Helen Thomas Tells Jews To “Go Home”

Helen Thomas wants the Jews to “go home”.  They are apparently occupying Palestine even though there are 5.7 million Jews of a total of 7.5 million people living in Israel.  Not to mention the fact that the Israeli state existed for over TWO THOUSAND YEARS prior to the Siege of Masada.  But what is more baffling is where “home” is for the 159,000 babies born in Israel this year?  Why in the world would Helen think that Europe would be home for those newborns or anyone born in Israel in the last 62 years?  This would be no different than someone walking up to a black person in the United States and telling them they are occupying America and should return to Africa.  It would be profoundly racist on multiple levels.  Not to mention the fact that you are assuming where they come from.  Just like different races of people have come from all over the world to be American citizens, Jews have come from all over the world to be Israelis.  But Helen wants all you Jews to go back “where you belong,” and apparently that is Poland and Germany.  How does this woman have a job?  She’s obviously a callous bigot who is insanely politically biased.  I saw her in Morton’s in DC once. Had this happened before that occasion I would have gladly told her this to her face.

Happy Memorial Day

Happy Memorial Day, everyone.May all Americans take a few moments today to thank a veteran; thank God; and reflect on why we have the freedoms we do.

May our leaders use the members of our military wisely; only when necessary; and only for the good of the nation and the world. May they be guided by the wisdom of God.

And may God Bless America, and may He bless those who fell in battle and otherwise.

Why America Needs A Domestic Energy Policy That Works

Today, Saudi Arabia announced it had arrested 113 Al Qaeda militants. Their targets included energy facilities in Saudi Arabia.

This is another poignant sign of why we need to have nuclear power, domestic drilling and wind power as major sources of energy in America. If the attacks had succeeded, it would probably have hurt us both monetarily and in relations with Saudi Arabia, as its citizens may have blamed America for the attack. Deregulating the American energy sector, and allowing innovative efficiency to take hold, would do a great deal in stopping Al Qaeda and preventing the kinds of economic disruptions a successful attack of this type would have today.

A Big Yawn

So apparently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said yet another racial comment- after comparing Republicans opposed to Democratic health care reform to supporters of slavery- and the political world is hung up on every word. Questions like the following dominate the arena:

1. Should he resign like former Senator Trent Lott did? (No, he shouldn’t.)

2. Are Reid’s remarks similar to Lott’s? (No, they aren’t. Lott’s were insensitive to the public’s eye, but meant to compliment a public servant. Reid’s were analytical but insensitive. Reid’s were definitely about race, Lott’s probably were not.)

3. What does President Obama think? (He doesn’t care.)

4. Will this hurt Reid’s already tough re-election campaign? (Duh.)

5. What does Reverend Al Sharpton (or some other race-baiter) think? (Sharpton defended Reid.)

So, this leads me to two questions, one important and one not so much. The less important one is this: why is Sharpton now coming out against former president Bill Clinton’s remark last year that “A few years ago, this guy [then-Senator Obama] would have been getting us coffee,” when he is defending Reid?  After all, let’s say “a few years ago” was a reference to President Obama’s age, not race, and remember that sometimes “a few years ago” can mean as much as a decade, especially to older people such as Clinton and former senator Ted Kennedy (to whom Clinton made the remark). Perhaps the former president was merely remarking on the presidential candidate’s youth and inexperience? If he really wants to help black Americans, Sharpton should ignore these minor, attention-grabbing comments by public figures and concentrate on helping young blacks get a better education. Or, better yat, perhaps he could join Star Parker in helping diminish the number of black abortions.

My second question is more important, however, and more timely than the age-old complaint about Sharpton’s priorities. Namely, it is this: why are Republicans wasting their time on attacking Reid? This issue will have a minimal effect on the health care debate, it won’t help change the public’s view on the party one iota and few outside of politics remember Trent Lott’s comments. Republicans should release a statement or two, let Reid’s general election opponents use this comment and his slavery one to his or her advantage, and concentrate on the larger issues facing America and her citizens. If we are to win past November 2010, conservatives and Republicans must be viewed as the movement and party that can prioritize. The Bush years were incredibly harmful to the Republican and conservative brands, and Democrats have taken full advantage. We have to show the public that we deserve their trust yet again, and hammering Reid over a really stupid and insensitive comment won’t do it. In fact, it may very well hurt us in the long run.

Venezuelans Continue to Suffer Under Chavez

Once again, Hugo Chavez is hurting his people. The Venezuelan leader has instituted electricity rationing policies, with various punishments for those who dare violate Chavez’s rules.

I hope our federal government allows the building of nuclear power plants and domestic drilling very soon. Chavez is America’s fourth-largest supplier of oil, and by buying from his country we give him the economic power to continue to hurt millions of people.

I no longer own a vehicle- it’s not necessary in the DC area- but when I did I refused to buy from Citgo gas stations as the company is owned by the Venezuelan government. If millions of people in this country instituted that policy in their lives, the free market would help to break the back of Chavez’s dictatorship and give his country’s people the freedom they deserve as human beings.

The Party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea?

Since the election of President Obama, the Democrats have been very effective at portraying the Republican Party as the ?Party of No.? Depending on your political persuasion, this could be completely true, completely false or somewhere in the middle.

In the last couple of weeks, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been hammered by Erick Erickson of RedState and Michelle Malkin for not fighting to the very finish on the recent Senate passage of a health care reform bill. On the one hand, these criticisms are of delaying tactics would only have slowed the vote by twelve hours, which would have done nothing in the halls of Congress but would have, as Ed Morrissey points out, given the media less time to cover the vote?s aftermath. On the other hand, if the Republican leadership had held firm on the many opportunities they had to slow things down, for example by following Senator Judd Gregg?s (R-NH) advice, and Senator Tom Coburn?s (R-OK) wish to read every part of the Senate bill, among other tactics to slow the bill, senators would have had to go home for Christmas a) without a bill, and b) to face their constituents, the majority of whom dislike the Democratic versions of health care reform and whom are increasingly against them as time goes on.

Senators Gregg, Coburn and Jim DeMint (R-SC), among many others, have been vilified for their articulate and unyielding opposition to health care reform and other Democratic measures. However, they are also the poster children for what Republicans should be about- namely, being the party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea.? All of these senators, along with other Republicans, have jammed the Democrats but also offered their own solutions to the various issues facing America. They have also worked with Democrats in a bipartisan fashion on a case-by-case basis.

When it comes to dispelling the myth that Republicans have been, and are being, merely obstructionists, let’s start with Senator Judd Gregg. On the one hand, Gregg voted for Secretary Geithner?s nomination, nearly accepted a position as President Obama?s Commerce Secretary, offered support for the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett bill and has worked with Democrat Kent Conrad (D-ND) on a debt commission. On the other, Gregg has hammered Obama on debt, passed around a virtual handbook for Republican obstructionism and taken the lead on opposing Democratic reconciliation. Additionally, however, Gregg has offered his own bill as an alternative to the Democratic proposals.

Senator DeMint is probably most famous for his Waterloo statement and his numerous delaying tactics on health care reform (see here and here for examples). However, he has also worked with self-declared socialist Independent Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on halting the Bernanke nomination and bringing transparency to the Federal Reserve. As a representative of the Party of ?No, but here?s a better idea,? he too has put forth a health care alternative to the Democratic proposals.

Lastly, we have Senator Coburn. Coburn has slid in two gun amendments this year to two Democrat-supported bills, halting the DC voting bill in its tracks. He has also held up funding for veterans because he wanted to use unused stimulus funds for the benefits and loudly opposed the stimulus package. He also forced a reading of Senator Sanders? single-payer amendment to the Democratic bill. However, at the same time, he has maintained a friendship with President Obama, pushed a transparency bill with then-Senator Obama (D-IL) into law in 2006 and sponsored a Republican alternative to the Democratic health care bills on, of all places, Huffington Post. In fact, he wrote on Huffington Post not once but twice. This is a guy who clearly wants his message to get out to all Americans, not just his constituents or fellow conservatives.

Other ?No but here?s a better idea? Republicans include Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), the numerous Republican co-sponsors of the Wyden-Bennett bill and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

The fact is that Republicans are trying to stop a very bad makeover of a massive portion of America in ways that swing from bad policy to unethical to unconstitutional. For an example of the latter, with respect to David Frum?s recent piece supporting the individual mandate?s constitutionality, he is wrong- an individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. Other bad components include the Senate bill’s abortion funding, the House bill’s public option and the lack of legitimate tort reform in either bill.

Personally, I think Republicans should have fought tooth-and-nail for a post-Christmas vote on the Democratic health care reform bill in the Senate. They should have offered amendments, yes, as Frum has said- but they have a responsibility to stop the bill first and foremost. That is what the minority is supposed to do with a bill as bad as this one, with as little power as Republicans and conservatives have right now- stop the legislation cold and start over with a bill that includes conservative and free market principles and ideas. Some Republicans are just being the Party of No, but sometimes saying?saying?’no’ is necessary, despite what some Democrats may say.

Iran, Nuclear Weapons, & Sanctions

A few days ago, secret documents detailing Iranian efforts to build a nuclear weapon surfaced. (SURPRISE!)

Then, on December 16, Iran launched its most sophisticated missile yet.

What was the House of Representatives’ response? 412-12, our Members of Congress voted to impose sanctions on Iran.

I’ll reiterate what I’ve said before- sanctions don’t work. They didn’t work with Iraq, they didn’t work with Cuba and they won’t do anything to stop Iran’s terrible treatment of its people. In fact, they’ll only make things worse, as they have in countless countries including Myanmar and North Korea. Instead, we should support the protesters who are still opposing their government’s murderous tendencies, support Israel’s right to defend itself and prepare for a military assault should America or one of our allies be attacked by the country.

I know there are other ways to eliminate the threat Iran’s leadership is to the rest of the world, but I must express ignorance as to what they are (plus, I didn’t sleep well last night and can’t really think very hard right now). Any ideas?

Update: Iranian-backed insurgents in Iraq have hacked U.S. Predator drones- perhaps we should back Israel’s approach to negotiation with Iran.

Worldwide One-Child Law?

So this knucklehead up in Canada thinks a planet-wide one-child law is the cure to overpopulation concerns. The author, one Diane Francis, cites China as her example of a country with the right policy on population control to help save the planet and, as a result, humanity.

Before I rip into Francis, a brief history on population growth. In short, there are four stages of population. Stage 1 is pre-urban, Stage 2 is the beginning of industrialization, Stage 3 is modern industrialization and Stage 4 is post-industrialization. As a nation grows wealthier, more educated, more equal between the sexes etc. the population tends to slow. Europe and North America are at Stages 3 and 4, though The United States of America has not quite hit Stage 4 due to our large influx of immigrants. Of course, one of the negatives of this population growth pattern is the “graying” of many nations.

When I first read this piece, I knew I had to be misreading it. Francis couldn’t be saying the world should follow the ethical standards of China. Not the one that is run by a government?that has refused to apologize for the Tiananmen Square massacre 20 years ago. Not the same one that tried to cover up SARS, sterilizes women and forces them to have abortions as part of their one-child policy and arrested many citizens and tried to prevent freedom of speech before and during the 2008 Summer?Olympics. I was also sure she couldn’t have meant the same one that has crushed Tibetans for over half a century and did so again last year.

Alas, I was wrong- Francis was referring to that very China. Francis has ignored the giant elephant in the room, namely China’s atrocious human rights history involved with its “success” story on lowering the size of its population.There are a number of other things Francis missed in her thesis, and I will touch on a few of them below.

First, there are a number of more-ethical-than-China ways to encourage a birth rate that helps population control. One is to create opportunities for widespread wealth. A second is to “[ensure] women’s equality and improving their education, while providing cheap contraception.” (Note: as a practicing Catholic, I do not find contraceptive use ethical; however, it is more ethical than the Chinese approach of forced sterilizations and abortions. Too, I think the other three improvements provide far more opportunity for slowing birth rates.) These opportunities are largely responsible for nations at Stage 4 of population growth patterns.

Another point Francis missed was the utter immorality of forcing abortions worldwide. As Jonah Goldberg put it at The Corner: “But one point does cry out to be made. Imagine if someone wrote an op-ed saying that we need a planetary ban on abortion. Feminists would get their dresses over their heads in outrage about such a naked assault on “reproductive freedom.” But here is a woman in a very prestigious Canadian newspaper arguing, in effect, that every country in the world should force women everywhere to have an abortion if they already have a child. Put aside, for a moment, the pro-life objections to this. Even if you think the unborn are really just a bunch of cells, mere “uterine contents” with no more moral import than fingernail clippings, how on earth can anyone believe in “reproductive freedom” and not be absolutely horrified by the police-state evil of such proposals?”

Thirdly, Francis forgets that over a dozen countries, including Finland and France, have taken giant steps toward energy independence by building nuclear power plants. Combined with Congress allowing more nuclear power plants and domestic drilling in America- the world’s second-largest carbon dioxide emitter- this would be a huge step toward renewable and cleaner energy policy that would reverbrate around the world. It would also create less demand for oil, which is obviously good for the planet. Since Francis is rightfully concerned about the impact of overpopulation on the planet?s resources, perhaps she would agree that eliminating the need for non-renewable resources and lessening the overall impact of humanity on the planet is better than encouraging forced abortions and sterilizations?

A last point- Francis is entirely inefficient with her method of controlling the world’s population. The best way to attack population growth is to have every single one of these fruitcakes voluntarily jump off a bridge. Let’s say just one percent of the Earth’s population agrees with her; that means we’ll get rid of 60 million people with no added effort or government involvement. Next, atomize Tokyo and Beijing- throw in New York, the Yankees are there- and our population won’t have to take decades to see results. In minutes Earth will be a happier, healthier place to live!

The fact is that a planet-wide ban on multiple children would, by its very nature, lead to a worst-case scenario situation of forced abortions, sterilization, government intimidation, a plethora of jailed citizens etc. The world’s one example of this is China, but allow me to extrapolate: let’s say each government takes its responsibility to help the planet seriously. They hire people whose job it is to keep the birth rate at one per couple. Of course, some people won’t follow the law, which means those officials will have only a few choices to prevent multiple births by a mother. The first is to arrest her and her husband for breaking the law- after forcing her to have an abortion, of course, to prevent the extra child’s birth- thereby causing the government to adopt the couple’s first child or find it a new home. The second is to not jail the couple- but to prevent births another way. The solution would be to abort the extra child and sterilize the mother and/or father (though probably the mother, since sterilizing the father would still leave the mother the opportunity to get pregnant from another source). Of course, if all else fails, the government could simply kill the parents and thereby save both the planet’s and the government’s resources, and put the firstborn child up for adoption.

Obviously, Francis does not care for the human species- that is her prerogative. As of now, her opinion is not quite in the mainstream. It’s not even a Google option. Unfortunately, as Goldberg said, her piece was in a “very prestigious Canadian newspaper,” so it’s up to those of us who think this policy is heinous to stop it in its tracks so it does not reach the status of “mainstream.”

By the way, AllahPundit says it more concisely and better than I can.

Government Siezes Muslim Properties

The United States government has?decided to sieze?several Islamic properties, including four mosques, across the country. While going after religious property is?a relatively rare thing to do in America, given our First Amendment rights, it is certainly justified if officials’ concerns are correct. The accusation? That the property owners are conducting business with Iran, and in the process they broke a number of laws.

May I just come out and say it? It’s about time we did this. Yes, of course, the public should make certain the rights of the owners of the buildings are not being violated, and make a stink if that turns out to be the case. However, given our culture’s politically correct way of handling?people and circumstances?such as the terrorist who launched the attack at Fort Hood recently- even some of our elected officials?such as Congressman Eric Massa (D-NY) joined in the waffling-?I am amazed our government had the courage to take these properties. Good for whomever made the call.

As has been said by much of the media over the last eight years, no, not all Muslims are terrorists. However, Islamic extremists are intent on taking more American lives, and if we do not take the bull by the horns and deal with this very real threat, more Americans will die in ways every bit as heinous as those at Fort Hood, on 9/11 and on the USS Cole.

“Question Authority”

“Question Authority” is a popular slogan often pasted on bumper stickers that came out of the late 1970′s famous protests around the United States. The phrase is a statement refuting the logical fallacy of “because I said so.” In other words, statements made by “authority figures” are not necessarily factual just because the individual making the statements have rank over others.

“You will always find that those are most apt to boast of national merit, who have little or not merit of their own to depend on…” -Oliver Goldsmith

From Vietnam to George W. Bush, questioning authority has been the policy of the left, especially when Republicans have been in office. And to be fair, there has always been an assumption that it is the duty of citizenry not to blindly accept what they are being told by a government. Especially when that government was appointment by the very people it assumes it has authority over.

“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” -Benjamin Franklin

But for the Left, this mantra of sorts has quickly come to a close with the election of a Progressive administration. Questioning authority is unacceptable. And it is confusing to the Left why conservatives would ever question the policies of the administration. Furthermore, the generation that invented the “Question Authority” movement, now the authorities themselves, have entered into numerous double standards.

Mark Lloyd was brought into the administration as the Chief Diversity Officer. A position that is designed to verify that a strategy of diversity and inclusion policy is taking place across the nation. Yet the administration has attempted to shut down and shut out Fox News as of late. A very diverse move.

I for one was never taught in school that asking questions was a thing of ignorance.

-nick