Year End Reflections, Part III (Do We Now Celebrate Murder?)

Following the murder of Charlie Kirk, a local teacher wrote on her personal social media this post:  "Sorry, not sorry.  Karma is a bitch.  Real Christians, real people of faith, would never support this fake Christian who was so un-Christ-like and full of hatred for people of color, LGBTQIA+ people, and women."  The school district then suspended her; but after two months she was reinstated.  The local paper then published an editorial supporting the teacher's right to expression with this headline:  "Free speech for all:  even the voices we dislike."  

It did not appear that the teacher thought much of Charlie Kirk's right to free speech.  Nor was she accurate in her assertions that Kirk hated so many people.  I wrote a letter to the editor, which they did not publish.  Most of the letters they did publish were simply supportive of the teacher.  One letter writer, however, agreed with me.  First, my take, in pertinent part:

"All three of our children attended school in (the district where Mrs. McKagan teaches).  As such, we came to know Mr. (also a teacher) and Mrs. McKagan.  You argued that Rachel McKagan 'criticized a public figure's political behavior and moral character,' when criticizing Charlie Kirk.  As an attorney, and a defender of the First Amendment, I am not disputing your point.

However, I believe the editorial misses a much larger societal point.  When McKagan says about Kirk's murder:  'Sorry, not sorry.  Karma is a bitch,' then she has lost her moral compass.  Disagreeing is one thing.  Celebrating a murder is quite another.  Was there not a time in our country when it was universally understood that murder was bad.  Murder was evil.  Murder was a violation of law and the 10 Commandments.  Was there also not a time when we understood that we have the right to disagree with one another?  That's what America was all about.  

It was not very long ago that Brian Thompson, CEO of United Healthcare, was shot dead in the back in New York City.  Yet the accused now has somewhat of a following, because who hasn't had a problem with insurance companies.

But is this what we want?  If I disagree with you, and you get murdered, I should celebrate?  Juries should no longer convict murderers if they agree with the perpetrator's political philosophy?  Is that how we are to now understand 'justice?'  Because the alternative seems to be that we are headed for anarchy."

While my letter was not published, a letter by a clinical psychologist with a similar take was published.  That writer took exception to the editorial concluding that McKagan's words did not qualify as "hate speech."  Then he made this point:  "This kind of violent rhetoric effectively shuts down the open exchange of ideas.  Students with opposing views may be afraid to speak up, ask questions, or participate fully in class discussions for fear of judgment or retaliation.  Such inflammatory language destroys the teacher's ability to be viewed as a neutral and fair educator, especially on controversial subjects.  Again, if your teacher effectively wants you dead, this might be a tad intimidating."  

I would ask Mrs. McKagan this question:  "You referred to Charlie Kirk as a 'fake' Christian.  I am not a Christian.  But do you believe 'real Christians, real people of faith,' should be celebrating a cold-blooded murder?"

Year End Reflections, Part II (This Is A Deal?)

I cannot understand the proposed Russia-Ukraine peace proposal put forth by Trump and the Russians.  My initial reactions - if this is not a joke, then it's insane.  Some background.  Ukraine had possessed some nuclear weapons as part of the Soviet Union.  Following the breakup of the USSR, these now independent countries, such as Ukraine, agreed to give up the nukes that were held on their soil.  

So, in 1994, Ukraine signed onto the Budapest Memorandum, agreeing to give up its nukes and agreeing to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.  In exchange, Ukraine was given "security guarantees" by the US, the UK and Russia.  Of course, we know that "agreements" made by dictators are nothing more than worthless promises.  As such, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and seized the Crimea.  Who provided the security guarantee to Ukraine at that time?  No one.  Not the USA.  Not the UK.  

Now, we are told that after 4 years of fighting, during which the "mighty" Russian army has been unable to defeat Ukraine, the Ukrainians must give up much of their territory.  Forego the Crimea.  Forego even parts of the Donbas that Russia has yet to conquer.  Give up other territories as well.  Ukraine must reduce the size of its army by one half.  And Ukraine must agree, and NATO must agree, that Ukraine shall never be a member of NATO.  What does Ukraine get?

Ukraine gets "reliable security guarantees."  Right.  Just like before.  Anybody believe that when Russia attacks again (not if but when) the US will send soldiers to Ukraine to fight the Russians?  Not a chance.  And the Europeans?  This is in their backyard.  Pretty much consistently worthless.  As the conservative New York Post opined:  "Kyiv could demand the ouster of Putin's regime and it would still be less one-sided than this nonsense."  

An Op-Ed by one writer really resonated with me.  "In Munich in 1938, the UK and France likewise pressured Czechoslovakia into giving up the mountainous region of Sudetenland, together with its advanced system of fortifications, which had made a previous invasion by Nazi Germany impracticable.  Less than seven months later, Czechoslovakia ceased to exist."

Putin has repeatedly and openly said that the end of the Soviet Union was the biggest tragedy of the 20th century.  He has repeatedly said that he seeks a return to the old Soviet Union.  If Ukraine falls, who's next?  If next up are NATO members on the Baltic Sea, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, who will come to their defense?  Whatever treaty commitments there are as a member of NATO (an attack on one shall be treated as an attack on all), I do not see any NATO countries coming to their defense.  Definitely not the US.

What's the alternative?  Let the fighting continue?  Trump says he wants to end the killing.  But Russia started this war.  Russia has no problem targeting civilians and even children.  So that's where the pressure should be - all on Russia.  (The fact that the Ukrainian government has issues regarding corruption is irrelevant to this fight, and to the right of the Ukrainian people to self-determination.)  Greater sanctions on Russia are needed.  Provide more offensive weapons to Ukraine.  Or, be like Neville Chamberlain, and believe that appeasement results in "peace for our time."  Because it doesn't.  Peace through strength is the only sure path to peace.  Like George Washington said.  Like Ronald Reagan said.  Like I thought Trump believed.

Teddy Roosevelt had it right:  "Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy."   

Year End Reflections, Part I (What's In The News)

(I know.  I usually start these Year End Reflections in December.  But it's been 3 weeks since my last posts - busy trying to retire and being sick - and there is so much to cover, that I thought I'd cover a lot this way.)

It was rather shocking to see six members of Congress (two Senators and four House members) in an ad telling our military and intelligence community that they need to disobey illegal orders.  In the ad they say:  "stand up for our laws," and "refuse unlawful orders."  They finish with "you can refuse illegal orders," and "you must refuse illegal orders."  While it's true about not following illegal orders, it's also clear that this ad was intended to undermine any orders given by the current Commander in Chief.  

As Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo) said:  "At the end of the day, they're mad the American people chose Trump and now they're calling on the Military and Intelligence Community to intervene.  Sounds a little subversive to democracy-ish."  Sounds a lot subversive to me.  Participating in the ad were the following two Senators:  Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich), and Mark Kelly (D-AZ).  The four House members were:  Chris DeGuzio (D-Pa), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa) and Jason Crow (D-CO).  

There was an interesting news item reported by ABC.  The average cost of a McDonald's menu item jumped 40% from 2019 to 2024.  A friend and I have both noticed this, as we occassionally go to McDonald's.  It is fairly easy to spend 10 dollars or more there.  I suspect some of the price increase was a result of the pandemic.  But whatever the cause, it is clearly just one example of the affordability issue now being discussed by both sides of the political spectrum.  And anyone who dines out has undoubtedly noticed the jump in prices (except at In 'N Out).  Jackie Mason used to joke about how you could order a fancy coffee at Starbucks, and then be told it was 9 bucks!  We're not that far away.   

A lot of news items surprise me, although I suppose nothing should surprise me anymore.  The Palestinian flag was recently raised outside the Toronto City Hall.  Apparently, the idea was to commemorate the 37th anniversary of the Palestinian Declaration of Independence, which occurred on November 15, 1988.  You know what else was happening at that time in Israel?  The first intifada, when Palestinians were killing and injuring Israelis.  As usual, the Palestinians did not hesitate in attacking civilians.  Sad to say that other cities in Canada also raised the Palestinian flag.  Calgary.  Winnipeg.  Brampton.  I guess it should not be surprising as Canadian PM Mark Carney recently joined the UK and France and others in recognizing a Palestinian state.  As previously discussed in this blog, the West has lost its way.

Meanwhile, Fox reported that in 2025 to date, over 7000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria,  That number soars to 125,000 killed since 2009.  Where is the world outcry over the murders of these black Christians?  Where indeed.  As a Jew I know, as many Jews know, "no Jews, no news."  These Nigerian Christians are being slaughtered by radical Muslim terrorist groups.  Muslims killing Christians.  No Jews involved.  So no news.  Fox also reported that over 19,000 churches in Nigeria have been burned down since 2009.

I saw a post by someone on LinkedIn that said Lebanon used to be a Christian country, Pakistan was Hindu and Afghanistan was Buddhist.  Now they are all Islamic.  Then the post referred to the "Path of Islam":  1.  Establish a mosque, 2.  Create an enclave, 3.  Grow the population, 4.  Claim victimhood, 5.  Resist host authorities and customs, 6.  Exploit lawfare, 7.  Institute Shariah law, 8.  Secede, 9.  Take control.  LET ME CLEAR ONCE AGAIN - I do not believe that every Muslim agrees with the above.  I do not believe that every Muslim in America is disloyal to America.  That should be obvious to everyone.  But I do believe that Islam today has a problem with a substantial radical, terrorist element.  And I also believe what Dennis Prager (quoting Viktor Frankl) has frequently said:  there are only two groups of people in the world, the decent and the indecent.   

I saw a disturbing story in the Jerusalem Post about about a group called "The Punishment for Justice Movement."  Apparently, they have a website that targets Israeli academics.  The "rewards" are as follows:  $1000 for posting notices on the targets' homes, $5000 for information on the targets, $20,000 for committing arson on the targets' homes or vehicles, $50,000 for the murder of a target, and $100,000 for the murder of a "special" target.  

According to JPost, "The group lists the alleged home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, social media accounts, and even identification numbers of hundreds of academics from Ben Gurion University of the Negev, the Technion, Weizmann Institute, Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv University, Harvard University, Oxford University, and the European Organization for Nuclear Research."  These academics are to be targeted anywhere in the world, even when living in the USA.    

Dissension on the Right, Conclusion

There were other conservatives who criticized Fuentes and Carlson and Roberts.  I am not going to repeat all their comments here.  Rather, I want to end this three part post with a few personal words.  I start my day with saying the "Modeh Ani" prayer.  It is a prayer that I say in Hebrew, although I do then repeat it in English.  Here is the prayer:  "I gratefully thank You, O living and eternal King, for You have returned my soul within me with compassion - abundant is your faithfulness."  Amen.    

I then say what is considered to be the most important prayer in Judaism, the "She'ma."  I say it twice a day, in the morning after the Modeh Ani, and at bedtime.  Here it is:  "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our G-d, the Lord is one (or the only one)."  The second verse is as follows:  "Blessed is the Name of His glorious kingdom for all eternity."  Amen.  Yes, I say the She'ma in Hebrew, and then I repeat it in English.  Just my habit.  

Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove is the Rabbi at the Park Avenue Synagogue in New York City.  In terms of religious affiliation, it is considered to be a conservative shul (synagogue).  While there are some Jews supporting NYC mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani (honestly, I can't believe it), Rabbi Cosgrove eloquently stated where he stands:  "I believe Zohran Mamdani poses a danger to the security of the New York Jewish community."

He continued:  "Mamdani's refusal to condemn inciteful slogans like 'globalize the intifada,' his denial of Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state, his call to arrest Israel's Prime Minister should he enter New York, and his thrice-repeated accusation of genocide in Thursday's debate - for these and so many other statements, past, present, and unrepentent - he is a danger to the Jewish body politic of New York."

And, hopefully this next paragraph of the Rabbi's clarifies things for my non-Jewish friends and readers:  "Zionism, Israel, Jewish self-determination - these are not political preferences or partisan talking points,  They are constituent building blocks and inseparable strands of my Jewish identity.  To accept me as a Jew, but to ask me to check my concern for the people and State of Israel at the door is as nonsensical a proposition as it is offensive - no different than asking me to reject G-d, Torah, mitzvot, or any other pillar of my faith."

My dear readers, our country is at a crossroads.  All of us individually are at a crossroads.  For us conservatives, do we stand against the likes of Carlson, Owens, Bannon and now, unfortunately, even the head of the Heritage Foundation, Roberts?  Roberts, who refused to criticize Carlson for not standing up to the hateful and antisemitic comments of Fuentes.  Or, do we let these individuals tear the conservative movement apart?  

For my fellow Jews, I want to give you a quote from one of my Chabad Rabbis, Rabbi Moshe Bryski:  "Never again is now.  Never again is not an easy oath to make.  It's not going to be simple - you're (not just) going to register your protest and sign a petition.  It would mean sacrifice.  It would mean courage.  It would mean standing up to the world.  It would mean not being intimidated by the world."  Are you up to the challenge?  

For conservative Jews, it means refusing to tolerate antisemitism and Jew hatred just because it comes from "our side."  It means being willing to condemn the likes of Fuentes, Carlson and the rest.  It means refusing to support them just because they are pro-Trump.  For liberal Jews, it is past time for you to condemn the likes of Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders - and not support them just because they are anti-Trump.

How we react, what we do and say, may well determine the future of this great country.  

Dissension on the Right, Part II

Watching Carlson's interview with Fuentes, I thought that Fuentes came across as relatively controlled in his demeanor.  Not so, in separate videos I watched.  In a video shared with "Iron Dissent," we are told by the narrator (I've heard this before) that today's Jews are not the Jews of the Bible.  No?  We have the same Hebrew language.  We have the same Torah.  We have the same tefillin.  We have Shabbat.  We have the laws of Kosher.  True, we no longer have the Temple in Jerusalem, and therefore some of the ancient commandments cannot be done.  But none of that can explain the hatred directed at the Jews.  

Fuentes allegedly called conservative Jews such as Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Josh Hammer and Laura Loomer "despicable pieces of shit."  I say allegedly because some places say yes, others say no evidence.  He also is to have said that none of them will ever be American, and they should "get the fuck out of America and go back to Israel."  Notwithstanding they are not from Israel.  

I did see a clip showing Fuentes declaring that Jews are unlikeable people.  Fuentes:  "We don't care about your bitching, your whining, your squealing about antisemitism.  Nobody's listening anymore.  Nobody cares."  And this:  "You don't care about this country.  You don't respect this place.  You don't respect our ancestors.  You don't even worship our G-d."

Let's see.  Just in my family, my brother served this country in Vietnam, and was a Purple Heart recipient.  My uncle served in WWII, and was a POW.  My wifes's Dad served in WWII.  And a dear friend's Dad (also Jewish) was a Lt. Col. in the AF Reserves.  Countless Jews have served this country.  Jews don't respect this place?  Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro have frequently spoken of the greatness of America.  This blog has done the same.  Jews don't respect the country's ancestors?  Is this for real?

Levin knows far more than Fuentes does about the Founders, the Constitution and the Federalist papers.  Here was our second President, John Adams:  "The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation."  Here was George Washington, in a letter to the Jews of the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, the oldest synagogue in America:  "...the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."  And this:  "May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants..."  Jewish people settled in Newport as early as 1658.  

Our Founders would not have thought very much of people telling the Jews to "get the fuck out."  Fuentes said:  "You don't even worship our G-d."  Who does not know anything about our Founders?  I would suggest Fuentes read the First Amendment to the Constitution:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."  I would also remind Fuentes that it was the Jewish people who brought to the world the belief that there is but one G-d - a belief in monotheism - and not all the false idols worshipped by many ancient peoples.

Then I heard Fuentes assert that "the Jews pushed us to this point."  Right.  Sort of like "I didn't want to beat my wife to a pulp - she made me do it."  Yes, the Jews pushed him, how?  "For opposing genocide?  (This is a lie.)  For not putting America first?  (Another lie.)  Because they are preoccupied with Israel? (You bet we are since the 10/7/23 terrorist attacks and subsequent two year war)."   

I don't see Fuentes as being any different from the Jew haters of the 1930's and 1940's.  We had the America First Committee back then.  Charles Lindbergh.  Father Edward Coughlin.  The various isolationists.  Even the German American Bund.  But the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor kind of burst the bubble of the isolationists.  

So here are a couple of questions for Fuentes and Carlson and their ilk.  Clearly, you do not agree with the Democrats on anything.  Yet, you are saying the Jews should get out of America.  Why not the Democrats?  Clearly, there are shared Judeo-Christian values.  Yet, you are saying the Jews should get out of America.  Why not the Muslims?  They do not share the Judeo-Christian values.  I think the answer to these questions is rather straightforward - you are simply old-fashioned antisemitic Jew-haters.  Nothing new there.    

Dissension on the Right, Part I

(Note.  Readers will recall that I have previously criticized Tucker Carlson in 2 posts.  On 12/31/23, I posted "My Beef With Tucker Carlson."  In that post, not long after the terrorist attack in Israel on 10/7/23, I discussed the lies Carlson told about Ben Shapiro not caring about America.  Then, on 9/23/24, I wrote "Let's Talk Turkey - I Need To Talk About Some People, Part I."  There, I criticized Carlson for hosting Darryl Cooper, a "historian," who blamed Churchill - not Hitler - for WWII.  And the Holocaust?  According to this "historian" millions of people just ended up dead.  Gee, I wonder why.)

Now, on 10/27/25, Carlson hosted Nick Fuentes for a full 2 hours on his podcast.  I watched much of it.  To say that Fuentes is an antisemite would, in my opinion, be a serious understatement.  Why Carlson went from conservatism to right-wing lunacy, I do not know.  Why would he give air time to people like Cooper and Fuentes?  Again, I do not know.  But Carlson's latest interview of Fuentes (if it can be called an interview, given that there was virtually no pushback by Carlson on any of the outrageous comments Fuentes has made) turned into a more public fight among conservatives.  

After Carlson was the target, rightfully, of criticism for hosting Fuentes, the President of the conservative Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, came to Carlson's defense.  Roberts said he would not distance himself from Carlson, and that "Christians can critique the state of Israel without being antisemitic."  Certainly true, as Jews do it all the time.  But Fuentes, and Carlson, have gone far beyond any reasonable critique of Israel.  Roberts also said:  "We will always defend our friends against the slanders of bad actors who serve someone else's agenda."  Someone else?  Is Roberts referring to the Jews?  Israel?  What is going on here?  Why is there this fixation on the Jews?

Roberts subsequently condemned Fuentes:  "Fuentes knows exactly what he is doing.  He is fomenting Jew hatred, and his incitements are not only immoral and un-Christian, they risk violence."  Perhaps Roberts saw that people like Fuentes might tear the conservative movement apart.  A shame that he does not see that with regards to Carlson, Candace Owens, Steve Bannon and others, as he refused to condemn Carlson for hosting this white supremacist Jew-hater for two full hours on his podcast.  

But not everyone at Heritage agrees with Roberts.  Unfortunately, this dissenter asked to remain anonymous, but made this comment:  "Nick Fuentes is a disgusting, anti-American, antisemitic loser.  He is not a conservative, not America first, and not an ally of President Trump or any conservative organization.  (Yes, I know that Trump unfortunately shared a meal with Fuentes and Kanye West.  Shame on him for doing that.)  In his own words, Nick Fuentes is an ally of Stalin, Hitler, and the Taliban.  That is not someone with ideas worthy of debate."  And that, dear readers, is what Kevin Roberts should have said.   

Here was Senator Ted Cruz (R- Tx):  "Now is the time for choosing.  If you sit there with someone who says Adolf Hitler was very cool and that their mission is to defeat 'global Jewry' and you say nothing, then you are a coward, and you are complicit in that evil."  Carlson, in turn, said that he opposes Christian Zionists; and said that Cruz and US Ambassador Mike Huckabee have a "brain virus" and are guilty of "Christian heresy."  

A brain virus?  For supporting Israel?  Here was a whopper said by Carlson:  "It's great to criticize and question, like our relationship with Israel, because it's insane, and it hurts us, and we get nothing out of it."  Nothing out of it?  The Mossad has often proven to be invaluable to the US military with their intelligence sharing.  Nor do I doubt that Israel provides our leaders with intelligence on possible terrorist attacks.  The US worked with Israel to develop the sophisticated missile defense systems of Iron Dome, David's Sling and Arrow.  Israel buys US made airplanes and weaponry, helping our defense industry.  Israel then uses those weapons, having to always fight wars, and is able to make improvements based on actual battlefield experiences - all to the benefit of the US.  

It should be too obvious to have to state that Israel shares the same Western, democratic values with the US.  And, Israel is on the front lines fighting against terrorist groups and regimes that are also enemies of the United States.  Israel's counter-terrorism techniques are no doubt shared with the US.  Israel is well-known for its sophistication in the field of high tech.  Intel, Dell, Google, Cisco, IBM, Motorola and others all have R&D centers in Israel.    

No Kings? When Will The Democrats Wake Up?

I'm always amazed at how Democrats/Leftists will concern themselves over trivia.  Trump said a bad word.  Trump insulted someone.  The horrors.  Meanwhile, he succeeded in bringing home the living hostages.  Thank G-d for Trump.  He may have succeeded in remaking the entire Middle East, even though Hamas is determined to not let that happen.  It is clear that Hamas will not agree to all of the terms of Trump's peace plan.  But if the Saudis, and others, are tiring of them enough, then maybe Trump will get them to join the Abraham Accords.  

So, while some of my friends and family, and Democrats in general, want to believe that Trump is a threat to the country, they ignore the real threats.  It's not just the drug traffickers and human traffickers that Biden let into our country.  How many terrorists got in?  How many Chinese and Russian sleeper agents got in?  Biden never seemed to care about that, as he even allowed that Chinese spy balloon to fly across the entire country.  Biden did not fulfill his obligation to protect the American people.  To care about our national security.     

But is there an even bigger threat?  I believe so.  Whether you call it radical Islam, Islamism, political Islam, whatever.  It is fundamentally opposed to the American way of life, and to our Constitution.  People like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are very well versed in using American ideals against us, while demonstrating their lack of belief in those very same ideals.  They know how to play to our emotions.  Oh, the poor Palestinians.  The oppressors in the U.S. and Israel.  They share the same textbook as the Democrats/Leftists.  

Now we have a radical Muslim about to become the mayor of our largest city.  Does this frighten anyone else?  Does it frighten any Democrat?  Or, have you fallen for the threat of being accused of being "islamophobic?"  What is islamophobia?  It's a made up term, created to compete with antisemitism and racism and sexism.  

As for Mamdani's policies, see Part I of "No Kings," as well as my 2 part post of  July 4, 2025, and the follow up post of July 27, 2025.  But is that it?  A few elected Muslim officials?  There are actually 4 Muslim members of the House.  As of 2023, CAIR reported a total of 235 elected officials in the U.S. who are Muslim.  Doesn't sound like many in a country of 330 million people?  Maybe.  But their influence is growing beyond their numbers.

And what about Dearborn, Michigan?  The mayor and city council members are all Muslims.  When a Christian resident complained about a street sign honoring someone with alleged terrorist ties, Dearborn's Muslim Mayor told this Christian he was "not welcome" in Dearborn.  The Mayor called the man a "bigot" and a "racist," and, of course, an "islamophobe."  Then the mayor added this:  "The day you move out of the city will be the day I launch a parade celebrating the fact that you moved out of this city."  Because a Muslim Mayor gets to speak to non-Musims like that.  Is that what you want?  If so, keep voting Democrat.  

I'll say it yet again.  NO - I do not believe that all Muslims are anti-American.  I do not believe that all Muslims support radical jihad.  But what about the ones who do?  What about the likes of Tlaib and Mamdani who are unwilling to condemn a terrorist organization that has killed Americans; and are unwilling to say that Israel has a right to exist as the Jewish state?  What about that?

No Kings? Just More Of The Same - Part II

I get it.  Trump is a King.  He's a fascist.  He's Hitler.  The Left/Democrats are quite good at this.  Choosing a word or phrase and convincing people that it seems to make sense.  But it makes no sense.  When Trump lost in 2020, he vacated the White House.  What kind of King does that?  Trump was duly elected twice.  Kings are not.  But Trump is always violating the Constitution, right?

I've got a few questions.  About Joe Biden.  Remember how he said he would not pardon his son, Hunter?  And how he and Speaker Pelosi frequently said:  "no one is above the law."  Hunter was convicted of gun charges and pled guilty to tax evasion.  What did Biden do?  Let Hunter be punished because no one is above the law?  No, he pardoned Hunter.  Like a King would do for his son.

Remember how Biden, as VP, took classified documents to his home, and kept them there?  Special Counsel Robert Hur said Biden "willfully retained" those classified documents.  But a VP has no power to declassify.  Was the King prosecuted?  No.  Hur said he was just a "sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."  Right.

Remember how the Constitution (Article II Section 3) says the President has the responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed?"  But clearly that provision did not apply to King Biden, as he opened the doors to 10 million illegal aliens.  Meanwhile, our Department of Homeland Security reports that, since June, ICE and Border Patrol agents have arrested 5000 people in Los Angeles - including murderers, rapists, gang members and other bad guys.  But the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, which also not believe in enforcing the law, has declared a state of emergency because of ICE actions in LA County.  A democracy?  That willfully ignores federal immigration law?

Remember King Biden's loan forgiveness?  Let's be honest.  The Democrats like to buy votes.  Forgive student debt.  Open the borders to what they hope will be millions of future Democratic voters.  Anyway, in 2023, the Supreme Court told Biden that his plan was a no-no.  The President has no such power.  Ah, but a King does.  So Biden continued with his loan forgiveness through a work-around.  Until a Court of Appeal again slapped it down.  

We've all heard about how terrible a person Trump is.  He's a perv.  A creep.  Remember how Biden time after time would inappropriately touch women and girls, stroke their hair, and sniff them?  Creepy, right?  No.  A King has the right to have access to his subjects as he pleases.

Remember when Obama was President?  (I have to include a few comments about King Obama.)  Remember when he said if Congress would not do what he wanted, then he had a pen and a phone and he would take care of it?  Because that's what a King does.  Remember the IRS, under Obama, targeted conservative groups regarding their applications for 501(c)(3) status?  Tea Party groups were particularly targeted.  But a King can do that, right?

Remember (this is one of my "favorites") how Obama had the Justice Department target the media?  Generally, in a democracy, that's a big no-no.  But under a King?  Of course a monarch has that privilege.  That's why the DOJ seized records of the Associated Press (20 phone lines).  James Rosen at Fox, had his emails and phone records searched.  You all remember how the Obama Administration prosecuted more government employees for leaking classified information, than all prior presidential administrations combined?  Lucky for them that King Obama did not say "off with their heads."  Which Kings have done.  

And, of course, we all remember how Obama, and many in his Administration, went on the Sunday talk shows to tell the country that people should not pay attention to Fox News, because Fox was not a legitimate news organization?  And that Fox was "destructive" to the U.S.  True, Fox did not care very much for Obama's policies.  But I guess Obama set the example of attacking those in the press who would bot bend to the King's will.  

To conclude, don't we all remember how millions protested in the streets when Obama and Biden exceeded their powers, ignored Supreme Court orders, and acted as Kings?  No?  That's because it did not happen.  That's because all these demonstrations (from 1/21/17 through yesterday) against Trump, are nothing more than the nearly 9 year effort by Democrats/the Left to weaken Trump and even get him removed from office.  But we all know how the Democrats love their own Kings.

 

No Kings? Just More Of The Same - Part I

Yes, I saw that millions of Americans were out protesting across the country yesterday.  Protesting what?  Oh, various things.  But really, these anti-Trump mass protests started the day after his first inauguration, as I'm sure most readers recall the women's march of January 21, 2017.  So who is doing the protesting?  The temptation is to say (aside from the paid protesters) that these protesters are the usual leftist groups that make up much of today's Democratic Party.  But actually - those groups are indistinguishable from the Democratic Party.  What do I mean by that?  Let's look at one example.

As we know, Zohran Mamdani appears headed for victory in next months's NYC mayoral race.  Is Mamdani extreme?  You bet he is.  First, he is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).  Next, we know that he founded his college's chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).  SJP did call Hamas's terrorist attack on civilians in Israel a "historic win for the Palestinian resistance."  Mamdani has refused to outright condemn Hamas for that attack.  (His slight backtracking weeks before the election is clearly for public consumption only, and not a true reflection of where he stands.)  Hamas is a designated terrorist organization.  Hamas has killed Americans and taken Americans hostage.  

Mamdani has refused to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada."  The two intifadas in Israel resulted in the murder of thousands of innocent Israelis by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.  On Friday, Mamdani visited the mosque in Bedford-Stuyvesant, whose imam was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, which killed six people.  Not to mention Mamdani's friendship with Hasan Piker, who declared that "America deserved 9/11."  

Given all of the above, surely no respectable Democrat would dare to support Mamdani, right?  Wrong.  Who does support Mamdani?  Barack Obama.  Bill Clinton.  NY Governor Kathy Hochul.  Former VP Kamala Harris (and to think she might have been president).  NY Attorney General Leticia James.  Congress members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pramila Jayapal and Jerry Nadler, to name a few.  Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernard Sanders.  And, the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Ken Martin.

So what is the difference between the Democratic Party and the socialists/leftists?  None!  No difference whatsoever.  How could anyone argue otherwise when so many "mainstream" Democrats support an avowed socialist, Israel-hating and Jew-hating person to lead the largest city in America - the city with the most Jewish Americans no less.  Need more examples?  Many thought Harris did not pick Josh Shapiro (the very popular Governor of Pennsylvania) as her VP running mate because he's Jewish and supports Israel.  Can't have any of that in the Democratic Party anymore.  And what about Pennsylvania's Senator, John Fetterman.  According to one source, he votes with his party 95% of the time.  But Axios reports that others in his party may seek to oust him in the primary.  Why?  He opposes communism and supports Israel.

Many (including friends and family members) seem to be either blissfully unaware, or simply indifferent, to the efforts being made across the country to oust whatever "traditional" democrats that may still hold elected office, and replace them with adherents to the DSA.  DSA - socialist and anti-Israel.  Are those democrats whom I personally know, aware that they have, like it or not, consciously or unconsciously, accepted that their party is an extreme left-wing party?  

I have repeatedly suggested to people that they might want to read some of JFK's speeches, in order to hear the words of a traditional, classical, liberal democrat.  I wrote a post on July 17, 2016, in order to remind people what classical liberalism was all about.  I have explained that classical liberalism has far more in common with conservatism than with leftism.  Again, just read JFK's speeches.  Leftism is the outlier.  Or, I should say that leftism was the outlier.  Now, it is an integral part of today's Democratic Party.   

By the way, it has been reported that Hamas has been summarily executing other Palestinians.  Supposedly because they collaborated with Israel.  Were there any trials first?  I saw no evidence of that.  But a Hamas leader claimed that "exceptional measures" were needed.  Because there was no time for a trial?  Where are all the keffiyeh-wearing Israel-hating protesters now?  Why aren't they protesting against Hamas?  Not a single one of those anti-Israel protesters can be seen now.  You know, the SJP, or Queers for Palestine, or the many others.  Aren't these the groups that say they are for democracy?  Against Kings?  Well, a democracy does not allow for summary executions of its own people.  But Kings have historically done that.        

This Post Is About Me...And You...And Everyone Who Cares About Maintaining the Judeo-Christian Basis For Western Civilization

(Note.  In some ways this is a follow-up to my 7/4/25 post "I'm Sick Of It!  Really Sick Of It!"  It is also a follow-up to my 6 part post "Are We At War With Islam?"  The first 2 parts were written in 2010, Part III in 2012, Part IV in 2013, and Parts V and VI were written in 2016.)   

In only two days, two years will have passed since the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023.  I'd like to say a few words about my reaction at the time.  I have never been to Israel.  (Lifelong orthopedic problems made long distance travel too difficult.)  I have no family, no relatives, as those terms are commonly understood, in Israel.  But when I heard about the rape, torture, murder and kidanpping of so many Israelis, I could not help but feeling extremely angry and sad all at once.  Because the Jewish people are my family.  And because these types of attacks on Jewish people, just for being Jews, have occurred far too often - throughout history, and in my lifetime.  

Yes, my family was under attack.  How else could I explain my inability to sleep for two weeks after 10/7.  How else to explain that for two weeks I would get up in the middle of the night at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. in order to turn on the TV and watch the news for one to two hours in order to see the latest developments out of Israel.  Since October 7, 2023, there have been countless attacks on Jewish people and institutions around the world, as much of the world has blamed Israel for having the audacity to fight back against the evil terrorists of Hamas.  At no time did I ask myself if those wounded or killed were liberals or conservatives.  It did not matter.  People were being killed because they were Jews.  Hitler (who should rot in hell forever) wanted all the Jews dead, just because they were Jews.  The Nazis never asked - do you support the Fuhrer's National Socialist Party?  No.  It was - you're a Jew - die!  Does anyone really need a reminder of 1930's Germany?

Readers of this blog know that there have been plenty of times that I have expressed my disappointment and even anger at some of my fellow Jews.  Jews who not only refuse to support Israel in this fight for the country's survival, but who condemn Israel for fighting back, and who advocate cutting off military aid to Israel in the middle of this war.  Jews who have replaced a belief in Judaism with a belief in leftism.  Nevertheless, I stand with my Chabad Rabbis, who have told countless stories of Jews finding their way back to their religion, and back to their support for Israel.  After October 7, I have read quite a few stories about this return to Judaism and support for Israel.  About leftwing Jews discovering their "friends" did not care at all about the slaughter of Jews.  It was quite a wake-up call for many.    

And just three days ago, on Yom Kippur (October 2), the Day of Atonement, the holiest day of the year for the Jewish people, another terrorist attacked Jewish people, this time outside their synagogue in Manchester, England.  He drove his car into people out front of the synagogue and then got out of his car and stabbed people.  Ramming people with motor vehicles and stabbing them, are favored methods of attacks by Palestinian terrorists.  This particular individual managed to kill two people and wound others.  The deceased were Adrian Daulby, age 53, and Melvin Cravitz, age 66.  And while readers know that I never state the names of the evil perpetrators, in this case I'm making an exception.  For his first name only - Jihad.  That pretty much sums up all we need to know about this Syrian living in the U.K.  

Of course, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the "horrific" attack on Jews on Yom Kippur.  But his words mean nothing.  He had previously accused Israel of causing an "unspeakable and indefensible" catastrophe in Gaza.  London's Muslim Mayor accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.  And just last month, Starmer saw fit to recognize a "Palestinian" state.  No action was required in exchange by any "Palestinian" leaders.  So the message was clear to the Arab Muslim world - kill Jews and we will reward you.  

In an Op-Ed in Friday's Wall Street Journal, Dominic Green wrote:  "The blood of British Jews is in Labour's hands - and the fate of Britain is in the balance."  P.M. Starmer is the head of the Labour Party.  There are 300,000 Jews in the U.K, but approximately 4,000,000 Muslims.  Because the European countries opened their borders to so-called "refugees" from across the Middle East.  In his address to the U.N. General Asembly last month, President Trump told the Europeans:  "It's (unrestrained migration) destroying your country(s), and you have to do something about it."  Just yesterday, millions of people across Europe were out in the streets in support of Hamas.  

And who are the Muslim leaders in the U.S?  Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.  And perhaps the soon to be Mayor of N.Y.C., Zohran Mamdani.  Mamdani refuses to criticize the phrase "globalize the intifada."  Want to see what globalizing the intifada looks like?  We just saw it three days ago in Manchester, England.  What about Tlaib, who constantly accuses Israel of "genocide."  She is no different from Hamas - she'd rather keep the fighting going.  She opposes Trump's peace plan for the Hamas-Israel war, saying:  "Trump and War Criminal Netanyahu, perpetrators of the genocide, do not get to decide the future of Gaza.  Palestinians get to determine the future of Palestine."  

Oh really?  When was the last time there was an election in Gaza?  That would be 2006.  But Tlaib, like the terrorists, would like to keep the fighting going, because they don't actually give a damn about innocent civilians.  And just how many are "innocent" we don't know.  Because multiple polls have shown overwhelming support for Hamas within Gaza.   

I'll end with this quote from Josh Hammer's 9/28/25 Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times:  "Four of America's nominally closest allies - Britain, Australia, France and Canada - disgraced themselves this week by recognizing a so-called Palestinian state.  In doing so, these nations didn't merely betray their Western civilization inheritance.  They also rewarded terrorism, strengthened the genocidal ambitions of the global jihad and sent a chilling message:  The path to international legitimacy runs not through the difficult work of building up a nation-state and engaging in diplomacy, but through mass murder, the weaponization of transnational institutions and the erasure of historical truth."    

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk - Additional Thoughts On What It Means For Our Country, Part III (Conclusion)

William Bennett had an opinion piece online on Fox today.  He discussed what his son experienced while in graduate school in 2016, during Trump's first capaign.  Said his son:  "I used to be like Charlie Kirk - I used to think people could be persuaded with reason."  But his son learned that reason did not work with people who viewed Trump as Hitler.  He ended up being called a Nazi himself, and losing friends at the time.  That sounds all too familiar to this writer.  And I also recall my younger daughter being unfriended by a college friend for daring to express her sadness over the events of October 7.  

Bennett:  "Charlie Kirk died because we have forgotten how to hate properly."  And this:  "We teach our young people to hate their opponents rather than love their own principles.  We have made politics a blood sport precisely because we have drained it of transcendent meaning.  When you believe in nothing greater than your own righteousness, the only thing left is to destroy those who challenge your certainty."

I have a lifelong friend who is also a reader of the blog.  He has frequently texted me, about me:  "always certain, often wrong."  Yes, I do feel confident in my beliefs.  But I have always encouraged people, especially young people, to read multiple points of view.  And I have made offers to various people who have disagreed with me, to write their own opinion piece, and I said I would post it on my blog.  I have consistently been turned down on that.  

Bennett then tells us that his son's solution was to withdraw.  After all, he was understandably tired of being called a "Nazi, racist, sexist" and undoubtedly other "deplorable" type names for stating what he thought were common sense notions.  So his son stopped watching the news.  He stopped reading political articles.  And he stopped discussing issues with people who were, presumably, friends.

Bennett:  "The problem is not that our universities are too political.  They are not political in the classical sense of "political" that Aristotle meant when he called man a political animal.  The university problem is that they are factories of indoctrination, especially in the liberal arts.  Real politics requires engagement with difference, the ability to live alongside those you disagree with, the skill of persuasion rather than coercion.  Our campuses have replaced politics with theology, and a particularly intolerant theology at that."  Yes, it's called Leftism.  

Bennett:  "This is what we have done to our young people.  We have made the cost of conviction so high that capable, principled people retreat from public engagement entirely.  We have made a world where it is safer to be silent than to speak, safer to conform than to question, safer to hide than to stand."  

"If we cannot make America safe for argument again - not just civil argument, but vigouous, passionate, even angry argument - then we should stop pretending we live in a democracy."  Yes, and how sad is that.  But the anger on the Left seems to know no bounds.  Bennett:  "If you are not consumed with rage, you are at home raising your family and going to work.  So radical political movements naturally attract the angriest among us, not necessarily the wisest."   

[My apologies to Mr. Bennett for the extensive use of his opinion piece.  But he said it as well as I could have.  Better perhaps.  As a country we must decide.  Do we want to destroy those who challenge us?  Do we favor anarchy and civil war?  Because make no mistake, if you justify murder based on someone's beliefs and speech, then you have thrown out the rule of law.  Or, do we want to keep our democracy?  Where Democratic and passionate Senator Triple H (Hubert Horatio Humphrey) maintained friendly relations with those Senators across the aisle with whom he disagreed.  Where Ronald Reagan could sit down with Tip O'Neill and hash out differences.  And where I could have rather heated court hearings with opposing counsel, and still go to lunch afterwards.  This is a decision that the next generation will have to make.  I hope that they choose wisely.]

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk - Additional Thoughts On What it Means For Our Country, Part II (Did Kirk Really say Those Things?)

Factcheck.org is described as being affiliated with the Annenburg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.  It is generally considered a reliable site.  Let's look at their 9/15/25 post about some of the comments allegedly made by Kirk.  One of the most egregious, especially without context, was his comment about the assault on Paul Pelosi, husband of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Kirk said the attack was "awful."  So far, so good.  But he also said that a patriot should bail out the perpetrator.  That sounds bad.  Why would he say that?

Here's why:  "But why is it that in Chicago you're able to commit murder and be out the next day?"  So, taken in context, what he was really stating was his objection to cashless bail for all crimes in some cities and states - even when the crime is murder.  Now, one can disagree with how he made his point.  But, given the context, he clearly did not side with the perpetrator who attacked Paul Pelosi, as some have alleged.

But didn't Kirk hate gay people?  Obviously not.  Just see Part I of the prior 3 posts (dated 9/13/25) explaining how two openly gay and prominent men (Ric Grenell and Dave Rubin), both married to other men, described themselves as being good friends with Charlie Kirk. Then I saw a clip of Kirk debating a stridently anti-gay person, and explaining what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no one else's business.  But he hated gays?  Does not sound like it.  

But Kirk was a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.  So, didn't he get what he deserved?  That would be true only if you believe the murder of those holding opposing views from your own is justified.  Simply based on their beliefs and speech.  Here is what Kirk did say:  "You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death.  That is nonsense.  It is drivel...I think it's worth (it) to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other G-d given rights."  Maybe you disagree with the private ownership of guns.  But Kirk thought it through.  As I said in the earlier 3 posts, people die from using legal products.  Cars definitely kill.  So do cigarettes.  And so do knives.   

What about the Jews?  Yes, Kirk discussed how wealthy Jews donated to many leftwing causes.  Most frequently named is George Soros.  But there are others.  One of his concerns was his support for Israel, and the difficulty he had in understanding why leftwing Jews would support groups that would just as soon see them dead and see the end of Israel.  Let me be clear.  I did not always like the way Kirk made this point.  (See my June 5, 2025 post, "What Charlie Kirk Doesn't Get.")  After I wrote that post, I was asked if I thought that Kirk was an antisemite.  I said I did not think that.  I was merely critiquing his choice of words.  And Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu called Kirk "a defender of our common Judeo-Christian civilization."  

I have often heard from Christian friends and readers of the blog, telling me it seemed to them that Christians are more supportive of Israel than many Jews are.  I am asked why that is the case.  I have offered various explanations, but that is not the purpose of this post.  The point is, Kirk was clearly not alone in trying to understand leftwing Jews who side with the Palestinians over Israel.  And readers of the blog know that I have frequently criticized my fellow Jews.  It is difficult to understand, other than to say their leftist ideology is more important to them than their Judaism.  

As a conservative, he was also unhappy with leftwing Jews supporting so-called "progressive" (arguably socialist and communist) ideologies.  But so are all conservatives, including conservative Jews, such as myself.  My beef with those comments was with how he expressed it.  And in neglecting to point out the various Christian organizations and wealthy Christians who also supported leftwing causes.  

Didn't Kirk hate Blacks?  I'm not convinced that he hated anyone.  But he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right?  He felt that it led to a "permanent DEI-type bureaucracy."  Well, it did lead to affirmative action, which has been very controversial since its inception.  And which the Supreme Court eventually struck down (at least as to the college admission process) in a June, 2023 decision (Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. vs Harvard College and the University of North Carolina).  The Court declared race-based affirmative action to be an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.  Colleges were instructed to treat people as individuals, not as members of groups.  

When we judge people as members of a group, we get "identity politics."  Your race, sex and gender are all we need to know about you.  From there, the Left identifies the oppressors and the oppressed.  But Kirk said some not very nice things about MLK, right?  He did.  I would not have.  But he felt that King was tied to the Civil Rights laws of the 1960's, which he viewed as being contrary to the U.S. Constitution.  And the Supreme Court ultimately agreed with him on much of it.

It should be readily apparent that not everything attributed to Kirk by the mainstream media or people on social media is accurate.  Much of their hatred is based on falsehoods - and a willingness to believe them.

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk - Additional Thoughts On What It Means For Our Country, Part I

Usually, after writing a post, I start thinking about my next topics.  But after the last 3 posts discussing the murder of Charlie Kirk, I was unable to get my mind off the tremendous amount of vitriol directed at him, even in death.  I did some more research on Kirk.  And some more thinking about it.  My initial thought returned to the issue of when murder stopped being universally condemned, and might even be something to celebrate.  I thought, do those people celebrating have no understanding of, or appreciation for, the 10 Commandments?  

What is often interpreted as "thou shall not kill," was explained by commentator Dennis Prager as "thou shall not murder."  Because killing was always permitted, such as in cases of self defense.  Has the country become less religious?  Kirk's murder is likely to cause some awakening of religiosity on the part of Christian young people.  And, for some time now, the orthodox Chabad Lubavitch movement has been the fastest growing sect within Judaism.  Because Chabad offers teachings in Judaism, not politics.  The Chabad Rabbis offer meaning.  

Okay, maybe fewer people think about the 10 Commandments.  But what about our Constitution?  If you are accused of a crime, what about the right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers?  Clearly, these people do not believe in the First Amendment, a right that Charlie Kirk was exercising when he was shot down.  What about not losing your right to life and liberty without due process of law?  Do all these people no longer care about the Constitution either?  Don't they say it is the Right/Republicans who don't believe in the Constitution?  I wonder how many of these people who have been gleeful after Kirk's death oppose the death penalty.  If even after a trial and appeals, they oppose a convicted murderer being put to death.  Do they not see the irony in any of this?

I was sad to see that a local teacher piled on with the celebrating.  I know her and her husband from when our kids were in school.  As reported in the local paper, she posted this:  "Sorry, not sorry.  Karma is a bitch.  Real Christians, real people of faith, would never support this fake Christian who was so un-Christ like and full of hatred for people of color, LGBTQIA+ people and women...Please unfriend me if you ever supported the filthy Nazi propaganda-spewing racist misogynist who got what he deserved yeseterday."  

This made me think - I have already compared the thinking of the Left (not classic liberals) to radical Isalamists.  How exactly does this celebration of death, of murder, differ from the celebrations we saw by Hamas and many people in Gaza, after the rape, torture and murder of Jews in Israel after October 7?  Anybody?  Is this why the Left supports Hamas?  Could it be because both groups are on the side of evil?

In the 3 prior posts, I explained that I did not know that much about Kirk.  I did a little research into his beliefs before posting.  Recall that in Part I of the prior posts, I pointed out that Stephen King had to apologize for accusing Kirk of making a comment that Kirk said someone else had made.  I began to wonder how often that had happened.  After all, the Left does have a habit of taking sound bites out of context.  

Then, lo and behold, the self-esteemed New York Times had to issue a correction about Kirk.  Here was the Times in an online post:  "A correction was made on September 11, 2025.  An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an antisemitic statement that Charlie Kirk had made on an episode of his podcast.  He was quoting a statement from a post on social media and went on to critique it.  It was not his own statement."  Was there an apology in there somewhere?  

It was apparent to me that I needed to find a reliable (hopefully) fact checker in order to find out what is true and what is myth?

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk, Conclusion

I've been told that the nasty rhetoric mostly comes from the right.  I do not buy that at all.  Biden was a nasty President.  And, while Obama spoke more nicely, his words were often anything but.  However, I am certainly not going to assert that there is zero nasty rhetoric coming from the right.  I have often cringed at some of the things Trump has said.  But which side is more violent?

After George Floyd was killed, there were nationwide riots, with looting and burning.  There was an estimated $2 billion in property damage.  Some estimate the number of deaths as between one and two dozen.  Since Charlie Kirk was killed?  Anyone see conservatives rioting, burning and looting.  How about Occupy Wall Street?  Fights with police.  Claims of sexual assault and other crimes.  Usually left their protest areas a filthy mess.  The Tea Party?  Peaceful, neat and orderly. 

In a poll from the Network Contagion Research Institute, based at Rutgers University, they found that 55% of self-identified left of center respondents said it was at least somewhat justified to murder President Trump, vs 20.3% on the right.  15% said it was completely justified.  48% felt it was somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk, vs 14.3% on the right.  And 59% said it was somewhat acceptable to destroy a Tesla dealership, vs 23.6% on the right.  In a YouGov poll, 14% of Democrats said it was sometimes justified to use violence to achieve political goals, compared with 6% of Republicans.  We have a serious problem in this country. 

However, the biggest problem may be generational.  According to a survey by the Foundation For Individual Rights and Expression, each generation was asked if political violence is never acceptable.  93% of Baby Boomers agreed never acceptable.  But that number decreased in each generation.  86% of Gen X agreed political violence was never acceptable.  That decreased further with millenials at 71%.  And Gen Z?  Only 58% agreed that political violence was never acceptable.  (The alleged shooter of Kirk is 22 years old, part of Gen Z.)  Clearly, these younger people have not been taught about Free Speech.  About the First Amendment forming the basis of our democracy.  They have been taught that they are entitled to "safe spaces" in order to avoid speech they find objectionable.  College age kids!  The age of many of our soldiers. 

This hatred from the Left towards those who hold opposing viewpoints, certainly reminded me of my own experience.  During Trump's first campaign, a friend of 25 years yelled in my face about the election; and when I refused to promise that I would not vote for Trump, he loudly yelled "I'm done with you" as he walked away.  A colleague got in my face in Court, and I thought he was going to start beating on me.  A friend of 45 years decided he could no longer talk to me.  And one of my first bosses, a man who my wife and I were quite fond of, decided I was not good enough to speak with or be around.  Basically, all these people were no different from those who called Kirk a "piece of shit."  And they believe they have the moral high ground.  

Then there are the extended family members who have not been willing to speak with me, or attend any family events with me in attendance, since the November, 2024 election.  I have had people on the right disagree with me quite a bit.  But none stopped being friends with me.  Rather, they have tried to persuade me as to why they believed I was wrong.  Now, you can argue my experience is anecdotal only.  But clearly something is going on here.  

I've said it many times before.  Many Democrats, who think of themselves as liberal, have actually become leftists.  Leftists do not value free speech.  They do not believe in the First Amendment.  Rather, they are willing to ban what they deem to be "offensive" speech.  A quote usually attributed to Voltaire says:  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  And, in my post on Classical Liberalism, from July 17, 2016, I quote John Stuart Mill on speech.  "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."  But those views of Voltaire and Mill were the views of classical liberals.  Few and far between in today's Democratic Party; but those are views commonly held by Republicans.

Of all of our political leaders who have commented on Charlie Kirk's assassination, believe it or not Bernie Sanders said it best.  "Freedom and democracy is not about political violence.  It is not about assassinating public officials.  It is not about trying to intimidate people who speak out on an issue.  Political violence, in fact, is political cowardice.  It means that you cannot convince people  of the correctness of your ideas, and you have to impose them through force.  We must welcome and respect dissenting points of view.  That's what our Constitution is about, that's what our Bill of Rights is about.  That, in fact, is what freedom is about."  And that is what Charlie Kirk was all about - a free and open exchange of ideas.    

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk, Part II

Speaking of Ilhan Omar, here is what she said about Kirk.  "There are a lot of people who are talking about him just wanting to have a civil debate.  These people are full of shit and it's important for us to call them out while we feel anger and sadness."  She goes on to say Kirk downplayed the death of George Floyd.  I would say that's backwards - much of the world overplayed the death of George Floyd.  That does not mean I wished Floyd dead or thought he should die.  It means that somehow a common criminal was turned into a saint.  

Omar also accused Kirk of hateful rhetoric postings on social media.  As an aside, that is rather ironic coming from Omar, who a few years ago made one hateful antisemitic comment after the next.  But Omar's comment is a perfect example of the thinking of the Left - any comment that goes against their beliefs is deemed to be "hateful."  Once given that designation, the Left follows it up with calling the person a Nazi or fascist or Hitler.  Once that happens, they no longer view the person as a human being, and any action taken against that person can be justified.  

Once I started looking into Charlie Kirk, I came across an online site called "Bluesky."  Here are some of the comments I saw.  "Do Ben Shapiro next."  "Nice, can we do Ben Shapiro next?"  "I hope they shoot Ben Shapiro next."  "Can someone shoot Ben Shapiro next?'  And, "J.K. Rowling next."  Ben Shapiro is another young (albeit 10 years older than Kirk) conservative political commentator.  Whereas Kirk was a religious Christian, Shapiro is a religious Jew.  But many people on the Left have no respect for those who are religious.  And, Shapiro, like Kirk, also likes to speak on college campuses.   

Bluesky also had quite a few calls for the assassination of President Trump.  There was an interesting article in the New York Post, quoting teachers from around the country.  One teacher posed in front of a screen announcing Kirk's assassination and sang "G-d bless America."  In Naples, New York, a teacher referred to Kirk as an "aspiring Goebbels," and added "good riddance to bad garbage."  From Greenville, South Carolina:  "America became better today.  There I said it."  From Iowa:  "1 Nazi down."  

A teacher with the DOD said this:  "He was a garbage human.  I won't mourn for him one second."  And:  "Fuck the high road,"  "Fuck that guy."  From Baytown, Texas:  "Could Kirk have baited just ONE too many people?  Could this have been the consequences of his actions catching up with him."  And from Cleveland, Ohio:  the writer expressed the hope that Kirk "never finds rest and always suffer(s) in eternity."  These are teachers.  The people who are supposed to educate our children.  Imagine what message they are passing along to their students - if someone says something that you find objectionable, they should be dead.

And this from a restaurant owner in Cincinnati, Ohio:  "Good Riddance.  What a piece of shit."  After getting some backlash, the restaurant owner replied with this:  "If you think threats of social media attacks on me or my business will in any way keep me silent about what I believe, you are sorely mistaken.  I know exactly who I am and on what side of history I stand."  I think that pretty well epitomizes the feeling of moral superiority felt by those on the Left.  He will not remain silent, but it's fine that Charlie Kirk was permanently silenced.  I am sure that none of these people see the irony in what they are saying.  They call Kirk a Nazi, a fascist, a piece of garbage, or a piece of shit - based on what?

Based on the fact that they don't like what he says.  Who exactly justifies murder based on one's speech?  Fascists and Nazis.  Could there be any better examples of the Left's loathing of free speech and the First Amendment and our Constitution?  Then we have the antisemites, with the Anti-Defamation League reporting that since Kirk was murdered there have been over 10,000 posts on X blaming Israel.  Just ridiculous given Kirk's strong support of Israel.  Here is what Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu said of Kirk:  he was a "lion-hearted friend of Israel."   

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk, Part I

This was a difficult week for America.  On Wednesday, Charlie Kirk was murdered while speaking to an audience at Utah Valley University.  Then Thursday was the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 terror atacks on America.  When I heard that Kirk had been murdered, I felt both sadness and anger - two emotions that have haunted me all too frequently.  Sad because Kirk was a young man, a husband and a father of two little girls.  Angry over the silencing of a prominent conservative voice.

I can't say that I listened to Kirk all that much over the years.  From what I heard, I know I did not always agree with him.  Reading more about him, I would not have said some of the things he said the way that he did.  Kirk passed on college.  At age 19 he became a co-founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), which has become the most influential political organization reaching out to young people.  He loved going to college campuses, knowing he would be challenged by leftwing students.  He would engage them with his "Prove me wrong" debates.  

And that was his approach.  A non-violent free exchange of ideas.  Exactly what our Founders intended with the First Amendment, forming the underlying basis of our democracy.  The Independent, a left leaning paper out of the UK, described Kirk this way.  He was a Christian.  Yes, he was a religious Christian.  He was anti-abortion.  Many people are.  I am not opposed to all abortions.  He opposed mask mandates.  Some say that most masks were ineffectual.  He was a believer in the Second Amendment, while acknowledging that some would die from guns.  People die from many things that are legal.  And he said that Democrats "stand for everything G-d hates."  (A response to that would take up several posts.)

The Independent continued, saying that Kirk called the Russian-Ukrainian war a "border dispute."  Readers know that I strongly disagree with that.  Russia, led by Putin, invaded Ukraine; because Putin wants to regain the old Soviet Union.  While he opposed the US bombing Iran, which I favored, he was a strong supporter of Israel.  Knowing that he was a religious Christian, I was quite surprised when I first heard him say at the conclusion of his Friday show:  Shabbat Shalom.  The Jewish Sabbath starts on Friday at sundown.  It turns out that Kirk was friends with a Rabbi Pesach Wolicki.  Rabbi Wolicki would help Kirk with advice on how to defend Israel.  Kirk was concerned that many members of Gen Z did not support Israel.  

Said the Rabbi:  "Charlie stood alone to a great extent in that whole Gen Z conservative world as far as being pro-Israel...there were prominent people...actively working to (get him to) drop his support for Israel on a daily basis.  And he resisted."  The Independent ssaid Kirk opposed "gender affirming care."  When I hear about doctors doing any such thing to minors I am greatly disturbed by it.  The paper said he was against the LGBTQ Agenda.  What specifically?  They said he opposed same sex marriage.  There are various Biblical references that suggest gay marriage would not be acceptable.  And the paper said he supported Leviticus 20:13, describing it as "G-d's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters."

After claiming that Kirk advocated for stoning gays to death, Stephen King apologized, saying "what he actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages."  David Rubin, an openly gay conserative commentator, said he was a good friend of Kirk's.  Ric Grenell, the highest ranking openly gay member of the first Trump Administration, also called Kirk a good friend.  He said Kirk had asked him to join the Board of TPUSA.  And, there is a Tik Tok video by a group called Gay Bear Patriot with one pesumably gay person after the next saying "I am Charlie Kirk."  

According to The Guardian, another leftwing paper out of the UK, Kirk said:  "America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank:  large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America."  And:  "...Islam is not compatible with Western civilization."  Is anyone seriously going to argue that Muslim run countries have the kind of freedoms that we associate with Western countries?  Free elections?  Often not.  Freedom of speech?  Often not, especially with regards to criticizing the government or Islam.  Women's rights, gay rights?  You get the picture.  The misnamed "honor" killings?  Sadly too often.  

As for large Islamic areas being a threat to America, if they adopt Islamic values, if they adopt local sharia law, then, yes, clearly a threat.  I will once again fully acknowledge that there are Muslim Americans who desire nothing other than to live the American dream.  To raise a family, have a home, get an education, start a business or make a good living.  But, when I look at the elected Muslim office holders, such as Rashida Tlaib (see the prior post) and Ilhan Omar, I am very concerned.  When I see Zohran Mamdani possibly becoming the next Mayor of America's largest city, I am very concerned.  

     

It Never Stops

(Note.  There are many topics to cover since my last post over 3 weeks ago.  But these attacks on America, Israel and the Jewish people continue non-stop.  If I was just commenting on the daily acts of antisemitism and Jew hatred, I could do multiple posts a day just on that.  And, as a reminder, those who hate Israel, also hate America.  See below.)

The weekend before last there was a "People's Conference for Palestine" held in Detroit.  I'm not sure how many cities in Michigan (or the entire state?) may already be lost to radical islamists.  (For those who need me to to say it yet again, I am not talking about all Muslims, but the radical islamists and their supporters.)  Of course, the main speaker was the America hating, Israel hating, and Jew hating Rashida Tlaib (Dem. Rep. from Michigan).  Tlaib claimed that America was built on "slavery, genocide, rape and oppression."  Isn't it nice to know that a representative in the United States Congress hates America.  And we know she is not the only one.  

Here were some more choice words from Tlaib:  "I wanna say to every genocide enabler, look at this room, motherfuckers, we ain't going anywhere."  Again, this is a US Representative.  And she said to "keep AIPAC out of US politics."  AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is an American organization.  How does she propose to keep Americans out of politics?  What I believe she means is "keep all Israel supporters out of US politics."  And, I'd bet she would be happy to keep all Jews out of US politics, because even most left-wing Jews support Israel.

Here was a lovely sentiment from a Dr. Nidal Jboor, who also spoke.  He stated that the "perpetrators" in DC, Tel Aviv and Europe must "be taken out, neutralized."  Did he suggest assassinating President Trump?  Is the Secret Service investigating?  Weren't 2 attempts to kill President Trump enough!  

Here is more from Tlaib:  "They thought they would kill us, rape us, imprison us, violently uproot us from our olive tree farms, starve our children to death, and we would disappear.  Well, guess what?  Now we're in Congress, and we're in every corner of the United States."  That should frighten everyone.  Just imagine that there are radical islamists in Congress and everywhere around the United States.  In every corner of the country.  That tells me where the next Civil War is likely to come from.  

Today, there was yet another terrorist attack in Israel.  This time in Jerusalem.  The attack occurred at a bus stop, where it was reported that two terrorists entered a bus and just started shooting.  Six people were killed, including three Rabbis.  Two others were seriously wounded and four more were moderately wounded.  Over two dozen were treated for shock.  Whatever Tlaib, and her ilk, may or may not say about this attack, I would bet that she supports it.  I'd like to know if she privately celebrated over the death of these six civilians.  The two terrorists, ages 20 and 21, were killed at the site, by a soldier, and a civilian who aided in protecting his fellow Jews. 

It would not surprise me at all if these two young terrorists were trained at an early age that it is good to kill Jews.  That it is good to be a martyr.  Because that is what they teach young kids in Palestinian schools.  Because for far too many Muslims, Islam is a death cult.  Where being a "martyr," dying for the cause, is the greatest good.  Not getting an education in order to be a productive member of society.  Not starting a business.  Not getting married and having children.  It is a celebration of death.  When Jews offer a toast, it is with the words "L'chaim."  Which means "to life!"  Quite a contrast. 

I wonder if Tlaib knows that 55 years ago, King Hussein of Jordan fought a war against the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).  It was Black September, when the PLO hijacked 4 planes, or tried to.  They were not successful in getting the El-Al Israeli plane, as one of the terrorists was killed and one was captured.  And I wonder if Tlaib knows that after Israel won the Six Day War in 1967, capturing the West Bank, the Golan Heights, Gaza and the Sinai...Egypt wanted the Sinai back, which they got after the 1973 Yom Kippur war.  Syria wanted the Golan Heights back - never happened nor will it.  But Jordan did not want the West Bank back.  Essentially, they said to Israel - you keep it, we don't want those Palestinians.      

The New York Times Is A Disgusting Paper

We know that the NY Times is no friend of Israel or of the Jewish people.  Not just in their editorials, but also in the Op-Eds they happily print.  And while I thought I was done talking about Mahmoud Khalil (see my posts of 3/15/25 and 4/2/25 about him), this past Sunday's edition of the Times (August 10) had an Op-Ed that I felt both compelled and impelled a response.  The falsehoods contained in that Op-Ed simply demanded a rebuttal.  Because people need to know that the Democratic - Mainstream Media Complex is not trustworthy.  At all!

Ezra Klein (yes, I'm sad to say that he is Jewish) is an Op-Ed writer for the Times, who also has his own podcast.  Klein is obviously far left.  That's bad enough.  But to give voice to an Israel hater, an obvious Jew hater, is inexcusable. The Op-Ed in last Sunday's paper contained excerpts from the interview - a softball interview - that Klein conducted of Khalil on his podcast.    

Klein opens his piece by asserting that Khalil's "sole offense had been to speak out against Israel in a way this administration did not like."  There's the first big lie.  Khalil was one of the leaders of the student protests at Columbia University in NYC.  You know, taking over buildings, blocking access to buildings, intimidating and assaulting Jewish students.  Just speech?  That is the way Klein set up the interview.  So, ignore all the rest.  Not to mention Khalil's involvement with CUAD (Columbia University Apartheid Divest), which advocates for the overthrow of the U.S. government, and an end to western civilization.  What government would want foreigners coming in seeking to overthrow their government?   

Here's a really big whopper by Klein:  "...I found inflammatory things said by people near you at different times.  Or by an Instagram account that's part of a group you're a apart of.  That kind of thing.  But I couldn't find that much from you."  Klein has a podcast, so I assume he knows how to do a Google search.  The reality is, this Op-Ed was a puff piece.  Puffing up Israel hater and Jew hater Mahmoud Khalil.  Why?  There can be no other reason than the NY Times and Klein side with Khalil and against Israel and the Jews who support Israel.  And let's not forget this point.  President Trump supports Israel and the Jewish people.  And anything that Trump supports the Left must oppose.  

Let me help Mr. Klein with a few of Khalil's inflammatory comments that Klein said he was unable to find.  Referring to October 7, Khalil said "unfortunately, we couldn't avoid such a moment."  We?  That would be Khalil identifying with Hamas.  Khalil:  "It was clear that the Saudi-Israel deal is very imminent, and Palestinians wouldn't have any path to statehood and self-determination.  So they had to that, according to their calculations - which, it's obvious were not right."  You see that sleight of hand by Khalil?  After identifying himself with Hamas, he remembers to say it was "their" calculation, and was not right.  If he believed it was not right, he would openly condemn Hamas - which he has refused to do on multiple occasions.  Therefore, we must assume that Khalil was fine with the rape, torture, murder and kidnapping of Jews that happened on October 7.  And Klein has no questions about that.    

Khalil then further justified the atrocities of October 7 by saying it was "a desperate attempt to tell the world that the Palestinians are here, that Palestinians are part of the equation."  Let's do a short recap.  Peace between Israel and the Saudis would be no good - why?  Why isn't a peaceful Middle East better for everyone?  Peace is no good because Hamas is a death cult.  They do not value human life.  The Palestinians could have had their own state since 1948, just like Israel.  Instead, Khalil has said:  "The Palestinian people have been living under occupation, ethnic cleansing, and all sorts of crimes since 1948 and we prevailed."  

Ocuupation by whom?  Egypt controlled Gaza from 1948 to 1967.  Jordan controlled the West Bank from 1948 to 1967.  No Palestinian state was created during that time.  Why not?  Israel vacated Gaza in 2005.  At this point I have to ask two important questions that I'm sure I have said previously in the blog.  First, the Palestinians claim that they are refugees since Israel's war for independence, fought from 1948 to 1949.  If so, why didn't they move on, like virtually every other refugee group in history.  We know the Jewish people displaced from Europe and the Arab countries moved on.  Wherever they ended up, they had families.  They established businesses.  The same for the Christians who have been displaced from Arab countries.  There seems to be one group more intent on killing than building.

Which brings me to my second question.  Hamas has received billions of dollars in foreign aid since taking control of Gaza in 2007.  Gaza is on the Mediterranean.  Why didn't they use those billions of dollars to create a seaside resort?  A tourist destination.  Why didn't they build hotels and office buildings.  The UAE, on the Gulf, did exactly that, and they attracted both business and tourism.  Instead, Hamas used all that money to make weapons, buy weapons and build underground tunnels into Israel.  To what end?  To kill all the Jews.  And while Khalil repeats all the Hamas propaganda about Israel, Klein is only too happy to accomodate him, and the Times is pleased to print it.   

I said that this Op-Ed was a puff piece.  Because Klein not only set up the interview to make Khalil look like a victim of the Trump Administration, but he failed to challenge Khalil on any of his anti-Israel comments.  Recall that the Trump Administration had Khalil picked up to be deported, but the Courts have blocked it.  Klein even failed to challenge Khalil on these lies:  "What I stand for, what I'm advocating, is the end of genocide, the end of the occupation, the end of the apartheid regime, and the end of complicity of Columbia University in this regime."  Genocide?  Apartheid?  Regime?  Klein challenged none of it.  

As for the antisemitism demonstrated by Khalil's group at Columbia, Khalil called it "manufactured hysteria."  And Klein?  Here was Klein:  "nobody there ended up as unsafe as you did."  Never mind the fear of the Jewish students.  Never mind the actual assaults on Jewish students.  This Op-Ed piece of trash was printed in the premier mainstream media paper in the country.  Which is why I say the Times is disgusting.  And I would say the same as to Klein; who, as a Jew, should be particularly ashamed of himself.       

Wasn't It Obvious And Predictable?

(Corrections.  There was an obvious error in my Part II post of "The West Has Lost Its Way."  In paragraph three, it should have said "demilitarized" and not "militarized".  There was also a spelling error of "gubernatorial;" and I made a change to more clearly reflect my point about our troops, and those of the IDF, defending freedom and liberty.  As I still work, my first draft of each post is also my last draft.  Nevertheless, my apologies to my readers, and the corrections have been made.)

In the above referenced post, I called the leaders of France, the U.K. and Canada "delusional" for thinking that giving recognition to a Palestinian state would bring peace.  Now that I've read the comments by Ghazi Hamad, a leader of Hamas, the most accurate description of those leaders is "evil."  Evil because it is inexcusable not to expect Hamas to react to their statements exactly as I predicted.  I believe they had to know - but did not care.  Hence, evil.

Hamad:  "The powerful blow that was delivered to Israel on October 7 has yielded three very important historic achievements.  First of all, it brought the Palestinian cause back.  Why are all these countries recognizing Palestine now?"  Why indeed!  Hamad:  "The overall outcome of October 7, forced the world to open its eyes to the Palestinian cause, and to act forcefully in this respect."  Let's not forget that Trump might have been on the verge of getting Saudi Arabia to join the other Arab nations who signed on the Abraham Accords.  But October 7 brought an end to that possibility.  

Take your pick of these two options:  1.  The combined military might of France, the U.K. and Canada is not as great as the military prowess of the terrorist organization known as Hamas.  Therefore those three countries had no option but to capitulate.  To essentially surrender in a war that they are not even fighting.  2.  The West has not only lost its way, but they are cowards.  Afraid of Hamas.  Afraid of their own Muslim populations.  But they know that criticizing, even weakening, Israel, will bring no repurcussions.  At least not for the time being.

As for the demand that a state of Palestine be "demilitarized," here is what Hamad thinks of that:  "The weapons constitute the Palestinian cause...Surrendering our weapons means the end of the resistance and the end of the Palestinian cause."  Recall that after, and referring to, October 7, Hamad said that "we will do this again and again."

Hamad:  "We are the victims.  Therefore, nobody should blame us for the things we do.  On October 7, on October 10, on October one-millionth, everything we do is justified."  Sure, rape, murder, mutilation and torture, killing babies and civilians...it's all "justified."  That is who Macron, Starmer and Carney want to reward with a state.  

So there you have it.  The three Western leaders have simply encouraged Hamas to prolong the war, to prolong the suffering of the civilian population of Gaza, and to make life difficult for the population of Israel, both economically and in terms of lives lost.  Right about now, I wish that I used some choice four letter words in the blog.  Just string together as many as you think of - and then multiply that by 100, and you'll begin to get some sense of what I think of the evil MORONS Macron, Starmer and Carney.  (Moron is not a four letter word.)

 

The West Has Lost Its Way, Part II

So, let's summarize.  Two of the three major powers in Europe, France and the U.K., joined by Canada, say they will give diplomatic recognition to "Palestine," which has never existed as a country.  Did I miss it?  Did I miss where Macron, Starmer and/or Carney insisted that the Jewish people have a right to have Israel accepted by Hamas and the PA as a Jewish state?  147 countries already have recognized a Palestinian state.  Did that bring peace?  

Does anyone really believe that these three leaders giving recognition to "Palestine" will now bring peace?  Maybe these three leaders just feel good about doing this.  Maybe they are virtue signaling.  But if they truly believe that recognition of a state of Palestine at this time will bring peace, then the nicest thing I can say about them is that they are delusional.  Neville Chamberlain apparently believed that ceding the Sudetenland to Hitler's Germany would bring "peace for our time."  Except, Hitler did not see it that way, as shortly thereafter Germany invaded Poland.  

These leaders have lost all sense of right and wrong.  Here is the message that these delusional leaders actually sent to Hamas and the PA/Abbas:  "We demand that Hamas release the hostages.  We demand that Hamas lay down it's arms.  We demand that Hamas leave Gaza and have no further involvement in governing Gaza.  And we demand that the PA/Abbas reform itself, and hold elections next year, and that the new state of Palestine be demilitarized.  We really mean it.  And to prove that we mean it, if you in Hamas and the PA do not do what we ask...we will give recognition to a "Palestinian" state anyway!"

If anyone doubts that that is the message sent by these leaders, and that that is the message heard by Hamas, here is what Hamas had to say.  It will not stop its "armed resistance" until there is an "independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital."  By armed resistance, Hamas means what they already said - they will continue to carry out October 7 style attacks against Israel "over and over and over again."  By fully sovereign, Hamas means the right to have a military force, not to be demilitarized.  And when they say Jerusalem as the capital, they mean all of Jerusalem.  Notice they do not even pretend to mean what the Western liberals often refer to, which is "East" Jerusalem.   

So, that's the plan of the West.  Continue to reward Hamas and expect them to fall in line.  Why would they?  They believe they are winning.  In fact, they are winning in the West, where they see nothing but capitulation.  They see that they have succeeded in separating much of the Western world from the one democracy in the Middle East.  Not to mention that they are winning the hearts and minds of young people in the West, who know nothing of the history of the Middle East.  You think young people, and no doubt many leftwing adults, have any idea that the Arabs have refused to have their own state on at least six occasions?  When they talk about "occupied" territory, they are talking about all of Israel.  When they say "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," they clearly state there will be no more Israel.  And when they say "globalize the intifada," they mean kill Jews everywhere on earth that they live.

So, that is who Macron, Starmer and Carney are rewarding.  But what about the U.S.A.?  Here is what the State Department, under Secretary Marco Rubio and President Donald Trump, had to say:  "This week, the UN will serve as a host to an unproductive and ill-timed conference on the two-state solution in New York City.  This is a publicity stunt that comes in the middle of delicate diplomatic efforts to end the conflict.  Far from promoting peace, the conference will prolong the war, embolden Hamas, and reward its obstruction and undermine real-world efforts to achieve peace."

The statement continued:  "As Secretary Rubio has made clear, this effort is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th and a reward for terrorism.  It keeps hostages trapped in tunnels.  The United States will not participate in this insult...Our focus remains on serious diplomacy: not stage-managed conferences designed to manufacture the appearance of relevance."   To which I say - G-d bless President Donald Trump and Secretary Marco Rubio.  

But, for those of us who support President Trump, and who support America and Israel against the terrorists, this fight is far from over.  Just last week, the leading self-hating Jew in Congress, Bernie Sanders, proposed two anti-Israel resolutions in the Senate.  The first bill was a proposal to block $675 million in arms sales to Israel.  This at a time when Israel is fighting a multi-front war.  Yet, 24 Senators (all Democrats, as Sanders caucuses with the Democrats) voted in favor of blocking the aid.  That is one-half of the Democratic caucus!  Not surprisingly, not a single Republican Senator voted in favor of the measure.  Sanders other proposed measure was to stop the sale of rifles to Israel.  That measure got 27 votes - all Democrats.  

There is much talk of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez possibly being the Democratic candidate for President in 2028.  She is not a fan of America or Israel.  That usually goes hand in hand.  Thinking of that possiblility, and seeing the failure of the West to take a moral stance in support of a democracy over an authoritarian terrorist organization, I am reminded of two presidents.  Ronald Reagan, in his inaugural gubernatorial speech, reminded everyone that "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.  It is not ours by inheritance, it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.  Those who have known freedom and lost it have never known it again."  

And, of course, President Kennedy in his inaugural address:  "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."  G-d bless our troops, and the soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces, for they are on the front lines defending freedom and liberty everywhere.