Friday, December 30, 2016

Kerry Tries to Justify the Unjustifiable

On Wednesday, I sat through the entire 70 minute speech by John Kerry regarding the UN resolution against Israel. Much of it was spent explaining how good Obama has been to Israel - providing aid, vetoing previous resolutions and so on. It was all done in an effort to justify the USA's abstention on a measure giving a state to the Palestinians, and taking away the holiest sites in Judaism from the Jews. Afterwards, I likened the speech to a man explaining to the police how he really loved his girlfriend and regularly showered her with gifts and flowers - right up to the day he stabbed her in the back and killed her. In any event, here are some of the highlights (lowlights, actually) of Kerry's speech.

"President Obama and I have made it clear to the Palestinian leadership countless times, publicly and privately, that all incitement to violence must stop." Countless times? Doesn't that tell you that the Palestinians are not listening? Doesn't it also tell you that their true interest is in killing Jews? THEY"RE NOT LISTENING you dumb ... (I will not do it. I have never cursed in the blog and as angry as I am I will not start now.)

"Now you may have heard that some criticize this resolution for calling East Jerusalem occupied territory. But to be clear, there was absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution on that issue." Wow! That was a big whopper of a lie. It was US policy that Jerusalem was one of those "final status" issues to be resolved by negotiations between the parties. Here is what the resolution said: Israel must "cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem..." Given that the resolution declares East Jerusalem to be "Palestinian territory," I would like Secretary Kerry to explain how that is "nothing new" in terms of policy.

"The United States did not draft or originate this resolution, nor did we put it forward." That is hardly a denial of some type of US involvement. New Zealand was one of the countries that put it forward. What was Kerry doing in New Zealand in November? Some other big issues between the US and New Zealand? Kerry met with the leading PA negotiator beforehand. Why? Does anyone really think that the Security Council would have bothered with this just before Christmas unless they knew that the USA would not use its veto power, thus allowing the measure to pass.

"The Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel, subject to Israeli law. Does anyone here really believe that the settlers will agree to submit to Palestinian law in Palestine?" Excuse me! Is Kerry saying that Jews would be treated badly under Palestinian law and therefore would not want to stay? Is Kerry defending the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a future Palestinian state? As usual, nothing is to be expected from the Palestinians. Certainly not allowing freedom of religion to all people within their future state. Here is what I think - Kerry and Obama know that they are helping to create a non-democratic, terrorist state on Israel's border, and they simply do not care.

Kerry also said that absent a two state solution Israel will be unable to remain both Jewish and democratic. So, his big concern is that Israel remain democratic, after already suggesting that he knows a future Palestinian state will not be democratic (see above paragraph). Obama was not very "democratic" when he placed the Iranian nuke deal before the UNSC instead of the US Senate. Obama was not very "democratic" when the majority of people opposed the ACA, but he signed it into law anyway. Is it "democratic" for Obama to issue one executive order after the next, while saying that "if Congress won't act, I will." Who makes the laws in this country?

Kerry ended his speech by laying out six principles for further discussion. Here is one of the six: "Fulfill the vision of the UN General Assembly resolution 181 of two states for two peoples - one Jewish and one Arab, with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens." So, explain again, if the Jews get "full equal rights" why he believes they would not be able to stay in their homes on the Palestinian side of the border? The answer, again, is he knows full well that Jews would NEVER be given full equal rights.

Kerry said that the US would not give official recognition to a Palestinian state, or impose any outcome through a UN resolution. Well, the last resolution definitely does impose a solution. Furthermore, on what basis should we take Kerry at his word? He speaks for Obama, and Obama has habitually lied on any number of issues, including foreign affairs. Like when he lied about the reason for the Benghazi attack that killed our Ambassador and other Americans. Like when he lied about the Iran nuke deal and when negotiations started. Like when he lied about his "red line" for Syria.

We will certainly know soon enough if Obama has more in store for Israel. France is hosting an international conference on January 15, 2017, regarding the Middle East. I am sure that it is strictly coincidental that this conference will take place while Obama is still President, allowing four more days of his Presidency for another UN resolution. Sure, I believe it's coincidental.

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Some Comments By US Leaders and Others on the UN Resolution

The resolution that passed the UN Security Council yesterday was originally going to be put up for a vote the day before. Egypt, which had put the resolution up for a vote, withdrew the measure before any vote could be taken. It was said that Israel pressured Egypt to withdraw the resolution. More likely, however, Egypt acted based on a telephone call between Egyptian President al-Sisi and US President-Elect Donald Trump. Al-Sisi has not been on good terms with Obama, because, as head of the military he overthrew the elected government of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist group supported by Obama. Presumably, al-Sisi wanted a better relationship with Trump. Trump had Tweeted that the proposed resolution should be vetoed.

Unfortunately, the next day - yesterday - Senegal and New Zealand returned the measure to the Council for a vote. Voting for the measure were the UK, France, Russia, China, New Zealand, Senegal, Venezuela, Malaysia, Uruguay, Angola, Egypt, Japan, Spain and the Ukraine. The US, which had the power to veto the measure, abstained. Following the vote, Trump Tweeted: "As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th."

Republican Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, called approval of the resolution "absolutely shameful." Added Ryan: "Today's vote is a blow to peace that sets a dangerous precedent for further diplomatic efforts to isolate and demonize Israel." Ryan: "Our united Republican government will work to reverse the damage done by this administration, and rebuild our alliance with Israel."

Ironically, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, in a speech justifying the US abstention, said this: "For the simple truth is that for as long as Israel has been a member of this institution, Israel has been treated differently from other nations at the United Nations." As Israel was admitted to the UN in 1949, this means that the UN has shown their anti-Semitic bias long before Israel controlled the West Bank beginning in 1967. Power went on to note that in September, 2016 alone the UN General Assembly passed 18 anti-Israel measures. In 2016 the UN Human Rights Council passed 12 anti-Israel measures - "more than those focused on Syria, North Korea, Iran and South Sudan put together," per Powers. But neither Obama nor Kerry nor Power apparently saw the irony in the US then supporting yet another anti-Semitic anti-Israel measure.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this: "At a time when the Security Council does nothing to stop the slaughter of half a million people in Syria, it disgracefully gangs up on the one true democracy in the Middle East, Israel, and calls the Western Wall 'occupied territory.'"

Former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said it best (as he usually does): "This was a stab in the back against the Israelis. It was entirely predictable. I would say this, for people in the pro-Israel community in the United States who defended Obama's Middle East policy over these last eight years - you should have seen this coming...this is what you get for supporting Barack Obama." I take no joy in the fact that, along with some conservative friends, I did see this coming. What prevented so many in the Jewish community from seeing?

So, now the question is - what should the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress do after January 20th? First, I want to say that, notwithstanding any misgivings I may have had about Trump (even though I voted for him) I thank G-d that he won. I do not believe Hillary would have done anything to try to counter the effects of the UN resolution, and likely would have vetoed bills trying to reverse the damage done to Israel. I also thank G-d that the Republicans control Congress and that Paul Ryan is the Speaker.

Here is my wish list. I would like to see the US withhold all further funding from the UN until such time as the Security Council votes to overturn this measure. I would like to see the US immediately cease any and all funding to the Palestinian Authority. And I would like to see President Trump declare to the world that the United States has no intention of complying with this measure. Lastly, I would hope that President Trump declares to the world that any military attack on any land controlled by Israel will be considered an attack on the United States. Israelis have never requested that, confident in their abilities to defend themselves. But such a statement of solidarity with Israel from the world's superpower would do much to deter those who might seek to ignite yet another Middle Eastern war in yet another effort to wipe Israel off the map. And it would make it very clear that there is only way towards peace.

The United States Abandons Israel at the United Nations

On December 23, 2016, Obama exacted his pound of flesh from Israel. Our closest ally in the Middle East, one of our closest allies in the world, and the only democracy in the Middle East - Israel - was unanimously condemned by the UN Security Council, in a resolution that the Truth-Uncensored has feared for months, if not years. In a 14-0 vote, with the United States abstaining, the Security Council essentially laid out the parameters of a Palestinian state, with the US giving up on longstanding policy that any resolution must be negotiated between the two sides. As this blog anticipated, Obama waited until after the US election to betray Israel.

In pertinent part, the resolution said the UN "reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity, and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace."

And the UN "reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard, underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines including with regards to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations."

Finally, the UN "calls upon all states, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967."

For all intents and purposes, this UN resolution establishes a Palestinian state on the pre-war 1967 borders - the 1967 war being yet another war in which Israel had to defend itself against the surrounding Arab countries. As a reminder, Israel won that war, capturing the Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Israel has since returned the Sinai to Egypt, and withdrawn from Gaza. The pre-war 1967 boundaries are simply the armistice lines existing at the end of Israel's war for independence, fought from 1948 to 1949, against the surrounding Arab countries. There is nothing special about the so-called 1967 lines.

Having declared the boundaries of a Palestinian state, which includes "East Jerusalem," who actually thinks the Palestinians now have any reason to sit and negotiate with the Israelis? Before the 1967 war, Jordan controlled the West Bank, including the area referred to as "East Jerusalem." There never was a Palestinian state that existed on that land, or any land. The Holy Old City is in East Jerusalem. The Western Wall (the Kotel) of the Second Temple is in East Jerusalem - and has now been declared by the UN to be Palestinian territory. When the Arabs under Jordan controlled the Old City, not only were Jews denied access to the Western Wall, the Arabs destroyed Jewish holy sites in the West Bank.

The UN resolution says the boundary lines may be changed only by "negotiations" between the parties. Does any sane person believe that the Palestinians will be willing to negotiate away control of the Old City, where the Al-Aksa Mosque sits? Does any sane person believe that Israel will ever, short of defeat in war, give up their control of the Kotel and the Old City? Obama abstained from a resolution that not only increases the chances for war, but takes away from the Jews the holiest sites in Judaism. There is no explanation for that other than the age-old one of anti-Semitism. It mattered not to the UN or Obama that under Israeli control all religions have had access to their holy sites in the Old City.

But the UN was not done yet. With the last paragraph quoted above, the UN has now put itself fully behind the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement. Yes, the resolution claims to distinguish between the State of Israel inside the 1967 boundaries and the land controlled by Israel outside of those boundaries. But who really thinks most countries and NGOs are actually going to make that distinction? Besides. a boycott of Israeli products made in the West Bank hurts not only Israel, but the Palestinians who work for Israeli companies there as well.

At this point, the Palestinians have no reason to negotiate anything. The outline of their state has been declared. As Israel is said to have no legal right to the West Bank, they have no land to exchange for peace. The Palestinians have no reason to stop their 68 year old war against Israel, and certainly have no reason to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. It is only a matter of time until the Palestinians lay out their "legal" claims to all of Israel. Thank you so much, Obama, for your hateful attitude towards the one Jewish state in the world.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Year End Reflections, Part II

Soon to be former First Lady Michelle Obama recently said this: "We are feeling what not having hope feels like." The left just can not believe that Trump won the election. In fact, right up to the last minute they have been trying to persuade/pressure the Republican members of the Electoral College to break their commitments to Trump and vote for anyone else. They will not succeed. As for the First Lady, I imagine that most of her life - other than the eight years her husband was President - has been and will continue to be a huge disappointment. After all, this was her sentiment back in 2008: "People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and...for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

Soon to be former Secretary-General of the United Nations recently made this stunning, albeit hardly surprising, factual admission: "Decades of political maneuverings have created a disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel." In reply, Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, said: "The Secretary-General admitted the clear truth, the UN's hypocrisy towards Israel has broken records over the past decades...During this time the UN passed 223 resolutions condemning Israel while (passing) only eight resolutions condemning the Syrian regime as it has massacred its citizens over the past six years. This is absurd."

The Trump website has this: "The bond between Israel and the United States runs deep, and I will ensure there is no daylight between us when I'm president." Trump has nominated attorney and longtime adviser David Friedman to be the US ambassador to Israel. Friedman: "We trust Israel...We think it is doing an excellent job of balancing its respect for human rights and its security needs in a very difficult neighborhood. Israel is a partner with the US in the global war against terrorism."

Friedman has also said what has always been obvious to this writer: "It is inconceivable there would be mass evacuations (of the over 300,000 Jews from the West Bank) on that magnitude, in the unlikely event that there was an otherwise comprehensive peace agreement...It makes no sense for Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) to be Judenrein (free of Jews) any more than it makes sense for Israel to be Arabrein (free of Arabs). It's not fair." Under Obama and Kerry we have yet to hear any objections to Abbas' repeated assertions that no Jew may live in a new Palestinian state.

Following Clinton's loss of the electoral vote, but large popular vote victory, many on the left now want to eliminate the electoral college. In an Op-Ed in the 12/15/16 New York Times, Columbia Law School professor David Pozen referred to the electoral college as being "fundamentally undemocratic." I wonder if the professor believes that the US Senate is also "fundamentally undemocratic." After all, a state with under one million people gets the same number of senators as the State of California, which is nearing 40 million people. How is that fair? Would the professor argue for the abolition of the Senate? Would the professor push for a unicameral federal legislative body, based on proportionate representation for each state, as the House is currently constituted? Or, is the Senate yet another one of those checks and balances put into the Constitution by our Founders? The Senate tends to lend some stability to government, whereas the House - with members up for election every two years - is more likely to reflect popular sentiment of the time.

As noted by George Will in his 12/18/16 column in the Ventura County Star, Bill Clinton won the 1992 election with only 43% of the popular vote. While he did get more votes than George H. W. Bush, that was the year Ross Perot ran and got a whopping 19,743,821 votes. Together, Bush and Perot had over 56% of the votes. A large majority of the people clearly did not want Clinton to be president. But Clinton won easily with 370 electoral votes to 168 for Bush. Perot was unable to get any electoral votes.

Will explained the genius of our Founders: "So the Electoral College shapes the character of majorities by helping to generate those that are neither geographically nor ideologically narrow, and that depict, more than the popular vote does, national decisiveness." But the left wants to perpetuate both geographic (Northeast and West Coast) majorities and ideological (left-wing) majorities. The left wants to abolish the Electoral College on the assumption that their side can generate enough votes in the Northeast and West Coast - two liberal voting blocs - to maintain permanent control of the presidency.

I would love to have seen a poll asking how many on the left would have agreed that Obama should have cancelled the election if it was known to a near certainty that Trump was going to win. With all of the pressure that has been placed on the electors, I suspect that such a poll number would not be that small.

Year End Reflections, Part I

On December 8, 2016, America lost a true hero. John Glenn, born July 18, 1921, died at the age of 95. As one of the original Mercury 7 astronauts, Glenn was the first American to orbit the earth. That was in 1962 in the Friendship 7. But Glenn was also a war hero, having flown 63 combat missions in the Korean war, as well as 59 combat missions in World War II. Among his many medals was the Distinguished Flying Cross, which he actually earned 6 different times. The people of Ohio elected Glenn to the US Senate 4 times. John Glenn was truly a man who had the "right stuff."

On July 2, 2016 we also lost the moral voice of Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel. Wiesel was born September 30, 1928. He lost his mother and father and a sister to the Holocaust. In one of the rare instances that I agree with President Obama, he said this about Wiesel: "Elie Wiesel was one of the great moral voices of our time, and in many ways, the conscience of the world."

Wiesel's book, "Night," recounted the horrors of the Holocaust. "Never shall I forget that night, the first night in the camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed...Never shall I forget the little faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath a silent blue sky. Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever." But Wiesel later in life saw a restoration of his faith: "I belong to a traumatized generation that often felt abandoned by G-d and betrayed by mankind. And yet, I believe that one must not estrange oneself from either G-d or man."

This year we also saw the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia was born March 11, 1936 and died unexpectedly on February 13, 2016. His belief in "originalism," interpreting the Constitution in the way the Framers intended, would, at times, result in his siding with the liberal wing of the Court. On affirmative action he tended to be in the minority, saying: "To pursue the concept of racial entitlement - even for the most admirable and benign of purposes - is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American."

This year also saw the passing of a man who will not be missed, at least not by those who still have a moral compass. Fidel Castro was born August 13, 1926, and died November 25, 2016. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said: "Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation...We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader." Obama: "History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him."

Said Jill Stein: "Fidel Castro was a symbol of the struggle for justice in the shadow of empire." Jimmy Carter: "We (Rosalynn and I) remember fondly our visits with him in Cuba and his love of his country." UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "Fidel Castro's death marks the passing of a huge figure of modern history, national independence and 20th century socialism. From building a world class health and education system, to Cuba's record of international solidarity abroad, Castro's achievements were many."

So much for the left's horribly immoral view of the world. Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said: "Now that Fidel Castro is dead, the cruelty and oppression of his regime should die with him." And from President-elect Trump, whom the left hates in ways that they have never shown with regards to Castro, we heard this: "Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades." I'll stick with Ryan and Trump, thank you. The left's love for dictators never ceases to amaze.

May G-d bless John Glenn, Elie Wiesel and Antonin Scalia. As for Castro, he should not be sharing the same afterlife as the other three.

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

On the 75th Anniversary of the Attack on Pearl Harbor

Today, December 7, 2016, is the 75th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. 2,403 Americans were killed in that attack. As reported in today's Wall Street Journal, over 100 surviving veterans went to Hawaii to participate in the day's commemorative activities. However, as the paper notes, organizers expect that this may be the last major gathering of the survivors. After all, most are in their nineties.

One of the survivor's explained the significance of the day, beyond the individual tragedies: "That (day) was when we were called to save the world." And save the world is exactly what American soldiers ultimately did.

Now, one might think that this historic anniversary, with the few remaining survivors nearing the end of their time on this earth, would be a front page story in every newspaper across the country. But, for the "paper of record," the New York Times, the 75th anniversary of Pearl Harbor was not worth any space on the front page of today's paper. In fact, it was not worth any space anywhere in the paper!

You see, the elitists at the NY Times would never engage in such parochialism. They would certainly never demonstrate any semblance of patriotism or pride in this country. No, the people at the Times are citizens of the world, not of the United States. To people like that, the United States is no better than any other country. Besides, look what the USA did to Japan - we dropped nuclear bombs on their cities. Whatever the Japanese did to us, we did much worse to them. So, what is there to commemorate? We saved the world - who says?

It is difficult for me to constrain myself and not utter every four letter word in the book, all directed at the editors and publisher of the NY Times. But that has never been the approach of this blog. So, instead, I will simply express my agreement with the Mayor of Honolulu, Kirk Caldwell, who said: "I plan to go up and give them (each survivor) a hug. We are so proud of what they did for our country."

Sunday, December 4, 2016

Rep. Keith Ellison for Head of the Democratic National Committee?

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., is the front runner for being the new leader of the DNC. He is being supported by the far left wing - perhaps now the dominant wing - of the Democratic party. Not surprisingly, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders support Ellison. But so does Chuck Schumer, the new minority leader in the Senate. As Nancy Pelosi overwhelmingly won the contest for minority leader in the House, there seems to be little evidence that the moderates in the Democratic party still exist in any great numbers. The party might more accurately be named the Socialist Progressive Party.

So, who is Keith Ellison? He has represented Minnesota's 5th congressional district since 2007. He was the first Muslim elected to Congress. From about 1989 to 1998, Ellison was involved with Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. In 1995, he claimed Farrakhan was not an anti-Semite. Also in 1995, Ellison organized a rally held at the University of Minnesota, at which Khalid Abdul Muhammad was a featured speaker. Said Muhammad: "...if words were swords, the chests of Jews, gays and whites would be pierced."

Muhammad previously spoke about why Hitler did what he did, saying: "They (Jews) went in there, in Germany, the way they do everywhere they go, and they supplanted, they usurped, they turned around, and a German in his own country, would almost have to go to a Jew to get money. They had undermined the very fabric of the society." In 1997, Ellison defended a woman who said that Jews are "the most racist white people."

When running for Congress in 2006, Ellison received $50,000 from CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations), which was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial. Holy Land was funneling money to the terrorist group Hamas. IN 2010 Ellison was instrumental in getting 53 other Congressmen to sign onto what became known as the "Gaza 54" letter to President Obama, urging Obama to pressure Israel to lift the blockade of Gaza. The blockade was in place in order to deter Hamas, a terrorist organization, from being able to import more weapons used to kill Jews, and building materials used to build underground tunnels into Israel - also used to kill Jews. Somehow, even with the blockade, Hamas was able to get their hands on weapons and building supplies. Perhaps it did not occur to Ellison to question why Hamas used their building supplies to construct tunnels instead of building homes for the people of Gaza.

In 2012, the Minnesota Representative traveled to New Jersey to campaign against fellow Democratic Representative Steve Rothman. Ellison spoke at NJ mosques urging Arab-Americans to vote against Rothman in his primary election. Why would Ellison do that? Maybe it was because Rothman was a strong supporter of Israel. In 2014, Ellison was one of eight Congress members who voted against the funding of Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system. Israel fought a war with Hamas in July and August of 2014, with Israel attempting to stop the incessant rocket attacks from Gaza. Hamas fires their rockets at civilian targets in Israel. Iron Dome has been said to have a 90% success rate in shooting down incoming rockets deemed to be a threat to Israel's civilian population.

Then there is this remark by Ellison in 2010: "The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?" Everything changes? What would that be, other than the end of bipartisan support for Israel?

But it appears that the Democratic party is there already. In a poll conducted from 11/18-11/23/16 by the Brookings Institution, it was found that 53% of Democrats view Israel as a burden to the US. Only 24% of Republicans feel that way. 55% of Democrats thought that Israel has "too much influence on American politics and policies." On the other hand, 54% of Republicans said that Israel had the "right level" of influence. Fully 60% of Democrats support economic sanctions and more serious measures against Israel, while only 31% of Republicans agree. (The poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.5-3.04%.)

I am well aware that the Democrats move away from Israel commenced before Obama took office. But Obama has done everything he could do to express his displeasure with Israel and support for the Palestinians. It has clearly paid off as he has taken the Democratic party away from Israel with him. Just look at the numbers in the above paragraph. I am also aware of the fact that some of Trump's nominees, and potential nominees (mostly military), also view Israel as a burden.

As Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick explains in her 11/17/16 essay, "Jews, and particularly the Jewish state, along with evangelical Christians and cops are the only groups that you are allowed to hate, discriminate against and scapegoat in the (left's) authoritarian PC universe." So, are the left and the Democrats correct? Should the US be supporting Israel or the Palestinians? Israel or the Arab world? The Jewish state or the Muslim world?

There is only one country in the Middle East that shares Western values with the US, that shares the Judeo-Christian values - the values upon which this country was founded. That country is Israel. Whereas Arabs and Muslims regularly chant "Death to America," Israelis do not. The 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Israel built a memorial to the victims of 9/11. The Saudis fund many (most?) of the mosques in this country, with their radical brand of Wahabbism, believing that Islam should govern all people.

What about all the financial aid received by Israel? Israel is required to use most of that money by making purchases from the US, generally military hardware. Israel then uses that hardware when fighting war after war against their Arab neighbors. Then, Israel notifies US manufacturers of any problems with the hardware, allowing necessary modifications to be made - which then directly benefits US military personnel. Need a proving ground for testing new military hardware? Without having to put US military personnel at risk? Without having to pay for a testing facility? It's called Israel.

Intelligence? The Israelis are second to none, including our European allies, in providing intelligence. Drones? Israeli technology. Training in urban warfare? US soldiers are trained by Israelis. Anti-missile systems? Developed in conjunction with Israeli scientists.

If we go just by the numbers, as Congressman Ellison suggests (8 million Israelis to 350 million Arabs and 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide), then Israel loses. If we go by everything else, then you know why Israel is, and should remain, our main ally in the Middle East. But Keith Ellison clearly disagrees. And as head of the DNC, what type of Democrats do you think Ellison will try to get elected to Congress? With whom do you agree - me or Ellison?

Trump's Bad Ideas

One of our President-elect's bad ideas is his belief that flag burning should be criminalized. This writer has always been a strong proponent of the First Amendment. I have even opposed the criminalizing of Holocaust denial, as has been done in a number of European countries. Classical liberalism teaches that we fight bad ideas with good ideas.

Said Trump: "Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag...if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or a year in jail." In the case of Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989), the US Supreme Court held that flag burning was a form of protected speech. Make no mistake, flag burning is considered extremely disrespectful by this writer and by most Americans. But speech that is not controversial rarely requires protection; it is odious speech that the First Amendment really needs to protect. Flag burning is usually done to make a political statement, albeit an odious one.

In a dissenting opinion in the Johnson case, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote: "The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our nation." I am concerned that the appreciation for the significance of the flag (and our Constitution) is not being passed on to the younger generations. I am concerned that some see it as a piece of cloth and nothing more. California law only requires students to engage in a "patriotic exercise" each day - not to recite the Pledge.

If we criminalize flag burning, what's next? What do we do with someone who throws the flag on the ground and stomps on it? What do we do with a Colin Kaepernick, who kneels during the playing of the national anthem, rather than standing with his hand over his heart while facing the flag? Criminalizing flag burning is a step down a slippery slope that we should not be taking.

Trump is taking credit for saving 1000 jobs at Carrier Corporation in Indiana. I assume everyone is happy for the people whose jobs are being saved. The question is, was it good policy? Indiana decided to give 7 million dollars in tax breaks in exchange for Carrier keeping those jobs there. Government should not be favoring any company at taxpayer expense; that is not how capitalism works.

Trump is also threatening to impose a tariff on the goods of any company that leaves the US and then tries to sell their products back in the US. Another bad idea that will only hurt consumers, increasing the cost of numerous goods. On the other hand, if Trump's promise to reduce corporate taxes and reduce the burden of regulations was a factor in convincing Carrier to keep some jobs here, then I can only say that I hope that Trump follows through with that promise. I do believe that he will.

Trump did not run as a conservative. He ran as a populist. In earlier posts I explained why I would never vote for Clinton, and why I would vote for Trump. I did not believe that I would agree with Trump on everything, but that I would on some things. I knew that I would not agree with Clinton on anything. So, I continue to be cautiously optimistic about a Trump Administration, notwithstanding these differences. Most of his top level appointments have been solid people.

The truth-uncensored started eight years ago, with the beginning of the Obama Administration. I have been highly critical of Obama's policies, which I believe have greatly harmed this country. Hopefully, Trump will do much better. The truth-uncensored will continue to report on the important issues facing our country and the world - under this new Administration.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Any Chance They'll Ever Get It? I Hope Not.

The left, including many mainstream democrats just do not get it. They cannot get over the fact that Donald Trump won the election. After all, wasn't Hillary entitled to win? That pretty much tells the story. The left is always entitled to get what they want because they are females or blacks or Hispanics or whatever. And they truly believe it.

But one Columbia University professor does get it. His piece in the November 20, 2016 New York Times is entitled "The End of Identity Liberalism." Said Professor Mark Lilla: "...the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life." "By the time they (young people) reach college many assume that diversity discourse exhausts political discourse, and have shockingly little to say about such perennial questions as class, war, the economy and the common good."

The "common good." That is a notion that is completely contrary to the notion of "identity politics." The "common good" is a concern of Republicans and conservatives only. The left says Hillary lost because of the glass ceiling, or because of biased and false news stories, or because of the electoral college or because of... It does not occur to the left (most of today's democrats) that they lost because most Americans were unhappy with the direction that the country has gone under their leadership, and under Obama.

The "glass ceiling" argument is one of those "identity" issues that the left believes contributed to Clinton's defeat. I still see letters to the editor bemoaning the defeat of the first woman candidate for President, as if being a woman entitles you. They fail to recognize what a flawed candidate she was, and what a flawed campaign she ran. Like many on the left and in the mainstream media, Hillary totally believed that Trump supporters were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic." It was identity politics taken to a new height.

The same rationale applies to the left's belief that the electoral college caused Hillary's defeat. The electoral college gives every state a say in who is elected President. Yes, Hillary won the popular vote; but the campaign was run based on the electoral college vote - not the popular vote. And Trump won 30 states to Hillary's 19 plus the District of Columbia. Maine split their electoral votes. But the elitists of the left believe the West Coast and the Northeast should control the country - on a permanent basis. After all, the "flyover country" is nothing more than working class/blue collar whites and rednecks - and who cares about them anyway? They are not one of the favored "identity" groups. The electoral college assures that a Presidential candidate must appeal to large areas of the country. How long would our country last, given the extreme divisiveness already, if one or two regions of the country were able to permanently dictate to the rest of the country?

We should not neglect to mention the left's hypocrisy. If Hillary won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, they would be thrilled with the system. They were appalled that Trump said the election might be rigged and would not guarantee his acceptance of the results. Now who is unable to accept the results? Many on the left actually want the electors who make up the electoral college to switch their votes to Hillary, with no concern whatsoever about the damage that it would do to our democracy and republican form of government.

Of all the beefs the left has about their defeat, my favorite concerns the complaint about biased and false news stories. Both the November 17th LA Times and the November 20th NY Times had editorials on the subject of false news stories in the digital universe. They both opined that Google and Facebook needed to better police their information platforms. The argument is absolutely stunning, for two reasons.

The first reason is related to an Op-Ed piece by PA President Mahmoud Abbas in the NY Times at the end of 2011. In an email exchange I had with the then Public Editor of the Times I complained about that very issue - false histories in news or Op-Ed pieces, and all the lies told by Abbas in his opinion piece. The reply I received was that, while editorials and Op-Eds should be factually accurate, "it is much harder to part because deploying facts to support argument tends very often toward coloring them right to the boundary between accuracy and distortion." (For the full exchange, see the 1/21/12 post "Media Bias, Part III.") So, while the Times will not monitor themselves, they expect Facebook and Google to do what the Times will not.

But the second, and far more significant point regarding factual reporting is this - we on the right believe that on a daily basis the mainstream newspapers distort and mislead the public. Who is going to oversee them? Not Facebook or Google, even with regards to their online editions. No, these papers do not believe they are in need of any monitoring. Conservatives understand that the mainstream media has long ago given up on accurate and fair reporting of news in favor of their left-wing agenda. In fact, most Americans now believe that. So, how do we monitor the propaganda of the mainstream media that passes for reporting?

Here is one recent example. The November 15th edition of the NY Times had a front page article (continued on page 17) about various controversies surrounding potential Trump nominees. Richard Grenell was mentioned as a possible pick for UN Ambassador. He had worked under John Bolton when Bolton was UN Ambassador. What was the controversy surrounding Grenell? When he worked on the Romney campaign some religious conservatives complained about Mr. Grenell being gay. How in the world is that a controversy about Grenell? It might be a controversy for the Romney campaign. The NY Times has been the leading paper in the country pushing for gay marriage and gay rights. If Trump were to nominate Grenell for UN Ambassador, it would make Grenell the highest official to ever hold office and to be openly gay. But does the NY Times give Trump any credit for considering Grenell? No, because their left-wing agenda takes precedence over truth (that was a made up controversy concerning Grenell); and it also reveals the left's bias in really only caring about liberal gays (or liberal women or liberal blacks, etc.).

In a final bit of irony, the publisher and editor-in-chief of the NY Times put out a letter to their readers concerning their coverage of the election. It was a non-apology apology. Said these two: "...we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor..." Having acknowledged no bias on their part during this election, one wonders why they feel a need to "rededicate" themselves to the truth. If anyone actually buys this nonsense I will make you an offer. Pick out any edition of the NY Times from now going forward, and I will show you one or more examples of the paper's continued left-wing bias. It has happened virtually daily since that letter was issued. Let me know - we'll do coffee.

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Post Election Observations

In a stunning upset predicted by almost no one, Donald Trump has become President-Elect of the United States. He won the electoral college vote 290 to 228. The popular vote totals vary slightly from site to site, with CNN reporting 59,755,284 for Hillary Clinton to 59,535,522 for Donald Trump. The difference in the popular vote is about two-tenths of one percent. It is difficult to imagine a closer vote tally out of a total of approximately 120 million votes.

Republicans held the House of Representatives 239 to 193, with 3 undecided. Republicans even held the Senate 51 to 48, with one undecided. Republicans increased their hold on governor mansions, with the new total 33 Republican to 15 Democrat. Whether one considers these results to reflect Trump's coattails, or a preference for Republican policies, the numbers are impressive. If you can, take a look at page 9A of the 11/10/16 USA Today. There is a map of the US showing each county in each state. The counties won by Trump are in red. Those won by Clinton are in blue. The map is overwhelmingly red.

There were very few states, if any, that Trump ignored. The electoral college is again in the spotlight as it appears Hillary may have won the popular vote. Small states are definitely given an advantage with the electoral college system. It also means that states with large populations (which today are generally democratic) will not have the final say. Trump wisely went into states with even a low electoral total, and he spent much time in the rust belt states. He carried Wisconsin - the first Republican to do so since Ronald Reagan did in 1984. And once again Ohioans showed that they are a reliable predictor of the winner.

In the nights since the election we have seen mobs of mostly young people in cities around the country protesting Trump's victory. Seattle, Portland, Oakland, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Richmond and Los Angeles, to name some. In Los Angeles, demonstrators were able to shut down a busy freeway. There was vandalism and tagging in places, destruction of property, and I saw at least one sign reading "F... Trump." Some of the Oakland demonstrators revealed what they really think about America and our democratic system. One said "we want a revolution." Another said "some will die on both sides."

It is unclear what these demonstrators were protesting against. Trump is not the President yet. These spoiled millennials were upset that their candidate did not win. You know what? Get over it! That is how our democracy works. You spoiled brats have no right to block traffic and stop people from going where they need to go. That is not speech. Many of us were extremely disappointed and upset when Barack Obama won in 2008, and then again in 2012. But we were not out in the streets. Some organized Tea Parties, and held rallies - after obtaining proper permits - at various locations across the country. This writer was also motivated to do something. My blog started shortly after Obama took office.

On Facebook and Twitter many were beside themselves over the Trump victory, with some threatening to move to other countries. I would tell them what my father used to say: "Don't let the door hit you on the way out." Of course, the Hollywood crowd was unable to cope. Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin wrote a letter to his wife and daughters, describing Trump as a "pig." Here's some bad news for Sorkin - most Americans really do not care what you think. Here's the bottom line - leftists do not believe in democracy. If there was a way to keep Trump from the White House and put Clinton in they would do it. They do not care about our Constitutional system, and often see capitalism as part of the problem.

Politics can be a dirty business, and this election campaign was no exception. However, having seen Trump's gracious victory speech, and Hillary's also gracious concession speech, and Obama's hosting of Trump at the White House, I am hopeful that mature Americans will follow their lead. Clearly, major policy differences exist between the two parties. And for those who think Trump needs to compromise on everything with Democrats, let me remind everyone what Obama said in 2010: "We don't mind the Republicans joining us; they can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in the back." This was after previously telling Republicans: "I won."

Unfortunately, racists and anti-semites have been expressing their hatred. This gets blamed on Trump. When blacks in various cities across the country engaged in the ill-named "knockout game" was that Obama's fault? After all, he was an extremely divisive President, and helped race relations deteriorate to levels not seen in decades. In Chicago, a white man was just beaten up by a group of young blacks for allegedly voting for Trump. Said one: "You voted Trump. You gonna pay for that sh.." Said another: "Beat his ass." (Information from Alex Jones' Infowars.) When police officers are murdered in the street by angry blacks, do we blame Obama? After all, his racial rhetoric has been extremely divisive.

I am well aware of how dangerous words can be, especially coming from a President or President-elect. I have been extremely impressed by Kellyanne Conway, who seems to have found a way to keep Trump focused, and away from the junior high school rhetoric. I hope she has a place in the Trump Administration. I do not believe he should go after Hillary and seek her prosecution. He needs to stay focused on all the work that needs to be done: rolling back taxes and regulations in order to allow for job creation, controlling our borders, strengthening our weakened military, and coming up with much better strategies for dealing with healthcare than Obamacare.

And, as much as I like Sean Hannity, I take issue with his suggestion that Trump seek a new Speaker of the House in place of Paul Ryan, and a new Senate majority leader in place of Mitch McConnell. Why? First, because Congress is a separate branch of government and Trump should not try to dictate who their leaders are. Second, Ryan, at least, has expressed a willingness to work with Trump in order to accomplish his agenda. So, I would not look for battles that may not be necessary.

So, as we conservatives and Republicans had to do after the election of Obama, a man seeking to "fundamentally change" the best nation on earth, I suggest everyone take a deep breath and realize we will all survive. I am hopeful that Trump will pick solid people for his Cabinet and White House advisers. And, as my brother liked to say, "we still have to get up and go to work each day." (Actually, he's now retired, so...)

Sunday, November 6, 2016

Hillary's Views of the Supreme Court and the Constitution

In her own words, Hillary Clinton told us her views of the Supreme Court and Constitutional issues. "And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights,on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."

She continued: " is important that...we stand up and basically say - the Supreme Court should represent all of us." There is so much wrong with everything she has said, it is difficult to know where to begin. Let's start with the last comment. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to represent anyone or anything but the rule of law and the upholding of the Constitution. Representatives and Senators represent the people, judges do not.

Clinton says that the Court should not stand on the side of powerful corporations and the wealthy. She certainly seems to be saying that the Court should never decide in favor of corporations or the wealthy - even if the law and Constitution should favor their side in any case. What her comment really tells us is that she has moved towards the growing socialist-left side of her party; the Bernie Sanders side always complaining about corporations - the job creators.

Whether it is women's rights or LGBT rights, a case only reaches the Supreme Court when there are competing interests, often arguing for competing rights. Should the Court always hold in favor of any party who is female or part of the LGBT community? Regardless of what the competing interest may be? Regardless of the law and the Constitution? Apparently.

Clinton has made it clear she wants to see Citizens United overturned, or an actual Amendment to the Constitution reversing that decision. Recall that the Citizens United decision overturned part of the Campaign Reform Act banning political ads/expenditures by corporations and unions within 60 days of a general election and within 30 days of a primary election. It is difficult to imagine that in this country, with our First Amendment, that there would ever be a ban on the type of speech that is the most protected - political speech. Following the decision, unions and corporations are able to spend unlimited sums of money on political advertising, as long as there is no coordination with a candidate or candidate's campaign.

I have been rethinking why the Democrats object to this decision. And the answer, while disturbing, is not surprising. At the very beginning of Obama's first term, there was a concerted effort by him, and all the top people in his Administration, to delegitimize the Fox News Network. The Democrats have on their side virtually all of the media - CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and most major newspapers in the country. The Democrats have most of Hollywood, and therefore most TV shows and movies, many of which contain anti-Republican or anti-conservative messages. The Democrats also have an overwhelming number of professors in the academy.

But under Citizens United, conservative groups have been able to use TV and radio in order to widely disseminate a different message through paid advertisements. And this disturbs Democrats. This anti-speech agenda is profoundly anti-American. But the support by Democrats for overturning Citizens United is proof of another point I have often made. When Democrats were classical liberals they had no problem tolerating opposing viewpoints. But as today's Democrats are mostly socialists and leftists, they do not have the same appreciation for our fundamental values, such as free speech. Rather, it's all about their left-wing agenda. Let me be clear - Democrats do not want the American people exposed to a differing opinion. This attitude, my friends, is no different than that of Soviet Russia.

Hillary also said she disagreed with the Supreme Court decision in Heller vs. District of Columbia. The Court declared certain provisions in the DC law to be unconstitutional - in violation of the Second Amendment. The DC law required that all firearms in the home be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The law also restricted handgun ownership to those handguns registered prior to 1975, when the law was enacted. In other words, the purchase of handguns after 1975 was barred. Given that Clinton disagreed with the Court's decision, do not think for one minute that she is being truthful when she says she does not want to ban gun ownership.

So, forgetting the corruption issues, we have in Hillary Clinton a candidate who, reflecting her party, has no belief in the freedoms given by the First and Second Amendments. Not speech. Not gun ownership, which has been an individual right that has existed since the founding of this country. And she seems to believe that who you are (female, gay, transgender, etc.) should determine your success at the Supreme Court.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Why I Do Not Support a Two State Solution Between Israel and the Palestinians

One need not go back very far in time to see why a two state solution between Israel and the Palestinians is not sensible. As I fully understand that not even all Jews see either the religious or historical basis for Israel maintaining full control over Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), I will show why, even from a practical point of view, such a two state arrangement makes no sense.

Last month, both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu spoke at the UN General Assembly annual meeting. After bemoaning the "notorious Balfour Declaration" of 1917, Abbas claimed that it "paved the road for the Nakba (catastrophe) of Palestinian people and their dispossession and displacement from their land." At the end of the Great War Allied forces had captured much of the Middle East, which had been under the control of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. Britain had control of the area known as Palestine. In 1917 British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour announced "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

Palestine was a geographic area, not a country, which had also been the biblical and historical Jewish homeland. Israel did exist as a country there - 2000 years ago. So, the first question is, if the Palestinians view the establishment of the modern state of Israel as a "catastrophe," how does that make a two state solution feasible? After several decades of control, the British turned over their "Mandate" area of Palestine to the UN, which in 1947 voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Abbas: "Israeli forces seized more land than that allotted to Israel..."

Seized more land? In 1948, following the 1947 vote for partition, the tiny State of Israel declared their independence. The very next day at least five Arab countries attacked the new state, in the Arabs first effort to wipe Israel off the map. Israelis were greatly outnumbered and outgunned. But a miracle occurred (with G-d's help, perhaps) and the tiny country won their war for independence. And yes, at the end of that war in 1949, Israel did control more land than the original partition granted them.

But Israel did not "seize" that land. The Jews were willing to accept the tiny bit of land allotted to them by the partition. But the Arabs announced before the UN vote that they would never accept the existence of a Jewish state. So, the second question is, in what ways have the Arabs shown a change in their attitudes towards Israel since 1948? By lying about Israel "seizing" land, as opposed to being attacked and winning? By the constant wars and terrorist attacks against Israel since 1948? By the Palestinians launching thousands of rockets and missiles into civilian areas of Israel? By Abbas repeatedly saying that not one single Jew may live in a new state of Palestine, while over a million Arabs live in the State of Israel? Or by Abbas still referring to Israel's existence as the Palestinian Nakba?

Abbas went on to engage in more lies by claiming that "Israel reneged on the (Oslo) agreements it signed..." Here is the third question: when the Palestinians consistently reject their own state as long as Israel still exists, how is a two state solution feasible? You see, Abbas was lying again. He neglected to mention the meeting at the White House with President Bill Clinton and then Israeli P.M. Ehud Barak and P.A. leader Yasser Arafat. Barak offered Arafat a state on almost all of the West Bank. Arafat walked out, went back to his headquarters in Ramallah, and started the second intifada in which Arab suicide bombers blew up Jews on buses, in cafes and other places, and even at a Passover Seder. And Abbas also turned down a state when offered one by then Israeli P.M. Ehud Olmert. But Abbas stands up at the UN and says it is Israel that is not abiding by agreements.

Israeli P.M. Netanyahu had been the Israeli Ambassador to the UN from 1984 to 1988. It was the custom for many Israeli political and military leaders to meet with the Chabad Lubavitch Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The Rebbe is widely considered to be the most influential rabbi of the twentieth century. So, upon his appointment, Netanyahu, too, spoke with the Rebbe. As Netanyahu tells it, the Rebbe advised: "You will be serving in a house of many lies. Remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide." Clearly, Netanyahu took to heart the Rebbe's advice, and to this day speaks with greater moral clarity at the annual UN assembly than any other world leader.

In addressing the General Assembly last month, Netanyahu said this: The UN "began as a moral force and has become a moral farce." In recognizing the ongoing refusal of Palestinian leaders to accept Israel's existence, Netanyahu said: "How can we expect young Palestinians to support peace when their leaders poison their minds?"

It is anticipated that the French will put forth their resolution to the UN Security Council establishing a Palestinian state on land now controlled by Israel, after the US Presidential elections. While the US has consistently vetoed such anti-Israel measures, the Obama Administration this time advised Israeli leaders that there is no guarantee they will do so again. So Netanyahu, as leader of the tiny Jewish nation, announced: "We will not accept any attempt by the UN to dictate terms to Israel. The road to peace runs through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not through New York."

I believe that the world should stop pretending that a two state solution is feasible. After all, the Palestinians have shown no such pretense.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Will I STILL Vote for Trump? Part II

The media has been focusing on the source of the emails being released by Wikileaks. It may be Russia. It is certainly troublesome if a foreign power is trying to influence our election. It is proper for the media to investigate. But many emails have been released by the FBI, through Congressional hearings, and Freedom of Information requests by groups such as Judicial Watch. But the media seems less concerned with the content of the emails.

Clinton discussed favoring open borders. Clinton's top aides mocked Catholics. Clinton campaign manager John Podesta bemoaned the fact that the San Bernardino terrorists/murderers were not typical Americans. They were Muslims. But do not expect any of this to be big news in the mainstream media. In fact, the Daily Caller reported on various reporters/news organizations who apparently believe their job is to help Clinton win the election. No need for unbiased reporting.

John Harwood is the CNBC chief Washington correspondent, and a commentator for the NY Times. But according to the Daily Caller, the emails reveal Harwood praising Clinton to John Podesta.

Donna Brazile was at CNN when she apparently gave Clinton advance notice of a question Clinton would be getting at a town hall. Brazile is now the head of the DNC - strictly coincidental I am sure.

A producer for MSNBC's "All in with Chris Hayes," apparently told a Clinton spokesperson that Clinton is an "amazing, intelligent woman." And this: "She is smarter than most men and more qualified than most men to be President."

Haim Saban, chairman of Univision, apparently gave advice to the Clinton campaign on how to deal with Trump's comments about Mexicans.

Marjorie Prithcard is the Op-Ed editor of the Boston Globe. Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta, wanted an opinion piece by Clinton or her campaign published in the paper. Pritchard to Podesta: "Just wondering if we are still on for that piece. Brian said last week it was ready and just needed approval. It would be good to get it in on Tuesday, when she is in New Hampshire. That would give her big presence on Tuesday with the piece and on Wednesday with the news story."

Excuse me? Here we have a case of the major newspaper in New England coordinating both the Op-Ed and news pages with the Clinton campaign.

I do not condone the language about women used by Trump. I do not condone the actions that he is accused of engaging in, should they pan out to be truthful. But I see no need to focus on that in this blog. The mainstream media is already doing that non-stop on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In what way do these allegations against Trump affect the country or the average American?

On the other hand, corruption, cover-up, and media complicity, damage this country in numerous ways. Our system of laws, in which no person is supposed to be above the law, has been made a mockery. And just what is the point of a free press when it decides that acting as an organ of the Democratic party is more important than doing their traditional job of challenging abuse of power, and doing investigative journalism.

Will I STILL Vote for Trump? Part I

My last post discussed whether I might vote for Trump following the release of an 11 year old video, in which Trump is essentially saying he could do whatever he wanted with women. There was a question of whether it was braggadocio or a reflection of his behavior. Now, we have a number of women coming forward alleging sexual harassment incidents involving Trump, although often regarding events from decades ago. Nevertheless, the question has arisen: even now, will I still vote for Trump?

When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State she set up a private email server in her home. Why would someone do that unless they anticipated that they would want future communications kept from the public? Eventually, we find out that Clinton was sending and receiving emails on her private system which had been marked classified. Further emails revealed the improper communications between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton State Department.

Following an FBI "investigation," Director Comey announced that Clinton was extremely careless with classified documents, but would not be recommending prosecution. Later, we find out that top Clinton aids were given permission to destroy their computers. It also became clear that all of Clinton's emails were not, in fact, turned over, and many were destroyed (recall Bleachbit).

Then, Bill Clinton "coincidentally" runs into Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport. From everything we now know, it is likely that Lynch was assuring Bill that there would be no prosecution of Hillary. In fact, the day after the FBI Director announces that he will not recommend prosecution of Hillary with regards to the mishandling of classified information, AG Lynch announces that their investigation is over. The AG did not even pretend to take the time to review all (any) of the FBI file and investigation. After all, it is the prosecutors who decide whether or not to file a case, not the FBI investigators.

There were FBI investigators who would have recommended prosecution. There were career prosecutors in the Justice Department who would have pursued the case. But no matter. The fix was in at the highest levels of government.

In summary, we had official corruption and misconduct by Hillary Clinton and her State Department. We had a cover-up of that misconduct at the highest levels of government. Was Obama involved in the squashing of a prosecution? Well, do you think he wants to see Hillary or Trump succeed him? I think that answers the question. To top it off, we have a media complicit in the cover-up.

Remember Watergate? Corruption and cover-up, but an aggressive media that never stopped following up leads until the full story came out. The result: numerous prosecutions and the resignation of a sitting President. So, please excuse me if I am a little offended by those who only want to talk about Trump, yet completely ignore facts that, in another era, might bring down a President, and Presidential candidate. As for today's media, see Part II.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Will I Still Vote for Trump?

Not knowing there was an open mic, in 2005 Trump was heard to say, among other things, these words: "You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait...and when you're a star they let you do it...You can do anything...grab them by the p...., you can do anything."

So, did Trump actually do these things, or was he simply bragging about his sexual prowess to a young Billy Bush? Who knows. I do not speak in that manner. But let's get real. Many men do. I am not just talking about uneducated men. I have heard men with college degrees and higher use similar language. How many of you believe you are voting for saint?

Many of you may be familiar with some of the transgressions of prior presidents. FDR had a long term affair with Lucy Mercer. Eisenhower had an affair with Kay Summersby. Kennedy? We may never know all the women with whom he had extramarital sexual relations. Johnson had an affair with Madeleine Brown, who had a child by LBJ.

Then we come to Bill Clinton, who will be back in the White House should Hillary win. Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape. Kathleen Willey says Clinton groped her, without her consent. Paula Jones claims he exposed himself to her and and sexually harassed her. We know he had extramarital sexual relations with Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky. How many of you voted for him anyway?

How many of you will vote for Hillary notwithstanding her verbal attacks against the women Bill sexually harassed? Such as: "They're trash, nobody's going to believe them." Now, we have some leaked comments made by Hillary in some of her paid political speeches. To Brazilian bank executives, Hillary said this: "My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders..." Open borders. Anybody think open borders is working well in Europe? I guess, if you believe in the Islamization of Europe. So, sneak into Mexico or Brazil, say, and you automatically gain access to the US? In the age of terrorism, why is that a good idea?

So, I am hearing much greater outrage over Trump's words than I recall hearing about Bill Clinton's actions. But Hillary Clinton is the Clinton running now. Fine, here is a brief summary of some of her words and deeds. At Andrews Air Force Base, Hillary met with the families of those killed in Benghazi. Recall she and Obama pushed the false narrative of the Benghazi attack not being a planned terrorist attack, but rather a spontaneous demonstration against some anti-Muslim video. So, she promised those families: "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested." And she and Obama did! Even though she immediately admitted privately to the Egyptian President: "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." How do you lie to the faces of the families of American heroes who died because of her inaction? How do you have an innocent man arrested? Anything to help Obama win reelection, as this all occurred only two months prior to the 2012 election.

Hillary was wrong on virtually every major issue while serving as Secretary of State. She supported the Arab Spring and overthrow of Mubarek for the radical Muslim Brotherhood. She supported the overthrow of Qaddafi, a dictator, yes, with the result being a failed state run by Islamic terrorists. We know about her "reset" with Russia, which Putin took as a green light to take over the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. And she supported the giving of nukes to the Iranian Ayatollahs. I could easily write several posts on all of Hillary's scandals - her private email server, the Clinton Foundation, the millions she collected for giving speeches - a convenient end run around campaign finance laws.

And then there is this - the undoing of Western Civilization by the left and radical Islamists (and those who support them and support Sharia law). Where has the left created greater freedom and greater economic success? No, the left will and does work hand in glove with Islamists to bring less freedoms and less economic growth, and certainly less security. Jews have had to leave Europe in increasing numbers. How long will European countries as Western societies even survive? So, will I still vote for Trump? Yes, because I understand that I am not voting for Saint-in-Chief.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Why I Would Never Vote for Hillary, Part II

I do not believe there should be a political litmus test for the right to do business in this country. It smacks of McCarthyism - but I guess the left only cares when the other side is doing it. (For those who missed it, many Democratic elected officials expressed a desire to deny Chick-Fil-A the right to do business based on the owner's expressed belief in traditional marriage.)

I oppose Obamacare, and any expansion of it. Not surprisingly, it is failing, with more and more insurance companies dropping out of the Obamacare market. The ACA resulted in many people losing their insurance, and no longer being able to see their same doctors. If the government did not waste so much money they might be able to afford a catastrophic care fund, leaving competition in the rest of the market.

I do not believe we should undo the economy of the USA (or the world) in order to lower global temperatures by one tenth of a degree - or even one whole degree.

I do not believe it is healthy for society when the Fourth Estate acts as the propagandist-in-chief for its left-wing agenda, instead of reporting the news, and challenging abuse of government power.

I do not believe in the tax and regulate mentality, which has resulted in eight consecutive years of low growth.

I do not believe the federal government, or state or local government for that matter, should dictate what kids are allowed to eat in school.

I do not believe it is the job of government to tell me what size soda I may buy. Or what type of light bulb I may buy.

I do not believe we should have given the Iranians a clear path towards obtaining nuclear weapons. They repeatedly express their desire to wipe Israel off the map, and destroy the United States.

I do not believe in political correctness. While I do not believe in unnecessarily insulting others, I also do not like being told what I may say or think.

I do not believe it is the job of government to redistribute wealth. Let me repeat: "If you want something, work for it."

I do not believe in any utopia, socialist or communist or otherwise. Utopias at best tend to enforce conformity (are we there already?) and at worst have resulted in millions of deaths.

But, maybe for some the policies of the candidates are less important than the personalities and records of the candidates. Hillary was a US Senator. According to National Review, her biggest accomplishment as Senator was getting a US courthouse renamed the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse.

But she was Secretary of State. She supported the "Arab Spring," resulting in the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt, and the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood. She supported the overthrow of Qaddafi, resulting in a failed state in Libya controlled by terrorist groups. And let's not forget Benghazi. She supported the "reset" with Russia, allowing Russia to seize the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. She supported the Iran nuke deal.

Hillary said that she and Bill left the White House in 2001 broke. In the last 15 years they have managed to become multi-millionaires, being paid exorbitant amounts to speak to Wall Street and foreign countries. Of course, all those people expect nothing in return for all the money paid to the Clintons. Just like the many contributors to the Clinton Foundation who did, in fact, get special treatment following their "donations."

But Hillary supports women. Like when she called Monica Lewinsky a "narcissistic loony toon." Or when she blamed the "vast right-wing conspiracy" for all the women sexually harassed by Bill. She even threatened "some folks are going to have a lot to answer for."

So, I do not support the policies of the Democratic party. But maybe you believe Hillary will deviate from those policies. I do not believe she is the shining example for women to emulate. But she is smart. All I can say to that is shame on you if you believe IQ is more important than good values - like honesty and integrity. Can I say that Trump has good values? Probably better than Hillary's. But I do not vote on that basis. These people are not saints. That is why I ignore these issues and vote based on policies.

Why I Would Never Vote for Hillary, Part I

When it comes to voting for President of the United States, many people decide on which candidate is the "best" in their minds, which candidate is more "Presidential." Not me. There are countless reasons why I could not support any Democratic candidate. Here are some of my reasons. (For factual support of my propositions, see the 262 blog posts that I have written to date; or at least peruse those from this year.)

I do not believe in big government. I believe the bigger the government, the less freedoms we have.

I do not believe in the platform of Black Lives Matter. It is anti-America and anti-Israel. It is based on a lie regarding police shootings. (Yes, I agree some shootings are unjustified.) Let me ask, how often do you see on TV or in the papers pictures and stories about all the whites that are shot and killed by police?

I do not believe that we should deny that "radical Islam"/"Islamic terror" exists. I do not believe they should have removed those phrases from military and security agency's training manuals.

I do not believe that we should ban "offensive" speech. I do not believe college students - adults - should be mollycoddled. They need to grow up and accept that not everyone agrees with them. That's life - deal with it.

I also do not believe in banning political speech. Yes, the Dems do, with their proposal to Amend the First Amendment in order to overturn the Citizens United case.

I support Israel. I do not support the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel. I do not believe in the two-state "solution." I stopped believing in it when the Palestinians showed they did not believe in it either, with the 2000 intifada, and their repeated declarations regarding taking over all of Israel, and killing all the Jews.

I do not believe in open borders. All countries protect their borders; well, almost all. It appears that the Europeans have given up on that of late. But vote for Hillary if you like the Islamization of Europe, because she will carry on what Obama started and bring hundreds of thousands more "refugees" here.

I do not believe in "income equality," especially not if it is mandated by the government. This country affords you the opportunity to succeed like no other. Get an education. Work hard. As my father always said, "If you want something, work for it."

I do not believe America is essentially a racist country. Did I miss something, or did we not elect a black man to be President of the United States twice.

I do not believe in "free" college education. As an adult, I know that there is no such thing. Someone always pays.

I do believe in the Second Amendment. I do not believe in denying law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

I do not believe that the Democratic Attorney General of the United States should have threatened to prosecute people who use "anti-Muslim rhetoric." That type of speech is protected by the First Amendment - for now, at least.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Racism and Stupidity - From the Left

Obama recently gave his final speech to the Congressional Black Caucus. Obama: "I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community (blacks) lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election." What is Obama talking about? Is he simply saying that blacks should get out and vote? Even if they vote for Trump?

That seems highly unlikely. How would voting for Trump protect Obama's legacy, when Trump says he will undo much of what Obama has done? No, Obama clearly means blacks must vote for Hillary in order to protect (not insult) his legacy. Can anyone possibly think of a more racist appeal than that? Then again, such a comment is consistent with Obama's repeatedly racist and anti-white comments during the last eight years.

Not to be outdone, retiring US Rep. (D-NY) Charles Rangel said this: "His (Trump's) hatred and his bigotry has pulled the rug off and the sheet off the Republican Party so we can see it for what it is." The sheet off? There you have it - Republicans are members of, or support, the KKK. There is no other possible explanation for his reference to "pulling the sheet off." Elected officials who are Democrats have no problem accusing Republicans of the worst behaviors and intentions. Disgusting!

The 9/20/16 headline in the northern New Jersey newspaper, The Record, had this headline after the capture of the man accused of the recent terror attacks in New York and New Jersey: "Motive a mystery." The suspect was a Muslim and was from Afghanistan. He had made recent trips to Afghanistan, and had become more religious and conservative in his dress. We know this because the article following the headline told us.

The subheadline was "Friends say they saw changes after trip to Afghanistan." So, how is it that the motive is a "mystery?" They could have said it "appears" to be terrorism. They could have said "possible" terrorism. But a mystery? Only the blind and self-delusional left and left-wing media would say the motive is a "mystery."

What's in Your Basket (of Deplorables)?

Recently, Hillary Clinton said this: "You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables - the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." Bill Press is a longtime liberal political commentator, and was Chair of the California Democratic Party from 1993 to 1996.

In support of Hillary's attack on Trump supporters, Press wrote this: "...the closer you look at Trump supporters, the more you realize how correct she is." Why is that? In support of Hillary's comment, Press tells us: "A recent Pew survey, for example, found that 87% of Trump supporters are white." Perhaps you did not know that being white is, apparently, evidence of you being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic. White privilege and all.

Clearly, it makes no difference that large numbers of whites voted for Obama twice. Those people are now racists, among other things. Does the fact that blacks vote overwhelmingly as a group (96% voted for Obama in 2008 and 93% did in 2012) make them racist? Or those other condemnable things? Of course not.

Press was not done with his ridiculous analysis: "...and 57% of them (Trump supporters) believe Muslims should get more scrutiny by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service." I will not repeat the large percentages of Muslims from Muslim countries who support making Sharia law the official law of their countries. Sharia law is, in many instances, contrary to US law and the US Constitution. I will not repeat all of the terrorist attacks that have been carried out by Islamic terrorists here within the United States.

But why should we care about people who come here with the intent of pushing Sharia law, or worse, inciting and carrying out violence against Americans and America? We know, even if Obama and other leftists refuse to acknowledge it, that most terror attacks are carried out by Muslims. So, the question should be: who would not want increased scrutiny of a group known to kill those who are not like them? Only political correctness prevents the rest of the people from seeing the logic of increased scrutiny.

Press: "In June, Reuters reorted that nearly half of Trump voters described African-Americans as more "violent" than whites..." Heather MacDonald reprts that in Chicago blacks constitute 35% of the population, but committed 76% of the homicides. In Los Angeles, blacks make up 10% of the population, but commit 42% of robberies and 34% of the felonies.

As someone who is in the "basket of deplorables," I can only say that I would rather be in that basket than in the basket of the politically correct delusional leftists.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Why Don't They Want You to Know?

Could it be that the Left wants such control over our lives that they even believe they should decide what we get to read, to see and to hear? What we get to know? As noted previously in this blog, early in Obama's first term the top people in his Administration told us Fox News was not legitimate, that we should not pay attention to them. And now?

Recently, Secretary of State John Kerry, said this: "...perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn't quite cover it (terrorism) quite as much. People wouldn't know what's going on." What? Why is it preferable that Americans do not know what is going on? One theory is that the Obama team wants Americans to believe terrorism has been defeated, and thereby bolster support for the current Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Then it would look like Hillary was part of the team that defeated terrorism. But how is that going to happen when the media keeps reporting on one terrorist attack around the world after the next? Maybe people will think about giving Trump a try. But the Democrats do not want people thinking for themselves.

California's Democratic legislature has managed to get an anti-speech measure on this November's ballot - Proposition 59. The measure urges all elected California officials to "use all of their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) allow for the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that corporations should not have the same Constitutional rights as human beings."

The Democrats want to amend the First Amendment, the Amendment that gives us our most cherished rights - free speech, a free press, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly and to peaceably protest government actions. After the Citizens United case, there was a proliferation of Super PACs allowed to spend money in support of, or against, a candidate, as long as there was no coordination with the candidate. Perhaps you believe the Democrats are concerned about money in politics. Although, anyone who believes that Clinton's true concern is money in politics, after she and Bill collected tens of millions of dollars just for giving some speeches, is pretty much willing to believe that the Moon is made out of green cheese.

Here is another theory. The mainstream media, Hollywood and the universities are overwhelmingly left wing. But it's not enough for the Democrats. That is why they attack Fox News and talk radio - two conservative outlets. That is why they do not want conservative Super PACs disseminating a conservative message. You see, the Democrats only want their message to be heard.

As for the suggestion that any Constitutional Amendment would "ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another," exactly how does that happen? Let us assume that a Constitutional Amendment passes and eliminates all Super PACs. Exactly how does that result in "all citizens" expressing their views? Any citizen who wants to express his or her views may do so now - with a blog, on social media and all the other ways people who want to express their ideas do so already. Eliminating Super PACs will not result in a single citizen being able to express themselves in any way that they are not already able to do.

It is a ruse, all with the express purpose of keeping you from hearing conservative speech, or any speech that the Democrats do not want you to hear. After all, John Kerry told the media they should report less about terrorism, so that "people wouldn't know what's going on."

(For a further discussion of the Citizens United case, see the the 1/23/10 post, "U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Independent Corporate Campaign Spending Limits.")

Saturday, September 3, 2016

More Left Wing Tyranny

Once in a while I tune in to MSNBC. On the show AM Joy, with Joy Reid, she had four guests. The discussion centered on immigration. One guest, a conservative black man named Paris Dennard, said that Trump was not against immigration, but illegal immigration. After using the word "illegals" several times, another guest, Juan Hernandez, said he was insulted by the term "illegal." At which point the black host, Joy, intoned "I was going to say the same thing."

Mr. Dennard looked perplexed. Mr. Hernandez added: "I really appreciate using the right vocabulary." Excuse me? This is so typical of the left - first, easily insulted, and second, shutting down speech with which they disagree. Added Hernandez: "Nobody is illegal in this world," and "we're all G-d's children." Joy to Dennard: "This (her show) is like being in a family home. So when you're in this home, we ask that you not use terminology that offends people." I consider this to be an intellectual blog, with no use of expletives, but with this leftist enforced censorship I am tempted to say "#%&$ that!"

One residence hall at Rutgers University is considering a policy which encourages students to watch what they say, as part of a "Language Matters" campaign. Clearly, language does matter. There are laws regarding libel and slander. Judaism has many books on the subject of "lashon hara," which prohibits speech which, even if true, is meant to harm another, or carelessly harms another. But AM Joy and Rutgers are concerned with speech that offends those on the left. The Rutgers proposed policy warns against "micro assaults, micro insults, and micro invalidations."

Students are warned that "victims" (is anyone other than white males not a victim to the left?) may be affected "physically, emotionally (and) behaviorally," resulting in an increased "risk for illness and decreased immune system" (response). Students are to ask if what they are about to say is "true," "inspiring," "necessary" and "kind." Clearly, I would agree that people should not go out of their way to insult others. Good behavior would mandate not intentionally seeking to harm others - by word or by deed. Jewish law under lashon hara forbids even true speech if it is being said for an improper purpose.

But the left seeks to ban certain political speech, which is the worst type of censorship. As a country, we are governed by civil, not religious law. Our speech is governed first and foremost by the First Amendment. Not surprisingly, an example of prohibited speech at the Rutgers residence hall is the phrase "illegal aliens."

Milo Yiannopoulos is described by Wikipedia as a "British journalist, entrepreneur and technology editor for Breitbart News." He is also a gay man who regularly criticizes movements he sees as the "regressive left." He was invited by the "Young Americans for Liberty" we go again, Rutgers. Leftist students protested his presence on campus, describing his speech as "hate speech" and covering themselves in blood (although I am not sure of the symbolism in doing so).

In reply, Yiannopoulos said this: "These people do not believe in the free open exchange of ideas. They do not believe in intellectual inquiry, in full open frank discussion of ideas. They don't believe in the basis of classical liberalism, which is one of the founding principles of our civilization." To which I would only add: Amen. But wait, that word would probably be banned at Rutgers as well. Given the religious connotations of "Amen" I am sure that at least some atheists would be offended. So, allow me to rephrase: good for Milo for standing up for American values. But wait, not everyone here is an American, so those who are not American might be offended by that. Can I get a little help here?

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Trump on Immigration

This evening, Donald Trump gave his long awaited speech on immigration. His 10 point plan follows.

1. The US will build a wall at the southern border. 2. Trump will end the catch and release policy. Illegals will be detained until they can be deported. 3. There will be zero tolerance for criminal aliens; with Trump noting there are 2 million currently in the US. Trump plans on hiring 5000 more border patrol agents, putting them at the border. He will seek passage of Kate's law, with strong mandatory sentences for criminal aliens, followed by deportation.

4. Trump will block funding for sanctuary cities. I never did understand how local officials could get away with violating federal immigration laws. I do not think Obama or Clinton would allow local authorities to refuse to send tax dollars owed to the Feds. 5. Trump will revoke what he calls unconstitutional executive orders, and actually enforce the laws on the books. There's a concept. There will be no more amnesty for those here illegally.

6. Trump will suspend issuance of visas to any place where the US is unable to conduct an adequate screening process. Immigration from such areas will be suspended until we have a "proper and extreme vetting" procedure in place. Trump made specific reference to Syrian and Libyan refugees. He says that the Gulf states should pay for the creation of "safe zones" for those refugees - in their region. The US would be willing to supervise the process. He noted how Clinton wants to bring hundreds of thousands of those refugees here, with little ability to know what their true intentions are in coming here.

7. Trump will ensure that other countries actually take back those people that we deport. Currently, he says that 23 countries refuse to take their own citizens back. So, we just keep them. Incredibly, according to Trump, the State Department under Clinton kept issuing visas to people from those 23 countries. That's really showing them that the US will not be pushed around. 8. Trump wants to complete a biometric entry/exit visa tracking system, noting that in 2015 500,000 people overstayed their visas. Such a system, per Trump, was recommended by the 9/11 commission in order to enhance national security. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were still here in the US on expired visas.

9. Trump wants to put an end to the incentives for people to come here illegally - for healthcare, education, and various government benefits. He asserted that 62% of illegal immigrants use some form of government assistance. 10. Finally, he wants to see reform of the legal immigration laws in a way that will serve the best interests of the American people. I am not convinced, however, that his plan to renegotiate trade deals is either feasible or in the best interests of the US. He has not convinced me that it is the government's job to tell businesses where they may operate.

Overall, however, Trump has proposed a serious and substantive plan. I expect that tomorrow's headlines in the mainstream media will focus on Trump's trip to Mexico in order to meet with the Mexican President, Enrique Pena Nieto. I expect that the media will follow Clinton's lead and criticize Trump for making that visit. Then again. Trump went to Louisiana following the terrible flooding there. Obama could not interrupt his golfing vacation, and Clinton was, what, too busy?

Trump: "President Obama and Hillary Clinton have engaged in gross dereliction of duty by surrendering the safety of the American people to open borders." If you disagree with that, please explain how Obama's and Clinton's support for sanctuary cities protects the safety of the American people. Trump: the "central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants...(but) the well-being of the American people."

There is a clear choice in this election. You either believe the United States of America should continue to survive as a sovereign entity, or you do not. If you believe in open borders, then you do not support the sovereignty of the USA, and Clinton is your candidate.

Sunday, August 28, 2016

A Few More Odds and Ends

Colin Kaepernick is the star quarterback for the San Francisco Forty-Niners. During this past Friday's exhibition game against the Green Bay Packers, he refused to stand for the playing of the national anthem. Said Kaepernick: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."

Clearly, Kaepernick has the absolute right to sit during the playing of the national anthem. It is the type of choice that demonstrates the greatness of our country. Ironically, Kaepernick recently signed a six year $114,000,000 contract with the Niners. Depending on his performance, he may not get the full dollar amount. But tens of millions of dollars still sounds pretty good to me. So I am confused about how a black man can make that kind of money in the United States and still conclude that the country "oppresses" blacks.

Now, there is no doubt that the issue of improper police shootings, Kaepernick's concern, is a legitimate issue. But how does that translate into a condemnation of the entire country? And I would ask him if he does not feel that he is disrespecting the blacks who make up 21.5% of the US Army and 19.3% of the US Navy - men and women who have signed up to defend this "oppressive" country with their lives if necessary.

By contrast, there was a moving story out of the recent Olympics. Sam Kendricks is a 2nd Lieutenant in the US Army Reserve, and a world class pole vaulter. As he was running down the track with the pole in his hands, about to make a jump, he heard the playing of the national anthem elsewhere in the arena. He immediately stopped running, laid his pole on the ground, and stood at attention.

The anthem was obviously being played during a ceremony for a US Gold medal winner, but in watching the video it is clear that Kendricks could not tell where in the arena the flag was being raised. But he stopped, and stayed at attention until the playing of the anthem was completed. It was an amazing display of patriotism. When the music stopped he picked up his pole and ran to make the jump again. I am pleased to report that 2nd Lieutenant Kendricks won the Bronze medal in the pole vault.

In the May 19, 2016 post (An Email Exchange With A Columbia Law School Professor, Part II), four comments were made about the post. Just click on "comments" to read them. The last two were by the same person, Theish Fushkindum. This is not someone that I know, although I just found out that, in fact, the two comments were written by a young member of my extended family. She is a young college student, and just told me that she wrote the two comments. I never saw a comment under her name.

It turns out that she used a pseudonym, but I must admit I missed the irony. You see, the intent behind the name was to say "This is Fuckin' Dumb." Now, I appreciate humor as much as anyone, so I will leave the comments as they are. As for the insult, as this blog has noted numerous times, leftists (recall there are almost no liberals anymore) prefer demagoguery, name-calling, demonization and mockery to true debate. Besides, the writer is a college student who knows everything after having had almost no real world experiences. Reminds me of myself at that age.