|
||||||||
July 04, 2009The Real Meaning of the 4th of July
The 4th of July -- Independence Day. For American families, it's a tradition that involves food, friends and fireworks. Unfortunately, as with many holidays, it's easy to lose sight of why we're celebrating.
America's independence is significant in part because, to many people worldwide, it's the defining characteristic of our country and its citizens. Many other countries came together because of a common language, religion or ethnicity. That's how the countries in South and Central America, for example, came to be. The United States of America, by contrast, was born because its founders believed in a series of principles and ideas. Having escaped religious persecution in Europe, the first non-native Americans were firm defenders of a number of things including: liberty, freedom and opportunity. These concepts are the bedrock of our country's rich history, and have guided us in the 232 years since we declared our independence from Britain. And although we haven't always lived up to these ideals, the American spirit to strive for perfection has always prevailed. Ultimately, the genius of our country lies in its people. Previous immigrant waves began with the first pilgrims from England, and included Germans, Irish, Polish, Chinese and Italians, among others. Today's Hispanic Americans are just the latest in a long list of those who left their homelands and their families in search of a better future. And yet, precisely because there are no requirements or preconditions to become an American (other than an understanding and appreciation for all that bind us together), immigrants have an obligation to honor and love our country. Like those who came before us, it is vital to know our country's history, customs and language. Only then can we ensure that future generations of Americans can be as blessed as we are to live in such a great country. Israel Ortega is a Senior Media Services Associate at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
July 03, 2009Colin Powell Jumping Ship?
Add Colin Powell to the ranks of Americans waking up from the Obama induced stupor. The Washington Times is reporting that Mr. Powell has voiced serious reservations in a CNN interview about Obama’s big government agenda and its consequences for our nation and our children.
In the CNN interview to be aired Sunday on “State of the Union with John King” Powell cautioned Mr. Obama about "budgets that are running into the multi-trillions of dollars" and "a huge, huge national debt that, if we don't pay for in our lifetime, our kids and grandkids and great-grandchildren will have to pay for it." Haven’t conservatives been issuing these same warnings ever since Obama began his presidential campaign? It seems rather disingenuous for Mr. Powell, an early Obama supporter, to suddenly have this epiphany after a mountain of economic evidence has portended the frightening consequences of President Obama’s budget. Maybe it’s Powell’s way of distancing himself from the Democrats after Obama’s truly outrageous handling of recent events in Honduras and in Iran. Remember about a month ago when Newsweek’s Evan Thomas gushed: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God." I guess even Colin Powell assumes that God would be able to balance a budget. Oh to Be an Obama Czar!
Obama’s health Czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle, has spent the last eight years making a fortune working for medical companies that have been under federal investigation for violating Medicare laws. Once again, Obama has managed to place a fox in the federal chicken coop with minimum criticism from the mainstream media.
The Investigative Reporting Workshop has the story: Nancy-Ann DeParle … served as a director of corporations that faced scores of federal investigations, whistleblower lawsuits and other regulatory actions, according to government records reviewed by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University. Several of the companies were investigated for alleged kickbacks or engaging in other illegal billing schemes, while others were accused of serious violations of federal quality standards, including one company that failed to warn patients of deadly problems with an implanted heart defibrillator. Several of the cases ended with substantial fines paid to the federal government, even though the companies admitted no wrongdoing. When Obama introduced DeParle, the President crowed about DeParle’s service in running Medicare under President Clinton. Obama failed to mention that DeParle made millions after she left government service to work in the private sector: After leaving government, DeParle accepted director positions at half a dozen companies suspected of violating the very laws and regulations she had enforced for Medicare. Those companies got into further trouble on her watch as a director. Now she’s back in government as a leading voice in deciding the shape of health care reform. Obama promised us “transparency” under his administration. One thing seems transparent enough: the potential for even more corruption with the appointment of DeParle. Hat tip: my wife Greenies kill jobs, stymie increased gasoline production
More unemployment means a smaller carbon footprint, as California greenies succeed in convincing a judge to shut down a needed modernization of California's oldest refinery, the massive 104 year old Chevron Richmond refinery. David R. Baker of the San Francisco Chronicle reports:
One hundred workers were laid off yesterday, and as many as a thousand may lose thier jobs as the project shuts down. After years of effort, and many millions of dollars expended, I wonder if Chevron will be willing to risk another round? Might jus be simpler to buy refined products elsewhere, or maybe invest in a refinery in Mexico. The improvement project looked like a real winner to me. I have been following its progress for a couple of years now, as I have taken an interest in the civic affairs of Richmond, a deeply troubled, mostly-minority city a few miles north of Berkeley. Among the many benefits of the project, the refinery would have been able to squeeze 7% more gasoline out of a barrel of oil, and would have been able to refine a wider range of crude. Greenies don't care, though.
Tens of Thousands in Honduras demonstrate in favor of military![]() This is a picture from a demonstration in support of Honduran democracy and the government of President Michelleti who has defied the OAS and has said there is no chance that the Chavez stooge, former President Zelaya will return. (Picture courtesy of Gateway Pundit ) James Kirchick of the New York Daily News shows how Obama and the US government is on the wrong side in this matter: On Tuesday, Zelaya was given a hero's welcome by the United Nations General Assembly. More worrying has been American complicity in the campaign to restore an authoritarian to power, beginning with U.S. co-sponsorship of a resolution stating that the removal of Zelaya "interrupted the democratic and constitutional order and the legitimate exercise of power in Honduras." Indeed, the correct diplomatic term for when a military overthrows a civilian government and replaces it with another civlian government is a "pronunciamento." Even that term is not entirely accurate since there was never a loss of civilian government as the military was acting under the direct orders of the Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress. I have a very bad feeling that the situation in Honduras and Obama's lethargic and tepid response to the Iranian crackdown are indicative of a foreign policy where we will constantly be on the wrong side of history. Obama's Muslim speech also had elements of this myopia about who the good guys are and what the bad guys look like. Sometimes, you have to choose. And Obama has so far demonstrated a spectacular ability to choose the wrong side. Now they want the Gipper's name removed from Washington airport
Well that's one way to deal with Reagan's legacy. Erase it from history like the communists used to do:
At Wednesday's Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board meeting, chairman H.R. Crawford - a former District Council member and Marion Barry confidante - told fellow Board members that he has heard talk on Capitol Hill about yanking former President Ronald Reagan's name off the local airport and returning it to its previous generic moniker: National Airport. Barbara Hollingsworth of the Examiner brings us this story at a time when Democrats are busy trying to destroy everything that Ronald Reagan stood for; smaller government, lower taxes, less government spending, a strong defense. and a proud, assertive foreign policy. Perhaps they feel that in addition to trashing his legacy, they may was well ape what the Soviets used to do when they wiped former heroes of Communism from the pages of history. A new wind is blowing through Washington. And it has the stench of the sewer. Airline mulls installing 'standing seats'
As airlines cut back on amenities like hot meals, free soda, and clean interiors, word comes of a new innovation aimed at saving money while maximizing revenue: selling standing room.
The report comes from a serious trade magazine, Flight Global:
Don't worry about safety, though. There will be something resembling a "bar stool" featuring some form of restraint. Presumably, the revenue-maximizing airline will be selling drinks to passengers on the bar stools, so the complete package could feature the ambience of a low rent cocktail lounge. As wealth continues to be destroyed, we are all going to become accustomed to less and less luxury in our lives. Soon it will be thirty-somethings who remember the good old days. Hat tip: Bryan Demko
Scary story of the week
If you are spooked by the spate of recent airline crashes, read no further. You may not want to think about who worked on maintaining the next airplane you ride on. And don't let your mind turn to the question of how the elaborate and expensive regulatory bureaucracy allowed this to happen. Put it all out of your mind. Unless you value your life, that is.
WFAA Television (You have to love the way its call letters recapitulate the principal aviation regulator) reports:
Hat tip: Bryan Demko
They can keep her
You may have heard that the Israeli navy intercepted a ship of Palestinian sympathizers who were trying to get to Israel to highlight the plight of civilians in Gaza and deliver aid. Of course, spouting anti-Israeli propoganda to the world press was their primary objective - something they could do just as easily from home but no one would pay any attention to them there.
At any rate, on board this ship of fools was none other than former Congressman, 9/11 truther, and certified leftist loon Cynthia McKinney. It may please you to know that she and 20 other leftist lunatics were taken off the ship and have been held in an Israeli detention center since Tuesday. CNN reports: The ex-lawmaker is in the Givon immigration detention center in the central Israeli city of Ramle, the U.S. Embassy said. Why send her home? She obviously doesn't want to leave. Let her stay among her Hamas friends and get an authentic immersion in what it means to live in Gaza. I'm sure she would enjoy herself so much, she might never want to come back to the US. If only we were so lucky. Sotomayor and ACORN joined at the hip
This is not surprising - Republican senate staffers have been whispering for weeks that a Sotomayor-ACORN connection was in the process of being unearthed.
But the extent of the relationship is more than a little shocking. Jennifer Rubin writing in Contentions: Below the surface of the daily news coverage, Senate Republicans have been struggling to get documents from PRLDEF, the liberal civil rights group in which Sotomayor held a variety of leadership positions for a dozen years. It seems odd, at first blush, that there should be a tussle over a group whose public positions on a variety of issues are well known and in which Sotomayor played such a central leadership role. Why fight over boxes of old letters and legal briefs? At first, many speculated that this might have been problematic because it would feed the racial preference storyline and breathe new life into the "wise Latina" remakrs. But maybe it is far more explosive. Indeed it would be - and is. Sotomayor apparently held several positions with the group, including "Member and Vice President, Board of Directors Chairperson, Litigation and Education Committees." And the New York Times reported: "She just believed in the mission," Luis Alvarez, a former chairman of its board, said of Ms. Sotomayor. "This was a highly refined group of individuals who came from the premier academic institutions. It was almost like Camelot. It was a wonderful growth period." But Ms. Sotomayor stood out, frequently meeting with the legal staff to review the status of cases, several former members said. And so across her 12 years on the board - she left when she was appointed a federal judge in 1992 - she played an active role as the defense fund staked out aggressive stances on issues like police brutality, the death penalty and voting rights.This news will have no impact on Democrats. But it will make it a little harder for those Republicans who were planning on deserting the party and voting for her confirmation to make the case she is a "mainstream" judge. ACORN is a proto-Leninist, thuggish group of far left radicals who want to overturn American society and create a Marxist state. Perhaps some Republican senator on the Judiciary Committee might ask her whether she still believes in ACORN's "mission" which lately appears to be gaming the electoral system by trying to steal elections. Hat Tip: Ed Lasky How's that transparency in science coming, fellas?
Here's a great opinion piece by Kim Strassel in today's Wall Street Journal on the EPA scientist who was muzzled for his contrary views on making carbon a pollutant.
This story is not going away any time soon because the EPA refuses to answer questions posed by Republicans in Congress and keeps insisting that the scientist who was told not to write anything more about global warming - 35 year EPA vet Alan Carlin - was heard out. Emails from Carlin's boss Al McGartland tell a different story. Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read. Making carbon a pollutant and subject to the tender regulatory mercies of the EPA is going to add a massive layer of bureaucracy to energy production, thus driving up costs, discouraging innovation, and all the attendant evils that a huge increase in paperwork entails. Read the rest of Strassel's article on this clear example of hypocrisy by the Obama administration. Hat Tip: Ed Lasky Obama the Redeemer
Is there a pattern emerging, given the Cap and Trade bill recently passed at Obama's urging?
Indeed there is. His apology tour for past American "sins" (all occurring before his reign, he explains) was not enough for Obama to cleanse our collective historical record. He wants to go beyond being the redeemer. He wants to be the rectifier. The military has been complicit in war crimes, so we should gut the military so as to minimize the risk of similar "crimes" in the future. Has America,as the great industrial power, used its might to pollute the earth? Gut American industry with taxes, regulations, and cap and trade (which will empower our competitors and reduce America to a second-rate, if we are lucky, industrial power). All the better that our American-based multinationals will have less power to wreak havoc on the lesser developed world. Have we played a "bad role" on the international stage? Well, we are walking back from supporting our allies (Columbia, Great Britain, Georgia, Israel) since our power is always a temptation to use, and every time we use it (in Obama's fevered imagination) we harm the world. So we will weaken our allies by minimizing our support for them and rectify our past actions (see especially Iran and Israel). Since America played a role in a coup in Iran over 50 years ago, we must rectify our sin by stepping back from "meddling" in Iran. We opposed Hugo Chavez in the past. We must rectify that by shifting to the opposite tack and implicitly support him and his allies in the region (think Honduras). To Obama, the mere existence of American strength - be it diplomatic, economic, military - is a sin because it leads us to exercise such power. Every time we exercise such power we bring about harm. He must not only apologize (and be the redeemer) but turn back the clock by "undoing" the harm. He wants to make history right - by undoing history. As Obama wants to level Americans by engineering a massive transfer of wealth (remember the "spread the wealth" gaffe during the campaign) so also he wants to level America to the status of any other nation in the world. This is reflected in his reliance on the standards of the ‘international community" and his increasing emphasis on abiding by the rulings and directions of the United Nations rather than focusing on supporting American interests abroad. These are the lessons, the education, he learned at Columbia, at Harvard, and in the pews of his finishing school ‘Trinity United Church of Christ" from his American-hating mentor and moral compass, Jeremiah Wright, Junior- a man who based his sermons on the evil that America has always practiced in every sphere where it exercises any national power. Obama, redeemer of America's sins. Our modern day Christ figure-but without the personal and redemptive suffering. That is what he has in store for the rest of us. And for America. July 02, 2009Dershowitz's Weak Analysis of Obama's Support for Israel (updated)
Against the background of increasing world-wide anti -Semitism, Alan Dershowitz has been a helpful advocate for Israel, particularly given the paucity of Israeli support from the left. His piece in today's Wall Street Journal, however, falls far short of the mark.
Dershowitz argues that Obama's strident policy on settlements is not an indication of America's lack of support for Israel. He is wrong to do so. First, Dershowitz claims that Obama's harsher approach toward Israel is rhetorical form over substance, cavalierly dismissing stated policy simply because he can envision an acceptable compromise. He bases his statement on a flimsy rationale of some perceived but unsubstantiated Jewish American support which is not exactly a reassuring stratagem for foreign policy. But what happened to Obama's insistence that "words must matter"? Is that rhetoric or substance? Furthermore, Dershowitz neglects to mention the seminal settlement related issues, such as the fact that the settlements are not illegal under international law -- and that the U.S. has no business meddling into the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. (It seems as though that policy only applies to hostile nations who are openly committed to the destruction of Israel and the U.S.) That Dershowitz has in the past made compelling arguments in favor of the legality of Israel's settlements is telling if not intellectually dishonest. Additionally, Dershowitz omits any mention of our past written and oral commitments to Israel supporting its right to natural settlement growth that, like other inconvenient facets of reality not fitting into Obama's grand scheme of weak-kneed appeasement, have been completely ignored. In discussing the most striking example of the administration's hostility toward Israel, the nonsensical linkage between a two state solution and a nuclear Iran, Dershowitz states that Rahm Emanuel "appeared" to link the two issues, completely ignoring the numerous statements coming out of the White House indicating that this is in fact the administration's policy. Since there is no justification for such an appalling position, Dershowitz dances around the issue by calling it "disturbing" and suggesting it should be "disavowed." The Obama administration has done nothing to suggest it will drop this ultimatum or to indicate it is willing to get tough with Iran. Where is Dershowitz's outrage for a policy of risking the security of our nation's greatest ally to palliate the Arab world? What data points does Dershowitz cite to support his view that the Obama administration will change course relative to either Israel or Iran? Does anyone seriously believe that Obama would consider the military option? Dershowitz drops the ball on this point because there is nothing to suggest otherwise. That he mentions Dennis Ross as the administration's "point man" -- who publicly questioned the linkage of Iran and the settlement issue -- is vapid. Dershowitz omits the fact that the administration has replaced Ross as envoy to Iran. Dershowitz also claims there is no evidence to suggest weakening support for Israel's right to defend itself. What about the constant drumbeat of our administration's support for closing checkpoints, easing restrictions at the crossings, and handing over control of the West Bank to Palestinian armed militants, all under the convenient tripe of making life easier for those poor, unfortunate Palestinians? How about the billion dollars of support for Hamas? Dershowitz concludes that there is no reason to confuse Obama's policy on settlement expansion with undercutting Israel's security. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. In justifying his opinion, Dershowitz states that:
The bait and switch Dershowitz refers to at the beginning of his article never occurred under Bush and it should not be acceptable under Obama simply because Dershowitz's liberalism allowed him to buy into the deceit dished out by Obama throughout the campaign. If he is having buyer's remorse, Dershowitz should whine to a different audience, but I expect that the readers of the WSJ found his justification for his vote "despite [Obama's] friendships with rabidly anti-Israel characters" to be pathetically lacking in reasoned analysis.
Update: The incomparable Melanie Phillips weighs in on Deershowitz's op-ed. Mladen Andrijasevic writes: It all boils down to Obama’s policy towards Iran. Alan Dershowitz writes:
Melanie Phillips responds:
In an article I wrote in October last year I criticized Alan Dershowitz and Colin Powell for underestimating the Iranian threat:
Dershowitz has by now begun to realize the significance of Iran. He understands that the linkage between the efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and Israeli actions with regard to the settlements is wrong:
Despite the stopping Iran - settlements linkage created by the administration, Dershowitz still believes that the Obama administration has not shifted towards learning to live with a nuclear Iran and attempting to deny Israel the painful option of attacking its nuclear targets. But Obama is continuing to seek "engagement" with Iran as John Bolton points out , whereas Biden has already stated that Israel would be ill-advised to attack Iran . Therefore Dershowitz’s hypothetical “troubling” scenario is already happening. Helen Thomas: Who do they think we are, puppets?Helen Thomas to CNSNews on the unprecedented lengths the Obama White House goes to to control the press.
Thomas made her comments after this week's carefully-orchestrated "town hall" meeting on Obamacare.
|
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|