Selective Visa Reciprocity

There is nothing simple as far as America's relationships with Middle East nations goes.  This is true even when there is an Administration that is driven by true American values; it is all the more true when the Administration in power has based its foreign policy upon continual apology to the world for being American.

As reported in various news outlets, there is legislation now in the House and in the Senate which would, among other things, designate Israel as a Visa Waiver Program country, but would not provide for total reciprocity because it would effectively give Israel greater discretion to reject American passports than the United States to reject Israeli passports.  This has some people all upset.

Whether such asymmetry is or is not appropriate is a matter of personal opinion.   For the record, I strongly believe it to be appropriate, given the relative and actual numbers of American passport holders who have avowed to destroy Israel and exterminate its citizens, as compared to the relative and actual numbers of Israeli passport holders who have avowed to destroy America and exterminate its citizens.  [Never mind that so many of the American passport holders who have avowed to destroy Israel and exterminate its citizens have also vowed similar for America.].

But if you are going to piss and moan and whine about Israel not giving visiting Americans 100% of the same privileges the United States extends to visiting Israelis, then don't single out Israel!  Demand that Mexico give Americans who are illegally in Mexico free access to education, healthcare, public assistance and other such privileges of Mexican citizens.  Ditto for all other countries.

Hold all the other countries to the same standard to which you would hold Israel!

Gunning for Tax Credits

Representative Rosa DeLauro, from Connecticut's 3rd District, has introduced H.R. 226 in the 113th Congress. Raul Grijalva, from Arizona's 3rd District, is the co-sponsor.

H.R. 226 would give a $2,000 tax credit to those who surrender their so-called "assault weapons" to law enforcement authorities.  The tax credit is refundable, which is to say that if the tax owed is less than the credit, the IRS cuts a check to the taxpayer claiming the credit (there are some tax credits which are limited to the amount of tax owed, and are not refundable).

The bill's main flaw (other than being an unabashed attack on our Second Amendment rights) is that the weapon must be "legally possessed" in order for the credit to be claimed.  One must wonder how this poorly conceived legislation will do anything to remove the illegally possessed weapons from hands of criminals.

The other problem is that it is a tax measure.  If the Internal Revenue Code needs to be simplified, adding another provision to it is counterproductive.

Besides, taxation corrupts!  It is not difficult to envision all kinds of so-called "tax shelters" to game the system with this one.  Surely an item that technically conforms to the bill's definition of a specified assault weapon (the proposed legislation does not seem to require that the weapons be operative) can be manufactured and distributed for significantly less than $2,000, purchased, and turned in to the law enforcement authorities.

And while the laws enacted by Congress can be violated, the laws of supply and demand are inviolate.  Enactment of this tax credit provision will drive up the price of the guns, thereby increasing the profit margins in their manufacture.  How would that remove guns from society? [I know, I know.  The registration requirements, according to the gun-grabber advocates, will prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.].

The bill is bad policy all around.  The tax pundits do not expect this bill to come out of committee (though nothing is a sure thing under the Dome in Washington).

The legislation should be shot down!

Why the Battle of Albany was Lost

Until now, I really, really, have been too engrossed and occupied to comment on this same-gender marriage law enacted by the New York State Legislature. This one truly causes conflicting sentiments.

On one hand, I abhor and detest the very thought of same-gender sexual relationships.

On the other hand, what consenting adults do or do not do in that aspect of their lives is, all else being equal, a private and personal matter into which nobody should intrude, least of all the government.

The two men (or two women) who live together in a homosexual relationship, all else being equal, are not threatening anyone else's lives, safety or marriage. And so, as much as I disapprove of such relationships, I do not view it as any business into which I should personally insinuate myself.

The problem is that there is an extremely nefarious element amongst the homosexual community. There are those who actively seek to impose their own sexual values upon the rest of society, including and especially the recruitment of adolescent youths (and, for that matter, younger individuals).

There are many who claim that this so-called "gay marriage" law is merely a civil rights matter, and that all they wish to do is live and let live. But too, too many of these same advocates of "same-sex marriage" have tolerated if not encouraged the active participation of groups such as NAMBLA in their "gay pride parades" and other events. NAMBLA's unabashed agenda is very coercive, brutal and violent, and a menace to society.

There is a need to make distinction between the civil rights of individuals who happen to espouse homosexual preferences, and those who would use the civil rights line as an instrument to advance their violent and evil agenda.

The two most vocal lobbies against the legislation in Albany were the Catholic Church and the Agudath Israel of America. Why did they fail to stop the legislation?

My theory is that each of those two organizations has, over the past 10 or 20 years, ceded the moral high ground which they had previously occupied. And each of those two organizations has gotten a little more than a tiny bit arrogant in claiming the high moral ground they in fact have been in the process of abandoning.

Others who are or were more intimately involved with the Catholic Church can certainly provide more detailed accounts of the Church's lapses; my expertise in this area is effectively limited to what I read in the media, mainstream and otherwise.

But, as reflected in prior postings, I do have firsthand personal knowledge of the Agudath Israel of America and its strengths and weaknesses. The Agudah's stances on sexual misconduct have been too hypocritical for them to effectively hold the moral high ground, and have been exacerbated by their support of the wrong side in criminal matters other than sexual misconduct.

Sexual matters notwithstanding, the various religious Jewish organizations, including but not limited to the Agudath Israel, have made another mistake which has served to compound their losses of stature as exemplars of morality, namely, they have played the wrong political cards. For many years the religious Jewish newspapers have all been fawning over Sheldon Silver, the powerful New York State Assembly Speaker, because he happens to be a nominally religious Jew and he happens to be a Sabbath observer. They have done this even when they disagreed with his political stance. And, in the case of the same-gender marriage legislation, the Agudath Israel got bitten in the toochas by its inane presumption that Shelly Silver's religious values would trump his political agenda for such an important issue.

Before the Catholic Church and the Agudath Israel of America can deign to dictate morality, they will need to clean up their acts and reclaim the moral high ground. As matters currently stand, Governor Andrew Cuomo's morality score is, in many respects, higher than that of either organization.