in the region. An American tilt toward the Palestinians and against Israel works against American interests by pandering to and strengthening our enemies and hurting the safety and morale of our friends.

If Obama has his demands met, it would quickly result in the slaughter of the Jews of Israel at the hands of Arabs on a scale comparable to the Holocaust. For Jews on the political left, is ObamaCare and bigger government really worth that?

Any Jew who can continue to support Obama cannot be taken seriously as a supporter of Israel or a defender of Jews. Anyone who denies that cannot be taken seriously as a person with the capacity to think seriously about how the world works.

Obama Outdoes Carter When It Comes to Abandoning Moderate Moslems

2011-02-01T13:25:00.000-07:00

Carter helped kick the Shah of Iran's legs out from under him when Islamic militants challenged him and ultimately took over Iran.

Obama stood by helplessly when this was done in Tunisia and is kicking Mubarek's legs from under him in Egypt.

Of course, Obama also stood by helplessly when the people of Iran wanted to overthrow their oppressive regime and were getting gunned down in the streets. Of course, for Mubarek to do the same in Egypt to preserve a relatively pro-American government is unthinkable for the Obama Administration.

Due to either sheer incompetence or perhaps a desire to see American power and influence in the world reduced, the Obama Adminisistration is allowing Islamic Extremists to foment and capture revolutions that they will use to establish governments that are virulently anti-American, anti-Western, and, consequently, anti-Israel. Allowing dominoes such as Tunisia and Egypt to fall will put Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab nations at risk.

I believe that a lack of resolve on the part of the United States and Israel to wipe out Islamic militiants in Lebanon and Gaza emboldened Islamic militants supported by Iran to seek additional targets.

The United States under Obama has essentially surrendered the Middle East to Islamic militants. Iraq is secure for now with US troops there, but, if they leave, neighboring Iran will try to start a revolution there. The war in Afganistan is now out of control and cannot be won without wiping out bases in Pakistan which Obama is only willing to do in a half hearted way. Tunisia has fallen and Egypt is falling. Jordan is under serious threat. The government of Saudi Arabia is now fearful of being overthrown by Moslems even more militantly Islamic than they are.

We need to remember that encouraging democracy for people who have a visceral hatred of us is not necessarily a good thing. What we really should be promoting is freedom, property rights, and a legal and moral infrastructure to support them. Freedom is more important than Democracy. After all, you can elect a despotic government into power, but it then becomes a problem to get rid of it (as with the Communists wherever they took power or Islamic militants like in Iran). If the population really hates us, then why would we want them to have a government actively opposing us just so we can say they are democratic? In a generation, with continued US influence and military protection, Iraq might become a functioning free democracy, but to expect Tunisia or Egypt to instantly transform to free democracies through revolutions is unrealistic just as was the case with Iran.

The Obama Administration has to be more realistic about the Middle East and more aggressive against our enemies. Otherwise, Israel's existence will be undermined and the US will face greater economic and military threats that will soon hit closer to home.

Israeli Think Tank for Economic Freedom

2010-12-25T23:42:00.000-07:00

Here is a link to a web site for an Israeli think tank that promotes free market economics. The The Israel Center for Social & Economic Progress has been around since 1984, but I just heard about through an email sent to me by Tom Buggeln, a conservative political activist.

Something also very useful on their web site is their list of links to other free market web sites - most based in the United States.

This think tank has been providing the intellectual foundations for economic reform in Israel to move its economy away from the socialism of the Labor Party toward a freer economy under Likud.

Analysis of Obama's Attitudes toward Islam

2010-12-25T23:22:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting analysis of President Obama's sympathy for Islam compared to previous presidents. It does not sufficiently consider that this is, in many ways, a continuation of President Bush's policy, but is interesting and useful anyway.

Election Endorsements

2010-10-26T01:58:00.000-07:00

Some endorsements by the Phoenix Jewish News should be enough to make any responsible citizen gag.

First of all, any Jew who cares about Israel should not vote for a Democrat for US Congress. Regardless of what any Democrat candidate says, he will be under great pressure to support a Democrat president who has shown himself to be hostile to Israel and more friendly to the Arabs. All of the Republican Congressional candidates are at least as supportive of Israel as the Democrats and will not be burdened by being expected to support a president unfriendly to Israel.

On domestic issues, the country needs Republicans in Congress to help roll back the socialist agenda of the Democrats. Losses of freedom that go along with socialism are not good for honest people. Jews, who tend to be high achievers, are among those most hurt by socialism and government control. In fact, the poverty that socialism causes hurts even the poor people it is supposed to benefit because there is no way to finance welfare programs when people are not given the freedom and incentives to produce goods and services as efficiently as possible.

In statewide races, Republicans like Tom Horne for Attorney General, Doug Ducey for Treasurer, and John Huppenthal for Superintendent of Public Instruction are excellent candidates who will do a far better job than their Democrat opponents.

Tom Horne has more legal experience than his Democrat opponent and is willing to enforce state laws and represent the state of Arizona in good faith. His opponent has indicated she will pick and choose which laws to enforce.

Doug Ducey's opponent has said that he will invest state money in Arizona instead of on Wall Street. Investing in "Wall Street," with access to world financial markets, is how the state can get the best possible return on its investments. Investing in Arizona will translate into funding dubious projects for people with dubious political connections and will result in poor returns or even losses for Arizona's treasury. Doug Ducey will be a responsible investor on behalf of taxpayers.

John Huppenthal has been an advocate for school choice and school reform. Does anyone think that less choices for parents and students will improve education? Does anyone think that schools don't need to be reformed? Huppenthal's Democrat opponent is part of the education establishment who is more interested in keeping the bureaucracy funded and growing than in educating students. Huppenthal is rightly more concerned about educating students than making sure state education dollars go to particular education providers (like public schools).

Republicans stand for responsible government, lower taxes, accountability to citizens and taxpayers, and, usually, attempts to keep government spending under control (at least more than Democrats - there is clearly room for improvement by Republicans, but they are almost never as bad as Democrats on government spending).These policies and practices are better for everyone and will lead to a more prosperous, freer, and happier society. Allowing the private sector to create good jobs is always better for people than creating more welfare programs.

Obama Reportedly will Support UN Investigation of Blockade Incident

2010-06-11T12:36:00.003-07:00

The Weekly Standard reports that the Obama administration will be supporting a UN resolution to investigate the incident when Gaza blockade runners fought against the Israeli Navy.

This is outrageous! Why is there no UN investigation of violence by Hamas? Why is Turkey not being investigated for helping to set up this confrontation? Did Israel demand an international investigation of the Abu Graib prison scandal or any other scandals connected with the war in Iraq, or did Israel feel it could accept the findings of an investigation by a fellow free country, the United States, as legitimate without international oversight being needed?

This resolution is an attack on both the integrity and legitimacy of Israel. Those who support this resolution are attacking Israel. They may say they are supporting a "fair" process, but that is just a cover for their attack on the legitimacy of Israel and a statement that Israel cannot be expected to act fairly.

Parody Musical Video about Blockade Runners

2010-06-10T13:30:00.000-07:00

This video uses dark humor to make a strong point about the Hamas supporters trying to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

Why is Israeli Blockade Singled Out

2010-06-10T07:26:00.002-07:00

This column talks about the hypocritical criticism of Israel's blockade of Gaza for legitimate national security reasons when there are so many boycotts and embargoes going on in the world.

2010-06-09T21:50:00.002-07:00

When Obama opposes the Israeli quarantine of Gaza and offers $400M of US taxpayer dollars to Gaza in response to the killing of of a few Islamofacsist blockade runners, American Jews should reflect on whether the Democrat Party is really where they belong.

In fact, American citizens should wonder if Obama is serious about fighting Islamofacism and fighting evil.

More South Korean sailors were killed by North Korea in an unprovoked attack than were killed during the Israeli ship boarding, and that did not generate even a tenth of the international outrage or Presidential concern that Israel's legitimate defensive actions did.

It is interesting to note that Israel was the provoked party in this case. Israel would have been justified sinking all of the ships for trying to break its blockade, but only boarded the ships and diverted them. Yet, Israel is getting more criticism than North Korea did.

Obama does not know how or is unwilling to stand up for America's friends and is willing to pay tribute to America's enemies. Palestinians are not friends of the United States - and not just because of Israel. I'll never forget the video of them cheering the 9/11 attacks.

This continual appeasement cannot end well. It will either lead to American surrender to (or possibly just detente with) evil, totalitarian despotic rulers or will cause a miscalculation that will lead to a major war.

Helen Thomas "Retires"

2010-06-07T12:15:00.000-07:00

Hearst Publishing announced that Helen Thomas is retiring effective immediately after making some vile anti-Jewish remarks.

Fortunately for the Obama administration, Hearst Publishing saved them the trouble of having to decide whether to pull Helen Thomas' White House press pass.

Jihadists Threaten Free Speech Again

2010-04-27T19:38:00.002-07:00

The Comedy Central show South Park was censored by the Comedy Central to prevent it from showing a depiction of Mohamed in one of its shows. This was after a death threat against the producers of the show by a radical Moslem living in New York City.

Jon Stewart made a statement against this on his TV show, and that is linked in this article.

This is not the first time Moslems have stifled free speech. Unfortunately, it is also not the first time they have successfully intimidated members of the media. If we are to maintain ourselves in a free country, we cannot allow this to go on.

SB1070 Passes - Jewish Groups Reflexively Panic - And are Wrong

2010-04-27T19:13:00.002-07:00

A collection of Jewish organizations came out strongly against passage of the latest illegal alien bill, SB1070, in Arizona. The language they use to oppose the bill indicates that they have not read the bill and do not understand it.

For a panicky response, see this JTA story. Amy Laff, the Republican Jewish Coalition Arizona Chapter Chairman, quoted in the story, does not speak for most of the membership when she expresses concerns about the new law. From my experience attending meetings, almost all members support the new law. State Senator Barbara Leff is also quoted and makes a good point about the law. The US House of Representatives minority whip Eric Cantor also supports the new law.

For an intelligent, accurate analysis of what the new law does, see this column.

Support Justice for a Fellow Jew

2010-04-21T09:51:00.003-07:00

Sholom Rubashkin, former head of Agriprocessors in Iowa, the kosher slaughter house, has been convicted of some crimes and deserves some punishment.

The problem is that his case was handled in a way that should send a chill up the spine of every Jew in America. There was attempt to deny him bail because being Jewish made him a flight risk; it was assumed he could escape to Israel.

There are other government abuses regarding how the case was handled. You can read about them here: http://justiceforsholom.org/disparity-memo

I encourage you to read about this and take action. There are suggestions on http://justiceforsholom.org concerning what you can do.

Nobody is saying that Sholom Rubashkin is innocent and should receive no punishment. However, his punishment should fit the crime and not be excessive. Perhaps even more importantly, his treatment should not serve as a precedent for denying Jews their civil right to reasonable bail if accused of a crime.

RJC Holds CD-3 Candidate Forum

2010-04-21T09:15:00.002-07:00

The Republican Jewish Coalition held a candidate forum for Republican candidates in Congressional District(CD) 3.

It looks like all of the candidates have two things in common: They all support Israel, and they are keeping their distance from John McCain.

Read the story here: http://www.gopusa.com/arizona/news/rjc_cd3_11.shtml

Republican Jewish Coalition to Hold 5th Congressional District Candidate Forum

2010-02-14T21:26:00.001-07:00

This is a rare opportunity to meet all the
candidates running in the 5th Congressional district
You don't want to miss this!!!

RJC Arizona Chapter
proudly presents

5th Congressional District
Candidates Forum

Candidates: Susan Bitter Smith, David Schweikert, Eric Wnuk, Chris Salvino, and Jim Ward
Moderator: Bruce Ash, National Committeeman

Sunday, February 21
3:00-5:00pm

Chaparral Suites
5001 North Scottsdale Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85250

RSVP is required.
Please RSVP to Amy Laff at 480-575-9063
or ahlaff@cox.net

$10 for current paid members
$15 e-team and friends
________________________________________________

Arizona Chapter individual memberships are $50
Arizona Chapter couple memberships are $75
National Leadership opportunities begin at $1000
www.rjchq.org

Upgrade to National Leadership today to attend our
Winter Leadership Meeting March 4-7, 2010 in Las Vegas! Contact Harris Vederman at (202)-638-6688
or Hvederman@rjchq.org
________________________________________________

Yahoo! Mail

Attention screen reader users, for better experience with a screen reader and Yahoo! mail, we recommend that you switch to Classic Mail by clicking on the link below: Mail Classic

Yahoo! Mail

Log in and Search Menus

Hi, Howard

Sign Out

You are signed in as:

howard_levine.rm

#mainContent { display:none; }

You need to have Javascript enabled in order to use the all-new Yahoo! Mail.

Please enable Javascript for your browser, or you can proceed to a non-JavaScript version of Yahoo! Mail with limited functionality.

To enable Javascript in Firefox 1.0 or higher...

Click Tools, then click Options.
Check Enable Javascript.
Click the OK button.

After enabling Javascript...

you can return to the Yahoo! Mail log-in page.

or...

you can proceed directly to Yahoo! Mail Classic

Message Content

Kollel Teaches About Public Policy & Torah on Dec. 25

2009-12-21T00:31:00.004-07:00

For those who will be in town on December 25th, this Kollel program is worth attending. If you want to know what the Torah tells us about these issues, this is your chance to find out by listening to serious scholarship rather than just sound bites.

Come Spend December 25th in the Kollel

Friday, 9-11a.m.

A Yom Iyun on Public policy

Spreading Wealth Around :

Other People's Claim to Our Money

8-9 a.m.
Source Preparation and Breakfast (optional)

9 a.m.
Does the Torah Mandate Public Healthcare?

Rabbi Zvi Holland

10 a.m.
What is Our duty to Support Local Merchants?

Rabbi Daniel Abramowitz

Click here to register

Both sessions at the Kollel

6516 N. 7th St. #104

Jewish World Review Publisher Hospitalized

2009-12-02T00:04:00.002-07:00

The publisher of Jewish World Review (JWR), Binyamin L. Jolkovsky, was hospitalized on Dec. 1. He has had prior serious health problems during his tenure as JWR's publisher and only staff person. Sometimes the stress of all that work wears him out. If you like JWR, it would be very considerate to make a contribution to support it. With sufficient support, Binyamin could hire a staff which would reduce his stress level and help ensure continuity of JWR.

He can also use your prayers.

I received this email from JWR:

Binyamin L. Jolkovsky was taken by ambulance to the hospital on December
1st 2009, and he may be there for a couple of days. He apologizes for not
being able to publish during that time.

He asks that you pray for him with his Hebrew name: Binyamin Leib ben
(Hebrew: son of) Pesha.

Yitz Relkin

Jewish Groups Trying to Restore Abortion Funding to Healthcare Bill

2009-11-30T23:08:00.002-07:00

The the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the National Council of Jewish Women, the American Jewish Congress and the Chicago-based Joint Action Committee are speaking out against abortion restrictions on government funded health coverage. They say it interferes with "reproductive freedom" and imposes certain religious beliefs they oppose upon everyone. The abortion restriction exempt abortions resulting from rape or incest or that are required to save the life of the mother.

Of course, these liberal Jewish groups do not consider that requiring people who have strong religious objections to abortion to fund these procedures is an imposition of these groups' religious beliefs on those they oppose.

Abortions can still be provided for privately, and separate additional riders for abortion coverage would be allowed to be purchased without government subsidy. This is NOT about restricting "reproductive freedom." It is about forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions even if they have a moral revulsion to abortions not allowed government funding under the current rules.

For those who complain that their tax dollars have to support wars they are morally against, so there is no reason to not spend tax dollars on abortions, you have no case. Military activity must be performed by the government and there can be only one military policy for the country. When the country is at war - individuals cannot make individual decisions about whether they are at war against a foreign power. We also don't have the option of having private military spending that substantially affects only us and nobody else. The same applies to police and the courts. With abortion, though, it is possible to have private decision making. Individuals can decide to have abortions while others decide not to. The same is true for performing abortions and paying for them. These decisions can all be made privately without impacting others (not counting the life of the unborn baby). While abortion is legal, there is no reason why it needs to be taxpayer funded for anyone who wants one. In fact, there are sound moral reasons why it should not be taxpayer funded since financing can be handled privately.

There is one ridiculous statement about how it is unfair to have separate abortion riders because most women do not get them because the need for an abortion is an unplanned event. First, insurance is basically for unplanned events. That's why it's called insurance instead of pre-paying for an abortion. It's not like people plan for heart attacks and broken bones either. Second, the fact that most women are not willing to buy an abortion rider means that most women either don't plan on getting an abortion or are prepared to pay for it out of pocket. Forcing abortions to be included just means forcing either all women or all people to subsidize those who want abortions.

Requiring people to pay for things they consider morally repugnant is a sure way to destabilize society and create social resentments and unrest. In fact, the entire Democrat proposal (or set of proposals) for health care financing sets up all kinds of problems like this such as spending on treatment for the elderly, specifying treatment plans based on national rules rather than patient/physician decisions, sex change operations, and cosmetic surgery for those suffering trauma or disease. Abortion is just the tip of the iceberg of problems that will be faced.

If these liberal groups want to pay for other people's abortions, they can set up their own private organization for that purpose. There is no reason everyone else needs to pay. In fact, we should consider that for providing healthcare to the indigent.

The biggest reform we need in healthcare financing is to give individuals the same tax benefits from spending money on healthcare on their own as they do when spending through employer plans. Medical savings plans that people manage and own themselves combined with high deductible health insurance with lifetime claim limits would provide people with all of the right incentives to make smart healthcare decisions while taking cost into account. This one change would have the most profoundly positive affect on lowering health care costs while improving quality of service. Allowing interstate sale of health insurance policies would also help and not be intrusive. With this kind of system, there are no conflicts (though financial constraints obviously exist as is the case in ANY health care system) because people make their own decisions without having to get a national consensus on what their treatment and financing options should be.

These liberal Jewish groups do not, of course, represent most Orthodox Jews who are opposed to abortion on demand.

There is a JTA story that talks about these groups trying to force everyone to pay for abortions regardless of whether they want to.

Israel Assumes Moral Leadership as Obama Opts for Gobal Community Organizing

2009-09-27T12:48:00.003-07:00

The editorial board of the Washington Times captures the phenomenon of Obama taking the United States away from moral leadership of the free world and Netanyahu putting Israel in that position based on their speeches at the United Nations.

In the course of history, there are certain seminal events that mark a shift in events that has major historical consequences. It is virtually impossible to know what those events are as they are happening, but a study of history gives us an indication as to what they might be. This situation has the potential to be a pivotal point in history of our conflict with evil forces in the world that want to suppress individual liberty and respect for human life.

Anyone concerned about virtue and decency dominating over evil and oppression in the world should be committed to doing what they can to make sure this turns out to be only a blip in history rather than a pivotal event. Other pivotal events such as the Munich agreement before WW2 which emboldened the Nazis, the Potsdam agreement that surrendered Central and Eastern Europe to Communist totalitarianism for over 50 years, and Carter's abandonment of the Shah of Iran which led to a radical Islamic regime that has fomented world-wide terrorism and war in the Middle East were similarly pivotal events for the bad. Reagan's branding of the Soviet Union as an evil empire and his subsequent actions consistent with that assessment was similarly pivotal for the good by being instrumental in defeating the Soviet Union, liberating Central Europe, and somewhat liberating Eastern Europe and Siberia.

Moral clarity and moral purpose matter! Without them, the strongest of countries cannot move world civilization in a good, moral direction. Remember, all that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing! Morality must be constantly reaffirmed against evil or evil will triumph by default.

The opening paragraph makes critical points:

Israel is looking like the new leader of the Free World. The previous leader, the United States, resigned this role last week at the United Nations to take the position of global community organizer. This was made plain by President Obama in his speech, titled "Responsibility for Our Common Future," in which he heralded "a new chapter of international cooperation." By contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a blunt and forceful call to action in the central challenge facing free people today. This is the struggle of "civilization against barbarism" being fought by "those who sanctify life against those who glorify death."

The entire editorial can be found here.

Obama Weakens Himself and US by Tilting Against Israel

2009-09-25T08:50:00.003-07:00

Caroline Glick explains how Obama's foreign policy performance and objectives put Israel at risk. The only thing protecting Israel from this is the fact that Obama weakens himself and the United States by pushing his agenda which makes it harder to force on Israel.

Liberal "Obama Worship" Recorded NJ Elementary School

2009-09-25T08:21:00.002-07:00

A recording surfaced September 6, 2009 showing a video of a New Jersey public elementary school class singing a song of praise to President Obama. It was recorded several months earlier.

This type of political indoctrination is completely wrong and should not be tolerated. Failing to stop it and punish the perpetrators just puts us down the road, ever so slightly, to despotic government. If this teacher had been having students sing songs praising Jesus, talked enthusiastically about intelligent design, or had, when George Bush was president, had sung songs praising George Bush and policies he was advocating, liberals would have wasted no time firing the teacher. Conservatives would also have called for the teacher to be dismissed since we recognize that sort of behavior is unacceptable for a government that respects individual freedom.

The teacher of the class has retired at the end of the last school year with a full pension. She should be brought back for disciplinary action with her pension reduced as if she had been fired when that class activity was conducted. In addition, other teachers involved should be fired, administrators who downplayed or covered it up should be fired, and parents who helped with this should be suspended from participating in school activities for a short while and be told not to do that sort of thing again in a public school. There needs to be a serious message that political indoctrination - particularly building a cult of personality - is completely, unambiguously unacceptable in American public schools.

We'll see what happens. I hope we learn that liberals are not hypocrites in this situation.

See the story with details including the video and words for the songs here.

Honduras' Zelaya Claims Israeli Mercanaries Targeting Him

2009-09-25T08:05:00.002-07:00

Former President Zelaya, ousted from office several months ago because he was violating Honduran constitutional limits on his authority, snuck back into Honduras and is now taking refuge in the Brazilian embassy. The Honduran government has surrounded the embassy to arrest him if he leaves the protection of the embassy grounds. Zelaya is part of a consortium of Latin American characters of ill repute like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua who are committed to socialism and have no respect for individual freedom. These unsavory characters also have close relations with Iran.

Zelaya, no doubt in a narcissist fantasy, had alleged that Israeli mercanaries are attacking him and trying to kill him. This is just another blood libel spread by someone on the left.

Read about it here.

Shana Tova

2009-09-25T08:02:00.000-07:00

Best wishes for a happy, healthy new year!

The Goldstone Report: Rewarding Palestinian Terror

2009-09-17T22:22:00.002-07:00

Honest Reporting does a critique of the Goldstone Report that accused Israel of committing war crimes. The report is flawed and they give details to substantiate it.

UN Accuses Israel of War Crimes in Gaza

2009-09-16T10:57:00.002-07:00

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) reports that the Israeli government is appalled by a United Nations (UN) report accusing Israel of war crimes during its military actions in Gaza during operation Cast Lead. The UN report also says that Hamas committed war crimes by targeting civilians with rocket attacks. It might be remembered that UN employees participated in fraudulent claims of Israeli atrocities while the military action was occurring including staging events for CNN to broadcast. There is no particular reason to give this report any more credence than those false CNN reports.

The UN has demonstrated anti-Israel (and anti-truth) bias time and again. This is just one more example. The UN lost its credibility long ago and continues to demonstrate why.

Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War

2009-09-16T01:28:00.004-07:00

According to this Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Obama is putting Israel in a situation where attacking Iranian nuclear facilities will be the only way for Israel to ensure its survival.

By abdicating responsibility for restraining Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the Obama administration is leaving Israel with an existential threat. Rather than head this off, with military force as will likely be needed, the Obama administration is stalling with useless diplomatic exercises while Iran continues to build nuclear weapons, acquire long range missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads, and acquires sophisticated air defense weapons that will make an air strike riskier and more expensive.

If Israel perceives that the United States will not act in a timely manner against Iranian nuclear ambitions, then Israel will have no choice but to destroy Iran's nuclear capability on its own. This will possibly strain Israel's relationship with the United States and the United States will look weak in the world for not showing the resolve to handle the situation itself.

This weakness will be an invitation for our enemies to attack us and our allies. Long term effects could be an erosion of confidence in promises of US protection. This, in turn, could push our current allies who rely on us to develop their own nuclear arsenals if they lose trust in our protection. That would mean more nuclear powers which would further erode US leadership in the world.

News Report on School Textbooks Shows pro-Islamic Bias

2009-09-07T08:13:00.002-07:00

If you want to see why pro-Islamic bias and other politically correct versions of our history and culture get put into textbooks, take a look at this report. The biases influence all subjects from American History to science classes. It is a must read for any parent concerned about what their children are learning in school.

There is NO Basis for Peace Talks Over Palestinian Issue

2009-09-05T21:29:00.002-07:00

This article in the Times of London illustrates both the futility of Israel holding peace talks with the Palestinians and the tilt of the Obama administration in favor of the Palestinians.

The final paragraphs of the article say that Palestinians must have East Jerusalem as part of a final settlement and the Netenyahu government is unwilling to do that. Unless someone wants to force Israel to give up East Jerusalem or force the Palestinians to drop that demand, there is no basis for peace negotiations.

The other thing that is interesting is that the article says the Obama administration is furious with Israel for building some additional housing in Judea and Samaria (the article refers to that area as the West Bank). However, there did not seem to be a furious response to continued Palestinian shelling of Israeli cities or the presence of chemical weapons by Hezbollah in Lebanon. It seems like the leftist double standard is still alive and well in the Obama administration. That's no surprise, but it is still disappointing that the US government is acting that way.

Let's Learn from History

2009-09-03T13:10:00.003-07:00

Deborah Sussman Susser has a good blog entry in the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix. She refers to a book that documents how the academic community supported Hitler and became a propaganda arm of the Nazis in the 1930s.

Let's learn the right lessons from history!

Here are a couple of people currently celebrated in academia.

Columbia hosts an Iranian "president" bent on the destruction of Israel and pursing development of nuclear weapons to do it.
Venezuela's "president" Hugo Chavez who is a dictator persecuting Jews and allying himself with Iran who is well received in academia and is befriended by our current President.

If we don't learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it.

Let's focus on how we can productively apply the lessons of history instead of just uselessly rehash it.

Hezbollah reportedly stockpiling chemical weapons

2009-09-03T12:55:00.002-07:00

The JTA reports on how Hezbollah has chemical weapons in Lebanon that were supplied by Iran.

Anyone who thinks nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran are no big deal and can be managed obviously think that the death of most Israelis and the destruction of Israel is just a manageable event.

For anyone who wants Israel protected, this is a matter of life and death. No other country would be expected to quietly accept chemical weapons being deployed so close to its borders.

Obama Supporter Bites off Finger of Obama Protester

2009-09-03T12:18:00.005-07:00

The determination of whether Obama supporters or protesters are more civil has been settled.

This AP account tells how an Obama supporter at a moveon.org rally assaulted a 65 year old man protesting Obamacare and bit off one of his pinky fingers. Fortunately, the finger was recovered and could be reattached to the victim's hand.

Some liberals are saying that this shows that the health care debate needs to be ratcheted down. They are displaying the same sick moral equivalence they bring to all conflicts. The people who bite off fingers of innocent protesters and the criminal's political allies need to be brought under control.

These fifth column thugs are a true threat to freedom. Notice that there were NO violent incidents initiated by anti-Obama protesters, especially by those who were openly bearing arms. In fact, this just demonstrates that the right to bear arms, our second amendment rights, are essential to preserving our first amendment rights of free speech and peaceable assembly. Obviously, the police were incapable (or didn't care to) prevent the violence and are still looking (with what level of enthusiasm we will discover over time) for the perpetrator.

Despotism Breeds Incivility

2009-09-01T00:20:00.002-07:00

The Jewish News had an editorial that essentially criticized Conservatives while ignoring the incivility of liberals with regard the the national health care debate. The most fundamental incivility is that liberals want to force everyone into health plans designed by liberals to accomplish liberal objectives. They hope to convince a majority to support their bad ideas by convincing them that someone else will pay for each person's health care. Of course, they don't mention that every person will be sought after by everyone else to pay their health care expenses too.

The contentiousness of this issue is a result of taking what should be an economic process (the provision of health care to meet individual needs) and making it a political process. If the process is economic, I can make decisions on my own by reaching agreements with others to provide the services I want at prices acceptable to both them and me. There is no need for coercion or getting people not directly involved in actually delivering my health services involved in my health care decisions.

When the process is politicized, then I need to get permission from people who have nothing to do with my health care in order to get what I would like. Also, I need to be involved in other people's health care even if I have no particular interest in them or knowledge of their needs because I am forced to pay for it or participate in determining whether they are entitled to the health care they are seeking.

We don't have major incivility over what restaurants people should eat at or what types of pens and pencils they should use. These are personal decisions made by people buying freely offered goods and services in the free market.

We don't have major conflicts over ballroom dance or Karate lessons because they are privately provided in a free market. We DO have major conflicts over public schools which are provided by the government with tax dollars with relatively little freedom for individual decision making about how they should get or provide those services.

Clearly, the increased political control of health care sought by liberals is the fundamental uncivil action of the entire health care debate.

Democrats Must Repudiate Robert Byrd

2009-09-01T00:14:00.000-07:00

Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia is the only known US Senator who was a Ku Klux Klan leader. Democrats should immediately repudiate him! Of course, they are 50 years overdue, but better late than never.

Oops, I forgot, the Democrats aren't concerned about that at all. Senator Byrd holds the honor of being the President Pro Tem of the Senate which makes him 3rd in line of succession to the President (right after Nancy Pelosi).

Instead of the Democrats cleaning up their own messes such as Robert Byrd and Al Sharpton, they are telling Republicans to repudiate Rush Limbaugh. Rush, a person who has never held or sought public office, they claim, is inciting hatred and is degrading our society. This is in contrast to a Ku Klux Klan leader who is now a leading Democrat politician who was an active participant in a genuine hate group. Or Al Sharpton who has suborned perjury and incited people to commit arson and murder. Of course, the victims were mostly Jewish, so I guess Jewish Democrats must figure that doesn't count as doing anything too bad.

Sorry Democrats, but you are way off base and factually challenged. The Democrat Party is the party of intolerance and hate. Republicans bend over backwards to be cordial and well behaved. Remember when Senator Lott made some off hand comments at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond that were poorly thought out and interpreted by the press in the worst way possible? Republicans insisted that Lott step down as majority leader for making stupid remarks at a birthday party because they do not even want to tolerate the appearance of bigotry. In contrast, Joe Biden, who described Obama as a "clean" black man, is now the Democrat Vice President of the United States.

As it happens, Obama's socialist policies are more similar to Nazi policies than Republican policies are. Nazi stands for National Socialist Workers, if you recall. For the most part, Republicans are not socialists. I don't think either Obama or Limbaugh are really that close to being a Nazi or being the personification of Hitler, but if someone forced me to choose who is closest, there is no question it is Obama. Obama is the President of the United States while Limbaugh is a Talk Show host. Obama pushes for socialist policies and increased government control over the private sector while Limbaugh is generally against increased government involvement in our lives. Obama wants to set up a health care system where the government will get life and death control over our lives while Limbaugh thinks such systems are dangerous and should be resisted. Obama uses government money to finance "community activists" like ACORN while Limbaugh encourages grass roots action by people on their own time at their own expense.

Democrats calling for Republicans to repudiate Rush Limbaugh are worse than the pot calling the kettle black. They are the purveyors of hate and intolerance they falsely accuse Rush Limbaugh of being.

Britain Takes Ransom for Murderer

2009-08-31T22:26:00.002-07:00

The Torah says that a murderer must face punishment and not be ransomed for any price. Apparently, the British government thinks that a 15 billion British Pound oil deal in exchange for letting a mass murderer be released from prison is OK according to this London Times article.

The British government released a Lockerbie bomber from prison as part of a lucrative oil deal. If terrorists and evil world leaders think they can escape justice and literally get away with murder, this is an excellent illustration of why.

The leaders of the British government should be ashamed of themselves. Of course, they are not alone. There are many in the US State Department who favor the Arabs over Israel because of oil, but they are rarely so publicly blatant.

Even Israel releases murderers, but only in exchange for captured Israelis. This is not morally repugnant like the British deal, but such exchanges dishonor the murder victims and tend to create more murder victims after the murderers are released.

For free countries to remain free, they cannot allow themselves to be bought or manipulated by evil despots and terrorists. If murderers think they can buy or threaten their way out of punishment, they will do it and increase the danger they pose to decent people everywhere.

Appeasement: Let's Learn from History

2009-08-31T08:21:00.002-07:00

The Times of London has a column saying that appeasement of Hitler by Britain didn't look like such a bad idea in 1939. The impetus for this column is the recent story of the release for the Lockerbie bomber in exchange for Lybian oil.

A careful reading of the article tells us that while it might have made sense to appease evil in 1939, we would be ignoring obvious lessons of history if we continue to do so today. It is always tempting to try to make a deal with evil in order to be spared - even if just for a while. The problem is that there is no satisfying evil over the long run; the demands of evil people are insatiable and are only limited by the power they wield. The only way to deal effectively with evil is to confront it and either destroy or sufficiently weaken it to prevent evil people from getting enough power to be dangerous.

This has lessons for all free countries such as the United States and Israel. Iran, for example, should be severely dealt with to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons which would make it more dangerous by an order of magnitude. Iran has already shown its willingness to engage in military and terrorist activities outside its own border. There is no reason to negotiate with Iran as if it is run by reasonable people who can be talked into being nice if only the right approach is taken. It also applies to Palestinian "leaders" in both Fatah and Hamas. The idea that Israel should deal with organizations committed to Israel's destruction rather than just militarily suppress them is unrealistic; people advocating that idea are as much a threat to Israel as those in Britain in the 1930's who wanted to try appeasing Hitler rather than suppressing him. Had Hitler been opposed in 1936 at the beginning of his military buildup, France or Britain alone would have been able to keep Hitler from developing into the threat he became and ultimately saved many lives.

The United States did this in Iraq. Many may doubt Iraqi ambitions, but it cannot be denied that Iraq under Saddam was trying to expand its power and territory. The war against Iran, the invasion of Kuwait, and paying $25000 to the family of each Palestinian suicide bomber are concrete of Saddam's evil ambitions to expand his power. He also did use poison gas. Many doubt his development of weapons of mass destruction, but I think he was at least interested in developing them and would have used them if he had that capability. Dealing with him BEFORE he got those weapons was a great example of positively applying lessons from history. There was no question he was evil, had access to a lot of money, had previously developed and deployed chemical weapons, and was making efforts to acquire more powerful weapons.

Before giving the Palestinians even better opportunities to attack and destroy Israel, we should step back and figure out why anyone would think that lessons from history support that as a good idea.

Some Jews Selective about Civil Rights to Protect

2009-08-30T23:06:00.002-07:00

Many, including the Jewish News, made a big deal of a law abiding citizen exercising his 2nd amendment civil rights during a protest against President Obama. Of course, these same self righteous people feel that it is important to protect "civil rights" except that they mean only the ones they approve of.

None of the people bearing arms at the protest did anything dangerous. No weapons were discharges or even pointed at anyone or anything.

These were people exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of speech, to peaceably assemble, and to bear arms. Apparently, the police were notified in advance by the protesters that there would be armed protesters in order to avoid startling the police or Secret Service, so there was no "threat" to anyone, especially the President.

Many people objecting would not question the 1st amendment right of Nazis to parade through Skokie, but would reflexively try to suppress the 2nd amendment rights of other protesters who are against more government encroachments on their liberties.

Many people fail to realize that ALL of our civil liberties are related. Freedom of speech or to peaceably assemble is of little value if we are not protected against unreasonable arrests by the government. It is also of little value if the government looks the other way while "private" groups intimidate protesters if the protesters have no 2nd amendment rights to bear arms to protect themselves. It should be noted that the civil rights movement in the South was greatly benefited by oppressed blacks being able to protect themselves from Klansmen (when the police were conveniently elsewhere) by using firearms. Beating up and killing blacks and burning their homes became a lot less fun for Klansmen when they had to worry about getting shot committing their crimes.

Jews who cannot see the obvious benefit of the 2nd amendment for preserving our liberty and protecting our lives have willfully ignored lessons from American and World history.

Jewish Czar?

2009-08-30T22:39:00.002-07:00

Who would expect a Jewish Czar? Does anyone remember when the idea of a Czar controlling your life was an anathema for Jews?

Well, the Obama administration has no problems with controlling people in American and is hiring Czars to do the job. According to the JTA, a Jewish socialist has been appointed the Car Czar. Ron Bloom is a "progressive Labor Zionist" which makes one wonder if the inmates are running the asylum. He might make a great labor union czar, but he does not seem to have solid management experience in the automobile industry.

On the bright side, government regulation is usually counter productive anyway, so someone who is not capable may end up doing less damage than someone who thinks he is competent. The problem with government regulators - especially Czars - is that they cannot possibly know as much as everyone in the industry. Even more importantly, they do not have a personal stake in the outcomes like actual participants in the industry, so they will not have the right incentives to make good decisions even when they do know all of the relevant information.

One would hope most American Jews would learn lessons from other countries with socialist, fascist, and despotic leaders that government control of the economy leads to government control over people's lives which means loss of personal freedom. This loss of personal freedom often impacts Jews very badly. We have seen bad examples such as the Soviet Union. In present times, we need only look at Venezuela to see the threat of despotic government to freedom; many Venezuelans, including a disporportionate number of Jews, are trying to escape from Venezuela's government.

Poll: 4 percent of Jewish Israelis see Obama as pro-Israel

2009-08-30T22:23:00.002-07:00

JTA carried this story about a poll showing that only 4% of Israeli Jews think that Obama is pro-Israeli. 51% think he is pro-Palestinian. Naturally, opinion polls reflect people's impressions (if the poll was done well) rather than actual facts. However, if you think the people being polled are knowledgeable about the subject, then their impressions probably reflect reality.

I don't think any sensible member of the American Jewish community would accuse Israeli Jews of being generally stupid or uninformed about Israel's security and relationship with the United States.

This poll should be a cause for Jewish Democrats - especially those still supporting Obama - to rethink how Obama's administration is handling foreign policy issues that impact Israel.

WHERE BAM BREAKS WITH JEWISH DEMS

2009-08-07T11:53:00.003-07:00

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on August 7, 2009

Jewish Democrats strongly agree with the Israeli position and dis agree with President Obama's on issues such as a Palestinian state, settlement construction and trading land for peace. Does the president realize he's at risk of a break with an important part of his base?
A phone survey (sponsored by the Traditional Values Coalition and conducted by Global Marketing Research Services on July 22-24) of 500 American Jews who self-identified as Democrats exposes broad disagreement with Obama's Middle East policies.
Asked to choose between the Obama view that "if Israel could settle its dispute with the Palestinian refugees and give them a nation of their own, that the Arabs would live in peace with Israel" and the Israeli government view that "the Arabs will never live in peace with Israel and that giving them a nation of their own will just make them stronger," Jewish Democrats sided with the Israeli view by 52 percent to 20 percent.
On the contentious issue of construction in existing West Bank settlements, Democratic Jews also sided with Israel more than with Obama. The survey asked for agreement with Obama when he "says that it is very important that Israel not expand its settlements on the West Bank so as not to alienate the Palestinians," or with Israel that "it should be allowed to build new homes in existing settlements but not to start new ones" -- and got 52-37 backing for the Israeli view.
Democratic Jews still strongly back Obama in general, with 92 percent reporting that they approve of the job he is doing as president. But 44 percent feel that "Obama is naive in thinking he can make peace with the Arabs," while only 37 percent disagree.
Nearly half of Jewish Democrats still reject the idea that Obama is biased against Israel: In all, 49 percent said he wasn't and 16 percent said he was -- but a significantly large number, 35 percent, said they were undecided.
By 58-16, Jewish Democrats agree that "Obama is doing a good job of promoting peace in the Middle East." But they share Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's skepticism about trading land for peace, the cornerstone of the "road map" to a settlement laid out in the 1990s.
Only 27 percent feel that "President Obama is right that Israel should agree to let the Palestinians form their own country and return the West Bank to them. This would defuse the hatred in the Middle East, reduce terrorism and help America, the Palestinians, and Israel live in peace."
But 55 percent disagree, preferring the statement: "President Obama is naive in thinking that the Palestinians would make peace, whatever they say. They will just use the new land as a base to attack Israel like they did in Gaza."
On the issue of Iran, Jewish Democrats are confused. While they agree, by 67-8, that "if Iran gets nuclear weapons, it will use them to destroy Israel," only 14 percent said it was "very likely" that "Israel could be destroyed by an Iranian nuclear attack in the next 10 years." Another 37 percent called it "somewhat likely" and 40 percent said "unlikely."
Only 40 percent said they thought Obama is doing a good job in his efforts to "stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons." At the same time, by 15-62, they disagree that "Israel should bomb Iran to stop them from developing nuclear weapons."
Yet, only 38 percent felt that there "is a real chance that Iran can be stopped from developing a bomb without an Israeli attack."
Jewish Democrats heartily approve of Israel and most of its policies and emphatically reject any moral equivalence between the Jewish state and the Palestinian refugees:
* 92 percent have a favorable opinion of Israel; just 17 percent have a positive view of the Palestinian refugees.
* By 81-6, they agree that "Israel is a democracy and has a free political system."
* They agree that "it is very important that Jews have a country of their own, considering their history of persecution" by 86-7.
* Emphatically, by 9-75, they reject the claim that "Israel has become a bully, pushing its Arab neighbors around."
* By 14-55, they disagree with the accusation that "the Israeli Army and Mossad are guilty of human-rights abuses." Rather, they say by 59-14 that "the Israeli Army and Mossad go out of their way to avoid hurting civilians."
* Asked if "Israel is always trying to grab more land and throw out the Palestinians who live there," Jewish Democrats disagree by 11-73. And they also disagree with the charge that "Israel is intolerant of its neighbors and does not do enough to get along with them in peace" by 13-70.
The pro-Israeli mindset of Jewish Democrats is most evident on the basic question of who's to blame for the Arab-Israeli conflict. By 60-20, they agree that "if the Arabs lay down their weapons, there would be no more war. It is just their desire to destroy Israel that creates the conflict." Likewise, they agree by 83-6 that "if Israel were to lay down its weapons, the Arabs would destroy it."
The fervency of their support for Israel suggests that Obama may suffer real political damage among a core Democratic constituency if he continues his current policies.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573
To view all of Dick's videos on YouTube, Go Here Now.
http://www.youtube.com/user/dickmorrisreports
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT DICKMORRIS.COM!
THANK YOU!

The Day America Started Over

2009-08-06T06:19:00.001-07:00

On July 3rd, 2009, over 1000 people drove to Hanoverton in the middle of the Western Reserve lands of Ohio. They came with signs and t-shirts. They came with a passion for the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. ...

Obama Insults Israel (Again)

2009-08-04T22:34:00.002-07:00

By giving Mary Robinson the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award presented by the United States government, Obama has given Israel another slap in the face. Mary Robinson was the UN Commissioner on Human Rights who presided over the Durban Conference that declared that Zionism is racism. She is also a prominent leader of Oxfam, a leftist "human rights" group that has called for boycotts of Israeli goods because of Israeli "oppression" of Palestinians.

JTA has a news story about it. You can read about Mary Robinson here.

Obama's leftist leanings are bad for Israel, bad for American, and bad for Jews in America. Let's hope enough Americans, including Jews in the Democrat Party, wake up before it's too late.

OBAMA .....BUMPTIOUS in CHIEF

2009-07-29T04:12:00.002-07:00

Let's describe the POTUS as being bumptious it suits him a lot better than any other description. Reading all of his actions to date and the trillions of taxpayer dollars spent under the false promise it will stimulate the economy and save jobs we now know it to be untrue. It has led to massive debt with unemployment hovering at 10% and he continues to espouse more spending and raising taxes. How can anyone support the Obama health plan where you lose your freedom of choice and will raise taxes, increase the size of government and creates more job loss? Most important of all hand over your health care to an administration that approves of federally funded abortion and euthanasia. We can only Hope that we can endure the Changes that a President who ignores the Constitution and the Rule of Law has planned for his subjects. We the People voices must be heard to avoid the tyranny that is on the horizon

Conyers: Health Care

2009-07-27T12:39:00.001-07:00

On July 24,2009 Conyers told the National Press Club they would not read H.B.3200 because unless you had 2 days and 2 attorneys to tell you what it meant. It would not be read .

2009-07-27T10:20:00.002-07:00

MANDATORY HEALTH BILL LIKE IT OR NOT

The egoistical authors of H.B. 3200 exhibit the most egregious disdain and contempt for the American people and the peoples ability to make medical decisions for themselves in authoring a bill that allows government to make life or death decisions for them and their family. Its unconstitutional each member of the house, senate and executive branch took an oath/affirmation
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. No where in the constitution does it grant the power of government to transfer the right of the people's free choice to the government.
To read below pages go to link below
http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/images/BILLS-111hr3200IH.pdf
Or go http://www.thomas.loc.gov to read entire bill H.R.3200
Pages of Healthcare Bill H.R. 3200 that seem to be the most horrendous. They may not all apply to you but to someone you know.
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Health card.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and AmeriCorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesn't' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).

• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax."
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT to end your life {euthanasia}
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

The OU Lashes Obama with Wet Noodle for Misguided Moral Equivalence

2009-07-14T21:18:00.002-07:00

The Orthodox Union (OU), a leading Orthodox Jewish organization that was invited by Obama to the White House, issued a statement expressing concern about Obama considering Israel and the Palestinians morally equivalent. Rightly, OU considers Israel to be good and the Palestinians to be bad. For most Americans, the fact that Israelis were mortified by the 9/11 attacks while Palestinians celebrated in the streets should be a clue about who the United States should consider the good guys.

Of course, this does not mean that every Israeli is good and no Israeli is bad. It does not mean that every Palestinian is bad and no Palestinian is good. However, it does mean that the political structures and cultures of the two societies are different and that the Israeli political system and culture is clearly morally superior to what the Palestinians have.

The OU was very mild in its criticism. At least that will help them get another invitation to the White House.

You can read the OU's statement in a JTA article here.

Obama'a Hand Picked Jewish Leaders Put Obama Before Israel

2009-07-14T21:03:00.002-07:00

In what is not a very surprising meeting, Obama picked leaders of Jewish organizations to meet with. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and Young Israel, organizations that tend to be more politically conservative than the others, were excluded from the invitation. That is also not surprising since Obama did not want anyone asking him difficult questions.

What IS surprising is that Obama was allowed to get away with having only created an "appearance" of unfairly pressuring Israel when, in fact, he really has been unfairly pressuring Israel. While placing demands on Israel, Obama is sending $900M to Gaza which will end up in the hands of Hamas. Obama has US military officers training Fatah security forces. Has Obama insisted that Hamas stop shelling Israel and explicitly recognize its right to exist as a Jewish state? Has Obama insisted that Fatah and all Arab countries explicitly recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in secure borders as a precondition for Israel to engage in any negotiations? The answer is NO.

None of these "Jewish leaders" was willing to raise the simple issue that there is no basis for negotiation by Israel with countries and organizations that not only don't recognize its right to exist, but are in many cases actively working to destroy Israel. They should have pressed Obama on why he thinks Israeli settlements should be restricted before Fatah, Hamas, and Arab countries diplomatically recognize Israel and its right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state.

It appears that many of these leaders are liberal Democrats first and Jews second. Read the JTA story yourself.

Democrats Learning that Socialism Isn't Easy

2009-07-13T07:08:00.000-07:00

Michael Barone writes a column describing the problems the Democrats are running into trying to turn America into a socialist country. It turns out that socialism, compared to a market economy, involves more political payoffs to favored groups. A Socialist economy is also more concerned about what politicians think you should want than what your really want.

The column talks about the issues Democrats are encountering by seeking to control the health and energy industries which account for over a fourth of the US economy. That is in addition to banks and automobile companies that are already under government control and ownership.

As much as people may complain about private markets, government control or ownership is rarely a better solution. Private companies without taxpayer support must earn the business of their customers; they don't get paid if they don't have customers. Government supported enterprises must keep politicians happy because they get paid with tax dollars; customer satisfaction is a secondary consideration - or in government monopolies may not be a consideration at all.

The fundamental questions are these: Is someone else more qualified than you to decide how you and your family will best benefit from how your money is spent? Is it right for someone to force you to support their concept of what is best for you even if you disagree?

If anyone answered YES to those questions, please send me all of your assets, and I will happily tell you how to live your life - after taking an appropriate management fee, of course.

If you answered NO to either of those questions, then you should oppose increased government regulation and ownership of the economy. Any other position would make you a hypocrite.

More People Happy to be Charitable with Someone Elses Money

2009-07-09T21:38:00.003-07:00

The latest edition of the Phoenix Jewish News has a commentary by Sherman Minkoff about why we should all get behind creating a government program on Breast Cancer Awareness. Nobody that I know of is in favor of breast cancer; I think it's safe to say people are against it. Even so, do we need a government program for this? We have the Komen Foundation and the American Cancer Society. For communicating with Jewish women, a group more likely to get breast cancer than most women, we have Jewish women's organizations including Hadassah, Synagogue Sisterhood organizations, and others that can get the message out without government help.

What is going on is that a US Senator and US Representative want to show they are "doing something" on a "worthwhile" cause. Also, they and those supporting this legislation don't think that supporting this cause with their own money and resources is good enough. They don't feel they should have to persuade people to donate money for the cause. Instead, they want to force everybody to support their cause whether they think it is more important than some other cause or think it is an effective way to support their cause.

People can be against breast cancer but be even more against prostate cancer or heart disease. Should those people be forced to pay for the breast cancer cause over their own because they are not as politically connected or their cause isn't as politically popular?

Should someone for whom breast cancer is not a top cause be forced to pay for the government program instead of spend their money on a program he/she considers more effective?

The issue is not whether breast cancer is bad. Of course it's bad. The real issue is whether Sherman Minkoff and a majority of the people in Congress have a greater claim on how to spend your money than you do.

There is no reason the private sector - either through charities or for profit medical programs - cannot meet this need if people think it is worthy.

Even Rabbis are not immune from this moral weakness. In a letter to the editor in the same issue, the Board of Rabbis come out in favor of making us pay for their charitable impulses. We certainly do have an obligation to help those in need (using 10-20% of our income), but there is no obligation to support a particular bureaucracy or approach to accomplish this. Nor is there a moral obligation to consider a program charitable if there is a strong suspicion that there is widespread fraud, waste, and abuse in it.

There is nothing wrong with people asking for contributions to good causes. But taking the money for their cause without getting your permission is still stealing.

A good compromise is the Arizona tax credit for charitable contributions. It is limited to $200 per person right now. It would be great to cut state appropriations for charitable functions and offset that with higher tax credits for contributions to organizations that would replace the government functions. This would give taxpayers more of say in how their money is spent and would encourage greater accountability and efficiency on the part of providers of charitable services. Kivel, the Jewish Free Loan Society, and the Jewish Family Service already participate in this program. With this approach, charities would get funded, but the charities would be funded based on how individual taxpayers valued the purpose and efficacy of the charity rather than on how much political pull they have.

The issue is not whether charity is good. The issue is whether you should be able to pick your own charities or be forced to pay for someone else's.

2009-07-07T16:00:00.001-07:00

CAP AND TRADE BAD FOR BUILDING AND HOUSING MARKET

MOST IMPORTANT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT these POWERS to Congress.

THEY TOOK AN OATH/AFFIRMATION they WILL TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND the CONSTITUTION OF the United States.

The new legislation that passed through the House Friday night, unread by any of the Congress people, had inserted into the bill a new NATIONAL BUILDING CODE. There is language that would have a national building code override your local and state codes.

Bill H.R. 2454 would allow the federal government's power to supersede state and local building codes... By 2012 it requires that of new buildings be 30 percent more efficient than they would have been under current regulations. By 2016, that figure rises to 50 percent, with increases scheduled for years after that. With those targets in mind, the bill expects organizations that develop model codes for states and localities to fill in the details, creating a national code. If they don't, the bill commands the Energy Department to draft a national code itself.

In the meantime states would have to adopt the national code or one that achieves the same efficiency targets. Those that refuse will see their codes overwritten automatically, and they will be docked federal funds and carbon "allowances" — valuable securities created elsewhere in the bill that give the holder the right to pollute and can be sold. The Energy Department also could enforce its code itself. Among other things, the policy would demonstrate the new leverage of allocation of allowances as a sort of carbon currency — leverage this bill would be giving to Congress to direct state behavior. washingtonpost.com.

H.R.2454
SEC. 304.

LINK: http://thomas.loc..gov

GREATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDING CODES
(b) National Energy Efficiency Building Codes-
(1) REQUIREMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- There shall be established national energy efficiency building codes under this subsection, for residential and commercial buildings, sufficient to meet each of the national building code energy efficiency targets established under subsection (a), not later than the date that is one year after the deadline for establishment of each such target.
`(A) effective on the date of enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, 30 percent reduction in energy use relative to a comparable building constructed in compliance with the baseline code;
`(B) effective January 1, 2014, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2015, for commercial buildings, 50 percent reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code; and
`(C) effective January 1, 2017, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2018, for commercial buildings, and every 3 years thereafter, respectively, through January 1, 2029, and January 1, 2030, 5 percent additional reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code.

This bill would:
1. Increase building costs

2. Increase appraisal costs Increase inspection lead times before a home can close. You think it is bad now with HVCC just wait until this bill passes.

3. Require every appraiser is retrained to understand these new federal energy efficiency guidelines. Who pays?

4. Increase mortgage costs.

5. Reduce home sales

6. Increase regulations in areas that are in flood zones and exposed to hurricanes.

7. Confuse everyone, the government doesn't know what they are doing and Congress and the Senate have no clue what they are doing.

CONTACT YOUR SENATORS TODAY AND ASK THEM TO VOTE NO.

JOHN BOEHNER 1 OF 6 READS PORTIONS 300 EXTRA PAGES OF CLIMATE CHANGE BILL HR 2454 PUT IN AT 3 AM!

2009-07-07T15:31:00.001-07:00

Joe Biden: Israel Can Bomb Iran, We Can't Stop Them

2009-07-06T15:36:00.001-07:00

Are there any implications by VP Biden giving Israel "green light" to hit Iran. if Israeli leaders see no other way to protect the Jewish people from the threat of annihilation.

"Israel is a sovereign nation and can determine for itself if it's in their best interest to make a pre-emptive attack against Iran or anyone else.

Sign the Free Our Health Care Now Petition

2009-07-06T05:51:00.001-07:00

President Obama and the Congress are pushing for reforms that will move the US health care system closer to a nationalized system like that of Canada or Great Britain. If this is successful, you will have fewer health care choices and your access to care will be more limited. The government, not you and your doctor, will be responsible for determining whether you receive care. You will be “wait listed” for critical diagnostic tests. You may wait two or three years for surgery. You may not have access to life-saving cancer and other drugs. Yet, you will pay higher taxes.

You can help stop this government takeover of health care. Send a message to the White House and every member of Congress by signing the petition at www.freeourhealthcarenow.com.

ONLY IN AMERICA ( MAYBE )

2009-07-04T21:21:00.000-07:00

ONLY IN AMERICA….MUST WE SPEND BILLIONS BECAUSE WE CAN'T LET CHRYSLER GO BANKRUPT, AND THEN, LET CHRYSLER GO BANKRUPT.

ONLY IN AMERICA….CAN CONGRESS FORCE FANNIE AND FREDDIE TO BUY SUBPRIME LOANS, AND THEN BLAME FANNIE AND FREDDIE FOR BUYING SUBPRIME LOANS.ONLY IN AMERICA….

ONLY IN AMERICA CAN YOU BE LEGALLY ILLEGAL.

ONLY IN AMERICA….CAN THE CONGRESS MAKE LAWS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW. Wonder if their health benefits will be taxed........

ONLY IN AMERICA….CAN YOUR VICE PRESIDENT DECLARE "JOBS" TO BE A 3 LETTER WORD.

ONLY IN AMERICA... CAN THE PRESIDENT DECLARE THAT THERE ARE 57 STATES.

ONLY IN AMERICA...DOES A MAJOR CRISIS REQUIRE SWIFT ACTION TO PASS A BILL WITHOUT READING IT, THEN A VACATION FOR THREE DAYS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT HAS TIME TO SIGN IT !!ONLY IN AMERICA...DOES THE MILITARY GET PORTRAYED BY HOMELAND SECURITY AS POSSIBLE TERRORISTS, WHILE OUR BORDERS ARE WIDE OPEN.

ONLY IN AMERICA... CAN YOU GET A TAX REFUND ON TAXES YOU DIDN'T PAY.

ONLY IN AMERICA... DO YOU HAVE MORE RIGHTS BEING ILLEGAL, THAN YOU DO LEGAL.

ONLY IN AMERICA... CAN YOU BE 13 AND HAVE AN ABORTION WITHOUT TELLING YOUR PARENTS, BUT MUST HAVE A WRITTEN NOTE FROM A PARENT WHY YOU MISSED SCHOOL.

ONLY IN AMERICA….CAN YOU CALL LARGE CORPORATIONS EVIL, WHILE 99.9% OF AMERICANS WORK IN COMPANIES WITH FEWER THAN 500 EMPLOYEES.ONLY IN AMERICA... CAN CHRYSLER GET 10 BILLION IN TAXPAYER AID FOR THEIR COMPANY OF 30,000 EMPLOYEES. IT MUST BE DIFFICULT TO RUN A COMPANY FOR LESS THAN $333,333 PER EMPLOYEE.

ONLY IN AMERICA….DO WE CARE ABOUT 3 GUYS WHO GOT WATER UP THE NOSE, WHILE OUR ENEMIES ARE BEHEADING US AND BLOWING CROWDS OF PEOPLE UP WITH SUICIDE BOMBINGS.

ONLY IN AMERICA….YOU CAN CLAIM THAT OTHER INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES WORK, BUT HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THOSE TECHNIQUES ARE.

ONLY IN AMERICA….CAN YOU BE PRESIDENT WITHOUT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

ONLY IN AMERICA... DO POLITICIANS CONSIDER "WE THE PEOPLE" the"CONSTITUTION" and "RULE OF LAW' IRREVELANTONLY IN AMERICA... WILL WHATEVER GOES WRONG ALWAYS BE BUSH'S FAULT.

ONLY IN AMERICA CAN THE PRESIDENT ONLY MAKE SPEECHES WHEN THE TELEPROMPTER IS WORKING.

Time to do something yourself instead of Force Others to do it for you

2009-07-03T00:58:00.002-07:00

In a letter to the Phoenix Jewish News, Jerry Gettinger incorrectly asserts that the state legislature is destroying public education and destroying safety nets for the poor. K-12 education funding has been cut less than 5%. To put this in context, that is just slightly more than school districts have been stashing away in rainy day funds each yeat over the past 5 years.

Aid to the poor has not been significantly impacted because Federal funds pay for a large part of those programs.

However, Jerry thinks that taxing other people to support Jerry's charitable impulses is the right thing to do. If Jerry wants tikkun olum, then Jerry should donate personal funds and/or set up private charities and solicit donations for them. That is just not good enough for Jerry. Jerry needs to force everyone else to pay for Jerry's charitable impulses instead of act according to their own view of what G-d demands of them.

Ironically, Jerry would probably be one of the first people to loudly support the separation of church and state, but has no problem imposing his religious views on others when it comes to making others follow Jerry's orders regarding how their tax dollars are spent.

Carbon Caps: Economic Suicide and Environmental Folly

2009-07-03T00:03:00.002-07:00

The Phoenix Jewish News jumps on the Cap and Trade bandwagon along with other people who have little or no scientific knowledge or who stand to benefit financially from Cap and Trade.

Their editorial is filled with the usual ignorance of both economics and science that allows special interests to take advantage of the public.

The editorial also cites the support of the Orthodox Union (OU), but a look at the expression of support in this document shows the the OU is more concerned about non-profit organizations such as synagogues and other organizations being eligible for government subsidies within the legislation than being in support of the principles behind the legislation. Some other supporters such as GE hope that they will get more business because of this legislation. There are some organizations that seem to genuinely support Cap and Trade based on thinking it is good public policy, but the support is not as broad as the Jewish News implies.

Here are some facts to keep in mind about Cap and Trade:

Any jobs "created" by this legislation will result in more jobs being lost or compensation being reduced. Adding more emissions controls than we now have or improving efficiency beyond what is financially justified will mean greater costs that must be paid by people. Spending more money on efficient equipment than you will save on fuel is just not economically efficient. Subsidies to encourage this behavior by reducing the direct cost to individuals will encourage economic inefficiency and a lower standard of living. Someone will have to pay for those subsidies, and most likely the person getting the subsidy will pay indirectly for it through higher taxes or inflation from excess government spending.

Restrictions on American factories will cause factories to move to other countries with less stringent and expensive laws. This will cause job losses in the United States. Even agriculture will be affected since petroleum is used extensively on farms. This will reduce farm income and make food more expensive which will make American agricultural products less competitive on world markets as well as increase world hunger.

Of course, a central issue is whether emissions caused by humans have an impact on the climate in any significant way. Most scientists have concluded or are coming around to the conclusion that human beings have a neglible impact on green house gasses compared to natural events. In fact, there is even some question as to whether there is global warming going on right now. Plus, warming may actually have net beneficial effects by keeping our environment more comfortable for most life which encourages most species to increase their populations. Spending a fortune to try preventing global warming when the effort cannot be successful and global warming may actually be beneficial is a prescription for the impoverishment of America.

The fact that there have been cycles of ice ages before human beings were generating green house gasses underscores the fact that these cycles are largely independent of human activity. They are more a result of changes in the sun and volcanic activity than humanity.

Another problem with a program like Cap and Trade is that it will be managed by politicians and that means political favoritism will trump economic efficiency when determining how the program is administered. Considering the problems generated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the housing industry, a relatively well understood industry, how well do you think the government will manage Cap and Trade which will no doubt have many special exemptions and special allocations. Many companies currently polluting will probably be granfathered in with special polluting rights that will give them an advantage over potential competitors who might be interested in entering the market. Companies currently in business generally have incentives to have the government help them keep competition away.

There is nothing wrong with being energy efficient. In fact, it is a good thing. What is not good is spending more on energy efficiency than the saved energy is worth. That is inefficient and makes everyone poorer.

Reducing pollution is good. But we have already made great strides. We could get more benefit from banning motor boats, motor cycles, lawn mowers, and other small gas engines than from trying to re-engineer most of our industries. Automobiles (late model, anyway) and most factories have pollution control equipment that already makes them fairly clean. Of course, they emit green house gasses, but those gasses are not toxic and do not have an appreciable impact on global temperatures. Green house gasses are just carbon dioxide and water vapor which are consumed by plants which then produce oxygen as a byproduct. I am not advocating banning small gas engines, but I am pointing out that the focus of the policies being promoted is not particularly productive.

The Cap and Trade bill is motivated by playing on people's unfounded fears of a disaster and the desire of many people to take more control of other people's lives and money. This bill is a threat to freedom and properity. It will have no appreciable impact on our environment. It will do nothing to impact global warming (or cooling).

Liberal Jews "Think" Global Warming MORE Important than Iranian Nukes

2009-06-30T21:34:00.002-07:00

The exact quote is

"This is a crucially important issue -- the most important issue for the whole planet," said JCPA Washington director Hadar Susskind. "If we don't do this, none of the others matter."

Beyond the fact that global warming is not scientifically substantiated, it is an overly simplistic view of the world.

JCPA stands for Jewish Council for Public Affairs. If JCPA does not think that Iranian nukes, increasingly bloated federal government deficits, and a weak economy are not more important, that is one organization not to be taken seriously.

See the article for yourself at JTA's web site.

Liberal Jewish Groups Want Everyone to Have Equally BAD Healthcare

2009-06-28T22:26:00.003-07:00

A JTA article describes how Jewish groups want to make sure that health care in the United States is universal, equal, includes preventive medicine, and includes cost containment. This is a prescription for socialized medicine that will give equally bad treatment to everyone - and at what will end up being a high cost.

It is also interesting that these groups want all taxpayers to pay for their approach and to meet their objectives. Essentially, they want to take money from people in order to support their own charitable objectives. If they were truly decent people, they would establish charities and privately fund them with their own money or with voluntary contributions. If they were really innovative, they could actually offer consumers packages at good prices that consumers would actually want. Instead, these "do gooders" have more interest in controlling other people than in actually helping them.

The government health programs currently in place for the civilian population, Medicare and Medicaid, already suffer from fraud and are so bad for providers that many physicians will not accept patients using those programs, and many that do realize that they are being nice because they lose money on those patients (and presumably make some of it up with what they charge privately insured patients).

What is even more amazing is that Medicare is going bankrupt and liberals think it is just the greatest model of government run health coverage.

Veterans Administration medical programs are of variable quality. Unless a patient has a good advocate or good political connections, quality care is not consistently provided. Plus, costs are not particularly low.

Getting the government more involved in the health care industry is a prescription for disaster - not for improvement.

The real solution to issues with health care costs and access consists of two main steps. (1)Reduce government regulation. (2)Shift from third party health care plans to individuals paying for most out of pocket expenses with health insurance for catastrophic expenses. That will keep costs down and encourage innovation in health care that will actually benefit people.

Those with proposals for government programs to "improve" health care think that just by passing a law, they can get a result. If that is true, then why not just outlaw cancer and heart disease to solve those problems? If good people refuse to work in a government run health care system, what do you think will happen to health care?

If laws could solve any problem, we could end poverty in the United States by passing a $1000/hour minimum wage law and guarantee every adult a job. Rather than ending poverty, such a law would wreck the economy with artificially forced unemployment and/or cause so much government spending that money would be debased by inflation until $1000 would buy only what $8 currently buys.

Improving people's standard of living requires generating more wealth. Excessively taxing (rates over 35% start to cause a decline in tax revenue due to reduced incomes) the wealthy and anyone who makes more than the median income will discourage productive activity and destroy wealth. This will hurt EVERYONE - not just those subject to the higher taxes.

In addition, we have seen in other countries around the world that socialized industries do not produce what people want at reasonable prices. Freedom and capitalism have produced lower costs and better products in all industries including health care. Those advocating for more government control are ignoring the lessons of history or are not really interested in good health care for most people.

Iran - a Fleeting Opportunity

2009-06-24T23:42:00.002-07:00

Iranian protests provide a narrow opportunity for the United States to achieve a significant foreign policy victory. If the United States government supports the protestors by facilitating their communication, arming them, and limiting the ability of the Iranian government to suppress the protests, we could end up with a government friendlier to US interests.

In exchange for supporting the protests and helping to protect the lives of protesters, we could extract an agreement that nuclear research will be abandoned (except for peaceful research under strict US and International supervision and control).

The Iranian regime is a brutal regime and is using brutal methods to repress Iranians who oppose it.

If the United States armed protesters, they would be able to defend themselves from thugs beating them up and shooting at them in the streets. If US military aircraft were employed against any military forces or heavily armed police units massing for action against protesters, the protesters could be protected from being slaughtered by overwhelming force.

The current Iranian regime is a threat to world peace, so we should do what we can to help Iranians transition to a more peaceful government. This will be a benefit to all countries with interests in the region including the United States and Israel. There would be positive effects in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip almost immediately as Iranian support and control of terrorists was eliminated.

The opportunity will not last long. If the Iranian regime is allowed to brutally suppress the protesters without any active opposition by the United States, it will soon be too late.

This is a great opportunity, but I suspect the Obama administration is unwilling to embrace it for two reasons. (1) There is no sense of a universal right and wrong by Obama that provides legitimacy to opposition to a repressive government by other governments. (2) Obama has no ability or desire to employ US military power, covert operations, and logistical support to advance US interests or to support Israel against the current regime in Iran and its nuclear weapons ambitions.

Bulletin to Liberal Jews: Religious Liberty is Good

2009-06-24T23:26:00.003-07:00

There are many misconceptions about the Religious Liberties Act (HB2357) being considered by the Arizona State Legislature. The most egregious is that it will "allow religions to proselytize and promote their beliefs in an environment that should not recognize any belief." That is simply not true. The purpose of this act is to allow students to express and follow their religious beliefs regarding their personal behavior while at a public school. The impetus for this law is children getting disciplined for saying prayers before meals and reading a Bible in school during their free time.

The US Constitution provides for freedom of religion - not freedom from religion. Furthermore, the way some schools operate amounts to establishing atheism the official religion of government.

Without this law, a Jewish student could be disciplined for saying the Motzi before eating bread during lunch. A student who wanted to read a religious book during recess or free time at school could also be disciplined. On the other hand, this law does not permit Jewish students to force others to say the Motzi or say it so loudly that it is disruptive. Allowing this kind of religious freedom in public schools is consistent with the US Constitution and is the right thing to do.

HB2357 is a bill that should be supported by everyone who respects religion and the right of people to practice their religion.

Supporting Iranian Dissidents is Good Policy

2009-06-19T10:44:00.002-07:00

Caroline Glick makes more good points, as usual, in her column about a brewing revolution in Iran. She makes a strong case for Israel to support the opposition to the current Iranian regime on both moral and practical grounds. It would also be good policy for the United States, but Obama has even less of a chance of showing good judgment in this area than Netanyahu does.

Obama: Bad for Jews, Israel, and America

2009-06-09T21:38:00.000-07:00

The web magazine Jewish World Review has a couple of great leading stories in today's edition describing just how bad Obama has shown himself to be for Jews, Israel, and American in just this past week.

Obama's stunning offense to Israel and the Jewish people

and

America's first Muslim president?

Bruce Ash Speaks to RJC

2009-06-08T18:30:00.000-07:00

Bruce Ash, the Republican National Committeeman from Arizona, spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC). See the story here.

Obama Demands Steps Toward Peace - Only from Israel

2009-06-07T00:45:00.000-07:00

In an attempt to demonstrate "balance," the Jewish News of Phoenix published two views of Obama's approach to achieving peace in Israel. Neither calls Obama to account for deficiencies in his approach, but one piece extols his approach and encourages all of us to support it.

Obama pushed Israel hard for settlement freezes even while it is still under artillery attack from Hamas which is also still holding an Israeli soldier as a captive. Economic and military aid sanctions against Israel are threatened.

Obama pays lip service to demanding Palestinians stop violence against Israel. He is ready to give $900M of United States (US) taxpayer money to use in Gaza (which would almost certainly be used to support Hamas). Hamas is not being subject to intense US pressure to stop the attacks or to return a kidnapped Israeli soldier.

Syria and Iran are not pressured to stop engineering and supporting the subversion of Lebanese democracy by Hezbollah which creates a serious threat to Israel on its northern border.

Obama feels Iran has a right to develop nuclear power even though it is obviously trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has threatened to destroy Israel, but Obama has made it clear that he would punish Israel for destroying Iran's nuclear capability.

The only people who should be supporting Obama's approach to Middle East peace are those advocating for the destruction of Israel and a long term Iranian nuclear threat to the US.

We Need Health Care Reforms That Will Work

2009-06-06T21:35:00.000-07:00

In a recent Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) opinion piece published by the Jewish News of Phoenix, the authors say it is time to speak in favor of health care reform. I could not agree more!

The difference I have with the authors is that they want more government programs and control of health care. I think that history has convincingly shown that less government is a better solution to the problem.

We really need to look at examples of how government health programs tend to work in practice. In Canada, there are long waits for procedures that can usually be done within a couple of weeks in the United States. The fact that Canadians vote with their feet against government health care by coming to the United States to get procedures done and by protesting to allow private health insurance in Canada testifies to the failure of government health care management in Canada. In the United Kingdom (UK), the standard of health care can be summed up by a story told to me by a former UK resident. He said that, in the UK, a person over the age of 60 with a serious heart blockage problem would be told by his physician that it was too bad, but making it into your 60's meant the patient had lived a pretty good life even if it would not last much longer. In the United Stated, the patient would be immediately scheduled for a heart bypass operation and would easily live another decade or two. The Soviet Union was notorious for sub-standard health care. Government health care is not typically what we would consider good health care.

The key to reducing health care costs and improving quality is the innovation and competition of the private sector. Government programs did not get us discount generic drugs at WalMart and K-Mart. The prices are often less than most insurance co-pays and require no government involvement or taxpayer subsidy. WalMart even started low cost walk-in clinics to treat minor ailments such as colds and sore throats. Innovative private companies can do more to improve health care for everyone - especially poor people - than most government programs.

The ability of pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs and make a profit from them while their patents are active is what drives the development of new drugs that help people. The fact that these drugs are expensive during their patent period allows for them to be developed in the first place. After the patent expires, the drugs can be made available as inexpensive generics by other companies. All of this can occur without taxpayer subsidies or government controls over health care. In fact, requiring that the drugs be provided at costs lower than necessary to cover research and development while the patents are still in effect will eliminate the incentive to innovate and develop new drugs. Although imposing price controls on drugs already developed will reduce short term costs, stopping the development of new drugs will keep costs from being further reduced in the future and will prevent people from benefiting from new drugs. If we want innovative new drugs, someone has to pay for them. Allowing those who can benefit from the drugs the most to pay for them makes the most sense in terms of making sure that drugs that are actually valuable to people are being developed by drug companies.

For those who say that ailments generally suffered by poor people will get neglected by drug companies and other health care firms, there are two approaches without getting taxpayers to provide subsidies or government to impose even more onerous regulations. One solution is to set up and finance private charities to subsidize research and development. This already occurs with organizations such as the American Cancer Society, Sickle Cell Anemia Foundation, March of Dimes, etc. Another is to encourage government policies such as low taxes and reduced industrial regulation that will help to create wealth for everyone. These approaches can be used together to alleviate immediate concerns and foster long-term wealth creation for everyone which will help people be able to afford the health care they need and want.

Some specific arguments made by the authors are not correct. One is that as the Jewish population gets older, Medicaid will be a more important program affecting Jews. Actually, Medicare rather than Medicaid is the government health care program that people over age 65 use. Medicare, by the way, is going bankrupt and is not a sustainable program. Medicaid is for indigent people, but, as the definition of indigent becomes median income and even higher, it is fast becoming a back door to socialized health care in conjunction with Medicare.

The fact is, anyone in the United States has access to medical care by just walking or being carried into an emergency room. The real issue at this point is not whether anyone can get health care regardless of income. It is how health care will be paid for and delivered and whether it is sustainable for a system to continue to function when required to serve people who do not pay to support it. This is a critical issue and is not as morally clear as most people think. For example, allowing emergency rooms to refuse care to someone not able to pay and having the person die outside the hospital is a compelling argument to require emergency rooms to accept all patients regardless of ability to pay. It is heart wrenching and creates a strong emotional appeal for laws we have that now require that. An unfortunate consquence of this law is that many emergency rooms have closed due to financial problems and those that still function are in financial crisis, signficantly over charge paying patients (and/or their insurance companies), or receive taxpayer subsidies. Having fewer emergency rooms means that it takes longer to get emergency patients to hospitals. Although there are no valid statistics available on how many deaths this has caused, it is likely to be at least as many as those caused by being turned away for an inability to pay since time is critical for saving lives in emergency medical situations. However, these people die in an ambulance or shortly after getting to the hospital instead of just outside the hospital after being refused treatment. Their deaths are less dramatic and are not covered by the media since there is no obvious "villian" - it is the hidden villian of government regulations creating an environment not as supportive of those willing and able to pay for health care. The point is that even policies designed to save lives can cost other lives. These "noble" policies to protect some people have the consequence of causing others who pay to support the entire health care system to suffer and die unnecessarily. Lives are lost both ways, but, since everyone suffers the same under one system, those who are willing and able to pay for their health care are forced to suffer the same as those who have others pay for their health care.

It should be noted that many people not in a health care plan or covered by health insurance have made a conscious decision not to pay the price so they can have other things that money can buy. After all, why should they pay for health care if they can go to an emergency room and get someone else to pay for it? These people are often included in the counts of the uninsured. There is no reason these people should be subsidized by those behaving more responsibly.

Many of the problems we have with health care are caused by the government and cannot be solved by more government programs. Third payer health care is responsible for many of the cost increases in health care as well as a feeling of lost control on the part of patients. When patients are shielded from the costs of using medical services, they, like any consumer in any industry, tend to overuse those services. When there are no costs, as in the case of many government programs, this problem is dramatically worse. In order to control this overuse, insurance programs and government agencies try to use administrative controls to keep costs down. This often comes down to bureaucrats making decisions about what a patient really needs and should be paid for by the health plan (rationing) instead of patients and doctors deciding.

If you imagine having the same policies for auto maintenance and repair we have for healthcare, you would see the foolishness of our current health care system very easily. Who can seriously imagine auto insurance provided as an employee benefit with auto care plans being a serious consideration in employment decisons? What would happen if routine maintenance were covered by a simple co-pay for each "office" visit? There would probably be a lot more visits if the co-pays were below market price. Also, there would be a lot more services requested such as more frequent tire replacement, oil changes, belt replacements, brake pad replacements, etc. Costs would soon get out of control and we would have an auto maintenance cost crisis. Adding Autocaid and Autocare programs to provide government subsidies would only make this problem worse.

The reform we need is to remove government impediments to market solutions in health care. Much of the problem originally was caused by the government allowing private employers to offer health care as a benefit to evade wage and price controls. Since this benefit was not considered compensation, it was not subject to wage controls but could still be used to help recruit workers since it did imact the real compensation of the worker. In addition, since it was a benefit and not pay, it was not subject to income and payroll taxes. This, alone, creates a demand shift in favor of medical services because the after tax price is reduced compared to other goods and services. HIgher tax rates increase this difference. As employers and employees became more adept at using this benefit to get untaxed compensation, employer based health care became more prevalent and the "benefits" expanded to take advantage of the tax laws. If auto maintenance had gotten the same tax treatment, we would undoubtedly have the same issues with auto maitenance costs. Medicare and Medicaid were implemented using employer based health care as a model since it was already established in the industry.

The solution is to reduce government control and eliminate the tax benefits accruing just from employer based health care plans. The tax benefits for health care expenses should NOT be eliminated. That would amount to a tax increase. What must be done is to allow individuals to contribute to their own health care funds and shield those contributions from both income and payroll tax as is done now. The money in those accounts could then be used to pay for medical expenses and medical insurance based on personal decisons as to what will work best for each person and his/her family. Balances in the account could earn interest, and any money left over at age 65 could start to become available for use as retirement income. Any money left in the account could be passed on to heirs upon the death of an individual. This would provide incentives for keeping costs under control because people would purchase only the medical care they considered valuable since they would be paying for it. The tax benefits resulting in a shift in demand toward medical expenses compared to everything else would be reduced by allowing surplus money to be used in retirement like an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) which would be neutral regarding the tax treatment of medical expenses compared to all others.

If individuals could get their own plans with the same tax benefits as employer plans, there would be a strong push to go with these indivudal plans and get away from employer plans. There would be greater flexibility for individuals with their own plans compared to standard employer provided plans. The ability to defer taxes on income to retirement years would be an additional incentive to adopt these plans. This would help deal with those who choose to not have a health plan because they do not like their employer plan and have no good alternatives.

There is still the problem of poor people to consider. Fundamentally, the problem faced by poor people is poverty (not enough money). Lack of health care is a symptom of that problem as is a lack of all other goods and services. Poor people also lack sufficient food, shelter, and clothing. We must first accept that poor people will not get the same quality health care as those with more money just as they will not have the same quality of food, shelter, and clothing. There are several approaches that will help ensure poor people get adequate health care.

The first thing that will help poor people is to have a strong economy that will provide employment and growth opportunities for everyone. This will generate wealth for all people and will allow those who are poor to work their way out of poverty most easily. This will permit them to have better lives by purchasing better health care as well as everything else that will improve their lives.

Next, health care needs to be deregulated by the government regarding cost and quality. Most of the regulations put in place actually serve to protect those in the health care industry as opposed to patients and potential competitors who want to provide health care services and products at either a lower price or using a different approach than existing health care providers. For example, allowing the establishment of health clinics for minor ailments with Nurse Practioners operating without supervision by doctors would lower health care costs without compromising quality. Reducing barriers to new drugs caused by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would lower the cost of drugs and make new drugs available more quickly. Private companies certifying drugs would allow competition in the drug approval business which would lower costs and get useful drugs into the market benefiting patients sooner. Patients would still be protected from dangerous drugs because physicians, pharmacists, and insurance companies would be very careful to verify the safety of drugs for their patients to reduce liability and avoid damaging their reputations. Plus, the certifying companies could be sued and have their repuations ruined by approving dangerous drugs which would drive them out of business. If the FDA makes a serious mistake, it cannot be sued or driven out of business. Which do you think will ultimately provide better consumer protection? Keep in mind that after the Enron debacle, the Securities and Exchange Commisson (SEC) which had failed miserably, remained in business and provided no compensation to Enron investors. Arthur Anderson Accounting lost all of its assets and went out of business. Would you trust an accounting firm that still exists or the SEC when it comes to validating the financial health of public companies? Both can make mistakes, but who has a stronger incentive to be accurate?

New ways of treating patients will drive costs down just as competition drives down the cost and improves the quality of other items such as computing and communication technologies. Eliminating government regulations on health care delivery and financing will allow cost reducing, quality improving innovations.

To treat poor people immediately, private charities and minimal government programs to help alleviate their poverty can be used to provide health care as one of the components of their complete set of needs that includes food, clothing, and shelter. For those who want poor people to be given more, they always have the option of contributing more to charities without forcing everyone else to contribute to their charities using taxation. Government provision of health care should be an exception for emergencies. It should not become a new system for everyone to deal with issues of only a small minority.

The reforms we need for health care are to reduce government restrictions on patients and health care providers to promote innovation and cost reduction, shift to private health accounts and individual insurance instead of employer provided plans to provide better financial incentives, and maintain incentives for individual contributions to private charities to help poor people (even encouraging private charities over government programs by using tax credits such as those currently used for charities in Arizona).

Free markets will do more to improve health care than any government programs. Both history and basic economics have shown this to be true.

Democrats Eat Our Seed Corn - Republicans Get Blamed When Fixing the Problem

2009-06-06T21:28:00.000-07:00

I feel badly that Larry Waldman's wife got a layoff notice from the school district she works for. Other than that, he is just whining for higher taxes so everyone in the state can pay for what he wants and what he thinks we should be paying for whether we think it is right or not. Most of his concerns can be addressed by private contributions if he feels there is insufficient spending. Rather than appeal to others to make contributions to support these causes and making a large personal contribution to set a good example, Larry Waldman wants to force all taxpayers to pay for what he thinks should be done by just getting a simple majority to agree with him. If Larry Waldman were truly a compassionate person, he would be doing that rather than try to force his policies on others.. Forcing people to pay more than 10% of their income to support financial needs of others is theft according to Jewish law – even voluntarily paying more than 20% is discouraged to prevent people from becoming impoverished by the demands of others.

I will address the specific points he makes in his commentary column.

His wife, a teacher for 30 years, got a layoff notice from the school district that employs her as did many other teachers. School districts routinely send these notices to provide themselves with maximum financial flexibility as they are required to send these notices in order to have the option to lay off a teacher for the following year. Then most of the teachers receiving these notices are offered positions for the next year once the school district has more knowledge of its financial position. This tactic is also used to apply pressure to legislators for more appropriations and to voters to support budget overrides. Over the past 5 years, school districts throughout Arizona have been accumulating $200M per year to raise their financial reserves, “rainy day funds,” from $2.3B to $3.3. School districts in Arizona are not suffering financially because of under funding from taxpayers. If they are suffering from anything, it is bad management and lack of accountability.

It may be that half of teachers do not remain in the classroom beyond 3 years as Larry Waldman writes, I think the main factor is that many people who get education degrees start teaching and find that they are either not suited for the profession or discover another profession that is more enjoyable. Obviously, pay and working conditions can keep competent teachers who might go to other professions, but many teachers SHOULD leave the teaching profession because they are not very good at teaching. This is almost impossible to discover until actually teaching in a school. For competent teachers, the compensation is adequate for retention and has been increasing – just not as fast as school administrator pay.

As far as “droves” of students leaving education schools, I hope they are the least qualified students. On average, education majors tend to be in the lower quarter of their classes anyway. If necessary, we should be able to have teachers in schools – especially math and science teachers in grades 6-12 – who are just competent in their field and are good communicators. There is little value to students for their teachers to have an education degree as compared with actually understanding their subjects and demonstrating that they can communicate that information.

People I have talked to who home school their children or use Virtual Academy consistently say that they can get through the school curriculum in less than 3 hours per day. Public schools take 6 hours. With younger children, there is obviously substantial parental involvement, but with older children this is accomplished with minimal parental supervision. Clearly, there are opportunities for improving education with less use of time, less use of school facilities, and less money. Home schooled students tend to outperform public schooled children when other factors such as family income and parental education are comparable. It may be that reducing school funding can help focus students on critical skills such as reading, math, and writing and teach subject such as science and history without clouding them in a fog of political correctness.

Regarding the story about an ASU student losing a scholarship due to economic concerns and then taking a scholarship in California, it is just an unsubstantiated anecdote. For anyone to consider making decisions about state fiscal policies based on that is foolish. We don't really know why the scholarship was rescinded and it is only one person.

Larry Waldman decries the state government budget cuts as being borne by “the poor, children, state employees, our colleges, and, of course, local educators.” Local education has been cut only very slightly – less than the over-funding they were using to build up their “rainy day” funds. State universities have been cut, but most of their problems stem from overbuilding as university presidents and the Board of Regents try to build “education empires” at taxpayer expense rather than focus on providing a basic, solid undergraduate education to their students. As for the poor, there is no reason why the recipients of tax benefits should not face some modest reductions when the people paying the taxes are facing substantial reductions in income and wealth. Plus, there is a fair amount of fraud in government entitlement programs, so there is some justification to cut them and encourage people to seek assistance from private charities that are better equipped to detect and deal with fraudulent claims.

State employees are working for an employer with serious financial problems. Like private sector employees, they have to deal with the realities of pay reductions and layoffs. Compared to the private sector, state employees have not had nearly as many layoffs or pay reductions as private employees. For someone to say that government employees should not suffer any layoffs or pay reductions while the people who pay their salaries are dealing with these issues is the height of arrogance.

As for children being hurt, how is that happening? The well being of children is very much linked to the wealth and attention their parents can devote to them. If keeping up state spending by increasing taxes causes the private sector to decline, there will be less wealth in the state and parents will have less money and time to devote to their children AND to pay taxes with. The value of many government programs to help people is often vastly overrated compared to what people can do for themselves and with support from private charities. That is especially true if the economy is allowed to grow quickly without the burden of high government spending accompanied by higher taxes.

Regarding children being hurt by CPS being underfunded, I think that is a misguided notion. CPS is more than adequately funded to do what needs to be done to protect children. It is just mismanaged. Looking at the number of cases and coming up with reasonable fees for handling those cases shows that there is more money appropriated than should be needed by a well run organization to competently handle those cases. Competing private organizations could do the job with greater efficiency and more accountability. In addition, immediate action on dangerous situations is handled primarily by police departments which respond to emergency calls. This primary protection will still exist.

New businesses are attracted by low taxes and a competent work force. Education – not education spending – is what is important for training our children to be competent employees. Even more important, though, is maintaining a business friendly environment that also appeals to high achieving individuals so that businesses can thrive in Arizona. That will generate wealth for everyone in the state and also result in state tax revenues increasing. We need to keep productive youth in our state and encourage productive people from other states to move here.

The long term effects of Janet Napolitano driving the state into a financial disaster with unsustainable increases in state spending are hurting us in Arizona. Simply continuing further into that disaster by increasing taxes and maintaining unrealistically high levels of state government spending will kill economic growth in the state and drive productive people to leave. That is exactly what is happening in California. We need to get state spending reduced and under control in order to make sure we can maintain long term prosperity in Arizona. Without that, there will ultimately be no tax receipts as producers leave the state and tax beneficiaries realize there is nobody left to support them.

Essentially, the Democrats and a few renegade Republicans led by Janet Napolitano were eating our seed corn. The Republican legislature is now trying to protect it and position us for long-term, sustainable growth.

FROM RUSSIA WITHOUT LOVE

2009-05-31T04:26:00.000-07:00

American capitalism gone with a whimper
27.04.2009
Source: Pravda.Ru
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.
Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?
These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.
So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.
The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.
The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.
Stanislav Mishin
The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina
© 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.

')//-->

DEATH OF ISRAEL

2009-05-28T18:54:00.000-07:00

THE DEATH OF ISRAEL

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on May 24, 2009
From Caroline Glick, deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post, comes alarming news. An expert on Arab-Israeli relations with excellent sources deep inside Netanyahu's government, she reports that CIA chief Leon Panetta, who recently took time out from his day job (feuding with Nancy Pelosi) to travel to Israel "read the riot act" to the government warning against an attack on Iran.More ominously, Glick reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. She writes, "...we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran's nuclear aspirations. TO READ BALANCE OF ARTICLE Go to http://dickmorris.com/

Obama Spends Tax Dollars to Bring Palestinians to US

2009-05-25T21:42:00.001-07:00

President Obama has approved $20.3 M to resettle Palestinians from Gaza in the United States.

See the Federal Register: http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488

It's for "humanitarian" purposes. I wonder how many Hamas terrorists will be mixed in with the refugees?

Paying for terrorists to come to the United States is not what I consider a good use of tax dollars!