===
Our new grandson, Blake Abraham Nelson, and President Obama with Putin.
Now who would you vote for?
===
Liberals have been dissing Conservatives for decades. (See 1 below.)
===
At least five members of The Supreme Court are doing their best to allow Americans free speech in the political process. (See 2 below.)
===
Obama declares victory and goes home! (See 3 below.)
Also, has Obama allowed Putin to put one more nail in America's foreign policy coffin? (See 3a below.)
And when it comes to lying the Palestinians and Obama are two peas in a pod. (See 3b below.)
===
When liberals cannot explain why their solutions do not work they resort to distortions and character assassination.
Because Obamacare has been a disaster and threatens their control of Congress and our lives they have engaged in that time old tactic of bait and switch. Harry Reid's attacks on the Koch Brothers and their various businesses has been over the board even for him but winning is everything and destroying reputations is simply no impediment. So attack and take minds off their problem(s) and dump on others.
In the op ed below. Charles Koch, Chairman of his families' enterprise, has written something every person in this nation should read. In his own poignant way he tries to set the record straight and bring some objectivity and facts to the scurrilous charges Democrats are making against the Koch family in order to save their political skins.
Under Obama's leadership he has sought to spurn his adversaries by using the pinata approach in his warfare against presumed enemies. How pathetic.
First it was Palin, then the Tea Party, Then Romney, Ryan and I am sure I have left out a host of victims of Obama and is party's vile bile. (See 4 below.)
===
Will Obama salivate over Iran's proposed ambassador to the U.N. or stop Iran from spitting on us? Stay tuned. (See 5 below.)
===
Kerry became Obama's second lackey vis a vis an elusive and totally naive attempt to force a Palestinian - Israeli Peace Agreement.
Kerry has now shot himself in the foot as a result. (See 6 below.)
===
The question is not whether the U.S has the capability. It is will Obama do anything other than draw red lines which fade in the Middle East's burning sun and gun smoke filled atmosphere?
If Netanyahu believes Obama will, then he has not been reading the tea leaves. (See 7 below.)
===
You need voter ID if you want more honest elections.
Just another liberal wedge issue used to keep those enslaved to the Democrat Party corralled and attached.
You can't get a library book without identification but then most who vote for Democrats seldom go into a library because the education level of Democrat voters is far below that who vote for Republicans but it ain't too high for either.(See 8 below.)
Just one more dangerous wedge issue being trotted out with growing acceptance.
If you do not believe liberty and freedom , which have always been under attack from within, and are now under an even greatest and more persistent threat and the tide is running in favor of the extremists then you have not been observant.
Wake up America!(See 8a below.)
===
Stratfor is correct when it suggests Turkey and Israel are mending their relationship. (See 9 below.)
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Democrats' Sixty-Year War Against Conservative Voices
The IRS’s ongoing effort to stifle conservative speech is only the latest in 60 years of Democrat efforts to marginalize conservatives. In this latest attempt, the Democrats have proved willing to give up several valued parts of their agenda – including funding for pre-kindergarten, funds for the IMF, and more dollars for ObamaCare – in order to keep proposed new IRS rules that would institutionalize the harassment of tea party groups currently under investigation
Republicans have been willing to grant Democrats all of those agenda items if only the Democrats will delay the IRS rules governing 501(c)(4) groups. The Democrats’ refusal will be less surprising if seen as only the latest attempt in a 60-years-long attempt to shut down conservative speech. What the Democrats are ready to give in order to accomplish this goal clearly testifies to the importance they attach to the project.
But, using the following timeline, let’s review the record.
One might well support the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty while seeing the threat to public discourse beginning to appear.
In 1964, Democrats used the example from two years before to develop a strategy to “use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too costly to continue."2
In 1987, out of a belief that a doctrine that had originally been meant to encourage debate was now being used to squelch it, the FCC ended Fairness Doctrine requirements.
However, also in 1987, a Democrat-controlled Congress attempted to reinstate the doctrine but was thwarted by a Ronald Reagan veto of their bill. Not to be dissuaded, Congress then attempted to override Reagan’s veto.
Then, in 1991, Congress tried again to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, this time to again be frustrated by President Bush’s veto of the bill.
In 2007-2008, open debate about reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine broke out. A senior aide to Nancy Pelosi was quite candid about the Democrats’ motive in seeking its restoration: “Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it.” Once again, attempts to restore the doctrine were unsuccessful.
But Democrats were outraged when, in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected political expenditures by corporations, associations, and unions. Many remember President Obama’s unprecedented public criticism of this decision in his 2012 State of the Union speech, misrepresenting the court’s decision to the extent that Justice Alito silently mouthed, “Not true” in response to the president’s characterization. Many also believe that this was the first signal, from the president himself, that conservative groups should be targeted.
But even before the president’s speech, there were calls to rein in conservative groups. A few highlights from the last four and a half years:
2010
A group named Public Citizen, founded by Ralph Nader, which states that its
“unifying theme is an effort to curb the impact of corporate power on American democracy,” called for closer supervision of 501(c)(4) groups.
“unifying theme is an effort to curb the impact of corporate power on American democracy,” called for closer supervision of 501(c)(4) groups.
Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.) asked IRS to ensure that 501(c)(4) groups are not taking advantage of their tax-exempt status by conducting political activity forbidden by the rules.
2012
On June 13, Mother Jones published an article attacking what they ominously called “dark money” groups, all of whom were conservative 501(c)(4) organizations. Democrat politicians stepped up pressure on the IRS to squelch 501(c)(4) groups.
Also in 2012, mounting complaints by conservative groups of IRS harassment drew the attention of Republican congressional representatives Charles Boustany of Louisiana and Darrell Issa of California. In a congressional hearing on March 2012, Boustany asked Doug Shulman, then IRS commissioner, about the complaints, while Issa held a hearing on the matter in which he inquired into the IRS treatment of conservative groups.
Of course, all this was largely unknown until May 2013, when Lois Lerner, now well-known as a high-ranking IRS official, acknowledged that the IRS had been subjecting groups with words like Tea Party or Patriots in their names to extra scrutiny. Ostensibly, of course, the reason for heightened scrutiny was to assure that these groups had not “committed” political activity forbidden by the tax laws.
Which brings us into the realm of recent memory. The recent House OversightCommittee report on IRS treatment of conservative groups amply documents the intense pressure from left-wing interest groups and Democrat senators that prompted the heightened scrutiny of these groups. Nor is there any sign that IRS officials, most notably Lois Lerner, found responding to these pressures uncongenial to their own political commitments.
And, as the timeline above emphasizes, the history of the Democratic Party leaves no room to give it the benefit of the doubt this time. How can this recent scandal not seem just the latest effort in their decades-old attempt to suppress conservative speech, assure that conservative ideas cannot be entertained seriously, and guarantee that “the narrative” will always belong to them?
1 Friendly, Fred. The Good Guys, The Bad Guys, And The First Amendment. New York, Random House, 1975, 1976, p. 28
2 Ibid, p. 39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual speech saved from infringements.
The Supreme Court took another step toward protecting political speech Tuesday by rejecting arbitrary campaign-finance restrictions. In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Court struck down an aggregate limit Americans can contribute to political figures during an election cycle.
It all began when the plaintiff in McCutcheon v. FEC, Shaun McCutcheon, expressed interest in contributing $1,776 to a number of candidates he supported. Contributions to candidates are already limited to $2,600 per election, so it appeared he was well within the law. However, beyond the limits on giving to any individual candidate, McCutcheon learned that the law limited the total amount he could give to all candidates to $48,600.
This meant that McCutcheon could make his desired contribution of $1,776 to just 27 candidates — or just 13 if he wanted to contribute that amount in both the primary and general elections. And if McCutcheon wanted to contribute the legal maximum of $2,600 in each election — or $5,200 per candidate, combining primary and general elections — he could support only nine candidates.
McCutcheon challenged the law on the eminently sensible grounds that if Congress has deemed a contribution of $2,600 per election ($5,200 per cycle) to be a non-corrupting amount, then Candidate 10 was no more corrupted by the contribution than Candidate 9. Simply put, the aggregate limits served no anti-corruption interest. And the Court has long held that “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.”
The 5–4 majority’s decision, by Chief Justice John Roberts, notes that “we have consistently rejected attempts to suppress campaign speech based on other legislative objectives. No matter how desirable it may seem, it is not an acceptable governmental objective to ‘level the playing field,’ or to ‘level electoral opportunities,’ or to ‘equaliz[e] the financial resources of candidates.’”
The majority opinion also makes the point that “the Government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse.” To the government’s argument that McCutcheon could support more candidates by reducing the amount he gave to each one, Roberts wrote that to ”require one person to contribute at lower levels because he wants to support more candidates or causes is to penalize that individual for ‘robustly exercis[ing]’ his First Amendment rights.”
McCutcheon was joined as a plaintiff by the Republican National Committee. Political parties have also worked under an aggregate cap — a donor can give a maximum of $32,400 to a national political party, $10,000 to a state or local party, and $5,000 to a PAC. But donors would face a legal maximum if they wanted to give the maximum legal contribution to their party’s Senate and House committees, let alone a company PAC, local party committee, and an ideological group the donors supported. Now individual Americans have that right, as that aggregate limit on giving also bit the dust.
Importantly, the decision strengthens the level of scrutiny courts must use when considering contribution limits. At argument, the government merely asserted the possibility of a number of implausible, if not outright illegal, means to pass more money to candidates under a system without aggregate limits.#ads#
The majority opinion dispatched each of these scenarios, noting that in the many years since the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, Congress and the Federal Elections Commission have enacted a number of safeguards against these kinds of activities.
For example, the FEC enacted regulations that limit the ability of individuals to circumvent base limits through “un-earmarked” contributions to political committees. In other words, if donors give money to a party committee but direct the party to give the money to a candidate, then the money counts as a contribution to the particular candidate, and if this is not reported as such, the donors are breaking the law. Likewise, laws and regulatiosn prevent donors from being able to create and control multiple political committees, preventing donors from simply cloning organizations in order to circumvent limits.
The majority opinion called the government’s arguments “far too speculative” and outright rejected the government’s rationale that the opportunity for corruption exists whenever legislators are handed a large check earmarked for someone else. The Court noted that the vast majority of states have no aggregate giving cap and none of the horror stories cited have come true. The best Justice Breyer could do, writing for the dissent, was to argue that there is probably massive law-breaking going on in the states but that the criminals are too smart to get caught.
The practical results of this decision will be to make fundraising easier for party committees and candidates. That is almost certainly a good thing and should help ease concerns that “super PACS” are too influential with parties. Don’t expect a landslide in new giving, however, as the old aggregates did not affect most donors, who contribute to only a few candidates.
Ultimately, this decision is a significant victory for the First Amendment. Perhaps more important than the immediate result is the insistence that the government must have an actual, rather than conjectural, theory of corruption to be prevented. The “monsters under the bed” theory of constitutional jurisprudence seems headed for the dustbin.
As Justice Roberts wrote, “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”
— Bradley Smith is the chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, and the Visiting Copenhaver chair at West Virginia University College of Law. From 2000 to 2005 he served on the Federal Election Commission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk about spiking the ball.
Speaking in the White House Rose Garden yesterday afternoon, President Obama declared flatly that the Affordable Care Act, which he proudly referred to as ObamaCare, “is doing what it’s supposed to do; it’s working.”
The president had reason to be pleased. According to the White House, 7.1 million Americans signed up, slightly more than the Congressional Budget Office had said was necessary for the law to work as planned. Considering the Web-site disaster and all other problems that we’ve seen so far, this represents a significant accomplishment.
New York was one of the best-performing states in the nation. More than 390,000 New Yorkers enrolled in plans via the state’s exchange, nearly double initial projections. Another 436,000 qualified for Medicaid, though it’s not clear how many were newly eligible due to the law. Connecticut also significantly exceeded projections, enrolling more than 74,000 people through the state’s exchange, and more than 105,000 in Medicaid. New Jersey, on the other hand, under-performed projections, enrolling just 74,000 people via the state exchange, and 145,000 in Medicaid.
But while the president basked in his success and predictably castigated his critics, he took no questions. Perhaps that’s because some of them would have been hard to answer. For instance:
How many new enrollees have paid their premiums? The numbers above include everyone who has “picked” a health plan, even if they haven’t yet paid for it, sort of like Amazon counting every item a shopper puts in their “cart” as a sale. Even Health Secretary Kathleen Sibelius concedes that only 80 percent of those who’ve picked a plan have actually paid the first month’s premium. Insurance executives also report that another 3 percent to 5 percent paid once, but then stopped.
If these numbers hold, it would mean that just 5.6 million Americans (and 312,000 New Yorkers) really bought insurance through the exchanges.
How many were previously uninsured? Seven million insurance sign-ups doesn’t mean 7 million more Americans with insurance. For starters, as many as 6 million Americans had to change their health plans because ObamaCare banned the policy they’d had before. Many of those whose plans got canceled bought new insurance through the exchanges, and are among the 7 million.
How many? Estimates vary, but Rand Corp. data suggest that barely a third of enrollees were previously uninsured. If so, that means fewer than 2 million Americans have actually gained insurance nationwide because of ObamaCare.
While data from New York’s Department of Insurance suggest that the state has done a better job of enrolling the actually uninsured, still, 41 percent of those signing up on the state’s exchange already had insurance. That means just 230,000 newly insured New Yorkers.
How many Americans lost their insurance? In addition to the newly insured, we also need to look at the newly uninsured. That includes some of the millions whose policies got canceled because they didn’t comply with ObamaCare. Most found new plans, though maybe more expensive or that no longer included their current doctor, but the Rand Corp. estimates that slightly less than 1 million Americans couldn’t find an affordable replacement plan, so are now uninsured. Somehow those Americans didn’t make it into the president’s remarks yesterday.
Who signed up? Far more important than the raw number of enrollees is the mix of people signing up. ObamaCare depends on young and healthy people overpaying for insurance in order to subsidize coverage for older and sicker individuals. In order to make that work, 38 percent to 40 percent of those enrolling need to be young and healthy.
In fact, estimates suggest that less than 30 percent of enrollees are under the age of 35. This will mean hefty premium hikes next year, and could eventually lead to a meltdown of the entire insurance market.
And we get all of this for the low, low price of just $2 trillion in taxpayer spending over the next 10 years.
Yesterday, the president claimed that critics of his health-care law are trying to take insurance away from millions of Americans. Maybe. Or maybe they’re just asking the hard questions.
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
--
Putin shows that what Western elders call “international law” only exists if Western powers are strong enough to enforce it. He shows they are not.
Rogue leaders around the world are watching and drawing their own conclusions.
If massing troops on the borders of Ukraine and annexing Crimea are signs of “weakness,” by its evident impotence, America appears even weaker.
In a result known in advance, on March 16, the residents of Crimea, who include vast numbers of retired Russian army officers, voted overwhelmingly to leave Ukraine and join Russia.
Reactions in the Western World were also known in advance. The U.S. government and European leaders said they would not recognize the vote, and they did not recognize it — or the subsequent annexation.
Angela Merkel suggested that Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, had “lost touch with reality.” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry accused Putin of behaving as if it were the “nineteenth century”. Barack Obama criticized Putin for “violating international law” and announced toothless sanctions on a few of his friends and one company.
But the sanctions imposed on Russia by the European Union and Western European countries are empty gestures. Putin knows this and treats them as a laughing matter.
Russian President Vladimir Putin treats sanctions against his country as a laughing matter. (Image source: Video still from “Ich, Putin”)
Russian President Vladimir Putin treats sanctions against his country as a laughing matter. (Image source: Video still from “Ich, Putin”)
The decision to suspend Russia from the G8 is essentially a sign of powerlessness. Sergei Lavrov said the decision was “not a big problem” for his country. An American columnist aptly said that suspending Russia from the G8 was “like suspending a vegan from a steakhouse”.
Putin knows that Europe presently needs Russia more than Russia needs Europe.
He did not go “too far”: he went as far as he could. He evidently never stopped believing that the countries that were part of the Soviet Union had to remain under Russia's influence and that their integration into the European Union and NATO would be a mortal danger to Russia's survival.
He shows that what Western leaders call “international law” only exists if Western powers are strong enough, politically and militarily, to enforce it. He shows they are not.
If he thinks that it is necessary and possible for Russia to intervene in the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, he will do it. If he thinks that it is neither necessary nor possible, he will not do it.
When Georgia moved closer to the European Union and NATO, Putin waited for the right time to act, and he acted. In 2008, South Ossetia and Abkhazia were detached from Georgia by Russian military intervention.
He knew that Russia could not afford to lose Sevastopol, its only warm water harbor. By annexing Crimea, he annexed Sevastopol.
He apparently considers that he has in front of him a weak and declining America. And the general demeanor of the present U.S. administration tends to prove him right. The United States seem in full retreat. U.S. military budgets continue to fall. For the last five years, Barack Obama spoke of “ending” the wars in which the U.S. was involved, and he depends on Russia's cooperation for further negotiations with Iran, for dismantling chemical weapons in Syria, and for withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Putin doubtlessly thinks that Obama will not enter into an open conflict with Russia. Sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States are insignificant, and Putin has every reason to think they will not increase.
Putin evidently considers Europe even weaker than America. The way European leaders speak and act shows that he is not wrong. For decades, Western European countries relied on U.S. defense umbrella; none of them today has an army capable of doing more than extremely limited operations. Their foreign policy positions converge with the Obama administration positions. They all have deep economic and financial links with Russia and cannot break these links. The UK needs the Russian capital invested in the City of London. France cannot cancel its Russian warship contract without having to close its shipyards in Saint Nazaire, and without being confronted with major social conflicts. Germany could not survive long without Russian oil and natural gas. Overall, Russia provides thirty percent of the natural gas consumed in Western Europe. Putin apparently thinks that Europe will not enter into an open conflict with Russia.
The political part of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement will not change the situation in Crimea or Ukraine. The European Union has pledged $15 billion to Ukraine (but help hinges on an IMF deal). Ukraine must repay $13 billion to creditors before the end of 2014. As it will remain dependent on energy supplies from Russia, one week ago Russia said that Ukraine must pay off $2 billion it owes for gas. Ukraine is on the verge of bankruptcy. The current situation could lead Ukraine to full bankruptcy.
Putin has massed troops on the borders of Eastern Ukraine. He will probably decide to wait until the situation worsens and the impotence of the United States and Europe becomes even more obvious. He could annex Crimea without firing a single bullet. He doubtlessly thinks that he will later be able to do the same with the rest of Ukraine.
Either the West will stand up to Putin, and it will have to do it fast, or Putin will win. Obviously, Europe will not stand up. Polls indicate that Americans are turning sharply toward isolationism. Showing his view of the situation, Obama recently said that Russia is nothing but a “regional power”, acting “out of weakness”. Russia covers ten time zones and has borders with Europe, the Muslim Middle East, China, North Korea, and Alaska. If massing troops on the borders of Ukraine and annexing Crimea are signs of “weakness,” by its evident impotence, America appears even weaker.
Several plebiscites have been held since 2006 in Transnistria, a strip of land between Ukraine and Moldova, and each of them has indicated a willingness to join Russia.
Estonia includes a large Russian minority, and Russian leaders in Moscow speak of the need to “protect” the Russian population of Estonia.
Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Ryabkov recently stated that the position of Russia vis-à-vis negotiations on a nuclear Iran could “change”.
Rogue leaders around the world are watching and drawing their own conclusions.
Khamenei sees no reason to stop saying that America is the “Great Satan” and that Israel has to be wiped off the map. China sees no reason to hide its intention to occupy the Senkaku / Diyaoyu Islands. Last week, North Korea's Kim Jong Un fired six missiles into the sea of Japan. Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela reaffirmed its alliance with Russia and positioned Russian missiles in Caracas.
U.S. allies are anxious.
The West tried to attract Ukraine. But their present leaders did not take into account how Russia could react if Ukraine were seduced. They did not take into account that Ukraine is a special territory: for Russians, it is the land of Kievan Rus, the cradle of Russian history.
Ukraine is paying the price of their irresponsible attitude. The rest of the world can also quickly pay the price.
The world order built after the Second World War was shaped by America. For almost five decades, its goal was to contain Soviet expansion. In the late 1980s, the Soviet empire collapsed, and another phase began: an arrangement in which America would keep the peace and assure the survival of liberty.
America has apparently abrogated that responsibility.
If we do not see the Ukraine as a warning signal, we could quickly discover that life could now easily enter the state of nature in Hobbes's Leviathan: nasty, brutish and short.
It is news to no one that throughout the negotiations with Israel, despite Islam's ban on lying, the Palestinians have consistently lied. Surah Al-Haj (Surah 22, verse 30) and Surah Al-Ghafir (Surah 40, verse 28) of the Qur'an, as well as many hadiths (the oral tradition attributed to Muhammad), strongly condemn lying for any reason. It is specifically considered an affront to Allah and Muhammad, and the liar will burn in hell. However, for Islamists, their beliefs provide a number of loopholes. For example, for an Islamist, one can lie to effect a compromise between disputing parties, to deceive an enemy, to make one's wife happy.
Thus, it is permissible to lie to the Jewish (and American) enemy, which is what the Palestinians negotiators have done time after time in the negotiations with Israel. These negotiators, even those conveniently hiding under the mantle of “secular,” employ the fundamentalist moral code that dictates their actions. They have manipulated, avoided, evaded, denied, wiggled around facts and told outright lies regarding agreements already reached and their goals for future coexistence. For these believers in moral religious pragmatism, permission to lie in the negotiations is based on designating the Jew as the enemy of Allah and Islam, worthy only of death. For the Palestinian leadership, abetted by the Palestinian Authority's educational and religious systems, the Jew is religiously labeled not only the enemy because of the so-called “occupation of Palestine,” but because of the ancient Hadith that they invoke that states that Muslims will not be redeemed on Judgment Day unless the Jews on earth are killed. Therefore, for these radical believers, lying to the Jews if it leads to their final destruction is virtually a religious fiat.
Before he met with the American president last week, Mahmoud Abbas told Fatah's Revolutionary Council in Ramallah that he would not recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, would not waive the so-called “right of return” of the Palestinian refugees, and would not abandon the idea of Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.” An Abbas confidante and member of Fatah's Central Committee, appearing on official Palestinian Authority television, revealed the true Palestinian intentions for the Jews during that conference. Abbas Zaki promised that “Allah will gather all the Jews together so that the Palestinians can destroy them.”
All the Palestinians' fabricated religious, moral and historical demands on the land of Israel and Jerusalem are based on Islam's permission to lie to the enemy, considered “legitimate” because their ultimate objective is to destroy Israel and establish “Palestine” on its ruins. No matter the current historical revisionism, honest Palestinian scholars know that there was never a Palestinian state in the land of Israel (or anywhere else); there was never a Palestinian people until Jews started populating the land; and nothing was ever promised to them in the Qur'an. When the United Nations called for a Jewish state and an adjacent Arab state in 1947, the Arabs rejected it.
Because of stunning defeats visited upon the Palestinians whenever they attempt to destroy Israel with violence and terrorism, they have decided instead to implement Arafat's “salami plan” and destroy Israel piecemeal through fraud and deception. To that end they have recruited the gullible West to do the work, if not for them, then with them. The Palestinian demand for the so-called “right of return” is one aspect of the plan: its objective is to swamp Israel demographically, thus destroying its Jewish character and making it possible to establish the Muslim “Palestine” on its ruins.
Unfortunately, through the United Nations, the Western world willingly collaborates with the Palestinians. It supports their outrageous claims and deliberately refuses to resolve the Palestinian issue. The “Palestinian refugee” project, directed primarily by UNRWA, has unprecedented support from the West. Although the status of “refugee” is not supposed to be hereditary, the UN agencies still label the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of the Arabs who fled in 1948 as “refugees” and funnel billions of dollars in aid to them through mechanisms established specifically for that purpose. That status allows the Palestinians to preserve indirectly the claims for “right of return” and helps motivate their murderous intention, if unstated by the more savvy spokesmen, to ultimately destroy Israel.
Nowhere in the world is there a project for refugees that even remotely resembles the Ponzi scheme the UN set up for the Palestinians. Not only does it shovel money to the “refugees,” it also supports a myriad of corrupt – and totally unnecessary – UNRWA employees who perpetuate the hatred of all Jews. It is entirely possible that only the final collapse of the European economy can stop the corruption, because cold facts and logic clearly cannot stop this ingrained corruption.
The position of the Western countries regarding the Palestinian issue is perplexing. Throughout modern history, millions of refugees, including the Jews who survived the Holocaust or were expelled from the Arab countries, have adapted and integrated into the societies of their new countries without UN involvement. Catastrophes continue to occur around the world, refugees are slaughtered on a daily basis in terrorist attacks and hate crimes, women are raped and children flee and starve to death while the UN deals with the Palestinians. UN clerks devote their time to the descendants of the Arab refugees of 1948, although many of them have long since established themselves, unlike other refugees (in Africa, for example), in the Arab states among people with whom they share a culture, religion, language and history.
Western countries perpetuate the problem of the Palestinian refugees deliberately. Their motive is not love of the Palestinians, but rather to prevent the issue from being resolved. On the other hand, the Arab states do not want the Palestinian refugees anywhere near them, and until the Arab Spring they used the “liberation of Palestine” as a rallying cry to close ranks against the common “Zionist enemy.” Recently, however, it has become apparent that the Arab masses no longer accept hatred of Israel as their common denominator and actively work to overthrow the corrupt Arab regimes.
Unfortunately, the leaders of the Arab world, as well as many European Union and other Western leaders have had no real intention of finding genuine solutions within the Arab states for the problems of the Palestinians. Instead, they have used the Palestinians to channel popular anger and unrest and as an excuse to wage campaigns against Israel and to divert popular anger against the ruling elites. Western leaders never admit it, but instead of demanding citizenship for the refugees in the Arab countries where they have settled, they deliberately enforce the status of “Palestinian refugees” and delude the Palestinians into assuming that they will eventually “return to Palestine.” They know perfectly well that their policies encourage the Palestinians to cling to the vain hope that with Western support, at some time in the future they will “return” to Israel and destroy it with waves of refugees and mujahideen terrorism.
The West pays the UN and other welfare agencies billions to keep the Palestinian problem alive, but if they had invested the money in helping the Palestinians settle in the countries where they have already lived for years as equal, productive citizens, the issue could have long since been taken off the agenda. Instead, the West and the Arab-Muslim world pay cold cash to prevent the issue from being resolved, contradicting all historical, legal and political logic. The West has squandered billions by sustaining corrupt UN agencies and continuing manipulative anti-Semitism through the so-called “return of the refugees,” a euphemism for the destruction of Israel.
In the current negotiations for a peace agreement, Israel countered the Palestinian demand for the “return” with the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people, a Jewish state. Israel's demand was made to force the Palestinians to recognize that Israel – with full, unalienable, undeniable historic rights to the Holy Land – was demographically a Jewish country with a Jewish culture and Jewish heritage, and that the dream of destroying it with floods of refugees and jihad terrorists had to be permanently shelved. The Israeli demand is based on the assumption that by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state the Palestinians will have to abandon the plan of trying to change its demographics with a “legitimate” influx of refugees and terrorist operatives.
Abbas has a full understanding of the operative and historical implications of the Israeli demand, and therefore is unwilling to include Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state in a peace agreement. He claims that the Palestinian “right of return” is the “individual right” of each Palestinian, therefore he cannot, in their name, waive it and thereby resolve a core problem of the Israeli-Arab conflict. In taking this position, Abbas openly admits he is not a leader, does not represent the collective will of the Palestinian people, and has no legitimate standing or legal status as far as they are concerned.
That means that Israel is being asked to accept an agreement from a disposable leader who one day will disappear, while the various branches of his administration and his religious establishment brainwash the younger generation of Palestinians to continue the conflict, to dream of the “return” and to plan Israel's destruction. Abbas is not considered their leader by the Palestinian populations in the Arab countries or in the Gaza Strip, and even the Palestinians in the West Bank claim that without the support of Israel he would not survive for even a day. Thus the urgent American pressure on Israel to reach an agreement with Abbas, based on the claim that Mahmoud Abbas is a “unique” leader presenting a “unique” opportunity for peace, is difficult to understand. The Palestinian people, exposed to unending incitement to violence against Israel, ignore the promises made by Abbas as well as the agreements he signed, as they ignore the declarations of recognition of Israel as a Jewish state made previously by Yasser Arafat.
Arafat, the legendary Palestinian leader, recognized Israel as a Jewish state. It was only natural that Abbas, his protégé and the heir to the Palestinian leadership, would follow his precedent. But Abbas' retreat shows the inherent deception in the Palestinian negotiating strategy. That strategy, to which the West has blinded itself, permits Palestinian officials to lie when dealing with the Jews. By calling Jewish history a “delusional myth” Abbas ignores his own side's previous commitments and Israel's right to preserve its own identity.
Other Palestinian officials go further. Adli Sadeq, the PA ambassador to India, said in 2011 that Israelis who believe the PA recognized Israel's right to exist were deluding themselves. “[Israelis],” he said, “fool themselves, assuming that Fatah accepts them and recognizes the right of their state to exist. No two Palestinians disagree that Israeli exists, but recognition of its right to exist is something else, different from recognition of its existence.”
“Sincere” Palestinian activists actually admit that “Arafat's recognition of Israel in 1993 [was] a meaningless ornament to a deceptive peace process that is regularly cited by the PA to create a facade of sincerity.
The only way the Americans can promote a genuine peace would be to exert pressure in three directions:
- On themselves and the rest of the West. They must stop regarding the Palestinian Arabs who settled in the Arab countries as refugees and stop financing the subversive agencies brainwashing them to believe in the “return” and keeping the dream alive of Israel's destruction.
- On the Arab states, which, under the shadow of regional developments and with Western pressure, have to put an end to racist and discriminatory policies against the Palestinian Arabs living in their midst for so many years, recognize them and give them full civil rights.
- On the Palestinians, especially the Palestinian Authority leadership. Israel is fully aware of their tricks and will no longer accept Palestinian lies, promises, extortion or manipulation and will not allow even one Palestinian “refugee” to “return” to its territory. They have to realize that Israel will not permit the West Bank to become another “Hamastan,” another region populated by Islamist jihad terrorists whose only desire is to kill Israelis. The Palestinian leadership should focus on the positive aspects of building a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip as a center of political and national Palestinian identification. It should already be preparing the Palestinians in the diaspora for the realization that the new Palestinian state will not be large enough for all of them and that they will have to become citizens of the countries where they currently live.
The main change will have to be made by the Americans. Their global failures in dealing with radical Islam, Iran and Russia, to name but three, should have taught them a lesson. The American administration should put an end to its disastrous – and amateurish – experiments in foreign policy. It has to internalize the value of Israel's faithful, stable friendship, unique in the quicksand of the treacherous, unstable Middle East. The Americans are Archimedes' fulcrum and they now have to find the lever that can bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Instead of trying to pressure Israel and encouraging the Palestinian narrative for Israel's destruction, America should pressure both the Arab states and the West to say, loudly and clearly, “There will be no return.” The descendants of the Palestinian refugees will be absorbed as citizens with equal rights by the Arab countries and will not “return” to Israel.
That is where peace will begin. Secretary of State John Kerry's recent remarks, in which he said that Israel had to waive its demand that the leaders of the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a Jewish state, was most unfortunate. It showed that the Americans would continue to appease the Palestinians, preventing an end to the conflict and making it impossible to achieve peace.
Dr. Reuven Berko has a Ph.D. in Middle East studies, is a commentator on Israeli Arabic TV programs, writes for the Israeli daily newspaper Israel Hayom and is considered one of Israel's top experts on Arab affairs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Charles Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society
Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination.
I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.
Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.
A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.
More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. "The natural progress of things," Jefferson wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He knew that no government could possibly run citizens' lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.
Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.
Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we're "un-American" and trying to "rig the system," that we're against "environmental protection" or eager to "end workplace safety standards." These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company:
Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of our U.S.-based employees are union members.
Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our "commitment to a cleaner environment" and called us "a model for other companies."
Our refineries have consistently ranked among the best in the nation for low per-barrel emissions. In 2012, our Total Case Incident Rate (an important safety measure) was 67% better than a Bureau of Labor Statistics average for peer industries. Even so, we have never rested on our laurels. We believe there is always room for innovation and improvement.
Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.
Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.
Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.
If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I'm dedicated to fighting for that vision. I'm convinced most Americans believe it's worth fighting for, too.
Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) IRAN SPITTING on US
The White House came under intense pressure Tuesday to deny entry to Iran’s new ambassador to the United Nations because he participated in the humiliating 1979-81 hostage crisis at the US Embassy in Tehran.
Former hostage Barry Rosen said it would be “like spitting on us” if the Iranian diplomat — who may have been one of his captors — was granted entry.
New York Sen. Charles Schumer took on the Obama administration by firing off a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry demanding that the US blacklist the new ambassador, Hamid Aboutalebi.
The State Department has delayed making a decision on the touchy issue involving a rogue nation it is trying to bring into the world fold.
“Hamid Aboutalebi was a major conspirator in the Iranian hostage crisis and has no business serving as Iran’s ambassador to the UN,” Schumer told The Post.
“This man has no place in the diplomatic process, and the State Department should flat-out deny his visa application. Iran’s attempt to appoint Mr. Aboutalebi is a slap in the face to the Americans that were abducted, and their families; it reveals a disdain for the diplomatic process and we should push back in kind.”
Rosen, one of the 52 hostages held for 444 days in the tense standoff, was incensed that one of his captors might be welcomed into the country.
“
It goes against the American grain to grant a visa to someone who was part of a group that tortured American diplomats and military and ruined the lives of 52 hostages and their families. He’s just as guilty as anyone of torture,” Rosen told The Post.
“It would be a travesty of justice. It would be like spitting on us.”
Rosen said Aboutalabi’s appointment shows that Iran is testing US resolve.
“Denying a visa to him would be a great statement to Iran,” he said.
Aboutalebi was a member of the group called Students Following the Imam’s Line— a reference to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — that abducted and tortured US personnel attached to the embassy.
But Aboutalebi’s precise role during the crisis is not clear.
He told an Iranian news agency that he didn’t take part in the initial raid on the embassy, claiming he merely became a translator “purely based on humanitarian motivations.”
But that admission placed him smack in the middle of the chilling event.
The State Department has yet to act on the visa application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jonathan S. Tobin
It was just a couple of months ago that Secretary of State John Kerry was being lauded as, in the words of CNN,“a surprise success.” He was hailed by the chattering classes as having exceeded Hillary Clinton’s record by showing daring instead of her instinctive caution. After all, hadn’t he managed to preside over a nuclear deal with Iran, saved President Obama’s face by negotiating a good deal with Russia about Syrian chemical weapons, and made progress on a withdrawal agreement in Afghanistan? Most of all, his audacious decision to restart Middle East peace talks when everyone was warning him it was a fool’s errand was seen as having great promise. As the Atlantic gushed, “It’s looking more and more possible that when the history of early-21st-century diplomacy gets written, it will be Kerry who is credited with making the State Department relevant again.”
But that was then. Today, Kerry is being rightly lambasted by the left, right, and center for his idiotic decision to introduce the issue of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard’s release into the Middle East peace negotiations. The collapse of those talks and Kerry’s frantic and desperate Hail Mary pass merely to keep the sides talking after Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas’s decision to scuttle the effort illustrates the secretary’s flawed strategy and lack of a coherent backup plan. But the Middle East is not the only place where Kerry’s supposedly inspired leadership has failed. Kerry ignored and then mishandled unrest in Egypt and alienated allies across the Middle East. The special relationship that Kerry had cultivated with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (according to the Times the two had bonded over their love of ice hockey) has also not only proved useless in getting the Russians to do what they promised in Syria but has led to further humiliations for the U.S. as the Putin regime overran Crimea and threatened the rest of the Ukraine. Kerry’s dependence on the Russians is also likely to lead to more failure on the Iranian nuclear front since Moscow is even less inclined than it already was to pressure Tehran to sign an agreement that can be represented as a victory for U.S. diplomacy.
A generous evaluation of Kerry’s actions might merely ascribe this to a string of bad luck. But luck has nothing to do with it. The common thread between these various diplomatic dead-ends isn’t that small-minded and recalcitrant foreign leaders thwarted Kerry’s bold initiatives. It’s that in all these situations, Kerry believed the force of his personality and his tenacity was equal to the task of solving problems that had flummoxed all of his predecessors. Aaron David Miller perceptively wrote last fall at a moment when Kerry’s fortunes seemed to be on the rise, “Rarely have I encountered anyone — let alone a secretary of state — who seemed more self-confident about his own point of view and not all that interested in somebody else’s.” It was this hubris that has led to his current humiliation.
In a rare example of agreement between the editorial boards of the New York Times andthe Wall Street Journal, both ridiculed Kerry’s use of Pollard as a pathetic Hail Mary pass to revive the peace negotiations that had been scuttled by Abbas. Though the two papers came at the issue from different perspectives—the Journal correctly thought it was wrong to trade a spy for the terrorist murderers Abbas wanted Israel to free while the Times thought that the gesture would advance the negotiations—they spoke for just about everybody inside and outside the U.S. foreign-policy establishment in declaring the Pollard gambit to be a sign of desperation on the part of the secretary.
The problem here isn’t just that including Pollard in the talks was wrong-headed and unlikely to yield positive results. It’s that Kerry is so invested in trying to prop up a process that never had a chance of success that he’s willing to gamble with America’s credibility. While he proved able to pressure Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians, Kerry’s naïve miscalculation about Abbas being willing or able to make peace has led to the current stalemate. Even worse, Kerry’s desperation has emboldened Abbas to keep asking for more and more with no sign that he will ever risk signing a deal that will end the conflict. The talk about Pollard is significant not just because it’s a bad idea but because it reflects American weakness rather than boldness.
But while Kerry’s self-image is sufficiently grandiose to insulate him against criticisms, those who will pay the price for his failures will not be so fortunate. The Ukrainians know they cannot count on the U.S., and by raising expectations that were inevitably dashed the secretary has increased the chances of violence in the wake of his Middle East fiasco. Nor will those who may eventually be faced with the reality of an Iranian bomb remember him kindly. Not long ago liberal pundits were singing his praises. Now he should consider himself lucky if he is not soon considered a consensus choice for the title of the worst secretary of state in recent memory.
Jonathan S. Tobin is senior online editor of COMMENTARY magazine and chief political blogger atwww.commentarymagazine.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)US military chief: Israel believes US would strike Iran if need arises
'I think they are satisfied that we have the capability to use a military option if the Iranians choose to stray off the diplomatic path,' Gen. Martin Dempsey says.
Ynetnews
Israel and the United States have reached a general understanding regarding the Iranian threat to the Middle East, said the top American general, USA Today reported on Tuesday.
"I think they are satisfied that we have the capability to use a military option if the Iranians choose to stray off the diplomatic path," said Gen. Martin Dempsey of the Israeli officials he met.
Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz and Gen. Martin Dempsey in Jerusalem (Photo: EPA)
"Our clocks are more harmonized than they were two years ago," said Dempsey, "They just wanted to know that we are maintaining and continuing to refine our military options."
Some of the tension between the two came to light after the US and other world powers negotiated an interim agreement with Iran in which sanctions would be softened if Tehran took agreed-upon steps to control its nuclear program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8) Hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud uncovered in North Carolina
State elections officials in North Carolina are investigating hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud after identifying thousands of registered voters with personal information matching those of voters who voted in other states in 2012.
8) Hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud uncovered in North Carolina
State elections officials in North Carolina are investigating hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud after identifying thousands of registered voters with personal information matching those of voters who voted in other states in 2012.
Elections Director Kim Strach told state lawmakers at an oversight hearingWednesday that her staff has identified 765 registered North Carolina voters who appear to have cast ballots in two states during the 2012 presidential election.
Strach said the first names, last names, birthdates and last four digits of their Social Security numbers appear to match information for voters in another state. Each case will now be investigated to determine whether voter fraud occurred.
"Could it be voter fraud? Sure, it could be voter fraud," Strach said. "Could it be an error on the part of a precinct person choosing the wrong person's name in the first place? It could be. We're looking at each of these individual cases."
WRAL.com reported that 81 residents who died before election day were recorded as casting a ballot. While about 30 of those voters appear to have legally cast ballots before election day, Strach said "there are between 40 and 50 [voters] who had died at a time that that's not possible."
"We have the 'Walking Dead,' and now we've got the 'Voting Dead,'" said state Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg. "I guess the reason there's no proof of voter fraud is because we weren't looking for it."
Strach cautioned, however, that in several past cases, instances of so-called zombie voters turned out to be the result of clerical errors.
"We're in the process of looking at each of these to see," Strach said. "That means either a poll or precinct worker made a mistake and marked the wrong person, or someone voted for them. That's something we can't determine until we look into each case."
A law passed last year by the Republican-dominated state legislature required elections staff to check information for North Carolina's more than 6.5 million voters against a database containing information for 101 million voters in 28 states.
The cross-check found listings for 35,570 North Carolina voters whose first names, last names and dates of birth match those of voters who voted in other states. However, in those cases middle names and Social Security numbers were not matched.
The analysis also found 155,692 registered North Carolina voters whose information matched voters registered in other states but who most recently registered or voted elsewhere. Strach said those were most likely voters who moved out of state without notifying their local boards of elections.
Republicans leaders immediately touted the preliminary report as evidence they were justified in approving sweeping elections changes last year that include requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls, cutting days from the period for early voting and ending a popular civics program that encouraged high school students to pre-register to vote in advance of their 18th birthdays.
“That is outrageous. That is criminal. That is wrong, and it shouldn’t be allowed to go any further without substantial investigations from our local district attorneys who are the ones charged with enforcing these laws,” state Sen. Thom Goolsby, R-Wilmington, told the Charlotte Observer.
State House Speaker Thom Tillis, R-Mecklenburg, and Senate Leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, issued a joint statement Wednesday on what they termed as the "alarming evidence."
"While we are alarmed to hear evidence of widespread voter error and fraud, we are encouraged to see the common-sense law passed to ensure voters are who they say they are is working," said the statement. "These findings should put to rest ill-informed claims that problems don't exist and help restore the integrity of our elections process."
However, other states using the cross-check system have yielded relatively few criminal prosecutions for voter fraud once the cases were thoroughly investigated.
Only 11 people were prosecuted on allegations of double-voting as a result of the 15 states that performed similar database checks following the 2010 elections, according to data compiled by elections officials in Kansas, where the cross-check program originated.
Bob Hall, director of the non-profit group Democracy North Carolina, cautioned officials not to jump to conclusions based on the preliminary database check.
"I know there is more than one Bob Hall with my birth date who lives among the 28 states researched," Hall said. "There may be cases of fraud, but the true scale and conspiracy involved need to be examined more closely before those with political agendas claim they've proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Voting rights advocate Bob Phillips of Common Cause NC told WRAL.com that while he is concerned about the report, it still doesn't justify requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls.
"I think a lot of [lawmakers] are saying, 'Aha, this proves what we did,'" Phillips said. "But if I have an ID, how is that going to stop me from voting in North Carolina if I've already voted in Florida?"
8a)Try this at your next party.
Ask your guests to define the term Social Justice.
Okay, it's not Charades or Twister, but it should generate some interesting conversation, especially if your guests are on the political Left.
Since everyone on that side of the spectrum talks incessantly about social justice, they should be able to provide a good definition, right?
Since everyone on that side of the spectrum talks incessantly about social justice, they should be able to provide a good definition, right?
But ask ten liberals to tell you what they mean by social justice and you'll get ten different answers.
That's because Social Justice means anything its champions want it to mean.
Almost without exception, labor unions, universities and colleges, private foundations and public charities claim at least part of their mission to be the spreading of Social Justice far and wide.
That's because Social Justice means anything its champions want it to mean.
Almost without exception, labor unions, universities and colleges, private foundations and public charities claim at least part of their mission to be the spreading of Social Justice far and wide.
Here's the Mission Statement of the AFL-CIO, but it could be the mission statement for a thousand such organizations: "The mission of the AFL-CIO is to improve the lives of working families -- to bring economic justice to the workplace, and social justice to our nation."
In short, "social justice" is code for good things no one needs to argue for -- and no one dare be against.
This very much troubled the great economist Friedrich Hayek.This is what he wrote in 1976, two years after winning the Nobel Prize in Economics.
In short, "social justice" is code for good things no one needs to argue for -- and no one dare be against.
This very much troubled the great economist Friedrich Hayek.This is what he wrote in 1976, two years after winning the Nobel Prize in Economics.
"I have come to feel strongly that the greatest service I can still render to my fellow men would be that I could make the speakers and writers among them thoroughly ashamed ever again to employ the term 'social justice'."
Why was Hayek so upset by what seems like such a positive, and certainly unobjectionable, term?
Because Hayek, as he so often did, saw right to the core of the issue.
And what he saw frightened him.
Hayek understood that beneath the political opportunism and intellectual laziness of the term "social justice" was a pernicious philosophical claim, namely that freedom must be sacrificed in order to redistribute income.
Ultimately, "social justice" is about the state amassing ever increasing power in order to, do "good things." What are good things?
Well whatever the champions of social justice decide this week.
But first, last and always it is the cause of economic redistribution.According to the doctrine of Social Justice, the haves always have too much, the have nots, never have enough.
Why was Hayek so upset by what seems like such a positive, and certainly unobjectionable, term?
Because Hayek, as he so often did, saw right to the core of the issue.
And what he saw frightened him.
Hayek understood that beneath the political opportunism and intellectual laziness of the term "social justice" was a pernicious philosophical claim, namely that freedom must be sacrificed in order to redistribute income.
Ultimately, "social justice" is about the state amassing ever increasing power in order to, do "good things." What are good things?
Well whatever the champions of social justice decide this week.
But first, last and always it is the cause of economic redistribution.According to the doctrine of Social Justice, the haves always have too much, the have nots, never have enough.
You don't have to take my word for it.
That is precisely how a UN report on Social Justice defines the term:
"Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth.
Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies."
I repeat: "Strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies."
And it gets worse.
The UN report goes on to insist that: "Present-day believers in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice are neither willing nor desirable companions for the defenders of social justice."
Translation: if you believe truth and justice are concepts independent of the agenda of the forces of progress as defined by the left, you are an enemy of social justice.
Compassion -- or social justice -- is when government takes your money and gives it to someone else.
Greed is when you want to keep it.
The underlying point of social justice, then, amounts to a sweeping indictment of a free society.
It suggests that any perceived unfairness, or sorrow, or economic want must be addressed by yet another government effort to remedy that unfairness, that sorrow, or that economic want.
All we need to do is invoke the abracadabra phrase "social justice" and we're on our way.
The invocation of social justice always works from the assumption that the right people -- the anointed few -- can simply impose fairness, prosperity and any other good thing you can think of.
And the only institution capable of imposing social justice is the state.
And keep in mind, the conventional wisdom among liberal elites is that conservatives are the ones who want to impose their values on everyone else.
The self-declared champions of social justice believe the state must remedy and can remedy all perceived wrongs.
Anyone who disagrees is an enemy of what is good and right.
Compassion -- or social justice -- is when government takes your money and gives it to someone else.
Greed is when you want to keep it.
The underlying point of social justice, then, amounts to a sweeping indictment of a free society.
It suggests that any perceived unfairness, or sorrow, or economic want must be addressed by yet another government effort to remedy that unfairness, that sorrow, or that economic want.
All we need to do is invoke the abracadabra phrase "social justice" and we're on our way.
The invocation of social justice always works from the assumption that the right people -- the anointed few -- can simply impose fairness, prosperity and any other good thing you can think of.
And the only institution capable of imposing social justice is the state.
And keep in mind, the conventional wisdom among liberal elites is that conservatives are the ones who want to impose their values on everyone else.
The self-declared champions of social justice believe the state must remedy and can remedy all perceived wrongs.
Anyone who disagrees is an enemy of what is good and right.
And the state must therefore coerce them to do what is socially just.
And that, as Hayek prophesized, is no longer a free society.
Is that the kind of society you want to live in?
And that, as Hayek prophesized, is no longer a free society.
Is that the kind of society you want to live in?
If it isn't, beware of what will be done in the name of social justice.
I'm Jonah Goldberg of the American Enterprise Institute and National Review for Prager University.
An energy pipeline project under consideration could help Turkey and Israel renew their partnership after years of strain. On March 23, Israeli financial daily Globes announced that more than 10 companies had submitted bids for the tender of a proposed undersea pipeline that would export natural gas from Israel's offshore Leviathan field to southern Turkey. The statement came shortly before Today's Zaman reported a meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's personal envoy for energy and security issues, David Meidan, and the chief of Turkey's National Intelligence Organization, Hakan Fidan, in which both parties reportedly agreed to work toward reopening embassies and normalizing relations, which have been fraught since the 2010 flotilla incident that left several Turks dead.
Israel and Turkey currently find themselves isolated in the region, giving both countries a reason to begin working together again, especially now that Turkey's ruling party has consolidated its power in the recent elections and feels more secure against a domestic backlash. While several technical and political obstacles make it unlikely that the proposed Leviathan pipeline will be constructed anytime soon, the issue could be used as a springboard for normalizing Israeli-Turkish diplomatic relations and opening the door to more bilateral investment and intelligence cooperation.
I'm Jonah Goldberg of the American Enterprise Institute and National Review for Prager University.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An energy pipeline project under consideration could help Turkey and Israel renew their partnership after years of strain. On March 23, Israeli financial daily Globes announced that more than 10 companies had submitted bids for the tender of a proposed undersea pipeline that would export natural gas from Israel's offshore Leviathan field to southern Turkey. The statement came shortly before Today's Zaman reported a meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's personal envoy for energy and security issues, David Meidan, and the chief of Turkey's National Intelligence Organization, Hakan Fidan, in which both parties reportedly agreed to work toward reopening embassies and normalizing relations, which have been fraught since the 2010 flotilla incident that left several Turks dead.
Israel and Turkey currently find themselves isolated in the region, giving both countries a reason to begin working together again, especially now that Turkey's ruling party has consolidated its power in the recent elections and feels more secure against a domestic backlash. While several technical and political obstacles make it unlikely that the proposed Leviathan pipeline will be constructed anytime soon, the issue could be used as a springboard for normalizing Israeli-Turkish diplomatic relations and opening the door to more bilateral investment and intelligence cooperation.
No comments:
Post a Comment