Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Jerusalem!

Breaking from his predecessors, President Trump today gave official US recognition to Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, and ordered the State Department to start the process of relocating the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trump: "Israel is a sovereign nation with the right, like every other sovereign nation to determine its own capital. Acknowledging this fact is a necessary condition for achieving peace." Exactly. How can we expect the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world to acknowledge the reality of Jerusalem as Israel's capital if the US and the rest of the Western world will not do so?

Jerusalem has been the "capital" of the Jewish people for 3000 years, and the official capital of the modern State of Israel since its birth in 1948. The Left, including the Jewish Left, has it backwards. For example, the VP of government affairs of "J Street" (which holds itself out as a pro-Israel group, but to conservatives appears to be anything but) said this: "It (the US embassy) shouldn't be moved prior to agreement by the parties to the conflict as part of a comprehensive agreement ending the conflict."

But for those who still foresee a possibility of peace, J Street and others on the Left have it backwards. As Oren Dorell noted in Today's USA Today: "The Palestinians have learned that by saying "no" they can always get something better next time. They have to learn that if they say no, next time they won't get the same offer." Yes, that is how the real world works. The appeasement promulgated by the Left never works. It has only encouraged the "Palestinians" to seek the ultimate destruction of Israel.

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), having voted for the 1995 resolution for the US embassy to be moved to Jerusalem, is now suddenly opposed. Feinstein fears that the move will "spark violence, further alienate the United States and undermine the prospects of a two-state solution." Spark violence? That is the equivalent of giving a "heckler's veto" - denying the right to speak because the audience may behave badly. It is also similar to: "let the kid have what he wants so he stops crying/complaining."

The British and French, not surprisingly, are opposed to the move. British P.M. May said this: our "longstanding" position "is that the status of Jerusalem should be determined in negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians..." Oh, really? So, Madam Prime Minister, how is it that you and your French counterparts voted for the UN Security Council resolution on December 23, 2016, condemning Israel, and ceding "East Jerusalem" to the Palestinians? You ceded the holiest sites in Judaism to the Palestinians. You call that a negotiated settlement?

So how did the Arab/Palestinian world react to Trump's declaration? Let's see. The Palestinians were burning the US flag in Gaza. (Meanwhile, Israel was projecting a large image of the US flag on the Western Wall.) Hamas said that Trump opened "the gates of hell." And in case anyone doubts their intentions, Hamas also said that Trump's action "will not succeed in changing the reality of Jerusalem being Islamic Arab land." How is that? The Jewish people have been around for over 3000 years; Islam started in about 600 C.E. That's 1400 years by my count. And the PA's chief representative to Britain said this: "He (Trump) is declaring war in the Middle East, he is declaring war against 1.5 billion Muslims."

None of that is true. Trump did not declare that Israel will maintain sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. The placement of the US embassy will undoubtedly be in the western part of Jerusalem, where the Israeli government offices are, and have been, for the last 70 years. Trump: "But today we finally acknowledge the obvious. That Jerusalem is Israel's capital. This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality." By making this move Trump is showing his conservative stripes - he is letting reality dictate his belief about where the embassy should be. We'll allow the Left to continue in their dream world of letting their beliefs dictate their reality.

I cannot end this post without once again demonstrating the total lack of candor and honesty displayed by the New York Times in their December 6, 2017 editorial on Trump's anticipated announcement on Jerusalem. They claim that the big winner is Israeli PM Netanyahu, "whose hard-line government has shown no serious interest in peace." What "interest in peace" have the Arabs shown? Would that be all the thousands of missiles launched at Israel? The intifadas? The paying of thousands of dollars (US dollars, no less) to the murderers of Israelis? Then, the Times resorts to the Left-wing hand-wringing over what the reaction of the Arab world will be, as if it has been wonderful to date. Then, this gem - after expecting the negative reaction from the Saudis, they write that "Jerusalem is home to the Aqsa Mosque and that the Saudi king holds the title of custodian of Islam's two other holiest mosques, in Mecca and Medina."

Nice deflection. The Times, the so-called "paper of record," with "all the news that's fit to print," does not bother to inform its readers of the following little tidbit. After Israel won the the 1967 war, and captured the rest of Jerusalem with the Jewish Holy sites and the Aqsa Mosque, they turned over control of the Temple Mount where the mosque sits to the Jordanian Waqf. That's right. The Temple Mount, also the holiest site in Judaism, was turned over to the Jordanians. Keep in mind that when the Jordanians had control from 1948 until the 1967 war, Israelis were not given access to their holy sites. Under Israeli military control, Jews, Christians and Muslims all have access to their holy sites. Just a little tidbit that the "paper of record" did not see fit to comment upon.

Saturday, December 2, 2017

Year End Reflections, Part II (Privilege)

"Privilege," especially the idea of "white privilege," is currently a very big deal on college campuses and generally on the Left. One professor at the City University of New York expressed this: "the white-nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy." The professor also complained about "reproducing white children" that are "part of the problem." Also, when white people leave their homes to their children, they are perpetuating inequality.

At an Ohio State University workshop students were told "whiteness grants you power and access to things." And students were also told that only white people are capable of being racist, and that whites can never be "victims." None of this compares to the comments by a now terminated nurse at the Indiana University Health Hospital. "Every white woman raises a detriment to society when they raise a son. Someone with the HIGHEST propensity to be a terrorist, rapist, racist killer, and domestic violence all star. Historically every son you had should be sacrificed to the wolves b....."

My first observation is that post Obama we are clearly not a post-racial society. As I mentioned often during Obama's eight years in office, rather than acting as a unifying President, he was divisive and encouraged a sense of "victimhood" in the black community. The idea of "white privilege" is by its very nature a racist concept. After all, racism is treating people a certain way simply based on their race or skin color. The individual is not even recognized as such.

This idea of "privilege" is, unfortunately, not restricted to white people. In a recent edition of the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, a UCLA student penned an article with this title: "Are Jewish College Students Privileged?" Discussing another Jewish student's comments, the writer states that this other student suffered from a "moral conflict he felt as an American Jew. Yes, Jews face anti-Semitism, sometimes subtly and other times hideously, but Jews also have a come a long way - succeeding at getting our foot in the door of American politics and, by extension, American privilege."

Here's a question. When I think about the Jews who came here after the Holocaust with nothing but the clothes they were wearing, but managed to make a life for themselves and their families, should they be embarrassed about their success? Said the UCLA student: "If Jewish students want to be true partners to our progressive peers, it is our responsibility to check our privilege..." Check our privilege? What does that mean? Stop being white? Stop being Jewish? Don't speak?

This is the kind of drivel that young people are taught at college. I don't know about the rest of you, but I learned that we treat people as individuals. That is also what I taught my children. It is not just discriminatory/racist to treat people as members of groups (black vs white, for example). Think of the various genocides committed throughout history. Genocides were committed because one group was unable to see the individual humanity in others. If the above referenced professor thinks white children are the problem, I am reluctant to ponder what that professor would see as a solution. And the nurse mentioned above? If whites are rapists and killers, well, we can only imagine what her solution would be. Would it be similar to Hitler's "Final Solution" for the Jews? So, allow me to correct myself. This is not simply drivel that college students are being taught about "privilege." It is dangerous and evil.

Year End Reflections, Part I (Sexual Harassment)

On the old TV show Laugh-In (1968-1973) there was a recurring skit with Ruth Buzzi sitting on one end of a park bench, clutching her purse. Arte Johnson, playing the dirty old man, would sit down on the opposite side of the bench, and then sidle over next to Buzzi. He would then ask her: "Do you believe in the hereafter?" She would nod or state her agreement, after which he would reply: "Then you know what I'm here after." Newsflash: all men believe in the hereafter.

The number of famous, wealthy and powerful men now accused of sexual harassment is getting too numerous for me to list them all. I have often held, however, that the rich and famous do not believe that the regular norms of society apply to them. Clearly, the behavior of these men confirms my belief. Journalist Angela Rocco DeCarlo recently wrote in a piece in the Wall Street Journal that her mother told her: "Never go to a man's hotel room." Noting that her mother likely was never in a hotel room, DeCarlo concurred: "...going to a man's hotel room alone is rarely a smart choice."

Then, DeCarlo referred to a story in her local paper showing a picture of a teenage girl with a low neckline holding this sign: "Instead of body shaming girls, teach boys that girls are not sexual objects." DeCarlo then commented on the idea that "girls should be able to appear in any state of undress and no one, especially boys, (has) any right to react." DeCarlo: "Sorry, young lady. The world doesn't work that way. Somebody should have told you."

But, the Left would never teach that. Not only would that idea be contrary to their idea of sexual "equality," and their idea that men and women are the same, it is a further reminder of my oft repeated truism that the Left lets their beliefs dictate their reality (whereas conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs). After all, look at how the Left mocked Mike Pence for saying that he would not dine alone with a woman, or be at an affair where alcohol is served unless his wife was also present. What's wrong with Pence? Isn't he able to control himself? I am sure that a man such as Pence is able to do that, but he also understands the concept of temptation, and that sometimes we may do things which we will immediately regret doing.

Earlier this year, Robin Abcarian wrote a piece for the LA Times about Pence. First, she states that "removing temptation (in the form of women) from men is a staple of many patriarchal faiths." But, she then asserts that there is "a more important principle...in the eyes of the law and the government, women are equal to men. They are deserving of the same workplace opportunities that historically have presented themselves to men. If professional women and men cannot be alone together, women are the ones who will pay a price. They will not have the kind of mentoring that promotes workplace advancement. They will not develop the same kinds of relationships with bosses that their male colleagues do. They will lose out."

I agree that Ms. Abcarian makes some legitimate points. What is left out of the analysis, however, is that the law is one thing, reality is another. Just how many cases of sexual harassment cases do we need to hear about before that point sinks in? Before I receive any criticism, allow me to make clear that I do not condone sexual (or other) harassment. I have never cheated on my wife and do not condone those who cheat on their spouse. I do believe women should be treated as equal to men under the law. And I do believe that men should control themselves. But I do not see how not understanding men's sexual nature benefits anyone. It is a matter of letting reality dictating my beliefs.

After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that he believed the women accusing Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, the New York Times ran an editorial entitled "Republicans Finally Believe Women." The Times never passes on an opportunity to score political points - even when the facts are not on their side. I am curious as to how the Times would explain the utter silence of the Leftists in Hollywood ignoring for decades the cases of sexual harassment occurring all around them. Then, the Times makes this feeble concession: "Some Democrats maligned the women who had accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment, molestation and rape as looney tunes and trailer trash." Some Democrats? Don't they mean most Democrats, including their 2016 Presidential choice Hillary Clinton? I have long ago abandoned hope of Times' editorials demonstrating journalistic integrity.

Sunday, November 12, 2017

More Stories From My Youth

(Note: On 7/22/17 I wrote a post entitled "Lessons From My Childhood." It turned out to be a rather popular post. Therefore, what follows are some additional stories.)

I started getting some numbness and tingling down my legs when I was 15 years old. By age 16 the numbness and tingling disappeared, replaced by severe pain and burning. The pain necessitated the use of a cane, as the pain radiated into the right groin making it impossible to fully extend my leg, and nearly impossible to put any weight on that side while walking. When the pain was at its worst, I would lay in bed for 48 to 50 hours straight without one second of sleep, unable to find any position which would allow me to have even a few minutes of respite. Needless to say, I missed a lot of high school. The unremitting pain and lack of sleep at times caused me to wish that I was dead.

On the bright side, I did have people come to visit me while I was laid up. Two girls with whom I was friendly were regular visitors. One, I grew up with in the neighborhood, and the other I met in school. Although I am rarely in touch with either one, I remain grateful for their visits and the comfort that they provided. One of "the boys" with whom I remain friends, lived directly downstairs from us. His parents would both come up to see me. His Mom would bring me candy, and sit and talk with me. His Dad would stand at the door to my room and yell: "What are you doing? Get out of that bed!" I did not take it well. A number of years passed by before I understood what he was doing. He did not want me to be a victim, or to play the sick role. He pushed me to do the best that I could do, given my circumstances. I did not get it at the time.

I was very shy throughout public school. I was fine with "the boys" (as I call them), but I was always reluctant to speak in class. Missing so much high school did not exactly enhance my self-confidence and interaction with my classmates. College, however, was another matter altogether. I was able to find my voice, and break out of my shell. I became a schmoozer; and, as those who know me are aware, I remain a schmoozer to this day. I have, at times, been criticized for taking up too much of people's time with schmoozing, especially in the work setting. However, I always make it a point of trying to establish a personal relationship, even with those who hold adversarial positions.

One time, years ago, when my wife and I were in Las Vegas, we were walking through a very long hallway from one hotel to another. Halfway through the hallway was an older gentleman (probably younger than I am now) with a walkie-talkie. He was obviously employed by one or both of the hotels, not to be a security guard, but to call in any accidents or disturbances or the like. As I watched dozens and dozens of people walk right by him, I walked up to him and engaged him in conversation. The conversation lasted maybe 15-20 minutes. By the time we were done and we were walking away, he was smiling and I felt like I made his day. Therefore, I will gladly accept the criticism of, at times, carrying on for too long, if I have succeeded in brightening the day of even one person.

When we were kids, before my back problems, we would play so many different sports - punch ball, wiffle ball, stick ball, touch football and various other outdoor games. We rarely lacked the necessary number of participants, growing up in an apartment complex, with another apartment complex and single family homes nearby. We were kids who would choose up sides. No parents were involved, or watching. We made up rules as the number of players and size of the field warranted. And we had fun. Sometimes my team won, and sometimes we lost; well, except for punch ball. I happened to be the undisputed best punch ball player, and whichever side I was on won. In punch ball you would hold the Spalding rubber ball in one hand, toss it up slightly, and punch it with the other hand. I was just a little guy, but it was all in the technique, the flexing of the wrist.

Childhood sports brings me to another topic. I attended Hebrew school two days per week, starting after public school ended, during fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh grades, after which I became a Bar Mitzvah. However, while I did well in public school and Hebrew school, we got a separate grade for attending Saturday morning Junior Congregation. For that, I would usually get an "F." You see, all the boys in the neighborhood would be up and playing outside on Saturday mornings. On the one hand, I am glad I participated in the sports, as I did go on the DL at age 15, ending my would-be sports career. Okay, I never would have made it in any sport, but it was fun. On the other hand, in my later years, up to and including today, I regret not having attended Junior Congregation, leaving me somewhat deficient in my Hebrew language skills.

I am fortunate to have remained friends with "the boys" with whom I grew up. I have also remained friends with two of the guys I met in college. One became a family doctor, having known that being a doctor was his long time calling. The other became an attorney, rising to a high level in his state's government. While we shared similar political views in college, I have undoubtedly moved further to the right than they have. While some believe it is impossible to be friends with those who hold opposing political views, I am not of that mind. These two honorable men, of fine moral character, are men that I am proud to call "friend."

When my brother and I were kids, our parents bought the World Book Encyclopedia for us. It was, to me, one of the best presents ever. In the age of the world before computers, the World Book opened up the entire world to us. Pick a country, pick a scientific issue, pick a president, pick some historic event or era - it was all at our fingertips. The entire world. History, geography, science. I have had an unending interest in learning ever since, and I can never thank my parents enough.

Saturday, November 4, 2017

Elsewhere in the News...

George Washington and his family attended the Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia. In the section where his family sat is a plaque honoring Washington. The plaque has to come down because "the plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome." There it is. As predicted, the beginning of the end of George Washington as the Father of our country. From statues to schools being renamed to dead white men who owned slaves. I would never justify slavery. But, it will only be a matter of time until our capital city is renamed. As in 1984, as in the former USSR, history must be rewritten as the times require.

Are you a techie? If you are, but you were born white and male and are straight, then you need not apply for 8 open tech jobs at the DNC. Fox is reporting that the DNC's Data Service Manager sent an email explaining "I personally would prefer that you not forward (the list of job openings) to cisgender straight white males, as they are already in the majority." Substitute the phrase "cisgender straight white males" for any other identifiable group (women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, etc.) and we immediately see the illegality of the discrimination being proposed. The DNC leadership disavowed authorizing that memo; but it certainly gives some insight into the thinking of some at the DNC.

A poll was recently done by YouGov with a group called "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation." As reported by Fox, the poll questioned millennials about their societal preferences. Shockingly, only 42% prefer living in a capitalist country. 45% would prefer living in a socialist country, with 7% preferring to live in a communist country. 43% of millennials agree that speech should be restricted to assure it is not offensive. (Again, shockingly, that percentage closely tracks with other age groups.) The conclusion is I draw is that freedom is not a particularly high value for millennials. They have been taught that equality is more important, that feelings are more important. They do not seem to get the fact that speech that offends no one does not need First Amendment protection. They do not get that American capitalism has created more wealth for more people than any other country in human history.

Following the recent terror attack in lower Manhattan, President Trump Tweeted (surprise!) "I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this." He also Tweeted: "In NYC, looks like another attack by a very sick and deranged person." It did not take long for Trump to blame Chuck Schumer for sponsoring the legislation enabling people like this terrorist to come to the US (the diversity visa lottery program). Trump has also Tweeted that the perpetrator should get the death penalty. Readers may recall my criticisms of Obama for getting involved in local criminal matters, which a President should not do. While the Manhattan terrorist will be charged with federal crimes (and perhaps subsequently with state crimes), the President should still stay out of it.

As for the accusation by the Left that Trump tried to immediately politicize the attack (he did go after Schumer) when he should have tried to unite people - yes and no. Of course, I prefer to see and hear a unifying message at a time like this. But I said "no" also because let's get real. Democrats have consistently done the same thing, and worse. After the horrific Las Vegas massacre, the Dems wasted no time in politicizing the event with immediate proposals for gun control. Even worse, the Leftist Dems criticized those who expressed sympathy for the victims - if those same people also supported the Second Amendment right to gun ownership.

The Repubs have a tax plan. They want to cut the rate on corporate taxes from 35% to 20%, which would bring us more in line with other developed countries. The idea is to encourage the use of that saved money for job creation. They also propose increasing the estate tax exemption from estates worth $5 million to those worth $10 million, and eventually phasing it out after six years. I am in favor. The estate tax always seemed like double taxation to me. Additionally, surviving family members should not have to sell the family business just to be able to come up with enough money to pay the tax when the family member/owner dies. The plan also proposes to reduce the number of income tax brackets from seven to four: 12%, 25%, 35% and 39.6%. They should have reduced it to three, eliminating the too high 39.6% bracket.

The standard deduction for individuals would increase from $6350 to $12,000, with the deduction for married couples filing jointly increasing from $12,700 to $24,000. The biggest controversies center around the elimination and/or reduction of deductions. Currently, interest on mortgage payments are deductible for loans up to $1 million. That will be reduced to $500,000 under the proposed law. That will definitely affect people in California and other states which have high prices for residential properties. Many homes in California are priced between $500,000 and $1 million. Without getting the full benefit of deducting all the interest payments on those higher loans, people will think twice about buying, ultimately depressing prices. Combine that with the proposed $10,000 limit on deductions for state and local property taxes, and it is hard to see how prices will not be affected.

I am all in favor of simplifying the tax code. Better yet, I am in favor of eliminating the IRS. Might this be a step in the direction of a flat tax? What if we had a flat tax of 10% with no deductions at all? We all know what would happen. In time that flat tax would go up to 15%, 20%, 25% and higher - with no deductions left. The 1913 rate was 1% for incomes over $3000 and 6% for incomes over $500,000. Look where we are today. What if we eliminated the federal income tax altogether and replaced it with a value added tax? The wealthy would pay more because they spend more. No more abusive IRS targeting people for their political beliefs. And here's an idea that many of us would like to see a Republican Congress actually supporting - lower spending so that we can lower taxes even more. Personally, I do not view a $4 trillion budget passed by Republicans as being particularly conservative.

Russian Collusion?

The Story. The Hillary Clinton campaign/the DNC (which we just learned from Donna Brazile were one and the same) sought opposition research on Donald Trump. Clinton/DNC hired the law firm Perkins Coie, which in turn hired opposition research firm Fusion GPS, who then hired former British spy Christopher Steele. The so-called anti-Trump "dossier" put together by Steele for Fusion GPS was filled with lies; or, as James Comey later referred to it, it was "salacious and unverified." Nine million dollars was paid by Clinton/DNC for this "dossier."

Current DNC Chair, Tom Perez, claims no knowledge of this payment to Perkins Coie, which paid for the "dossier." Former DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, also claims no knowledge. No law firm is spending nine million dollars for a client unless that client fronted the money, or authorized the expenditure in advance. Now the question is: if Clinton and the DNC had this "dossier," is it not likely that they shared the information with the top people in the Obama Administration? Which then leads to the question of why Samantha Power and Susan Rice improperly sought the unmasking of Americans in captured conversations with foreign nationals. Would it surprise anyone that Obama was looking for some evidence of Trump misconduct, based on the lies in the "dossier," in order to stop the man who promised to undo much of Obama's legacy?

As Kimberly Strassel states in her 10/27/17 piece in the Wall Street Journal: "...someone at the DNC and at the Clinton campaign will need to explain how they somehow both forgot to list Fusion as a vendor in their campaign-finance filings," noting that a "willful evasion" has possible criminal consequences. In light of Donna Brazile's revelation that the Clinton campaign secretly took control of the DNC during the primaries, possibly illegally undermining the Bernie Sanders campaign, is anyone still willing to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt on any of this?

Meanwhile, Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced indictments of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his business partner Richard Gates. The indictment seems to deal with Manafort's actions between 2008 and 2014. The charges include failing to register as an agent for a foreign government (Ukraine), and then sending his earnings to offshore accounts and "forgetting" to declare that income to the IRS. Mueller also announced a guilty plea earlier in the year by George Papadopoulos for lying to the FBI; a plea kept quiet by Mueller presumably to send Papadopoulos undercover in an effort to get dirt on people in the Trump Administration.

The Takeaway. Was there collusion between Clinton, the DNC, the Obama White House and James Comey to undermine the Trump campaign and subsequent Trump Administration through the use of this paid for "dossier" filled with lies? Think about it. Last summer James Comey gave a press conference laying out the criminal case against Hillary Clinton regarding her use of a private email server and destruction of 33,000 emails. He then shocked everyone by concluding that Clinton did not have criminal "intent" even though the criminal statute in question regarding handling of classified information only required "gross negligence." Well, Mr. Comey asserted that Ms. Clinton was "extremely careless." Can anyone tell me the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness?" Furthermore, we now know that Comey made his statement exonerating Clinton before the FBI even interviewed her.

Did Comey give Trump the same benefit of the doubt? Hardly. He admitted to leaking private communications with Trump to a friend who in turn leaked the information to the New York Times - all in the hope that the result would be the appointment of a special counsel. How do we know that was Comey's intent? Because he admitted it. Combine that with all the false allegations in the Trump "dossier," which the FBI may have relied on for their own investigation, and then combine that with the likely illegal unmasking of American's names by White House officials - that sure sounds like collusion to me.

Here are some questions. Who will investigate the Clinton/DNC collusion which undermined the Sanders campaign? After all, if Clinton was able to secretly get money from the DNC, were those transfers legal? Did she report them? Sadly, AG Jeff Sessions has shown little interest in any of this. Will the FBI investigate? The FEC? Or, as has happened many times before, do the Clintons get another pass? I am amused when my friends on the Left tell me that Clinton is unimportant because she lost. She is old news. Is that the new legal standard - lose an election and you escape legal scrutiny? Old news? Obama complained about Bush for for eight years; but I am told I should not be bringing up Clinton.

Here are some more questions. We all thought Mueller's job was to look into illegal collusion with Russia. So why is a special counsel the one issuing indictments against Paul Manafort on matters unrelated to the Trump campaign? The US has 93 United States Attorneys whose jobs are to prosecute those accused of federal crimes. Why, then, is Mueller the one prosecuting Manafort for what looks like tax evasion, instead of one of the US Attorneys? They are the ones who ordinarily prosecute such crimes. Doesn't this have the appearance of nothing other than a "fishing expedition" which Mueller will continue until such time as he believes he has a prosecutable case against Trump? Not because he necessarily wants to prosecute Trump, although he may. But more likely to use an indictment in order to accomplish the Democrats' goal from the day Trump was inaugurated - impeachment.

Caroline Glick generally comments on the Middle East. But here is her take on what is happening in the US (and to a certain extent to P.M. Netanyahu in Israel): "Unable to win elections, they (the Left) exploit their control over the bureaucracy and media to overturn election results. There can be no greater threat to the health of a liberal democracy than that." Doesn't that explain why Democratic politicians and the mainstream media have been talking up impeachment since Trump's first day in office? And isn't that what Mueller's witch hunt is all about? Not only have the Democrats been unable to accept the election results, it is also clear that the "swamp" will fight back.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Can Politics Get Any More Indecent?

Recently, four US soldiers were killed in Niger. President Trump's telephone call to the widow of Army Sgt. La David Johnson has needlessly turned into a political controversy. It would appear that Florida Representative Frederica Wilson (a Democrat) was determined to cause this dust up in order to make Trump look bad. But, to any right thinking person she is the one who looks petty and spiteful.

As the story goes, Rep. Wilson was apparently in the car with Sgt. Johnson's widow when the call came in from the President and was on the car's Bluetooth, enabling the Congresswoman to listen in. It seems to me, that as a matter of common courtesy, when a call comes in with others listening, especially a member of Congress, from the President of the United States no less, the first thing that Congresswoman ought to have done was identify herself as being present. Why did she not do so?

Then, we are told that Trump said to the widow that the Sgt. "Knew what he signed up for." And? I can draw no conclusions from that. If Trump said in an oft-handed way, "well, (like "too bad") but he knew what he signed up for," that's one thing. If, however, he said that the Sgt. was doing what he wanted - serving this country - notwithstanding that "he knew what he signed up for," that is quite another thing. And if Trump stumbled over his words during such a difficult call, so what? Who might not stumble?

Brian Fallon, a former spokesperson for Hillary Clinton went after General John Kelly, Trump's Chief of Staff and himself a Gold Star Dad, because Kelly defended Trump regarding the call. Fallon: "Kelly isn't just an enabler of Trump. He's a believer in him. That makes him as odious as the rest. Don't be distracted by the uniform." The Congresswoman later threw this accusation, saying the "White House itself is full of white supremacists."

This has got to stop! Clearly, the politicians have no interest in leading the way. Therefore, individual Americans - you and I - need to lead the way. If we are unable to address each other with even a modicum of respect, then I really do not know what country we have left.