Does the President have common sense? 4


By Tom Quiner

An earnest Obama supporter looked me in the eyes shortly after the last election and said, “Obama, he’s just smarter than the rest of us.”

End of story.  In other words, there’s no further debate necessary.  If one disagrees with President Obama, they’re wrong, because Mr. Obama is smarter than the rest of us.

Candidate Obama immodestly promoted this kind of fawning fanship with his own grandiose rhetoric.  He characterized his nomination at the Democratic Convention as the historic moment when “the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

Reality has sunk in with a vengeance.

Not only can he not control the depth of the ocean, he can’t control its color.  Oil is the new color of the ocean near America’s gulf coast.  The President is not responsible for this disaster.  However, the government’s response is certainly problematic.

Photo: Coast Guard Orders Oil Sucking Barges Stopped, Against Gov. Bobby Jindal's Wishes: 59 Days into BP oil crisis, it's still difficult to figure out who's in charge.

ABC News reported on Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal’s, frustration with the federal government.  “It’s the most frustrating thing,” Mr. Jindal told ABC News.  “Literally, Wednesday morning we found out that they were halting all of these barges.”

The barges were stationed in Louisiana waters to suck out oil.  According to ABC, the Coast Guard halted efforts because they needed to confirm that barges had fire extinguishers and life vests on board.

Bureaucratic red tape halted efforts to clean the Gulf.  The President is boss of the federal bureaucracy.  A man of his intelligence must be heeded even if it means more severe ecological damage.  Even though we’re two months into the oil spill, that’s a worthy price to pay, don’t you think?  Bureaucratic regulations must always supercede a hasty response to an oil spill.  Regulations are more important than the ecology.

I have no doubt that the President is an intelligent man.  I have to admit, though, that I’m beginning to doubt his common sense.

Modern Auschwitz 2


By Tom Quiner

The Nazis exterminated 4 million human beings in Auschwitz.

Pope John Paul II visited the site on June 8th, 1979.  His remarks are immediately relevant.  The late-great John Paul said:

“Can it still be a surprise to anyone that the Pope born and brought up in this land, the Pope who came to the see of Saint Peter from the diocese in whose territory is situated the camp of Oswiecim (Auschwitz), should have begun his first Encyclical with the words “Redemptor Hominis” and should have dedicated it as a whole to the cause of man, to the dignity of man, to the threats to him, and finally to his inalienable rights that can so easily be trampled on and annihilated by his fellowmen?”

How easy it is to trample on the inalienable rights of man.

Governor Charlie Crist of Florida set back the cause of human dignity in Florida by vetoing a bill that could have saved human life.  He vetoed a Woman’s Right To Know legislation which required abortionists to give an ultrasound test before performing an abortion.

Doesn’t human dignity demand that an abortionist fully inform a Mother on what is in her womb before it is removed?

Think about this remark by the Pope at Auschwitz in the context of abortion:

“Is it enough to put man in a different uniform, arm him with the apparatus of violence?”

Picture a doctor’s uniform, picture the tools as being a suction device.

“Is it enough to impose on him an ideology in which human rights are subjected to the demands of the system, completely subjected to them, so as in practice not to exist at all?”

We once had an ideology in America in which the human right to life was inalienable.  The Democratic Party has participated in the eradication of those rights.  Governor Crist of Florida has left the Republican Party and no longer feels compelled to uphold the dignity of life.

Finally, reflect on this comment from John Paul, to which I referred in a previous post (Be Not Indifferent).  Again, think of it in the context of abortion:

“I have come and I kneel on this Golgotha of the modern world, on these tombs, largely nameless like the great tomb of the Unknown Soldier.”

Mankind’s aborted babies are nameless and faceless, like the unknown Soldiers we venerate.  Only the Democratic Party does not venerate the aborted babies, they only pass laws to increase their numbers.

“I kneel before all the inscriptions that come one after another bearing the memory of the victims of Oswiecim in languages: Polish, English, Bulgariam, Romany, Czech, Danish, French, Greek, Hebrew, Yiddish, Spanish, Flemish, Serbo-Croat, German, Norwegian, Russian, Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian.”

There are no inscriptions for dead babies in any language.

The modern Auschwitz is located in the abortion mills of America and around the world, protected and funded by liberal politicians who deny the dignity of human life.

Should we give up?

Did Poland give up?  No!

Did America give up! No!

Pro-lifers are at work in the trenches of America making a different.  We’re not giving up.

The stakes are too high.  Liberal politicians are misguided.  They are motivated by power.  The victory will come from the bottom up, not the top down.

When I get discouraged thinking about Governor Crist’s tragic veto, I think of John Paul’s final remarks at Auschwitz:

“Holy is God! Holy and strong! Holy Immortal One! From plague, from famine, from fire and from war … and from war, deliver us, Lord.”

***

I make no apologies for posting the photo above.  It is brutal to look at.  But don’t we need to be aware of what the violence of abortion looks like?  This photo shows America’s Auschwitz.  Support A Woman’s Right to Know” legislation in your state.

Be not indifferent 2


By Tom Quiner

“Never again.”

That was the pledge the world made following the Holocaust.  Six million Jews were murdered by the Nazi regime in the late 1930’s through 1945.  They were killed out of hatred.

Even the moral relativists of today grudgingly admit that the Holocaust was an evil act.

Has the civilized world lived up to their pledge of “never again?’

No.  Below are a few cold and impersonal statistics of post-Holocaust holocausts:

A still from the film The Killing Fields

Cambodia:  more than three million men, women, and children were exterminated by the communist government, Khmer Rouge, in the 1970s.

Rwanda:  500,000 to one million killed in 1994.

Uganda:  more than 200,000 killed in the 1980s.

Sudan:  2 million (and counting) killed starting in the 1980s.

Kurdistan:  tens of thousands Kurds killed by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.

This list, unfortunately, merely scratches the surface of state-sanctioned mass murder since the U.N. General Assembly officially forbade it in 1951.

In other words, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, as the U.N. calls it, has been ineffective in the eyes of the millions who are dead due to genocide SINCE international law made it illegal.

These crimes, tragic beyond human comprehension, are immediately urgent in light of the growing international isolation of Israel.

Hatred of the Jews is growing exponentially.  It takes two forms:  those who simply want Jews dead out of brute bigotry; and those who suggest that maybe Israel really isn’t entitled to its homeland.

The latter view was eloquently expressed by Helen Thomas last week.  As reported in my previous post, she said “I think the Jews should get the hell out of Palestine” and go back to Germany and Poland.
Helen Thomas

I would like you to think about what Ms. Thomas said.  She referred to Israel’s territory as, in fact, belonging to Palestine, despite the fact that it was established as Israel’s in 1948 by the United Nation.

So, what the U.N. says is only binding to liberals like Helen Thomas if it is sanctioning or censuring Israel.

The White House, to their credit, called her remarks “offensive and reprehensible.”

However, let us turn the clock back to 2007.  In an interview with Tim Russert, Helen Thomas said, “I do think it’s wrong to take somebody else’s land and displace them.”

In other words, she said the same thing in 2007 as last week, only without the word “hell” or the Poland or Germany references.  Her central concept, that Israel took land from Palestinians and doesn’t belong there, generated not even a peep.

The notion that Israel is the offending party is increasingly beyond question with liberal elites who dominate media outlets and universities around the world.

This same media has portrayed last week’s flotilla as a “humanitarian mission.”  The humanitarians on board the flotilla refused to allow inspections for weapons because they had weapons on board.

The humanitarians on board the flotilla radioed to the Israelis this humanitarian message:  “Shut up, go back to Auschwitz.”

The humanitarians on board the flotilla also sent out another humanitarian message:  “We’re helping Arabs go against the U.S., don’t forget 9/11.”

These aren’t humanitarians at all, they’re thugs who support terrorism.

Much of the Arab world is comfortable expressing their true intent when it comes to Israel.  Take the Deputy Minister of Religion for Hamas, Abdallah Jarbu.  He said that Jews “want to present themselves to the world as if they have rights, but, in fact, they are foreign bacteria – a microbe unparalleled in the world.”

This Deputy of Religion then offered up his fervent prayer:  “May He annihilate this filthy people who have neither religion nor conscience.”

Over in Iran, the Kayhan, the newspaper that is the mouthpiece for Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei characterized Israel as a “cancerous tumor” that must be excised from the “Islamic Middle East.”  Their goal?  According to the Kayhan:  Israel’s “total annihilation from the political geography of the region.”

This is the same country that is building a nuclear bomb.

What is striking about all of this is the lack of outrage from liberals toward an Arab world increasingly comfortable expressing their desire for another Jewish holocaust.  They reserve their outrage for Israel.  They exercise rhetorical restraint when it comes to the Arab world.

We’re heading toward an unimaginable worldwide tragedy if anti-Semitism is allowed to continue its rapid rate of growth.

On June 7th, 1979, Pope John Paul II visited Auschwitz.  He called it the “Golgotha of the modern world.”  Golgotha is the place where Jesus was crucified.

He knelt before the tomb of the unknown victims:

“In particular I pause with you … before the inscription in Hebrew.  This inscription awakens the memory of the people whose sons and daughters were intended for total extermination.  This people draws its origins from Abraham, our father in faith, as was expressed by Paul of Tarsus.  The very people who received from God the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ itself experienced in a special measure what is meant by killing.  It is not permissible for anyone to pass by this inscription with indifference.”

Pope John Paul II was famous for his encouragement to “be not afraid.”

Based on his remarks at Auschwitz, let us paraphrase what he is telling us now:  “be not indifferent.”

And pray this prayer:  “never again.”

Why are liberals against Israel? 2


By Tom Quiner

Jew hatred is alive and well.

Helen Thomas, renowned liberal reporter for Hearst Newspapers, made the following statement:  “I think the Jews should get the hell out of Palestine” and go back to Germany and Poland.

Back to Germany, the home of the Holocaust.

Back to Poland, the home of Auschwitz.

[photo]

Ms. Thomas’ views very much reflect those of the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:  Israel has no right to a homeland and no right to exist. Perhaps she even agrees with President Ahmadinejad that the Holocaust never occurred.

The reaction to a comment as outrageous as Ms. Thomas’ was surprisingly muted.  She was was not fired on the spot, as she should have been. Rather, she was allowed to “retire” three days later.

Her ugly public diatribe against Israel was precipitated by last week’s raid on a Palestine flotilla where nine people were killed.

The International community has been unified in their outrage against Israel.

The American main stream media has been unified in their outrage against Israel.

Liberals everywhere have been particularly vocal in expressing their outrage against America’s most important ally in the Middle East, Israel.

Is all of this outrage really warranted?

No, at least not toward Israel.  After all, the terrorist group, Hamas (as classified by the European Union, the U.S., Canada, and Japan) has lobbed in excess of 10,000 bombs toward Israeli cities.  So Israel, along with Egypt, initiated a blockade in order to keep weapons away from Hamas.  In other words, even Egypt views Hamas as a threat.

A blockade is an act of self-defense.   The U.S. blockaded Cuba in 1962 to keep Soviet weapons away from our shores.  It is a peaceful way to prevent military escalation.

Now you may think that needed supplies, food, medicines were being denied Palestines because of this blockade.  No, they weren’t, only weapons.  Supplies are delivered daily.  These supplies include 48,000 tons of food this year.

Maybe these supplies weren’t enough, right?  Maybe that’s why the IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi) launched this flotilla.  Maybe the Palestines needed more food and clothing and medicine.  But if this is true, all the IHH had to do was follow Israel’s instructions to dock and be inspected for weapons.

If this was truly a humanitarian mission, isn’t this a no-brainer?

The IHH refused because they evidently sought a confrontation.  An activist on board the ship said “either we reach Gaza or we will achieve martyrdom.”  The IHH has a history of aiding radical Islamic groups including Hamas and al-Qaeda.

The goal of the flotilla was a confrontation that would make Israel look bad.  A video at The Israeli Project shows “activists” on board the flotilla preparing weapons prior to boarding by Israeli soldiers.

They attacked the soldiers immediately upon boarding.  Remember:  they had a choice to avoid confrontation by allowing an inspection.  They refused, because that was clearly not their goal.

It is interesting to note that Israel shares the same foundational values as the United States.  And yet the Left despises them.  For that matter, the Left despises U.S. foundational values of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as defined by our Founding Fathers.

Perhaps that explains the knee-jerk reaction of the Left against Israel.

Helen Thomas only said what her liberal allies in the media were thinking.  But she said it with less discretion.

Is anti-semitism a thing of the past?  Tragically, the answer is no.


A Memorial Day tribute to two Presidents Reply


By Tom Quiner

This is a trivia quiz:  who was the most unpopular President to ever leave office?

  1. Richard Nixon
  2. Harry Truman
  3. George W. Bush
  4. Herbert Hoover

The answer is Harry Truman.  His popularity rating was a scant 22 percent when he left office in 1952, worse even than President Nixon’s 24 percent at the time he resigned from office.

President Truman’s popularity has grown over the years.  I pay tribute to him this Memorial Day weekend because of two characteristics Americans find attractive in their leaders.  Mr. Truman spoke plainly and honestly.  He could be profane, but you knew where he stood, because he was a plain talker.

The second characteristic which is especially appealing these days was his willingness to take responsibility for the actions of the government.  The sign on his desk said it all:  “the buck stops here.”  Contrast that philosophy with the current occupant of the White House who is still blaming his predecessor for every wrong in this country, including the gulf oil spill.

Conservatives of yesterday and today bristle at President Truman’s liberal domestic politics, including his support of National Health Insurance.  Nonetheless, let us honor this man who was a practitioner of forthright leadership at a difficult time in our history.  America needs you Harry Truman!

Let us honor another President, Ronald Reagan.  You’re noticing a trend here, aren’t you?   Both of these Presidents were born in the Midwest.  I’m kind of partial to Midwesterners.  I’m especially partial to this President.  I could give you a hundred reasons, but let me leave you with two.

First, Mr. Reagan had a specific vision for America and the world.  One of them was to “defeat the ‘Evil Empire.’ “  The political left and the Media (excuse my redundancy) ridiculed his vision.  Even more interesting, so did many conservatives.  Détente was the operative political strategy of the age among Nixon conservatives.

President Reagan won.  The Evil Empire lost.  And as a result, the entire world won.  A man with a vision and conviction is a force to be reckoned with, and President Reagan was a force we have seldom seen in this country.

Second, Mr. Reagan saw that the greatness, the strength of this great land flowed from the people.  He was an optimist who encouraged us to believe in our own strength, our own ability to succeed and prosper if only government would get out of the way.

What a contrast to the current occupant in the White House who views Americans as being weak, as in dire need of massive government intervention in our lives. America needs Ronald Reagan more than ever.

God bless you President Reagan.  God bless you President Truman.  Thank-you for your contributions to America.  You served your nation with honor and dignity.

We salute you.