Are We Living Through The Fall Of Western Civilization? Part II

At the beginning of Part I, I said I would address the lack of distinction between Islamists and Leftists, and the Democratic Party.  So, let's take a look.  Thomas Friedman, multiple Pulitzer Prize winning writer, and Democrat, at the New York Times, and the paper's preeminent Op-Ed writer, seemed to have a difficult time choosing sides.  In an interview with CNN's Michael Smerconish, Friedman said this:  "The problem is I really don't want to see Bibi Netanyahu or Donald Trump politically strengthened by this war, because they are two awful human beings.  They are both engaged in anti-democratic projects in their own countries...And so I really find myself torn.  I want to see Iran militarily defeated, but I do not want to see these two terrible people stengthened."

Just incredible.  Trump and Netanyahu were democratically elected.  The war is being fought by American troops and Israeli troops, against a regime that has murdered tens of thousands of its own people.  But Friedman can't decide if he should take the side of the United States of America versus The Islamic Republic of Iran.  Wow.  But let's assume for one minute that all the horrible things Friedman believes about Trump and Netanyahu are true.  So what?  Many of us can visualize the picture of FDR sitting with Churchill and Stalin in Yalta.  FDR and Churchill, two Western leaders of democracies met with the brutal dictator Stalin, in order to coordinate strategies to defeat Hitler.  Would Friedman be torn because, for that limited purpose of defeating Hitler, two Western leaders sided with Stalin?  It is beyond difficult to comprehend that Friedman does not know if he should hope for the victory of the United States.

You know who else is conflicted about a victory of the United States and Israel over Iran.  Almost the entire Senate Democratic caucus.  40 out of the 47 Senate Democrats voted to block the sale of arms to Israel in the middle of the war.  Who is the lone country fighting alongside the United States?  Israel.  By voting to block the arms sales, they were voting against the United States.  Jake Sullivan, former National Security Adviser to Joe Biden, said that those 40 Democrats "did the right thing."  These are all mainstream Democrats opposing a United States victory.  Hakeem Jeffries is the Democrat's Minority Leader in the House.  He has repeatedly said that the attack on Iran was a "reckless war of choice."  It matters not that every President from Bill Clinton forward said that Iran must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons.  Jeffries is fine with it.  It matters not to Jeffries the Americans killed and kidnapped by Iran and its proxies.  It matters not how often the Iranian leaders say "Death to America."  Let them get nukes.   

But who do mainstream Democrats support?  We know they supported socialist and Islamist Zohran Mamdani.  Graham Platner is the Democrat candidate for Senate in Maine, running against Susan Collins.  What do we know about Platner?  He had a Nazi tattoo on his chest, until he recently had it covered up.  He said that all cops are "bastards."  Like many Democrats, he accuses Israel of genocide and "exterminating" the people of Gaza.  (See the growth of the Gazan population in Part I.)  When Hamas killed Israeli soldiers, whose side did he take?  Hamas, of course.  He said the killing of those troops was "damn fine looking."  Add him to the list of Democrats who cheer on an Iranian (and their proxies) victory.  But surely mainstream Democrats push back on a guy like Platner.  You really think so?  Not only is he supported by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.  He is also supported by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.  Got that?  Just another example of "mainstream" Democrats aligning with Leftists and Islamists.  Because there is no longer any difference!  

Do you know who Hasan Piker is?  You should.  He is a Turkish Muslim, who says he was influenced by Recep Erdogan, the Islamist leader of Turkey.  Piker is on a social media site called Twitch.  During the week of the 2020 election he was the most watched streamer on Twitch.  At the 2024 Democratic National Convention he was given press credentials, and his election coverage garnered 7.5 million views.  He has worked with Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  What are his views?  He has called white people "crackers."  He said that "America deserved 9/11."  He later claimed that he was being satirical.  Nearly 3000 people, mostly Americans, were killed that day.  Nothing funny or satirical about it.  

Not surprisingly, he has all sorts of false claims about Israel.  Says that Israel is "fascist."  Of course, he claims that Israel is an "apartheid" state, and a "settler colonial" state.  He said he would "vote for Hamas over Israel every single time," because Hamas is the "lesser evil."  In fact, he claims that Hamas is "a thousand times better" than Israel.  He has said that Zionism needs to be eliminated.  Zionism is nothing other than a belief in a Jewish homeland.  Not only did he say we deserved 9/11, he also said that the "American empire is going to inevitably fall."  He is certainly doing his best to make it so.  

Piker called the fall of the Soviet Union "one of the greatest catastrophes of the twentieth century."  With regards to the events of October 7, 2023, Piker said "it doesn't matter if effing rapes happened," because the Israeli response was unjustified.  So, women being raped is not a problem for him.  And the illogic of his statement must have failed him.  What would he have said about the rapes before Israel fought back?  Probably the same thing, because it was just Jewish women being raped.  

Now, one might imagine, given all of his hate filled opinions about America and Israel, that he would be shunned by polite Democrat society.  One would be wrong.  He was invited to Oscar parties.  And was also invited to speak at Yale University.  There was a time when the elite universities were bastions of Western liberal (not Leftist) thought.  But having seen what has happened at Columbia and other "elite" universities, we know that they have become cesspools of anti-American and anti-Israel hate-filled propaganda.

So, just where is there a difference between radical Islamists, Leftists and Democrats?  You tell me.

Are We Living Through The Fall Of Western Civilization? Part I

I think a few generalities are in order.  It should be obvious to everyone that there are two main forces working against Western civilization - radical Islam and Leftism.  It should also be obvious that they usually work hand in hand against Western values.  And, while this next point is obvious to conservatives, I cannot say that it is for Democrats.  And that is - the Leftists and the Islamists have now taken over the Democrat party.  The most recent electoral example is Zohran Mamdani (a socialist and Islamist) becoming the Mayor of New York City, and gaining the support of many "mainstream" Democrats.  Because there is no distinction between mainstream Democrats and the Leftists and radical Islamists with whom they align themselves.  (I will address that further in Part II.)

First, however, I would like to make another obvious point, or one that should be obvious to everyone.  There are currently only two world leaders standing up and fighting for Western civilization:  Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu.  I am well aware that those who hate Trump also hate Netanyahu.  Here are a few words from our European "allies."  British P.M. Keir Starmer:  "This is not our war.  We will not be drawn into the conflict."  Not your war?  Without nuclear weapons, Iran directly and through its proxies already destabilizes the Middle East.  What do you expect their pernicious capabilities will be with nukes?  

German P.M. Friedrich Merz agrees that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.  Yet, he publicly announced that Iran was "humiliating" the U.S.  Very helpful.  French President Emmanuel Macron, never one to be outdone, said our action against Iran was "unrealistic."  And that bombing alone will not work.  (I happen to agree that bombing alone will not work.)  But here is the interesting thing - Macron favors negotiations.  That is beyond hilarious.  Because the Europeans were the ones negotiating with Iran over Iran's nuclear program starting shortly after the turn of the century.  At that time the U.S. did not have direct contact with the Iranians.  Yet, through the years, and then the decades, Iran has feigned interest in negotiating, then stalled, then feigned interest again, and stalled again - all the while building up their nuclear facilities and centrifuges.  

So, we know that the Europeans do not care if the leading state sponsor of terrorism gets nuclear weapons.  They maybe think it would be a good thing if Israel was wiped off the map, and if New York and Washington were nuked.  I cannot leave Spain's P.M., Pedro Sanchez, out of this discussion.  "Spain, as you know, doesn't have nuclear bombs, aircraft carriers, or large oil reserves....we alone can't stop the Israeli offensive.  But that doesn't mean we won't stop trying."  Everyone get that?  If Spain had the capabilities, they would take up arms against the one Western style democracy in the Middle East in order to protect and defend the world's leading state sponsor of terror.  Would Spain also nuke Israel if they had nukes?  Maybe.  

And what does Sanchez mean by the Israeli "offensive?"  Israel fought back against the Hamas offensive of October 7, 2023.  But how dare they?  Isn't Israel committing genocide?  Honestly, I am so sick of hearing the word "genocide" tossed around so easily.  I believe I previously discussed all the things that the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) does to protect civilians.  I believe I previously discussed the tons of humanitarian aid (food and medical supplies) that Israel has allowed to enter Gaza during the current war.  When Israel vacated Gaza in 2005, the Gazan population was estimated at 1.35 to 1.4 million people.  In 2025, the estimate is 2,050,000 people.  That appears to be a reverse genocide.  Perhaps the Spanish P.M. is pining for the good old days of the Spanish Inquisition.    

Here is more from Spain's P.M.:  "China can do more...For example, by demanding as it is doing, that international law be respected and that the conflicts in Lebanon, Iran, Gaza and the West Bank and Ukraine cease."  China can do more?  China, which constantly does its best to undermine the West, and which does not adhere to the Western values of liberty and democracy and free speech.  That is who Spain looks to to lead the world.  And, clearly, Spain has no sense of fighting for Western values - values shared by Israel.  Those values are not shared by Iran, which has murdered tens of thousands of its own citizens because they were protesting for those Western values of freedom and liberty.  By all means, side with Iran.

Over A Month Into The Iran War - Part II

The Op-Ed writer discussed in Part I, Anatol Lieven, mentioned the "illegality" of this war.  Many on the Left have discussed it.  Unfortunately, in my 3/3/26 post ("Operation Epic Fury - Part I") I neglected to discuss this issue of "declare" war in sufficient detail.  The Constitution does indeed give the Congress the power to declare war.  But why use that word "declare?"  As it turns out, the original draft of the Constitution gave Congress the power to "make" war.  What a difference.

Imagine letting Congress sit around and debate making war.  Hundreds of people having to decide.  And what if Congress is in recess?  Wait for them all to return to DC?  After much debate, including whether the Senate or the House separately should have the power, it was decided that the President would be best suited to make war.  This was especially so in terms of the need to "repel sudden attacks."  But, did we really want to wait for Iran to have nuclear weapons, with the ability to kill millions of Americans, before doing what each of the last Presidents since 1993 said was necessary - not letting Iran get nukes.  All the prior presidents felt they could put off facing the problem.  Trump realized he could not.  The time had come.

Personally, I never thought that an air campaign alone was capable of ousting the Iranian regime.  Whether the President wants to commit ground troops is something only he knows.  And now he has threatened to end the Iranian civilization.  Hopefully, this is just more of Trump's bluster and intimidation tactics.  We certainly do not want to annihilate the Persian civilization.  

Iran succeeded in downing two American aircraft.  But given the number of successful missions, that means that Iran was successful far less than 1% of the time.  And what a tremendous success we had in rescuing those downed airmen.  An operation conducted by our military, special forces and CIA.  I'd like to think that every American celebrated that success.  Sadly, I can't say if the mainstream media is happy, or disappointed that they didn't have a failure that they could pin on Trump.

Recently, I had a conversation with a friend about whether or not we could reasonably expect an "unconditional surrender" by Iran.  I felt that was highly unlikely.  Japan did not surrender after the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, even though over 70,000 people were killed instantly or shortly thereafter.  In Iran, we have religious fanatics.  And we know that the mullahs did not hesitate to kill up to 50,000 of their own people because they were out protesting.  

Our NATO allies?  According to US News and World Report, France would not allow US warplanes that were involved in striking Iran, to use its bases.  Spain said the US could not use its airspace for US planes involved in attacking Iran.  Italy, also, has denied the use of its bases to some of our aircraft.  And the UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer?  "This is not our war?"  I am curious as to why the Europeans had to be pushed to increase aid to Ukraine in their war against Russia.  Ukraine, as they say, is right in their backyard.  And Iran?  Much closer to Europe than to us.  I know.  Trump does not always play nicely with our allies.  But, as even the NY Times acknowledged - Iran, especially a nuclear armed Iran - is a threat to the entire world.

I want to end with a quote from something I wrote on September 26, 2009, and posted on November 26, 2009.  It was simply titled "Iranian nukes."  After pointing out that the Europeans (and the US behind the scenes) had as of that date already been negotiating with the Iranians about their nuclear program for six years, I said this:  "The entire time Iran has vacillated between talking like they were interested in some deal, and then not talking and refusing to deal.  In other words, they were playing the West for fools while building up their nuclear facilities the whole time."  And that, my dear readers, is why we are at the point where we are today.

Over A Month Into The Iran War - Part I

Recall that in my March 30 post I said that I would address the assertion by Robin Abcarian that this is "Trump's poorly thought-out war on Iran."  On March 22, 2026, the New York Times had an editorial focusing on what they said was Trump's lies about the war.  This is serious stuff.  War is serious stuff.  But the mainstream media sees it only as yet another way to attack President Trump.  I would say "shame on them," but they have long since lost any sense of shame.  

Here is something out of the NY Times editorial:  "There is a reasonable debate to have about the wisdom of this war.  Iran's murderous government does indeed present a threat - to its own people, to its region and to global stability.  Mr. Trump could make a fact-based argument for confronting the regime now, especially to prevent it from menacing its neighbors and, above all, from developing a nuclear weapon.  We are skeptical, but we acknowledge that there is a case to be made."

You see that?  After laying out the many reasons for this war on Iran, the NY Times says they are "skeptical."  I guess the Times prefers to let Iran continue to be a threat to its own people and to the region and even to global stability.  I guess the Times prefers to let Iran get nukes.  Do these people suffer from any cognitive dissonance?  My guess is they do not.  Because their Trump Derangement Syndrome is so severe, that they actually believe that anything Trump does must be bad - even if they agree with it.  Because Trump = bad.  

On April 1, Trump gave his address to the nation about the war.  Something I said he should have done as soon as the fighting started.  But better late than never.  Then Trump set forth his rationale for this war.  "From the very first day I announced my campaign for president in 2015, I vowed that I would never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.  This fanatical regime has been chanting 'Death to America, Death to Israel' for 47 years."  Then Trump recounted some of the many ways Iran has attacked and killed Americans.  Trump:  "For these terrorists to have nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat."  Amen to that.  And every President from Bill Clinton forward has agreed.  And, until Trump, they preferred to let their successor's deal with the problem. 

Trump:  "As I stated in my announcement of Operation Epic Fury, our objectives are very simple and clear, we are systematically dismantling the regime's ability to threaten America or project power outside of their borders."  Trump discussed all the targets that have been hit, resulting in a weakened Iran.  He thanked our allies in the Middle East - Israel,Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain.  And, perhaps his best line:  "This is a true investment in your children and your grandchildren's future."  

As Barton Swain wrote in an Op-Ed in the 4/1/26 Wall Street Journal:  "If all you know about the war in Iran is what you read in the American and European press, you might conclude that the U.S. has never prosecuted a war so ineptly as this one.  In fact, nearly the opposite is true."  So far, the US and Israel have hit at least 13,000 targets in Iran.  

But here is an excellent example from the mainstream media about Trump and this war.  In the April 5, 2026 Los Angeles Times, was an Op-Ed by Anatol Lieven:  "America has betrayed its global mission."  His premise is that the Royal Navy ruled the seas for many years, and understood their job was to protect international trade, and specifically the flow of oil, and more specifically through the Strait of Hormuz.  When the US took over the role of protecting the seas after WWII, all was well until President Trump came along.

In case you had any doubts, here is Lieven's assessment:  "Apart from the obvious illegality of launching this war, the Trump administration's decision also displayed profound recklessness, incompetence, irresponsibiity and lack of foresight."  I think Lieven left out a few pejoratives.  Not a single positive word about the exceptional way this war has been conducted, nor about the stated goals of the war.  Instead, we have this lie:  "There was no imminent or even feasible threat from Iran to the United States."  (For a further discussion on the threats from Iran see my 3/4/26 post - "Operation Epic Fury - Part III (My Take).)

Here's a good one by Lieven:  "Beijing has so far been careful not to arm Iran, and not to stir up regional conflicts or to exploit America's difficulties in the region."  Not one word about how China has assisted Iran.  "China has provided Tehran with selective military and dual-use technologies - including air defense systems, drones, and surveillance assistance - while avoiding formal security guarantees."  (From the Middle East Institute.)  No surprise that if someone dislikes Trump, then it is probable that they will  dislike Israel (Lieven does), and not say anything bad about America's adversaries, such as China.

 

Just Another Antisemite

(Note.  I had planned on this post being about the war with Iran.  But this one is intervening, because a conservative friend sent me an Instagram post of a guy (I'm reluctant to give his name as I don't want to participate in giving him more hits) who put up a video of Israelis - kids and adults - spitting on and hitting a woman that the guy describes as a Christian.  The discussion follows.)

Needless to say the video was disturbing.  What this Instagram poster does not tell his viewers is that these perpetrators were condemned by Israeli officials and Rabbis.  I know that my Rabbis at Chabad would also condemn the behavior seen on the video.  As would every Jew that I know.  Instead, this antisemite concludes that "Jews are just as filthy and grimy as camel humpers."  

He then says that Jews don't even believe in Jesus.  No, we don't.  And he repeats what some Christians believe - that those who do not believe in Jesus will not get into heaven.  As an outsider to Christianity, that sounds an awful lot like Islamists who insist that you must believe in Allah or else.  Jews do not demand that others believe as we do.  Then, he goes for what he thinks is the jugular - Jews think we are better than other people because we think we are the chosen people.   

Here is my rebuttal.. Let's start with the video.  As I said, it is disturbing.  I would ask this poster if any Christians ever misbehave.  If they ever commit crimes, including rape and murder.  Obviously they do.  Following this guy's reasoning, should we then conclude that all Christians are "filthy and grimy?"  The only way to reach such a conclusion is that either you are a child lacking in the ability to reason, or an antisemite looking for any reason to condemn all the Jewish people.  He is not a child, so...that leaves antisemite.  I've said it many times before - whether antisemitism comes from the Right, the Left or Radical Islam, it's all bad.  In this instance, it comes from the Right.    

As for comparing Jews to Arabs (whom he calls camel humpers), let's take a quick look.  Because he uses the video as evidence that Jews mistreat Christians.  Over the last 50 years, where have Christians thrived in the Middle East?  Iraq?  An estimated 1 million to 1.4 million in the 1980's is now down to 150,000 to 300,000.  No doubt war was a factor.  But ISIS was also, destroying Christian holy sites and murdering Christians.  No surprise that Christians fled.

How about Syria?  Again, a decrease in population from about 1.5 million Christians in the 1970's to 300,000 to 500,000 today.  Why?  With the all the fighting, civil war and the increasing influence of Islamists, Christians fled when they were able.

Lebanon?  Had been a majority Christian country.  Again, a civil war.  Again, Islamists (Hezbollah) taking control of the country.  Again, Christians had to flee.  Now, Christians may make up a third of the population.  How about Nigeria?  While not an Arab country, it has seen the growth of radical Islamists, such as Boko Haram.  And one estimate has over 50,000 Christians being murdered between 2009 and 2023.  

What about Israel?  Given how badly Jews treat Christians according to this Instagram poster (I really do not want to call him an influencer), how much has the Christian population of Israel decreased over the last 50 years?  In the 1970's there were approximately 75,000 Christians in Israel.  As of 2023 there were approximately 185,000 Christians in Israel.  Wait...what?  The Christian population of Israel actually grew by nearly 150%.  How is that possible if Israelis so mistreat Christians?  The answer is Christians are free to practice their religion in Israel.  But this poster took a few bad apples to support his obvious antisemitism.

Let's talk about the "chosen people."  In the Torah (also accepted by Christians) G-d tells Abram (later known as Abraham) to "go to a land that I will show you."  He directs Abram to the land of Canaan (which ends up being the land of Israel).  G-d makes a covenant with Abram and his descendants - the people who will become the Jewish people.  And G-d tells Abram "I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse, and all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you."  This poster who claims to be a Christian does not seem to know that Christians accept that G-d made a covenant with the Jewish people.

But what does it mean to be "chosen?"  No, it does not mean that Jews are better than others.  We are all G-d's children.  Jews were actually chosen to fulfill G-d's mission here on earth - to be a "light unto the nations."  To bring monotheism into a world that celebrated pagan gods.  And Jews did.  Jews were to bring justice and righteousness into the world.  And we did.  Just think of all of our laws that are based upon the teachings of the Torah, and other Jewish texts such as the Talmud.  Does this mean Jews are perfect?  Obviously not, as perfection does not exist on earth.  

But Jews understand that we were given a burden by G-d - to fulfill his commandments.  And, I'd say the Jewish people have done a pretty good job.  Not perfect, but pretty good.     

(Final note.  There is no room in this post, without it going on forever, to discuss the many ways that Israel has been one of the most, if not the most, stalwart ally of the United States.  Nor is there room to discuss the numerous scientific, medical and technological advances the Jewish people have made to the world.  Just one example - Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin - two men responsible for eradicating polio.  So, this antisemite discussed above can go...you know.)   

"Republicans see hate as a strategy," so says the LA Times

Technically, it was not a Times editorial.  Rather, it was an Op-Ed by Robin Abcarian in the Sunday, March 22, 2026 edition.  But I am familiar enough with the Times to know that their Op-Ed writers are overwhelmingly leftwing.  If the Times felt differently, there would be far more balance in their news articles and Op-Eds.  So, as far as I am concerned, the Times is speaking through these leftwing Op-Ed writers.

Abcarian:  "Who can white people blame now for their woes?  Hey, I know!  How about Muslims?  The election of New York City's first Muslim mayor, a democratic socialist, along with Trump's poorly thought-out war on Iran, has given the bigots in his party a new bogeyman..."  There is so much to discuss in that one paragraph.  But, before I get there, here is Abcarian's proof of her thesis.

Senator Tommy Tuberville:  "The enemy is inside the gates."  Representative Andy Ogles:  "Muslims don't belong in American society."  Representative Randy Fine:  "We need more Islamophobia, not less.  Fear of Islm is rational."  And a Georgia state senator:  "Keep Georgia sharia free."  

So much to discuss (unpack in today's vernacular) in those two short paragraphs.  "White people?"  That sounds racist.  Are all white people the same?  Do all white people feel a need to blame someone?  For what?  Yes, Mamdani was the first Muslim elected to be mayor of NYC.  So what?  Conservatives do not believe in identity politics.  We believe in good values, in American values not socialism, and oppose antisemitism.  As for the quotes from elected officials?  I will assume for this discussion that she is accurately quoting them, and not taking them out of context.  I would make one modification:  "radical Muslims," and therefore "radical Islam."  (The discussion regarding "Trump's poorly thought-out war on Iran" will be covered in the next post, in connection with an editorial in the 3/22/2026 NY Times.)

So let's talk about Mamdani.  I've said much of this in prior posts, but it bears repeating as the assertion by Abcarian is that Republicans hate Mamdani because he is a Muslim.  Speaking for myself, I hate him because I believe he is an antisemite.  (I've said the same about Tucker Carlson, who, as far as I know is a Christian and not a Muslim.)  I also believe he hates America.  Mamdani refused to condemn the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on 10/7/23.  (He may have done so much later for political purposes.)  Men, women and children brutally raped and murdered.  Americans in Israel murdered and kidnapped.  The worst massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust, and Mamdani could not bring himself to issue an immediate condemnation.

What else has Mamdani done?  He refused to condemn the genocidal phrase "globalize the intifada," yet ironically accused Israel of genocide.  Clearly genocide by his fellow Muslims against Jews does not concern him.  He reversed orders of Mayor Adams that: prevented city agencies from supporting BDS (the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement against Israel); used the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitsm; and Mamdani removed extra security around synagogues in NYC.  Then, we have his willingness to order the NYPD to arrest Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu if he enters NYC.  How about arresting Putin for starting two wars against Ukraine, and targeting so many civilians?

Mamdani's wife is an equally detestable person.  After 10/7, she "liked" various posts.  One approved of "resisting apartheid since 1948."  After 2000 years, Israel again became a country in 1948.  What apartheid in 1948?  Israel was immediately attacked by the Arab world in an effort to eliminate the brand new country and kill all the Jews.  She approved of the false allegations that Hamas terrorists did not rape and sexually mutilate Israelis, calling it a "hoax."  She also approved of posts saying that "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free."  From the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea is what that phrase means.  It also means there would be no more Israel.  And, to clarify, there was never an actual country called Palestine. 

But, Abcarian did not see fit to mention even one of the antisemitic, and anti-American, words and actions by the Mayor and his wife.  Because isn't it so much easier to just accuse white Republicans of being bigots.  I'll say it:  Sharia law has no place in American society.  Unless you believe in the subjugation of women and lack of religious freedom.  Fear of radical Islam is rational.  The FBI just announced that the recent attack on the largest synagogue in Michigan was, in fact, a terrorist attack inspired by the radical Islamist group Hezbollah.  Just one of many recent attacks on Americans by radical Islamists.  So that fear is quite rational.  

And what does Abcarian's article say about the Los Angeles Times?  What does it say about a newspaper that sees no problem in allowing an Op-Ed to be published when that article has such glaring omissions of such salient facts?  I think it is just another example of why the mainstream media is so untrustworthy.  And why Trump rightfully calls them the "fake news media."

A Few Observations (The Democrats and National Security) - Part II

In Part I, I reviewed the Democrats' lack of interest in border security, and their refusal to fund the Department of Homeland Security, when the threats to our homeland seem to be as great as ever.  What else can we say about today's Democrats?  

Now, this may be hard to believe, but Senate Democrats brought a measure to the floor that would have brought a halt to Operation Epic Fury without Trump getting Congressional approval.  The vote was mostly along party lines, 47 in favor and 53 opposed.  Republican Rand Paul voted in favor along with the Democrats.  But Democrat John Fetterman voted with the Republicans. 

The House had a vote on a similar resolution, which would have brought Operation Epic Fury to a halt.  This measure failed also, with 212 in favor and 219 opposed, with the vote being mostly along party lines.  Two Republicans voted with the Democrats - Thomas Massie and Warrn Davidson.  Four Democrats voted with the Republicans - Henry Cuellar, Jared Golden, Greg Landsman and Juan Vargas.

I can only imagine what these Democrats would have proposed during WWII.  We are in the middle of battling a mortal enemy of the United States, one that constantly yells "Death to America." One that was ever so close to having nuclear weapons.  One that has killed, directly or indirectly through their proxies over 1000 Americans.  And these Democrats want to stop the war in the middle?  While we are winning?  While we are at the very least setting Iran back years in their capacity to wage terrorism and threaten the United States with nuclear weapons.  

I want to take a minute to discuss the resignation of Joe Kent, a semior Trump Administration official, who worked as the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center.  In resigning today, Kent gave this explanation:  "Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby."  Okay, so Kent does not care for Israel.  He has also been accused of associating with white nationalists and even a Nazi sympathizer.  Of course, the mainstream media could not wait to jump on this story, because anything and anyone who opposes Trump in any way becomes a darling of the media.

Prominent attorney David Boies has been a lifelong Democrat.  He was the attorney who represented Al Gore before the Supreme Court in the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore.  Boies is 85 years old now, and likely grew up in an era when Democrats were mostly classical liberals.  In any event, Boies recently penned an Op-Ed in the 3/12/26 edition of the Wall Street Journal.  In explaining his support for Trump attacking Iran, Boies wrote:  "Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that Iran couldn't be permitted to develop nuclear weapons.  Not one acted to prevent it. 

Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran's role in terrorism against American citizens, interests and allies.  Not one acted to stop it.  Instead, each president left his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to address."  Boies also discusses two groups who automatically oppose this war.  One, of course, consists of the people who hate Trump.  Anything that Trump says or does they automatically oppose.  That group is joined by the isolationist Republicans.

Boies notes that there is another group that opposes this war - the Israel haters and Jew haters.  They automatically blame Israel for any US involvement in the Middle East.  It does appear that Joe Kent may be in this latter group.    

The way I see it?  Trump may go down as one of the most consequential presidents in US history.  He is remaking the world order.  Following WWII, the US was instrumental in shaping the world order.  Now, even our NATO allies refuse to assist in this war against the leading state sponsor of terrorism.  But look at what Trump has done.  We have the Abraham Accords, a giant step to bringing peace between Israel and the Arab world.  A giant step in stabilizing the Middle East.  

But Hamas, backed by Iran, tried to interfere with that success when they launched their October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.  The timing was clear.  It appeared that Trump might have gotten the most important Arab country to join the Accords - Saudi Arabia.  But the Hamas terrorists, supported by Iran, launched their attack in order to derail any further success of the Accords. 

Now, Trump is trying to eliminate, or at least significantly degrade, the ability of Iran to continue their support for worldwide terrorism.  Trump sees the significance of the waterways around Greenland.  I disagreed with his threats against Greenland and Denmark.  But he is right in understanding Greenland's importance.  Maduro is gone from Venezuela, hopefully bringing freedom to the people.  Just as he wants to bring freedom to the people of Iran.  And China and Russia?  Both weakened - by the lack of oil for China, and lack of weaponry for Russia.  Iran had been supplying drones to Russia in their war against Ukraine.

I have heard since I was a kid that America is not, and should not, be the policeman of the world.  I understand that sentiment.  And I wish that it was not necessary.  But the Europeans (at least the western European countries) continue to prove that they are worthless allies in the battle against evil terrorism and dictatorships.  So I always come back to this question:  if America does not take the lead, who will?  China would be happy to.  Russia?  Iran?  North Korea?  How is any of that good for American security?  Please do not suggest the UN.  Can anyone tell me the answer?  If you tell me diplomacy is the answer, I will ask how.  Diplomacy has been tried with Iran since about 2003.  It clearly has not worked.  Has diplomacy stopped Russia from their war on Ukraine?  No.  The Palestinians feigned an interest in diplomacy - yet refused multiple offers to have a state of their own.  Sometimes diplomacy simply does not work.  I suppose one answer is to let Iran get nukes and ICBMs, and pray they leave us alone.  Is that a tenable national security policy?