Category Archives: morality

Some Thoughts on Negotiating with Terrorists

Posted on by
Reply

Rick Richman, writing in Commentary Magazine, has some.  He outlines some of the outcomes of such…negotiations:

  1. the barbaric terror war against Israeli civilians, commenced after the first Israeli offer of a state;
  2. the Palestinian rejection of the Clinton Parameters, after Israel formally accepted them;
  3. the Palestinian failure to carry out even Phase I of the three-phase Roadmap;
  4. the transformation of Gaza into Hamastan after Israel withdrew every settler and soldier
  5. the election of Hamas in 2006 and the Hamas coup in 2007;
  6. two rocket wars from Judenrein Gaza, and the continuing prospect of more;
  7. the year-long negotiation in the Annapolis Process that produced still another offer of a state, from which Abbas walked away;
  8. Abbas’s announcement in 2009 that he would do nothing without a construction freeze, followed by his doing nothing after he got one;
  9. the continual “reconciliation” attempts by Abbas with the terrorist group he promised to dismantle;…
  10. the violation of their express Oslo commitments[.]

Richman summarizes the futility of negotiating with terrorists at the outset of his piece:

…four years of the “Palestinian Terror War (mistakenly called the second intifada),”…disabused Israelis of the idea that the Palestinian leadership wanted a deal, and the fact that Arabs have become ever more candid about their ultimate goal, with Mahmoud Abbas telling Egyptian TV “he would never, in a thousand years, recognize a Jewish state.”

Negotiating with terrorists just gets more innocents killed.  Yet our SecDef nominee wants to “engage” with them, saying that Palestinian terrorists are misguided victims.  Our SecState nominee has said folks like al-Assad and the mullahs of Iran can be negotiated with.

On the other hand, there’s this:

A mouse is trying to argue with owls.  The mouse thinks their ways are wrong.  They think the mouse is dinner.

 

h/t Power Line

More on the Racism of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

Eliana Johnson, in National Review Online, had some remarks about former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s shameful “defense” of current Secretary of Defense nominee, Chuck Hagel.  She starts off by quoting Powell on Hagel’s on “insensitive” remarks about Hagel’s hated “Jewish” lobby:

“That term [“Jewish lobby”] slips out from time to time,” he told NBC‘s David Gregory [Johnson posted the entire interview at the head of her article; however, it’s now labeled “This video is private”]. “So Chuck should have said ‘Israeli lobby,’ not ‘Jewish lobby,’ and perhaps he needs to write on a blackboard a hundred times ‘It is the Israeli lobby.’

Then she notes

Powell’s bizarre defense of Hagel took an even more troubling turn as he decried the “dark vein of intolerance” in some parts of the Republican Party.  In particular, he singled out former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and former New Hampshire governor John Sununu for their racial insensitivity, charging that they “look down on minorities.”  Palin attacked the Obama administration for withholding information on the Benghazi scandal, accusing the president of doing a “shuck and jive”; “That’s a racial-era, slave term,” Powell said.  Sununu slammed the president’s first debate performance against Mitt Romney, calling Obama “lazy and detached”; “Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans, but to those of us who are African-Americans, the second word is ‘shiftless’ and then there’s another word that goes along with it.”

And

One might think that a modicum of self-awareness would prevent Powell from making such charges after flippantly dismissing the concerns raised by many in the Jewish and pro-Israel communities.  Don’t such remarks just—woopsy daisy!—“slip out from time to time?”  And if Powell finds the use of slave-era terminology offensive, one wonders why he has difficulty understanding that, among Jews, the imputation of dual loyalties rankles, even if “it may not mean anything to most Americans.”

Let’s leave aside Powell’s blatant hypocrisy concerning the “slipping out” of terms being minor accidents of phrasing when applied to some groups but are seriously racist when applied to his favored group.

As Powell notes, the terms he’s chosen to find offensive are ancient in their original usage (“racial era, slave”).  Languages, as a man of Powell’s evident intelligence surely knows, evolve, and American English is no different.  Today as Powell also notes, the terms don’t mean much of anything “to most Americans” beyond their actual, dictionary meaning (“lazy,” for instance, simply meaning “unwilling to work” and implying nothing at all to anyone beyond the individual being referenced).  With regard to slang phrases, Powell, as the father of a son and two daughters who were teenagers once, also surely knows slang evolves even faster than its base language (“shuck and jive,” for instance, today means nothing more than being cynically evasive “to most Americans”).

The only reason these terms have any racial overtones at all (and the same applies to the “Jewish” lobby—except I don’t see very many Hebrew-Americans being as strident about “dual loyalty” as Powell is being about his imagined slurs) is because guys like Powell actively seek to keep those overtones alive, for their personal use.  See, for example, the evolution of the colonial slur “Yankee” applied to us by those nasty 18th century Brits.

This is just another example of the Left manufacturing a race problem to mask their inability to form a substantive position in a discussion.

Note: the Gregory-Powell interview’s transcript can be read here (so far), and the video of the interview is at the same location.  Apparently, MSNBC just doesn’t want the material in the hands of those they can’t control.

National Default on the National Debt

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama and his Senators keep saying that House RepublicansCongress must raise the debt ceiling or the US will go into default.  The latest example of this claim came when Obama, through his White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, said in response to the idea that the administration could simply mint a $1 trillion coin and then spend that,

There are only two options to deal with the debt limit: Congress can pay its bills or it can fail to act and put the nation into default[.]

Here’s what the Constitution says on the matter (you might recall that bit of paper—a document that Progressives insist ought to be scrapped or that already is useless and non-binding; maybe its inconvenient limits on government are why).  From Article I, Section 8, in relevant part:

The Congress shall have Power…to pay the Debts…;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Thus only the Congress can borrow—or create the conditions for paying what it has borrowed.  The President, as with all laws (nearly all of which, by the way, have his signature on them—he’s actively agreed with them, except in those very rare cases where his veto has been overridden), has only to execute them—here, to spend the money authorized, to collect the taxes authorized, to borrow according to the Congress’ budget and borrowing limit.  He’s Constitutionally, and by his oath of office, required to faithfully execute those laws.

(Incidentally, a later clause in that Section 8 says this:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof….

Thus, only Congress can mint a $1 trillion coin, not Treasury.)

The 14th Amendment, which some Progressives like to cite as a means for Obama to bypass Congress on the national debt, says in relevant part:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Notice that confusing part—it being more than 100 years old—”authorized by law.”  The clause not only says that the US’ debt must be paid—no getting around that—but the only debt that must be paid is that authorized by law—that budget thing (from an even older and apparently even more confusing part of the Constitution), which must be passed by Congress and signed by the President or his veto overridden.  The president cannot (not may not—cannot) create debt on his own recognizance.

On the first part above, then, Obama has it right—Congress can agree to continue spending and borrowing, or it can decide not to act (or anywhere between the two extremes: cut spending enough to fit it into current revenues, thereby eliminating the deficit and stopping the growth in borrowing altogether, or cut spending to fit within projected revenues and raise the debt ceiling somewhat, with a view to gradually reducing spending, eliminating the deficit over time, and ultimately stopping the growth in borrowing altogether, for example).

What are the practicalities of the matter?  Say the debt ceiling is not raised; what results?

The interest on our current national debt (some $16+ trillion at the end of 2012, an explosion of 60% in Obama’s first four years) ran to $220 billion.  Total revenue collected from various tax sources (including payroll taxes for Social Security, et al.,) by the Federal government was $2.5 trillion—a shade over 10x those interest payments.

In short, there is no risk of default from Congressional inaction.  There is plenty of money with which to pay the interest, thereby keeping our debt current and not in default.  There’s plenty of money with which to roll existing debt that’s coming due—essentially to refinance by paying off that old debt with new borrowing—within the current debt ceiling.  This is the same as us refinancing our homes, which we must do within our own debt ceilings, values our lenders determine based on our credit rating.  There’s even plenty of money with which to begin in aggregate paying down that debt, reducing it below those $16 trillion, and to reduce it further in subsequent years.

Thus, if Congress declines to raise the debt ceiling at all, there would be spending cuts, but no default.  Federal spending in 2012 ran to $3.7 trillion, rather more than those $2.5 trillion in collections.  Progressive (and Conservative) favored programs would be drastically curtailed.  Welfare programs like food stamps, subsidies for “green” energy companies, farm price supports, and the like would be severely curtailed.  Entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid transfers to the States would be greatly circumscribed.  Withal, no default, and not even very many existing programs eliminated.

However, if Obama and his Senators truly are concerned about “not paying for our spending on the backs of our seniors and the middle class” (and the poor—that group these Progressives have been ignoring right along), they’ll get serious about spending cuts, the deficit, and the debt.  The cuts then could occur in a deliberate, controlled manner, across programs about which Conservatives and Progressives compromise on curtailing.

Obama and his Senators know what the Constitutionally mandated priorities are.  They simply are lying when they make their claim of debt default, and the NLMSM are complicit in the claim’s spread.  What these Progressives really mean is that, absent a debt ceiling increase, they will default on their vote buying promises.  And that terrifies them, since among those to whom they “owe” their vig are unions.

Gun Control and the Purpose of Guns

Posted on by
1

Governor Mario Cuomo (D, NY) has demanded we “end the madness now” and surrender control of our firearms to government.

No one hunts with an assault rifle.  No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer.

The tragic events of just the last few weeks in Newtown, CT, and West Webster, NY, have indelibly taught us guns can cut down small children, firefighters, and policemen in a moment[.]

A couple of things about this.

First, government doesn’t get to dictate to us our purpose in owning firearms or our purpose in owning magazines with capacities of our choosing.  Leaving aside the reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place, which was to allow a population to protect itself from an overreaching government more than to put victuals on the table, this goes beyond the 2nd Amendment.  If we let government determine our reasons for owning or not owning a thing, it becomes a very short step to letting government determine what me must own or not own, what we must buy or not buy.  Like health insurance.

Second, Cuomo is right that guns can “cut down small children, firefighters, and policemen in a moment.”  When the murdering begins, and help is summoned, the responding police will be only minutes away.  In those intervening moments, though, the killing of the unarmed, including unarmed adults also on the scene, continues apace.  It’s the folks present at the start who are in the best position promptly to interfere with the killer, but when they’ve been carefully disarmed by a Know Better government, they’re as helpless as those children.

What He Said

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama said from his vacation home in Hawaii that if the two parties

focus on the interests of our country above the interests of party, I’m convinced we can cut spending and raise revenue in a manner that reduces our deficit and protects the middle class[.]

Indeed.  If the Progressives will heed the President’s advice and work toward cutting spending, we can not only “protect the middle class,” but we also can restore upward economic mobility to our poor—a group of Americans whom the Progressives ignore as assiduously as they disparage successful Americans.

Moreover, such a move will unburden our economy, allowing it to grow and thereby raise revenue for the government in, to coin a phrase, a responsible way.

So—when are you going to start, Ace?