America's Hitler Youth

I know.  You don't have to tell me.  I'm the first to say that comparisons to Hitler are overblown, and often minimize the horrors of the Holocaust.  But I'm at a loss as to how to describe these ever more brazen "protesters."  One thing is for certain.  They are not protesters as we understand it.  They are obstructors.  They are bullies.  And they freely admit to supporting Hamas, a group guilty of rape, torture and the mass murder of civilians - men, women, children and babies.

On Monday, there was an organized nationwide obstruction by these - I'm reluctant to use the word - people.  Among other things, they blocked the I-190 access to O'Hare International Airport in Chicago.  They occupied the Brooklyn Bridge, a leading thoroughfare between Manhattan and Brooklyn.  And they did the same on the Golden Gate Bridge, between San Francisco and points north.  In downtown Miami, they blocked the entrance to the port.

How did all this happen?  Certainly, these criminal obstructors are well organized, and likely well financed.  And they are showing that they have the capacity to bully the American people - they have the ability to push us around.  If any of them are here on visas, they should immediately be deported.  In some cities, the police are taking action.  In others, I suspect the police are outnumbered, and in some, likely under orders from politicians to stand down.  

Perhaps Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) has the answer:  "And I would encourage most people anywhere that get stuck behind criminals like this, who are trying to block traffic, to take matters int their own hands."  What if an ambulance is trying to get someone to a hospital?  Or a fire engine trying to get to a fire?  Or a pregnant woman needing to get to a hospital?  Or law enforcement rushing to an emergency?  These people should face consequences at least as severe as the January 6 protesters; and much more severe if people end up seriously ill or injured or dead because of their obstruction.  

Why aren't the Feds involved?  I assume some of these roads, bridges and airports have some federal connection.  Biden could federalize the National Guard in some of these states.  Merrick Garland could get the FBI involved.  Assuming he's not too preoccupied with investigating parents who speak up at school board meetings.  

I want to be very clear about something.  These are likely the same people threatening to withhold their votes from Biden, because he has supported Israel.  So, now, Biden is pandering to these people, to these Hamas supporting criminals.  (See my 2/18/24 post, "Why You Should Care About Dearborn, Michigan, Part II.)  Now, in Dearborn, there have chants of "Death to America," and "Death to Israel."  

Here's my question.  How many Americans have woken up to this new reality?  How many Democrats have?  How many Jews have?  I can't get a reaction to Biden violating federal law and allowing millions of people to enter the country under his watch (estimated to be 7 to 10 million people).  I can't get a reaction to the obvious election interference, democracy destroying cases against Trump.

How many people does it bother that many Jewish students are now afraid to walk alone on their college campuses?  How many Jews does it bother?  And, how many are bothered by Jewish college kids being afraid to go to their own classes?  One Columbia University professor referred to the "stunning victory of the Palestinian resistance."  Here's another Columbia professor:  "Every dirty treacherous ugly and pernicious happening in the world just wait for a few days and the ugly name "Israel" will pop up."  Here's yet another Columbia professor:  "...I'm with Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad."

What Jewish student wouldn't be afraid of going to classes taught by these professors?  Here's a better question:  why are these Jew-hating, America-hating professors allowed to teach at Columbia?  Or anywhere?  Columbia is an Ivy League University.  It was founded in 1754 as King's College, and is the fifth oldest institution of higher learning in the country.  But history has taught that the elites gravitate towards radical left-wing movements and ideologies.  

We now have Jewish adults afraid to wear any item of clothing that may identify them as a Jew.  I keep asking myself, this can't be, can it?  After all, this is America, in the year 2024.  But, is that what the Jews asked themselves in 1938 Germany?  This can't be, can it?

The Bogus Case In New York Against Trump

Alvin Bragg vs Donald Trump.  I'll preface my remarks by saying that it is taking everything in my power to not use the expletives of which people like Bragg are deserving.  He's got a 7 or 8 year old case, where the statute of limitations has run.  So he turned it into a felony by alleging the false business records allegations were done with intent to commit another crime.  What other crime?  Bragg feels no need to disclose that.  And, of course, the case centers around the payments made to Stormy Daniels, allegedly to keep her quiet about a brief fling she had with Trump; the assertion being that Trump paid her to cover up the affair while running for president in 2016.

Who gives a damn that he had an affair?  Other presidents have.  Guess who was fined $375,000 (one of the largest fines ever against a presidential campaign) by the FEC (Federal Election Commission) for campaign reporting violations?  Barack Obama.  Was Obama prosecuted by anyone?  Of course not.  This is a sham trial against Trump.  And the trial judge, one Juan Merchan, refused Trump's motion to delay the trial until after the election.  The allegations against Trump are based on events from 2016 and 2017.  But now - suddenly - there is an urgency to bring this matter to trial?  Bull!

This trial is a clear demonstration of election interference - by the party that repeatedly tells us they are the ones protecting democracy.  Bull!  So, while Trump has been ordered to be in the courtroom every day of the trial, Biden has been out on the campaign trail in the very important swing state of Pennsylvania.  Biden gets to campaign while Trump must deal with a bull! trial.  This doe not sound like the United States of America.  This sounds more like Soviet Russia, or Vladimir Putin's Russia.  Putin runs for office, while the opposition rots in prison, or worse.  

Let's talk some more about Judge Merchan.  I heard he had donated to Biden's 2020 campaign.  So I looked it up.  $15 to the Biden campaign.  $10 to something called the Progressive Turnout Project.  And another $10 to Stop Republicans.  The latter is a group that describes itself as a "grassroots funded effort dedicated to resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump's radical right-wing legacy."  I guess we know where Judge Merchan stands politically.  

Here was one legal analyst:  "While the amounts here are minimal, it's surprising that a sitting judge would make political donations of any size to a partisan candidate or cause."  Fox news?  No, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

Here was a legal ethics professor from NYU (New York University):  "...New York, like most US jurisdictions, has adopted language from the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct (prohibiting judges from) 'soliciting funds for, paying an assessment to, or making a contribution to a political organization or candidate.'"  I guess Judge Merchan did not concern himself with that rule.  But, giving him the benefit of the doubt, and assuming it was an honest mistake, the proper thing would have been to grant Trump's motion and recused himself.  In order to avoid any appearance of impropriety.  But, we know that didn't happen.

While Bragg was busy upgrading Trump's alleged misdemeanor paperwork violations into 34 felonies (what Bull!), he was busy downgrading "60% of felony cases to lesser charges last year - amid fury over criminals being repeatedly released to roam streets of the Big Apple."  (This from Fox, citing the Daily Mail.)

Mr. Bragg's predecessor had an opportunity to bring this case.  He declined.  The Feds had an opportunity to bring this case.  They declined.  But I guess Biden is feeling the heat, given his sinking poll numbers, and multiple attacks from the party's base.  How does it look with the jury pool coming from NYC?  In 2016, 79% of the city's vote went for Clinton.  In 2020, 76% of the vote went for Biden.  And we are supposed to believe that Trump can get a fair trial in NYC?  Bull!

  

Six Months Ago Today

It was six months ago, on October 7, 2023, that Hamas terrorists made their way into Israel, and murdered over 1200 Israelis of all ages, engaging in rape and torture in the process.  Some 130 or so hostages remain in captivity in Gaza.  Many of us will never forget those terrible feelings we had of anguish and agony and anger, after learning of the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust.  Yet, a short six months later, much of the world seems to have forgotten who started this war, forgotten about the hostages and turned against Israel.  Unfortunately, that includes many Democrats, including the President and those in his administration.  

We saw Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the highest ranking Jewish official in the US government, turn on Israel, when he called for the removal from office of Israel's democratically elected Prime Minister.  We heard from Vice President Kamala Harris, telling Israel that "any major military operation in Gaza (presumably referring to Rafah) would be a mistake."  (See the two part post, "Just Where Do The Democrats Stand On Israel?' - March 24, 2024.)  

Then, on March 27, we had the US (President Biden) refusing to veto a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Gaza/Hamas.  That resolution, while also calling for the release of the hostages, did not tie the ceasefire demand to the hostages actual release.  Furthermore, Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza, have never engaged in a ceasefire, launching over 20,000 rockets and missiles into Israel since Israel left the Gaza strip in 2005.  Worse yet, Hamas has promised to repeat their murderous attack of October 7 over and over and over again.  So, yes, by all means, let's call for a meaningless ceasefire.

Following an Israeli air strike in Gaza that killed seven aid workers from the World Central Kitchen, Biden now calls directly for an immediate ceasefire.  And just to make sure that the Israeli government got the message, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that "If we don't see the changes we need to see...there will be a change in our policy."  

Piling on were 40 members of Congress, all Democrats, in a letter sent to Biden and Blinken.  "In light of the recent strike against aid workers and the ever-worsening humanitarian crisis, we believe it is unjustifiable to approve (additional) weapons transfers (to Israel)."  Let's forget for the moment that the US killed 10 civilians on a missile strike in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 2021.  Let's forget that seven of those killed were children.  And let's forget that, unlike what Israel has done now, the US was not quick to admit its mistake.  And, let's also forget that terrible things happen in war.  That innocent civilians get killed.  There are endless famous quotes concerning the horrors of war.  

Yet, as today's Democrats do, they fail to realize that appeasement of the enemy does not result in peace, but rather in more war.  The Obama and now Biden administrations, have a solid history of trying to appease the enemies of the United States and of the civilized world.  And make no mistake - Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the US, and is funded by the leading state sponsor of terrorism on the planet - Iran.  

In typical fashion, the Democrats are putting all the pressure on a democratic ally to do more, to concede more, to allow Hamas to survive, and to reward the Palestinians for the events of October 7 with a state of their own.  This is directly out of the Democrat playbook.  It is not the peace through strength advocated by wiser leaders from Washington to Reagan.  It is endless war through appeasement. 

Does it matter to Biden and these Democrats that some of the remaining hostages are Americans?  It would be hard to tell.  Does it matter to Biden and these Democrats that approximately 200,000 Israelis have been made refugees in their own country (in the south of Israel because of Hamas, and in the north of Israel because of Hezbollah joining in the fight with numerous rocket and missile attacks on Israel as well).  

Here's an idea.  If the US so disapproves of the way Israel is carrying out this war for its survival, why not announce the following.  Tell Hamas and the other terrorists, that Israel has agreed to stand down, because the United States intends to flood Gaza with hundreds of thousands of US troops, to remain indefinitely in Gaza, in order to ensure the release of the hostages, and the surrender of Hamas.  Unless, of course, Hamas sees that it is wiser to voluntarily surrender  But that will never happen.  Instead, the US will be building a pier along the Gaza coast, which will give Hamas free reign to smuggle in whatever additional weapons they can, which they will then use in the next attack on Israel.  Another foreign policy win for Biden!    

Just Where Do The Democrats Stand On Israel, Part II

Senate Majority Leader Schumer apparently felt the need to emphasize the importance of Israel having elections, with an eye towards replacing Netanyahu.  In case the Israelis did not get the message, he added that the U.S. may "have no choice but to play a more active role in shaping Israeli policy by using our leverage to change the present course."  That's nice.  What did you have in mind, Chucky?  Cut off military aid in the middle of a war?  

Here was the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris:  "Any major military operation in Gaza (presumably referring to Rafah) would be a huge mistake."  Why is that?  Don't we want Hamas to be defeated?  Why does the left seem to have a problem with winning wars?  Harris:  "I have studied the maps, there's nowhere for these folks to go, and we're looking at about a million and a half people in Rafah who are there because they were told to go there."

Oh, she studied the maps.  What a condescending tone and attitude.  If you studied the maps, Madam VP, you would see an area known as the Sinai peninsula, which is part of Egypt, bordering Gaza.  If Egypt let them all go through their border with Gaza, the Sinai is more than large enough to accommodate all those people.  But Egypt does not want them.  Jordan does not want them.  I know the rationale - maybe Israel will not them back into Gaza after the war.  Except, Egypt and Jordan never wanted them.

Harris:  "...we have been very clear far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed."  That is a sad fact of any war - innocent civilians being killed.  What I do not understand is why isn't the United States putting the pressure on Hamas and their supporters?  Hamas started this war.  Hamas could at least get a ceasefire by releasing the hostages.  Or, they could simply surrender.   

A confession.  My wife and I watched the Oscars.  I saw a Ukrainian film maker speak proudly in the defense of his people in their war with Russia.  I saw actor Ramy Youssef, a proud Muslim, joining others in wearing a pin that read "Artists 4 Ceasefire."  What about the Jews?  Steven Spielberg, perhaps the most well known Jew in attendance, also spoke.  Anything about the hostages?  Nope.  Did I see anyone wearing yellow ribbons for the hostages?  Nope.  

But I did see Jonathan Glazer speak, following his acceptance of an award for "The Zone of Interest."  Glazer:  "Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people.  Whether the victims of October 7 in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza - all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist?"  Did he just refute his Jewishness? 

One left-wing site, Vox, said he was misunderstand.  Rather, Glazer was saying that Jewishness and the Holocaust should not be used justify the attack on Gaza,  Maybe.  It is a plausible interpretation of Glazer's remarks.  But even so, why wasn't the attack on Hamas in Gaza justified?  And why did Glazer suggest that the conflict resulted from the "occupation?'  No, the conflict results from 100 years of Jew hatred by Arabs in the historic land of Palestine.  (And for those not familiar with the history, Palestine was never a country.  It was also understand as the homeland of the Jewish people.)

On the good news front, over 450 other Jews in Hollywood, including actors and producers, wrote a rebuttal to Glazer.  "We refute our Jewishness being hijacked for the purpose of drawing a moral equivalence between a Nazi regime (Hamas) that sought to exterminate a race of people (Jews), and an Israeli nation that seeks to avert its own extermination."   

A final note.  Michelle Goldberg is an Op-Ed writer for the New York Times.  In her Sunday, March 17, 2024 column she said, among other things, this:  "I'm a secular Jew with no particular attachment to Israel."  Uh-huh.  What?  Actually, I get the secular Jew part.  There are quite a few secular Jews here and even in Israel.  I do not get the "no particular attachment to Israel."  It is sad that she has no attachment to her fellow Jews in Israel.  It is sad that has no attachment to the land of Israel.  I don't follow her enough to now how much she may have been affected by the events of October 7.  

But she knows enough to say in her column that "rituals for the two most important Jewish holidays, Passover and Yom Kippur, culminate with the words 'next year in Jerusalem.'"  To which I would add:  "Am Yisrael Chai!"  The People of Israel Live!"  I hope that Ms. Goldberg will come to understand that Jews everywhere are the people of Israel.    

Just Where Do The Democrats Stand On Israel? Part I

Last week, Senate Majority Chuck Schumer, the highest ranking Jewish official in the US government, gave a speech about the current conflict between Hamas and Israel.  After discussing his long term support for Israel, and after discussing the atrocities committed by Hamas, he turned to the "two-state solution."  This is a topic that greatly concerns Democrats, and seems to do so to an extent that it overrides discussion of the hostages.  Because the hostages, along with the defeat of Hamas, should be the only focus currently.  We need a return of the hostages; and either the surrender or defeat of Hamas.

Here are some of Schumer's comments.  "Right now, there are four major obstacles standing in the way of two states...(1) Hamas, and the Palestinians who support and tolerate their evil ways, (2) radical right-wing Israelis in government and society, (3) Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and (4) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."  How nice.  Schumer equates Netanyahu, the duly elected Prime Minister in the only democratic country in the area, with the terrorists in Hamas and with the PA, another terror supporting group.  

I will not repeat here the numerous times that the Palestinians have been offered a state.  I will say that the first offer came in 1947 - the same time when the Jews were offered a state, when the UN General Assembly voted what came to be known as "partition" of  the land formerly under British control since WWI (aka the British Mandate, also called Mandatory Palestine).  The Arabs refused and immediately declared war on the Jewish state.  The Democrats will not acknowledge reality - for 75 years the Arabs have had one goal - the destruction of Israel and killing all the Jews.  That's the holdup to peace!  

Schumer tells us that Hamas and "the minority of Palestinians who support Hamas," should have no role in a future Palestinian state.  But is it a minority of the Palestinians that support Hamas?  An Op-Ed in the 3/14/24 Wall Street Journal (by Amit Segal) quotes poll results from "Arab World for Research and Development, affiliated with Ramallah-based Birzeit University."  According to that poll, 59% of Palestinians say they "extremely support" Hamas, with an additional 16% saying they "somewhat support" Hamas.  Segal:  "It's time the (Biden) administration recognizes reality:  the Palestinians overwhelmingly support the murder of Jews, and the Israelis don't think the Palestinians deserve a state."

Segal is perhaps unaware of my oft stated truism in the blog:  "liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs."  Schumer then says there must be "reform" of the PA.  Finally, he says there must be new elections in Israel, believing that Netanyahu would be replaced.  Abbas was elected as president of the PA in 2005, for a four year term.  We are now 20 years down the road and there has been no further election.  Why didn't Schumer call for new elections in the West Bank?  Is it because he fears that the people would continue to elect leaders who want to destroy Israel?  

What is up with calling for new elections in Israel, and saying that Netanyahu needs to go.  I thought that the Democrats opposed election interference from foreign countries.  Isn't that what the whole Russian collusion story was all about?  But now Democrats favor the US interfering with the election in a democratic, sovereign nation, that happens to be our strongest and best ally in the Middle East.  Nice.  President Biden, when asked to comment on Schumer's speech, said it was "good."  Ask me if I think there was coordination between the White House and Schumer with regards to Schumer's speech, and I will tell you: "100%."  

Netanyahu said this in reply:  "...no international pressure will stop us from realizing all of the goals of the war:  eliminating Hamas, freeing all of our hostages and ensuring that Gaza never again constitutes a threat to Israel."  In order to prevent that threat, Israel will need to maintain security control in Gaza for the foreseeable future.  

There is no doubt that President Biden has been very supportive of Israel in their war with Hamas.  But that support has softened, with various people in the Biden Administration now warning Israel against going into Rafah, the last stronghold of Hamas in Gaza.  Netanyahu:  "You cannot say you support Israel's goal of destroying Hamas and then oppose Israel when it takes the actions necessary to achieve that goal.  To leave Hamas in power in Rafah is to lose the war, and to replace Hamas with Fatah is to lose the peace."  

In a March 19, 2024 editorial in the WSJ, we are told that "The joke around Jerusalem is that while Mr. Biden once worked to help Israel after Oct. 7, he's now working on the "two-state solution":  Michigan and Nevada."  Indeed.  (See my two part post titled "Why You Should Care About Dearborn, Michigan," from 2/17 and 2/18, 2024.)  It is impossible to ignore the effect US politics has on U.S. support for Israel in the current battle in the Middle East, especially in a presidential election year.      

Here We Go Again...And Again And Again

I shouldn't have to point out the obvious.  Every conservative knows this.  Liberals either refuse to acknowledge it, or simply do not care.  However, the reality is that we have two systems of justice in this country.  One for Republicans and one for Democrats.  Let's take a look.

In Fulton County, Georgia, we just had the Judge's decision about the District Attorney, Fani Willis.  "...The Court finds that the record made at the evidentiary hearing established that the District Attorney's prosecution (of Trump, et.al.) is encumbered by an appearance of impropriety."  "...an odor of mendacity remains."  To borrow a phrase, "I'm shocked, shocked, that there's lying going on!"

The Judge says that there are "reasonable questions about whether the DA and her hand-selected SADA testified truthfully about the timing of their relationship (which) is further underpinning the finding of an appearance of impropriety."  Now, one might think that DA Willis and SADA Nathan Wade would be ordered off the case, based on those findings.  One would be wrong.  The DA was given the option of recusing herself and her office, or simply firing Wade.  How nice.

But what about the fact that DA Willis made on-the-record comments to authors who were writing about the special grand jury's investigation - during the pendency of the case.  That was excused also.  How about the speech to a local church on January 14, 2024, when she claimed "they" (an obvious reference to the defense attorneys on the case) were playing the race card.  Yes, the Judge said such comments were "legally improper."  Apparently, however, nothing was going to get Ms. Willis ordered off the case.  And, if you were thinking that such bias might get the case dismissed entirely...seriously?

What about the case against Joe Biden that was investigated by Special Counsel Robert Hur, concerning Biden's alleged mishandling of classified documents.  At the time Biden mishandled those documents he was a Senator and a Vice President.  Therefore, he did not even have the argument that as President he had every right to take those documents.  Did Hur say Biden was guilty?  He said that Biden "willfully" retained classified documents in violation of the law.  

Then we got the excuse on behalf of Biden.  A jury would apparently find it difficult to convict, because Biden was a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," with "diminished faculties in advancing age."  I have never seen Biden as "well-meaning."  But here's a question - was he an "elderly man with a poor memory" when he took the documents as a senator or when he took them as VP.?  Just roll the tapes of him speaking back then for a jury.  (Although, I suppose one could argue that Biden has always had diminished faculties.)

We all recall what then FBI Director James Comey said about then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified documents and information.  Comey told us that of the 30,000 emails turned over to the FBI, 110 contained classified information, including Top Secret information.  Recall also that Clinton used a personal email server kept in the basement of her home.  The emails were not even as secure as if she had used gmail.  Comey described Clinton as being "extremely careless" in the "handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."  

Comey:  "She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries."  Yes, one would expect that our adversaries have listening and retrieving capabilities that are similar to our NSA.  But, of course, after declaring potential violations of the law, Comey excused it all with "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."  Why not?  Presumably because she is a Democrat.  And an insider.

Now we have a report by Forbes magazine that, according to the Director of National Archives, Information Security Oversight, boxes of classified information in unclassified containers have been found in every administration from the Reagan administration to the present.  Yet, only one high ranking official gets prosecuted for the mishandling of classified information and documents.  Donald Trump.  A Republican.  And an outsider.  I'm waiting for a single liberal I know to express outrage at the two standards of justice.  I'm just not holding my breath for it.

  

The Antisemitic Jew Haters Win Again, and D.E.I. Mandates at the Universities

What can you say about UC Berkeley?  As with many of these elite, and not so elite, colleges and universities, antisemites appear to get their way.  So, should we even be surprised that, in late February,  a pro-Hamas mob of about 200 students was able to prevent a speech that was to be given by Israeli lawyer and military member Ran Bar-Yoshafat at the UC Berkeley campus?  These "protesters" (I'm being polite as I do not curse in the blog) were heard shouting "intifada" and "free Palestine."  One Jewish student said a protester got in his face and yelled "Jew Jew Jew," before spitting on him. 

"Bears for Palestine" is a UC Berkeley group, Bears being the mascot of the school.  Here is what they thought of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7:  "Israel, as a settler colonial state, renders Palestinian existence inherently an act of resistance.  We invariably reject Israel's framing as a 'victim.'"  This statement was issued on October 7 following the attack.  The Bears for Palestine believe in a return to a "unified Palestine," where likely no Israel exists.  

As to Ran Bar-Yoshafat being shut down before he was able to utter a single word, the Bears for Palestine asserted that he "has committed crimes against humanity, is a genocide denier, and we will not allow this event to go on."  Wow!  The mob declared that the event would not go on, and lo and behold the event did not go on.  In fact, the speaker and the Jewish students present had to be led out of the auditorium for their own safety.  Wait...what?  Jewish students are no longer safe on an American college campus?  Exactly!

While the Berkeley chancellor condemned the mob for violating school rules, and while she said she wanted to keep the students safe and allow the speech to proceed, "it was not possible to do both given the size of the crowd and the threat of violence."  That is acknowledging more than just a "heckler's veto."  That is acknowledging the inability of the school to protect Jewish students while engaging in school activities.  

I like to ask questions.  Here's one.  Why wasn't there enough security?  Here are more.  Anticipating the likelihood of the protests, what arrangements were made to allow access to the auditorium through a single door that could be guarded?  Do we know who any of these protesters are?  Will they be expelled from school given that their actions went against the stated purpose of higher education - a free and open discussion and debate.  

Not coincidentally, the New York Times had an Op-Ed in their 3/8/24 print edition with this title:  "Civil Discourse on Campus Is Put to the Test."  The author, Pamela Paul, says the conference was sponsored by the Stanford Law School and the Stanford Graduate School of Education.  The issue was "restoring inclusive civil discourse on campus," asking "in today's heated political environment is that even possible?"  

One of the topics for discussion:  "diversity hiring statements," by which they mean "the requirement all job applicants demonstrate their commitment to advancing diversity, equity and inclusion goals."  There it is.  This is Stanford after all, just across the Bay from Berkeley.  I understand that students may need to discuss this on their college applications.  Nice to know that the professoriate must address this nonsense.  

At least one attendee at this conference saw through it:  "What they want are non-straights, non-whites and non-men.  But they don't say it that way.  There's a lack of forthrightness..."  Interestingly, in 2018 Berkeley "considered candidates' D.E.I. statements first, before looking at the rest of their applications.  Anyone whose D.E.I. statement didn't pass the first round was eliminated from the next pool."  

Berkeley received some criticism apparently, for not even considering someone's credentials.  You know - their merits.  But one attendee defended Berkeley, saying "...I would say that D.E.I. statements are credentials."  And he said this:  "This was just another and no less valid approach to narrowing the pool."  That is a perfect example of how even highly educated people can be completely asinine.  

A belief in, and actions taken toward promoting, D.E.I. now constitute valid qualifications for a job as a professor, equal to actual merit?  I would bet that the proponent of that idea does not even realize that he is promoting a political litmus test for the hiring of professors.  Maybe they'll ask this question of possible hires:  "if you are Jewish, please affirm your commitment to a Palestinian state and further affirm that you are not a Zionist."  There's a political litmus test that no doubt many in our universities would deem to be appropriate.  

The Non-Stop, and Unprecedented, Attacks On Donald Trump (The Ballot Case and the Presidential Immunity Case)

This time, the Democrats failed.  But not for lack of trying.  The Colorado Supreme Court had voted 4 to 3 to keep former President Trump off their ballot.  In separate actions, the Maine Secretary State declared Trump ineligible for their ballot, and a Chicago judge ruled that Trump should be kept off the Illinois ballot.  All these judges and the Maine official are Democrats.  Nearly 20 states in total were considering such action.  

Democrats, who love to say how they are the defenders of democracy, never hesitate to undermine our democratic system.  They have done so countless times.  They refused to accept that Trump won in 2016.  It was not just the loser, Hillary Clinton, who declared Trump to be an "illegitimate" President, but other Democrats and various Democratic-Mainstream Media Complex (D-MSMC) commentators as well.  Then, the Dems came up with an unsupported Russian collusion hoax, in an effort to remove a duly elected president from office.  How was that not an "insurrection?"  

They then came up with the prime time January 6 Committee, whose members were appointed entirely by then Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat.  She refused to allow two members of the House chosen by then minority leader Kevin McCarthy to sit on that committee.  That was unprecedented.  Prior to that, Pelosi ordered a second Trump impeachment proceeding without having any House Judiciary Committee hearings first; hearings where actual evidence is presented.  And prior to that, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did away with the filibuster rule as applied to all federal judges other than the Supreme Court.  Unprecedented actions...by Democrats.    

Today's Democrats have no greater respect for our institutions than they say Trump has.  But back to the case.  The 14th Amendment, in Section 3, prevents certain individuals from holding office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.  Trump appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court and won, Trump v. Anderson.  Trump won in a 9 to 0 per curiam (unsigned) opinion of SCOTUS.  The alternative, said the Court, would result in a "chaotic patchwork at odds with our Nation's federalism principle."  That should have been obvious to everyone.

The Court:  "Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings," such as the burden of proof required.  Indeed.  The election of the president is a nationwide election.  It is not something that a single state should be able to alter.  The Court did not decide whether the President is an "officer of the United States" under Section 3, as the word "president" is conspicuously absent.  Nor did the Court decide whether Trump engaged in an insurrection.  The Colorado Court did find in the affirmative on those issues.  

The US Supreme Court found that the Colorado decision would "sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States as a whole."  This especially applies to the Presidency, because that office "represent(s) all the voters in the Nation."  States are permitted to disqualify candidates for state offices under Section 3, said the Court, but not disqualify for federal offices.  But the majority went one step further in their decision, holding that Congress alone had the power to enforce a Section 3 disqualification for federal offices - as opposed to, say, the federal courts.  Four of the Justices disagreed with that determination.

As a result, the D-MSMC attempted to spin the decision as a 5 to 4 vote, blaming it all on the conservative appointees.  But that is not the truth, as all 9 Justices, including the liberal ones, agreed that individual states could not keep Trump, or any presidential (or other federal office) candidate, off the ballot.  The D-MSMC was all in by claiming that the wording of Section is clear and unambiguous.  No person shall hold office after engaging in insurrection .  So clear, right?   

Such as the First Amendment is so clear:  "Congress shall make NO law...abridging the freedom of speech."  No law.  Except...in interpreting that provision, the Supreme Court has declared various types of speech not protected by the First Amendment.  Defamatory speech (libel and slander), obscenity, child pornography, speech intended to cause imminent harm...all are not protected speech.  Not to mention the often used "time, place and manner" restrictions that used to be put on speech (although apparently not so much anymore).  So, for these leftwing commentators to say that the language of Section 3 is clear, and therefore that ends the discussion, is, shall we say, rather simplistic.       

The presidential immunity case is currently pending at the Supreme Court.  Do I believe that the prosecution being brought by Special Counsel Jack is politically motivated?  Absolutely.  After all, Trump announced his third try at the Presidency on November 15, 2022, and Merrick Garland appointed Smith on November 18, 2022.   

In terms of immunity from civil liability, the Supreme Court has held that a president has absolute immunity for conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties.  (Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 1982)  Under no circumstances would I imagine that the Court would grant absolute immunity from criminal liability.  The most extreme example would be that of a president charged with the crime of committing murder.  But maybe not.  Imagine this scenario.  A president orders a drone strike to take out a known terrorist.  But the drone also kills innocent civilians.  Do we allow any leftwing, antiwar prosecutor to file murder charges against that president?  Maybe not such a simple issue.     

Where should a line be drawn?  Will it hinge on whether a president can make the case that his actions were part of his official duties?  But does that raise other issues?  After all, the District Court of Appeals said "it would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,' were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity."  If that is the basis for a SCOTUS decision (unlikely in my opinion) then Biden is in trouble.  

He has bragged about his continuing student loan forgiveness, even after the Supreme Court said he had no such power.  Worse, he has failed - intentionally - to take care that the immigration laws of the United States be faithfully executed.  He has opened our borders, contrary to the laws passed by Congress, in a manner that is unprecedented.  Well over 7 million people have entered the country illegally since Biden took office.  It is a veritable invasion of our country without a single shot being fired.  This surrender of our nation's sovereignty can only be seen as an intentional act by the President.  It will have more far-reaching, and far longer, consequences, than the events of January 6.  Why shouldn't Biden be both impeached and prosecuted for that extreme dereliction of his duties, especially if you believe that the first duty of a president is to protect the American people.        

Why You Should Care About Dearborn, Michigan, Part II

So just how important is Dearborn?  How important is Michigan?  Michigan is a swing state.  So it's very important, as it can play a role in determining who gets elected president in November.  President Biden has been supportive of Israel with supplying necessary armaments.  However, the people in Michigan, Arabs, are threatening to withhold their votes from Biden if he doesn't change course on his support for Israel.

Therefore, Biden sent top advisers to Michigan to meet with the Arab community.  Here is the first paragraph of an article in the 2/13/24 Ventura County Star, about the Biden advisers going to Michigan:  "Senior advisers to President Joe Biden admitted 'mistakes' and apologized privately to Arab Americans in Michigan for the way the administration has handled the war in Gaza and for how it has spoken publicly about Palestinians during the deadly conflict with Israel."  

Apologized?  For supporting our main ally in the Middle East?  For supporting one of our main allies in the world?  For having to fight a terrorist organization that has publicly announced their desire to kill all the Jews?  What the hell is there to apologize for?  Oh, that's right.  Michigan is a swing state.  Michigan also has, by far, a larger Arab population than any other state, with over 211,000 Arabs.  So, rather than tell the truth, rather than say that Hamas needs to be eradicated, let's pander to the large Arab population.  

Here's what Dearborn Mayor Hammoud had to say, after accusing Israel of genocide:  "We remained uncompromising in our values and our demands for a permanent ceasefire, ending unrestricted military support to the State of Israel, and expediting humanitarian aid and funding to UNRWA."  I do not know what, if anything, Hammoud had to say about the hostages or Hamas.  Funding to UNRWA?  It's already been reported that some UNRWA workers participated in the October 7 atrocities.  

But the entire organization is no good, supporting Hamas in every way.  UNRWA provides textbooks to children in Gaza which show the entire area to be "Palestine."  There is no Israel.  They actually encourage children to be martyrs.  That is why President Trump cut funding to UNRWA.  Biden, of course, restored the funding, undoing all of Trump's good policies.  Only recently, after October 7, and after it was discovered that some UNRWA employees participated in the attack, did Biden cut funding.  Before that, Biden had provided hundreds of millions of dollars to the terrorist supporting UNRWA. 

A permanent ceasefire?  That would allow Hamas to remain in power.  Did Mayor Hammoud express any concern over the fact that Hamas leaders have vowed to repeat the atrocities of October 7 over and over and over again?  Hamas must not be allowed to remain in power.  Israel knows that.  The people in southern Israel who suffered the terrible atrocities understand now that the people -Arabs- they were nice to, were friendly with, are the same people who murdered their families and friends.  

Recently, President Biden met with Jordanian King Abdullah II at the White House.  An article in the 2/13/24 Los Angeles Times, quotes the King as saying "We need a lasting ceasefire now...This war must end."  And, the King said this:  "separation of the West Bank and Gaza cannot be accepted."  The only way for that to happen is that Israel gets separated into two parts.  I guess that is acceptable.  And a ceasefire now means that Hamas gets to stay in power.  Definitely unacceptable.  

And who gives a damn what the King thinks?  Jordan had total control of the area known as the West Bank, from 1948 until the Six Day War in 1967.  During those two decades, did Jordan create a separate Palestinian state?  No, they did not.  After the war, when Israel gained control of the West Bank and the Sinai, did Jordan even care about getting the West Bank back, the way Egypt wanted the Sinai back?  No, they did not.  So why does Jordan even get to have any say?   

Meanwhile, JNS (Jewish News Syndicate) reported on 2/15/24, that "The Biden administration is preparing to make a major push for Palestinian statehood if a Gaza ceasefire agreement being negotiated in Cairo this week takes effect."  How coincidental.  Just when Israel is preparing an assault on Rafah, usually referred to as the last Hamas stronghold in Gaza.  If the story about the push for a Palestinian state is true, it shows once again the weakness of the Biden administration in dealing with our enemies through appeasement, rather than with a demonstration of strength.  

Imagine giving recognition of a Palestinian state so soon after the October 7 atrocities, with Hamas still in power.  Pressure from Arab countries.  Pressure from Arabs in America.  This is when I miss President Trump.      

Why You Should Care About Dearborn, Michigan, Part I

The Wall Street Journal, in the 2/3-2/4/24 weekend edition, printed an Op-Ed by Steven Stalinsky, the Executive Director of MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute).  MEMRI has a good track record of accurately reporting news out of the Arab/Muslim press - not just the comments made for Western publications.  The Op-Ed, "Welcome to Dearborn, America's Jihad Capital," got a lot of pushback from the Arab-Muslim community in Dearborn and Michigan, and from Democrats.  

Here are a few highlights from the article.  "Almost immediately after October 7, and long before Israel began its ground offensive in Gaza, people were celebrating the horrific events of that day in pro-Hamas rallies and marches throughout Dearborn."

Here's more:  "...thousands march in support of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.  Protesters, many with kaffiyehs covering their faces, shout 'intifada, intifada' (and) 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,' and 'America is a terrorist state.'  Local imams give fiery antisemitic sermons."

And Stalinsky quotes someone he describes as "the most influential English-speaking jihadi sheikh," as having posted on Twitter after the atrocities of October 7:  "The hearts haven't been overjoyed like this in so long."  

Is our government aware of the radical, terrorist supporting nature of Dearborn?  Stalinsky:  "A 2001 Michigan State Police assessment submitted to the Justice Department after 9/11 called Dearborn 'a major financial support center' and a 'recruiting area and potential support base' for international terror groups, including possible sleeper cells." 

Stalinsky, along with Yigal Carmon, the two co-founders of MEMRI, were interviewed by the WSJ, and that interview was published in the 1/13-1/14/24 weekend edition.  Stalinsky said:  "There is an element of trying to intimidate the Jewish community, going to kosher restaurants, community centers, Hanukkah celebrations, harassing Jewish students."

And this very important point was made (in case anyone hasn't noticed it from even a cursory watching or reading of the news:  "Efforts to disrupt Thanksgiving and Christmas celebrations, and to block roads, bridges and tunnels, also suggest a new willingness to push around the American majority."

The Mayor of Dearborn, Abdullah Hammoud, called the Op-Ed "inflammatory," and asserted that it "led to an alarming increase in bigoted and Islamophobic rhetoric online targeting the city."  CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) called the article "inflammatory anti-Muslim commentary."  Which is ironic, given that MEMRI caught Nihad Awad, CAIR's Executive Director, celebrating the October 7 attack by Hamas as an act of "self-defense," and Gazan liberation.  

In a front page article of the 2/15/24 New York Times, Salma Hamamy is described a s "one of the most prominent faces of the pro-Palestinian movement on campus" at the University of Michigan.  She leads anti-Israel rallies with chants such as this:  "One, two, three, four, open up the prison doors!  Five, six, seven, eight, Israel is a terrorist state."  

After all the underground tunnels and other infrastructure built by Hamas, it is just extraordinary that anyone can claim that Gaza is an open-air prison controlled by Israel.  Hundreds of miles of tunnels built with sophisticated material certainly suggests that Israel has little or no control over what gets into Gaza.  Also ironic is the fact that the murder of men, women and children, and the rape and mutilation of women's bodies, is apparently not considered "terrorism" by Ms. Hamamy.  

The Democratic Majority whip in the Michigan State Senate, said this of the Op-Ed:  "Michigan is a diverse, beautiful place where hate, bigotry, racism and demonization have no place."  To which I would add - unless it's directed at Jews.  

The Feds vs. Texas

If you don't watch Fox News, you may not have noticed the thousands of people illegally entering the country daily through our southern border.  Fox has been showing it ever since Biden took office, and reversed Trump's border protection policies with one Executive Order after the next.  With so many coming through into Texas, the Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, decided the rest of the country should share in the misery; and he started having busloads of illegal immigrants sent up north, to sanctuary cities.  Eventually, when the Democratic mayors of these cities started complaining about the problem, the Democratic-Mainstream Media Complex ((D-MSMC) had to report on it also.     

Then, Governor Abbott took things a step further.  He decided that if the Biden Administration would not enforce existing immigration law, and stop what amounts to an invasion of our country, that he would try to do so.  The Governor said he had a duty and responsibility to protect the people of Texas.  Therefore, he ordered that razor wire fencing be put up along a section of the Rio Grande River.  It was an attempt to stop the overwhelming flood of people entering the country, and the state, illegally.  But President Biden would have none of it.

Reasonable people might ask why the President has encouraged millions of people to enter the country illegally.  After all, he did not have to undo all of President Trump's border protection policies immediately upon assuming office.  Reasonable might ask why much of the Democrat Party has been going along with this open border policy.  Clearly, Biden does not care about the sovereignty of the United States.  Clearly, Biden does not care about protecting the American people - neither in terms of their personal safety nor their economic well-being, given the added tax burden placed on the public by so many people's social needs.

So why does Biden want to undo/remake America?  The only thing that I can think of is that he and the Democrats expect all these people here will vote, and they will vote for Democrats.  Because Democrats are buying their votes with numerous handouts.  In California, people here illegally essentially have the same rights as legal residents.  They can get a driver's license, food stamps, Medi-Cal (known as Medicaid in other states), emergency shelter and transitional housing, and even get a job (although the employer may get in trouble).  

Back to the border dispute between Biden and Texas.  Biden sued Texas.  The 5th Circuit said the border patrol did not have the right to take down the razor wire put up by Texas, intended to block people from entering the country, and Texas, illegally.  But, by a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court reversed.  The five Justices voting in favor of Biden and the federal government included the three liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.  Voting with them was Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts.  Opposed were Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas.  

At the trial level, the District Court Judge, after looking at all the photos of so many entering illegally, questioned why the border patrol needed to cut the razor wire fencing put up by Texas.  Although siding with the federal government, the judge opined that cutting the fencing appeared to be "for no apparent purpose other than to allow migrants easier entrance further inland."

I do not pretend to be an expert in immigration law.  Article 1, Section 8 does give Congress the power "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  The main law on the topic seems to be the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, although that law has been amended various times.  (I certainly welcome comments by any immigration law experts.)  

Article 2, Section 3 says that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."  There is now widespread agreement that Biden is not doing that with regards to the immigration laws.  And Article 4, Section 4 has this interesting provision:  "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion."  I think we can reasonably call the illegal entry by 7 to 10 million people an "invasion."  And Biden clearly has no interest in protecting the states from that invasion.  

Article 1, Section 10 has this provision:  "No state shall, without the consent of Congress...engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."  Following Governor Abbott's decision to continue protecting the Texas border, UC Berkeley School of Law Dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, had an Op-Ed in the 1/30/24 Los Angeles Times, with this title:  "Texas' frightening lawless defiance of a Supreme Court order."  Yes, the US Constitution says the US Constitution and federal law are supreme over state law.  

But Governor Abbott claims there is an invasion of his state.  The pictures from the border do not lie.  Then Chemerinsky misses the mark, by citing cases that are not apropos.  Yes, President Eisenhower had to send in federal troops to assure the protection of black students in Little Rock, Arkansas.  But there, you had a state governor acting in violation of federal law.  Governor Abbott is trying to enforce federal law, by not allowing people to enter the country wherever and whenever they wish to do so.    Perhaps that is why the Republican Governors Association, as well as former President Trump, all support Governor Abbott.  

I find it interesting that the Democrats had no problem with ignoring federal laws when they set up sanctuary cities and states.  Or when they said they need not comply with requests to hold criminal illegal immigrants until they they could be picked up by ICE in order to be deported.  I've said it a number of times before - if the federal government won't enforce the law, then no one should be surprised if others choose to do so.  I, for one, stand with the Governor who cares about US sovereignty, and who cares about protecting the people of his state.  I do not stand with a lawless president.        

Stop Already With Talk Of The Two-State Solution! Stop It!

It's hard to take.  Especially from my fellow Jews.  This talk of the need for the creation of a Palestinian state.  Why, after the atrocities committed against Israel on October 7, is this topic of conversation?  Why now?  The only topics for conversation at this point in time should focus on the three requirements for peace laid out by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  1.  The complete defeat and elimination of Hamas.  2.  Thereafter, a demilitarized Gaza, with Israel maintaining complete security control.  3.  A deradicalization of all of Palestinian society - in Gaza and in the West Bank.   

Recently, it was discovered that 12 employees of UNRWA (The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) participated in the October 7 massacre of Israelis.  That should come as a surprise to absolutely no one who has been paying attention.  UNRWA runs the schools in Gaza.  Their textbooks show all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea to be "Palestine."  Israel does not exist.  They teach schoolkids that it is good to be a martyr, and that Jews are bad.  To this terrorist supporting organization, that teaches death over life, the Biden Administration gave $340 million in 2022.  Trump had cut the funding to UNRWA because of their support for terrorism.  But, as with many successful Trump policies, Biden reversed it.

Why does UNRWA even exist?  As Bret Stephens said in his 1/31/24 Op-Ed in the New York Times:  "No other group except for Palestinians gets its own permanent agency."  He points out that the surrounding Arab countries did not want them.  Stephens:  "...the postwar era produced millions of refugees:  Germans, Indians, Pakistanis, Palestinians and Jews, including some 800,000 Jews who were kicked out of Arab countries that had been their homes for centuries.  Nearly all found new lives in new countries - except for Palestinians."   

Stephens:  The Palestinians "have been kept as perpetual refugees  as a means of both delegitimizing Israel and preserving the irredentist fantasy that someday their descendants will exercise what they believe is their "right of return," effectively through the elimination of the Jewish state."  But, again, Donald Trump knew better.  He understood that Arab countries could be made to see the futility of the idea of eliminating Israel.  He understood that he could get Arab countries to see the benefits in normalizing relations with Israel - an advanced, high-tech modern society.  Hence, the successful Abraham Accords.  

But what are the Democrats doing?  49 US Senators (48 Democrats and "Independent" Bernie Sanders) announced they will present an Amendment to the pending national security legislation, stating that it is US policy to support a two-state solution.  Two Democrats refused to sign on - Joe Manchin and John Fetterman.  Good for them.  Sad to say that all nine Jewish Senators signed on, including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff.  I mention Ossoff because back in 2021, during another war between the Palestinians and Israel, Ossoff led 25 Democratic Senators and 2 Independents in issuing a statement calling for an immediate ceasefire.  How did that work out, Senator Ossoff?  Peace break out?  

Over at the State Department, we learn that Antony Blinken instructed his diplomats to "conduct a review and present policy options on possible U.S. and international recognition of a Palestinian state."  (As reported in the Free Beacon and reposted by ZOA.)  Here is what Reuters reported Matthew Miller, State Department spokesman, saying:  "We are actively pursuing the establishment as an independent Palestinian state, with real security guarantees for Israel, because we do believe that is the best way way to bring about lasting peace and security for Israel, the Palestinians and for the region." 

Security guarantees for Israel?  Would that be like The Office of the United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon?  Just look at the tremendous success they have had in preventing the massive build-up of approximately 100,000 to 150,000 missiles controlled by Hezbollah, all aimed at Israel.  Good job!  No, only Israel must be responsible for the safety and security of Israel.  

I am reminded of how Obama sold out Israel at the UN in December, 2016, his last full month in office.  Obama instructed his UN Ambassador to not veto a Security Council resolution that essentially said all the land beyond the Green Line (the so-called 1967 borders) belonged to the Palestinians.  That, of course, included the Holy City of Old Jerusalem, where the holiest sites in Judaism can be found.  But the UN and Obama decided that the Arabs owned those sites.  That resolution passed the Security Council by a vote of 14-0, with the US abstaining.  I said at the time that such a resolution would only be likely to bring about more war.  Indeed.  (See the 12/24/16 post "The United States Abandons Israel at the United Nations.") 

Biden, as always, is on top of things.  He has sanctioned 4 Israelis, so-called "settlers" in the West Bank, for allegedly attacking Palestinians.  The sanctions prevent them from getting US visas, and from accessing the US banking system.  It is basically a meaningless gesture, other than to show his left-wing and Arab-Muslim base how fair he is.  But Biden is virtually always wrong on foreign policy.  He lifted sanctions on Iran, allowing the Ayatollahs to make billions on the sale of oil, and be able to support Hamas and the Houthis as a result.  Biden also took the Houthis off the US terrorist list, after Trump had put them on the list.  Now he put the Houthis back on the terrorist list.  Good job, Joe. 

So, I ask everyone...especially my Jewish friends and readers...please stop talking about a two-state solution.  Talk about the 3 prerequisites for true peace as outlined by Netanyahu.   

New Year Reflections, Part IV (The Waning Support for Israel in D.C.)

Israeli P.M. Netanyahu had an Op-Ed in the 12/26/23 Wall Street Journal, laying out "Israel's Three Prerequisites For Peace."  First prerequisite is that Hamas must be destroyed.  That should be obvious to everyone.  Hamas is a terrorist organization.  Hamas leaders have vowed to repeat the atrocities they carried out on October 7 "over and over and over again."  What more could anyone need to know?

Second, Gaza must be demilitarized.  "For the foreseeable future Israel will have to retain overriding security responsibility over Gaza."  Why isn't this obvious to everyone?  If the house next door to you houses (pick a number) 10 people, say, and they continually fire bullets into your home, and even invade your home and kill some family members, what would you want to happen?  That one or two get arrested, and the rest keep attacking you?  Or, do you want to see them thrown out, and also make sure that there are no weapons left behind - with your family guarding the house to make sure.

The third prerequisite is that Gaza "will have to be deradicalized."  No more school books showing the "river to the sea" as being "Palestine" - with no Israel anywhere.  No more teaching young kids to want to be martyrs.  Teach them to respect life.  No more Imams "preaching for the murder of Jews."  In other words, a normal civil society.  As Netanyahu pointed out, Abbas and the P.A. (Palestinian Authority) cannot be counted on for any of that.  They did not condemn the 10/7 atrocities; they supported it.  They continue to reward terrorists and their families for killing Jews.

And yet, the Biden Administration has apparently come up with a plan in conjunction with Qatar and Egypt (as reported by i24News), that, in a three step process, will end all hostilities.  At each step some hostages will be released, and Israel will release Palestinian prisoners.  At the third step there would be a permanent ceasefire, Saudi Arabia would normalize relations with Israel, and the process would begin for creation of a Palestinian state.  Qatar is involved with this?  The same Qatar that helps fund Hamas, and gives sanctuary to Hamas leadership?  Unbelievable.  In the description that I read I saw nothing about ending Hamas and ending the P.A.  I have seen elsewhere the idea that Gaza and the West Bank should be unified under the leadership of the P.A.  Seriously?

Meanwhile, Democrat Senator Bernie Sanders (yes, I know he's an Independent, but he caucuses with, and votes with, the Democrats) proposed an extraordinary anti-Israel resolution.  Thankfully, the measure failed by a vote of 72 nay to 11 aye, with 17 being absent.  The other 10 voting with Sanders were all Democrats, except for Republican/Libertarian Rand Paul, who generally has a problem with all foreign aid.  The measure would require the State Department to report on whether human rights abuses by Israel are occurring with U.S. aid, with the report due within 30 days.  A failure to issue the report would result in an automatic cessation of aid to Israel.

Sanders has made his anti-Israel position quite clear.  After saying that Israel has the right to go to war with Hamas, he said this:  "It does not have the right to go to war against the Palestinian people and innocent men, women and children in Gaza."  I'd like to ask Sanders some questions.  How does that work?  Israel is only allowed to kill Hamas leaders and soldiers?  Does he really not know that Hamas stores weapons under schools, hospitals and mosques?  That Hamas uses the people of Gaza as human shields, hoping that they become martyrs.  It sounds as if Israel would only be allowed to send in "hit squads" targeting Hamas leaders and soldiers.  

And what about the fact that polls show that 70% to 80% of the people in Gaza support what Hamas did on October 7?  Sanders is a self-hating Jewish moron.  Lest you have any doubt about Sanders personal opinion, here it is, explaining that Israel has "continued this military approach...in my view, that approach is immoral and is in violation of international law."  I wonder if Sanders has ever called for cutting off aid to the P.A. (which Biden reinstated after Trump stopped providing it), which funds terrorists (and their families) for killing Jews.  I wonder if Sanders has ever called for the cessation of funding to UNRWA (which Biden reinstated after Trump stopped it), the UN agency operating in, and as part of, Hamas.  But all that money just funds the killing of Jews, so if I had to guess, Sanders has not objected.

Now we have 15 Jewish Democrats in the House issuing a statement critical of Netanyahu.  "We strongly disagree with the prime minister...a two-state solution is the path forward."  Israel is in the middle of a war, a war that will determine the ultimate safety and even viability of the Jewish state of Israel.  So this is the time 15 Jewish members of the House decide to issue a statement against Netanyahu?  These 15 Jewish House members include such "luminaries" as Jerry Nadler (NY), Jake Auchincloss (Mass), Mike Levin (CA), Adam Schiff (CA), Brad Sherman (CA), Jamie Raskin (MD). and Steve Cohen (Tenn).  

Here are a few remarks by Secretary of State Antony Blinken.  Referring to post-war Gaza, he said it "must include Palestinian led governance and Gaza unified with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority."  Although he did say that "the Palestinian Authority also has a responsibility to reform itself, to improve its governance..."  What?  How does one "improve" rather than replace a dictatorial, terrorist supporting regime?  No, if there is a future Palestinian state (open to debate) it must NOT include either Hamas or the P.A.  

Perhaps the most cogent position was stated by Professor Eugene Kontorovich in a 1/3/24 Op-Ed in the WSJ.  In discussing how Jews were able to return to post-war West Germany, and live safely, he then discusses how Jews and Arabs live together in Israel.  Yet, there seems to be an assumption that post-war Gaza will be free of Jews.  He then states what should be obvious to everyone:  "If Jews aren't safe in Gaza, they won't be safe in Israel either."  That is really all anyone needs to know.

New Year Reflections, Part III (The Corrupt Mainstream Media)

Make no mistake, the Democrat-Mainstream Media Complex (D-MSMC) is corrupt.  Not just biased, but corrupt.  Following former President Trump's historic win in the Iowa caucuses, Rachel Maddow explained why MSNBC would not air Trump's victory speech.  "We will let you know if there is any news made in that speech, if there is anything noteworthy, something substantive and important."

Maddow:  "The reason I'm saying this is, of course, there is a reason that we and other news organizations have generally stopped giving an unfiltered, live platform to remarks by former President Trump.  It is not out of spite, it is not a decision that we relish, it is a decision that we'll regularly revisit.  And honestly, earnestly, it is not an easy decision."

But there is a cost to us, as a news organization, of knowingly broadcasting untrue things.  That is a fundamental truth of our business and who we are.  And so, his remarks, tonight, will not air live here, we will monitor them and let you know about any news that he makes."  

Well isn't that special.  Here is the truth, however.  The D-MSMC wants Biden to win, regardless of the cost to their journalistic integrity.  And they will do their best to make sure that Biden does win.  They certainly do not want their viewers to see a man, only a few years younger than Biden, able to speak extemporaneously, unlike the presumed Democrat candidate.  And just how elitist are these people, telling the American people that they do not need to hear the words of the likely Republican nominee for President of the United States.  You also have to wonder how Maddow was able to say with a straight face that they do not want to broadcast "untrue things."  Here is the short reply I would give to Maddow:  Russian collusion hoax, which you repeated over and over again.

Should Biden and Trump end up being their party's nominees, and in the unlikely event Biden agrees to a debate, I have a recommendation for the D-MSMC.  When Biden is speaking, air all of his remarks.  When Trump speaks, mute his comments and put up on the screen "we will let you if the former President says anything newsworthy."  Ridiculous?  Of course.  Yet that is exactly what MSNBC just did.

Not surprisingly, CNN joined in.  Here was Jake Tapper:  "A relatively subdued speech as the(se) things go so far.  Although, here he is, right under my voice."  Under my voice?  Why are you talking over him?  Here is one excuse why people should not be allowed to hear Trump.  "You can hear him repeating his anti-immigrant rhetoric."  What???

The American people view the open border and illegal immigration as the biggest issue facing the country.  Big city mayors across the country - Democrats - are complaining about the flood of illegal immigrants.  Here is Trump's so-called anti-immigrant rhetoric:  "W are going to seal up the border.  Because right now, we have an invasion.  We have an invasion of millions and millions of people that are coming into our country.  I can't imagine why they think that's a good thing."

So, Trump is saying he is against illegal immigration, not all immigration.  But the corrupt D-MSMC never makes that distinction when talking about Republicans.  Trump said it's an "invasion."  Well, what the hell else would you call it when as many as 10 million people have entered the country illegally during Biden's first three years in office.  Anybody need a better example of why I refer to most of the media as the Democrat-Mainstream Media Complex?

New Year Reflections, Part II (A Further Discussion of DEI)

(Note:  In the December 9, 2023 post, "Year End Reflections, Part II,"  I discussed the evil of DEI.  This is a further discussion about that.)  As with many universities and businesses, Johns Hopkins Medicine has an Office of Diversity.  Heading the office is one Dr. Sherita H. Golden.  In the January edition of their Diversity Digest (yes, they have such a publication), Dr. Golden said this:  "In the United States, privilege is granted to people who have membership in one or more of these social groups identity groups:  white people, able bodied people, heterosexuals, cisgender people (you identify with the sex you were born with, i.e. almost everybody), males, Christians, middle or owning class people, middle aged people, and English-speaking people."

So then, what are we talking about?  99% of the population?  Won't the vast majority of people fall into one of those groups?  It's nonsense.  And what's the point?  Taking the first two groups, white people and able bodied people, I'll use myself as an example.  Am I white?  Yes.  Am I able bodied?  Not since age 15.  So, as between those those groups, would I be identified as 50% privileged and 50% non-privileged?  But what if my physical limitations have had a greater impact on my life than being white?  So, can we say then I am only 25% privileged and 75% non-privileged?  How would we even measure the impact of the two?  And what's the point?

I have good reason to believe that early in my career I was turned down from two different jobs for these reasons.  The first time was because I am Jewish.  So...I ended up at a firm run by Jewish attorneys and where I was very happy.  The second time was because of my physical disability issues, and was walking with a cane for years prior to my bilateral hip replacements.  So...I ended up at a firm that said they didn't care about that.  In fact, I had the two hip replacements while working at that firm, and they took care of me while I was off for two months each time.  And they paid my salary.  What's the lesson?  There are a-holes in the world, but there are plenty of good people also.   

Dr. Golden:  "...privileges are unearned and are granted to people in the dominant groups whether they want those privileges or not, and regardless of their intent."  Whether you want it or not.  Regardless of your intent.  Well, there is guilt by association for sure.  How should we punish you?

Dr. Golden subsequently apologized for her post, likely under pressure from the administration at Johns Hopkins Medicine.  The President and Dean issued a statement in which they "repudiate(d)" the statement by Dr. Golden.  And they added that the definition of privilege by Dr, Golden "runs counter to the values of our institution, and our mission and commitment to serve everyone equally."  Here are a couple of questions.  I would ask the President and Dean:  Are you serious?  What did you expect from a DEI office?  And I would ask everyone, how comfortable would you be getting treatment from Dr. Golden if you fall into one of her privilege categories?  And, depending on how much influence Dr. Golden has had on the other doctors at Johns Hopkins, how comfortable would you be there at all?  

In May of last year, the Pew Research Center issued poll results from people who work as employees.  56% said focusing on DEI at work is a good thing.  28% said it is neither good nor bad.  And 16% called it a bad thing.  Not surprisingly, more women (61%) than men (50%) thought it was a good thing.  Also not surprising was the difference between the races.  78% of blacks said it was a good thing, joined by 72% of Asians and 65% of Hispanics.  But a minority of whites, 47%, said it was a good thing.  

Also not surprising was the age gap, with 68% of those 18 to 29 saying the focus on DEI was a good thing.  56% of those age 30 to 49 agreed, but only 46% of those age 50 to 64 agreed.  In the 65 or older group (likely many were soon to be retired) the number went back up to 52%.  And, least surprising of all was the difference between the two parties.  Democrats and those leaning Democrat favored the focus on DEI by 78%.  Republicans and those leaning Republican - only 30%.  (Pew said the poll was taken of employees at companies with 10 or more people.  And the results for Asians consisted of only those who spoke English.)  

I would submit to my readers that Republicans came in with that low number because they actually believe in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King - that people be judged based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

New Year Reflections, Part I (What To Expect This Presidential Election Year)

The timing was perfect for Joe Biden and the D-MSMC (what I call the Democrat-Mainstream Media Complex).  A day before the third anniversary of what is now referred to simply as "January 6," Biden gave a campaign speech discussing the threat to democracy by Donald Trump, and how re-electing him will save our democracy.  The New York Times, the leading paper of the D-MSMC, followed suit with an editorial in the first Sunday edition of the year, on January 7, 2024.  

The Times:  "As president, he (Trump) wielded power carelessly and often cruelly..."  How's that exactly?  They don't say.  "He deepened existing divisions among Americans..."  I believe Obama started that, making everything a racial issue.  Then Biden furthered the divide, after promising to be a uniter.  Obama talked about the deplorables in a manner akin to Hillary Clinton.  Biden followed along, with his nonstop attacks on Republicans.  I don't care if he refers to them as "MAGA" Republicans, it's divisive.  

Biden:  "And our campaign is about preserving and strengthening our American democracy."  At least one site online says that 10 million people have entered the country illegally under Biden.  That's more people than in all of New York City, our nation's largest city.  That's more than the individual population of 41 states.  How does ignoring the sovereignty of the United States strengthen the United States?  

The Times:  "(Trump) has repeatedly demonstrated a deep disdain for the First Amendment..."  Okay, how about this:  "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Friday ruled that the Biden White House, top government health officials and the FBI likely violated the First Amendment by improperly influencing tech companies' decisions to remove or suppress posts on the coronavirus and elections."  (Per the Washington Post, 9/8/23.)  This part bears repeating:  "remove or suppress posts on the coronavirus and elections."  That should make it clear why I refer to them as the D-MSMC, which clearly includes social media (except, perhaps, for "X" now).  

The Times:  "Mr. Trump's forays into foreign affairs remain dangerously misguided and incoherent...he displayed consistent admiration for autocratic leaders..." Let's compare.  Trump started no new wars.  He defeated ISIS.  He pulled us out of the bad Iran nuclear deal.  He told NATO allies to start paying their required fair share, or don't assume reliance on the US.  Lo and behold, they started to pay up.  He refused to fund the Palestinian Authority, as they used US tax dollars to reward terrorists, and their families, for killing Jews.  He refused to fund UNRWA, which is a ridiculous UN agency in Gaza, that acts at the behest of Hamas.  

Trump moved the US embassy in Israel to Israel's capital city, Jerusalem.  Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.  Trump helped to bring about the Abraham Accords, establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, and shortly thereafter Morocco and Sudan.  But, I forget.  The Times main concern is the Palestinians.  They did not approve of Trump's policies favoring Israel.

Biden?  A disastrous and embarrassing withdrawal from Iraq, leaving behind billions in American weaponry.  Lifting sanctions on Iran, allowing the flow of billions of dollars into the coffers of the leading state sponsor of terrorism.  Attempting to reenter the Iran nuke deal.  Restoring funding to the terrorist supporting PA and UNRWA.  Under Obama, Russia invaded Ukraine and Hamas went to war with Israel.  Under Trump, Putin did nothing and Hamas did not start another war with Israel.  Then we had Biden - Putin launched a massive invasion of Ukraine, and Hamas conducted an unprecedented attack on Israel.  

The Times says Trump has threatened "the deployment of the military and the Justice Department, to have his way."  What?  It was Biden's Justice Department which directed the FBI to investigate parents as possible terrorists, for daring to challenge the woke lies being fed to their children in the public schools.  It is Biden's Justice Department that is currently prosecuting the leading Republican candidate for president against their boss.  Coincidence?  I don't think so.  That shows support for our democracy?  Decidedly not.  

Biden:  "Political violence is never, ever, acceptable in the United States political system - never, never, never.  It has no place in our democracy.  None."  Well, his allies in the D-MSMC apparently did not get that message during the summer of nationwide rioting in 2020, calling the "protests" mostly peaceful.  I am curious as to how such peaceful protests resulted in nearly $2 billion worth of damages to businesses and government buildings around the country.  And when rioters pulled down a statue of Christopher Columbus in her native Baltimore, what did then Speaker Nancy Pelosi have to say?  "People will do what they do."  She didn't say that about January 6.  

Here is a precious line by the Times:  "Democracy in the United States is stronger with a formidable conservative political movement to keep diversity of thought alive on important questions, such as the nation's approaches to immigration, education, national security and fiscal responsibility."  Excuse me while I stop laughing.  If the Times truly believed one word of that, then 95% (99%?) of their editorials and Op-Ed columns would not have a left-wing point of view.  

I'll conclude with this.  I have my own complaints about many of the unnecessary and improper comments made by Trump.  But this simply sounds like a replay of all the allegations made against Trump in 2016, when we were assured that the world would end if Trump won.  The world didn't end.  Peace broke out in new places.  Wars didn't.  The economy was good.  We were energy independent.  Methinks that Biden and the Times are "crying wolf."