Forwarding Republican Jewish Coalition Newsletter

Below is the Republican Jewish Coalition Newsletter.  It would not come out right on this blog in the original format, so I just copied and pasted the text from it.  There are a lot of interesting articles there.  Of particular interest are the ones about buyers remorse and analysis of Jewish vote.

Speaking of Health Care
President Barack Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress about health care Wednesday night:
READ THE TRANSCRIPT


Tevi Troy offers an alternative version of the President's speech last night:

We have tried over the last few months to have the majority party in Congress craft a series of bills to address these challenges. Unfortunately, the bills produced under this approach would not solve the main problems we are facing.

I recognize that the bills produced so far cost a trillion dollars, and fail to provide universal coverage. I recognize that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has consistently found that the bills crafted by the majority party do not do what I have asked, and do not achieve what I promised the American people that we would accomplish.

For this reason, I propose that tonight we begin from scratch.
READ MORE


John Hinderaker examines several points in the President's speech and responds to them. He questions the political effectiveness of the speech:

"Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed."

I'm not sure whether Obama and his handlers understand how this sort of talk grates on those of us who are not liberal Democrats (a large majority of the country). Debating public policy issues is not "bickering." Disagreeing with a proposal to radically change one of the largest sectors of our economy is not a "game." This kind of gratuitous insult--something we never heard from President Bush, for example--is one of the reasons why many consider Obama to be mean-spirited.
READ MORE


Tim Burns, commenting at Powerline, had this to say about Rep. Joe Wilson calling out "You lie!" during the speech:

Joe Wilson's accusation of lying has already been roundly condemned, as it should be. The presumption of honorableness, and hence of the possibility of honest disagreement, is crucial to the practice of free speech and democratic debate... It's good to see that Wilson has already sought to apologize.

Trouble is, President Obama has not. And his speech must be condemned on the same grounds as Wilson's outburst. Before Wilson's outburst, Obama--delivering prepared remarks--had already accused his opponents of lying--not by name, to be sure, but as "prominent politicians." And in doing so, he explicitly attributed malicious motives to them: "Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."
READ MORE

Democrats booed President Bush during the 2005 State of the Union address.

Health Care Pros and Cons
In case you missed them, here are some notable new resources on the health care debate:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has a new white paper on health care reform - complete with solid, market-based reform proposals that will work.

Keith Hennessey on "Incorrect conventional wisdom about health care reform"

Mark Tapscott writes that "Congress has already exempted itself from Public Option"

The GOP says don't be fooled, "It's still government-run health if..."

Obama takes unprecedented role at UN

Anne Bayefsky raises a troubling new issue: President Obama's upcoming role at the United Nations:

Looking for a quick and easy boost in the polls, President Obama has decided to go to the one place where merit bears no relationship to adulation: the United Nations. On September 24, the president will take the unprecedented step of presiding over a meeting of the UN Security Council.

No American president has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN's highest body...

Unfortunately, however, the move represents one of the most dangerous diplomatic ploys this country has ever seen.

Bayefsky points out that the President set the agenda for the session:
"nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries."

...The linguistic formula, which Obama's confrere Qaddafi will undoubtedly exploit, shamelessly panders to Arab and Muslim states. It is a familiar recipe for stonewalling efforts to prevent Iran or other Muslim and Arab states from acquiring nuclear weapons until Israel is disarmed or Israel's (unofficial) nuclear capacity is exposed and neutralized. It is also a frequent tool of those whose real goal is to stymie America's defenses.

Second, Obama's agenda preference indicates that he is dead-set against chairing a session on the non-proliferation issues already on the council's plate - those that name Iran and North Korea.
READ MORE

Find us on Facebook,
follow us on Twitter!

The RJC is building a strong Jewish Republican community using the fantastic tools offered by new media.

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter.
(You can read our Twitter feed by clicking the link, even if you don't have a Twitter account.)

Or join us on Facebook, where we have a national RJC page and local pages for our chapters.

 
We want to hear from you!

Buyers' remorse begins

Alan Dershowitzand Joel Pollak (a popular speaker at RJC chapter events) discussed the Jewish community's views of President Obama after his first few months in office:

Much of the Jewish community feels "voters' remorse" as a result of President Barack Obama's lack of action in support of Israel as well as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's perceived anti-Israel platform, panelists at Harvard University Hillel told more than 100 students and faculty members Tuesday.
READ MORE

Those liberal Jews

Norman Podhoretz offers his insights into the phenomenon of Jewish liberals:

The upshot is that in virtually every instance of a clash between Jewish law and contemporary liberalism, it is the liberal creed that prevails for most American Jews. Which is to say that for them, liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right.
READ MORE


Also looking at Jewish support for Democrats in recent years, Ron Lipsman asks "Are American Jews the Most Foolish Voters in the United States?"

I maintain that the massive, ongoing, enthusiastic and predictable Jewish vote for liberal Democrats is an example of one of the most foolish voting records by any ethnic group in the history of the American republic. The black vote along the same lines is self-destructive and foolish, but there are some bona fide explanations-especially in the last election. On the other hand, as I will show in this article, the sustained allegiance by American Jews to the Left is not only self-destructive and foolish, it is also short-sighted, naïve, ineffective, harmful and ultimately inexcusable.
READ MORE

Iran-Venezuela axis is a growing diplomatic, military worry

Robert M. Morgethau examines the emerging axis of Iran and Venezuela:

The diplomatic ties between Iran and Venezuela go back almost 50 years and until recently amounted to little more than the routine exchange of diplomats. With the election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, the relationship dramatically changed.
 
Today Mr. Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez have created a cozy financial, political and military partnership rooted in a shared anti-American animus. Now is the time to develop policies in this country to ensure this partnership produces no poisonous fruit.
READ MORE


Hugo Chavezaccuses Israel of genocide and defends Iran nuclear development, while on his rogue state tour:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said in remarks broadcast Saturday that Iran will "not back down" in its quest for peaceful nuclear energy, French news agency AFP reported.

Chavez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's main ally in Latin America, arrived in Iran Friday after visiting Syria, Libya and Algeria.

..."The state of Israel has become a murderous lackey at the service of imperialism," Chavez said. "It's a genocidal government. I condemn that Zionist government that persecutes the heroic Palestinian people."
READ MORE

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
Sign up for the
RJC Leadership Mission to Israel

October 25 - November 2, 2009

Open to members of the RJC leadership ($1000/yr and up).

Program includes tours and briefings with top Israeli officials, military leaders, and strategic thinkers. Previous groups have met with Benjamin Netanyahu, Michael Oren, and Natan Sharansky.

Download the flyer for more information.

To upgrade your membership and sign up for this great opportunity, contact Harris Vederman at 202-638-2909 x106 or grassroots@RJCHQ.org.

What Carter missed in the Middle East

Former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abramstakes on former President Carter in the pages of the Washington Post:

In an op-ed on Sunday ["The Elders' View of the Middle East"], former president Jimmy Carter, speaking on behalf of a self-appointed group of "Elders," described a rapacious Israel facing long-suffering, blameless Palestinians, who are contemplating a "nonviolent civil rights struggle" in which "their examples would be Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela."

As with most of Carter's recent statements about Israel and the Palestinians, instead of facts we get vignettes from recent Carter travels...
READ MORE

In NJ, RJC'er Barry Funt has a plan

The Wall Street Journal's Political Diary ran a piece featuring RJC leader Barry Funt, who is running for NJ State Assembly.

All eyes in New Jersey have focused on November's governor's race, where Republican upstart Chris Christie looks likely to unseat Democrat Jon Corzine. But a new wrinkle is developing that could also upend many old bulls in the state legislature and help to change a culture of unaccountability that has led to a spate of corruption scandals.
 
Democrats dominate both the state House and Senate with wide-enough majorities to feel secure that no matter what happens, they will still pull the legislative strings next year. In the House, the margin is 48 Democrats to 32 Republicans, with nearly all districts gerrymandered to protect the incumbent.
 
But the ensconced Democrats may not have counted on an unprecedented wave of some 25 Republican challengers -- none of whom have held state office before -- turning out to run against the Old Bulls. The newbies are doing the kind of grassroots work too often neglected by the state GOP -- engaging voters, building up networks of volunteers, canvassing even heavily Democratic neighborhoods. Most of all, the GOP challengers are teaming up. By the end of the month, they plan to unveil on the steps of the state capitol a new "Contract With New Jersey."
 
The plan calls for cutting state mandates that drive up the cost of health insurance as an alternative to ObamaCare, cutting property taxes, instituting school choice and cracking down on crime. None of the items in the 10-point plan is poll-tested or focus-grouped, but they should play well in the Jersey suburbs, where property taxes are among the highest in the nation, where crime is becoming an issue, and where parents and taxpayers are fed up with intransigence and corruption in Trenton.
 
A leader of this rump caucus within the state GOP is Barry Funt, a commercial real estate investor who's running for state assembly in a district that includes parts of heavily Democratic Newark. We sat down with Mr. Funt twice and walked away each time with the same impression. First, he's the kind of candidate dangerous for an incumbent: intensely interested and engaged in politics, and too inexperienced to be discouraged by the odds stacked against him.
 
Secondly, like many voters who've been turning up for town halls and tea parties across the Garden State, he's fed up with his state's political class. Mr. Funt has even floated his own plan to help homeowners while putting pressure on union-controlled Trenton to cut spending -- by slashing property taxes and simultaneously shifting a share of the state government's income tax revenues to the localities.
 
Reportedly, though, neither his tax plan nor the Contract with New Jersey have gotten a warm welcome from his own party's gubernatorial candidate or New Jersey GOP Chairman Jay Webber. The latter, according to the Web site PolitickerNJ.com, waved off the Contract with New Jersey as too "Republican" to be useful to Mr. Christie's campaign. Certain GOP county organizations also have instructed their candidates not to participate.
 
All this has Newark Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine worrying that Mr. Christie is resting on his lead and missing an opportunity to finish off Mr. Corzine by recalling the governor's own unkept promise four years ago to reform property taxes. His advice to Team Christie: Call Barry Funt.

Remembering 9/11/01

Cliff May examines where we are now in the long war against militant Islam:

If this struggle is too much for the present generation, we will deserve what comes in its place. Americans used to say that freedom is not free, that it must be earned by generation after generation. That sounds hokey to 21st-century ears, I know. That doesn't make it less true.

Our enemies believe history and God are on their side. They are eager to fight for victory - which they define as bringing death, destruction, and humiliation to you and your children. They say this plainly in their speeches and sermons. They are not seriously attempting to delude anyone. Rather, they are counting on us to delude ourselves. Eight years after 9/11, with many on the left and the right arguing for retreat, and a president who doesn't appear to know his own mind, can anyone say with confidence that they are wrong?
READ MORE

 

Army Major Thane J. Thompson was in the reserves, working for Morgan Stanley on the 61st floor of WTC Tower II, at the time of the 9/11 attacks. His recollections of the day can be found on the New Majority web site, here.

---

Please take a few moments tomorrow,
on September 11, to:

• Remember those who were killed in New York, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania on that day and the other victims of Islamic terrorism in Israel and around the world;


• Thank a member of our armed forces for their service in protecting our country and our families;


• Learn more about militant Islam, its goals, and its methods by watching two important movies on the subject, Obsession and The Third Jihad.

Powered by Qumana

Never forget...

Again, below is the post from last year.  But there is nothing to add.  Just remember…

September 11, 2001 – another date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the Islamo-Fascist forces of Al-Qaeda.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Al-Qaeda on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, a state of war has existed between the United States and the followers of Islamo-Fascist ideology along with their supporters.

Bookworm has some good links, as well as her own posts memorializing 9/11 here, here and here.

Powered by Qumana

Obama's speech to schoolkids

Tomorrow the President is giving his speech to American schoolchildren.  There has been some controversy: some people are worried that some leftist agenda will be pushed.  My younger daughter is in kindergarten, and her teacher wisely decided that the kids in her class are simply too young for this.  I like my younger daughter's teacher: she has some common sense.

My older daughter is in 3rd grade.  I e-mailed her teacher, asking for his plans regarding the speech, but he hasn't replied yet.  I have to say, I am disappointed by this lack of reply.  But the speech itself is available on line.  So, go read it, especially if you have kids in school.  Having read it, I have to say that the speech itself does not concern me.  It is simply an admonishment to do well in school.  The teacher's presentation might still get screwed up and tilted toward some leftist agenda, but one can hardly blame Obama for that.  So, read the speech.  Since Obama likes using a teleprompter, he is unlikely to deviate from the speech, as it is written.  And I doubt there is a second version to be presented, insidiously created to fool the parents.  So, there is no reason to worry about the speech itself.  Just look out for the teacher's presentation and make sure your kids are prepared for it.

Powered by Qumana

The rule of not speaking ill of the dead

Senator Ted Kennedy has died last night.  My condolences to his family.  He was the last of the 4 brothers.  2 oldest ones were genuine war heroes.  The oldest, Joe Jr., gave his life.  Now media is singing praises to Ted.  And that makes me very uncomfortable, to say the least.  You see, the rule of not speaking ill of the dead does not always apply.  I don't think it applies in this case.  No, I am not talking about politics.  Bookworm said what needed to be said.  Read it and follow her links as well.  I agree with her conclusion: the man was, "at best, immoral and, at worst, evil".

When is it good to have a military coup?

Long time ago, on a continent far-far away, there was a beautiful, progressive (in a good sense of the word) and tolerant country.  It was a parliamentary democracy.  Its President played largely ceremonial role.  The leader of the party winning the most seats in parliament would usually become the country's Chief Executive and form a Government.  One day the country had elections, and a party favoring socialism (a popular idea at the time) and claiming to represent working class won the most seats in parliament.  This party did not win the majority of seats, but it did win the plurality.  And, thanks to clever parliamentary maneuvering and coalition building, the party's leader became the Chief Executive of the country's Government.  The economic situation was pretty bad, and so this Chief Executive persuaded the parliament to grant him the right to rule by decree.  After all, something had to be done quickly to rectify the economic situation.  The country's constitution provided for it, and it would be only temporary.  In 4 years these extraordinary powers would be reviewed.  In fact, they were, but by then the parliament simply extended those powers indefinitely.  But I am getting ahead of myself.  Shortly after this country acquired this new energetic Chief Executive the country's President died.  The new Chief Executive was pretty popular, so the country citizens overwhelmingly voted for him to assume the office of the President as well.  After that the Government decreed that the officers of the country's armed forces should swear allegiance not to the country and its people, but to the Chief Executive himself.  Now, let's stop and think.  Could that be going too far?  Perhaps the country's military had a good reason to rebel at this point and remove this Chief Executive from power?  But they did not, although there was an opposition within the military to this new regime.  By the time the military did make an overt attempt to remove this Chief Executive from power, it was already too late.

In case you haven't guessed it yet, the country in question is Germany.  Hitler became Chancellor after free democratic elections.  Shortly after that he was granted the power to rule by decree by so-called Enabling Act of 1933.  Finally, after the death of President Hindenburg, the German military was required to swear loyalty personally to Hitler.  If at that point the German military would have staged a coup and removed a very popular Chancellor from power, the world would have been spared the horrors of World War 2.  In fairness I have to say that some people in the German military did try, but not hard enough, and ultimately were not successful.  They would, however, have had a better chance early on.

Fast forward to 2009.  The country is Honduras.  Unlike Germany in 1933, it is a presidential democracy similar to the USA and seems to have separation of powers.  And, unlike Nazi Germany after 1938, it has a functioning parliament and a functioning supreme court.  The Honduran President was attempting to usurp too much power and was violating the Honduran Constitution.  Thus, the country's Supreme Court ruled that the President had to be removed from office and assigned Honduran Military to do the job.  The President was replaced by a member of his own party, thus the Opposition did not gain power.  Everything was done in accordance with the Honduran Constitution.  And yet it was called a coup by our President.  That pro-Chavez Organization of American States said that and the dictator-loving UN said that is not surprising.  But the United States should know better.  Furthermore, even if it were a coup, it still should have been supported.  Can anybody imagine condemning Klaus von Schtaufenberg and his co-conspirators for the assassination of Adolf Hitler and the coup if they were successful?

Powered by Qumana

[Fwd: Pallywood- deep background]

This e-mail is from Yaacov Ben Moshe of the Breast of the Beast:

Before There Was Pallywood...

There were the Blues Brothers of Moscow... This is not a Belushi and Akroyd spoof!

http://breathofthebeast.blogspot.com/2009/07/before-there-was-pallywood.html

Yaacov Ben Moshe

http://breathofthebeast.blogspot.com/

MERKEL (NO STIMULUS) PROVEN RIGHT, AGAIN!

I receive posts by Judith Apter Klinghoffer via e-mail.  Judith blogs at History News Network, a very interesting and informative site that analyzes today's events through historical perspective.  Below is the post I received today.  This will also serve as another test of posing via e-mail.

Judith Apter Klinghoffer  http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/97816.html

MERKEL (NO STIMULUS) PROVEN RIGHT, AGAIN!

Angering MSM and many economists Angela Merkel said no to stimulus. And, dire predictions aside, so far the numbers prove her right. Jim Cramer, sums it perfectly

The stocks that were thrown away yesterday are now set to have a good day because of a piece of information out of Germany that no one thought a thing about 24 hours ago. Or 24 days ago or months ago, or whatever.

What piece of information?

This one-  German industrial output leaps higher

Roaring auto output pushed German industrial production higher in May by the biggest margin since August 1993, official data showed Wednesday, signaling the country's deep recession might be near an end.

The economy ministry said overall output in Europe's biggest economy jumped by 3.7 percent in May from the previous month and added: "Industrial production may have passed the trough."

This is at a time, the US is celebrating the fact that The U.S. manufacturing sector shrank in June but at a slower pace than during the prior month

Yes, prejudice blinds. German unemployment declines in June from 8.2% to 8.1% after having dropped from 8.4% a month earlier. In contrast, American unemployment rose from 9.4% to 9.5% in June after having risen from 8.9% a month earlier. As I have previously noted, both country had 7.2% unemployment rate in December 2008.

None of this means that Germany is out of the woods. It merely means that she is bound come out of them in a much better shape than had she wasted money in ineffective "make work" projects. I wish I could say the same about the US. And the "usual suspects" are talking about a second stimulus!

How ironic

The other day I stumbled upon this article in the FrontPage Magazine:

---

Who won the Cold War? That’s a no-brainer. The United States prevailed while the Soviet Union collapsed, and the People’s Republic of China dumped Marxism; capitalism (free markets and private property) triumphed over socialism (centrally planned markets and state-owned property); an ethos of individual rights proved to be more resilient and healthy than collectivist ideology; relatively small, democratic government clearly was demonstrated to help a society prosper far more effectively than elitist Big Government.

How ironic, then, that voices in Russia and China are mocking our current Big Government policies. Those whose countries took the tragic, impoverishing detour through Big Government hell now react with scorn and derision as we Americans charge headlong down that same path. What an amazing spectacle it must be for them to see the victor of the Cold War borrow many pages from the losers’ playbook.

---

Read it all.  And then read the article from Pravda that the FrontPage article refers to:

---

...The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

---

Read this one in full as well.  Granted, the article has a bit of anti-Western bent, blaming the West for Marxism.  But other than that, the article is right on the money.  And surely the irony of an article in Pravda, the former Soviet Communist Party newspaper, warning about dangers of Marxism must be appreciated.

Test to all the blogs from laptop

This is the test post to all my blogs from my laptop.
While I am at it, let's test the link to a good Bookworm post.

A great analysis by John Bolton

Jewish Russian Telegraph posted a link to a great analysis by John Bolton about possible Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear program:

What If Israel Strikes Iran?
The mullahs would retaliate. But things would be much worse if they had the bomb.

By JOHN R. BOLTON

Whatever the outcome of Iran's presidential election tomorrow, negotiations will not soon -- if ever -- put an end to its nuclear threat. And given Iran's determination to achieve deliverable nuclear weapons, speculation about a possible Israeli attack on its nuclear program will not only persist but grow.

So what would such an attack look like? Obviously, Israel would need to consider many factors -- such as its timing and scope, Iran's increasing air defenses, the dispersion and hardening of its nuclear facilities, the potential international political costs, and Iran's "unpredictability." While not as menacingly irrational as North Korea, Iran's politico-military logic hardly compares to our NATO allies. Central to any Israeli decision is Iran's possible response.

Israel's alternative is that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs reach fruition, leaving its very existence at the whim of its staunchest adversary. Israel has not previously accepted such risks. It destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans in 2007. One major new element in Israel's calculus is the Obama administration's growing distance (especially in contrast to its predecessor).

Read it all.

Powered by Qumana

Obama Tells American Businesses to Drop Dead

That is the title of the article posted by the Jewish Russian Telegraph.  Here is the original article:

Obama Tells American Businesses to Drop Dead
By Kevin A. Hassett
Bloomberg.com
Monday, June 8, 2009

President Obama plans to raise America's corporate taxes to even higher levels. This policy will be destructive to U.S. firms' competitiveness, pushing more jobs and companies overseas.

I've finally figured out the Obama economic strategy. President Barack Obama and his team have been having so much fun wielding dictatorial power while rescuing "failed" firms, that they have developed a scheme to gain the same power over every business. The plan is to enact policies that are so anticompetitive that every firm needs a bailout.

Once that happens, their new pay czar Kenneth Feinberg can set the wage for everybody and Rahm Emanuel can stack the boards of all of our companies with his political cronies.

I know, it sounds like an exaggeration. But look at it this way. If there were a power ranking of U.S. companies, like the ones compiled by football writers for National Football League teams, Microsoft would surely be first or second to Google. But last week, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer came to Washington to announce what Microsoft would do if Obama's multinational tax policy is enacted.

The U.S. now has about the highest combined corporate tax rate, second only to Japan among industrialized countries.

"It makes U.S. jobs more expensive," Ballmer said, "We're better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S." If Microsoft, perhaps our most competitive company, has to abandon the U.S. in order to continue to thrive, who exactly is going to stay?

At issue is Obama's policy to end the deferral of multinational taxation.

The U.S. now has about the highest combined corporate tax rate, second only to Japan among industrialized countries. That rate is so high that U.S. firms have an enormous disadvantage versus competitors. The average corporate tax rate for the major developed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2008 was about 27 percent, more than 10 percentage points lower than the U.S. rate.

Read the whole thing.

Powered by Qumana

Great analysis of Netanyahu's speech

Bookworm analyzed Obama's speech, and now she offers a similar analysis of Netanyahu's speech.  Go there to read it: you'll get the complete speech along with Bookworm's comments on it.

Powered by Qumana

Insanity

The other day I found this article:

Detainees Freed in Bermuda Say China Worse Than Gitmo

The four of the Chinese Muslims, or Uighurs, released to Bermuda from the Guantanamo Bay prison told FOX News that they are innocent, glad to be free and hold no grudges against the United States for their captivity.

The men, who range from 31 to 38 years old, also said they think life in China, where they face persecution, is worse than life at Guantanamo.

With the help of a translator, they said they didn't know anything about Al Qaeda or Usama bin Laden, despite past allegations that they had aided the terror mastermind's escape.

"I am not a terrorist. I have never been terrorist," one of the men told FOX News. "I want to live peacefully."

The Uighurs, released this week, are staying at a guest cottage complex on the island without security or electronic monitoring, but their attorney said they will have to periodically check in with local police.

The release of the Uighurs comes amid increasing political tensions in Washington over what to do with the more than 200 detainees being held at the Guantanamo facility following President Obama's pledge to close the facility within a year of taking office.

But the Uighurs may be among the least threatening of the detainees whose fate must be decided, given that the Justice Department under the Bush administration already had decided that they should no longer be classified as "enemy combatants."

A September 2008 federal court motion filed by the Justice Department confirmed their change of status and declared that all 17 Uighurs being held at Gunatanamo should be resettled in a foreign country.

The Uighurs will be eligible for Bermudian passports in the future, but the U.S. has a mechanism in place to block their entry into the U.S. unless the federal government chooses to let them in.

Their attorney says the Uighurs are determined to stay in Bermuda as part of a guest worker program. There is a provision in that program that in limited circumstances allows guest workers to get Bermudian citizenship.

However, the transfer of the Uighurs has been criticized not only by U.S. Republican lawmakers but by the governments of the United Kingdom, which controls the territory of Bermuda, and China, which wants the Uighurs returned.

On Friday, some members of the Bermudan government who said they'd not been informed of the transfer questioned the wisdom of moving the inmates to the island located 640 miles off the coast of North Carolina, saying it could hurt tourism, which is Bermuda's chief industry.

But the Bermudan government defended its decision to take the Uighurs, whom the U.S. feared would face torture if sent back to China.

The Uighurs told FOX News that they plan to make their home in Bermuda, probably working first in some form of manual labor. They also may open a restaurant and look forward to swimming and fishing.

The article is too small for excerpts.  Still, you might want to go there for the comments.  So, these 17 Uighurs were apparently captured in Afghanistan.  Suppose, 16 of them are innocent.  It takes only one to do tremendous damage.

Powered by Qumana

Obama and the Jews

Bookworm has the most complete round-up of commentaries on the recent Obama speech in Cairo.  Just go there and follow her links, including her own commentary.  Indeed, there was some good stuff there and some not so good.  But here is the article that points out some disturbing moral equivalency so prevalent on the Left:

Just days ago Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt. It was his second trip in a short time to visit Muslim countries. He sent a clear message by not visiting Israel.

But this was code.

In Cairo, Obama said things that pose a grave danger to Jews in Israel, in America and everywhere.

And if his views are not vigorously opposed they will help create a danger as great as that posed by the Nazis to the Jewish people.

Just last week, Obama told his worldwide audience — more than 100 million people — that the killing of six million Jews during the Holocaust was the equivalent of Israel’s actions in dealing with the Palestinians.

This remark is incredible on its face, an insult to the six million Jews who died as a result of Hitler’s genocide — and it is a form of revisionism that will bode evil for Jews for years to come.

While Obama acknowledged that “six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today” — his discussion about the Holocaust was followed by this statement: “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.” (Emphasis mine - Eric-Odessit).

“On the other hand . . . ”?

Obama’s clever construct comparing the mass genocide of six million Jews to the Palestinian struggle will not be lost on the estimated 100 million Muslims who tuned into to hear him.

This is the worst kind of moral equivalency.  Read it all.  And now we hear about the anti-Semitic statement of Obama's mentor.  Do you think 20 years of attending this guy's church rubbed off on Obama?  You know, to certain extent I feel vindicated when Obama's anti-Israel and anti-Semitic associations come out: I hope that this will teach those 77% of American Jews that blindly voting for Democrats is not always good for them.  But then, those people usually refuse to hear and see the evidence.  Just like the Jews under Nazi occupation refused to see the evidence of mass slaughter, so the modern American Jews keep blindly voting for Democrats despite growing anti-Semitism on the Left.  A disclaimer: no, I do not compare Obama to the Nazis.  But the refusal to see the evidence on the part of the 77% of American Jews is the same.

Powered by Qumana

In case you missed it...

It's been a while since this has been posted, but it is worth reminding.

Back when the Left was screaming about harsh interrogations (waterboarding etc.), and when Obama declared that those techniques would no longer be used, Dick Cheney asked for the results of those interrogations be released along with with those memos authorizing them.  Indeed, the question of effectiveness of those interrogations is very valid.  In fact, this question even gets asked by some leftist at Huffington Post.  So, here is the summary of what those interrogations revealed:

Not one of the liberal pundits decrying the use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) appears to have read the complete set of memos released by President Obama. I know this because I cannot find a single, plain-text version of the scanned memos anywhere on the web. And, the most critical section -- the results obtained from EITs -- is nowhere to be found.

Most of the anti-American leftists seem strangely incurious regarding the key question asked even at The Huffington Post: what did the enhanced interrogations reveal?

I (Doug Ross) herein present the actual results of the EITs as described in the partially redacted 5/30/2005 memo (U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, MEMORANDUM FOB JOHN A. RIZZO, SENIOR DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, "Re: Application of 'United States Obligation; Under Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture to Certain Techniques That May Be Used in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees'", originally classified TOP SECRET/NOFORN).

…………………………………………………………………………….

To put things in simple terms for any "progressives" reading along, here's what the EITs revealed after 3,000 American civilians were slaughtered in cold blood by Al Qaeda:

• FACT: EITs produced 3,000 of the 6,000 critical counter-terror intelligence reports only after normal techniques had proven fruitless;

• FACT: EITs used on Zubaydah revealed KSM's identity as a mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks;

• FACT: KSM ratted out a number of mass-murderers including Hambali;

• FACT: Hambali's brother ratted out a cell bent on "9/11 Wave 2" on the West Coast;

• FACT: Zubaydah also revealed Padilla and his plan to detonate a simplistic dirty bomb in Washington, DC;

So, drones, you can either believe the CIA forged 3,000 documents and magically captured mass-murderers without EITs... or you can believe the truth.

Obviously, read the whole post by Doug Ross.

Powered by Qumana

My new favorite manufacturer of electronic components

There is a company called Vishay Intertechnology.  They make all kinds of electronic components, which I, as an Electronics Engineer, use in my designs.  In particular, they are the first ones I think of when I need to use filed-effect transistors (FETs, or MOSFETs, to be exact).  I won't get too deep into the technical details, but their FETs are very well suited for use in the switching power supplies.  Recently I learned about amazing history of this company and its founder, Dr. Felix Zandman:

In the 1950s, patents were issued for the PhotoStress® products developed by Dr. Felix Zandman.  These products reveal and measure stress distribution in airplanes, cars, and other structures under live load conditions.  His research in this area led him to develop Bulk Metal® foil resistors, the most precise and stable resistors available — both then and now, over four decades later.

Dr. Zandman, with the financial support of Alfred P. Slaner, founded Vishay in 1962 to develop and manufacture Bulk Metal foil resistors. The Company was named after the village in Lithuania where relatives of Dr. Zandman and Mr. Slaner had perished during the Holocaust (emphasis mine - Eric-Odessit).  The Company’s initial product portfolio consisted of foil resistors and foil resistance strain gages.

Here is more:

A survivor from the Polish town of Grodno, Dr. Felix Zandman, immigrated to the United States and became an inventor and important industrialist there, in Israel, and in other countries.  He named the electronics concern he established Vishay in memory of his beloved grandmother Tema Freydovicz, who was born in the town of Vishay, and the Jewish community there that had been annihilated in the Holocaust.  The electronics plants he established in Israel also bear the same name.

This indeed is an amazing story.  I sent these links to a friend of mine, an Applications Engineer from a Vishay distributor company, who is also Jewish.  He did not know this history.  But later, when he came to visit me in the office on business, he brought me a present from the local Vishay representative: the memoir of Dr. Felix Zandman.  I am sure I will enjoy this book.  And it is very satisfying to be able to use good products and support a good company and worthy causes at the same time.

Powered by Qumana

Historical ignorance and moral equivalence

I haven't posted for a while.  Part of the reason for it is some feeling of apathy on my part.  I keep encountering people who just refuse to hear my arguments about dangers of what Obama administration is doing domestically and internationally.  On the other hand, not everything is bad: they do seem to make some responsible decisions, like the ones with restoring military commissions and blocking the release of photos of some GIs mistreating prisoners.  Obama is now planning a trip to Europe and the Middle East.  Apparently the trip includes a stop in Normandy to commemorate 65th Anniversary of the D-Day, a stop in Germany and in Egypt.  The stop in Germany is what concerns me.  I recently received an e-mail with a link to this story:

In a move aimed at healing the rifts of American foreign policy decisions, President Obama will make a trip to Europe next month, including a trip to Dresden, Germany. The trip will consist of several stops and the President will meet with the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany. Also slated are several policy speeches.

Perhaps the most controversial is a planned speech in which President Obama will formally apologize for American 'war crimes' during the Second World War. This would be particularly comforting to Europeans, who have long condemned American foreign policy actions, especially regarding civilians.

This speech will also be welcome in Germany, who had over 12,000,000 of its citizens killed during the war. Mayor Johann Krupp of Augensburg in Saxony stated to DW that the speech will "help my great-uncle's soul rest. He burned to death during the Dresden bombings."

I then followed a link provided by Weasel Zippers.  There it all seemed like some sort of satire.  I could not find this story at the Deutsche Welle web site.  Could it be satire?  I started digging some more.  I found this Gateway Pundit post on the subject with more links.  Do follow those links and read the articles there.  And if you have have time for just one of them, go to this Pajamas Media article.  It does seem that Obama is planning to go to Dresden and apologize at the very least for the Dresden bombing.  Bookworm also has a post on the subject of Obama going to both Buchenwald and Dresden, where she points out that the myth of Dresden bombing just to terrorize German population and the city of Dresden having no military value was started by none other than Josef Goebbels.  And here we come to the book review.  The definitive book on the subject of Dresden bombing is "Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945" by Frederick Taylor.

In the book Mr. Taylor proves beyond any doubt several things.  First of all, the number of people killed was exaggerated 10-fold.  As such, with 25 to 30 thousand people killed, Dresden did not have the most casualties of all the cities in Germany.  The largest absolute number can be claimed by Hamburg, and the largest percentage of the population can be claimed by Leipzig.  Further, Dresden also had significant number of legitimate military targets.  First of all, it was the largest railroad junction in the Eastern Germany, through which the German Eastern Front was supplied.  The Soviets requested in Yalta that Allies would bomb the German supply routes, and the Allies obliged.  Dresden also had large tank repair shops, clearly a military target.  Additionally, Dresden was home for a factory making communication equipment for the German Army and a factory making bombsights for the German bombers.  The local cigarette factory was making rifle ammunition, since the equipment used for stuffing cigarettes can be also used for stuffing rifle rounds.  Indeed, if you look at the history of Dresden, the ancient capital of Saxony, the claim that the city was devoid of any industry of military value would understandably seem as ridiculous as it really is.  It is true that the city did not have much heavy industry, but it did have what in modern parlance would be called "high tech".  All the jewelry historically produced in Dresden would just naturally evolve into it.  The reason why Goebbels claimed the Dresden, of all other German cities, was an ultimate victim was because Dresden was a popular tourist destination before the war, particularly for the British and the Americans.  The claim of Dresden victimhood was dismissed at the time.  Obviously, in February of 1945 it was impossible to know that the war in Europe would end in May.  But with the start of the Cold War the Soviets and their East German puppets were eager to paint the Western Allies in the bad light, so they resurrected the old Nazi lie.  Now the blame-America-first crowd on the Left is eager to repeat it.

Other things that Frederick Taylor proves in the book are:

1. The blame for the high number of civilian death should placed squarely on the city Nazi leadership who built the nice bomb shelters for themselves, but neglected to provide adequate shelters for the population;

2. There was no strafing of the ground targets in Dresden by American escort fighter aircraft.  Indeed, anyone who even played a Combat Flight Simulator game (this or this) knows that any air combat invariably sinks close to the ground, as the fighters maneuver and try to restore their air speed.  So, imagine an American P-51 Mustang attacking a German Fokke-Wulf FW-190 from above and behind (a common mode of attack), close to the ground.  The Mustang pilot lines up the German in his sights and opens fire.  He scores some hits.  But where do you think the bullets that missed the German aircraft go?  That's right, down to the ground.  Now, what if you are a civilian on the ground and you did not see the Fokke-Wulf, but you did see the Mustang shooting, the tracers from its machine guns streaming to the ground?  It would obviously seem to you like the Mustang was strafing something on the ground, even though the Mustang was in fact shooting at the German aircraft.  Indeed, the air combat did take place during the day, when Americans bombed the railroad junction.  But there were no ground targets to strafe, so there were no strafing attacks by the the American escort fighters.

The bottom line, this book should be required reading for anybody who wants to at least attempt to understand history.  For President Obama it would certainly be better to read this book rather than the crap Hugo Chavez gave him.

Powered by Qumana

Giving credit, where credit is due

Over the last weekend Captain Philips of Maersk Alabama was freed from pirate captivity.  I was very worried that the ransom demanded by the pirates would be paid, but that did not happen.  Instead, 3 of the pirates were killed and the 4th was taken into custody.  Many of my fellow Conservatives, including some in the comments of this LGF post, insist that Obama Administration does not deserve any credit for the successful conclusion of the Captain Philips' drama.  They insist that the only credit should go to US Navy SEAL team who executed the rescue operation.  Mark Levine on his radio show pointed out that all Obama did was that he authorized the US Navy to secure the release of Captain Philips by all means necessary, including deadly force, and that is why he did not deserve any credit.

Well, let's give credit where credit is due.  To be sure, the credit for the most part goes to the US Navy and SEAL snipers who actually did what needed to be done.  But here is why I think Obama also deserves some credit: he authorized the US Navy to secure the release of Captain Philips by all means necessary, including deadly force, and then got out of the way.  That was exactly what he should have done.  If it was Bush, we would all be screaming how well he handled the situation.  Obama deserves the same.  He let the pros take care of things and did not cause the pirates to be paid off.  If the Captain was killed, we would all blame Obama, and rightly so.  He also deserves to be praised for success.

Powered by Qumana

My letter to a Liberal Jew

Jewish Russian Telegraph posted a link to a very touching article by Regina Spektor.  I've never heard of her before, but then, since I am in my 40s, maybe I am too old.  Apparently she is quite famous and talented performer.  She even merits a Wikipedia entry.  Ms. Spektor is obviously yet another example of a successful immigrant and yet another source of pride for the Russian-Jewish community in this country.  But back to her article.  I don't see a reason to post an excerpt here: the article is out there, just go and read it.

What struck me about this article is the dichotomy between Regina's support for Israel and her liberal values on one side, and her desire to support the politicians who are so willing to go for her Option 3 regarding Israel.  The politicians she supports are eager to appease violent fanatics who would take away everybody's Civil Liberties.  If those violent fanatics would ever manage to take power, Civil Liberties would not matter for Regina : she and her family would be simply killed.  I would have commented on her site, but for some reason Regina decided to disable the comments for this article, so I am commenting here in the form of an open letter.  I will attempt to send her an e-mail and sincerely hope that she will read this.

    Dear Regina.

I learned about you and your article from a Jewish Russian Telegraph post.  You indeed wrote a great article.  You and I have similar backgrounds: I too was born in the former Soviet Union.  Although, unlike you, I was in my mid-twenties in 1989, when I left the Soviet Union and came to America.  I share your liberal values: I believe in protecting Civil Liberties.  I hate Racism and believe in judging people based "on the contents of their character".  So, how come, while you are supporting leftist politicians, I find myself firmly on the Right side of political spectrum?  Perhaps the answer lies in this attempt to explain my views.  In turn, I'd like to ask you a few questions.  And, while I'd like you to answer them in the comments here, you are certainly not obligated to do so.  But I sincerely hope that at least you'll think of answers to my questions and try to answer them just for yourself.

Let's start with your assertion that all media is biased. That may be true, but you can analyze various sources and determine the facts behind reports. Besides, even though all the reporters and commentators are biased in favor of their own views, there are intellectually honest among them.  Those, who are intellectually honest, report the facts even if those facts contradict their original views. Misreporting the facts in order to push an agenda would be dishonest. There are dishonest reporters, but please don't paint them all with such a broad brush. Put yourself in their place: would you misreport the facts in order to push an agenda? So, I would recommend Bill O'Reilly in the middle, Dennis Prager on the Right, Kirsten Powers on the Left. Dennis Prager usually recommends New Republic on the Left. Additionally, you can use your own life experiences, sources, like your family and friends, and logic to decipher the facts. When the facts don't make sense to you, as reported, then they are probably misreported.  A good example of your own analysis of the news is your own views on the news reporting on Israel, as reported by the leftist media.  You probably have your own sources in Israel: your friends and relatives.  And you use your own logic.  So, you instantly see when the facts about Israel get misreported.  And it angers you.  So, now, as long as we are on the subject of Israel, we come to the first of my questions for you:

1. While here in the States about 77% of American Jews voted for Obama, 76% of American Jews in Israel voted for McCain.  Why do you think that is?  Could it be this story?  Or this?  Just to prove this point, here is the Google search result for Chas Freeman, now withdrawn Obama's nominee to chair the National Intelligence Council.

You state that we were dragged "into a horrible war in Iraq, in the name of oil".  First of all, any war is horrible, that is the nature of war, however just it may be.  But here is my second question for you:

2. You state that the war in Iraq was "in the name of oil".  What do you base this assertion on?  Just the fact that Iraq has oil?

Let's talk about this a bit.  Have you ever met anyone who was there?  Who saw mass graves created by the Saddam's regime?  Are you going to say that it is not our business?  Then it would not be very Liberal of you, would it?  Because a true Liberal would want to stop the modern Nazi regime's atrocities.  The media says that WMD were not found in Iraq.  Let's stop and think.  Everybody agrees that Saddam did have the WMD: after all, he used them.  So, where could they go?  There are 3 possible scenarios:

a) He used them all up.  Not very likely: he would have to kill pretty much the whole population of his country to do that.  Besides, if he had just run out of them, then he would not have to play all those games with UN inspectors, would he?

b) He destroyed them.  Again, if he did, why would he play all those games with the UN inspectors?  Some say that he did that in order to fool Iran into thinking that he still had WMD.  Now, let's look into this logic some more.  He got rid of his WMD in order to comply with the UN demands.  But he made the UN think that he did not comply in order to fool Iran.  Where is the logic in that?  If he wanted everybody to think that he still had the stuff, why bother destroying it in the first place?  What could be gained by destroying the stuff, if everybody thinks that you still have it?

c) He hid the WMD really well or got them out of the country just before the invasion.  Let's look into this scenario.  Saddam rightly calculated that he would not be able to successfully resist US Military on the battlefield.  Using the WMD against American troops would bring American WMD onto his head, prove advocates of the invasion right, and he would still lose.  However, if no WMD were found in Iraq, if the post-invasion occupation were messy and bloody enough, the American public might get tired of the mess and elect the politicians who would pull the troops out.  So, he got the WMD out of Iraq right before the invasion, likely to Syria, and likely with Russia's help.

It could be obvious from my description that I personally buy scenario (c).  But which one of these scenarios makes sense to you?  Can you think of any other scenarios?  Just give it some thought.  Incidentally, Saddam's calculation was correct, just not in time for him to benefit.  As for the profit motive, it is well known that the Russians and the French had long business dealings with Saddam.  So, it could be argued that they were opposed to our invasion in order to protect their profits.  And while we are on the subject of Iraq, here is what 9/11 Commission has found.  Do follow the links, you might find them interesting.

But enough on question #2.  Let's move on.  You say you believe in Equality.  So, here is my third question:

3. Do you mean "Equality of opportunity and Equality under the Law"?  Or, do you mean "Equality of outcome"?

You and I both were born in a country where the Equality of outcome was at least attempted.  Incidentally, it never worked out that way: people always found ways around the system.  So, there was Party elite, better overall conditions in Moscow at the expense of other areas, people getting rich illegally.  But majority of Soviet citizens had equally low standard of living.  So, try to answer this question for yourself: which equality do you want?  And, by the way, these kinds of equality are mutually excluding, because in order to ensure equality of outcome those who are more successful have to be deprived of their success by the law.

You say you want to end Racism.  Very well.  Here is question number 4:

4. Do you think not admitting a person into college because of his or her ethnic origin is racist?  How about admitting someone into college because of his or her ethnic origin?  Isn't that equally racist?  After all, if you admit someone based on race or ethnicity, that means that someone who is of "wrong" race or ethnicity gets denied admission.  So, how can you support politicians who support that vile quota system, otherwise known as Affirmative Action?  Is it in order to compensate for some past wrongs?  Well, for starters for example, there was a time when Jews were not admitted into Harvard.  That in fact was the reason why Einstein refused to work there and went instead to Princeton.  Is there an Affirmative Action for Jews at Harvard?  Also, back in Odessa Jews were often not admitted into colleges.  Those who were, had to know somebody, bribe somebody, or be listed as "Russians" in their internal passports.  But in places like Tashkent, for example, it was the Russians who were often discriminated against.  In fact, you had a better chance to get in, if you were a Jew than if you were a Russian.  Am I supposed to feel vindicated because of that anti-Russian discrimination?  Or is discrimination always bad, no matter against whom and for whom?  I personally like the attitude my kids have about race and ethnicity: they simply don't care.  To them a Black kid is just another kid.  That's how Racism ends once and for all: you raise the next generation to simply not pay attention to race at all.

Moving on.  You say you believe in protecting Civil Liberties, but not with guns.  So, here is question number 5:

5. How would you protect yourself from that mugger you described in your article?  Would you rely on Police to be there to protect you?  Usually the Police arrives after the fact.  But, let me suggest an even scarier scenario.  Suppose, the cops do come in time, but your mugger just tells them: "This is just a Jew I am mugging".  And the Police just reply to the mugger: "Ah, OK, let us help you.  This Jew needs mugging, beating and perhaps killing".  Oh, wait!  That has already happened before, roughly 65 years ago.  The Jews did not have guns and were murdered en masse.  On the other hand, in the instances when the Jews did have guns, they had a descent chance of survival.  While we are on the subject of Jews with guns, have you seen the movie "Defiance"?  If you haven't, you should.  It is based on true story.  You'll like the movie, you'll be able to relate to it.  Even my wife, who usually does not like war movies, liked it.  You might also cry during the movie.  My wife did. After you watch it, read this review published by CNN, one of the leftist media organizations.  If your blood start boiling after reading that crap, try calming down by reading my review of the review.  You see, the Left wants to see the Jews as quiet little victims for whom they can feel sorry.  When the Jews start defending themselves with - oh, horror! - guns, that is unacceptable to the Left.  And don't even get me started on anti-Semitism prevalent on the Left these days. You probably never went to any of the so-called "peace" protests.  Because if you did, you'd be thoroughly disgusted about vile anti-Semitism found there.  I countered a number of those demonstrations, and I saw that with my own eyes.

So, here is my question number 6:

6. How can you be on the same side politically with those anti-Semites?

You say that the Government has a duty to help people with education and health care etc.  I actually agree that the Government should serve as a safety net.  As Winston Churchill said (not an exact quote), the Government should encourage competition, but mitigate the consequences of a failure.  But how to help people effectively is also important.  So, on the subject of education, here is a question number 7:

7. What is wrong with tying the money to a kid, rather than to a school?  You give a kid a voucher and pay whichever school the kid attends.  That way the schools have to compete for kids and parents.  This system is apparently successful in countries like Belgium.  But the leftist politicians are against it.  Why?

Moving on to the subject of health care and Government involvement in it.  Here is the question number 8:

8. Have you heard a phrase (I am using translit because I am not sure if you can read in Russian) "Lechit'sya darom - eto darom lechit'sya"?  Since this is an open letter, for those who do not speak Russian, this phrase can be roughly translated as "You get treated for nothing, and your treatment is nothing", i. e. "The health care is free, and you get what you paid".  If you haven't heard it, you might want to ask your parents.  They might be able to describe the joys of the Soviet free health care for you.  Oh, and by the way, here is a story from Canada, reported by another fellow Jew from the old Soviet Union.  Read it in full: the punch line, or rather the punch paragraph, is at the end.

Moving on.  You say you support abortion rights.  I actually happen to agree that the Government should stay out of this issue: it is too often a purely medical decision in which no government bureaucrat should have any say.  However, I do think that abortions for convenience are immoral and, in fact, kill babies.  I came to this conclusion after seeing an ultrasound picture of my older daughter over 8 years ago.  So, here is my question number 9:

9. Where do you draw the line for abortions for convenience: 1st trimester, exit out of the womb?  Why not later?  For example, Peter Singer argues that it should be OK to kill infants.  What do you think of his argument?  Or how about this scenario: a late term abortion was performed, but the baby (or the fetus, if you will) survived and has been removed from the womb alive.  Should such baby be given medical care?  Obama said: "No".  But what do you think?  You see, here is a good way to test whether you want to support a certain policy: if you can support a policy taken to its logical conclusion, then you can support it.  Or, if you think you can support support a policy up to a point, you should know where that point is, and why.  Think about it.

You say you don't believe in good and evil.  OK, here my question number 10:

10. Were the Nazis evil?  I will even re-phrase: is the Nazi ideology evil?  How about modern day Nazis of Hamas and Hezbollah?

You say you love everybody.  Question number 11:

11. Do you love people who want to murder you and your family and everybody you love?  Would you love a young SS soldier, who in his indignation against the enemies of the Reich, however misguided, took Jewish babies by their feet and smashed their heads against cobblestones somewhere in Warsaw?  Because that was how the SS murdered Jewish babies in order to save bullets.  You see, a proper reaction to the actions of SS by any normal human being, let alone a Jew, is not love, but hate toward the SS and overwhelming desire to kill the bastards.  Think about this one.

Finally, you say you support Obama.  OK.  The guy has barely become President, and now there is a book about him?  Before elections there was this.  So, here is the question number 12:

12. Does this cult of personality give you pause?  Does it scare you, just a little bit, especially coming from the former Soviet Union?  What do your parents say about it?

As for Mother Russia, I'll just leave you with the words of Evgeny Kliachkin, who called the old country not a mother, but a step-mother, and a wicked one at that.  Again, if you were too young when you left that country, I'll refer you to your parents.  Ask them.

I hope I did not offend you.  I meant no disrespect.  I just wanted you to stop and think.  I bet our views are very similar: after all, I call myself a true Liberal.  Best wishes and have a wonderful Purim.

Eric.

Powered by Qumana