Doc's Talk: Change we can believe in, or not

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Change we can believe in, or not

Ted Belman

Obama’s tells us that he is for “change we can believe in”. But is he?

What is it about Bush’s policies that the Left is so angry about and wants to change.

Defense
Bush increased defense spending after Clinton reduced it. Obama now wants to reduce it dramatically. This is not change we can believe in. War on Terror
Bush adopted a policy of preemption which resulted in the US invading first Afghanistan and secondly Iraq. In the present campaign neither McCain nor Obama talks about this concept or even the war on terror. But they do talk about getting Osama ben Laden. Bush and McCain want to win in Iraq and then focus on Afghanistan. Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq and increase US forces in Afghanistan. Is this change we can believe? One has to be foolish or naive to withdraw from Iraq and squander the victory that is at hand. Does anyone believe that Iran won’t fill the vacuum and thereby further increase her hegemony. If the US withdraws from Iraq, how can it possibly maintain influence in the ME. Is this change we can believe in.

Obama still wants to treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter. I venture to say that the majority of Americans don’t agree with him. Is this change we can believe in?

Obama wants to talk to all our enemies including Iran and argues that this is a change we can believe in. Yet the truth of the matter is that Bush has been talking to them at a low level for years and our European allies have been talking on our behalf at higher levels all to no avail. Actually Obama has backed away from his desire to talk without preconditions and has suggested all kinds of qualifiers. Thus his position is little different from Bush’s. There is very little change here. Certainly none we can believe in.

Unilateralism
Bush favoured this after 9/11 and was at odds with France and Germany who were in bed with Saddam Hussein. The Democrats preferred multilateralism. They still do. But Obama has failed to notice that France and Germany have now rejected their old policies and elected new leaders. Europe is moving to the right. Bush is now working with them to solve our mutual problems. Thus Obama is not suggesting a change from the current cooperation but arguing for more of the same. So no change there.

Israel/Palestinian Conflict
Bush initiated the Roadmap and called for a two-state solution. Bush changed the rules of the game with the Annapolis Summit. For the last year his administration has expended a great deal of effort to achieve an agreement but to no avail. The only change Obama is suggesting is one where the US forces Israel to capitulate. Once again this is not change we can believe in.

AIPAC
Bush embraced AIPAC and worked with them. Obama wants to end decades of putting Israel’s interests first. Jesse Jackson only confirmed it. This too, is not change we can believe in.

Taxes
Bush reduced taxes across the board. McCain wants to reduce them even further. Obama says he wants to reduce taxes on 95% of Americans. And so, except for 5%, he is following the tax cuts of Bush. But who can believe he will do this. Besides 40% of these people don’t pay taxes at all so Obama’s Plan involves giving them a check otherwise called a tax reduction but in reality an income redistribution. In effect he wants to take from the rich and give to the poor. Given that Corporations in America pay taxes at a much higher rate than most of the world and the fact that higher taxes drives away businesses and jobs, I don’t think this is change the American people can believe it.

If on the other hand he really intends to increase taxes for all, in line with his voting record, this is surely not change we can believe in.

Economy
Obama blames the Bush administration for the meltdown. In doing so he totally denies the role that subprime mortgages played and the fact that the Democrats, himself included, pushed for it. In fact he wants all the homeowners who bought in, to be protected. The Democrats even attempted to funnel money from the bailout to ACORN. He is thus proposing more of the same and not change we can believe in.

Now if someone advocated regulating ACORN and strictly limiting their funds and power, this would be change we could believe in.

Although he blames Bush for deregulation, he and his fellow Democrats were the ones who prevented regulation of Freddie and Fanny.

He complains about the deficit that Bush ran up without regard to the costs of the war on terror and 9/11. He ignores the fact that the deficit went up almost three trillion after the Democrats got control of the House. He is also proposing almost another trillion in spending for ‘09 so how is this change? Bush can certainly be faulted for spending too much but Obama wouldn’t be any better. McCain is the change agent here. McCain is the only one who can get spending under control.

There is another basic difference. McCain believes government is the problem and wants policies that rely on the private sector to bring about the recovery. The Democrats want to solve all the problems by a tax and spend policy. They believe government is the solution. Once again, not change we can believe in.

The choice is clear.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...: After 8 years 80 percent of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
76 percent of the people think Bush is doing a Bad job.
After promising the Conservative Economic trickle down theory would catapult our economy into a decade of economic prosperity, we are left with an economy in shambles, banks going bankrupt, stocks plunging , 401K saving disappearing, housing in a tailspin, government debt at 11 trillion and climbing.

Yes, President Bush is leaving office with a great legacy

Thank God presidents are limited to two terms.; 10:18 PM
GS Don Morris, Ph.D./Chana Givon said...: The data you provide is mostly accurate-certainly many of us have our disappointments with Mr. Bush and the Republican Party. However, as one does a thorough analysis it seems that the Democratic Party has a major footprint in my (our) collapsing 401 K's, pension plans, savings and economy-perhaps you overlooked this detail? It is easy to shoot from the hip and focus on a couple of items-i noticed you did not challenge other of Mr. Belman's claims-sadly this is where we are today in politics.; 6:50 AM

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk