Thursday, November 7, 2013

FOXNews.com: President Obama spins while his image burns

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com 
President Obama spins while his image burns
Nov 7th 2013, 20:30

While White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius got grilled this week about ObamaCare's snafus, the image of their boss, President Obama, has gotten fried.

According to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, President Obama's personal likability rating among Americans is more negative than positive for the first time in his presidency: a net negative 4%. 

I believe the reason for this slide is that the ObamaCare rollout has finally convinced most Americans that the president is personally responsible for misleading them and personally accountable for imposing hurtful, intrusive, expensive consequences on the public.

The president has used ObamaCare to bait, switch, and mislead. That is not likable.

Yet Washington Post political reporter Sean Sullivan, writes that, "There doesn't appear to be any one overarching reason, policy or political decision to explain the drop in Obama's popularity, say the NBC/WSJ pollsters. More likely, it's a combination of time and recent political crises like Syria, NSA surveillance, glitches with the health-care law roll out, as well as the standoff over the budget."

I disagree. While all of the other issues may have contributed to slippage in the president's personal popularity, ObamaCare's rollout has jarred the public into indisputably drawing a straight line between the president's actions and the adverse impact on their personal lives.

With Syria, NSA surveillance, the budget standoff—and just about every other controversy during the president's second term—Mr. Obama's likability rating remained net positive. He blamed others for acting badly and doing great harm. 

In all of those other cases, the president practiced his inveterate rhetorical sleight of hand where he claimed that in his quest to protect victims he had become a victim himself -- never responsible for his own actions, never held to his own words, and distressed to hear that there are problems.

But with the ObamaCare rollout, the "glitches" have finally focused the public on the president's personal responsibility and disingenuousness. 

Americans now see a direct link between the president and his signature creation: ObamaCare. He cannot scapegoat others. He is the goat.

With ObamaCare, the president substantially raises many people's health insurance premiums and deductibles; doesn't allow them to keep the plans and doctors they like; and saddles them with services they don't want but have to pay for—which all break his previous promises.

Those consequences aren't refutable any longer. And they are personally offensive in a way that impinges on the president's character regarding his honesty and motivations. 

In 2012, enough people found the president's character likable enough—well intentioned enough—to return him to office.

But with the ObamaCare rollout, for the first time even the president's most obsequious backers and apologists are struggling to defend him against his transgressions that are awash in personal betrayal and personal harm.

Two examples are TV comedians whose habitual Republican bashing and liberal sympathies are touchstones for many in the news media and the public.

Bill Maher recently said of the president, "It looks like he told a lie. I kind of think he did. I've got two questions: is a lie justified if it's for something good? And if he hadn't told that lie, could ObamaCare have been passed? If he had come out and said, 'Yeah some of you are gonna lose your plans and you're gonna have to pay more,' do you think that law that squeaked through by that much [Maher held up two fingers barely apart] would have passed?"

When one of Maher's guests, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, responded, "It was not a lie," Maher protested and said, "Because of ObamaCare, they are not able to keep [insurance plans]. To me, that is a lie."

Jon Stewart said of the ObamaCare rollout: "Democrats can't spin this turd."  

"Lies," "spin" and similar characterizations of ObamaCare by even the president's court jesters further establish that the worm has turned on the president's previously vaunted likability.

Polling negative on likability is even worse than the president's current low rating in a Gallup poll, at a mere 39% job approval. 

Job approval is largely about competence at tasks. Likability is about feelings—a personal relationship. Likability is what won Mr. Obama re-election.

The president trounced Mitt Romney in exit polls on the all-important measure of "cares more about people like me" by a margin of 81%-18%—and that swung the election.  

But the uncaring that the president has shown with ObamaCare is eroding his likability, robbing him of the Teflon he used to wear as the man who -- even when he failed -- supposedly tried so hard to succeed for the common good.

The president has used ObamaCare to bait, switch, and mislead. That is not likable.

Jon Kraushar, a communications consultant to corporate and political leaders, is at www.jonkraushar.net.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Why the 'free to be' agenda is key for Republicans who want to win youth vote

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com 
Why the 'free to be' agenda is key for Republicans who want to win youth vote
Nov 7th 2013, 16:00

Can the Republican Party win the youth vote in 2014? I believe it can – but it has to transform itself first.

For generations, the strength of America has been this simple concept: no matter where you start from, you are free to be anything you want.

Unfortunately, those born after 1980 – sometimes known as the Millennial Generation – are at risk of losing out on the opportunities that prior generations of Americans enjoyed. Indeed, Millennials may face a future where they are anything but 'free to be.'

I'm challenging Millennials to get involved and not wait for Washington politicians in either political party to solve their problems.

Washington politicians have run up trillions in debt – and are making it harder for individuals to get the basic support services and job opportunities to make ends meet, let alone achieve the American Dream.

It's time to take on both political parties and demand change. Both parties have failed us. Both parties have policies that are a big turnoff to younger voters.

In San Diego, we are not ignoring college students anymore. We are urging Millennials to get actively involved in demanding change at a national, state and local level. 

With that in mind, we created the "Free to Be" Agenda for Millennials which will help restore freedoms for young Americans in five areas of life.

First, Millennials should be Free to Be in the job of their dreams. Bad policies and burdensome regulations have stifled investment, favored big business over small business, and created obstacles to innovation and entrepreneurship. By focusing on job creation, we provide opportunities for Millennials to have economic freedom and the satisfaction of being in a job in their desired career path.

Second, Millennials should be Free to Be who they are, with full and equal rights.
Like a supermajority of Millennials, I personally support marriage equality, medical marijuana, a woman's right to choose and oppose government spying on its own citizens without due process. We should commit to respecting individual personal freedoms, not limiting them.

It is time to put an end to the bitter fights and division on social issues brought on by the extremes in both political parties, and trust in individuals to solve these issues on their own in the context of their own faith, their own family and their own personal circumstance.

Third, Millennials should be Free to Be able to afford their tuition. I'm concerned about the skyrocketing costs of college tuition – especially the emerging crisis in the student loan market where too many college graduates cannot afford the debt service on their loans. My Free to Be Initiative outlines reforms to reduce pension costs in the UC and CSU systems, as well as a number of ways to make it easier to refinance and repay student loans.

Fourth, Millennials should be Free to Be in control of their health care. It is true that we face a health care crisis, but ObamaCare only makes it worse. Some studies peg wasteful spending in health care as high as 30% of every dollar spent. Instead of fixing the cost crisis, ObamaCare focuses on pumping more revenue into a broken system.

Where will a lot of that extra revenue come from? Those that can least afford to pay – in particular the Millennials. A recent study by the American Academy of Actuaries revealed that 80% of those aged 20 to 30 will face higher health care costs – primarily to subsidize health care for those over 40 .

We should demand Washington enact a series of common-sense reforms to control costs and make health care more affordable – tort reform, for instance, can help reduce frivolous lawsuits. 

Let's also provide consumers with more information, expanded choices, and more competition by allowing them to buy insurance across state lines, or by harnessing online technologies to disclose to consumers the lowest rate charged by their health care provider and allow them to compare it with rates from other providers in their area.

Let's also expand the use of Health Savings Accounts – which are perhaps the best health insurance option for many college students and those 20 to 30 years old.

Finally, Millennials should be Free to Be not stuck paying off debts that aren't theirs.
With the current fiscal mess in Washington, we are witnessing one generation robbing another – running up big debts that the Millennial generation will have to pay off through fewer services and higher taxes.

In San Diego, I was proud to write the plan and secure bipartisan support for reforms to save the city from bankruptcy. 

We can balance the budget, but do it in a way that makes government work better without sacrificing the important programs and services many rely upon. 

I led the citizens' initiative to make San Diego's pension system financially sustainable and fair again, wiping away billions in liabilities and costs for future generations while providing retirees with retirement security. 

We can do the same to strengthen and preserve Social Security and Medicare, and ensure Millenials also have a secure retirement.

More than outlining an agenda, I'm challenging Millennials to get involved and not wait for Washington politicians in either political party to solve their problems.

Republicans should let Millennials "Free to Be" themselves and stop writing off college campuses to the progressive party. 

The politician that does it will find they have a lot of support from college age voters.

Carl DeMaio is a candidate for California's 52nd Congressional District.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: North Carolina school district -- 'In God We Trust' posters not cool for school

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com 
North Carolina school district -- 'In God We Trust' posters not cool for school
Nov 7th 2013, 17:33

"In God We Trust" may be the official motto of the United States but school officials in western North Carolina say it has no business in classrooms.

The Watauga County School District refused to allow members of the Watauga American Legion Post 130 to hang posters in schools promoting the national motto because it might be unconstitutional.

"We got an email from the school saying thank you but on advice of their legal counsel they could not accept the posters because of separation of church and state," American Legion member Rick Cornejo told me in a telephone interview.

I suspect the school board is wary of militant anti-Christian bigots and their army of legal minions – poised to attack God-fearing Americans with lawsuits.

Cornejo, who is also a local Baptist preacher, said the decision to ban the posters has resulted in a lot of hurt feelings.

"It's disappointing, it really is," he said. "Educators are asking us for those posters so they can put them in their classrooms but right now they can't do it – because the school board won't let them."

The 16x20 inch framed posters include the words "In God We Trust," with an American flag in the background. 

It reads: "The national motto of the United States, adopted by Congress, July 30, 1956."

A spokesman for the school district told the Watauga Democrat newspaper that "In God We Trust" was banned on the advice of their legal counsel. They feared someone could see the poster and construe the district was promoting religion.

Cornejo said that's just silly.

"How is that promoting religion?" he asked me. "It doesn't say anything about Jesus. I could understand if it was a Bible verse – but it's 'In God We Trust.'"

I suspect the school board is wary of militant anti-Christian bigots and their army of legal minions – poised to attack God-fearing Americans with lawsuits.

Now most folks in the Blue Ridge Mountains of western North Carolina are conservative and patriotic. A neighboring county has the posters in every classroom in the district.

So you might be wondering why the folks in Boone have such an aversion to the Almighty.
Three words: Appalachian State University.

"The university is in Boone so we're dealing with the liberals," he told me. "Our county is pretty conservative but the town of Boone is pretty liberal."

The American Legion's quest to promote the nation's motto is part of a statewide campaign. They want "In God We Trust" posters in every school and every business in the state.

So far more than 185 businesses in Watauga County have agreed to hang the posters – each one framed free of charge by the American Legion.

"No tax dollars spent," the preacher pointed out.

Cornejo spent 22 years in the Navy and now pastors Mount Paran Baptist Church in Deep Gap, N.C. He said he never thought he'd see the day that the national motto would be banished from American classrooms.

"We just want the national motto in our school system," he said.

Pastor Cornejo did make an interesting observation, though. It turns out the national motto may indeed already be in Watauga County classrooms.

"I guarantee you everybody has the 'In God We Trust' motto in their pockets," he said. "Every school in this county has at least a coin or bill with that statement on it."

The school district might want to check with their legal counsel on whether they can pay teacher with American money – lest they violate the U.S. Constitution.

To all you folks at Appalachian State University, that's called irony.

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. Sign up for his American Dispatch newsletter, be sure to join his Facebook page, and follow him on Twitter. And be sure to get his latest book – Dispatches From Bitter America.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Is New Jersey Republican Chris Christie the one for 2016?

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com 
Is New Jersey Republican Chris Christie the one for 2016?
Nov 7th 2013, 12:00

Last August before a closed meeting of Republican leaders in Boston, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey said, "We are not a debating society. We are a political operation that needs to win."

Tuesday night, Christie won. Big time. 

In one of the nation's bluest states, Christie got 60.5 percent of the vote. His Democratic opponent, Barbara Buono, claims she lost because "Democratic political bosses" made a deal with Christie "despite him representing almost everything they're against. … They did it to help themselves politically and financially." 

In other words, they voted out of self-interest. Imagine that. Self-interest in politics.

"I didn't seek a second term to do small things," said Christie Tuesday night. "I sought a second term to finish the job. Now watch me do it."

After demonstrating his ability to attract Democrats and independents during his re-election campaign, Christie must be considered the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.

It was the first Christie speech I have seen in several months and it was the first time I didn't think of his weight before considering his words. 

Christie, who had lap-band surgery to lose weight, appears committed to slimming down and looks good. If he can drop another 50 to 100 pounds, he could be in shape for 2016. 

After demonstrating his ability to attract Democrats and Independents during his re-election campaign, Christie must be considered the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.

"A political celebrity" is what Newark Star-Ledger reporter Jenna Portnoy called him in her Election Night story. The last time Republicans had one of those his name was Ronald Reagan.

Christie does more than dump on Washington's gridlock and dysfunction. He contrasts his accomplishments with Washington's failures. It's not only style, but substance. 

As when he said Tuesday night: "I know that if we can do this in Trenton, New Jersey, then maybe the folks in Washington, D.C., should tune in to their TVs right now and see how it's done."

Virtually everyone runs against Washington, but none have been able to slay the dragon. That's because changing Washington ought not be the goal; the goal should be to change ourselves and our attitudes about government. 

Virtually everyone dislikes "Washington," but when it comes to giving up a favorite program, they resist. 

If Christie seeks the presidency, he will have to say what he will eliminate and how he will do it, as well as tell voters they must do more for themselves. 

The force of his personality will not be enough. Few change Washington. Usually Washington changes them.

For Christie to have a successful run at the presidency, he might assemble a bipartisan group of advisers. 

If he has Democrats working with him that would make it more difficult for them to attack him, giving him the chance to replicate nationally what he has done in New Jersey. 

He doesn't have to compromise his principles. He should focus on what works. 

It's one thing to take on the unions in New Jersey, for example. It's quite another to take them on nationally.

Should Christie run for president, the national media will initially be torn between a sure-fire ratings booster like Christie and the possibility of the first woman president. 

Ultimately, it'll be no contest. Media will likely back Hillary Clinton.

But Hillary Clinton can be beaten. After all, Barack Obama did it. 

In 2008, it was a choice for Democrats between Clinton and the first African-American president. That choice won't be as profound, or as historic, in two years. 

Christie will have to run on a platform of knowing how to succeed, which puts Clinton at a disadvantage, since her list of accomplishments is meager, if not nonexistent.

The conservative wing of the GOP will have to decide whether they want purity or victory. No politician (including the sainted Reagan) is perfect.

At the August GOP gathering in Boston, Christie said, "I'm in this business to win … if we don't win, we don't govern. And if we don't govern, all we do is shout into the wind…."

This country needs someone who will govern. Is Christie the one?

Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated newspaper columnist and a Fox News contributor. Follow him on Twitter@CalThomas. Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: End runs around the Constitution -- the NSA, Obama and the Fourth Amendment

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com 
End runs around the Constitution -- the NSA, Obama and the Fourth Amendment
Nov 7th 2013, 12:00

Two weeks ago we learned that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been spying on the chancellor of Germany and on the president of the United States. 

Last week we learned that it has spied on the pope and on the conclave that elected him last March. 

This week we learned that it also has spied on the secretary general of the United Nations and has hacked into the computer servers at Google and Yahoo.

What's going on?

President Obama, who has yet to address these outrages to serious questioners, must know of them, because apparently he has gotten into the habit of wanting to know in advance what is on the minds of those with whom he is scheduled to meet. 

The NSA's argument that the Fourth Amendment only regulates criminal prosecutions is nonsense.

The New York Times reported recently that it learned from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden that the NSA happily told Obama what U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon was planning to ask him well in advance of when he asked it.

The NSA could have learned that only from its surveillance of the secretary general's personal cell phone calls, emails and texts. It seems the NSA is providing this service to its clients, and chief among them is the president.

Also among them are other parts of the government, such as the Department of Justice, the IRS, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. This is where we find even more dangers to personal freedom than the constitutional violations and personal privacy outrages visited on all Americans and on foreign officials. The NSA claims it can operate outside the restraints of the Fourth Amendment.

The NSA and its congressional apologists have argued that because its task is essentially to gather foreign intelligence for national security purposes only, and because the Fourth Amendment, which requires detailed language in search warrants particularly describing the person or place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized, only restrains the government when it is engaged in criminal prosecutions and not when it is on a fishing expedition for intelligence purposes, the Fourth Amendment does not restrain the NSA.

Yet, the plain language of the Fourth Amendment protects everyone in America from government intrusion in their persons, houses, papers and effects, whether the government is looking for evidence of crimes or of evidence of sophistry. 

The NSA's argument that the Fourth Amendment only regulates criminal prosecutions is nonsense. It never has seriously been made to or accepted by the Supreme Court, and it defies what we now know about the client list of the NSA.

Its clients consist surely of the 15 or so other intelligence agencies in the federal government. But its clients are also the premiere federal agencies that decide whom to prosecute. In order to decide whom to prosecute, these agencies need to examine evidence. And if the evidence they are examining has come through extra-constitutional means, these agencies are destroying the fabric of liberty they have sworn to uphold, which includes the use of only lawfully and constitutionally gathered evidence.

The NSA's own behavior defies its argument that so long as it is not involved in obtaining evidence for criminal prosecutions, it is free to use extra-constitutional means to gather data. 

The whole purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to prevent the government from going house to house without probable cause until it finds evidence of a crime -- as British soldiers did to the colonists -- and then using that evidence in criminal prosecutions.

But if the NSA can go from computer to computer without probable cause until it finds what it wants -- and turn some of that evidence over to law enforcement -- the Constitution's protections effectively have been short-circuited.

Why does the government, which has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, find ways to short-circuit it? The answer goes to the nature of government. 

Even in a free society, government always grows, always expands and always wants to control more human behavior. But government that operates in secrecy, where no one can see it and criticize it, will do whatever it can get away with -- like spy on the pope, share unconstitutionally acquired evidence with law enforcement or sate the president's curiosity.

As if all of this were not bad enough, we learned just a few days ago that the NSA has hacked into the enormous computer servers of Google and Yahoo. These two companies, which have been coerced into and rewarded for their cooperation with the NSA, have now been betrayed by their spying partners in the government.

They must have been gullible enough to believe that all NSA access to their hardware had been by consent or at least by court order and with their knowledge. It is almost inconceivable that any judge of the FISA court ordered hacking, as that is expressly prohibited by federal statute. Hacking is criminal no matter who orders it.

Even some of the president's congressional supporters now acknowledge that the NSA is out of control and destroys more liberty than it protects.

Why would the NSA do all of this? Because in secret it can cut constitutional corners with impunity. And it no doubt believes it is easier to tap into the telephones and computers of all 330 million of us who live in the United States in order to monitor the few dozen among us whom it really wants to watch than to develop probable cause against its true targets as the Framers intended and the Constitution expressly requires. And as well, who knows what teasing cute morsel its agents can deliver to the president before his next Oval Office visitor arrives?

Is this the government the Framers gave us? Is this the government to which we consented? Is this the government most conducive to personal liberty in a free society? The answers are obvious.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Kristallnacht anniversary -- 75 years later incitement against Jews continues

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com 
Kristallnacht anniversary -- 75 years later incitement against Jews continues
Nov 7th 2013, 11:30

Thursday, November 7 mark the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the explosion of terror and destruction against German and Austrian Jews that signaled the beginning of Hitler's genocide targeting the Jewish people.

The account of the killing and the damage inflicted on those Jewish communities -- including attacks on nearly 7,500 shops, more than 1,000 synagogues and nearly 100 people killed in less than 12 hours of orchestrated mayhem -- tells only half the story. As important was the official nature of these attacks and the "they-had-it-coming-to-them" statements made by people in high places and, of course, in the government-controlled media.

There were no attempts to hide the intent to humiliate, threaten and harm the more than 700,000 Jews who lived in cities and towns large and small. 

Under the cover of official encouragement, one could participate in the humiliation of a people, view it from a block away, or, on the morning after, take it all in with glee or smug satisfaction.

Indeed, there were no guidelines to those who carried out this massive pogrom, save for making sure that there be no fires set against Jewish-owned properties that might spread to non-Jewish buildings and neighborhoods. 

Pouring massive amounts of salt into the wounds in the aftermath, the Nazi authorities demanded that the Jewish community compensate the government for the "damage inflicted against it."

Lest there be no mistaking the message being so loudly sent, thousands of Jews were hauled off to places like Sachsenhausen, a short distance from Berlin, which became the archetype for the concentration camps and death camps that would soon multiply in Germany and the lands it would occupy after the beginning of World War II less than one year later.

What that terrifying night and day represented was official incitement. 

Reports of residents watching the sledgehammers crashing against shop windows and the incendiary attacks on Jewish houses of worship note many who watched and cheered those who perpetrated the destruction.

No mystery in this—from Hitler's coming to power in 1933, the Nazi regime had been setting the scene for what would occur during Kristallnacht. 

By casting the Jews as Germany's "misfortune," as unclean and unwanted vermin, the Nazis were ensuring the public's absolute and unquestioning support for a pogrom against the Jewish community. And so, they destroyed Jewish property and, what was even more important, Jewish places of worship. 

Under the cover of official encouragement, one could participate in the humiliation of a people, view it from a block away, or, on the morning after, take it all in with glee or smug satisfaction.

Unfortunately, incitement against Jews is still common today. 

The demonization and delegitimization of Israel and the Jewish people results in regular violence against Jews around the world. 

Even as we observe events of three quarters of a century ago, there are clerics in the Middle East who refer, in weekly sermons, to Jews as pigs and monkeys. 

The Hamas charter has this to say: Jews hide behind rocks and trees waiting to pounce on Palestinians, so you better attack a Jew before he gets a chance to attack you.

There are frequent attempts in international forums to negate the connection of the Jewish people to its holiest sites. 

Holocaust denial is a staple in many parts of the Middle East and the Islamic world; Iran's former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was only its most well-known practitioner. Language he used in carrying out this revisionism mimicked the Nazis when he called Israel a cancer to be excised from the region.

And then there is the actual comparison of Israelis to Nazis made regularly by heads of state and diplomats, the media and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 

They claim Israel's security fence is "akin to the Warsaw Ghetto," Israel commits "round-ups and deportations," and—most significantly—Israel is guilty of "genocide" against the Palestinian people.

Today there is renewed talk about a two-state solution to once and for all resolve the contentious Israeli-Palestinian issue. But how can we realistically expect such an outcome if the Palestinian Authority (PA) doesn't educate for peace? 

When the Oslo Accords were signed 20 years ago, Israel and the Palestinians were each tasked with fulfilling certain obligations. The Palestinians were asked to do three things: dismantle the terrorist organizations, arrest those who carry out acts of terror and end the incitement.

The record is sadly wanting: the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade, connected to Fatah, is by definition and by its own admission through claiming credit for acts of terror, a terrorist organization. The arrest record has been inconsistent. 

But when it comes to incitement, the PA continues full steam ahead, notwithstanding the current round of negotiations with the Israelis. Indeed, a Palestinian baby born on the day the Oslo Accords were signed has only known a steady diet of hatred toward Israel and the Jewish people.

Some would say that comparisons between Nazi Germany and this Middle East conflict is misleading or, at least, hyperbolic. After all, a modern state of Israel, with a cutting-edge army, exists today and did not then. However, no one is stating that the acts carried out in Nazi Germany 75 years ago are akin to what is happening on the ground in the region today.

But the intention to defame and delegitimize a people and the state that represents half of all the Jews in the world; to use language that casts them as less than human or manipulative and cunning; and to attempt to erase their history invites comparisons to a dark and haunting past.

Incitement, especially when it comes wrapped in official approbation, leads to unbridled hatred.

No agreement between Israelis and Palestinians can possibly stick when official spokespersons, media outlets, clerics and semi-official NGOs are dedicated to demonizing their neighbors. That's a lesson that can be learned from the events of 1938, notwithstanding the passage of time.

Daniel S. Mariaschin is Executive Vice President of B'nai B'rith International.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

FOXNews.com: Let's privatize everything including sale of kidneys and firefighting

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com 
Let's privatize everything including sale of kidneys and firefighting
Nov 6th 2013, 12:00

The market is fine for some things, people will say, but other activities are too important to be left to the market. Or too complicated. Or too fundamental to our democracy.

I say: Privatize everything.

To some of you, that will sound callous -- but failure to privatize services, keeping them in government hands instead, is what impoverishes and kills people. Nothing compassionate about that.

Failure to privatize services, keeping them in government hands instead, is what impoverishes and kills people.

Take organ donations.

Regulations forbid buying and selling organs, so the market cannot operate. Desperate patients must wait and hope someone gives out of sheer generosity, that someone dies at just the right time, and that hospital administrators bump their case to the top of the list.

In the U.S., 100,000 people are on waiting lists for kidneys. Kidneys make up 80 percent of the organ shortage. We have two kidneys but only need one. Donors could save many lives, but not enough choose to donate. 

By contrast, in Iran, there's often a waiting line of willing donors. That's because in Iran, it's legal to sell organs. It's the rare thing that Iran does right.

People still buy and sell organs even when it's illegal, but, as is so often the case, the black market produces horrors that are unlikely to occur when people can trade in the open. So we get headlines like "Girl smuggled into Britain to have her 'organs harvested'" and "Chinese boy, 6, has eyes gouged out for organ transplant black market."

Surely, it is better if organ exchanges -- like any other exchanges -- take place voluntarily.

Bioethicist Sigrid Fry-Revere, founder of the Center for Ethical Solutions, went to Iran to meet organ sellers and buyers.

On my Fox Business show this week, she'll tell of people like "an apprentice who needed the money to start his own shop ... He had his own shop now. He gave his kidney to a 15 year-old girl, who is going to school and doing well. He checks in regularly with her mother because it gives him such a lift to hear that the girl is doing fine."

Fry-Revere says organ trading in Iran is much like open adoption in the U.S.: The two parties can decide whether to visit and get to know each other. Other times, the donation is anonymous. Both are much better than kidnapping and eye-gouging.

In America, we let people sell blood. And sperm. And eggs. Why not kidneys? Why do politicians recoil at the idea of a legal market? Fry-Revere says, "I think it's just, old habits die hard."

There are all sorts of services that people think the market can't handle. It's like they have some sort of mental block. 

President Obama says that without government, we can't put out fires. But almost half the people government pays to fight wildfires work for private companies. In parts of America, private companies also put out house fires. They get to the fire sooner.

The city of Sandy Springs, Ga., contracted out most of its services. Residents were surprised to notice that the streets got cleaned faster, and traffic lights were synchronized. It's not that the old government workers were lazy -- they just didn't have the same incentive to find better ideas. They figured they'd never lose the job if they just did what they'd always done.

Some things ought to be done by government: things like running courts, policing pollution and protecting the border. But most everything else should be left to private actors.

Government offers guarantees on paper and promises in speeches. But government rarely delivers. Private companies did brilliant Internet work for President Obama's election campaign. But when it came to his health insurance website, the president put government in charge. We saw the result.

Markets aren't perfect, but they allow for a world where prudence is rewarded and sloth punished, a world in which more people take risks and innovate. That's a world where people prosper.

Some prosper instead of waiting -- and sometimes dying -- while hoping government will eventually get things right.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of  "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed," "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his website at johnstossel.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

 
Great HTML Templates from easytemplates.com.