Doc's Talk: Obama's Next Big Push

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Obama's Next Big Push

Lee Cary
Regardless of the outcome of ObamaCare, if past behavior signals the future, the Obama administration's next big push will be to mute its most successful critics. t will come as no surprise when ObamaCare proponents invoke the name of Ted Kennedy to promote passage of a healthcare reform bill when Congress reconvenes. "Let's win one for the Gipper" will become "Let's win one for ol' Teddy." But will that alone tip the balance in favor of healthcare reform as represented in the House's version? Not likely.

Nor is it likely that the Obama administration will declare defeat and retreat from the Beltway battlefield, revise the plan, and come at it again, later. That could send it down the path paved by President Bush's efforts to reform Social Security -- to oblivion.

More likely, ObamaCare will morph into a watered-down compromise bill acceptable to moderate Republicans. Close scrutiny will reveal that it contains one or more camel noses under the tent that offer entry points for later expansion. But the noses won't be so blatantly odious as to invoke the level of opposition we've witnessed at recent town hall meetings.

President Obama will herald passage of a healthcare reform bill as an example of bipartisan collaboration. The far Left base of the Democrat Party will be angry, but recover quickly. After all, they're not about to vote Republican or Libertarian.

Conservative Republicans will issue warnings against the camel's nose, but they'll be out-voted by Democrats with help from moderate Republican Senators that could include Snow, Murkowski, Martinez, Grassley, Lugar, Collins, Graham, McCain, and others.

The legacy media will herald the passage of healthcare reform legislation as evidence that the Obama administration has taken control of the agenda away from the far Left Democrats in Congress, has asserted his presidential leadership authority, and now plans to work in concert with the more reasonable centrist Republicans. Expect a New York Times headline that suggests that Obama is following the Clinton strategy of moving toward the Center. But it'll be a myth.

Meanwhile, the legacy media will paint rightwing conservatives as having suffered a stunning defeat by the passage of a healthcare bill, any healthcare bill. Imagine a Washington Post headline that reads "Conservative Republicans Fail to Defeat Healthcare Reform".

A kumbaya moment will accompany the ceremony where Obama signs a bill surrounded by Democrats and moderate Republicans not facing a serious challenge for re-election in 2010. And that's about how long the group hug will last -- a moment.

While the Cap & Trade Bill ricochets around inside the Senate, Rahm, Reid and Pelosi will launch a full-scale assault against the frontline opposition to the fundamental transformation of America that Obama promised as the election approached last November. Namely, against leading radio talk show hosts and some FOX News television personalities. It will, of course, all be done in the name of civility, fairness and diversity. Media reform is good for America, its proponents will claim.

While building the fiction of a new atmosphere of bipartisan cooperation, there'll be a coordinated effort to throttle back the impact that Limbaugh, Beck, Levin, Hannity, Ingraham and other leading conservative media pundits have had on the healthcare debate. It's inevitable. Why? Because, "The new ruler must determine all the injuries that he will need to inflict. He must inflict them once and for all." (Machiavelli)

Don't be surprised if the June 2007 words of former Republican whip Senator Trent Lott are cited by Democrats like Senator Charles Schumer (NY) as evidence of bipartisan concern for the divisive impact of talk radio on the American political scene. Back during the Immigration Bill debate, Lott said, "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem."

Look for Lott to surface on Meet The Press to support an effort to rein in the incendiary rhetoric attributed to talk show hosts by those who don't like what they say. Expect the resurrection of the Roman Catholic priest, Father Charles Edward Coughlin, who initially supported FDR's New Deal policies and then became a popular media critic of Roosevelt. Coughlin would make a convenient subject for an MSNBC historical comparison in a special entitled "The Incendiary Media".

The fundamental transformation the Obama administration plans for America cannot proceed unchallenged without the Noam Chomsky concept of democracy applied to the media. "Personally, I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions of society have to be under popular control." One of those central institutions of society is the media. Popular control doesn't belong to the free marketplace in Chomsky-logic. It belongs to the federal government.

Chomsky-logic is embraced by the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Chief Diversity Officer, Mark Lloyd. He calls for a "confrontational movement" to take control of the media away from corporations and give it to the public. In other words, give control to the federal government.

President Obama will, of course, keep his distance from any confrontational movement just as he's now distancing himself from a renewed investigation of the CIA's use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. The buck only stops on his desk when he wants it to. When he doesn't, he passes the buck.

As long as talk radio and FOX News are free to speak, the Obama administration will not have a free pass to cramdown its transformational legislation. And, the more success the opposition media achieves, the more they'll step into the crosshairs of federal intervention. A determined legislative assault against them will be the Obama administration's next big push after healthcare reform plays out, either in victory, in defeat, or in some mix of the two.

If this forecast becomes reality, it could bring a seminal moment in the nation's history with nothing less at stake than the integrity of the First Amendment. And the outcome could well be determined by whether those who rose to oppose the government takeover of the healthcare system will stand even taller in support of Free Speech?

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/obamas_next_big_push.html at September 01, 2009 - 02:38:20 AM EDT

No comments:

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