Charles Krauthammer on ObamaCare

In his July 24, 2009 column, the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer points out that President Obama's health care reform (read transformation) package is beginning to collapse. As more and more people (including Democrats!) work their way through the more than 1,000 pages of legislation, they are realizing the folly of implementing it. Krauthammer has 3 main points:

1. President Obama claims that soaring medical costs are destroying the economy. Then the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office announced that the President's plan would increase costs by $1 trillion (yes, that's a "t"). Oops.
2. President Obama claims that health care reform is above politics, that it is completely for the American people. Really? says Krauthammer. Then why do we not hear anything about reforming the malpractice system, where doctors must pay between tens- and hundreds of thousands of dollars every year in malpractice insurance? Answer: because trial lawyers make up a large percentage of Democratic Party contributors. You think they want to see changes in the torts system? I think not. But remember, this is not about politics, right?
3. Another source of great medical financial waste is the unnecessary tests ordered by (understandably!) lawsuit-fearful doctors. Why are they fearful? Surprise! It's the trial lawyers again. The doctors know that if they do not order the smallest test for a patient, the patient may turn around the next day and sue, claiming, "Why didn't you try everything?" Because we have to consider the greater good of society, dear patient. And if it so important to have that test, pay for it yourself, or with some caring friends and family members. But keep the insurance companies (and higher premiums for the rest of us) out of it.

President Obama is hanging his hat on health care reform. The hat's about to fall.

Investor's Business Daily - The uninsured myth

As the Obama health care plan slowly receives more and more scrutiny, it is becoming clear that the underlying goal is not to correct the problem in the current health care system, but rather to further expand government's reach. I thought this was fairly elementary. Conservatives wish to reduce the size of government, while liberals wish to expand it. These are basic to each ideology.

Investor's Business Daily's August 29, 2007 editorial, using Census Bureau data, effectively refutes the notion that "47 million" Americans lack health insurance. After calculating the total number as just under 45 million, they break the numbers down. Let's see where we end up:

1. 10.231 million illegal aliens - Surely they should not receive government-provided health insurance, being illegal.
2. 9.283 million with income above $75,000 - They cannot afford health insurance? Surely you jest.
3. 8.459 million with income between $50,000-$74,999 - They could also probably pay for their own health insurance.

So how many people are we really talking about who do not have health insurance? Subtracting number 1 above, one is left with 34.76 million Americans (12% of the population). Subtracting number 2 above, one is left with 25.48 million Americans (8.5% of the population). Subtracting number 3 above, one is left with 17.02 million Americans (5.7% of the population).

Let me get this straight: since between 5.7-12% of Americans do not have health insurance, we are going to trash the entire system, and let government take it over? This will save costs? Governments never have an incentive to cut costs; they can always a) raise taxes, or b) print more money. Private enterprise, by definition, must watch its costs.

This is yet another example of the liberal Obama Administration trying to control Americans' lives. Those in government know better for the American people than the American people do. This is also an example of the liberal child-like view of the world: since a tiny minority do not have all that the overwhelming majority do, we will take away that which the majority has. Then all may share in the negatives of the system, instead of the vast majority of us (that is right - not all of us) sharing in the positives of the system. Make no mistake - when it is government versus private enterprise, in the long run, government wins, for the reason noted above.

Does this mean I think that the current system is working? No, I do not. But the solution is not to destroy the system already in place. We need to tinker with it. Then again, candidate Obama never disguised his intentions. He told us on a campaign stop in Missouri that he was going to "fundamentally transform the United States of America."

And fundamentally transform the United States of America he is doing.

Maureen Dowd, champion of "diversity"

When will Maureen Dowd realize that values matter much more than gender or race?

Apparently, not any time soon.

It is telling that those who label themselves "progressives" consistently act in a regressive manner. They constantly tell us that what matters most (not only) in selecting a public servant, student, coach, etc. is the candidate's race or gender, never his qualifications. This is why we always hear about how we must have "diversity" in public office or the workplace, why we must support affirmative action (also known as anti-White discrimination), and why we have the Rooney Rule in the NFL (which states that any team hiring a head coach must interview at least one minority [read Black or Hispanic] candidate, even if the team has its sights set on one particular coach). I thought what matters most is a person's credentials and competence. Of course, I realize that not all people have the same opportunities to develop their skills, but the way to solve that is not by promoting or hiring people to positions for which they are not qualified. But Maureen Dowd plays the race and gender cards in her July 15, 2009 op-ed, in which she describes a "gaggle of white Republican men...out to trip her [Judge Sonia Sotomayor] up." (Ironic, is it not, that in the city where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of the day when his children "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" these vile words were written?)

Lest one think I am taking this comment out of context, try this one: "It was a disgrace that [former President George] W. [Bush] appointed two white men to a court stocked with white men." Can one get more racist and sexist than that? What is the difference as to an appointee's race and gender for public office, university, or sports coach? If I were to ask Ms. Dowd if she believed race should be a factor in appointing and hiring, she would have only one of three answers: 1) yes, in which case she is no different than the 1960s Southern racists she so (correctly) deplores, except in the reverse, 2) no, in which case there is no way to defend what she wrote, or 3) no, except for Blacks and Hispanics, because the "system" has shortchanged them for many years, and this is a way to level the playing field. I suspect the answer is #3.

A second problem with Ms. Dowd's "stocked with white men" comment is that it implies that all white men think alike. After all, why else would there be a problem? Does anyone honestly think she would have been happier had President Bush appointed a Black male conservative, such as Ken Blackwell or Thomas Sowell? How about a White female conservative, like Sarah Palin or Kay Bailey Hutchison? (I realize none of the above are jurists, but my point is that she is not really concerned with diversity, but rather getting more liberals on the High Court. Which is fine with me, by the way. I just wish she would admit it.)

A third problem - how far does diversity extend? As of July 16, 2009, the Court had:

1. 5 Catholics (Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito), 2 Protestants (Stevens and Souter [Episcopalian]), and 2 Jews (Ginsburg and Breyer). Considering Protestants represent more than 50% of all Americans, Catholics fewer than 25%, and Jews fewer than 2%, should not Ms. Dowd be concerned with the Court's 55% Catholic representation, 22% Protestant representation, and 22% Jewish representaton? Are my "Jewish views" represented by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg? No, but my conservative views are well-represented by Catholics Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. And, if given the choice of having a Jew or a Red Sox-loving, Yankee-cursing conservative replace any of those four, give me the Sox fan any day of the week.
2. 2 West Coasters (Kennedy and Breyer), 2 Midwesterners (Stevens, Roberts), 4 Northeasterners (Scalia, Alito, Souter, Ginsburg), and 1 Southerner (Thomas). Looks like the North has 66% of the Justices! Might Ms. Dowd be interested in some more Southerners? What's that you say? Southerners tend to be conservative? But I thought we want diversity!

Maureen Dowd, and those who think like her, mask their desire for more liberals in higher office with calls for "diversity." As we have seen, though, "diversity" has its limits. Take Ms. Dowd's employer, the New York Times, for instance. Of their regular columnists, the ratio of liberals to conservatives is 10:1, and David Brooks is a pretty moderate conservative. We won't even talk about newspaper editorial pages, network news, cable news, or university professors.

So let's just stop this talk of desiring "diversity." Ms. Dowd, you want liberals, I want conservatives. Have a great day.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor - Did she mention she is a Latina?

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has claimed, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." In other words, white males do not have "richness of experience," and could not possibly reach as "better" a conclusion as a Latina. She has since tried to distance herself from this comment. The International Business Times of July 13, 2009 reported that the White House claimed that this comment was taken out of context. For the convenience of my readers, here is the quote in context, from an address Judge Sotomayor delivered at UC-Berkeley's La Raza Law Journal's Twelfth Annual Symposium on October 26, 2001. I believe that reading it in context makes Judge Sotomayor's thinly-veiled racism all the more apparent. Her theme was how disappointing it was to see so few women and "people of color" on state and federal courts. Apparently, this woman desires diversity in the court system, not necessarily excellence.

Why should a judge's ethnic or racial background matter? Do we not simply want the best judges possible, be they white, black, purple, maroon, or green? And speaking of diversity, why did she not mention Asians in her criticism of lack of diversity? What about Protestants on the Supreme Court? Are not these groups also entitled to representation? How could a non-Asian possibly be able to render fair verdicts for Asians? But according to Judge Sotomayor, a Latina could issue just verdicts for all, while a white male could not.

I thought liberals believe that, short of biology, men and women are essentially the same. Neither sex is more necessary for a child's upbringing, and if we would take societal expectations out of the mix, men and women would gravitate to similar professions. (Ah, yes. I recall reading about all those women banging down the doors to work on off-shore oil rigs. It was just those wicked, white oil men who wouldn't let them in.) But now we hear that the Supreme Court needs "diversity." If men and women are the same, what's the difference as to the Justices' sex or ethnicity?

The truth is, there are many more differences between male and female thinking, or between liberal and conservative thinking, than there are between the thinking of different races. A black liberal and an Hispanic liberal will generally agree with each other, as will a white conservative and an Asian conservative. Judge Sonia Sotomayor is guilty of race- and gender-baiting to the highest degree. Just think if a white male had said the same thing: "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn't lived that life." Can one imagine the (thoroughly justified!) vitriol that would be hurled his way? His nomination with be withdrawn within a nanosecond.

But as usual, accusations of racism only go one way.

Wanted KKK member caught in...........Israel?

Hey, he may hate Jews, but when you're looking to escape from American authorities, you do what you have to do.

Kenyan village idiot?

I received a link from a conservative commentary site, townhall.com. It sent me to a site with conservative-, as well as anti-Obama, bumper stickers. Two of the stickers in particular (one which described President Obama as a "village idiot" from Kenya, and one which questioned President Obama's constitutional ability to serve as President), I found very distasteful, and sent an email saying so to the site owners, as well as to townhall.com. As a conservative, I believe that my fellow like-minded thinkers and I must be held, and hold ourselves, to a higher standard than our liberal brothers and sisters. I think there are two main problems with these kinds of attacks on President Obama (and, for that matter, other liberals):

1. It is petty and childish. In general, we conservatives have the advantage of having right on our side. We can defeat our fellow loyal Americans in reasoned debate, not by resorting to sophomoric attacks. As I have written to a liberal friend, as a conservative, I need to convince others to follow me by thoughtful arguments, not by forcing my views on them through legislation and the courts. After all, I'm not a liberal, right?
2. We conservatives got upset at liberals who created bumper stickers like "Buck Fush." We can't do something similar back at them. We're better than that. Our slogans may not be as clever as liberals', but they are more in concert with reality than "An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind" (that's why one should adopt the strategy of overwhelming force [think The Untouchables' style of "they pull a knife, you pull a gun; he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue"]), or "Give peace a chance" (what if the bad guys do not desire peace?), or "You can't hug children with nuclear arms" (no, but you sure can protect your children with nuclear arms!).
   

What are defensible Israeli borders?

In the wake of the 1967 Six Day War, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a non-political, purely strategic, map which showed the minimum territorial requirements for a secure Israel. In other words, what was the least amount of land Israel had to retain to ensure her security? No consideration was given to political factors; defensible borders was the only consideration. Considering what Israel has already given up for peace (well beyond what the Joint Chiefs suggested was feasible), and considering what Israel has received for its complete Gaza withdrawal in 2005, can anyone still honestly say that it is Israel which is the intransigent party in the "peace process"? What more would one suggest Israel do to prove its willingness to make peace?

Prager University - The American Trinity

Watch Course #1 of Dennis Prager's Prager University - The American Trinity. If modern liberals would admit that they favor European values over traditional American values, I could at least respect their intellectual honesty. But as a general rule, they do not even see that the values they promote and admire are antithetical to the values upon which this country was founded. Why can they not just admit that they believe the values held dear by our Founding Fathers are not applicable anymore? Self-deception is the worst deception of all.

Some questions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

One often reads about the "settlements," or the current Israeli boundaries, being obstacles to peace. I have some simple questions, to which I have never received convincing answers:

1. If the "settlements" are the main obstacle to peace, then why were there numerous attacks on Israeli civilians and soldiers as far back as 1929, with the Hebron Massacre, right up through 1967? Could they perhaps have been in anticipation of the settlements that would be constructed in the wake of the Six Day War?
2. Israel has been repeatedly pressured to retreat to the June 4, 1967 lines (pre-Six Day War). The Palestinians claim they desire a state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, held by Egypt and Jordan, respectively, from the end of the 1948-49 War of Independence until the Six Day War. First, why was there no clamoring for a Palestinian state when fellow Arabs controlled these territories? Why was it only when the Jews controlled them? Second, what is so sacrosanct about the June 4 lines? Let us suppose that in the wake of the 1948 war, Israel controlled all the land west of the Jordan, save for Jericho and its environs. The "June 4 lines" would then encompass much more territory. Would we then be discussing a Palestinian state on this tiny plot of land of Jericho? Conversely, let us suppose that Israel only held onto Tel Aviv and its environs after the 1948 war. Would we then be discussing a Palestinian state on nearly all of the modern State of Israel, with a tiny Jewish one? Why are the June 4 lines special?

I am eager to hear any and all responses to these perplexing questions.

Weekly Israel News from BAYT of Toronto

Check here every week for a link to Israel News, published by Beth Avraham Yoseph Synagogue of Toronto. You may find it using the search label "Israel News."

Barack Obama's 1983 Columbia University article on nuclear disarmament

Thanks to Caroline Glick for bringing this article by then-Columbia undergrad Barack Obama to my attention in her Jerusalem Post article of July 6, 2009.

Obama writes, "...one is forced to wonder whether disarmament or arms control issues, severed from economic and political issues, might be another instance of focusing on the symptoms of a problem instead of the disease itself." In other words, the problem is weapons, and other military materiel, not the producers and owners of such items. It is the same as saying, "The problem in the inner city is that there are too many weapons. We need to disarm." No, the problem is not that there are too many weapons; it is that the criminals have weapons. The solution is not to ask law enforcement to unilaterally disarm. As any thinking person knows, if the police were to announce a unilateral disarmament, the criminals would not be close behind. They would be laughing uncontrolably, waiting for their moment to continue exploiting the now-undefended populace.

Globally, the problem is not that the United States, Britain, France, Israel et al have nuclear weapons. The problem is that a regime which keeps its own citizens in a massve concentration camp (North Korea), a regime which supports a terrorist organization against a neighboring state (Syria), and a regime which has threatened the complete anihilation of a sovereign state (Iran) are all pursuing weapons of tremendous destructive power. Destructive weapons in the hands of responsible players are not a threat. Destructive weapons in the hands of war-mongering players are. As I have said for a long time now, if I were on a plane of Mormons, Evangelicals, Quakers, Jews, Hindus, Miami Beach grandmothers et al who were all carrying a semi-automatic weapon, I would rest very easily on that flight.

What Student Obama did not understand then, and what President Obama does not understand now, is that once the nuclear genie is out of his bottle, you cannot put him back. Advocating for no nuclear weapons before the nuclear weapons age came about would have been noble; advocating for it during the nuclear weapons age is naive and self-destructive. Does anyone honestly think that Iran, North Korea, and Syria are looking at the United States' race to disarm and thinking, "What a great country, that American imperialist nation! I guess they're not so bad after all! If they can disarm, I guess we'll stop developing nuclear weapons, too."

Naivete, thy name is liberal.

President Obama's Cairo speech

President Obama delivered an important speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009. I believe that the naivete, wishful thinking, and distortions in his speech are beyond breathtaking. They are frightening. That we have a President who believes what he believes about the Arab/Muslim world, the history of the Jewish people, and world politics is cause for tremendous alarm. I urge you to read his speech deliberately, and then read the analysis articles which follow. Additionally, I have included excerpts from the speech, as well as my brief comments which follow. Anyone who cares about the security of the United States and the State of Israel should read his speech carefully, as this man chooses his words carefully. I look forward to reading your comments.

President Obama's speech
Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post
Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post
Anne Bayefsky in National Review
• Prime Minister Netanyahu's response at Bar-Ilan
  

...tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims... - Of course, it is not Muslims' fault, it is the West's fault. Muslims need not be held accountable for their actions; they are victims. How does the President explain the fact that 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, a country that was never colonized? How does he explain India, freed from British colonization, which did not resort to terrorism against its former colonizers? (Thanks to Dennis Prager for pointing this out.)
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions... - He never ONCE uses the term "terror" or "terrorism." Does that not give anyone pause? How can one's major policy speech to the "Muslim world" be taken seriously without mentioning "terrorism" once?
...throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. - I am left speechless. On which planet, Mr. President?
...I also know civilization's debt to Islam. - Aside from suicide bombings and airplane hijackings, what has the Islamic world contributed over the past 500 years?
...Islam has always been a part of America's story. - Pure fiction, plain and simple. Aside from sports converts and Keith Ellison, can anyone name one famous Muslim-American who has "served in government...stood for civil rights...won Nobel Prizes"? Islam has never been part of America's story. Christianity and Judaism have.
...the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied. - This is crucial, a smoking gun. He has bought into the Arab propaganda. Israel was founded because of the Holocaust. No mention of the fact that there were two independent Jewish states there, and not one independent Arab/Muslim state. President Obama endorsed the Arab world's claim that if Europe committed the Holocaust, why should the Arabs be punished for it? And after hearing this line, they have every reason to believe he agrees with them.

Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. - Important and relevant point.
1. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. - It is good that the President said this. It is a bit disturbing, however, that in the 21st-century, a President needs to make this point. It says frightening things about his audience, representatives of a group with whom we are supposed to make peace.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. - Here comes the moral equivalence. Never mind that the Jews suffered from without, while the Palestinians' suffering was due to their leaders' intransigence to any sized Jewish state and their people's greater desire to murder Jews than to have a state of their own. A second point - why mention Christians? Have there been any Palestinian Christian suicide bombers? No. Why? Because something is rotten in the state of the Muslim world.
2. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small... - Whose fault are the "daily humiliations"? The Israelis', for not wanting to get blown up? And what of the humiliations Israelis must endure, being searched when they enter a mall or restaurant, and having to assure invited guests that the wedding reception with have security present? (Thanks to Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg of San Antonio for this point.)
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. - A "stalemate"?! What does one call the offer of total withdrawal after the Six Day War in exchange for peace? What of the complete withdrawal from Sinai? What if the complete withdrawal from Gaza? What of the offers of more than 90% of Judea and Samaria, a portion of Jerusalem for a Palestinian capital, and a partial return of refugees? What more would he have liked Israel to do? And he calls it a "stalemate"? Additionally, he equates the Jewish- and Palestinian "painful history." But one "painful history" was other-inflicted, while the other was self-inflicted.

3. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. - Really? How, exactly, did the Palestinians get to the position they are on the world stage? By lying down in front of Israeli tanks, Tienanmen Square-style? Or was it by hijacking planes, slaughtering innocents at the Olympics, in an airport arrivals hall, and in a school? The Palestinians have shown that violence succeeds indeed! (Hence, nobody cares about Tibetan independence. They do not murder innocent Chinese, or any Chinese, for that matter.) And why did he add, "...and does not succeed"? If it did, would it then be acceptable?
For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip... - So now the Palestinian cause is as righteous as the Black cause for integration and equal rights? Simply breathtaking.
It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered. - Two powerful lines, but he had already undermined them with his previous moral equivalency statements. These lines had nothing to stand on.
4. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. - All previous understandings between the American and Israeli governments be damned. This is a tremendous policy shift. No President has ever been so blunt.
...I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. - Yes, Mr. President, and in Utopia, that might be possible. But on Earth, where I live, I would prefer the United States to have bigger guns than the bad people. Just like in my cities, I want the police to have bigger guns than the bad people, not ask the bad people to turn in their weapons.