Some Counter Points to Bill Clinton's Convention Speech.

The transcript of Bill Clinton's convention speech is now published, and I respond to some of its major points.

We think "we're all in this together" is a better philosophy than "you're on your own."Clinton describes a false and simplistic alternative from which to choose. Clinton gives no specifics, so it is hard to respond to the charge, but it is safe to say that Republicans do not oppose social programs created and run by the individual states, as it is in their constitutional purview to do so. We do oppose the federal fovernment from exceeding its Constitutional authority, imposing its will on the states in such matters as medical care.

Who's right? Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!
It is a fallacy to say that jobs are created by the federal government.  The government can, however, enhance the conditions under which business can flourish, where jobs are created through increased prosperity.  If the above statistics are correct, how many of those 28 Republican years were presided over by a Democrat run congress?  How many of the 24 Democrat years had a Republican majority in Congress? Clinton doesn't say.  What other economic factors were in play during the 52 years, which are even more important than who was president.  The president's ability to effect prosperity is limited by the amount of congressional support that he enjoys.  Clinton's statistics (if true) prove little or nothing.

Though I often disagree with Republicans, I never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate President Obama and the Democrats. 

Clinton may accurately describe his own attitude, but not of Democrats in general.  During the Bush years (and even now), the Democrat rank and file expressed deep hatred for Republicans, expressing a desire for their assassination or death by other means.  Just this week various Democrats have compared Republicans to Nazis.  When it comes to partisan hatred, the Democrats exceed all comers.

One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation.

Not true.  In deliberating laws governing health care, Obama did not consider or allow a single Republican proposal on the problem.  He has sought to use administrative procedures to bypass the will of Congress.  Obama is the prisoner of a rigid leftist ideology that makes him uncooperative in discussing alternatives to his vision.

the Senate Republican leader, in a remarkable moment of candor, said two years before the election, their number one priority was not to put America back to work, but to put President Obama out of work.

Putting Obama out of work is synonymous with "putting Americans back to work."  A president who believes the American founding was badly flawed, believes in keeping energy costs as high as possible, and in crippling business with high taxes and regulation, is himself a major detriment to greater employment.

I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.

Obama contributed to damaging the economy by supporting the subprime mortgage fiasco that caused the meltdown in the first place.  He did not put a floor under the crash, and his incurring substantial new debt will inhibit, not advance, the recovery.  What foundation did Obama lay for a "modern, well-balanced economy"?  Clinton doesn't say, because his statement is nothing but a glittering generality, pie-in-the-sky, big promises like those Obama made when he ran for office in 2008 -- and subsequently failed to keep.

Now there are 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than the day the companies were restructured. Governor Romney opposed the plan to save GM and Chrysler. So here's another jobs score: Obama two hundred and fifty thousand, Romney, zero.

The auto industry has suffered severe economic disadvantage due to the high pay and benefits extorted by the Democrat-supported auto workers union.  GM finally became insolvent due to Democrat policies and the aftermath of the Democrat constructed meltdown.  Now that the federal government owns General Motors, how many of those new jobs are really government jobs in disguise, i.e. paid for by taxpayers?  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, created thousands of real jobs in the private sector through his activities in Bain Capital.  

President Obama's "all of the above" energy plan is helping too – the boom in oil and gas production combined with greater energy efficiency has driven oil imports to a near 20 year low and natural gas production to an all time high. Renewable energy production has also doubled.

Barack Obama has publicly stated that he favors an increase in gas prices, and his now abandoned plan to create a carbon swapping scheme would, by his own words, "cause energy prices to skyrocket."  He has opposed new oil exploration in ANWR, vetoed the Keystone pipeline that would have added thousands of real jobs to the economy and helped to lower energy costs.  If oil imports are at a 20 year low, no doubt the decreased economic activity is a factor in that.  When it comes to energy independence, the Democratic Party is a hindrance, not a help, in achieving that goal.

Both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the President for allegedly robbing Medicare of 716 billion dollars. Here's what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits. None. What the President did was save money by cutting unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that weren't making people any healthier. He used the saving to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program, and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. It's now solvent until 2024. So President Obama and the Democrats didn't weaken Medicare, they strengthened it.

No cuts in benefits only means that the program will continue operating in the red, thus hastening the day when it becomes insolvent.  Obama took the 716 billion "savings" to fund Obamacare, not Medicare.  To say that this makes Medicare more solvent and stronger is a bald-faced lie.

Space and patience prohibits me from dissecting more of Clinton's long-winded speech, but it is safe to say that it was spin and propaganda, and not to be taken seriously as an objective description of the economy and the issues.

Sarah Palin Fights Back (Video); Answers Democrats' "Blood Libel"

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Correcting Some Conservatives on Islam: Ann Althouse and Smitty

Not everyone is crazy about the idea of "Draw Mohammed Day."  Alas, there are those conservatives with a shallow understanding of Islam, who have never read a book on the subject.  I've read about 14, including the Qur'an, so let me set these folks straight.

Ann Althouse said:

I don't like the in-your-face message that we don't care about what other people hold sacred. Back in the days of the "Piss Christ" controversy, I wouldn't have supported an "Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day" to protest censorship. Dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine is something I have a perfect right to do, but it would gratuitously hurt many Christian bystanders to the controversy. I think opposing violence (and censorship) can be done in much better ways.

Here's why you're wrong, Ann.
We DO care about "what other folks hold sacred."  Especially when what they hold sacred is oppression, murder and terror.  We care about it enough to OPPOSE it, because it erodes our personal freedoms and encourages fanatics to continue their threats of violence.

Muslims also hold the veil to be sacred, but I'll just bet Ann Althouse won't be shopping for a hijab anytime soon.  (You're so insensitive, Ann.)  Nor will she stop eating bacon for breakfast, nor will she get rid of her pet dog, nor stop listening to music, all of which "offend" Muslim sensibilities.

In any case, Ann, your argument is based on a false analogy.  No one is threatened with death for portraying a picture of Christ.  No one is threatened with death for dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine.  Muslims, on the other hand, go ballistic over any depiction of Mohammed, even those that are respectful.  It seems Muslims have many hair-triggers, all of which are easily detonated, often resulting in violence.  They need a reality check to desensitize their more disagreeable practices.  The "Draw Mohammed Day" is designed to do that, to punish bad behavior rather than accede to it.

Since Muslims hold murder to be "sacred," I do not intend to tread lightly around their sensibilities.  In my view, I am far more justified in being "offended" by Muslim practices and beliefs than they are justified in being "offended" by mine.  I too have my triggers, but none of them is wired to a bomb.

Further, Muslims are sensitive about their "prophet," one of the most evil men who ever lived.  He was a terrorist, a thief, a mass murderer, a pedophile a rapist and a liar.  The "religion" he started has killed around 280 million people since its inception.  It killed 3,000 people on 9/11 and adds to its grisly toll daily.  Islam murders people for being gay, for changing their religion, for refusing to convert.  It stones women to death for sex, genitally mutilates young girls, practices "honor" killings against children (mostly daughters) for acting "too western," for falling in love, or for refusing to marry the schmuck the family has chosen for them.

For Muslims, even those who live here in America, murder is often an acceptable practice.  There have been a number of honor killings carried out against daughters, and one Muslim beheaded his wife for seeking a divorce.  Recently I read on Red State how a Muslim grandmother smothered her 2 year old granddaughter to death, after learning the child was born out of wedlock.  Oh yes, let's be polite to Islam, a religion that turns human beings into monsters!

Islam is an evil ideology that obliterates freedom, murders great masses of innocent people in the name of God, and oppresses those who are forced to live under it.  I am deeply offended by the beliefs and practices of Islam every day and so I really DON'T CARE if my depictions of Mohammed offend any Muslims.

Second rebuttal coming up, this one for Smitty of The Other McCain.  Smitty writes in a comment at American Power:

Saberpoint is also getting rather crazy with the cheeze-whiz.  It's important to note that political correctness, not Islam as such, is the target here.

See my comments to Ann Althouse, Smitty.  They apply to you too.

In any case, you are incorrect.  It isn't merely "political correctness," a form of self-censorship based on fear of social ostracism, that is in play here.  It is MURDER and COWARDICE.  Muslim murder, which is a daily occurrence, and western cowardice in failing to oppose it within our own borders.  Perhaps I should also add Western IGNORANCE, a failure to understand the history, beliefs, goals and practices of Islam.  No offense, Smitty, but I think you may fall into this latter category.

I oppose Islam for the same reasons that Geert Wilders and Laurence Auster oppose it, because it is incompatible with western democracy and pluralism.  It is a time bomb that will eventually destroy our way of life.  Your great grandaughter, Smitty, probably has a veil in her future.

SATIRE is an appropriate and effective response to Muslim extremism.  Yid With Lid recently had an article on that very subject.  Muslims welcome death, so do not fear guns and bombs.  But they have no way of dealing with satire and they greatly fear it.  It is a potent weapon against Islamic tyranny and I intend to use it, "cheese-whiz" or not.