Things we should know, but don’t

Contributing Columnist

Mitt Romney went abroad last week and, if the mainstream press is to be believed, committed one blunder after another. I’ll reserve judgment on all of that, except to question why an outright endorsement of Romney by Cold War hero, trade-union organizer and human rights-activist Lech Walesa was not given prominent play in the press. Oh, excuse me, we know why, don’t we?

Romney infuriated Palestinian leaders, The New York Times, MSNBC and much of the Washington press corps when he suggested that Israel has a better culture than Palestinian society that, in turn, has lead to greater prosperity. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian spokesman, called it racism. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” allowed as how it would drive the Palestinians from the peace talks.

Maybe Ms. Schultz as been so busy over at Democratic National Headquarters she didn’t notice that the Palestinians suspended those talks sometime in 2009 and have refused to come back to the table. Instead, against the entreaties of the Obama administration, they went to the United Nations for recognition. They must have been anticipating Romney’s racism.

Maybe the mainstream press is unaware that, as John Podhoretz wrote in The New York Post, “The Middle East Media Research Institute has spent decades detailing the diseased messages emanating from Palestinian TV and textbooks, instructing children in the glories of suicide terrorism against innocent Israelis.”

Think about it… you have one culture that teaches its children that becoming a suicide bomber is the best thing they can aspire to; in Israel, working for a Nobel Prize in science ranks high.

If you don’t know that a country’s culture matters, you should. As for me, if it is racist to think Israeli culture provides a healthier environment for societal and economic growth than does the Palestinian, I’m downright bigoted.

• • •

Most of us should have caught on by now that Mr. Obama doesn’t really care about 8.3 percent unemployment or adopting policies that aid in job creation, but most of us haven’t.

A year ago Mr. Obama demanded a $500 billion sequester of defense funds if Congress failed to come to agreement on a debt deal. The House, Senate and the president were never able to agree on a deal so the $500 billion cut is just over the horizon. This comes on the heels of the $487 billion cut in defense funding Mr. Obama ordered last January.

Aside from the obvious threat to national security, there is the more immediate threat to private sector jobs.

“More than one million lost private-sector jobs,” according to The Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley A. Strassel, “to get down to it, as estimated by groups ranging from the National Association of Manufacturers to the Aerospace Industries Association. Military jobs are on the block, but the bulk of the pink slips will come from private businesses — from giant defense companies on down to smaller businesses that are the economic mainstays of their communities.”

Strassel seems puzzled by Obama’s nonchalance given that many of the jobs are in states crucial for Mr. Obama’s reelection. It is here she misses the point. Ignoring job creation is neither new nor unusual for the president. As the Heritage Foundation noted, “The Administration’s foot-dragging on free trade agreements has killed job creation. The extended moratorium on oil drilling, followed by new regulations, killed job creation. President Obama’s refusal to build the Keystone XL pipeline killed jobs. Ever-expanding Environmental Protection Agency regulations kill jobs. Even increasing deficit spending has a job-killing effect, the opposite of what Obama espouses. And, then there’s Obamacare, which if it goes into full effect will be one of the biggest jobs killers of modern times.”

It is not surprising the sequester now hangs over the heads of millions of employees in the defense industry. But, it is chilling when you realize that it is all about tax increases on billionaires earning more than $200,000 a year which would bring the treasury an additional $800 billion over the next 10 years or, $80 billion a year. That is almost a rounding error in a $4.2 trillion budget. Still, Mr. Obama insists on holding the military, indeed the entire economy, hostage to his class-war tax increase.

• • •

The recent kafuffle about the views on gay marriage of the owner of Chick-fil-A reminds us of something we know all too well. All of the rhetoric from the left about the values of diversity and inclusion doesn’t include white Christians.

Remember the outrage of the elected guardians of our values when the owner of Chick-fil-A voiced his support for traditional marriage? Municipal buffoons — or mayors, if you prefer — from Boston, Chicago and San Francisco, among others, announced with centurion authority that Chick-fil-A’s values did not coincide with those of their respective municipalities, so Chick-fil-A was not welcome to do business in their domain.

On the other hand, there were no calls, not one in the country, to censure the black ministers publicly campaigning against gay marriage. No liberal commentator, while ridiculing “the chicken protest,” mentioned the black congregations that stand in support of traditional marriage. Muslims were also spared the opprobrium of the leftist guardians of diversity and inclusion even though imams like Yusef al-Qaradawi, who is active in a Mosque in Boston, told Al-Jazeera recently that homosexuals should be killed either by throwing them from a high place or burning them. That, you must admit, adds some diversity to the debate.

Wherever you stand on this issue — I happen to agree gays should be allowed to marry — it is clear that diversity and inclusion favored by many on the left excludes white Christians.

Here we have to be a bit sympathetic to the liberals reasoning: Wouldn’t it be carrying diversity a bit far if you had to include white folks who still cling to uncool Judeo-Christian values?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Longboat Key News

5 Responses for “Things we should know, but don’t”

  1. Tom Burgum says:

    Mr. geneonlbk, loss of employment in states and municipalities is due to those folks running out of money. Why, because the politicians that came before them made promises their successors simply can’t keep. Secondly, the assumption that government employment is a stimulous needs some vetting. The money to pay their salaries comes from tax payers who just might want to invest in something that creates wealth rather than simply shoveling it from one pocket to another.

  2. geneonlbk says:

    I will point you to a graph showing actual public sector job loss during the current recession. Note that this recession is protracted, whereas recessions where government employment has increased have been shorter in duration.


    The linked graph shows in excess of one million lost jobs in the public sector since the beginning of the current recession.

    In my comment about your article, I did not state that I was addressing just one sector of government employment, why do you assume that I was?

  3. Peter O'Connor says:

    I just returned from Massachusetts, where the public sector welfare state is still alive and well. My Son-in-Law does quite well in the hated private sector, but with a British firm in Boston with clients in New York, Montreal, Vancouver and Tokyo. We stayed with longtime friends – private sector folks – self employed. They are worried. They pay $1,000 per month for health insurance in spite of Romney or Obama Care. Is this the model for all the Nation? Troubling.

  4. Tom Burgum says:

    Mr. geneonlbk, the federal government has more employees now then they did when Mr. Obama took office and the IRS and Health and Human Services are ramping up employment to service Obamacare. The drop in government employment is a state matter. Too many states are busy funding overrought retirement plans and are having to fire current employees. This has nothng to do with congress and, if it did, why did not Mr. Obama, Ms Pelosi, and Mr. Reid fix it when they had a virtual monopoly on power for two years?

  5. geneonlbk says:

    American politicians have fired more than 1 million government workers in the past three years. When politicians should be using public sector jobs to accelerate the recovery, they are doing just the opposite. If we still had those jobs the unemployment rate would be around 7.2% instead of 8.3%. If we had lower unemployment we would have lower financial outlays and increased tax revenues. In turn our credit rating would be improved making money less expensive to borrow.

    All this has nothing to do with the executive branch. It has everything to do with congressional public policy. We need to look at what has worked in other countries before we leap off an economic cliff, blaming the President all the way down.

Leave a Reply