There’s a national epidemic at hand – and nobody cares. It’s scary. Every 169 minutes somebody dies from this terrible epidemic. Thousands of men, women and children are killed and injured every year – and nobody cares. A billion dollars was spent last year fighting this epidemic – but it barely makes the evening news.

What are we talking about? Uncontrolled fire. Residential fires kill and injure thousands each year and during last year alone, wildfires cost the nation a billion dollars, as well as ten of thousands of acres destroyed. Remember that some of these fires were accidents in the home and many wildfires were arson – all preventable.

It’s time to consider limiting the availability of fire starting devices to the public. We must protect those children who find matches or lighters lying around the house. If we can prevent even one death – we must.

The availability of these fire starting devices is startling. They are sold everywhere. Matches are sold hundreds in a box. Lighters are sold in packs and even in bulk. We must start limiting those who can sell these devices and to whom they can be sold. While we know that most people who use these fire starting devices are law abiding citizens – we must guard against those who may use these devices inappropriately. That is why we must create a national dialogue to introduce limits against these devices.

We propose a three step plan to make our country a safer place to live.

1. We must limit the number of matches in every box sold. Perhaps a ten match limit. How many matches does a person really need to light a candle? 250 matches in a box is certainly unnecessary.
2. Lighters must be strictly regulated. Since a lighter can conceivably be lit hundreds of times and even be refilled, it is a very scary device indeed. Those who sell this device must be licensed and those who buy them should be registered with their local fire department.
3. We must create a national registry of those who own a lighter, especially the refillable ones. We trust our citizenry to use their lighters responsibly, of course, but you never know if the wrong people are attempting to gain access to these terrible devices which can do so much damage.

It’s time to take a stand. It’s time to fight against the powerful match and lighter lobbies. We must make our voices heard. Call Congress today.

Please… do it for the children.

Fascinating reading: Centers for Disease Control: Deaths: Final Data 2010

My understanding is the vice president’s going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence,” said Obama. “Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to what we’re going to go ahead and propose later in the week. But I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as president, and where you get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then I want to go ahead and take it.

Amazing that President Obama, our esteemed law professor, who taught at the University of Chicago for 12 years without publishing one academic article, finds that “executive action” is the way to go rather than let Congress do their job. While he has not said that he is solely relying on such action to limit ‘gun violence’, it is not unlike him to rely on such power. President Obama did the same with immigration laws, not that long ago. Why bother executing the laws, when you can write them yourself?

President Obama probably feels that Congress will be unable to agree on new gun control measures – therefore, he should go ahead to take “some steps… that don’t require legislation…”. We will see what steps he’s referring to sometime in the near future. In this second term, with nothing to stop him, I think we can all be seriously concerned.

Rather than cheering on the Israelis and complementing them on a job well done – we hear calls for Israeli restraint, even from the United States.

Obama said Israel had the right to defend itself against Hamas’ missile attacks from Gaza. But he urged Israel not to launch a ground assault in Gaza, saying it would put Israeli soldiers, as well as Palestinian citizens, at greater risk and hamper an already vexing peace process.

“If we see a further escalation of the situation in Gaza, the likelihood of us getting back on any kind of peace track that leads to a two-state solution is going to be pushed off way into the future,” Obama said.

I wonder what message this sends to the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza – the world won’t say a word about the hundreds of rockets targeting school buses and innocents trying to live their lives – but when the world is made a safer place by the assassination of a chief murderer – “restraint” is called for. The message is clear: Jewish blood is cheap.

Not only is Jewish blood cheap – we’ll even reward these attacks by more “peace” talks, more talk of another terrorist state on Israel’s border. A second “Palestinian” state – since Gaza is State #1. Don’t escalate this war, the President warns Israel, we’re trying to have “peace” talks with these terrorists – never mind that they don’t have an interest in peace – just in seeing Israel and her citizens in pieces.

No other nation in the world would tolerate even a single missile entering their airspace. Not the French, and especially not the Germans. Imagine the United States allowing such a thing to happen without an overwhelming response. But the world calls for “restraint” from Israel even after they’ve shown restraint – allowing hundreds of rockets to rain terror on her civilians without complaint.

Jewish blood is cheap and the Arab world knows it. They know the world doesn’t care about the Jews…go ahead, feel free to send the rockets.

Calls for “restraint”? What a joke.

Yes, the humorless Muslims are back and protesting in a city near you. Not only in the nascent pan-Islamic caliphate, but in London, England. That darn YouTube video seems to really be getting under their skin. Ten thousand Muslims descended on Google’s office in London as part of a lead up to a “million-strong march in Hyde Park” to demand a ban of the video.

We shouldn’t be too surprised. We know that Muslims have no sense of humor and expect the rest of us to play along with their lack of understanding of basic human rights. Free speech is still free speech whether it offends them or not.

The best part of this protest is that they call on other religions – Jewish and Christians – to join in a call for civility.

“Organisations like Google are key players and have to take responsibility for civility. You can’t just say it doesn’t matter that it’s freedom of speech. It’s anarchy.”

Sheikh Siddiqui, a barrister from Nuneaton, said he wanted to form a coalition with the Church of England, Catholics, Jewish groups, Trade Unions and even Conservatives to encourage their ranks to join his “campaign for civility”.

“We want everyone in society to recognise these people are wrecking our fragile global society. We want the Church, the Synod, Jewish groups and establishment figures involved,” he said.

It’s a bad joke. Muslims calling on other religious groups that are regularly terrorized in Muslim countries. Christians are murdered and churches are burned all over the Islamic world. Jews, as well, are a hated minority – terrorized and murdered regularly – with the Muslim hope of complete annihilation.

The Muslims are not to be underestimated – they are flexing their muscles in the streets of London. They are testing the limits of a liberal democracy – in the country that gave the world the Magna Carta and John Locke – by calling for limits on freedom of speech, but at the same time using that same freedom to march by thousands in the streets attempting to impose their 7th century sensibilities onto our modern world with the implicit threat of violence.

Self-employed businessman Ahmed Nasar said he was worried the video could lead to violence in Britain in the same way as it had abroad. “If you push people too far,” he said, “You will turn the peaceful elements into violence.”

The western world is under siege in the name of tolerance and “civility”. To accept limits on free speech simply because that speech offends a particular group – to self censor due to fear – is where we are headed by not countering this march. In essence, we are destroying our own freedoms in order to avoid conflict – but unfortunately acquiescence is appeasement. Rather than bringing peace, we are bringing conflict by not making it clear that our western freedoms are not negotiable.

Barbarians are in the streets. Where is Charles Martel?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

These truths which Americans hold to be “self-evident” and codified in the Declaration of Independence are truly not “self-evident” to much of the world at large.

We just need to take a quick look around -

In honor of the Olympics we can use China as a good example. The government takes the children from their homes if they show an aptitude for certain sports. In other words, the children belong to the government, and not to their parents – and the government has the right to take these children. The power of the government does not come from the people, but instead, any rights people there have come from the largesse of the government.

Of course, we must mention the lack of political speech, basic human rights, the limitations on private practice of religion and the government’s role in forced abortions. All of which are at odds with our “self-evident” truths that are G-d given rights.

We can also take a look at the Muslim/Arab world. Slavery still exists there. We assume that it’s clear that one person shouldn’t own another – but this is another “self-evident” truth that isn’t quite that evident to everyone.

The fact that women are created equal to men is also another “self-evident” truth that is unacceptable in the Muslim/Arab world. The right to vote, the ability to even drive a car, the ability to walk in public without a male chaperone, and even the extreme but regular occurrences of honor killings in the Middle East and in western societies such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom also point to the lack of basic understanding of “equality”, “life” and “liberty”.

Some may point to the fact that these high minded truths were not originally adhered to in the United States when this document was written in 1776. That is true. But what it also true is that this document was bringing the novel idea of G-d given rights to the world at a time when they didn’t exist. It is a founding document – it is one that all throughout our history people have pointed to in order to show us the way. We are living up to those ideals. Many are not and have no interest in doing so.

There is much to be learned from our founding documents – and much that we take for granted.

Of course they also thought that taking a moment of silence during the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games to remember the eleven murdered Israelis during the 1972 Munich Olympics was “racist” as well – I assume that’s because they were the murderers… and murdering Jews simply because of their religion might identify the “Palestinians” as the real racists and they didn’t really want that made public on the world stage.

Then again, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) obliged them – rather than pointing out to the world the hypocrisy of the “Palestinians” as well as the Muslim world who had threatened to boycott the Games.

Romney did the right thing and did not appease the “Palestinians” by pretending that their “culture” is equal to the “Jewish culture”. To begin with, Jews believe in the sanctity of life. The “Palestinians” clearly do not. Hey, hey, how many buses have you bombed today? – comes to mind. Jews have a strong focus on education and taking care of the next generation. The “Palestinians” clearly do not. Summer camps named after so-called martyrs that teach kids how to to shoot machine guns and blow themselves up do not constitute being “educational”. Surprisingly enough, neither are school textbooks that portray Christians and Jews as pigs, dogs and monkeys. Children’s television programming with children singing about “jihad” and “martyrdom” wouldn’t fall under “educational” either.

One has to wonder about the “Palestinian culture” of which they are so proud.

To show support for the Jewish culture which has contributed to Western Civilization as a whole and to the world community through amazing medical, technological and other breakthroughs (Nobel Prize winners) doesn’t require a person to be a rocket scientist, but it does require honesty and, it seems, a little bit of backbone. It’s nice to finally see these traits in a presidential candidate. It’s about time.

It’s now 40 years since the 1972 Olympics. 40 years since the Munich massacre funded by now-Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas. 40 years since the Games amazingly continued after 11 of the Israeli delegation were murdered.

Two widows of the murdered athletes have requested from the Olympic committee for a moment of silence during the Olympic opening ceremonies Friday night. Their request for a public moment has been rejected.

In contrast to the Munich massacre being broadcast around the world at the time, this week the Olympic committee held a small, private ceremony to remember the Israeli athletes. I assume not to offend anyone, especially not the Muslims that have come to the Olympics to be part of a peaceful, worldwide celebration of mutual respect and competition. And certainly not to offend the “Palestinian” delegation, whose murderous president has yet to be brought to brought to justice.

Even better was the letter written by the Palestinian Olympic Committee to the International Olympic Committee:

Sports are a bridge for love, communication and the spreading of peace between nations and should not be used for divisiveness and the spread of racism.

Why should we be surprised by the “Palestinian” or Olympic reaction to the request for a moment of silence? The “Palestinians” continue to advocate violence against Jews, naming roads and parks after so-called martyrs. President/murderer Mahmoud Abbas denies the Holocaust and the Jewish history in the Land of Israel.

While we know the “Palestinians” are calling for the murder of Jews, we always seem to hold out hope for the international community for some reason. We hope that the Olympic Games and the high standards of ‘brotherhood and community’ ring true. But why do we bother? The “Palestinians” were first allowed to compete in the Olympics in 1996, only 24 years after the massacre. Jewish blood is cheap. Why not let them compete alongside the same people that were murdered? Sure, why not.

Here’s another shocker. Murder is already illegal in all 50 states of the union. Amazing. Carrying a gun into the Aurora, Colorado movie theatre was also illegal, but surprisingly enough this did not stop James Holmes from breaking both laws – the one against murder as well as the one against carrying a gun into a movie theatre.

We were all horrified to hear of the massacre by this lunatic, but already this action has been used as another example of why guns are bad and why we need more laws against them. So many out there, conservatives as well as liberals, are saying the stupidest things proving once again that you don’t need to know anything about a subject in order to have an opinion.

‘Ban assault weapons’ seems to be a favorite phrase. Sure, can anyone tell me what the definition of an ‘assault’ weapon is? Is it defined by how scary it looks? Defined by what material it’s made out of?

Let me clear up a misconception. There is no difference between a so-called “assault” weapon and any other gun in the way that they function. Many are all semi-automatics, which means that when the trigger is pulled – one bullet comes out. That’s it. Fully automatic guns, meaning that as long as the trigger is pulled the bullets continue to come out, have been illegal to own in the United States for almost 100 years without express permission of the government. Let me repeat, they have been illegal to own for a long time.

An assault weapon ban is stupid simply because it’s done based on how “scary” the gun looks, not on how it actually operates.

The argument that a potential gun owner should have to pass a test proving that they know how to use a gun safely is also quite ignorant. Don’t drivers also have to pass road safety tests? Does that guarantee that there are no drunk drivers or speed demons on the road? That there will be no car accidents or vehicular homicides occurring? Of course not.

All that we know about the movie theatre massacre is that there were no previous indicators pointing to Holmes plans that evening. There was no way to stop him – the laws on the books were obviously not deterrents, only another person with a gun would have been able to – but unfortunately, as we started with, only “law-abiding” citizens care about laws. and wouldn’t have been armed since the law forbade it. Since Holmes is a “criminal” no law stopped him.

Let us stop with the punditry and the posturing – especially from those who have never held or shot a gun in their life – and mourn for those who lost their lives last week and pray for those who were injured. Taking advantage of such a horrible situation is unnecessary – humanity already took a hit last week, let’s take the time to rebuild and stand by each other in this time of need.

The big story was broken by the most “trustworthy” of sources… al-Jazeera, a news network sometimes known for its terrorist ties.

Al-Jazeera’s investigation into Arafat’s death has revealed that his clothing has traces of the radioactive material polonium-210, suggesting that radioactive poisoning led to his death. Now the questions are flying… how could this happen? Who could be responsible for his death?

I have my own questions.

1. Why did al-Jazeera decide now, eight years after Arafat’s death, to test his clothing?

2. If Arafat was truly murdered – who really cares? Aren’t terrorists supposed to be targeted and killed?

Yasser Arafat created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964. Three years before the Israeli “occupation” of Judea/Samaria (West Bank) and the Gaza Strip. If the PLO was formed three years in advance of the occupation – where was this ‘Palestine’ that he was hoping to liberate?

That would obviously be the State of Israel – Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem (the western half), Be’er Sheba included. The map of Israel is included in the PLO emblem, not just the “occupied” parts, answering our question. Of course, Jordan, the eastern half of Palestine under the British Mandate was ignored. Only the Jewish presence in the Land needed to be murdered and expelled.

Yasser Arafat was a murderer of Americans as well as Israelis. Unarmed men, women and children were targets of this “liberation” movement. School buses were deemed legitimate targets. Olympics athletes as well.

In later years, Arafat supposedly became a man of “peace” – but one who spoke of war in Arabic to his brothers, and of peace to the Western media.

Yasser Arafat was a murderer, plain and simple, of hundreds of innocents. Whether or not he was targeted doesn’t much matter. The only question that matters now is why he wasn’t killed sooner.

Why not? The Dream Act is the perfect example. When President Obama was unable to pass it through Congress, and when he thought the polls supported it, he bypassed Congress and made it into law by writing a memo asking Janet Napalitano to use “prosecutorial discretion”. I’m so glad to see how as a Constitutional “scholar” how clearly he understands the separation of powers concept.

It’s a scary thought, an Executive branch that can write and pass legislation without the input of Congress. This is exactly the opposite of what a “republic” is. A republic is where the citizens of the country send a legislator to represent them in Congress to write laws for all of us. Instead of respecting the legislative process, President Obama would rather play the part of a benevolent dictator. When he feels it’s the “right thing to do” he goes out on his own and writes his own laws. We’ve seen it recently with the Dream Act, why not with the health care law? And let’s think back, is there anything else he wasn’t able to get through Congress over the last three and a half years?

The United States is considering withholding 1.3 billion dollars in military aid to Egypt if the democratic process is not respected. But why? It was not secular groups that were elected into power, rather the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalist groups. Even the office of the presidency looks like it has gone to the Brotherhood as well. Is the United States pushing Egypt toward the abyss of Islamic rule?

It’s a general rule in the study of political science that democracies do not go to war with each other. While this may hold true in western democracies with similar values, it does not for Islamist states – where war with infidels is expected. We find this in the democratically elected Gaza Strip, where Hamas was their party of choice. At this moment, at least 99 rockets have been shot into southern Israel just over the last three days. It doesn’t seem to matter to Hamas that Israel is a democracy as well.

The concept of western style democracy – respect given to differing views, opinions and religion – does not exist in the Islamic world. Why is the United States forcing the military to give up power to the Islamists? Are we so blind to think that an Islamic definition of “democracy” is the same as ours? To paraphrase a teacher of mine, “The Middle East is certainly not the middle west.”

I do suppose that the United States is being consistent. We helped unseat Hosni Mubarak after he kept the peace in the region for 30 years in the name of democracy. It’s only fair to make sure that under free and fair elections, the Islamists that were properly elected be allowed to take power – but to support democracy for the sake of democracy is a dangerous road to travel, and not one I’d want to take.

Today we commemorate Yom HaZikaron, The Day of Remembrance – remembering the thousands who fell defending the State of Israel and those who were murdered in terrorist attacks, simply because they were Jewish.

The day immediately following Yom HaZikaron is Yom Ha’atzmaut, Israel Independence Day. A day of celebration – but one that has been tempered by the previous one, and Holocaust Remembrance Day the week before.

We Jews have a long memory. During the summertime, there is the fast day of Tisha B’av, the day that brings to mind the destruction of both Holy Temples in Jerusalem as well as the many tragedies over the past 3000 years that we have survived only by holding tight to our faith in G-d.

This faith in G-d is what has sustained us over the thousands of years since it was certainly not faith in mankind. Every country that we were loyal citizens of forcibly exiled us, leaving us to wander the face of the earth.

The Holocaust, with the destruction of a third of the Jewish People, was the final proof that the world is uninterested (at best) in the security and safety of our people. Even the United States, turned it’s back on those refugees trying to enter, forcing them back to Germany, back to their certain deaths. Because of those events, Jews no longer expect or even hope for world “interest”. In fact, considering the anti-Jewish/anti-Israel sentiment at the United Nations, we would prefer “disinterest” on their part.

Many cannot understand the Jewish “hang-up” about the Holocaust, why is it not better to forgive and forget. It is clear that their trust has not been shaken by false promises and generations of loyalty shoved back in their faces.

The State of Israel is our safe haven. We no longer have to trust that the world has Jewish interests at heart – when we know they don’t. It hurts to think that there was no one on the world stage who stepped up to save those 6 million Jews, and that there wasn’t a Jewish state that those Jews could flee to. But it’s different now. 64 years later we celebrate and thank G-d for our homeland. We can take care of ourselves – to be a free people in our Land, The Land of Israel.

Yom Ha’atzmaut, Israel Independence Day, is a day that every Jew has paid dearly for in blood. We know that, unfortunately, when push comes to shove, there is nobody out there who “has our back”. Talk is cheap. Jewish blood shouldn’t be.

The point he leaves off on is certainly one to ponder:

In 2010, when all this lay hazily in the future, the sheer arrogance of Obamacare energized a popular resistance powerful enough to deliver an electoral shellacking to Obama. Yet two years later, as the consequences of that overreach materialize before our eyes, the issue is fading. This constitutes a huge failing of the opposition party whose responsibility it is to make the opposition argument.

Every presidential challenger says that he will repeal Obamacare on Day One. Well, yes. But is any of them making the case for why?

This is the biggest problem facing us right now. Since the economy is perceived to be improving despite a 15% unemployment rate (includes those who gave up looking for a job), and the underemployed. Since the perception, rather than the reality, that the economy is improving is taking the air out of the sails of the Republican candidates – it should force them to deal with the real destruction that is coming our way… ObamaCare. It’s like an avalanche slowly making it’s way down the mountain, picking up steam and enough power to crush us all.

Many liberals in the States point to Canada’s health care system as one we should emulate. It’s not true. As an American living in Canada it’s been a learning experience.

To begin with we should remember that Canada has about 30 million citizens versus the United States’ 300 million. That number in itself should give us pause. We should also be aware of the conversation taking place within Canada trying to figure out ways to save their system – which is in serious trouble – not the least that it is financially unsustainable. We’re talking about months-long waits to see specialists and to get treatment we routinely get quickly in the States.

I asked a lady in her 80s here what she thinks of the Canadian health care system. She explained that it’s great until you get old. In other words – it’s fine when you’re young, healthy, and basically don’t need more than basic care and prevention. After that, it’s trouble.

I know another man, in his early 70s, who had tremendous pain in his arm. He was able to see his general practitioner and get pain medication but had to wait months to see a specialist. Thankfully, his pain subsided – but what if it hadn’t? What if there had been something really wrong? As it was, his quality of life was severely curtailed and he was unable to do the things he normally did during the course of his day.

On the flip side of the age spectrum, I know of a baby that was in need of eye surgery. It was determined by the government insurance that it was not a critical situation. What ended up happening fell in the category of unintended consequences – what began as something relatively minor became a bigger deal. This baby, needing eye surgery, was unable to keep her balance as she began learning to walk – she then not only needed surgery, but also needed to relearn how to balance and walk properly – I’m sure needing some sort of therapy to fix the situation.

I myself, before moving to Canada, during a basketball game, tore my ACL – I had an appointment with a top specialist within the week and surgery the next month… without a referral. Here in Canada you always need a referral. I wonder how my injury would have played out here in the Canadian system.

In addition to long waits for basic medical care we must discuss the financial burden ObamaCare would place on the United States’ weak monetary situation. We currently find ourselves 15 trillion dollars in debt. ObamaCare will cost us trillions more.

To see the bill’s true first-decade costs, we need to start the clock when the costs would actually start in any meaningful way: in 2014. The CBO says that Obamacare would cost $2.0 trillion in the bill’s real first decade (from 2014 to 2023) — and much more in the decades to come.

But $2.0 trillion wouldn’t be the total ten-year costs. Instead, that would merely be the “gross cost of coverage provisions.” Based on earlier incarnations of the proposed overhaul, the total costs would be about a third higher (the exact number can’t be gleaned from the CBO’s analysis, which is only preliminary and is not a full scoring) — making the total price-tag between $2.5 and $3 trillion over the bill’s real first decade….

We’d also pay for this through increased deficits. Under strict instructions from the Democrats, the CBO gave Obamacare credit for over $400 billion (from 2014 to 2023) in phony “savings” that would allegedly result from cutting doctor’s payments under Medicare by over 20 percent and never raising them back up. As the CBO notes, one of two things could happen: Congress could either follow through on these severe pay cuts — in which case doctors would view all Medicare patients as if they have the plague — or, Congress could eliminate these pay cuts — as everyone in Washington expects to have happen under the so-called “doc fix” — in which case the CBO projects that this bill would raise deficits by over $100 billion from 2017 to 2019 alone.

Can we afford ObamaCare medically or financially?

We must all focus on the 2012 election as the one that will determine the direction our country is headed. Is it going to be one where the government controls our private lives – telling us what procedures they can afford to ‘give’ us, and which ones they can’t – or one where we, as individuals, have control over our own lives?

After all is said and done, after ObamaCare comes into effect 23 million Americans will continue to be uninsured. The argument that all of us will have insurance is simply not true.

We cannot deny that our health-care insurance industry needs to be fixed – but our health care system itself is one that many across the world depend on when their own socialized systems fail them. Our health care is second to none.

To destroy our health care system as a by-product of fixing the health-care insurance industry is foolish and puts us all at risk – those put most at risk are our elderly, whose care will be rationed first. Don’t believe me – ask my 80 year old friend how she likes it.

The Ugly Truth about Canadian Health Care

Thomas Friedman

It’s really amazing that Thomas Friedman gets paid to write. Really. How come I can’t find someone to pay me for ridiculous opinions?

His article, “We Need a Second Party“, laments that the Republican Party has become radicalized and is no longer in touch with it’s “conservative” base – creating an inability to settle on a candidate and therefore, the Republicans should consider sitting out the 2012 election. Seriously?

How convenient that Mr. Friedman forgets that the Democratic primary of 2008 stretched into early June with candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama happily bashing each other month after month. That was fun to watch.

The reason why Mr. Friedman believes that the Republican Party is no longer relevant, is because it has devolved into “conflicting ideological bases”. Really? I’m quite sure what the party stands for – a smaller, limited, Constitutionally based government, lower taxes, fewer regulations destroying business, pro-gun (aka self-defense), pro-life, and marriage = one man & one woman. I’m not sure what’s unclear about this, or how these ideas are “conflicting” or “radical” as he likes to say.

Considering the fractured nature of the Democratic Party, his thesis is in serious need of revision since the Democratic Party is mostly focused on identity politics – everyone needing for their hyphenated group to be heard over the cacophony of competing interests.

Two competing groups within the Democratic Party that made the news lately were the environmentalists and big labor. Remember the Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada? That pesky project that would have created (not saved) thousands of jobs – yeah, that one. Labor wanted that project, the environmentalists did not… ergo, no pipeline, no jobs, no energy independence. Talk about conflicting ideas. I’m so glad the President has his priorities straight.

Friedman seems to be desperate to have a reformed Republican Party – someone the Democrats can work with.

What we definitely and urgently need is a second party — a coherent Republican opposition that is offering constructive conservative proposals on the key issues and is ready for strategic compromises to advance its interests and those of the country.

Without that, the best of the Democrats — who have been willing to compromise — have no partners and the worst have a free pass for their own magical thinking.

It seems that Friedman has some magical thinking happening in his own mind. He believes that the Democrats “have been willing to compromise”. News to me. ObamaCare ring a bell for anyone? The monstrosity that is already trampling on religious freedoms in the name of the public “good”. I vaguely remember that being jammed through Congress without the support of one Republican. Pass it so we can find out what’s in it – to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi. Gosh, I have a master’s degree in political science, but I don’t remember learning that we read bills only after they’ve become law.

It seems that whenever Republicans have ideas – conservative ideas – the Democrats don’t like them. Among these ideas is how to deal with that annoying 16 trillion dollar deficit. Republicans came up with the Ryan Plan – a conservative plan created to save our security net for those who need it and reduce the deficit so we don’t end up like Greece and the rest of Europe heading down the financial toilet. Surprisingly enough, the Democrats didn’t like it. Did they put forward a plan of their own? Of course not.

I’m sure that Friedman’s issue with the Republicans isn’t that they aren’t being conservative. Understandably, it’s more along the lines of frustration with the Republicans that they aren’t willing to go along to get along with the Democrats and give them a free pass on spending.

Let’s take the payroll tax cut that was being debated until this morning. Both the Democrats and Republicans wanted to extend it – however, the money collected from that tax goes to the Social Security fund (already in trouble). The Republicans originally wanted like to know how the shortfall was going to be paid for. Seems like a reasonable question. But it seems that instead of standing on the “conservative” ideals that the party is supposed to stand for, and Mr. Friedman is so concerned about, the Republicans decided to “compromise” with the Democrats and add a chunk more money to the Federal deficit. I don’t hear the Democrats complaining that the Republicans aren’t being conservative enough.

But, you know, the more I think about Thomas Friedman’s article calling for a second party, the more I think he may have a point. Perhaps it is time to call for a second party, a reasonable party that realizes the financial straights we find ourselves in. Perhaps it is time to find a party to discuss big ideas with. Perhaps the Democrats would like to step up and volunteer to be that 2nd party?

What no one is doing is challenging the Palestinian claim to the lands known as the “West Bank” – or in fact their claim to ‘peoplehood’. The only thing being challenged is the timing and the road being taken to statehood. “Palestinian” legitimacy is being assumed… and we know where assuming takes us.

The idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an old one – centuries or millenia old is a pure fiction… but it is repeated over and over again.

Let’s take a few minutes to get our facts straight.

Where does the name “Palestine” come from?
In 135 AD, the Roman Empire attempted to break the strong connection between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel by renaming the area “Palestine” after the Philistines that had lived in the area during Biblical times.

The Philistines were a Greek-like people, not Arabs, like the “Palestinians” like to claim. The Philistines disappeared from the area by the 1st Century AD.

Ever since the Romans renamed the area – the name “Palestine” stuck. Jews and Arabs were both referred to as “Palestinians”.

The “Palestine Mandate” given to the British to administer after the First World War included both what are now the countries of Jordan and Israel.

In 1922, the British broke off 80% of the Palestine Mandate and gave it to the Hussein family – creating the country of Jordan. The Palestinians living in that area became Jordanians.

The rest of Palestine – which is now Israel – was then to be divided by the United Nations in 1947 into two states – one Arab, one Jewish. The Jews said ‘yes’, the Arabs said ‘no’ – unable to tolerate any Jewish presence in the area.

Israel declared independence in May 1948. The Jewish Palestinians then became Israelis. The Arabs in Israel had the option of becoming citizens of the Jewish state – some did and some did not. Those that did became Israelis and those that did not kept the denomination of “Palestinian”.

What needs to be understood is that these “Palestinians” are Arabs with no special claims to the Land. They chose not to be part of Jordan or Israel. There is no longer “Palestine” on the map. It is either Jordan or Israel – to claim a ‘Palestinian’ state is disingenuous.

The “Palestinian People” are a creation – a way of delegitimizing the Jewish claim to Israel. If, as they claim, the Palestinians were there first, then any Jews living in the land must be “occupiers” and do not belong there. We first see the “Palestinians” in 1964 when Yasser Arafat created the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a terrorist organization with the goal of destroying Israel. (Please note that the PLO was established before the 1967 war in which Israel captured the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip – not in response to the so-called occupation.)

That these “people” are refugees is a joke. They chose not to become citizens of either Jordan or Israel. During 1948, these Arabs left their homes in response to the invading Arab armies telling them they would be allowed to return to their homes after the Jews were driven into the sea.

It’s 60+ years later and they’re still sitting in camps bemoaning their fate. Who’s fault is it? Saudi Arabia and the oil rich Arab countries are unable to take in and care for their brothers? Guess so – but it clearly shows that that the Palestinians are there as willing pawns in the battle against Israel.

The accepted wisdom is that since the “Palestinians” occupy the same land as the Jews we must have negotiations to settle our differences – creating a two state solution, but why?

The “Palestinians” are an historical fiction. They are a tool of the Arab world, which has never accepted a Jewish presence, to destroy Israel. It is time to challenge the legitimacy of the “Palestinians” as a ‘people’ and certainly their right to a state at Israel’s expense.