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.

Was Sarah Palin right? 1


By Tom Quiner

Let us revisit a notorious statement from last year:

“The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

Sarah Palin, August 7, 2009

Ms. Palin was excoriated by the Obama administration and his cheerleaders in the media for her use of the term “death panel.”  Her statement is worth revisiting in light of who President Obama nominated to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.

Obama has mandated massive cuts in these two programs.  The new administrator will make those cuts. That man, should his nomination be approved, is Dr. Donald Berwick of Harvard Medical School.

Let us review Dr. Berwick’s philosophy so we can put Ms. Palin’s fears to rest regarding “death panels.”  I have accumulated several of his quotes which sets out his vision for medical care:

• Talking in London to the Brits about their system, he said:  “I hope you will never, ever give up what you have begun.  I hope you realize and affirm how badly you need — how badly the world needs — an example at scale of a health system that is universal, accessible, excellent and free at the point of care — a health system that, at its core is like the world we wish we had: generous, hopeful, confident, joyous and just.”

Free care is what he wants.  Don’t we all!  But Dr. Berwick is just getting warmed up:

• “I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it.”

In other words, he believes in a single payer system.

• “You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach.  You plan the supply; you aim a bit low; you prefer slightly too little of a technology or a service to too much; then you search for care bottlenecks and try to relieve them.”

In other words, you ration.

• “You could have protected the wealthy and the well, instead of recognizing that sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker, and that any health care funding plan that is ‘just’ must redistribute wealth.”

Translation:  socialism.

Last year, President Obama signed a bill which funded the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (aka Healthcare Rationing Council).  Here is Dr. Berwick’s take on what comparative effectiveness is all about:

• “The first is to determine whether a therapy works or not. The second is to determine how well the therapy works compared to other therapies. The third is to do a cost-benefit analysis. If a new drug or procedure is effective, and has some advantage over existing alternatives,then does the incremental benefit justify the likely additional cost?”

Now we get to the nitty-gritty:  if you’re paying for your own health care, you get to make those decisions yourself.  If the government is subsidizing it, as they shall under Obamacare, they make the decision, not you.

Dr. Berwick makes it clear what that will mean to you:

• “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care, the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Will healthcare be withheld (rationed) to some sick Americans?  According to the President’s nominee to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, the answer is yes. That’s what rationing means.  Some get it, some don’t, and you don’t get a say in it.

Call it what you want:  Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research or a death panel, the result is the same.

Government job growth continues 2


By Tom Quiner

The rest of the media is catching up with Quiner’s Diner.

Last week, we wrote about the explosion of new government jobs under the Obama administration at the same time employment in the private sector has plummeted.

We wrote about how these government jobs are overwhelmingly directed to government unions who overwhelmingly support one political party (here’s a clue: it’s not the Republicans).

We wrote about how these government union jobs enjoy wages and perks that far surpass the private sector.

This story has finally trickled down to the Drudge Report.  Here was their headline today:

“Obama redistribution victory:  private pay plummets, government handouts soar.”

Here was a headline on the Des Moines Register this morning:  “Federal work force isn’t facing cutbacks like private sector.”

Here was the USA Today’s headline:  “Private pay shrinks to historic lows as gov’t payouts rise.”

The USA today quoted University of Michigan economist, Donald Grimes who said: “the trend is not sustainable.  Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all.  This is really important,” Grimes says.

The Register stated that “average compensation for federal civilian workers increased nearly twice as much as did the private sector from 2000 to 2008.”  When you include all their perks and wages, the average federal civilian worker earns $119,982.

President Obama plans to add 274,000 MORE full-time civilian workers to the Executive Branch, HIS branch alone, by 2011.  That doesn’t include the rest of the government.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reveal that private sector, construction, manufacturing, and business services all lost more than 100,000 jobs in February. Even worse, the service-providing sector lost more than 375,000 jobs.  On the other hand, government jobs continued to explode with 9000 new jobs in the same time period along with another 26,000 jobs in the education and health service fields.

The Obama/Pelosi/Reid team are pursuing a conscious course of action:  to redistribute wealth.  One of the savviest ways to do it is to transfer it to government unions who pay them back with campaign contributions and votes at election time. In fairness, that’s politics.  But it comes at a price.  The folks who pay the bills, namely the entrepreneurs and employees of America’s small businesses, have to sacrifice even more to support folks who live much better than they do.

Are you okay with that?

Boswell earns 100% score on the “Pelosi Index” 1


By Tom Quiner

By and large, Iowans are sensible and frugal.

Yes, Des Moines and Iowa City have their fair share of big-spending liberals. But most Iowans have been blessed with some common sense.

That leads me to Central Iowa’s Congressman, Leonard Boswell.  I think Mr. Boswell is a good guy.  Having said that, I disagree with him on most major political issues.

I spent some time on The National Republican’s Trust website, and they produced an interesting index.  It’s called The Pelosi Index.  Here’s what the site says about it:

THE PELOSI INDEX, analyzes and tracks every member of Congress’ true voting record and details how often these self proclaimed moderates vote to support Pelosi’s radical transformation of America.”  It tracks the votes cast on 12 key Pelosi legislative initiatives.

Get more details here: http://nationalrepublicantrust.com/PelosiIndex/index.php

Congressman Boswell, a Democrat, earned a perfect score of 100 percent.  So did other Iowa Democrats, Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsback.

By contrast, Republicans Steve King and Tom Latham earned a zero rating.  I commend them for voting against these bills.  The legislation included in The Pelosi Index tripled the Bush deficits in one year.

America cannot sustain that much spending without creating financial instability and prolonged economic hardship.

This November, we have a golden opportunity to do something about our deficits: elect a Republican Congress.  According to the late, great economist, Milton Friedman, spending declines most when we have a Democrat in the White House and a Republican controlled Congress.

Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were a dream team in some respects.  Let’s give Congressman Boswell a much deserved retirement.  We need fiscal restraint, and Congressman Boswell has demonstrated he’s not about to provide it.