tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43305402620690141032024-03-14T03:27:57.534-07:00The truth: UNCENSOREDMikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.comBlogger656125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-39853741188147868892024-03-10T16:49:00.000-07:002024-03-10T16:49:32.057-07:00The Antisemitic Jew Haters Win Again, and D.E.I. Mandates at the Universities<p>What can you say about UC Berkeley? As with many of these elite, and not so elite, colleges and universities, antisemites appear to get their way. So, should we even be surprised that, in late February, a pro-Hamas mob of about 200 students was able to prevent a speech that was to be given by Israeli lawyer and military member Ran Bar-Yoshafat at the UC Berkeley campus? These "protesters" (I'm being polite as I do not curse in the blog) were heard shouting "intifada" and "free Palestine." One Jewish student said a protester got in his face and yelled "Jew Jew Jew," before spitting on him. </p><p>"Bears for Palestine" is a UC Berkeley group, Bears being the mascot of the school. Here is what they thought of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7: "Israel, as a settler colonial state, renders Palestinian existence inherently an act of resistance. We invariably reject Israel's framing as a 'victim.'" This statement was issued on October 7 following the attack. The Bears for Palestine believe in a return to a "unified Palestine," where likely no Israel exists. </p><p>As to Ran Bar-Yoshafat being shut down before he was able to utter a single word, the Bears for Palestine asserted that he "has committed crimes against humanity, is a genocide denier, and we will not allow this event to go on." Wow! The mob declared that the event would not go on, and lo and behold the event did not go on. In fact, the speaker and the Jewish students present had to be led out of the auditorium for their own safety. Wait...what? Jewish students are no longer safe on an American college campus? Exactly!</p><p>While the Berkeley chancellor condemned the mob for violating school rules, and while she said she wanted to keep the students safe and allow the speech to proceed, "it was not possible to do both given the size of the crowd and the threat of violence." That is acknowledging more than just a "heckler's veto." That is acknowledging the inability of the school to protect Jewish students while engaging in school activities. </p><p>I like to ask questions. Here's one. Why wasn't there enough security? Here are more. Anticipating the likelihood of the protests, what arrangements were made to allow access to the auditorium through a single door that could be guarded? Do we know who any of these protesters are? Will they be expelled from school given that their actions went against the stated purpose of higher education - a free and open discussion and debate. </p><p>Not coincidentally, the New York Times had an Op-Ed in their 3/8/24 print edition with this title: "Civil Discourse on Campus Is Put to the Test." The author, Pamela Paul, says the conference was sponsored by the Stanford Law School and the Stanford Graduate School of Education. The issue was "restoring inclusive civil discourse on campus," asking "in today's heated political environment is that even possible?" </p><p>One of the topics for discussion: "diversity hiring statements," by which they mean "the requirement all job applicants demonstrate their commitment to advancing diversity, equity and inclusion goals." There it is. This is Stanford after all, just across the Bay from Berkeley. I understand that students may need to discuss this on their college applications. Nice to know that the professoriate must address this nonsense. </p><p>At least one attendee at this conference saw through it: "What they want are non-straights, non-whites and non-men. But they don't say it that way. There's a lack of forthrightness..." Interestingly, in 2018 Berkeley "considered candidates' D.E.I. statements first, before looking at the rest of their applications. Anyone whose D.E.I. statement didn't pass the first round was eliminated from the next pool." </p><p>Berkeley received some criticism apparently, for not even considering someone's credentials. You know - their merits. But one attendee defended Berkeley, saying "...I would say that D.E.I. statements are credentials." And he said this: "This was just another and no less valid approach to narrowing the pool." That is a perfect example of how even highly educated people can be completely asinine. </p><p>A belief in, and actions taken toward promoting, D.E.I. now constitute valid qualifications for a job as a professor, equal to actual merit? I would bet that the proponent of that idea does not even realize that he is promoting a political litmus test for the hiring of professors. Maybe they'll ask this question of possible hires: "if you are Jewish, please affirm your commitment to a Palestinian state and further affirm that you are not a Zionist." There's a political litmus test that no doubt many in our universities would deem to be appropriate. </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-69453649007321487742024-03-09T16:58:00.000-08:002024-03-10T10:15:28.750-07:00The Non-Stop, and Unprecedented, Attacks On Donald Trump (The Ballot Case and the Presidential Immunity Case)<p>This time, the Democrats failed. But not for lack of trying. The Colorado Supreme Court had voted 4 to 3 to keep former President Trump off their ballot. In separate actions, the Maine Secretary State declared Trump ineligible for their ballot, and a Chicago judge ruled that Trump should be kept off the Illinois ballot. All these judges and the Maine official are Democrats. Nearly 20 states in total were considering such action. </p><p>Democrats, who love to say how they are the defenders of democracy, never hesitate to undermine our democratic system. They have done so countless times. They refused to accept that Trump won in 2016. It was not just the loser, Hillary Clinton, who declared Trump to be an "illegitimate" President, but other Democrats and various Democratic-Mainstream Media Complex (D-MSMC) commentators as well. Then, the Dems came up with an unsupported Russian collusion hoax, in an effort to remove a duly elected president from office. How was that not an "insurrection?" </p><p>They then came up with the prime time January 6 Committee, whose members were appointed entirely by then Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat. She refused to allow two members of the House chosen by then minority leader Kevin McCarthy to sit on that committee. That was unprecedented. Prior to that, Pelosi ordered a second Trump impeachment proceeding without having any House Judiciary Committee hearings first; hearings where actual evidence is presented. And prior to that, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did away with the filibuster rule as applied to all federal judges other than the Supreme Court. Unprecedented actions...by Democrats. </p><p>Today's Democrats have no greater respect for our institutions than they say Trump has. But back to the case. The 14th Amendment, in Section 3, prevents certain individuals from holding office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States. Trump appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court and won, Trump v. Anderson. Trump won in a 9 to 0 per curiam (unsigned) opinion of SCOTUS. The alternative, said the Court, would result in a "chaotic patchwork at odds with our Nation's federalism principle." That should have been obvious to everyone.</p><p>The Court: "Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings," such as the burden of proof required. Indeed. The election of the president is a nationwide election. It is not something that a single state should be able to alter. The Court did not decide whether the President is an "officer of the United States" under Section 3, as the word "president" is conspicuously absent. Nor did the Court decide whether Trump engaged in an insurrection. The Colorado Court did find in the affirmative on those issues. </p><p>The US Supreme Court found that the Colorado decision would "sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States as a whole." This especially applies to the Presidency, because that office "represent(s) all the voters in the Nation." States are permitted to disqualify candidates for state offices under Section 3, said the Court, but not disqualify for federal offices. But the majority went one step further in their decision, holding that Congress alone had the power to enforce a Section 3 disqualification for federal offices - as opposed to, say, the federal courts. Four of the Justices disagreed with that determination.</p><p>As a result, the D-MSMC attempted to spin the decision as a 5 to 4 vote, blaming it all on the conservative appointees. But that is not the truth, as all 9 Justices, including the liberal ones, agreed that individual states could not keep Trump, or any presidential (or other federal office) candidate, off the ballot. The D-MSMC was all in by claiming that the wording of Section is clear and unambiguous. No person shall hold office after engaging in insurrection . So clear, right? </p><p>Such as the First Amendment is so clear: "Congress shall make NO law...abridging the freedom of speech." No law. Except...in interpreting that provision, the Supreme Court has declared various types of speech not protected by the First Amendment. Defamatory speech (libel and slander), obscenity, child pornography, speech intended to cause imminent harm...all are not protected speech. Not to mention the often used "time, place and manner" restrictions that used to be put on speech (although apparently not so much anymore). So, for these leftwing commentators to say that the language of Section 3 is clear, and therefore that ends the discussion, is, shall we say, rather simplistic. </p><p>The presidential immunity case is currently pending at the Supreme Court. Do I believe that the prosecution being brought by Special Counsel Jack is politically motivated? Absolutely. After all, Trump announced his third try at the Presidency on November 15, 2022, and Merrick Garland appointed Smith on November 18, 2022. </p><p>In terms of immunity from civil liability, the Supreme Court has held that a president has absolute immunity for conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties. (Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 1982) Under no circumstances would I imagine that the Court would grant absolute immunity from criminal liability. The most extreme example would be that of a president charged with the crime of committing murder. But maybe not. Imagine this scenario. A president orders a drone strike to take out a known terrorist. But the drone also kills innocent civilians. Do we allow any leftwing, antiwar prosecutor to file murder charges against that president? Maybe not such a simple issue. </p><p>Where should a line be drawn? Will it hinge on whether a president can make the case that his actions were part of his official duties? But does that raise other issues? After all, the District Court of Appeals said "it would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,' were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity." If that is the basis for a SCOTUS decision (unlikely in my opinion) then Biden is in trouble. </p><p>He has bragged about his continuing student loan forgiveness, even after the Supreme Court said he had no such power. Worse, he has failed - intentionally - to take care that the immigration laws of the United States be faithfully executed. He has opened our borders, contrary to the laws passed by Congress, in a manner that is unprecedented. Well over 7 million people have entered the country illegally since Biden took office. It is a veritable invasion of our country without a single shot being fired. This surrender of our nation's sovereignty can only be seen as an intentional act by the President. It will have more far-reaching, and far longer, consequences, than the events of January 6. Why shouldn't Biden be both impeached and prosecuted for that extreme dereliction of his duties, especially if you believe that the first duty of a president is to protect the American people. </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-28514271095406569112024-02-18T15:01:00.000-08:002024-02-18T15:05:03.564-08:00Why You Should Care About Dearborn, Michigan, Part II<p>So just how important is Dearborn? How important is Michigan? Michigan is a swing state. So it's very important, as it can play a role in determining who gets elected president in November. President Biden has been supportive of Israel with supplying necessary armaments. However, the people in Michigan, Arabs, are threatening to withhold their votes from Biden if he doesn't change course on his support for Israel.</p><p>Therefore, Biden sent top advisers to Michigan to meet with the Arab community. Here is the first paragraph of an article in the 2/13/24 Ventura County Star, about the Biden advisers going to Michigan: "Senior advisers to President Joe Biden admitted 'mistakes' and apologized privately to Arab Americans in Michigan for the way the administration has handled the war in Gaza and for how it has spoken publicly about Palestinians during the deadly conflict with Israel." </p><p>Apologized? For supporting our main ally in the Middle East? For supporting one of our main allies in the world? For having to fight a terrorist organization that has publicly announced their desire to kill all the Jews? What the hell is there to apologize for? Oh, that's right. Michigan is a swing state. Michigan also has, by far, a larger Arab population than any other state, with over 211,000 Arabs. So, rather than tell the truth, rather than say that Hamas needs to be eradicated, let's pander to the large Arab population. </p><p>Here's what Dearborn Mayor Hammoud had to say, after accusing Israel of genocide: "We remained uncompromising in our values and our demands for a permanent ceasefire, ending unrestricted military support to the State of Israel, and expediting humanitarian aid and funding to UNRWA." I do not know what, if anything, Hammoud had to say about the hostages or Hamas. Funding to UNRWA? It's already been reported that some UNRWA workers participated in the October 7 atrocities. </p><p>But the entire organization is no good, supporting Hamas in every way. UNRWA provides textbooks to children in Gaza which show the entire area to be "Palestine." There is no Israel. They actually encourage children to be martyrs. That is why President Trump cut funding to UNRWA. Biden, of course, restored the funding, undoing all of Trump's good policies. Only recently, after October 7, and after it was discovered that some UNRWA employees participated in the attack, did Biden cut funding. Before that, Biden had provided hundreds of millions of dollars to the terrorist supporting UNRWA. </p><p>A permanent ceasefire? That would allow Hamas to remain in power. Did Mayor Hammoud express any concern over the fact that Hamas leaders have vowed to repeat the atrocities of October 7 over and over and over again? Hamas must not be allowed to remain in power. Israel knows that. The people in southern Israel who suffered the terrible atrocities understand now that the people -Arabs- they were nice to, were friendly with, are the same people who murdered their families and friends. </p><p>Recently, President Biden met with Jordanian King Abdullah II at the White House. An article in the 2/13/24 Los Angeles Times, quotes the King as saying "We need a lasting ceasefire now...This war must end." And, the King said this: "separation of the West Bank and Gaza cannot be accepted." The only way for that to happen is that Israel gets separated into two parts. I guess that is acceptable. And a ceasefire now means that Hamas gets to stay in power. Definitely unacceptable. </p><p>And who gives a damn what the King thinks? Jordan had total control of the area known as the West Bank, from 1948 until the Six Day War in 1967. During those two decades, did Jordan create a separate Palestinian state? No, they did not. After the war, when Israel gained control of the West Bank and the Sinai, did Jordan even care about getting the West Bank back, the way Egypt wanted the Sinai back? No, they did not. So why does Jordan even get to have any say? </p><p>Meanwhile, JNS (Jewish News Syndicate) reported on 2/15/24, that "The Biden administration is preparing to make a major push for Palestinian statehood if a Gaza ceasefire agreement being negotiated in Cairo this week takes effect." How coincidental. Just when Israel is preparing an assault on Rafah, usually referred to as the last Hamas stronghold in Gaza. If the story about the push for a Palestinian state is true, it shows once again the weakness of the Biden administration in dealing with our enemies through appeasement, rather than with a demonstration of strength. </p><p>Imagine giving recognition of a Palestinian state so soon after the October 7 atrocities, with Hamas still in power. Pressure from Arab countries. Pressure from Arabs in America. This is when I miss President Trump. </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-61207468706493153292024-02-17T21:09:00.000-08:002024-02-18T12:00:57.286-08:00Why You Should Care About Dearborn, Michigan, Part I<p>The Wall Street Journal, in the 2/3-2/4/24 weekend edition, printed an Op-Ed by Steven Stalinsky, the Executive Director of MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute). MEMRI has a good track record of accurately reporting news out of the Arab/Muslim press - not just the comments made for Western publications. The Op-Ed, "Welcome to Dearborn, America's Jihad Capital," got a lot of pushback from the Arab-Muslim community in Dearborn and Michigan, and from Democrats. </p><p>Here are a few highlights from the article. "Almost immediately after October 7, and long before Israel began its ground offensive in Gaza, people were celebrating the horrific events of that day in pro-Hamas rallies and marches throughout Dearborn."</p><p>Here's more: "...thousands march in support of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. Protesters, many with kaffiyehs covering their faces, shout 'intifada, intifada' (and) 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,' and 'America is a terrorist state.' Local imams give fiery antisemitic sermons."</p><p>And Stalinsky quotes someone he describes as "the most influential English-speaking jihadi sheikh," as having posted on Twitter after the atrocities of October 7: "The hearts haven't been overjoyed like this in so long." </p><p>Is our government aware of the radical, terrorist supporting nature of Dearborn? Stalinsky: "A 2001 Michigan State Police assessment submitted to the Justice Department after 9/11 called Dearborn 'a major financial support center' and a 'recruiting area and potential support base' for international terror groups, including possible sleeper cells." </p><p>Stalinsky, along with Yigal Carmon, the two co-founders of MEMRI, were interviewed by the WSJ, and that interview was published in the 1/13-1/14/24 weekend edition. Stalinsky said: "There is an element of trying to intimidate the Jewish community, going to kosher restaurants, community centers, Hanukkah celebrations, harassing Jewish students."</p><p>And this very important point was made (in case anyone hasn't noticed it from even a cursory watching or reading of the news: "Efforts to disrupt Thanksgiving and Christmas celebrations, and to block roads, bridges and tunnels, also suggest a new willingness to push around the American majority."</p><p>The Mayor of Dearborn, Abdullah Hammoud, called the Op-Ed "inflammatory," and asserted that it "led to an alarming increase in bigoted and Islamophobic rhetoric online targeting the city." CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) called the article "inflammatory anti-Muslim commentary." Which is ironic, given that MEMRI caught Nihad Awad, CAIR's Executive Director, celebrating the October 7 attack by Hamas as an act of "self-defense," and Gazan liberation. </p><p>In a front page article of the 2/15/24 New York Times, Salma Hamamy is described a s "one of the most prominent faces of the pro-Palestinian movement on campus" at the University of Michigan. She leads anti-Israel rallies with chants such as this: "One, two, three, four, open up the prison doors! Five, six, seven, eight, Israel is a terrorist state." </p><p>After all the underground tunnels and other infrastructure built by Hamas, it is just extraordinary that anyone can claim that Gaza is an open-air prison controlled by Israel. Hundreds of miles of tunnels built with sophisticated material certainly suggests that Israel has little or no control over what gets into Gaza. Also ironic is the fact that the murder of men, women and children, and the rape and mutilation of women's bodies, is apparently not considered "terrorism" by Ms. Hamamy. </p><p>The Democratic Majority whip in the Michigan State Senate, said this of the Op-Ed: "Michigan is a diverse, beautiful place where hate, bigotry, racism and demonization have no place." To which I would add - unless it's directed at Jews. </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-67279830382052214432024-02-04T20:54:00.000-08:002024-02-05T13:24:59.574-08:00The Feds vs. Texas<p>If you don't watch Fox News, you may not have noticed the thousands of people illegally entering the country daily through our southern border. Fox has been showing it ever since Biden took office, and reversed Trump's border protection policies with one Executive Order after the next. With so many coming through into Texas, the Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, decided the rest of the country should share in the misery; and he started having busloads of illegal immigrants sent up north, to sanctuary cities. Eventually, when the Democratic mayors of these cities started complaining about the problem, the Democratic-Mainstream Media Complex ((D-MSMC) had to report on it also. </p><p>Then, Governor Abbott took things a step further. He decided that if the Biden Administration would not enforce existing immigration law, and stop what amounts to an invasion of our country, that he would try to do so. The Governor said he had a duty and responsibility to protect the people of Texas. Therefore, he ordered that razor wire fencing be put up along a section of the Rio Grande River. It was an attempt to stop the overwhelming flood of people entering the country, and the state, illegally. But President Biden would have none of it.</p><p>Reasonable people might ask why the President has encouraged millions of people to enter the country illegally. After all, he did not have to undo all of President Trump's border protection policies immediately upon assuming office. Reasonable might ask why much of the Democrat Party has been going along with this open border policy. Clearly, Biden does not care about the sovereignty of the United States. Clearly, Biden does not care about protecting the American people - neither in terms of their personal safety nor their economic well-being, given the added tax burden placed on the public by so many people's social needs.</p><p>So why does Biden want to undo/remake America? The only thing that I can think of is that he and the Democrats expect all these people here will vote, and they will vote for Democrats. Because Democrats are buying their votes with numerous handouts. In California, people here illegally essentially have the same rights as legal residents. They can get a driver's license, food stamps, Medi-Cal (known as Medicaid in other states), emergency shelter and transitional housing, and even get a job (although the employer may get in trouble). </p><p>Back to the border dispute between Biden and Texas. Biden sued Texas. The 5th Circuit said the border patrol did not have the right to take down the razor wire put up by Texas, intended to block people from entering the country, and Texas, illegally. But, by a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court reversed. The five Justices voting in favor of Biden and the federal government included the three liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson. Voting with them was Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts. Opposed were Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas. </p><p>At the trial level, the District Court Judge, after looking at all the photos of so many entering illegally, questioned why the border patrol needed to cut the razor wire fencing put up by Texas. Although siding with the federal government, the judge opined that cutting the fencing appeared to be "for no apparent purpose other than to allow migrants easier entrance further inland."</p><p>I do not pretend to be an expert in immigration law. Article 1, Section 8 does give Congress the power "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." The main law on the topic seems to be the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, although that law has been amended various times. (I certainly welcome comments by any immigration law experts.) </p><p>Article 2, Section 3 says that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." There is now widespread agreement that Biden is not doing that with regards to the immigration laws. And Article 4, Section 4 has this interesting provision: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion." I think we can reasonably call the illegal entry by 7 to 10 million people an "invasion." And Biden clearly has no interest in protecting the states from that invasion. </p><p>Article 1, Section 10 has this provision: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress...engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Following Governor Abbott's decision to continue protecting the Texas border, UC Berkeley School of Law Dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, had an Op-Ed in the 1/30/24 Los Angeles Times, with this title: "Texas' frightening lawless defiance of a Supreme Court order." Yes, the US Constitution says the US Constitution and federal law are supreme over state law. </p><p>But Governor Abbott claims there is an invasion of his state. The pictures from the border do not lie. Then Chemerinsky misses the mark, by citing cases that are not apropos. Yes, President Eisenhower had to send in federal troops to assure the protection of black students in Little Rock, Arkansas. But there, you had a state governor acting in violation of federal law. Governor Abbott is trying to enforce federal law, by not allowing people to enter the country wherever and whenever they wish to do so. Perhaps that is why the Republican Governors Association, as well as former President Trump, all support Governor Abbott. </p><p>I find it interesting that the Democrats had no problem with ignoring federal laws when they set up sanctuary cities and states. Or when they said they need not comply with requests to hold criminal illegal immigrants until they they could be picked up by ICE in order to be deported. I've said it a number of times before - if the federal government won't enforce the law, then no one should be surprised if others choose to do so. I, for one, stand with the Governor who cares about US sovereignty, and who cares about protecting the people of his state. I do not stand with a lawless president. </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-15749231093208673992024-02-04T16:17:00.000-08:002024-02-04T16:17:19.604-08:00Stop Already With Talk Of The Two-State Solution! Stop It!<p>It's hard to take. Especially from my fellow Jews. This talk of the need for the creation of a Palestinian state. Why, after the atrocities committed against Israel on October 7, is this topic of conversation? Why now? The only topics for conversation at this point in time should focus on the three requirements for peace laid out by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 1. The complete defeat and elimination of Hamas. 2. Thereafter, a demilitarized Gaza, with Israel maintaining complete security control. 3. A deradicalization of all of Palestinian society - in Gaza and in the West Bank. </p><p>Recently, it was discovered that 12 employees of UNRWA (The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) participated in the October 7 massacre of Israelis. That should come as a surprise to absolutely no one who has been paying attention. UNRWA runs the schools in Gaza. Their textbooks show all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea to be "Palestine." Israel does not exist. They teach schoolkids that it is good to be a martyr, and that Jews are bad. To this terrorist supporting organization, that teaches death over life, the Biden Administration gave $340 million in 2022. Trump had cut the funding to UNRWA because of their support for terrorism. But, as with many successful Trump policies, Biden reversed it.</p><p>Why does UNRWA even exist? As Bret Stephens said in his 1/31/24 Op-Ed in the New York Times: "No other group except for Palestinians gets its own permanent agency." He points out that the surrounding Arab countries did not want them. Stephens: "...the postwar era produced millions of refugees: Germans, Indians, Pakistanis, Palestinians and Jews, including some 800,000 Jews who were kicked out of Arab countries that had been their homes for centuries. Nearly all found new lives in new countries - except for Palestinians." </p><p>Stephens: The Palestinians "have been kept as perpetual refugees as a means of both delegitimizing Israel and preserving the irredentist fantasy that someday their descendants will exercise what they believe is their "right of return," effectively through the elimination of the Jewish state." But, again, Donald Trump knew better. He understood that Arab countries could be made to see the futility of the idea of eliminating Israel. He understood that he could get Arab countries to see the benefits in normalizing relations with Israel - an advanced, high-tech modern society. Hence, the successful Abraham Accords. </p><p>But what are the Democrats doing? 49 US Senators (48 Democrats and "Independent" Bernie Sanders) announced they will present an Amendment to the pending national security legislation, stating that it is US policy to support a two-state solution. Two Democrats refused to sign on - Joe Manchin and John Fetterman. Good for them. Sad to say that all nine Jewish Senators signed on, including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff. I mention Ossoff because back in 2021, during another war between the Palestinians and Israel, Ossoff led 25 Democratic Senators and 2 Independents in issuing a statement calling for an immediate ceasefire. How did that work out, Senator Ossoff? Peace break out? </p><p>Over at the State Department, we learn that Antony Blinken instructed his diplomats to "conduct a review and present policy options on possible U.S. and international recognition of a Palestinian state." (As reported in the Free Beacon and reposted by ZOA.) Here is what Reuters reported Matthew Miller, State Department spokesman, saying: "We are actively pursuing the establishment as an independent Palestinian state, with real security guarantees for Israel, because we do believe that is the best way way to bring about lasting peace and security for Israel, the Palestinians and for the region." </p><p>Security guarantees for Israel? Would that be like The Office of the United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon? Just look at the tremendous success they have had in preventing the massive build-up of approximately 100,000 to 150,000 missiles controlled by Hezbollah, all aimed at Israel. Good job! No, only Israel must be responsible for the safety and security of Israel. </p><p>I am reminded of how Obama sold out Israel at the UN in December, 2016, his last full month in office. Obama instructed his UN Ambassador to not veto a Security Council resolution that essentially said all the land beyond the Green Line (the so-called 1967 borders) belonged to the Palestinians. That, of course, included the Holy City of Old Jerusalem, where the holiest sites in Judaism can be found. But the UN and Obama decided that the Arabs owned those sites. That resolution passed the Security Council by a vote of 14-0, with the US abstaining. I said at the time that such a resolution would only be likely to bring about more war. Indeed. (See the 12/24/16 post "The United States Abandons Israel at the United Nations.") </p><p>Biden, as always, is on top of things. He has sanctioned 4 Israelis, so-called "settlers" in the West Bank, for allegedly attacking Palestinians. The sanctions prevent them from getting US visas, and from accessing the US banking system. It is basically a meaningless gesture, other than to show his left-wing and Arab-Muslim base how fair he is. But Biden is virtually always wrong on foreign policy. He lifted sanctions on Iran, allowing the Ayatollahs to make billions on the sale of oil, and be able to support Hamas and the Houthis as a result. Biden also took the Houthis off the US terrorist list, after Trump had put them on the list. Now he put the Houthis back on the terrorist list. Good job, Joe. </p><p>So, I ask everyone...especially my Jewish friends and readers...please stop talking about a two-state solution. Talk about the 3 prerequisites for true peace as outlined by Netanyahu. </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-58166668713539939852024-01-21T13:00:00.000-08:002024-01-21T13:00:03.687-08:00New Year Reflections, Part IV (The Waning Support for Israel in D.C.)<p>Israeli P.M. Netanyahu had an Op-Ed in the 12/26/23 Wall Street Journal, laying out "Israel's Three Prerequisites For Peace." First prerequisite is that Hamas must be destroyed. That should be obvious to everyone. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Hamas leaders have vowed to repeat the atrocities they carried out on October 7 "over and over and over again." What more could anyone need to know?</p><p>Second, Gaza must be demilitarized. "For the foreseeable future Israel will have to retain overriding security responsibility over Gaza." Why isn't this obvious to everyone? If the house next door to you houses (pick a number) 10 people, say, and they continually fire bullets into your home, and even invade your home and kill some family members, what would you want to happen? That one or two get arrested, and the rest keep attacking you? Or, do you want to see them thrown out, and also make sure that there are no weapons left behind - with your family guarding the house to make sure.</p><p>The third prerequisite is that Gaza "will have to be deradicalized." No more school books showing the "river to the sea" as being "Palestine" - with no Israel anywhere. No more teaching young kids to want to be martyrs. Teach them to respect life. No more Imams "preaching for the murder of Jews." In other words, a normal civil society. As Netanyahu pointed out, Abbas and the P.A. (Palestinian Authority) cannot be counted on for any of that. They did not condemn the 10/7 atrocities; they supported it. They continue to reward terrorists and their families for killing Jews.</p><p>And yet, the Biden Administration has apparently come up with a plan in conjunction with Qatar and Egypt (as reported by i24News), that, in a three step process, will end all hostilities. At each step some hostages will be released, and Israel will release Palestinian prisoners. At the third step there would be a permanent ceasefire, Saudi Arabia would normalize relations with Israel, and the process would begin for creation of a Palestinian state. Qatar is involved with this? The same Qatar that helps fund Hamas, and gives sanctuary to Hamas leadership? Unbelievable. In the description that I read I saw nothing about ending Hamas and ending the P.A. I have seen elsewhere the idea that Gaza and the West Bank should be unified under the leadership of the P.A. Seriously?</p><p>Meanwhile, Democrat Senator Bernie Sanders (yes, I know he's an Independent, but he caucuses with, and votes with, the Democrats) proposed an extraordinary anti-Israel resolution. Thankfully, the measure failed by a vote of 72 nay to 11 aye, with 17 being absent. The other 10 voting with Sanders were all Democrats, except for Republican/Libertarian Rand Paul, who generally has a problem with all foreign aid. The measure would require the State Department to report on whether human rights abuses by Israel are occurring with U.S. aid, with the report due within 30 days. A failure to issue the report would result in an automatic cessation of aid to Israel.</p><p>Sanders has made his anti-Israel position quite clear. After saying that Israel has the right to go to war with Hamas, he said this: "It does not have the right to go to war against the Palestinian people and innocent men, women and children in Gaza." I'd like to ask Sanders some questions. How does that work? Israel is only allowed to kill Hamas leaders and soldiers? Does he really not know that Hamas stores weapons under schools, hospitals and mosques? That Hamas uses the people of Gaza as human shields, hoping that they become martyrs. It sounds as if Israel would only be allowed to send in "hit squads" targeting Hamas leaders and soldiers. </p><p>And what about the fact that polls show that 70% to 80% of the people in Gaza support what Hamas did on October 7? Sanders is a self-hating Jewish moron. Lest you have any doubt about Sanders personal opinion, here it is, explaining that Israel has "continued this military approach...in my view, that approach is immoral and is in violation of international law." I wonder if Sanders has ever called for cutting off aid to the P.A. (which Biden reinstated after Trump stopped providing it), which funds terrorists (and their families) for killing Jews. I wonder if Sanders has ever called for the cessation of funding to UNRWA (which Biden reinstated after Trump stopped it), the UN agency operating in, and as part of, Hamas. But all that money just funds the killing of Jews, so if I had to guess, Sanders has not objected.</p><p>Now we have 15 Jewish Democrats in the House issuing a statement critical of Netanyahu. "We strongly disagree with the prime minister...a two-state solution is the path forward." Israel is in the middle of a war, a war that will determine the ultimate safety and even viability of the Jewish state of Israel. So this is the time 15 Jewish members of the House decide to issue a statement against Netanyahu? These 15 Jewish House members include such "luminaries" as Jerry Nadler (NY), Jake Auchincloss (Mass), Mike Levin (CA), Adam Schiff (CA), Brad Sherman (CA), Jamie Raskin (MD). and Steve Cohen (Tenn). </p><p>Here are a few remarks by Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Referring to post-war Gaza, he said it "must include Palestinian led governance and Gaza unified with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority." Although he did say that "the Palestinian Authority also has a responsibility to reform itself, to improve its governance..." What? How does one "improve" rather than replace a dictatorial, terrorist supporting regime? No, if there is a future Palestinian state (open to debate) it must NOT include either Hamas or the P.A. </p><p>Perhaps the most cogent position was stated by Professor Eugene Kontorovich in a 1/3/24 Op-Ed in the WSJ. In discussing how Jews were able to return to post-war West Germany, and live safely, he then discusses how Jews and Arabs live together in Israel. Yet, there seems to be an assumption that post-war Gaza will be free of Jews. He then states what should be obvious to everyone: "If Jews aren't safe in Gaza, they won't be safe in Israel either." That is really all anyone needs to know.</p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-40310029443167157822024-01-20T21:15:00.000-08:002024-01-20T21:15:45.677-08:00New Year Reflections, Part III (The Corrupt Mainstream Media)<p>Make no mistake, the Democrat-Mainstream Media Complex (D-MSMC) is corrupt. Not just biased, but corrupt. Following former President Trump's historic win in the Iowa caucuses, Rachel Maddow explained why MSNBC would not air Trump's victory speech. "We will let you know if there is any news made in that speech, if there is anything noteworthy, something substantive and important."</p><p>Maddow: "The reason I'm saying this is, of course, there is a reason that we and other news organizations have generally stopped giving an unfiltered, live platform to remarks by former President Trump. It is not out of spite, it is not a decision that we relish, it is a decision that we'll regularly revisit. And honestly, earnestly, it is not an easy decision."</p><p>But there is a cost to us, as a news organization, of knowingly broadcasting untrue things. That is a fundamental truth of our business and who we are. And so, his remarks, tonight, will not air live here, we will monitor them and let you know about any news that he makes." </p><p>Well isn't that special. Here is the truth, however. The D-MSMC wants Biden to win, regardless of the cost to their journalistic integrity. And they will do their best to make sure that Biden does win. They certainly do not want their viewers to see a man, only a few years younger than Biden, able to speak extemporaneously, unlike the presumed Democrat candidate. And just how elitist are these people, telling the American people that they do not need to hear the words of the likely Republican nominee for President of the United States. You also have to wonder how Maddow was able to say with a straight face that they do not want to broadcast "untrue things." Here is the short reply I would give to Maddow: Russian collusion hoax, which you repeated over and over again.</p><p>Should Biden and Trump end up being their party's nominees, and in the unlikely event Biden agrees to a debate, I have a recommendation for the D-MSMC. When Biden is speaking, air all of his remarks. When Trump speaks, mute his comments and put up on the screen "we will let you if the former President says anything newsworthy." Ridiculous? Of course. Yet that is exactly what MSNBC just did.</p><p>Not surprisingly, CNN joined in. Here was Jake Tapper: "A relatively subdued speech as the(se) things go so far. Although, here he is, right under my voice." Under my voice? Why are you talking over him? Here is one excuse why people should not be allowed to hear Trump. "You can hear him repeating his anti-immigrant rhetoric." What???</p><p>The American people view the open border and illegal immigration as the biggest issue facing the country. Big city mayors across the country - Democrats - are complaining about the flood of illegal immigrants. Here is Trump's so-called anti-immigrant rhetoric: "W are going to seal up the border. Because right now, we have an invasion. We have an invasion of millions and millions of people that are coming into our country. I can't imagine why they think that's a good thing."</p><p>So, Trump is saying he is against illegal immigration, not all immigration. But the corrupt D-MSMC never makes that distinction when talking about Republicans. Trump said it's an "invasion." Well, what the hell else would you call it when as many as 10 million people have entered the country illegally during Biden's first three years in office. Anybody need a better example of why I refer to most of the media as the Democrat-Mainstream Media Complex?</p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-81244408049284562162024-01-15T11:40:00.000-08:002024-01-15T12:55:01.601-08:00New Year Reflections, Part II (A Further Discussion of DEI)<p>(Note: In the December 9, 2023 post, "Year End Reflections, Part II," I discussed the evil of DEI. This is a further discussion about that.) As with many universities and businesses, Johns Hopkins Medicine has an Office of Diversity. Heading the office is one Dr. Sherita H. Golden. In the January edition of their Diversity Digest (yes, they have such a publication), Dr. Golden said this: "In the United States, privilege is granted to people who have membership in one or more of these social groups identity groups: white people, able bodied people, heterosexuals, cisgender people (you identify with the sex you were born with, i.e. almost everybody), males, Christians, middle or owning class people, middle aged people, and English-speaking people."</p><p>So then, what are we talking about? 99% of the population? Won't the vast majority of people fall into one of those groups? It's nonsense. And what's the point? Taking the first two groups, white people and able bodied people, I'll use myself as an example. Am I white? Yes. Am I able bodied? Not since age 15. So, as between those those groups, would I be identified as 50% privileged and 50% non-privileged? But what if my physical limitations have had a greater impact on my life than being white? So, can we say then I am only 25% privileged and 75% non-privileged? How would we even measure the impact of the two? And what's the point?</p><p>I have good reason to believe that early in my career I was turned down from two different jobs for these reasons. The first time was because I am Jewish. So...I ended up at a firm run by Jewish attorneys and where I was very happy. The second time was because of my physical disability issues, and was walking with a cane for years prior to my bilateral hip replacements. So...I ended up at a firm that said they didn't care about that. In fact, I had the two hip replacements while working at that firm, and they took care of me while I was off for two months each time. And they paid my salary. What's the lesson? There are a-holes in the world, but there are plenty of good people also. </p><p>Dr. Golden: "...privileges are unearned and are granted to people in the dominant groups whether they want those privileges or not, and regardless of their intent." Whether you want it or not. Regardless of your intent. Well, there is guilt by association for sure. How should we punish you?</p><p>Dr. Golden subsequently apologized for her post, likely under pressure from the administration at Johns Hopkins Medicine. The President and Dean issued a statement in which they "repudiate(d)" the statement by Dr. Golden. And they added that the definition of privilege by Dr, Golden "runs counter to the values of our institution, and our mission and commitment to serve everyone equally." Here are a couple of questions. I would ask the President and Dean: Are you serious? What did you expect from a DEI office? And I would ask everyone, how comfortable would you be getting treatment from Dr. Golden if you fall into one of her privilege categories? And, depending on how much influence Dr. Golden has had on the other doctors at Johns Hopkins, how comfortable would you be there at all? </p><p>In May of last year, the Pew Research Center issued poll results from people who work as employees. 56% said focusing on DEI at work is a good thing. 28% said it is neither good nor bad. And 16% called it a bad thing. Not surprisingly, more women (61%) than men (50%) thought it was a good thing. Also not surprising was the difference between the races. 78% of blacks said it was a good thing, joined by 72% of Asians and 65% of Hispanics. But a minority of whites, 47%, said it was a good thing. </p><p>Also not surprising was the age gap, with 68% of those 18 to 29 saying the focus on DEI was a good thing. 56% of those age 30 to 49 agreed, but only 46% of those age 50 to 64 agreed. In the 65 or older group (likely many were soon to be retired) the number went back up to 52%. And, least surprising of all was the difference between the two parties. Democrats and those leaning Democrat favored the focus on DEI by 78%. Republicans and those leaning Republican - only 30%. (Pew said the poll was taken of employees at companies with 10 or more people. And the results for Asians consisted of only those who spoke English.) </p><p>I would submit to my readers that Republicans came in with that low number because they actually believe in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King - that people be judged based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.</p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-46451431099414887492024-01-11T22:04:00.000-08:002024-01-11T22:04:16.873-08:00New Year Reflections, Part I (What To Expect This Presidential Election Year)<p>The timing was perfect for Joe Biden and the D-MSMC (what I call the Democrat-Mainstream Media Complex). A day before the third anniversary of what is now referred to simply as "January 6," Biden gave a campaign speech discussing the threat to democracy by Donald Trump, and how re-electing him will save our democracy. The New York Times, the leading paper of the D-MSMC, followed suit with an editorial in the first Sunday edition of the year, on January 7, 2024. </p><p>The Times: "As president, he (Trump) wielded power carelessly and often cruelly..." How's that exactly? They don't say. "He deepened existing divisions among Americans..." I believe Obama started that, making everything a racial issue. Then Biden furthered the divide, after promising to be a uniter. Obama talked about the deplorables in a manner akin to Hillary Clinton. Biden followed along, with his nonstop attacks on Republicans. I don't care if he refers to them as "MAGA" Republicans, it's divisive. </p><p>Biden: "And our campaign is about preserving and strengthening our American democracy." At least one site online says that 10 million people have entered the country illegally under Biden. That's more people than in all of New York City, our nation's largest city. That's more than the individual population of 41 states. How does ignoring the sovereignty of the United States strengthen the United States? </p><p>The Times: "(Trump) has repeatedly demonstrated a deep disdain for the First Amendment..." Okay, how about this: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Friday ruled that the Biden White House, top government health officials and the FBI likely violated the First Amendment by improperly influencing tech companies' decisions to remove or suppress posts on the coronavirus and elections." (Per the Washington Post, 9/8/23.) This part bears repeating: "remove or suppress posts on the coronavirus and elections." That should make it clear why I refer to them as the D-MSMC, which clearly includes social media (except, perhaps, for "X" now). </p><p>The Times: "Mr. Trump's forays into foreign affairs remain dangerously misguided and incoherent...he displayed consistent admiration for autocratic leaders..." Let's compare. Trump started no new wars. He defeated ISIS. He pulled us out of the bad Iran nuclear deal. He told NATO allies to start paying their required fair share, or don't assume reliance on the US. Lo and behold, they started to pay up. He refused to fund the Palestinian Authority, as they used US tax dollars to reward terrorists, and their families, for killing Jews. He refused to fund UNRWA, which is a ridiculous UN agency in Gaza, that acts at the behest of Hamas. </p><p>Trump moved the US embassy in Israel to Israel's capital city, Jerusalem. Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Trump helped to bring about the Abraham Accords, establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, and shortly thereafter Morocco and Sudan. But, I forget. The Times main concern is the Palestinians. They did not approve of Trump's policies favoring Israel.</p><p>Biden? A disastrous and embarrassing withdrawal from Iraq, leaving behind billions in American weaponry. Lifting sanctions on Iran, allowing the flow of billions of dollars into the coffers of the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Attempting to reenter the Iran nuke deal. Restoring funding to the terrorist supporting PA and UNRWA. Under Obama, Russia invaded Ukraine and Hamas went to war with Israel. Under Trump, Putin did nothing and Hamas did not start another war with Israel. Then we had Biden - Putin launched a massive invasion of Ukraine, and Hamas conducted an unprecedented attack on Israel. </p><p>The Times says Trump has threatened "the deployment of the military and the Justice Department, to have his way." What? It was Biden's Justice Department which directed the FBI to investigate parents as possible terrorists, for daring to challenge the woke lies being fed to their children in the public schools. It is Biden's Justice Department that is currently prosecuting the leading Republican candidate for president against their boss. Coincidence? I don't think so. That shows support for our democracy? Decidedly not. </p><p>Biden: "Political violence is never, ever, acceptable in the United States political system - never, never, never. It has no place in our democracy. None." Well, his allies in the D-MSMC apparently did not get that message during the summer of nationwide rioting in 2020, calling the "protests" mostly peaceful. I am curious as to how such peaceful protests resulted in nearly $2 billion worth of damages to businesses and government buildings around the country. And when rioters pulled down a statue of Christopher Columbus in her native Baltimore, what did then Speaker Nancy Pelosi have to say? "People will do what they do." She didn't say that about January 6. </p><p>Here is a precious line by the Times: "Democracy in the United States is stronger with a formidable conservative political movement to keep diversity of thought alive on important questions, such as the nation's approaches to immigration, education, national security and fiscal responsibility." Excuse me while I stop laughing. If the Times truly believed one word of that, then 95% (99%?) of their editorials and Op-Ed columns would not have a left-wing point of view. </p><p>I'll conclude with this. I have my own complaints about many of the unnecessary and improper comments made by Trump. But this simply sounds like a replay of all the allegations made against Trump in 2016, when we were assured that the world would end if Trump won. The world didn't end. Peace broke out in new places. Wars didn't. The economy was good. We were energy independent. Methinks that Biden and the Times are "crying wolf." </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-58270974770246147252023-12-31T18:28:00.000-08:002023-12-31T18:28:22.608-08:00Year End Reflections, Part VIII (Happy New Year?)<p>Erin Aubry Kaplan is a regular Op-Ed contributor to the Los Angeles Times. Her 12/29/23 year-end column is titled "Why I'm not wishing you happy holidays." She explains: "We need every bit of our attention focused on what's going on - Israel's merciless war on Gaza, the dangerously stagnated international effort to combat climate change, our frighteningly partisan judicial system...and we cannot avoid what's shaping up to be a terrifying 2024..." </p><p>So, basically, many of the leftwing talking points. Nothing about the millions entering illegally. Nothing about crime. Nothing about people's concerns over "Bidenomics." Nothing about trying to eliminate fossil fuels, with apparently no understanding of the thousands of products made with petroleum. And nothing about the Biden family corruption, or the very anti-democratic efforts to keep Trump off the ballot.</p><p>No, after telling us the leftwing talking points, she, of course, turns to Trump, and "the realization that Donald Trump could win a second presidency." She then suggests that evangelical Christians push racism and xenophobia and a belief in racial superiority. We can thank Biden for being the most divisive President in history for pushing this racial division and DEI nonsense. </p><p>Kaplan: "...this is troubling. That 30% to 40% of my fellow Americans actively support or are willing to accept such a dark vision of this country - our country - is colossally depressing." I agree. How can so many people still support the Democrats, who are doing everything possible to undermine our democracy and eliminate the idea of national sovereignty for the USA. Imagine the Secretary of State of Maine, leftwing Democrat Biden supporter that she is, thinks it is somehow supporting democracy, by taking Trump off the ballot. I guess the Left is proving to us "if you can't beat 'em, cheat."</p><p>After acknowledging that she will be criticized for not realizing the greeting is about family and love and affirmation and "nothing to do with Trump," she still can't bring herself to extend New Year's greetings. Here's why: "The long campaign to dismantle pluralistic America isn't taking a holiday and I can't either." </p><p>I don't know how much longer our country can exist if it continues to be governed by the progressive/Marxist people running the Democrat party. Nevertheless, I have happily wished many a "Happy and Healthy New Year." Even in the darkest times, we need to be beacons of light.</p><p>So a Happy and Healthy New Year to all my friends and readers of the blog!</p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-36409776552700853992023-12-31T17:34:00.000-08:002023-12-31T17:34:23.013-08:00Year End Reflections, Part VII (What a Surprise)<p>Just as I was already preparing a post in my head about how the D-MSMC is so focused non-stop on Gaza, with far less concern about Israel and the hostages, I picked up today's New York Times. On the front page, the lead article was "'Screams Without Words': Sexual Violence on Oct. 7." I'll let the article speak for itself, other than a few sentences by me at the end. The Times says they conducted a two-month investigation "relying on video footage, photographs, GPS data from mobile phones and interviews with more than 150 people, including witnesses, medical personnel, soldiers and rape counselors."</p><p>One witness saw a woman forcibly bent over while she raped from behind. "Every time she flinched, he (a Hamas terrorist) plunged a knife into her back." </p><p>The witness saw another woman "shredded into pieces." As the Times recounts it: "While one terrorist raped her...another pulled out a box cutter and sliced off her breast." "One continues to rape her, and the other throws her breast to someone else, and they play with it, throw it, and it falls on the road." Then they sliced her face. </p><p>Another witness tells of seeing a group of five terrorists raping a woman, and she screams. "I still remember her voice, screams without words." "Then one of them raises a knife and they just slaughtered her." </p><p>Others tell of terrorists "talking, giggling and shouting" while taking a knife and "literally butchering her." Others tell of a woman's vagina sliced open.</p><p>Still other described women and girls found "naked or half naked, some mutilated..." </p><p>Another described having "seen several bodies with cuts in their vaginas and underwear soaked in blood, and one whose fingernails had been pulled out."</p><p>These atrocities were committed by Hamas, a terrorist group that not only finds support around the world: but also, incredibly, finds support for their involvement in a future Palestinian state in Gaza. It should be mandatory for every protester in this country to be arrested when violating the law (such as blocking traffic), and the sentence should be a requirement that they view all the photos and the videos documenting these unspeakable, abominable and atrocious acts. And preferably with their hands bound behind their backs, like many of the victims were found. And, sorry to say, but let the protesters have some sense of what these victims experienced, by having to also watch while naked. </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-57200255506447482092023-12-31T16:52:00.000-08:002023-12-31T16:52:25.117-08:00Year End Reflections, Part VI (My Beef With Tucker Carlson)<p>I've known for sometime that Tucker Carlson is an isolationist. I happen to disagree with that philosophy, because I think it is dangerously naive. Still, he is not alone in holding that viewpoint, as is his right. But recently, it appears that he crossed over into antisemitism - and that is not acceptable. In speaking with Saagar Enjeti on "Breaking Points," Carlson attacked fellow conservative Ben Shapiro and others on the right for something he either does not understand (which I doubt, because Carlson is not stupid) or willfully ignores.</p><p>Carlson: "...there are people on the 'right' who have spent the last two months every single day focused on a conflict in a foreign country as our own country becomes dangerously unstable, on the brink of financial collapse, with tens of millions of people who shouldn't be here in the country, we don't know the identities or the purpose of their being here." He then expresses his concern for those things making it impossible "for my kids to live here."</p><p>Then he makes this incredible assertion: "I'm shocked by how little they care about the country (including Ben Shapiro). And I can't imagine how someone like that could get an audience of people who claim to care about America, because he doesn't, obviously." Carlson, that is just reprehensible!</p><p>Let me give you a little background, Carlson. I know you are not Jewish. Shapiro is an observant Jew. All Jews who pray know that Jerusalem and Israel are mentioned in our prayers. You may have felt bad for the people who were brutally murdered on October 7, but myself, like many, many Jews, felt it to our core. This was the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. And whether you like it or not (I don't give a damn if you don't), we Jews understand that Israel is not only our Biblical homeland, but since 1949 it has been a safe haven for Jews suffering from oppression around the world. </p><p>The first two weeks after October 7, I had a difficult time sleeping. When I would get up during the night to go the bathroom, I would go to the family room and turn on the TV and watch i24News, out of Israel, for an hour or two. Maybe you understand that, maybe you don't. If you don't, I don't give a damn. And, apparently you are not terribly concerned about the worst antisemitism since the Holocaust, as you believe Jews are behind the "white replacement" theory.</p><p>So, let's clarify a few things. Ben Shapiro is a strong conservative and a strong defender of America. But you are willing to take this relatively brief window of time, when Shapiro and many Jews, have been focused on Israel and the growing antisemitism, and conclude that Shapiro does not care about America. I have written this blog since 2009. Over 640 posts. But since October 7, 12 of my last 15 posts have been about Israel and antisemitism. I assume you would conclude from that number that I don't care about America either.</p><p>I guess my other 630 posts over 15 years would not mean anything to you. My constant defense of American values would not mean anything to you. My repeatedly saying that the USA is the best country in the history of the world, would not mean anything to you. If you were a man, Tucker, you would give a very public apology to Ben Shapiro and all the other Jews on the right who you claim do not care for America, simply because you willfully ignore the history of the Jewish people. </p><p>I'll finish with this, Carlson. Jews will continue to focus on Israel, given the very existential threat to the country from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Iran. And I will do so in my blog. And Jews will also focus on the growing antisemitism/outright Jew-hatred in this country, making us wonder if America will continue to be the best country in the world for the Jewish people (outside of Israel). I will also continue to focus on that. So, good for you being a Christian in a Christian country, with none of these concerns. Instead of attacking us, why not try to be grateful for the fact that you have two less things to worry about than we do. </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-42086517935746602512023-12-23T12:21:00.000-08:002023-12-23T14:14:07.418-08:00Year End Reflections, Part V (More Politics)<p>First, some interesting information. Where did people move from 2022 to 2023? Texas ranked first with 473,000 more people. And, no surprise, Florida was second with 365,000 more people. The California minimum wage goes up to $16 per hour as of January 1. Unfortunately, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) reported an increase in antisemitic incidents from 465 in 2022 to 2031 in 2023.</p><p>Fox reported that a 10th grade Seattle High School had a class on "Ethnic Studies World History." The class was given an exam of True-False and multiple choice questions. Here was one question: All men have penises. True or False? Here was another: Only women can get pregnant. True or False? A student who answered True to these questions was told those answers were incorrect. Does anyone really need any further proof of the sickness of leftwing ideology? MEN CANNOT GET PREGNANT! MEN, AND ONLY MEN, HAVE PENISES! But the truth is not a value for the left. All lies in support of their agenda are deemed worthy.</p><p>Los Angeles County District Attorney, far left George Gascon, recently appointed one of the assistant DAs to be his chief of staff. Nothing unusual there. Until we find out that this woman, following the death of George Floyd, called the LAPD "barbarians." And she referred to them as "an occupying army." No surprise that she called for defunding the police. And it was reported that she has a T-shirt that reads "the police are trained to kill us." Exactly how is the DA's office supposed to work with the police to prosecute criminals, given those attitudes? Oh, that's right. Gascon is one of those DAs who does not believe in prosecuting criminals.</p><p>Boston Mayor, Michelle Wu, decided to have a holiday party for the members of the City Council. But not all the members were supposed to be invited. However, her assistant inadvertently sent the invitation out to the entire Council. The invitation read: "Electeds of Color Holiday Party." Said Wu, in defending this nonsense: "It is not at all divisive, it is creating spaces for people and communities and identities with shared experiences to come together." This is yet another example of the evil of "identity politics." But if that is deemed to be acceptable, then I would not object to an "Electeds White People Holiday Party." </p><p>Of course, I object to all of it. I believe, as MLK said, that people are to be judged based on the content of their character. Why is skin color important? Another way to look at it is what Dennis Prager often says. The world is divided into only two groups - the decent and the indecent. </p><p>On the good news front...California enacted a law banning concealed carry in 26 different public places, making it all but impossible to actually carry a gun outside of the home. No, that's not the good news. The good news, as reported by the AP, is that a Federal Judge blocked enforcement of that law. As the AP reported it, the Judge felt "that would have banned carrying firearms in most public places, ruling that it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and deprives people of their ability to defend themselves and their loved ones."</p><p>As readers know, I always like to read the "Letters to the Editor" in the newspapers. One letter in the 12/20/23 New York Times was by a Jewish man described by the paper as a "distinguished emeritus professor of anthropology at the State University of New York." The writer says he is "a Jew by culture and ancestry, albeit a secular one." He tells us he "abhors contemporary violence by both Hamas and Israel." Typical leftwing view that all violence is the same and is bad. Violence in the defeat of evil is not bad. It may be unfortunately necessary, but it is definitely not bad. </p><p>The letter writer continued and said his father bought Israel bonds for him and his siblings when they were younger. But, "in the late 1960's and early '70's, when I had my own children and when Israel had become an expansionist power, I asked him to stop." More leftwing lies; this time lies of omission. Israel was able to gain more territory by defending themselves in war and winning. That does not make them an expansionist power. Good to know that a "distinguished emeritus professor" lacks all common sense and reason. Which is what happens when leftwing ideology defines your world view. Or, as I like to say, letting your beliefs dictate your reality. </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-5288790702130984792023-12-22T16:43:00.000-08:002023-12-23T11:14:09.580-08:00Year End Reflections, Part IV (Back To Politics)<p>(Note. I'm sure my readers are well aware that since the attack on Israel on October7, virtually all my posts have been about that and the increasing antisemitism. The atrocities of October 7, followed by the increasing Jew hatred, have really gotten to me in a way that few stories have. Obviously 9/11 is another example. Let's pray for no more 9/11's or 10/7's.)</p><p>The Colorado Supreme Court decided that Donald Trump should not be on their state's primary ballot because he is guilty of insurrection, as defined in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. This post will not go into a detailed legal analysis of that Amendment. But the case was brought by a group of never Trumpers against the Colorado Secretary of State, alleging that the Secretary must not allow Trump to be on the ballot because of insurrection.</p><p>The trial court found that Trump was guilty of insurrection, but that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment did not apply to the office of President. Therefore, he could be on the ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed, by a 4 to 3 vote. The Majority: "President Trump incited and encouraged the use of violence and lawless action to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power." And this: "President Trump's speech on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment." </p><p>I admit to not having read this lengthy decision. However, I am very curious to know exactly what words in the speech were deemed by the Court to not be protected speech; what words were deemed to create an imminent threat of violence or lawless action. I also thought it was interesting that the Court found Trump guilty of insurrection without him being a party to the case. I guess I should not be surprised, as the second House impeachment vote on Trump was conducted with no Judiciary Committee hearings first. No evidence was presented prior to that vote. </p><p>So I decided to ask another attorney, very leftwing, exactly how the decision would play out. After all, other states have similar cases pending. Do we now have a situation where each of the 50 states gets to decide who can be on the ballot? Obviously, there would not be uniformity among all 50 states. What if Trump were to win a sufficient number of electoral votes where he was on the ballot. Would he only be the president over those states? Would those states where Trump was disqualified from the ballot have a different president?</p><p>Back to that leftwing attorney. Having no answer for the possible chaos created by the Colorado decision, he simply said the US Supreme Court will decide. Then, as often happens, he reverted to Trump is bad, and therefore should not be on the ballot. Explaining how that would work with 50 states was of no apparent concern to him. </p><p>Is this how the Court is protecting our democracy? Trump has never been convicted of "insurrection." Trump was not involved in the Colorado case. Four unelected judges decided to remove from the ballot the main opponent to the sitting President, and not let the voting public decide. And, again, thinking forward, might we end up with a country having one president for some of the states, and another president for the rest of the states? Is this what the Democrats call protecting our democracy? Because none of it looks the least bit democratic to me.</p><p>The Court Majority: "We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions before us." I don't think so. The office of the President of the United States is the one and only office that the entire country votes on. (The VP is essentially a tag along.) So I would ask the Court just how mindful they were of creating different qualifications for being on the ballot, qualifications that surely will not be required in many of the other states.</p><p>Let's think back to the 2016 election. There were dire predictions about what would happen if Trump won. The most serious was that Trump would start a nuclear war. None of the awful predictions came about. And Trump won. So we had the Russian collusion hoax. That didn't succeed in getting Trump out of office. We had the first impeachment over a telephone call with Ukraine. That didn't work. We had the second impeachment. None of these actions taken by the Democrats succeeded in removing Trump from office. In 4 years in office Trump started no wars. No one lost any rights. </p><p>Biden won in 2020, but looks to be easily beatable in 2024. So now we have 4 different politically motivated prosecutions. But they don't seem to be working either, as Trump's poll numbers keep going up. So here is the next idea - keep Trump off the ballot. I honestly do not know how it could be any clearer - the Democrats do not believe in our democracy. Or in any democracy. </p><p> (Afterword. I have my own issues with Trump. The silly name calling. The unnecessary commenting on everything. Costing the Republicans the 2 Georgia Senate seats. Having a meal with antisemites like Nick Fuentes and Kanye West. And personally calling state and local officials about the 2020 election results. But don't tell me the Colorado Court cared about democracy.)</p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-18476199710650802552023-12-19T21:42:00.000-08:002023-12-19T21:42:00.428-08:00Year End Reflections - Part III (Is This The True Face Of Islam In America?)<p>We already know that the group "Students for Justice in Palestine" celebrated the atrocities of October 7, by calling it "a historic win for Palestinian resistance." But the "Council on American-Islamic Relations" (CAIR) bills itself as a moderate group, reflecting the interests of Muslims in America. Therefore, it may surprise some to learn (although it shouldn't) what the executive director of CAIR, Nihad Awad, was found to have said. As reported in an editorial in the 12/9-12/10/23 weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Awad claimed that his comments were selectively chosen to, essentially, make him look bad.</p><p>But The Journal said they were able to get a copy of Awad's speech before it was taken off line. Here are some of his comments as reported by The Journal. "The people of Gaza only decided to break the siege, the walls of the concentration camp, on October 7. And yes, I was happy to see people breaking the siege and throwing down the shackles of their own land, and walk free into their land, that they were not allowed to walk in. And yes, the people of Gaza have the right to self-defense, have the right to defend themselves. And yes, Israel as an occupying power, does not have that right to self-defense." </p><p>Clearly, there was no concern for the men, women, children and even babies who were brutally murdered by Hamas. Awad said that Israel does not have the right to self-defense because he clearly does not believe that Israel has the right to exist at all. He made that clear when he referred to the people of Gaza "walk(ing) free into their land." What they did was break into land that is considered part of the territory of Israel. By referring to that land as "their (the people of Gaza's) land," Awad is telling us that Israel should not exist. This is no different from the chant "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free." It would appear that the only rights that Jews have are to either be killed or leave Israel. </p><p>Then, Awad attacks AIPAC (the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) and "corrupt members of Congress." Awad: "We have to free so many people from the shackles of AIPAC and its affiliates who have sold the soul of America." In an apparent attack on Biden's support for Israel, Awad goes on: "For how much? It is for how much AIPAC and its affiliates have been controlling the U.S. Congress...Unless we free Congress, we will not be able to free Palestine."</p><p>This is not much different from one of Ilhan Omar's many antisemitic comments, when she said "it's all about the Benjamins." It couldn't be that Congress and the American people support Israel because of shared values, with Israel being the only democracy, and Western style country, in the Middle East. </p><p>Awad: "When we say 'if there is no cease-fire, there will be no votes for you in 2024 elections, we started to see the tone changing - and the position changing." Also speaking with Awad was the director of American Muslims for Palestine, Osama Abuirshaid. The Journal reports that at a rally on December 1, Abuirshaid said this: "What they alleged that happened on October 7 turned out to be a lie. Most of the (Israeli) civilians were killed by their own army." Talk about a lie - disgusting!</p><p>And, proving that these people remain quite adept at propaganda, Awad said this: "I ask young people: be wise. You are not in Palestine. You are not in Gaza. The language there doesn't work here." It is the kind of language that we hear from the Muslim members of Congress. They speak of the "human rights" of Palestinians, not of the atrocities committed against the Jews. And, of course, they never say that it is Hamas that violates the human rights of the people of Gaza. (Although, recent polling suggests that as much as 75% of the people of Gaza supported the atrocities committed by Hamas.)</p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-36359107727402501832023-12-09T15:49:00.000-08:002024-01-07T20:14:47.026-08:00Year End Reflections - Part II (The Evil of DEI)<p>The New York Times is not a fan of either Christmas or Chanukah. Nevertheless, a front page article in the December 7 edition, is quite instructive. The headline of the article is "A Divide Over Israel Frays American Families." The discussion, not surprisingly, centers around Jewish American families. And, while they have interviewed a number of young people, the focus is mostly on one family. </p><p>The parents (boomers) moved from Madison, Wisconsin to Israel. The divide over Israel between the parents and their daughter seemed to begin when the daughter became a grad student at UC Berkeley. Big surprise. At Berkeley, the daughter found her attitudes about Israel being challenged by "classmates and friends." One friend pulled away from her over her ties to Israel. Another criticized her for not being "vocally pro-Palestine," saying that she was on "the wrong side of history." </p><p>As this Berkeley grad student started reading materials by black feminist authors, it motivated her to think about "questions around power, privilege and whiteness." Ultimately, she became pro-Palestinian. And she reached this conclusion: "I don't think the state of Israel should ever have been established. It's based on this idea of Jewish supremacy. And I'm not on board with that." Clearly, she is on board with Arab Muslim supremacy. I can't imagine a better example of the evil that has been taught and perpetrated by schools, universities, administrators, professors and college presidents (witness the 3 presidents of the most "elite" universities telling Congress that speech calling for the genocide of Jews might be within school policy - depending on the context). That evil being taught is DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion). </p><p>When her father asked this Berkeley grad student why she did not condemn Hamas' brutal attacks on her social media, the reply was quite telling. She wanted to know why her father did not "emphasize the historical context - the occupation and Palestinian displacement - that shaped the current war." There's that word again - context. As noted in Part I of Year End Reflections, the context is the fact that Israel exists. That, in turn, apparently justifies the atrocities committed by Hamas. </p><p>The article cites a poll by what is described as the "Democratic pollster GBAO Strategies." The poll was just taken this November, of American Jews. It found that 82% of those age 36 or older were in favor of Biden's support for Israel. But only 53% of those age 18 to 35 supported Biden on his approach to Israel.</p><p>The authors of the article made this interesting admission: "Most of the people interviewed for this article did not identify as Orthodox, a small segment of the American Jewish population who tend to have a stronger attachment to Israel than others do." A shame that they did not interview any people from Chabad, an orthodox segment which also happens to be the fastest growing segment within Judaism. They would gotten a much different take, as Chabad is very strongly pro-Israel.</p><p>Heather MacDonald had a very important Op-Ed in the December 7 edition of the Wall Street Journal. It is titled "DEI Drives Campus Antisemitism." MacDonald: "The real issue on campuses isn't antisemitism but the anti-Western ethos that has colonized large swaths of the curriculum." And, given the belief that "the West is built on white supremacism and oppression...Israel is cast as the Western settler-colonialist oppressor par excellence." I would categorize these ideas as just another form of Marxism. The oppressed working class proletariat (dark skinned) vs the bourgeoisie (whites). </p><p>But here is the interesting thing. With the ideas of DEI and intersectionality, MacDonald mentioned a discussion given at Cornell by a professor of Judeo-Islamic Studies. The title of the lecture was "The Intersectionality of Antisemitism, Islamophobia and Racism." MacDonald then tells us that the usual suspects at that intersection are "white supremacists, former Trump administration officials, evangelical Christians and white opponents of mass immigration from Muslim countries." In other words, right wing "deplorables." </p><p>MacDonald: "None of these supposed oppressors play a significant role in pro-Hamas campus protests. The actual protesters - Muslims, Black Lives Matter activists, Queers for Palestine, socialist groups and proponents of the anti-Israel boycott, divest and sanctions movement - went unmentioned in the lecture" at Cornell. </p><p>Starting in 2010 and going through 2016, I wrote a six part post called "Are We At War With Islam." If one looks around the Muslim world it is immediately obvious that Islamic rule of a country is contrary to Western notions of freedom and liberty. And in this country, it is the Left that holds the same anti-Western views. Views that lead them to be anti-American and anti-Israel. Which is why you will see these leftwing groups marching with Palestinians in support of Hamas. But none of these groups, Queers for Palestine for example, would actually want to live in a Palestinian controlled state. There is one gay pride parade every year in the Middle East, and it is in Tel Aviv, Israel. Good luck being openly gay in the Arab countries or Gaza. </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-57250609398410857062023-12-07T21:00:00.000-08:002023-12-07T21:00:37.509-08:00Year End Reflections - Part I<p>Hard to believe, but it's that time of year again. One of the biggest stories of the year was, of course, the war started by Hamas against the Jewish people. As more stories come out from some of the hostages, the atrocities that were committed makes it clear that Hamas is ISIS, and Hamas is the new Nazi Party. The concomitant rise in antisemitism, on college campuses and in our city streets, has been quite disheartening. </p><p>But tonight, this first night of Chanukah, my wife and I attended a community Menorah lighting put on by Chabad. There was a large turnout - seniors, young people and all ages in between. All to show that the Jewish people will not be cowed by the supporters of evil. And how good to read about so many non-Jews saying they will be lighting a Menorah in a show of solidarity with the Jewish people.</p><p>In other news this year, former President Trump was indicted four times; indictments that were politically motivated. Meanwhile the Democrat-Mainstream Media Complex (which I'll now refer to as D-MSMC) avoids, or excuses, the actual corruption allegations that involve the Biden family. And the televised January 6 hearings, put on during prime time, had the sole purpose of destroying the Republican Party.</p><p>While Trump remains the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis remain strong contenders. But they have a lot of catching up to do if they hope to beat Trump. The early primaries may give us a clue as to who may be favored. Will Biden run? He says he is running because Trump is. But who knows. Kamala Harris is weak. California Governor Gavin Newsom says he's not running, but seems to be doing everything to demonstrate he is. And why not? He wrecked San Francisco as Mayor, and got promoted to Governor of the State. He wrecked the State, so maybe he gets promoted to President.</p><p>I had occasion to speak with two California Highway Patrol officers in Court today. The State Police used to be responsible for security at state offices, but they merged with the Highway Patrol a long time ago. We were discussing how the CHP is down by maybe 1000 officers, not good for the most populous state in the country. I asked what the problem was - Sacramento? No. </p><p>I was told that far fewer people want to be law enforcement officers. Who can blame them. In many places there is little or no support from local or state political leaders. Everything they do is second guessed, and may result in being sued or even incarcerated. Besides, think what young kids are taught about cops. The same problem exists for our Army. Who wants to fight for a country that is racist, sexist, etc. etc. etc. That's what many young kids and college students are taught. </p><p>It is no accident that college students are often pro-Palestinian. Arab money has funded Middle East Study Centers at schools across the country. The Saudis have a long history of funding and publishing public school books. But the Left in this country has the same perception of America and Israel and Western societies as do the Islamic countries and the Communist Chinese. It is up to conservatives and classical liberals to gain back control of our education system.</p><p>There is clearly a long way to go, when the presidents of 3 of the most "elite" universities in the country, Harvard, MIT and UPenn, were unable to categorically state that calling for the genocide of the Jewish people would be a violation of school policy. Each one said it would depend on the "context." Really? So, if someone called for the genocide of black people, they would say that might be acceptable, depending on the "context." How about calling for the genocide of the LGBTQ community? Would that depend on the "context?" </p><p>Obviously neither would be acceptable to these university presidents. So what's the "context" for Jews? That the State of Israel exists, and calling for the destruction of that state and the killing of all the Jews there, a la Hamas, might make the "context" acceptable? These 3 university presidents are despicable. But there can be no clearer demonstration of the immoral and evil beliefs of the Left. (I am not speaking of Classical Liberals.) </p><p>In other news this year, the war against Ukraine by Putin continues. As support for Ukraine diminishes in this country, I do hope that the Europeans step up. Putin must not be allowed to win. We have a new Speaker of the House. I was not happy with the Republican infighting, and the display put on by Matt Gaetz. Let's hope that new Speaker Mike Johnson, currently the top Republican in Congress, can unite the party, and lead us to success next November. </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-13337518098529215822023-11-26T16:33:00.000-08:002023-11-26T16:33:21.595-08:00Some Things Every American Should Know<p>It has been quite distressing to see all the pro-Palestinian and even pro-Hamas demonstrations on college campuses. But it is not always an accident. Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have contributed billions to our universities. As has the Chinese Communist Party. Anybody think they have an interest in instilling American or Western values. Anybody think they are sending all this money our way just to be nice? The CCP has established Confucius Institutes. At Georgetown University they have the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian understanding. Funded by the Saudis. </p><p>The Department of Education reported that Arab sources donated about $8.5 billion to US colleges and universities between 1986 and 2021. At least, that is what was reported by US schools. And one site reports that "donors from Arab states have quietly made contributions to American universities to create centers and chairs to propagate their views. The Arab lobby succeeded in hijacking the field of Middle East Studies and now has faculty across the country who use their positions to advance political agendas that are typically pro-Arab (often specifically related to the Palestinians), anti-Israel, and uncritical of radical Islam." So guess what America's youth are being taught? Nothing positive about Israel, the only Western style democracy in the Middle East.</p><p>Cornell, Stanford, UC Berkeley and University of Texas (Austin) all have relationships with the King Abdullah (former leader of Saudi Arabia) University of Science and Technology, with each getting $25 million or more over a five year period. MIT, Harvard and Carnegie Mellon are also recipients of Arab largesse. Qatar, a country that openly supports Hamas, has contributed billions to our academies. </p><p>Let us not forget the professor at Cornell who referred to the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7 as "exhilarating" and "energizing." The brutal murder of unarmed civilians, even children and babies, was exhilarating and energizing for this professor. Just how sick can it get. </p><p>And we know that Leftist thinking which has infected the media and Hollywood and the Democrat Party, tends to support the anti-Israel narrative. Here is former President Obama: "What Hamas did was horrific, and there's no justification for it. And what is also true is that the occupation and what's happening to Palestinians is unbearable." After saying there was no justification for the atrocities committed by Hamas, Obama gave them a justification. </p><p>Meanwhile, these young people, who likely know nothing about the history of the Middle East, who seem to not know what the Holocaust was, are getting increasingly brazen and threatening in their attacks on Jews. The President of AIPAC (the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) has a home in the Brentwood section of Los Angeles. AIPAC is the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the country. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators vandalized his driveway, threw smoke bombs at his home, and carried a banner reading "Fuck UR holiday! Baby Killer!" </p><p>Meanwhile, a teacher at the Hillcrest High School in Jamaica Hills, Queens, NYC, had to hide inside a locked office for two hours. Why? After posting that she stands with Israel, "hundreds of teens stormed the hallways, where they chanted, waved Palestinian flags and screamed that the teacher needs to go." (As reported by Fox News.) The teacher has worked in the NYC schools for 23 years, and said she "was shaken to my core." </p><p>But these threats and disruptions are not isolated incidents. Pro-Palestinian protesters have taken over bridges in order to disrupt traffic. They attempted to disrupt the 97th Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. They defaced the White House gate. They interfered with the operations at Grand Central Station in NYC. The list goes on and on. How soon before we see serious injuries and deaths. (Of course, there was already the death of a Jewish man in Thousand Oaks, California, at the hands of a pro-Palestinian protester - a professor at a local college no less.)</p><p>Meanwhile, in a poll out this month, 37% of Jewish college students said they feel a need to hide their identity. 54% said they felt scared. This is America in 2023. But it made me think of the meme sent to me by my younger daughter the first weekend of this month, with the end of daylight saving time: "Don't forget to turn your clocks back to 1938 Germany time this weekend." November, 1938, was when the Nazis organized a series of what have been described as pogroms, resulting in the vandalism and destruction of Jewish homes, businesses and synagogues. It came to be known as "Kristallnacht," the night of broken glass. </p><p>I have often said that, outside of Israel, the United States has been the best country in the world for the Jewish people. I don't want to think that we have set our clocks back to 1938 Germany time. But it behooves all of us as Americans, Jews and non-Jews alike, to pay attention and to speak up and against the rise in antisemitism and outright Jew hatred. </p><p><br /></p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-23109714809745350152023-11-26T12:15:00.000-08:002023-11-26T19:56:49.057-08:00Progressive Thinking is a Threat to Israel, America and the World<p>Nicholas Kristof is a self-described progressive, and a regular Op-Ed writer for the New York Times. He has even won two Pulitzer Prizes. Unfortunately, he lacks moral clarity. In the Sunday, November 12th edition of the paper's Opinion section, he had this article: "President Biden, Please Do More to Build Peace." So far, so good. Everyone wants peace. But at what cost?</p><p>Kristof: "I'm fine with Israel taking out Hamas's military leaders or destroying tunnels in a surgical way, but not with it leveling large sections of Gaza..." First of all, Israel does not give a damn about what you are "fine" with, Mr. Kristof. Secondly, Hamas needs to be completely eradicated. It is not enough to only take out their military leaders. Their political structure cannot be allowed to continue to exist. Otherwise, they will rebuild their military and Israel will be facing the same problems over and over and over again. Nothing short of complete victory or an unconditional surrender by Hamas will solve the problem.</p><p>Kristof: "Israel has a responsibility to value Palestinian lives even if Hamas doesn't." Israel does more than any other country to protect civilians. They make phone calls into Gaza to warn people. They drop dud bombs on the roofs of building to warn people. They drop leaflets out of airplanes to warn people. Your premise is utter nonsense, Mr. Kristof.</p><p>Kristof: "The Biden administration has already encouraged Israel to rachet its assault on Gaza several notches toward the surgical end by using smaller bombs and allowing humanitarian pauses." This reminds me of a skit on Saturday Night Live years ago when a "reporter" was asking the "defense secretary" (may have been a Dick Cheney player) why smart bombs sometimes kill innocent people. To which the Cheney player merely slapped the top of his head in disbelief. But that "reporter" is Kristof. </p><p>And just what does Kristof think happens with these "humanitarian" pauses? Here is what I think happens. Hamas regroups and rearms. Hamas takes the humanitarian aid for themselves and their fighters. They have already announced publicly that they are not responsible for the people of Gaza. They believe the UN has that responsibility. We know they use the people of Gaza as human shields, and then someone like Kristof falls for it and blames Israel when civilians die. And just how "humanitarian" does Kristof think Hamas is? They murdered civilians of all ages. They raped women. They took as hostages people of all ages. </p><p> Kristof: "I'm skeptical that the Israeli Army can actually eradicate extremist forces from Gaza, so it seems to me that what's unfolding there now - with American complicity as we supply Israel with bombs and artillery shells - is neither militarily nor morally sustainable." You're skeptical, Mr. Kristof? I bet the leaders of the newly formed state of Israel, in 1948, were skeptical that they could defeat the five Arab armies that attacked them. Israel was outgunned and outmanned. But Israel won. I bet Eisenhower had a healthy dose of skepticism about the chances of success on D-Day. Maybe Kristof thinks the US should supply Hamas with an equal number of bombs and artillery shells in order to satisfy his mistaken sense of fairness. </p><p>Kristof: "Looking ahead, the next initiative must be a major push by Biden for an Israeli-Palestinian peace"... but "both sides lack credible leaders to get there." What nonsense. The Arabs of Palestine have been offered their own state numerous times, Starting in 1947 when the UN voted to partition the British Mandate in Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. They refused. They have been offered a state numerous times since. They refused. They don't want a state as long as Israel exists. They want all the land "from the river to the sea." And you, a two time Pulitzer Prize winner, fall for all their propaganda. </p><p>Here's Kristof's hope in the meantime. The State Department should again declare the "settlements" to be in violation of international law. And this gem: "The United States could also abstain at the United Nations Security Council on a resolution calling for humanitarian pauses, instead of vetoing it as happened last time." After all, "How many dead Gazan children are too many," Kristof asks.</p><p>So what are the common themes in all of Kristof's comments? First, Israel is at fault, or at least equally at fault with Hamas. Second, as is typical of leftwing "progressive" thinking, no demands are to made of the bad guys. No, appeasement is the answer. Appease them with more and more of these "humanitarian" pauses - because this Pulitzer Prize winner does not understand that such pauses are for the benefit of a terrorist organization. </p><p>Third, these progressive leftists do not believe in winning wars. Just imagine if Kristof had the ear of Roosevelt or Truman or Eisenhower? Just take out the Nazis' military leaders, but allow their political structure to remain. Allow the Nazis to remain in power? What could go wrong there? Well, Hamas has revealed themselves to be the new Nazis, slaughtering men, women and children and even babies for the sole reason that they are Jewish. Hamas can no longer be allowed to exist. Unfortunately, there will be civilian deaths in the meantime. </p><p>And wouldn't it be nice if Kristof had any concern for the devasting impact October 7 had on the people of Israel. 1200 murdered. 240 taken hostage. 200,000 having to leave their homes in the south and the north as well, because Hezbollah joined in the fight. The economic and psychological consequences of October 7 are of no apparent concern to Kristof, because "how many dead Gazan children are too many." Here is the answer, Mr. Kristof - one is too many. But that cannot deter Israel from doing what it must to defeat Hamas. Were it otherwise, Israel would have to sit back and just accept attack after attack after attack.</p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-3600095527329945502023-11-16T21:06:00.000-08:002023-11-16T21:06:42.054-08:00In Memoriam <p>I shouldn't have to be doing this. Not when I already did one earlier this year (see 3/4/23 post) about my friend Bob. Bob was 72. And Eliot was only 71. Yes, Eliot had some health problems over the years, but he got them taken care of ...at The Mayo Clinic! And he went for checkups regularly, always telling me that his lab numbers and blood pressure readings were excellent. So when I arrived home yesterday at 4:30 pm, and my wife was waiting for me and said "sit down, I have some bad news - Eliot died," I was shocked. I blurted out - "my Eliot?" It couldn't be. We just had breakfast together on November 4 at one of the local delis. It couldn't be. His health was good, too good for a presumed cardiac arrest. Why would G-d take my dear friend, Eliot? The tears started flowing, and have continued to flow on and off since.</p><p>We met 28 years ago when my family moved across the street from where Eliot and his family lived. It was a wonderful cul-de-sac street with an endless supply of kids. My wife and I contributed three kids to the street, but Eliot and his wife contributed five. All boys. The middle one of the five was the same age as our twins, and they all became fast friends, just as Eliot and I did. He and I would stand out on the street and talk for hours and hours. </p><p>Their youngest son would often knock on our door on a Saturday morning, asking if our twins were awake yet. If I said "no," he'd say "that's okay" and then march right into our house. He always assured me that his Mom knew he was coming over to our house. She never did, and would eventually call asking if he was at our house. Sometimes, the four adults would go out to dinner. And we were soon invited to their annual New Year's Eve get together, with other friends of theirs. I don't like driving late on New Year's Eve, but there wasn't much traffic walking across the street. </p><p>Eliot was a sabra. He was born in Israel. But he grew up in New York. He would tell me how he always worked. As a young guy he would plow snow for people. He always took the initiative to do something. Later on, he took over the food flavor business that his father started. He greatly expanded the business, working long hours in order to do so. And he traveled...and traveled...and traveled. He had millions of miles of air travel under his belt. He flew nationally and internationally. While the company headquarters was local, he opened other locations in North America. And he went to trade shows in the US and around the world. He would tell me "you can't expand the business without making the personal connections." </p><p>Over the years as the business expanded, he would get offers from some of the large regional or national brands to buy his business. But he never sold, hoping that one day one of his sons would take it over. I don't know how much money Eliot had accumulated from his success, and I would never ask. But if I were to guess, it would be well into the millions. But you would never know it from talking to him. He was never pretentious. He dressed just like an average guy. He was as down to earth as could be. He and I shared the same values.</p><p>I don't know all the reasons he and his wife separated five years ago. I know that my wife and I were quite upset over it. They stopped hosting the annual New Year's Eve get togethers. No more going out with the four of us. He told me some things. His wife told me some things. But the reality is, as the saying goes, we don't know what might be happening behind closed doors in someone else's home. As my Mom always told me if I was having a disagreement with someone, "there are three sides to every story. There's your side, there's the other person's side, and there's the truth." </p><p>While he was still living in the house locally, he also got an apartment in a suburb of Dallas. But he would always let me know when he was back in town so that we could go to breakfast together. At those breakfasts we would sit and talk for two to three hours or more. There was never a lull in the conversation. I will miss that so, so much. I just don't understand why G-d had to take my friend Eliot. May G-d bless his soul, and may his family be comforted among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem. </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-87125431246187977552023-11-12T17:05:00.000-08:002023-11-12T17:05:55.125-08:00#$@%&#%!!!<p>No, that title is not a typo. But I'm angry, and as I do not use curse words in the blog, that is the closest I can come to expressing my feelings. Why am I so angry? Other than the obvious...the leaders of Hamas tell us what they think and what they want to do. Yet, the morons on the Left ignore all of that, repeat all the Islamist propaganda, and blame Israel for everything. Let's take a look.</p><p>This is some of what I heard from the Hamas leadership. They plan on repeating the atrocities of October 7 over and over and over again. They want to kill all the Jews! When the innocent people of Gaza die (the ones who do not support Hamas or cheer the deaths of Jews), Hamas tells us they are martyrs. People die in every war anyway, they say. And they claim that the people of Gaza are not their responsibility! Hamas is the governing authority in Gaza, but the people are not their problem? Those people are the responsibility of the UN, they say. Everybody clear where Hamas stands? I know my regular readers are, but what about people you know? </p><p>So, following the atrocities committed on October 7, and given all the pro-Hamas protests around the country and the world, and given all the pro-Hamas protests and threats against Jewish students on college campuses, and especially given the actual statements of the Hamas leadership, we now have this. An open letter was written by over 1800 "Jewish writers, artists and activists." </p><p>"We are Jewish writers, artists, and activists who wish to disavow the widespread narrative that any criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic." That is stating the obvious - that any country may be subject to fair criticism. But criticism of Israel after the events of October 7 has been mostly antisemitic. But let's read on in this open letter to see what they really believe. "Israel and its defenders have long used this rhetorical tactic to shield Israel from accountability, dignify the US's multibillion-dollar investment in Israel's military, obscure the deadly reality of occupation, and deny Palestinian sovereignty." Wow! So much to dissect there. (To be clear, I selected this letter to comment upon because it is so indicative of Leftist thinking. I could have just as easily taken almost any article or Op-Ed in the D-MSM.)</p><p>"Israel and its defenders" clearly does not include this group. Jews who cannot bring themselves to support Israel, even at a time like this? I am disgusted by these people. "Dignify the US's multibillion dollar investment in Israel's military"...what morons! The United States supports the ONLY democracy in the Middle East - Israel. Israel has had to fight war after war for its very existence. After the UN voted in November, 1947 to partition the British Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state, the tiny country of Israel declared its independence in May, 1948. The next day the Arab world made war on the new country in an effort to wipe Israel off the map. Was that Israel's fault also? The Arabs were given a state! Why didn't they accept it? Who should the US support? Iran? Syria? Do I have to name them all? Where is the democracy in the Middle East outside of Israel?</p><p>Let's go on with this open letter. "Obscure the deadly reality of occupation." In 2005 Israel vacated Gaza, and at times had to forcibly remove some of the 9000 Israelis living there. They left behind industrial greenhouses, which the people of Gaza promptly destroyed, because Jews made them. Instead of building, they immediately started launching rockets into southern Israel. Eventually they were able to smuggle in more advanced missiles, all aimed at Israel. I wonder how these idiots would like to live under a constant barrage of rockets and missiles. And what about Egypt? The southern border of Gaza is with Egypt, an Arab state. No questions about why the Egyptians aren't helping their fellow Arabs, other than allowing the passage of ever more missiles into Gaza?</p><p>The letter continues. "Deny Palestinian sovereignty." When Israel ended its war for independence, fought from 1948 to 1949, Israel won. The tiny country survived. Jews around the world celebrated the existence of the first Jewish state in 2000 years, and the only Jewish state in the world. Israel did not control Gaza after the war ended in 1949 - Egypt did. Israel did not control the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) after the war ended in 1949 - Jordan did. In fact, Egypt and Jordan controlled those areas for nearly two decades - right up to the next war, the 1967 Six Day War. Israel at that time captured Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. But why wasn't a Palestinian state created when Egypt and Jordan had total control of the land? </p><p>Again, let's discuss the idea of Palestinian sovereignty. How many times have they been offered a state, only to refuse. We'll just skip over the Arab attacks on Jewish businesses and people in the mid to late 1930's in Mandatory Palestine, before Israel even existed. The idea of Jews living in the Jewish homeland was something the Arabs never tolerated. That should be a clue for the Leftists - they will not agree to a Palestinian state as long as Israel exists. Got it? But let's go forward in time. In 1947, the UN voted partition of the Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state, The Jews established the State of Israel. What did the Arabs establish? Anybody? They declared war on Israel. </p><p>Remember when Bill Clinton hosted Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, and PA leader Yasser Arafat. After Clinton got Barak to offer the Palestinians a state, Arafat walked out on the President of the United States and returned to Ramallah to start the Second Intifada - when so-called suicide bombers blew up/murdered Jews on buses, in cafes, in malls and even at a Passover Seder. </p><p>Remember in 2008 when George Bush hosted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and PA President Mahmoud Abbas? Again, the US President assisted (pressured?) the Israelis to return land to the Palestinians for a state. Once again, like his predecessor, Abbas left without agreeing to anything. At what point in time will people believe this is NOT about land. It is about a desire to kill all the Jews! Hamas even says so! (See the second paragraph of this post.) And that, my friends, is a key difference (often stated in this blog) between liberals and conservatives - liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs. (Although, I should change that to replace "liberals" who have remained classical liberals, with "Leftists.")</p><p>But, I need to be fair to the writers of this open letter. They do condemn the attacks on the Jews in their open letter. They do condemn antisemitism. And, make no mistake, they are well educated people. Just like the intellectuals in this country who supported Stalin in the 1930's. Well educated people. I also want to be clear that there were abuses carried out by Israel against Palestinians. Sadly, that is what happens with wars. And people tend to ignore the estimated 700-800,000 or more Jews who were displaced from Arab and Muslim countries after the founding of Israel. Yes, some left voluntarily, but many were persecuted and expelled from those countries. </p><p>What really bothers me the most is the timing of this "open letter." I know there are leftwing Jews, and that some do not even believe that Israel should exist. I understand that, like all Leftists, they will always categorize Israel as the "oppressor" and the Palestinians as the "oppressed." After that, no further questions are asked. But to draft such a letter after the worst mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust? It makes me so angry - hence the title of this post. </p><p>(An afterword. I have attended religious services at Chabad for years. I have a great deal of respect for the five Chabad Rabbis that I know. Following the teachings of the Rebbe, all the Chabad Rabbis teach that the Jewish people are one, and that Jews are commanded to love their fellow Jews. So, I guess my question is - can I love them without liking them? Can I love them and still think that they are leftwing morons? Otherwise, I offer my apologies to these Rabbis, for whom I truly do have the greatest respect.) </p><p> </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-40976825931649465452023-10-29T12:23:00.000-07:002023-10-29T12:23:36.012-07:00Some Voices From The Conservative Media<p>Michael Oren was the former Israeli Ambassador to the United States. His 10/23/23 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal is titled "Hamas Mortally Threatens Israel's Existence." Contrary to the way Professor Myers minimized the threat to Israel from the Palestinians (Hamas), Oren asserts "if the conflict ends in stalemate or cease-fire, the terrorists will have gotten away with mass atrocities on Israeli soil. We will never be secure from future onslaughts. Tourism and foreign investment will vanish, and many Israelis will raise their children elsewhere." </p><p>By the way, everyone notice how the D-MSM and others on the left and in the Democratic Party have been fretting about the displacement of the people in Gaza, because Israel warned them to get out of the way of their bombing. I haven't seen the same concern about all the Israelis displaced from both southern Israel (because of the Hamas attacks) and northern Israel (from the attacks by Hezbollah). Myers also ignored how Israelis in the much of the country are afraid of leaving their homes. And, of course, he ignored the blow to the Israeli economy as a result of so much of the country being effectively shut down, or having to leave their jobs to serve in the IDF.</p><p>Walter Russell Mead is a regular commentator in the WSJ. In his 10/10/23 Op-Ed, he wrote this: "Hamas has done all it could to keep Gaza wretched while inculcating an ideology of genocidal rage." And: "...there is no doubt that Iran trained, supported, advised and equipped the killers." How nice to see an Op-Ed with such clarity. This opinion, of course, is directly to the contrary of the Biden Administration saying Iran was not directly responsible for the current attack by Hamas. I get it. Biden does not want to see a wider war. But that statement was so obviously farcical, it was of no help whatsoever. </p><p>Mead: "As Winston Churchill said to Neville Chamberlain after Munich, 'You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war." (Recall Chamberlain agreed to concede the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany, in exchange for Germany not pursuing further territorial objectives. Chamberlain announced "peace for our time." Of course, that was short lived, with the Nazis next invading Poland.) And here is, perhaps, the key point made by Mead, a point that is missed by the D-MSM Op-Ed writers: "...the war must be won before peace can be built." In just those few words, Mead spoke with the moral clarity so lacking in the leftwing commentators. </p><p>Similarly, Jerome Marcus wrote in the 10/24/23 WSJ: "Israel Needs Unconditional Surrender." Marcus tells us that an unconditional surrender was exactly what the Allies demanded of Nazi Germany. As Hamas shares the Nazi's goal of extermination of the Jewish people, the only acceptable outcome is an unconditional surrender. Marcus: "At the Potsdam Conference in the summer of 1945, the Allies agreed on a complete disarmament and demilitarization of Germany, the transfer of land from Germany to Poland and the Soviet Union, and the expulsion of German populations from the countries Germany had attacked. The Allies also provided for 'de-Nazification - removing Nazis from positions of authority, eliminating Nazi political organizations, and the arrest and trial of war criminals."</p><p>Here is a question I would like to ask all of the leftwing, D-MSM commentators: Why do you not believe in winning? Does it somehow offend your sense of "fairness?" Do you not want to make a judgment as to which side is "right?" Whatever is going on with these leftwing opinion writers, one thing is clear - they are lacking in moral clarity. Something that can only be found in conservative circles. </p><p>Eugene Kontorovich writes in the 10/17/23 WSJ: "The Siege of Hamas Is No War Crime." While acknowledging that having civilian victims of war is a tragedy, he says: "But if even unintentional harm to civilians constitutes illegal 'collective punishment,' as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has called Israel's operations in Gaza, even defensive war is effectively precluded." The result would be that Israel has to just sit back and take it. Absurd. Quoting the U.S. Defense Department law-of-war manual, Kontorovich says siege is a "legitimate" part of a lawful war. </p><p>"Only starvation directed at civilians is prohibited," per the manual. Kontorovich: "This should be obvious: An army need not help its enemy obtain provisions during a conflict." Should be obvious, but it's not to the Left. I believe Biden made a huge error in announcing that humanitarian aid would be sent to Gaza, without asking anything in return. Here is what I would have said to Hamas, while simultaneously announcing it to the entire world: "No one wants to see the civilians in Gaza suffer. You, Hamas, are the governing authority in Gaza. Aid will flow as soon as you release all the hostages. Please tell the world what is more important to you - the welfare of your people or the holding of innocent hostages." </p><p>Kontorovich: "The evacuation of civilians is a standard measure to avoid humanitarian crises. Israel has moved tens of thousands of its own citizens away from the area of the Gaza border. (And, I would again add, from northern communities given the firing of rockets and missiles by Hezbollah.) Hamas, by contrast, has ordered its civilians to stay put, presumably to increase the tally of civilian deaths for propaganda purposes." That latter point is one that I have often stated, as the point needs to made repeatedly, because the D-MSM falls for the Hamas propaganda all the time.</p><p>As an example, Hamas said Israel targeted a hospital, killing 500 people, so the D-MSM dutifully reported that as fact. (The story was false.) But that is the leftwing media, taking the word of a terrorist organization, an organization that excels at propaganda. The reality is that Hamas places their missile launchers and military facilities in or under hospitals, schools, mosques and the like. They do so knowing that Israel will have to respond, resulting in civilian deaths. I want to know why Arab and Palestinian Americans are not out protesting Hamas. Why aren't they protesting the atrocities committed by Hamas? Why aren't they out protesting the way Hamas has mistreated the people of Gaza 17 years? And why aren't they protesting the way Hamas uses the citizens of Gaza as "human shields?" </p><p>As one letter to the editor in the WSJ said: "If the Palestinians want peace, they must have the courage to denounce terrorist activities. It isn't Israel's fault that their entire infrastructure is being sacrificed in the defense of Hamas. If they are going to embrace a group that calls for death to Israel, expect there to be painful consequences." Got that everyone? </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-48586162273295810642023-10-28T19:07:00.001-07:002023-10-29T12:29:17.839-07:00Some Voices From The D-MSM (Democratic Mainstream Media Complex) <p> Here is David Myers' (Professor of Jewish history at UCLA) Op-Ed in the 10/9/23 Los Angeles Times. "The Palestinians do not pose a serious threat to the existence of Israel, but they can inflict grave damage on the Israeli body and psyche. They are not going to disappear. Nor are they going to surrender their claims to self-determination. And they are not going to give up the fight against Israel's dehumanizing occupation of 56 years." He goes on to state that Israel "cannot batter Palestinians into submission."</p><p>Notice the deft sleight of hand by subtly interchanging "Palestinians" for "Hamas." Hamas does need to disappear. There can be no peace when they have only one goal - the killing of all the Jews and thus the elimination of Israel. This attack by Hamas was different from all prior ones. Israel must make Hamas disappear, for the good of Israel, for the good of the people of Gaza, and for the overall good of the Middle East. </p><p>Allow me to remind Professor Myers that Israel vacated Gaza in 2005. Hamas then won the election in 2006. Hamas has allowed no further elections. Hamas could have built a thriving civil society, with the assistance of Israel and the US and some of the Arab countries. Instead, since 2006 they have non-stop sent missiles and rockets flying into Israel. </p><p>Here is a news article in the 10/26/23 New York Times, on page 8. In the first paragraph we are told: "Fuel shortages in the Gaza Strip have grown so dire that the U.N. agency that has helped feed, school and shelter Palestinians there for decades said Wednesday that it might have to start shutting down operations." The U.N. agency referred to is UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. </p><p>Do not expect anyone at the New York Times to ask why, of the millions of displaced persons (refugees) from around the world following WWII, only the Arabs of Palestine are still referred to as "refugees." Do not expect anyone at the New York Times to ask why the UN has a special agency just for the Arabs who were displaced. And definitely do not expect anyone at that paper to ask why the duly elected government (Hamas) has not been taking care of their people - the people of Gaza - since they were elected in 2006. (Answer: they spend all their money on armaments and cement and wiring in order to build miles and miles of tunnels into Israel, all with the goal of killing as many Jews as possible. Much of the food and electrical power goes to Hamas fighters.)</p><p>In the 10/22/23 New York Times is this Op-Ed by Thomas Friedman: "Israel Is About to Make a Terrible Mistake." Here is Friedman's plan: "We can help, we can even insist, that our Arab and European allies work to create a more effective, less corrupt and more legitimate Palestinian Authority in the West Bank that, after some transition in Gaza, could help govern there as well. But not without a fundamental change in Israeli policy toward the authority and the Jewish settlers." Notice the burden of doing something is always put on Israel.</p><p>Mahmoud Abbas was elected President of the PA in 2005, for a four year term. But his term got extended "indefinitely." Clearly, there is a problem with both Hamas and the PA. What "transition" in Gaza? Friedman talks about getting rid of the Hamas leadership. It requires more than that. All of their military infrastructure must be destroyed. All of the Hamas armaments - missiles, rockets, mortars, machine guns, etc. - must be destroyed or confiscated. Friedman says the US "can even insist" that our Arab and European allies work to create a better government for the Palestinians. Yes, because the Arab governments all have such a positive record of creating free and democratic societies. And the Europeans? They probably think that Hamas can be persuaded to be a reliably peaceful entity.</p><p>Here is Nicholas Kristof in the 10/12/23 New York Times: "...I'm appalled by the sympathy that some Americans and Europeans have shown for a misogynist and repressive terror organization like Hamas. If you care about human rights, you want to see Hamas eliminated." Yes! He got that right. But then he followed up with: "Yet dismantling terrorist organizations can be harder than it looks, and can raise troubling moral questions about collateral damage." And this is where Kristof is completely wrong. </p><p>Turn to the next post for some voices from the conservative media, and a further discussion as to how these D-MSM commentators are getting it wrong. </p><p> </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4330540262069014103.post-20721439316220456642023-10-23T21:10:00.000-07:002023-10-23T21:10:16.222-07:00Today's Los Angeles Times: Jews Feel The Left "Let Us Down," After Hamas Attack<p>There could not be a more instructive article for my fellow Jews who are on the Left. Per the Times, one Jewish person (age 31) said he was active in J Street in college. J Street is a left-wing Jewish organization which, in this writer's opinion, does not seem to favor the existence of Israel. Says the Times of this individual: "He was shocked by how quickly friends mobilized for the Palestinian cause while failing to condemn the attack (that slaughtered over 1400 people)." And this: good people he never considered antisemitic suddenly seemed "supportive of Jewish genocide."</p><p>The article states that, in parts of the "far left" "significant air-time has been given to the view that Israel is a colonizing force and therefore violence against it is justified." And we are told: "Some have adopted the Hamas position that all Israelis are legitimate targets by virtue of being on land where Palestinians lived before Israeli statehood in 1948." (The article also refers to Hamas "militants" rather than "terrorists," as much of the D-MSM also does. But that's a topic for another day.)</p><p>Allow me to pause here for a few comments. The article does not explain how modern day Israel came about; how the United Nations voted to partition the land of the British Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The article does not mention that Jews have always lived on that land, for thousands of years, notwithstanding the fact that foreign conquerors often expelled large numbers of the Jewish people. The implication is that all the land was Palestinian land, and the Jewish state only came about because of the Holocaust. Never mind the Balfour Declaration of 1917, contained in a letter by UK Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild. It was the British who controlled the land after the defeat of the of the Ottoman Empire in WWI. And the Ottomans controlled the land before WWI for nearly 400 years.</p><p>The 1917 Balfour Declaration says, in pertinent part: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..." Do not be misled by the name "Palestine," often considered a derivative of Philistine. Yasser Arafat popularized the term "Palestinian" as a way to refer to the Arabs of Palestine. Of course, Jews have long known the area as Israel, and Judea and Samaria. Jews lived throughout the area known as "Mandatory Palestine," during the period of British control following the end of WWI up until the founding of modern day Israel in 1948.</p><p>The Times article goes on: "But as a minority group that is by and large white, American Jews...have also struggled to find their place in the new hierarchy of identity politics, where racial categories have become short-hand for the oppressed and the oppressor."</p><p>Allow me a further comment. Could there be a better example of the evil of "identity politics" than that expressed in the above paragraph? Jews are white, therefore they must be oppressors, and therefore they must be dealt with by violence. This focus on one's "identity," whether racial, ethnic or religious, ignores the most important characteristic of all - good values and morals. Where is the morality of those who celebrate the deaths of innocent civilians, even little babies.</p><p>The article goes on to quote a young 22 year old Jewish graduate of NYU, who describes himself as a "socialist, progressive leftist." Said this young man: "The Palestinian people have exhausted all other options except for violence." While not explicitly supporting Hamas, he does say "I do support violence as an answer to settler colonialism against oppressed people." </p><p>My comment. I would guarantee that this young man knows absolutely nothing about the history of the Middle East. What he does know is the left-wing propaganda that his professors drilled into him. Here is a question I would ask him: Imagine, with all your left-wing and pro-Palestinian beliefs, that you found yourself in one of the border towns of Israel adjacent to Gaza. Maybe visiting a grandparent. As Hamas terrorists come into their home and start spraying bullets, what are your final thoughts? Are you thinking: "I'm so glad that my grandparents and I are about to be slaughtered?" Are you wondering why they did not ask you if you sided with them before murdering you? </p><p>You see, young man, you are no different from me - a conservative, pro-Israel Zionist. No different because we are both Jews, which makes us worthy of being murdered. Said one "progressive" Rabbi who often criticizes the Israeli government: Antisemitism is so "embedded" in society, that "people cannot even see it." And she said this telling comment: "Our human ask is that people give a damn when we die." Well, Rabbi, as we have seen with the pro-Palestinian rallies on our college campuses, and in cities throughout our country and throughout the world, many do NOT give a damn when Jews die. How many gave a damn during the Holocaust? And in case anyone needed a reminder, Jew haters in Sydney, Australia were heard shouting "gas the Jews."</p><p>My final comments. I honestly do not know if any of these left-wing Jews understand that their party has become a leftist party. It is not a liberal party. It adheres to leftist ideas of identity politics, with one's identity telling us everything we need to know about someone. It adheres to the idea of "intersectionality," as if every cause of the Left has equal merit. But worst of all, it has removed one's ability to think, to reason, and to see right from wrong. Many young Jews (as the man in the first paragraph) are now struggling with people they considered to be friends, but who have come out strongly for the Palestinians, with no condemnation of the atrocities committed by Hamas.</p><p>If you know me, I would always try to explain to people why they are wrong, why they have lost their humanity if they refuse to condemn even the murder of babies. But if they persisted in their evil beliefs, they would never be friends with me again. </p>Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08070537377021871189noreply@blogger.com3