Syria. The USA has only 2000 troops in Syria. However, claiming that ISIS in Syria has been defeated, and vowing to keep another campaign promise, President Trump ordered the removal of those troops. Respectfully, President Trump, that is a bonehead decision. I agree that the troops should not remain for the purpose of "nation building," and 2000 troops is insufficient for that purpose in any event. Trump: "Why are we fighting for our enemy, Syria, by staying and killing ISIS for them, Russia, Iran and other locals?"
In tendering his resignation, Defense Secretary Mattis thanked Trump for being able to serve, and praised what they were able to accomplish - such as an increased defense budget, and improved readiness of our troops. Then Mattis opined: "...I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model - gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions - to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense."
Iran will now benefit by having a clear path from Iran to the Mediterranean - through Iraq to Syria and Lebanon/Hezbollah. Our Sunni Arab allies and Israel cannot be happy over this decision, as Iran is a threat to all of them. Russia has sought influence and control over events in the Middle East ever since they were part of the Soviet Union. Neither Trump nor Obama nor Bush (W) understood the threat of Russia. Romney did, but Obama mocked him about it and the mainstream media joined in. Russia already has a base in Syria. Does anyone doubt Russia's desire to stir up trouble everywhere? Think Crimea and Ukraine. Meanwhile, it is a total abandonment of the Kurds, who have been regular allies of the US. Those troops in Syria acted as a deterrent to Turkey, whose Islamist leader would like to declare war on the Kurdish people.
So what will the outcome be? Will Turkey, a NATO member, attack our allies, the Kurds? Will war break out between Iran and their Hezbollah proxies against Israel? Hezbollah is said to have more missiles (all aimed at Israel) than most countries in the world. Will Russia use its increasing presence and influence in the Middle East to "gain veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions," as suggested by Mattis? Will ISIS regroup? That small number of US troops sent a clear message that the US had an interest in keeping stability in the Middle East, and preventing bad actors such as Iran and Russia from dominating a large swath of the world. America first should not mean America isolated.
Pittsburgh. Following the horrific massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Jewish journalist Julia Ioffe said this: "A word to my fellow American Jews: This president makes this possible. Here. Where you live. I hope the embassy move over there, where you don't live was worth it." Wow! Let's deconstruct that. The massacre in Pittsburgh was a result of American Jews helping to elect Trump, and supporting the move of the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel's capital city. I mistakenly thought the massacre was carried out by an evil, Jew-hating, may he rot in hell, individual. Why can't American Jews just be proud of Israel, be proud that like every other country in the world, Israel is finally allowed to have recognition of the city that the Israelis have deemed their capital. Jerusalem. Would Ms. Ioffe deny any other country in the world the right to name their capital city?
Chuck Schumer. Okay, most of us would agree that politicians often speak out of both sides of their mouth. When in power, they say one thing. When out of power, they often say the opposite. But it is funny when a politician speaks out of both sides of his mouth in the same sentence. Recall that President Trump accused the Courts of making politically motivated decisions. That, in turn, prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a statement defending the independence of the judiciary. Which, in turn, prompted the Senate Minority Leader to defend Roberts' comments, while declaring: "I don't agree very often with Chief Justice Roberts, especially his partisan decisions which seem highly political, (such as) Citizens United, Janus and Shelby..." Partisan decisions? Which seem highly political? Hmmm.
Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays? An NPR/PBS/Marist poll found that 56% of adults think people should wish others a "Merry Christmas," with 31% preferring "Happy Holidays," and 11% not caring one way or the other. But only 38% of the 18-29 age group preferred "Merry Christmas." The biggest difference was between Democrats, preferring "Happy Holidays" by 47% with only 42% preferring "Merry Christmas," and an overwhelming number of Republicans, 80%, preferring "Merry Christmas," with only 13% preferring "Happy Holidays." So, Merry Christmas!
Monday, December 24, 2018
Thursday, December 20, 2018
Year End Reflections, Part I
Identity Politics. A Katrina Trinko had a piece in the 12/19/18 USA Today. Citing Yale and Princeton researchers, she wrote "researchers found that it's conservatives, not liberals, who treat everyone the same." Then, quoting Yale Insights, this: "Liberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white. No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner." I could have told the author that. Liberals tend to believe minorities cannot achieve on their own without government assistance.
Moving? If so, you may be interested in knowing what states people are moving to. According to the 12/19/18 USA Today, Texas gained the most people in 2017 - 379,128. Florida was next with 322,128. Rounding out the top five are California with 157,696 people, Arizona with 122,720, and North Carolina with 112,820. Three more Western states were in the next five: number 6 Washington with 110,159 people, number 8 Colorado with 79,662, and number 10 Nevada with 61,987. Texas and Florida, two states that remain conservative, have by large margins gained the most people.
Civil Forfeiture. The 11/30/18 Wall Street Journal editorial discussed a recently heard case at the Supreme Court, Timbs vs. Indiana. While the facts in the case are not very favorable to Timbs, the issue of when the government may seize someone's property is extremely important. The issue is when do takings under civil forfeiture constitute excessive fines and therefore violate the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. The problem is that state and local governments have increasingly turned to civil forfeiture as a means of raising revenue. During oral argument, The Journal tells us that "Justice Stephen Breyer asked Indiana's solicitor general whether someone caught driving five miles an hour above the speed limit could be forced to forfeit his Bugatti, Mercedes or Ferrari."
Socialism. Oh, you wanted to know what the solicitor general of Indiana answered Justice Breyer. Did you have any doubt? Yes, he said, the government could take your very expensive car because you slightly exceeded the speed limit. Government, big government, has an unending appetite for revenue - aka your money. California is thinking of taxing text messages. Back to socialism. A letter to the editor in the 12/4/18 Ventura County Star was written by a young voter. "We want a living wage, health care, clean air and water, and an education without being punished for doing so. If you do not support these things, then us young people will not vote for you." We want? I never thought that way, as I was not taught that way. I'm guessing many young people never heard of "rugged individualism."
The President's tax returns. In a letter to the editor in the 12/14/18 USA Today, we are told that "Congress should enact a law requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns before they can run for office...we deserve full and complete transparency before we decide on a candidate." I am curious as to what a candidate's tax returns tells me about their likely policies. Furthermore, Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution sets forth who is eligible to hold the office of president. It would likely require a Constitutional amendment to add the further requirement of disclosing tax returns. After all, an Amendment (the 22nd) was needed to limit a President to terms.
George H. W. Bush. The former President (41) died on 11/30/18 at the age of 94. The 12/2/18 LA Times had this headline: "A patriot and servant." The 12/2/18 New York Times headline was "A Genial Force in American Politics." In a special section that day, The New York Times led with "A Genial President Who Guided the Nation to the End of the Cold War." The 12/6/18 USA Today had this headline: "A Great, Noble Man." I recall similarly flattering things being said upon the death of John McCain. I get that it is considered declasse to speak poorly of the dead. However, I just get the feeling that the only Republicans the mainstream media respects are dead ones.
Moving? If so, you may be interested in knowing what states people are moving to. According to the 12/19/18 USA Today, Texas gained the most people in 2017 - 379,128. Florida was next with 322,128. Rounding out the top five are California with 157,696 people, Arizona with 122,720, and North Carolina with 112,820. Three more Western states were in the next five: number 6 Washington with 110,159 people, number 8 Colorado with 79,662, and number 10 Nevada with 61,987. Texas and Florida, two states that remain conservative, have by large margins gained the most people.
Civil Forfeiture. The 11/30/18 Wall Street Journal editorial discussed a recently heard case at the Supreme Court, Timbs vs. Indiana. While the facts in the case are not very favorable to Timbs, the issue of when the government may seize someone's property is extremely important. The issue is when do takings under civil forfeiture constitute excessive fines and therefore violate the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. The problem is that state and local governments have increasingly turned to civil forfeiture as a means of raising revenue. During oral argument, The Journal tells us that "Justice Stephen Breyer asked Indiana's solicitor general whether someone caught driving five miles an hour above the speed limit could be forced to forfeit his Bugatti, Mercedes or Ferrari."
Socialism. Oh, you wanted to know what the solicitor general of Indiana answered Justice Breyer. Did you have any doubt? Yes, he said, the government could take your very expensive car because you slightly exceeded the speed limit. Government, big government, has an unending appetite for revenue - aka your money. California is thinking of taxing text messages. Back to socialism. A letter to the editor in the 12/4/18 Ventura County Star was written by a young voter. "We want a living wage, health care, clean air and water, and an education without being punished for doing so. If you do not support these things, then us young people will not vote for you." We want? I never thought that way, as I was not taught that way. I'm guessing many young people never heard of "rugged individualism."
The President's tax returns. In a letter to the editor in the 12/14/18 USA Today, we are told that "Congress should enact a law requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns before they can run for office...we deserve full and complete transparency before we decide on a candidate." I am curious as to what a candidate's tax returns tells me about their likely policies. Furthermore, Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution sets forth who is eligible to hold the office of president. It would likely require a Constitutional amendment to add the further requirement of disclosing tax returns. After all, an Amendment (the 22nd) was needed to limit a President to terms.
George H. W. Bush. The former President (41) died on 11/30/18 at the age of 94. The 12/2/18 LA Times had this headline: "A patriot and servant." The 12/2/18 New York Times headline was "A Genial Force in American Politics." In a special section that day, The New York Times led with "A Genial President Who Guided the Nation to the End of the Cold War." The 12/6/18 USA Today had this headline: "A Great, Noble Man." I recall similarly flattering things being said upon the death of John McCain. I get that it is considered declasse to speak poorly of the dead. However, I just get the feeling that the only Republicans the mainstream media respects are dead ones.
Monday, December 17, 2018
Mueller vs. Flynn
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was President Trump's incoming National Security Adviser. As such, it would not be improper for him to be speaking to foreign officials. On January 24, 2017, former FBI Director James Comey sent two agents into the White House of the four day old Trump Administration to interview General Flynn. Comey told the MSNBC audience how proud of himself he was, because sending in agents to the White House is "something I probably wouldn't have done or wouldn't have gotten away with in a more organized administration." You see, the agents knew Flynn had spoken with the Russian ambassador. Whether the FBI or NSA picked up Flynn's conversations, the name of a US citizen should not be "unmasked" without some good national security concern. The Obama Administration was not concerned with that.
A few comments on the above. Four days into the Trump Administration Comey was already after Trump. His own comments reflect that he knew he was "getting away" with something. Even if not illegal, he knew it was clearly improper. But Comey has demonstrated his propensity for improper behavior previously. After all, instead of reporting the FBI's findings on the Hillary Clinton investigation to Attorney General Lynch, who had the responsibility of deciding whether or not to prosecute, Comey, not the prosecutor, took it upon himself to close down the investigation and decide there would be no prosecution. Then there was Comey's leak of his written memos of conversations with Trump to friend and Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, in order to get the information leaked to the press and get a special counsel appointed. It was hardly a surprise that Comey's colleague and good friend, Robert Mueller, was appointed the special counsel.
The memos in question had to do with Trump asking if Comey could "let this go" with regards to Flynn. When Flynn met with those FBI agents he either forgot (questionable) or lied about speaking with the Russian ambassador. Which means, if he lied, he lied about something that was not illegal. When Comey testified before the Senate he was asked why he didn't just tell Trump that it was improper to ask the FBI Director to let it go. Comey: "If I were stronger, I would have. I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took it in...maybe other people would be stronger in that circumstance." Trump was neither a lawyer nor a politician. Just how difficult would it have been to explain the impropriety to a new President? (Then again, Comey's boss A.G. Lynch, was not strong enough to tell Bill Clinton it was improper for him to be speaking with her in private on the tarmac in Phoenix, while she was investigating his wife.) Or, maybe Comey has repeatedly demonstrated his desire to "get" the President, rather than help a non-politician new President understand the process.
Flynn talking to the Russian Ambassador was not illegal. Lying to the FBI is illegal. The issue with Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador is that Flynn was not yet the National Security Adviser. The conversation occurred during the transition period when Obama was still in office. The Logan Act of 1799 (date not a typo) makes it criminal to have unauthorized negotiations with foreign governments. A total of two (2) people have been indicted for a violation of the Act - in 1802 and 1852. Neither was convicted. More recently, John Kerry as a former Secretary of State, took it upon himself to speak with foreign leaders in order to try to save the Iran nuclear deal. There was Kerry, then a private citizen, undermining the official policy of the United States of America. He could have/should have been prosecuted. But he was not. No, that was reserved for Flynn, a Trump associate. Hillary Clinton could have/should have been prosecuted. But she was not. Nor has Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe or James Comey.
As for Flynn, the Wall Street Journal reported that "Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to avoid bankruptcy and spare his son from becoming a legal target." Frankly, I am sickened by the entire Mueller investigation. But let me be clear. I opposed the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings. He had two years left in his term. He was elected to that office. I objected to Trump saying "lock her up" with regards to Hilary Clinton. Impeachment should be rarely used. Prosecution of high government officials should also be rare. So, what are you saying, Mike? That government officials are more important than the rest of us? That they are above the law? No. I am saying that I do not want to see this great country degenerate into a third world style government - where people on the outs are either imprisoned, exiled or worse. The political divide between the two parties is as bad as any of us can recall. The Democrats and the Left have wanted Trump out of office since Trump was inaugurated. So, the next time a Democrat gets elected to the office of president with a Republican Congress, that person gets impeached? Or indicted?
I'm kind of old fashioned. I prefer that people who win presidential elections (absent death or resignation) be able to serve out their full term. Or, maybe we can go with coup d'etats - if not violent ones, then through special counsel. Because that is exactly what is happening now.
A few comments on the above. Four days into the Trump Administration Comey was already after Trump. His own comments reflect that he knew he was "getting away" with something. Even if not illegal, he knew it was clearly improper. But Comey has demonstrated his propensity for improper behavior previously. After all, instead of reporting the FBI's findings on the Hillary Clinton investigation to Attorney General Lynch, who had the responsibility of deciding whether or not to prosecute, Comey, not the prosecutor, took it upon himself to close down the investigation and decide there would be no prosecution. Then there was Comey's leak of his written memos of conversations with Trump to friend and Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, in order to get the information leaked to the press and get a special counsel appointed. It was hardly a surprise that Comey's colleague and good friend, Robert Mueller, was appointed the special counsel.
The memos in question had to do with Trump asking if Comey could "let this go" with regards to Flynn. When Flynn met with those FBI agents he either forgot (questionable) or lied about speaking with the Russian ambassador. Which means, if he lied, he lied about something that was not illegal. When Comey testified before the Senate he was asked why he didn't just tell Trump that it was improper to ask the FBI Director to let it go. Comey: "If I were stronger, I would have. I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took it in...maybe other people would be stronger in that circumstance." Trump was neither a lawyer nor a politician. Just how difficult would it have been to explain the impropriety to a new President? (Then again, Comey's boss A.G. Lynch, was not strong enough to tell Bill Clinton it was improper for him to be speaking with her in private on the tarmac in Phoenix, while she was investigating his wife.) Or, maybe Comey has repeatedly demonstrated his desire to "get" the President, rather than help a non-politician new President understand the process.
Flynn talking to the Russian Ambassador was not illegal. Lying to the FBI is illegal. The issue with Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador is that Flynn was not yet the National Security Adviser. The conversation occurred during the transition period when Obama was still in office. The Logan Act of 1799 (date not a typo) makes it criminal to have unauthorized negotiations with foreign governments. A total of two (2) people have been indicted for a violation of the Act - in 1802 and 1852. Neither was convicted. More recently, John Kerry as a former Secretary of State, took it upon himself to speak with foreign leaders in order to try to save the Iran nuclear deal. There was Kerry, then a private citizen, undermining the official policy of the United States of America. He could have/should have been prosecuted. But he was not. No, that was reserved for Flynn, a Trump associate. Hillary Clinton could have/should have been prosecuted. But she was not. Nor has Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe or James Comey.
As for Flynn, the Wall Street Journal reported that "Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to avoid bankruptcy and spare his son from becoming a legal target." Frankly, I am sickened by the entire Mueller investigation. But let me be clear. I opposed the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings. He had two years left in his term. He was elected to that office. I objected to Trump saying "lock her up" with regards to Hilary Clinton. Impeachment should be rarely used. Prosecution of high government officials should also be rare. So, what are you saying, Mike? That government officials are more important than the rest of us? That they are above the law? No. I am saying that I do not want to see this great country degenerate into a third world style government - where people on the outs are either imprisoned, exiled or worse. The political divide between the two parties is as bad as any of us can recall. The Democrats and the Left have wanted Trump out of office since Trump was inaugurated. So, the next time a Democrat gets elected to the office of president with a Republican Congress, that person gets impeached? Or indicted?
I'm kind of old fashioned. I prefer that people who win presidential elections (absent death or resignation) be able to serve out their full term. Or, maybe we can go with coup d'etats - if not violent ones, then through special counsel. Because that is exactly what is happening now.
Monday, December 10, 2018
The Immoral Hypocrisy of the Left
The December 8, 2018 Los Angeles Times reported that the faculty of Pitzer College voted to suspend a study abroad program at the University of Haifa in Israel. Pitzer is a small liberal arts college in Southern California, and is highly regarded academically. The motion to suspend the study abroad in Israel program was brought by Professor Daniel Segal, who is Jewish. Segal claims he brought the motion to counter Israel's restriction on academic exchanges, with the Times citing a 2017 law which the paper says "bar(s) entry (to Israel) to those who support boycotts, divestment or sanctions against the Jewish state." Segal was also disturbed by restrictions to Israel based on "ancestry..." Jews do have a right of return, with some exceptions. Why just Jews? From a religious viewpoint, the land of Israel was promised to the Jews by G-d. From a historical viewpoint, no other people have been as persecuted throughout history as much as the Jews. From a legal viewpoint, the UN, having been granted control of the British Mandate in Palestine, voted to partition the land into a Jewish state (which became Israel) and an Arab state, which the Arabs declined.
Earlier this year, on 3/25/18, Pitzer issued a press release announcing "Pitzer College Professor Daniel A. Segal has been accepted to participate in the Palestinian American Research Center (PARC) US Faculty Development Seminar on Palestine this summer." The press release tells us that there will be "visits to Palestinian universities, research institutes and cultural institution(s) as well as roundtable discussions, tours of historic cities and meetings with Palestinian colleagues."
We further learn from the press release that seminar participants will "deepen their knowledge of their fields of interest in Palestine and build relationships with Palestinian colleagues and institutions." The good news is, from a historic point of view, the Palestinians have nothing in their past or present that would disqualify them from interaction with American academics - or that would deter Professor Segal.
June 5, 1968. Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan assassinates US Senator and Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. Sirhan specifically chose the date of June 5, 1968 as it was the one year anniversary of the start of the Six Day War, in which Israel miraculously defeated the Arab armies massed at their borders. Sirhan: "My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel..."
September 5, 1972. At the Munich Olympic Games, Black September, a front for the Palestinian Fatah group, took 11 Israeli athletes hostage. In the ensuing rescue operation, 9 athletes were killed, including American-Israeli David Berger.
May, 1974. Palestinians took 115 people, mostly teenagers, hostage in the town of Ma'alot. Utimately, 25 people were killed; 22 were teenagers. 68 were injured. Prior to what became known as the "Ma'alot Massacre," the terrorists murdered a young couple and their 4 year old boy in their home. The 5 year old daughter was injured.
October 7, 1985. The Palestine Liberation Front hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro. During the hijacking, the Palestinians brutally murdered American Leon Klinghoffer. Disabled and in a wheelchair, Klinghoffer's body was then thrown overboard.
2000-2005. The Second Intifada. These numerous terrorist attacks on civilians began after Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat walked out on President Bill Clinton, Clinton having brokered a deal in a meeting in DC with Arafat and then Israeli leader Ehud Barak. Arafat chose to return to Ramallah and begin the Second Intifada rather than make peace. Palestinian terrorists blew up innocent Jews of all ages on buses, in cafes, shopping malls, and, of course, at what came to be known as the Passover Massacre. During the 3/27/02 attack on Jews at a Passover Seder, 30 people were killed and 140 were injured.
More recently, of course, were all the stabbings of Jews; and the multiple attacks from Gaza, with Palestinians firing their rockets and missiles at civilian targets. At least 54 Americans have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists. Needless to say, the above list constitutes a small portion of all the terrorist attacks carried out by Palestinians against innocent Israeli Jews. The good news is that there is nothing the Palestinians have done that disturbs Professor Segal enough to consider a boycott of Palestinian universities. PA leader Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly said that not a single Jew may live in a future Palestinian state. Apparently, that also is not a problem for Professor Segal. The problem for Professor Segal? His fellow Jews and the State of Israel. Then again, Israel denying entry to a few people who want to stir up anti-Israel sentiment and even anti-Israel activity within the country is worse than the countless murders carried out by Palestinian terrorists. Right?
Earlier this year, on 3/25/18, Pitzer issued a press release announcing "Pitzer College Professor Daniel A. Segal has been accepted to participate in the Palestinian American Research Center (PARC) US Faculty Development Seminar on Palestine this summer." The press release tells us that there will be "visits to Palestinian universities, research institutes and cultural institution(s) as well as roundtable discussions, tours of historic cities and meetings with Palestinian colleagues."
We further learn from the press release that seminar participants will "deepen their knowledge of their fields of interest in Palestine and build relationships with Palestinian colleagues and institutions." The good news is, from a historic point of view, the Palestinians have nothing in their past or present that would disqualify them from interaction with American academics - or that would deter Professor Segal.
June 5, 1968. Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan assassinates US Senator and Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. Sirhan specifically chose the date of June 5, 1968 as it was the one year anniversary of the start of the Six Day War, in which Israel miraculously defeated the Arab armies massed at their borders. Sirhan: "My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel..."
September 5, 1972. At the Munich Olympic Games, Black September, a front for the Palestinian Fatah group, took 11 Israeli athletes hostage. In the ensuing rescue operation, 9 athletes were killed, including American-Israeli David Berger.
May, 1974. Palestinians took 115 people, mostly teenagers, hostage in the town of Ma'alot. Utimately, 25 people were killed; 22 were teenagers. 68 were injured. Prior to what became known as the "Ma'alot Massacre," the terrorists murdered a young couple and their 4 year old boy in their home. The 5 year old daughter was injured.
October 7, 1985. The Palestine Liberation Front hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro. During the hijacking, the Palestinians brutally murdered American Leon Klinghoffer. Disabled and in a wheelchair, Klinghoffer's body was then thrown overboard.
2000-2005. The Second Intifada. These numerous terrorist attacks on civilians began after Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat walked out on President Bill Clinton, Clinton having brokered a deal in a meeting in DC with Arafat and then Israeli leader Ehud Barak. Arafat chose to return to Ramallah and begin the Second Intifada rather than make peace. Palestinian terrorists blew up innocent Jews of all ages on buses, in cafes, shopping malls, and, of course, at what came to be known as the Passover Massacre. During the 3/27/02 attack on Jews at a Passover Seder, 30 people were killed and 140 were injured.
More recently, of course, were all the stabbings of Jews; and the multiple attacks from Gaza, with Palestinians firing their rockets and missiles at civilian targets. At least 54 Americans have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists. Needless to say, the above list constitutes a small portion of all the terrorist attacks carried out by Palestinians against innocent Israeli Jews. The good news is that there is nothing the Palestinians have done that disturbs Professor Segal enough to consider a boycott of Palestinian universities. PA leader Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly said that not a single Jew may live in a future Palestinian state. Apparently, that also is not a problem for Professor Segal. The problem for Professor Segal? His fellow Jews and the State of Israel. Then again, Israel denying entry to a few people who want to stir up anti-Israel sentiment and even anti-Israel activity within the country is worse than the countless murders carried out by Palestinian terrorists. Right?
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Immigration, the Caravan and the Media
We conservatives know very well that the mainstream media cannot be trusted to tell the truth, but can be trusted to slant the news and headlines to fit their left-wing agenda. On the first page of the 11/27/18 Ventura County Star was this headline: "Trump calls immigrants 'criminals.'" Of course, not everyone reads the articles - as the media knows - but for those who did, they were told that Trump called SOME immigrants criminals. Quite a difference.
For those of us who saw the scenes on TV of some of these nice immigrants rushing the border and throwing rocks and other items at the border police, that sure looked like criminal activity. Said the 11/26/18 front page story in the LA Times: "Trump's administration and those who support his hard-line stance on illegal immigration immediately seized on the dramatic images from the scene." Wait, Trump has a "hard-line" stance on ILLEGAL immigration? Trump did say he wants people to come here legally. What is the Times' stance on illegal immigration? Oh, that's right, the left does not believe any "immigration" is illegal.
In contrast to the Trump supporters, the Times tells us "...the images of the U.S. government using tear gas on a group of migrants that included children disturbed others..." What disturbed me was mothers and fathers who, having declined the asylum offered by Mexico, were willing to put their children at risk by rushing the US border. Then, the Times quotes Cristobal J. Alex, president of the Latino Victory Fund: "What we saw at the San Ysidro border crossing should horrify the whole country; it was simply inhumane." I am sure Mr. Alex was quoted by the Times during the Obama Administration, which used tear gas at the border 1.3 times per month during the years 2012 through 2016.
The 11/13/18 editorial in the New York Times was titled "Mr. Trump's Imaginary Immigrant Crisis." Imaginary? The violent scenes at the border looked quite real to me. The Times: "The United States has clear laws governing the the asylum process and well-funded agencies to enforce those laws." To quote the Church Lady: "Well, isn't that special?" If there is no immigrant crisis, and we have laws and agencies to take care of it, then why do we have millions and millions of people here illegally?
Clearly, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 did not solve the immigration problem. Given that relations between the Democrats and Republicans are worse today than they were in the 1980's, it is difficult to imagine any real solution coming anytime soon. Which, perhaps helps account for the popularity of Trump's border wall. In the meantime, no one should count on the mainstream media to fairly report on the immigration issue.
For those of us who saw the scenes on TV of some of these nice immigrants rushing the border and throwing rocks and other items at the border police, that sure looked like criminal activity. Said the 11/26/18 front page story in the LA Times: "Trump's administration and those who support his hard-line stance on illegal immigration immediately seized on the dramatic images from the scene." Wait, Trump has a "hard-line" stance on ILLEGAL immigration? Trump did say he wants people to come here legally. What is the Times' stance on illegal immigration? Oh, that's right, the left does not believe any "immigration" is illegal.
In contrast to the Trump supporters, the Times tells us "...the images of the U.S. government using tear gas on a group of migrants that included children disturbed others..." What disturbed me was mothers and fathers who, having declined the asylum offered by Mexico, were willing to put their children at risk by rushing the US border. Then, the Times quotes Cristobal J. Alex, president of the Latino Victory Fund: "What we saw at the San Ysidro border crossing should horrify the whole country; it was simply inhumane." I am sure Mr. Alex was quoted by the Times during the Obama Administration, which used tear gas at the border 1.3 times per month during the years 2012 through 2016.
The 11/13/18 editorial in the New York Times was titled "Mr. Trump's Imaginary Immigrant Crisis." Imaginary? The violent scenes at the border looked quite real to me. The Times: "The United States has clear laws governing the the asylum process and well-funded agencies to enforce those laws." To quote the Church Lady: "Well, isn't that special?" If there is no immigrant crisis, and we have laws and agencies to take care of it, then why do we have millions and millions of people here illegally?
Clearly, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 did not solve the immigration problem. Given that relations between the Democrats and Republicans are worse today than they were in the 1980's, it is difficult to imagine any real solution coming anytime soon. Which, perhaps helps account for the popularity of Trump's border wall. In the meantime, no one should count on the mainstream media to fairly report on the immigration issue.
Israel and the Jews - Then and Now
Just a few days ago, 11/29, was the 71st anniversary of the UN General Assembly vote to partition the British Mandate in Palestine into two states - a Jewish one and an Arab one. The Jews formed a state which they called Israel. The Arabs chose not to create their own state, rather, they chose war in an effort to destroy the newly created Jewish state. It was in 1897 that Theodore Herzl called for the First Zionist Congress, which was held in Basel, Switzerland. Herzl is generally regarded as the founder of the modern Zionist movement.
Fast forward 71 years from that UN resolution and on 11/30/18, the UN General Assembly voted 156 to 8 (with 12 abstentions) for a resolution which, among other things, referred to the Temple Mount (Judaism's holiest site) by its Muslim name al-Haram al-Sharif. There was no connection made to Judaism or the Jewish people. The US, Canada and Australia voted against the resolution. However, the EU supported it. In a less than stern admonition, the EU advised that it "could stop doing so (supporting such resolutions) unless more inclusive language was used to reference holy sites in Jerusalem." So, the wimpy EU MIGHT not support such resolutions in the future unless they use nicer, more inclusive language.
Seventy-three years ago the Second World War ended, bringing an end to the Holocaust carried out by Germany against the Jewish people. Now, seventy-three years later, the Jerusalem Post has reported that Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has been pressuring the Central and Eastern European countries to not follow the US's lead and move their embassies in Israel to Jerusalem. Supposedly, Germany is concerned that the moving of embassies will interfere with the Iran nuclear deal, which they strongly support. Then again, it might be an indirect slap in the face to President Trump.
Or, maybe Germany was just continuing its anti-Israel policies. In 2015 it failed to "block the marking of Israeli goods from disputed territories." In other words, Germany supported the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel.
This week Jewish people around the world are celebrating the holiday of Chanukah. Antiochus IV was a Greek-Syrian King of the Seleucid Empire. Antiochus sought to prevent the Jewish people from practicing their religion. There was a group of "Hellenized Jews" who were assimilated and really did not practice Judaism. However, the observant Jews would not comply with the ban on the practice of Judaism. In 167 B.C.E. Antiochus sent his forces in to enforce the ban, and thousands of Jews were killed. The observant Jews who fought back were known as the Maccabees, and were led by Mattathias and his five sons, and ultimately succeeded in routing the forces of Antiochus.
Under the control of the Syrians, the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem had been desecrated. When the Jews again took control of the Temple they determined that it would take eight days to restore the oil used in Jewish rituals. However, they only found enough uncontaminated oil to last for one day. Miraculously, the oil lasted eight days. Jews light candles in the menorah during Chanukah, one on the first night, two on the second and so on up to eight on the last and eighth night of the holiday. Eight candles to mark the eight days that the oil in the Temple in Jerusalem lasted.
But that was then. Today, we have a revisionist theory of Chanukah. This was expressed by author Michael David Lukas in the Op-Ed pages of the 12/2/18 Sunday edition of the New York Times. This theory of Chanukah says that there was a civil war between the Maccabees and the Hellenized Jews, with Antiochus, incredibly, getting no mention in the Lukas article. Rather, Lukas tells us the religious fundamentalist Maccabees defeated the "city-dwelling assimilationists who ate pork, didn't circumcise their male children and made the occasional sacrificial offering to pagan gods." In other words, the Hellenized Jews did not practice Judaism. After all, the primary prayer for Jews, recited morning and evening, is the Shema: "Hear O Israel, G-d is our Lord, G-d is one." The belief in a monotheistic G-d was brought to the world by the Jews. It is hardly consistent with making sacrificial offerings to pagan gods.
For revisionists such as Lukas, it makes perfect sense. He is a self-described Bernie supporter who says he is an assimilated Jew and a product of intermarriage. Lukas continues that he eats pork, and that he and his wife agonized over the decision to circumcise their son. He grew up in Berkeley, now lives in Oakland, and said he practices Reconstructionist Judaism. Lukas asks: "Why should I light candles and sing songs to celebrate a group of violent fundamentalists (the Maccabees)?"
Shame on Germany. Shame on the EU. Shame on the UN. As for the revisionist Jews, who do not seem to be able to see the good in Israel or Judaism, well...you decide.
Fast forward 71 years from that UN resolution and on 11/30/18, the UN General Assembly voted 156 to 8 (with 12 abstentions) for a resolution which, among other things, referred to the Temple Mount (Judaism's holiest site) by its Muslim name al-Haram al-Sharif. There was no connection made to Judaism or the Jewish people. The US, Canada and Australia voted against the resolution. However, the EU supported it. In a less than stern admonition, the EU advised that it "could stop doing so (supporting such resolutions) unless more inclusive language was used to reference holy sites in Jerusalem." So, the wimpy EU MIGHT not support such resolutions in the future unless they use nicer, more inclusive language.
Seventy-three years ago the Second World War ended, bringing an end to the Holocaust carried out by Germany against the Jewish people. Now, seventy-three years later, the Jerusalem Post has reported that Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has been pressuring the Central and Eastern European countries to not follow the US's lead and move their embassies in Israel to Jerusalem. Supposedly, Germany is concerned that the moving of embassies will interfere with the Iran nuclear deal, which they strongly support. Then again, it might be an indirect slap in the face to President Trump.
Or, maybe Germany was just continuing its anti-Israel policies. In 2015 it failed to "block the marking of Israeli goods from disputed territories." In other words, Germany supported the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel.
This week Jewish people around the world are celebrating the holiday of Chanukah. Antiochus IV was a Greek-Syrian King of the Seleucid Empire. Antiochus sought to prevent the Jewish people from practicing their religion. There was a group of "Hellenized Jews" who were assimilated and really did not practice Judaism. However, the observant Jews would not comply with the ban on the practice of Judaism. In 167 B.C.E. Antiochus sent his forces in to enforce the ban, and thousands of Jews were killed. The observant Jews who fought back were known as the Maccabees, and were led by Mattathias and his five sons, and ultimately succeeded in routing the forces of Antiochus.
Under the control of the Syrians, the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem had been desecrated. When the Jews again took control of the Temple they determined that it would take eight days to restore the oil used in Jewish rituals. However, they only found enough uncontaminated oil to last for one day. Miraculously, the oil lasted eight days. Jews light candles in the menorah during Chanukah, one on the first night, two on the second and so on up to eight on the last and eighth night of the holiday. Eight candles to mark the eight days that the oil in the Temple in Jerusalem lasted.
But that was then. Today, we have a revisionist theory of Chanukah. This was expressed by author Michael David Lukas in the Op-Ed pages of the 12/2/18 Sunday edition of the New York Times. This theory of Chanukah says that there was a civil war between the Maccabees and the Hellenized Jews, with Antiochus, incredibly, getting no mention in the Lukas article. Rather, Lukas tells us the religious fundamentalist Maccabees defeated the "city-dwelling assimilationists who ate pork, didn't circumcise their male children and made the occasional sacrificial offering to pagan gods." In other words, the Hellenized Jews did not practice Judaism. After all, the primary prayer for Jews, recited morning and evening, is the Shema: "Hear O Israel, G-d is our Lord, G-d is one." The belief in a monotheistic G-d was brought to the world by the Jews. It is hardly consistent with making sacrificial offerings to pagan gods.
For revisionists such as Lukas, it makes perfect sense. He is a self-described Bernie supporter who says he is an assimilated Jew and a product of intermarriage. Lukas continues that he eats pork, and that he and his wife agonized over the decision to circumcise their son. He grew up in Berkeley, now lives in Oakland, and said he practices Reconstructionist Judaism. Lukas asks: "Why should I light candles and sing songs to celebrate a group of violent fundamentalists (the Maccabees)?"
Shame on Germany. Shame on the EU. Shame on the UN. As for the revisionist Jews, who do not seem to be able to see the good in Israel or Judaism, well...you decide.
Saturday, November 17, 2018
A Look at the Midterms and CNN's Jim Acosta
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media was so overjoyed at the prospect of a "blue wave" that they could barely contain themselves. After all, Trump just had to be stopped because of his "gross incompetence" and "troubling executive overreach" and his tolerance, even encouragement, of "corrupt behavior." So said the November 6 editorial of the USA Today, which was typical of other papers. "Gross incompetence?" Would that be having as much as a 4% growth rate in a single quarter? I recall Obama mocking the idea of being able to turn around his 2% growth rate, being the only President to never have an annual growth rate of 3% or more. Does the USA Today want to return to that "gross incompetence"?
After the election, this opinion by the LA Times was typical of the mainstream media. "...the results in the House of Representatives are a dramatic and deserved rebuke for the president," which "clearly constitutes a repudiation of Trump's reckless policies, his violation of political and ethical norms and his repeated falsehoods." It is true that the Democrats may have gained as many as 40 House seats.
But if you were expecting the media to give you any context, current or historical, well, c'mon now. As for current context, at least 38 Republicans decided not to seek reelection this year. That is the greatest number of Republicans retiring from the House since 1930. It is much more difficult for a party to hold onto a seat without the incumbent running again. Historically, even with 40 seats lost, that is less than Clinton's 54 lost seats in his first midterms, and far less than Obama's 63 lost seats in his first midterms. So, was the election a clear repudiation of President Trump? No doubt there was some element of rejection of Trump; but when looked at in context not really a "clear repudiation."
Who gets the money in politics? That would be the Democrats. According to the 11/9/18 Wall Street Journal, the "Democratic House candidates this cycle raised $951 million as of Oct. 17, the most recent reporting cutoff, according to figures from OpenSecrets.org" They tell us that is nearly 50% more than House Republicans raised. Billionaire Democrats? Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and Tom Steyer. Another Democratic billionaire, J.B. Pritzker, became governor of Illinois.
I know. I'm supposed to be excited (my daughters told me) about the record number of women who will be entering Congress in January. At least 123 women. But I'm not there. I guess I should have been excited when we elected our first black president, but it was Obama - a leftist. Former Congressman Allen West or Senator Tim Scott or even Larry Elder, would be a different story. You see, I am just not interested in identity politics.
Here are four newly elected women - Ilhan Omar (Minnesota), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York), Ayanna Presley (Massachusetts), and Rashida Tlaib (Michigan). At least 3 are anti-Israel, with one having mixed reviews. Perhaps my Democratic Jewish friends can explain to me why I should be happy about the election of these women, when I consider myself a pro-Israel Zionist. Ilhan Omar said she "believes in and supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement..."against Israel. She has said "Israel has hypnotized the world," and has done "evil things." Rashida Tlaib has said she favors a "one state" solution in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I suspect she hopes that the one state would be a Palestinian/Muslim state - making the 58th Muslim country and eliminating the world's one Jewish country.
Did you watch the White House press conference involving the exchange between President Trump and CNN "reporter" Jim Acosta. Acosta was quite rude and argumentative. It is expected that the White House press corps will ask questions. Instead, Acosta wanted to argue with the President by telling him the caravan was not an invasion, but just a group of migrants on their way to our border. Trump disagreed, and said he wanted people to come here legally, and through a certain process.
Acosta then wanted to move on to the Russia investigation, but the President told him "that's enough" several times. Acosta refused to yield the microphone. I missed the part where people who hold themselves out as reporters are supposed to make the news about themselves. Walter Cronkite was a newsman for many decades. Yet, it was not until he retired that we found out that he was a liberal Democrat. He did his job in a professional manner. Acosta has no clue, however. I agree with Trump's assessment, telling Acosta "you are a rude terrible person."
After Acosta had his hard pass to the White House taken from, he and CNN filed suit. Incredibly, a Judge ordered his pass be reinstated. Why any individual should have a right to access to the White House I will never understand. CNN certainly has other members of the White House press corps. If I was advising Trump, I would tell him to never call on Acosta again. And if the rest of the White House press corps refused to ask questions until Acosta was called on, I would walk out. There is no Constitutional requirement that the President hold a press conference.
After the election, this opinion by the LA Times was typical of the mainstream media. "...the results in the House of Representatives are a dramatic and deserved rebuke for the president," which "clearly constitutes a repudiation of Trump's reckless policies, his violation of political and ethical norms and his repeated falsehoods." It is true that the Democrats may have gained as many as 40 House seats.
But if you were expecting the media to give you any context, current or historical, well, c'mon now. As for current context, at least 38 Republicans decided not to seek reelection this year. That is the greatest number of Republicans retiring from the House since 1930. It is much more difficult for a party to hold onto a seat without the incumbent running again. Historically, even with 40 seats lost, that is less than Clinton's 54 lost seats in his first midterms, and far less than Obama's 63 lost seats in his first midterms. So, was the election a clear repudiation of President Trump? No doubt there was some element of rejection of Trump; but when looked at in context not really a "clear repudiation."
Who gets the money in politics? That would be the Democrats. According to the 11/9/18 Wall Street Journal, the "Democratic House candidates this cycle raised $951 million as of Oct. 17, the most recent reporting cutoff, according to figures from OpenSecrets.org" They tell us that is nearly 50% more than House Republicans raised. Billionaire Democrats? Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and Tom Steyer. Another Democratic billionaire, J.B. Pritzker, became governor of Illinois.
I know. I'm supposed to be excited (my daughters told me) about the record number of women who will be entering Congress in January. At least 123 women. But I'm not there. I guess I should have been excited when we elected our first black president, but it was Obama - a leftist. Former Congressman Allen West or Senator Tim Scott or even Larry Elder, would be a different story. You see, I am just not interested in identity politics.
Here are four newly elected women - Ilhan Omar (Minnesota), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York), Ayanna Presley (Massachusetts), and Rashida Tlaib (Michigan). At least 3 are anti-Israel, with one having mixed reviews. Perhaps my Democratic Jewish friends can explain to me why I should be happy about the election of these women, when I consider myself a pro-Israel Zionist. Ilhan Omar said she "believes in and supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement..."against Israel. She has said "Israel has hypnotized the world," and has done "evil things." Rashida Tlaib has said she favors a "one state" solution in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I suspect she hopes that the one state would be a Palestinian/Muslim state - making the 58th Muslim country and eliminating the world's one Jewish country.
Did you watch the White House press conference involving the exchange between President Trump and CNN "reporter" Jim Acosta. Acosta was quite rude and argumentative. It is expected that the White House press corps will ask questions. Instead, Acosta wanted to argue with the President by telling him the caravan was not an invasion, but just a group of migrants on their way to our border. Trump disagreed, and said he wanted people to come here legally, and through a certain process.
Acosta then wanted to move on to the Russia investigation, but the President told him "that's enough" several times. Acosta refused to yield the microphone. I missed the part where people who hold themselves out as reporters are supposed to make the news about themselves. Walter Cronkite was a newsman for many decades. Yet, it was not until he retired that we found out that he was a liberal Democrat. He did his job in a professional manner. Acosta has no clue, however. I agree with Trump's assessment, telling Acosta "you are a rude terrible person."
After Acosta had his hard pass to the White House taken from, he and CNN filed suit. Incredibly, a Judge ordered his pass be reinstated. Why any individual should have a right to access to the White House I will never understand. CNN certainly has other members of the White House press corps. If I was advising Trump, I would tell him to never call on Acosta again. And if the rest of the White House press corps refused to ask questions until Acosta was called on, I would walk out. There is no Constitutional requirement that the President hold a press conference.
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Some Comments on the Events of the Last Two Months
Yesterday, an evil anti-Semitic, likely white nationalist, went into a Pittsburgh synagogue during a Shabbat service and opened fire on innocent unarmed people. Tell me how this is any different from the Nazis having Jews line up and then simply shooting them dead. Evil exists in the world, and it will not go away with wishful thinking. Therefore, all such soft targets as houses of worship need to defend themselves. It may be a sad state of affairs, but when in history has evil not existed. Think Cain and Abel.
This horrific shooting follows by days the capture of another evil man who sent packages filled with bombs to various Democratic officials and left-wing individuals. I tuned in to MSNBC only to see the moderator attempt to have every person on a panel blame President Trump for all the bomb packages, and even for the killing of the Saudi journalist Khashoggi. I blame the individual perpetrators. The mainstream media would never consider that Hillary's comment about not being civil to Republicans, or Holder's comment about "kicking them" when they're down, as possibly inciting people to violence. Or maybe being angered by a Robert De Niro feeling free to say to a national TV audience during the Tony Awards: "Fuck Trump." And then virtually the entire audience stands and applauds De Niro. The media believes that only Trump's comments may have negative consequences. I have said it before - being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry.
I also tuned in to CNN. On the bottom of the screen was this "headline" or news ticker: "Manhunt for serial bomber going after Trump's targets." The clear implication is that Trump set the targets for the bomber, and the bomber complied. This is odious. They did not even say "Trump's critics." No, they wanted the viewer to associate Trump with the bomber. Is it any wonder that Trump calls them "fake news?" This blog has for years written posts on the bias of the mainstream media, beginning well before Trump entered the presidential race. (One need only scroll back to find those earlier posts.)
Much was made of Hillary's call for incivility when she said: "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about." However, I find the second part of her comment far more telling: "a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about." Hillary essentially opined what this blog has previously discussed - the Democrats no longer share in the basic American values, and therefore she was able to say that Republicans want to destroy what she stands for. (See the 2016 posts on why I would not vote for Hillary to see what she and the Democrats stand for.) Just one current example - immigration. The Democrats want to eliminate ICE, and some want open borders. They support the "caravan" of thousands people coming from Central America into the USA, with no concern for US laws or US sovereignty.
The Kavanaugh hearings were a disgrace. CA Senator Dianne Feinstein knew well before the hearings commenced about the allegations made by Christine Ford. She did not bother to tell Chairman Grassley. Instead, the Dems attempted to prevent the hearing from going forward, constantly interrupting the Chairman's opening comments. The Dems goal of convincing some Republicans to vote against moving Kavanaugh's nomination forward failed. He was clearly exceedingly well-qualified. It was only after the hearing closed that Feinstein came forward with Professor Ford. It was hardly coincidental that Ford's attorneys were Democratic activists who worked for free and whose names were provided to Ford by none other than Senator Feinstein. Ford claimed she did not want to travel to DC (fear of flying, even though she flew all over for work and leisure) and did not want to testify publicly. Grassley says he made three separate offers to Ford and her legal team to have her testify in her home state of California. Ford denied knowing of any such offers. Was she lying, or did her attorneys not tell her, preferring to have a political circus on national TV? I know where my money would go.
Whenever the Dems do not get their way, it's time to change the Constitution. With the Citizens United case, the Dems wanted to change the First Amendment in order to limit political speech. With Trump's victory in 2016, the Dems wanted to eliminate the Electoral College. With Kavanaugh's confirmation by the full Senate, the Dems want to change the make-up of the Senate. Their argument - why should low population states get 2 senators when much more populated states also only get 2 senators? Good luck with that. As David Rivkin and Lee Casey wrote in the 10/16/18 Wall Street Journal, the "Connecticut Compromise" allowed more populated states greater representation in the House, and gave smaller States equal representation in the Senate. It had nothing to do with racism as alleged by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Any change to equal representation of the States in the Senate would require agreement by all 50 states. As the WSJ writers point out, Article V provides: "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
The mid-term election is only days away. The Democrats are fielding a number of anti-Israel candidates, reflecting the pro-Palestinian bias of rank and file Democrats. As reported by Gil Troy in the 11/1/18 Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, Rashida Tlaib (Michigan) says she will oppose aid to Israel. Scott Wallace (Pennsylvania) supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. (As an aside, BDS suppotters never express concern about countries such as Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia, for example. That tells me these people are fundamentally anti-Semitic.) Then we have Ilhan Omar (Minnesota) calling Israel an "apartheid" state. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York), admitting she is no expert on geopolitical events, referred to Israel's "occupation" of Palestine (as did Obama), and seemed to blame only Israel for deaths at the Gaza border. Then we have Leslie Cockburn (Virginia) who wrote a book claiming "that the Israeli-American connection is somewhere behind just about everything that ails us," according to a review in the liberal New York Times.
One thing should be clear to everyone. Anti-Semitism, at times disguised as "anti-Israel," is alive and well. It comes from the extreme right, and, unfortunately, it now comes from mainstream Democrats (see above paragraph). It comes from too many Muslims. I know - anti-Semitism is the oldest form of hatred based on "the other." But it is increasingly happening in what has been the safest country in history for the Jews. It is time for all Jews to stand for Israel and for Judaism. I hope that Jews in the above-referenced states do not vote for these anti-Israel candidates just because there is a "D" after their name.
Finally, I see no indication that Trump, the Democrats, or the mainstream media will stop their inflammatory speech. Therefore, it is up to each and every one of us to set the example. We need to do better.
This horrific shooting follows by days the capture of another evil man who sent packages filled with bombs to various Democratic officials and left-wing individuals. I tuned in to MSNBC only to see the moderator attempt to have every person on a panel blame President Trump for all the bomb packages, and even for the killing of the Saudi journalist Khashoggi. I blame the individual perpetrators. The mainstream media would never consider that Hillary's comment about not being civil to Republicans, or Holder's comment about "kicking them" when they're down, as possibly inciting people to violence. Or maybe being angered by a Robert De Niro feeling free to say to a national TV audience during the Tony Awards: "Fuck Trump." And then virtually the entire audience stands and applauds De Niro. The media believes that only Trump's comments may have negative consequences. I have said it before - being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry.
I also tuned in to CNN. On the bottom of the screen was this "headline" or news ticker: "Manhunt for serial bomber going after Trump's targets." The clear implication is that Trump set the targets for the bomber, and the bomber complied. This is odious. They did not even say "Trump's critics." No, they wanted the viewer to associate Trump with the bomber. Is it any wonder that Trump calls them "fake news?" This blog has for years written posts on the bias of the mainstream media, beginning well before Trump entered the presidential race. (One need only scroll back to find those earlier posts.)
Much was made of Hillary's call for incivility when she said: "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about." However, I find the second part of her comment far more telling: "a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about." Hillary essentially opined what this blog has previously discussed - the Democrats no longer share in the basic American values, and therefore she was able to say that Republicans want to destroy what she stands for. (See the 2016 posts on why I would not vote for Hillary to see what she and the Democrats stand for.) Just one current example - immigration. The Democrats want to eliminate ICE, and some want open borders. They support the "caravan" of thousands people coming from Central America into the USA, with no concern for US laws or US sovereignty.
The Kavanaugh hearings were a disgrace. CA Senator Dianne Feinstein knew well before the hearings commenced about the allegations made by Christine Ford. She did not bother to tell Chairman Grassley. Instead, the Dems attempted to prevent the hearing from going forward, constantly interrupting the Chairman's opening comments. The Dems goal of convincing some Republicans to vote against moving Kavanaugh's nomination forward failed. He was clearly exceedingly well-qualified. It was only after the hearing closed that Feinstein came forward with Professor Ford. It was hardly coincidental that Ford's attorneys were Democratic activists who worked for free and whose names were provided to Ford by none other than Senator Feinstein. Ford claimed she did not want to travel to DC (fear of flying, even though she flew all over for work and leisure) and did not want to testify publicly. Grassley says he made three separate offers to Ford and her legal team to have her testify in her home state of California. Ford denied knowing of any such offers. Was she lying, or did her attorneys not tell her, preferring to have a political circus on national TV? I know where my money would go.
Whenever the Dems do not get their way, it's time to change the Constitution. With the Citizens United case, the Dems wanted to change the First Amendment in order to limit political speech. With Trump's victory in 2016, the Dems wanted to eliminate the Electoral College. With Kavanaugh's confirmation by the full Senate, the Dems want to change the make-up of the Senate. Their argument - why should low population states get 2 senators when much more populated states also only get 2 senators? Good luck with that. As David Rivkin and Lee Casey wrote in the 10/16/18 Wall Street Journal, the "Connecticut Compromise" allowed more populated states greater representation in the House, and gave smaller States equal representation in the Senate. It had nothing to do with racism as alleged by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Any change to equal representation of the States in the Senate would require agreement by all 50 states. As the WSJ writers point out, Article V provides: "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
The mid-term election is only days away. The Democrats are fielding a number of anti-Israel candidates, reflecting the pro-Palestinian bias of rank and file Democrats. As reported by Gil Troy in the 11/1/18 Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, Rashida Tlaib (Michigan) says she will oppose aid to Israel. Scott Wallace (Pennsylvania) supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. (As an aside, BDS suppotters never express concern about countries such as Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia, for example. That tells me these people are fundamentally anti-Semitic.) Then we have Ilhan Omar (Minnesota) calling Israel an "apartheid" state. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York), admitting she is no expert on geopolitical events, referred to Israel's "occupation" of Palestine (as did Obama), and seemed to blame only Israel for deaths at the Gaza border. Then we have Leslie Cockburn (Virginia) who wrote a book claiming "that the Israeli-American connection is somewhere behind just about everything that ails us," according to a review in the liberal New York Times.
One thing should be clear to everyone. Anti-Semitism, at times disguised as "anti-Israel," is alive and well. It comes from the extreme right, and, unfortunately, it now comes from mainstream Democrats (see above paragraph). It comes from too many Muslims. I know - anti-Semitism is the oldest form of hatred based on "the other." But it is increasingly happening in what has been the safest country in history for the Jews. It is time for all Jews to stand for Israel and for Judaism. I hope that Jews in the above-referenced states do not vote for these anti-Israel candidates just because there is a "D" after their name.
Finally, I see no indication that Trump, the Democrats, or the mainstream media will stop their inflammatory speech. Therefore, it is up to each and every one of us to set the example. We need to do better.
Saturday, September 1, 2018
'And a Man Hears What He Wants to Hear and Disregards the Rest..."*
(* With apologies to Paul Simon.) There is no nice way to say this. The media pushes propaganda - left-wing propaganda - and my leftist friends devour it. Here is just one example. In the race for the governorship of Florida, Rep. Ron DeSantis (R) will be running against Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum (D). Gillum is a leftist, and is supported by Bernie Sanders.
Following the recent primary election, DeSantis was on the Laura Ingraham show on Fox. DeSantis: "I'm trying to make Florida even better; he (Gillum) wants to make Florida Venezuela." But, according to the Los Angeles Times (8/30/18 edition), "DeSantis warned Floridians not to 'monkey this up' by choosing Gillum, drawing protest from Democrats who accused him of using a racially charged phrase." Said the head of Florida's Democratic Party: "It's disgusting that Ron DeSantis is launching his general election campaign with racist dog whistles."
The Huffington Post had this online headline: "Ron DeSantis Tells Florida Not to 'Monkey This Up' By Electing Andrew Gillum." The left-wing site Vox ran with this online headline: "Ron DeSantis says Andrew Gillum winning Florida would 'monkey this up.'" Never one to be outdone, CNN's online headline read: "Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up.'" CNN wanted to be sure that their readers knew Mr. Gillum is a black man, in case they were unaware of that fact.
Except, for those who may be interested, this is the full comment by DeSantis: "The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state." Maybe there was more to the entire interview, but I do not see anything here about Mr. Gillum being black. But why should that matter to a media that wants to paint every Republican as being a racist (and sexist and islamophobic and homophobic and so on).
When my brother and I were kids, and we were fighting or just fooling around or just making too much noise for our Dad, he would tell us to "stop monkeying around." My father, a white man, made the comment to his two white sons. It was an expression. There was also a Yiddish expression used by our parents if we were acting up too much - they called us vilde chaya (wild animals).
The media is only too happy to depict all Republicans as being racist. And for my friends on the left who already believe it, this kind of distorted story serves only to confirm their beliefs.
Following the recent primary election, DeSantis was on the Laura Ingraham show on Fox. DeSantis: "I'm trying to make Florida even better; he (Gillum) wants to make Florida Venezuela." But, according to the Los Angeles Times (8/30/18 edition), "DeSantis warned Floridians not to 'monkey this up' by choosing Gillum, drawing protest from Democrats who accused him of using a racially charged phrase." Said the head of Florida's Democratic Party: "It's disgusting that Ron DeSantis is launching his general election campaign with racist dog whistles."
The Huffington Post had this online headline: "Ron DeSantis Tells Florida Not to 'Monkey This Up' By Electing Andrew Gillum." The left-wing site Vox ran with this online headline: "Ron DeSantis says Andrew Gillum winning Florida would 'monkey this up.'" Never one to be outdone, CNN's online headline read: "Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up.'" CNN wanted to be sure that their readers knew Mr. Gillum is a black man, in case they were unaware of that fact.
Except, for those who may be interested, this is the full comment by DeSantis: "The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state." Maybe there was more to the entire interview, but I do not see anything here about Mr. Gillum being black. But why should that matter to a media that wants to paint every Republican as being a racist (and sexist and islamophobic and homophobic and so on).
When my brother and I were kids, and we were fighting or just fooling around or just making too much noise for our Dad, he would tell us to "stop monkeying around." My father, a white man, made the comment to his two white sons. It was an expression. There was also a Yiddish expression used by our parents if we were acting up too much - they called us vilde chaya (wild animals).
The media is only too happy to depict all Republicans as being racist. And for my friends on the left who already believe it, this kind of distorted story serves only to confirm their beliefs.
Sunday, August 26, 2018
Socialism?
On the first page of the "Sunday Review" (opinion) section of the New York Times is an Op-Ed by author and professor of political science at Brooklyn College and the City University of New York, Corey Robin. The article is titled: "The New Socialists," and speaks quite favorably of socialism over capitalism. Professor Robin touts the young Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, who are openly socialist, and following in the footsteps of Bernie Sanders. He also seems to relish in what he calls the "skyrocketing" growth in membership of the Democratic Socialists of America, especially among the young.
The reader is told about the horrors of capitalism. "Under capitalism, we're forced to enter the market just to live." And: "Under capitalism, we're forced to submit to the boss." Of course, people might try becoming their own boss. Or, they could hope that someone just mails them a check every week. Although that really never worked for me. Or, one can play the lotto, if you don't mind really poor odds.
We are also told that "the socialist argument against capitalism, isn't that it makes us poor. It's that it makes us unfree." Old style Democrats, such as Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are not like today's socialist Democrats. "Today's young candidates of the left tell a story of personal struggle that meshes with their political vision." Interesting how the left, a la Karl Marx, equates all of life's struggles with economics. Thank you Karl Marx. Some of us have had life-long physical struggles; others, emotional struggles, family struggles, even struggles with friends. Of course, the left would find some convoluted way to connect it all to economics.
Then, we see what is perhaps the most telling comment in the article: "It's not enough to criticize Donald Trump or the Republicans; the Democrats are also complicit in the rot of American life." "The rot of American life." Wow. I am aware of various studies that do not rank the USA among the top ten countries in the world in either freedom or income; although we generally come in just over or under number 20. Those rankings get us in or near the top 10% of countries in the world. If life in the US is "rot," then what does that say about the other 90%? How comforting to know that professors such as Professor Robin get to fill young people's heads with loathing for America.
Then, the professor explains the difference between just liberals and socialists. "With their talk of Medicare for all or increasing the minimum wage, these socialist candidates sound like New Deal or Great Society liberals. There's not much discussion, yet, of classic socialist tenets like worker control or collective ownership of the means of production." (As usual, the socialists are really talking about communism, with government/worker control.) You see, "the socialist...believes that making things free makes people free." Hmmm. But who makes all the free stuff? And what motivates them to put in the hours to make free stuff?
Finally, we are told that socialists "are already debating the next steps: state ownership of certain industries, worker councils and economic cooperatives, (and) sovereign wealth funds." I am curious as to how this state ownership comes about. Do they steal companies from their rightful owners? If so, I guess that's not "freedom" for everybody. Does the government start new businesses, and undercut private businesses, putting thousands, if not millions, of people out of work? If you want to know what supermarket shelves look like in socialist countries, take a look at pictures from the Soviet Union, or more recently, Venezuela. And read the stories about how women in Venezuela have taken to prostitution in order to feed their families.
As for the so-called "socialist" countries of Scandinavia and Europe, the reality is that they are market based economies with high taxes, which allows them, in turn, to provide some of the "free" stuff that socialists think their worker collectives will provide. Actual socialist/communist countries fail - always. Which is why those that have tried it ultimately revert to capitalism - the greatest system ever devised for the creation of wealth.
The reader is told about the horrors of capitalism. "Under capitalism, we're forced to enter the market just to live." And: "Under capitalism, we're forced to submit to the boss." Of course, people might try becoming their own boss. Or, they could hope that someone just mails them a check every week. Although that really never worked for me. Or, one can play the lotto, if you don't mind really poor odds.
We are also told that "the socialist argument against capitalism, isn't that it makes us poor. It's that it makes us unfree." Old style Democrats, such as Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are not like today's socialist Democrats. "Today's young candidates of the left tell a story of personal struggle that meshes with their political vision." Interesting how the left, a la Karl Marx, equates all of life's struggles with economics. Thank you Karl Marx. Some of us have had life-long physical struggles; others, emotional struggles, family struggles, even struggles with friends. Of course, the left would find some convoluted way to connect it all to economics.
Then, we see what is perhaps the most telling comment in the article: "It's not enough to criticize Donald Trump or the Republicans; the Democrats are also complicit in the rot of American life." "The rot of American life." Wow. I am aware of various studies that do not rank the USA among the top ten countries in the world in either freedom or income; although we generally come in just over or under number 20. Those rankings get us in or near the top 10% of countries in the world. If life in the US is "rot," then what does that say about the other 90%? How comforting to know that professors such as Professor Robin get to fill young people's heads with loathing for America.
Then, the professor explains the difference between just liberals and socialists. "With their talk of Medicare for all or increasing the minimum wage, these socialist candidates sound like New Deal or Great Society liberals. There's not much discussion, yet, of classic socialist tenets like worker control or collective ownership of the means of production." (As usual, the socialists are really talking about communism, with government/worker control.) You see, "the socialist...believes that making things free makes people free." Hmmm. But who makes all the free stuff? And what motivates them to put in the hours to make free stuff?
Finally, we are told that socialists "are already debating the next steps: state ownership of certain industries, worker councils and economic cooperatives, (and) sovereign wealth funds." I am curious as to how this state ownership comes about. Do they steal companies from their rightful owners? If so, I guess that's not "freedom" for everybody. Does the government start new businesses, and undercut private businesses, putting thousands, if not millions, of people out of work? If you want to know what supermarket shelves look like in socialist countries, take a look at pictures from the Soviet Union, or more recently, Venezuela. And read the stories about how women in Venezuela have taken to prostitution in order to feed their families.
As for the so-called "socialist" countries of Scandinavia and Europe, the reality is that they are market based economies with high taxes, which allows them, in turn, to provide some of the "free" stuff that socialists think their worker collectives will provide. Actual socialist/communist countries fail - always. Which is why those that have tried it ultimately revert to capitalism - the greatest system ever devised for the creation of wealth.
Thursday, August 23, 2018
Some Preliminary Thoughts and Observations
Tuesday was certainly a huge news day. Paul Manafort was found guilty on 8 of 18 federal charges, including tax evasion and lying on bank loan applications. Manafort had been Trump's campaign manager for 3 months in 2016. His crimes date back years, and are unrelated to the special counsel's investigation into Russian collusion. However, Mueller's power includes the ability to pursue other charges arising from his investigation. Meanwhile, Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, entered into a plea deal with the US Attorneys from the Southern District of New York; the Cohen case having been referred there from Mueller. Cohen pleaded guilty to 5 counts of tax evasion, one count of lying on a loan application, and two counts of campaign finance violations.
I am opposed to the idea of a "special counsel." I opposed it when Ken Starr pursued Bill Clinton, and I am opposed to Mueller's investigation. Interference by the Russians, or other foreign entities, is a serious matter. That should be investigated by Congress. I am opposed to giving any prosecutor the power to pursue claims that arise from an investigation into other matters. Everyone I have asked has agreed that they would not want the full power of the federal government, with unlimited resources, investigating every corner of their lives. Why did Mueller keep the case against Manafort, as it had no relation to Russian collusion? At the least, refer it to a US Attorney's office. Mueller's mission from the outset was to get Trump - just like Starr's mission against Clinton. Sorry to disappoint all those who are celebrating Tuesday's news, but open and ongoing investigations into sitting presidents makes the US appear to be a banana republic.
Trump supporters have pointed out that Obama paid $375,000 for campaign finance violations. That was a civil fine, as there was no charge that the violations were done "knowingly," which would make it a crime. But still, why such a huge fine? The Baltimore Sun reported in 2012 that the restrictions on campaign donations has actually brought more money into politics, with Presidents spending more time out fund raising. According to the paper, had Obama accepted public funding for his campaign, he would have received about $135 million. However, with all of his fund raising, online and in person, he was able to raise $745 million. The paper noted that Obama made 220 fund raising trips during the two year campaign - compared to only 86 for Bush, 70 for Bill Clinton, 24 by G.H.W. Bush, 3 by Ronald Reagan and 25 by Jimmy Carter.
A very good argument can be made about the need to change these campaign finance laws. Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to 2 counts of violating campaign finance laws. Why? It is not obvious that any violation occurred. The plea was likely made because, with Clinton confidante and adviser Lanni Davis as his attorney, a deal was made for lesser prison time as long as Cohen would not only admit that it was a crime, but also admit that Trump had him do the alleged crime (paying off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal) "for the purpose of influencing the election." That makes it a crime if it was unreported, but only if the sole purpose was to influence the election. Except, clearly Trump would have personal reasons as well for not wanting any affairs to be made public. And, if Trump was using his own funds, still not a crime, as there is no limit on using one's own money for the campaign. But Davis has called Trump an "illegitimate President," and has written a book advocating for Trump's impeachment. So the plea gave Davis the opportunity to announce that if Cohen admitted the payments were a crime, then Trump must be guilty of the same crime. Would that suggest collusion between between Davis and the US Attorney in order to get Trump?
So, if these undeclared payments are in fact a crime, why? Wouldn't that make Hillary Clinton's payments to Fusion GPS for the Steele dossier also be an unreported campaign contribution, and therefore a crime? Sadly, it would not make any difference to my liberal friends to point out that Obama escaped escaped impeachment over Fast and Furious. Or Benghazi, and the lies about a movie trailer. Or using the IRS to target specific conservative groups and individuals. It would make no difference that Hillary Clinton had 33,000 missing emails, because, all of us use "bleach bit" to get rid of emails which are claimed to be personal - not classified - in nature. It would make no difference to remind liberals that Timothy Geithner was, shall we say, somewhat light in paying his federal income taxes for at least four years; which apparently qualified Geithner to become Obama's Treasury Secretary, a person who also oversees the IRS (the taxing entity that he shorted). We seem to have two justice systems, one for Republican officials and one for others. We will now be seeing non-stop prosecutions of people affiliated with Trump, and other Republicans.
What about attorney-client privilege and confidentiality? I get that Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, was willing to break the privilege and risk likely disbarment in order to avoid decades in prison. But is anyone else concerned that the federal prosecutor undoubtedly forced Cohen to break the privilege in order to get an opening into Trump. Is anyone else concerned that the prosecutor wrote the script for what Cohen had to say (that the payments were made "for the purpose of influencing the election"), even though Cohen had previously said just the opposite. I guess there is no line that prosecutors are not allowed to cross.
If the Democrats take back the House in November, which seems increasingly likely, then the day they are sworn in in January will be the day Articles of Impeachment are taken up by the House Judiciary Committee. The Democrats have been seeking Trump's impeachment since his inauguration. And, no doubt, they will justify their actions as payback for Clinton's impeachment. With conviction in the Senate highly unlikely, it will be yet another political charade, and a waste of taxpayer money.
Here's something to ponder: from 1790 to 1973, a period of 183 years, we had one impeachment of a president. Andrew Johnson, who was not convicted by the Senate. If we assume the Dems win the House in November, there is every indication impeachment proceedings will begin in January. That will make for 3 impeachment proceedings in the last 45 years. Nixon, who resigned before the entire House could vote on Articles of Impeachment. Clinton, who was impeached but not convicted. And Trump. If the Congress impeached at the same rate in our first 183 years, we would have had 12 impeachments during that time - not one. Here's my question: do you believe we now have more scoundrels and bad actors in modern times than before (if so, really?) - or are the two parties now using impeachment as a political weapon with no concern for the divisive impact on the country?
Which brings me to my final comment for the night. Our politicians are too concerned with their own reelections and their own power. Their egos swell with time in office. They begin to think that the people are irrelevant, that it's all about them. Previously, I opposed term limits for Congress, thinking people should be able to vote for whomever they want. But, if we can limit a president to two terms (eight years), why not limit Representatives to five terms (ten years), and Senators to two terms (twelve years). And let's have the people, at the ballot box, decide who holds political office - instead of the politicians dictating to the people, through impeachment proceedings, who gets to hold office.
Actually, one more final note. In case some of you need me to say it. No, I do not condone or excuse tax evasion or defrauding banks. Criminals should be punished. I have often said that people in office, and top level people in the world of business, sports and entertainment, do not think that the norms of society apply to them. Another reason for instituting term limits on Congress.
I am opposed to the idea of a "special counsel." I opposed it when Ken Starr pursued Bill Clinton, and I am opposed to Mueller's investigation. Interference by the Russians, or other foreign entities, is a serious matter. That should be investigated by Congress. I am opposed to giving any prosecutor the power to pursue claims that arise from an investigation into other matters. Everyone I have asked has agreed that they would not want the full power of the federal government, with unlimited resources, investigating every corner of their lives. Why did Mueller keep the case against Manafort, as it had no relation to Russian collusion? At the least, refer it to a US Attorney's office. Mueller's mission from the outset was to get Trump - just like Starr's mission against Clinton. Sorry to disappoint all those who are celebrating Tuesday's news, but open and ongoing investigations into sitting presidents makes the US appear to be a banana republic.
Trump supporters have pointed out that Obama paid $375,000 for campaign finance violations. That was a civil fine, as there was no charge that the violations were done "knowingly," which would make it a crime. But still, why such a huge fine? The Baltimore Sun reported in 2012 that the restrictions on campaign donations has actually brought more money into politics, with Presidents spending more time out fund raising. According to the paper, had Obama accepted public funding for his campaign, he would have received about $135 million. However, with all of his fund raising, online and in person, he was able to raise $745 million. The paper noted that Obama made 220 fund raising trips during the two year campaign - compared to only 86 for Bush, 70 for Bill Clinton, 24 by G.H.W. Bush, 3 by Ronald Reagan and 25 by Jimmy Carter.
A very good argument can be made about the need to change these campaign finance laws. Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to 2 counts of violating campaign finance laws. Why? It is not obvious that any violation occurred. The plea was likely made because, with Clinton confidante and adviser Lanni Davis as his attorney, a deal was made for lesser prison time as long as Cohen would not only admit that it was a crime, but also admit that Trump had him do the alleged crime (paying off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal) "for the purpose of influencing the election." That makes it a crime if it was unreported, but only if the sole purpose was to influence the election. Except, clearly Trump would have personal reasons as well for not wanting any affairs to be made public. And, if Trump was using his own funds, still not a crime, as there is no limit on using one's own money for the campaign. But Davis has called Trump an "illegitimate President," and has written a book advocating for Trump's impeachment. So the plea gave Davis the opportunity to announce that if Cohen admitted the payments were a crime, then Trump must be guilty of the same crime. Would that suggest collusion between between Davis and the US Attorney in order to get Trump?
So, if these undeclared payments are in fact a crime, why? Wouldn't that make Hillary Clinton's payments to Fusion GPS for the Steele dossier also be an unreported campaign contribution, and therefore a crime? Sadly, it would not make any difference to my liberal friends to point out that Obama escaped escaped impeachment over Fast and Furious. Or Benghazi, and the lies about a movie trailer. Or using the IRS to target specific conservative groups and individuals. It would make no difference that Hillary Clinton had 33,000 missing emails, because, all of us use "bleach bit" to get rid of emails which are claimed to be personal - not classified - in nature. It would make no difference to remind liberals that Timothy Geithner was, shall we say, somewhat light in paying his federal income taxes for at least four years; which apparently qualified Geithner to become Obama's Treasury Secretary, a person who also oversees the IRS (the taxing entity that he shorted). We seem to have two justice systems, one for Republican officials and one for others. We will now be seeing non-stop prosecutions of people affiliated with Trump, and other Republicans.
What about attorney-client privilege and confidentiality? I get that Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, was willing to break the privilege and risk likely disbarment in order to avoid decades in prison. But is anyone else concerned that the federal prosecutor undoubtedly forced Cohen to break the privilege in order to get an opening into Trump. Is anyone else concerned that the prosecutor wrote the script for what Cohen had to say (that the payments were made "for the purpose of influencing the election"), even though Cohen had previously said just the opposite. I guess there is no line that prosecutors are not allowed to cross.
If the Democrats take back the House in November, which seems increasingly likely, then the day they are sworn in in January will be the day Articles of Impeachment are taken up by the House Judiciary Committee. The Democrats have been seeking Trump's impeachment since his inauguration. And, no doubt, they will justify their actions as payback for Clinton's impeachment. With conviction in the Senate highly unlikely, it will be yet another political charade, and a waste of taxpayer money.
Here's something to ponder: from 1790 to 1973, a period of 183 years, we had one impeachment of a president. Andrew Johnson, who was not convicted by the Senate. If we assume the Dems win the House in November, there is every indication impeachment proceedings will begin in January. That will make for 3 impeachment proceedings in the last 45 years. Nixon, who resigned before the entire House could vote on Articles of Impeachment. Clinton, who was impeached but not convicted. And Trump. If the Congress impeached at the same rate in our first 183 years, we would have had 12 impeachments during that time - not one. Here's my question: do you believe we now have more scoundrels and bad actors in modern times than before (if so, really?) - or are the two parties now using impeachment as a political weapon with no concern for the divisive impact on the country?
Which brings me to my final comment for the night. Our politicians are too concerned with their own reelections and their own power. Their egos swell with time in office. They begin to think that the people are irrelevant, that it's all about them. Previously, I opposed term limits for Congress, thinking people should be able to vote for whomever they want. But, if we can limit a president to two terms (eight years), why not limit Representatives to five terms (ten years), and Senators to two terms (twelve years). And let's have the people, at the ballot box, decide who holds political office - instead of the politicians dictating to the people, through impeachment proceedings, who gets to hold office.
Actually, one more final note. In case some of you need me to say it. No, I do not condone or excuse tax evasion or defrauding banks. Criminals should be punished. I have often said that people in office, and top level people in the world of business, sports and entertainment, do not think that the norms of society apply to them. Another reason for instituting term limits on Congress.
Sunday, August 19, 2018
Democrats Will Seek to Imprison Republicans if They Win the Midterms!
What? You don't believe it? Why not? Paul Krugman is the left-wing Nobel prize winning economist and Op-Ed writer for the New York Times. In the August 18, 2018 online edition of the Times was an article by Mr. Krugman titled "The Slippery Slope of Complicity." Krugman starts out his piece by claiming that "Trump is every bit as much a menace to the republic, as some of us warned when all the cool kids were busy snarking about Clinton's emails." The "slippery slope" in his title refers to the Republicans having tolerated some of Trump's behaviors, to the point where they now "acquiesce in Trump's corruption, his incitement to violence, and his abuse of power."
Krugman then makes this outrageous assertion, based on nothing, which the New York Times - the self-described "paper of record" - happily publishes online: "Make no mistake: If Republicans hold both houses of Congress this November, Trump will go full authoritarian, abusing institutions like the I.R.S., trying to jail opponents and journalists on, er trumped-up charges, and more - and he'll do it with full support from his party." Then, Krugman went even further with this contention: "And some of them (Republicans) are making a coldblooded calculation that the demise of democracy is worth it if it means lower taxes on the rich and freedom to pollute."
It is hard to believe that this was not an "April Fool's" online edition of the Times. It was Obama who actually used the I.R.S. to target conservative 501(c)(3) organizations. It was Obama who spied on journalists, and sought to prosecute more people under the Espionage Act than other presidents. Where is Krugman's evidence that Trump wants to jail opponents and journalists? If there is no evidence, how dare he say it, and how dare the Times put it up online. And if there is evidence - and I am sure there is not - he should tell us what it is in the article.
One can only feel scorn for the claim that Republicans are willing to see an end to our democracy in exchange for lower taxes and pollution. Then again, Krugman also tells us that "Republican politicians are (not) serious, honorable people who care about policy." This sounds quite similar to Hillary's "basket of deplorables" - the racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes and Islamophobes. Only Krugman has taken it to the next level. Now, the deplorables (i.e. Republicans) want to lock up opponents, lock up journalists, and bring about an end to democracy just to get lower taxes and pollution.
In case Krugman's, and the Times, left-wing readers were not clear on the point of this trashy Op-Ed, Krugman makes it quite explicit: "democracy really could die just a few moths from now." In other words, with a Republican victory in the midterms, our democracy ends. So, Krugman, and presumably the Times, justify this garbage because the goal is to rally the base to get out and vote in order to prevent...fascism, jailing journalists, and lower taxes and pollution.
Here's how I look at it - if Krugman can make all these scurrilous comments about Trump and Republicans, then why can't I claim that Democrats will seek to imprison Republicans? Maybe Democrats will force Republicans into slavery and prostitution. Don't blame me. It's a time honored Democratic approach to the opposition - demagoguery and name-calling instead of true debate with facts and logical argument. Just ask Hillary. And Obama. And Pelosi and Reid and the rest of them.
Krugman then makes this outrageous assertion, based on nothing, which the New York Times - the self-described "paper of record" - happily publishes online: "Make no mistake: If Republicans hold both houses of Congress this November, Trump will go full authoritarian, abusing institutions like the I.R.S., trying to jail opponents and journalists on, er trumped-up charges, and more - and he'll do it with full support from his party." Then, Krugman went even further with this contention: "And some of them (Republicans) are making a coldblooded calculation that the demise of democracy is worth it if it means lower taxes on the rich and freedom to pollute."
It is hard to believe that this was not an "April Fool's" online edition of the Times. It was Obama who actually used the I.R.S. to target conservative 501(c)(3) organizations. It was Obama who spied on journalists, and sought to prosecute more people under the Espionage Act than other presidents. Where is Krugman's evidence that Trump wants to jail opponents and journalists? If there is no evidence, how dare he say it, and how dare the Times put it up online. And if there is evidence - and I am sure there is not - he should tell us what it is in the article.
One can only feel scorn for the claim that Republicans are willing to see an end to our democracy in exchange for lower taxes and pollution. Then again, Krugman also tells us that "Republican politicians are (not) serious, honorable people who care about policy." This sounds quite similar to Hillary's "basket of deplorables" - the racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes and Islamophobes. Only Krugman has taken it to the next level. Now, the deplorables (i.e. Republicans) want to lock up opponents, lock up journalists, and bring about an end to democracy just to get lower taxes and pollution.
In case Krugman's, and the Times, left-wing readers were not clear on the point of this trashy Op-Ed, Krugman makes it quite explicit: "democracy really could die just a few moths from now." In other words, with a Republican victory in the midterms, our democracy ends. So, Krugman, and presumably the Times, justify this garbage because the goal is to rally the base to get out and vote in order to prevent...fascism, jailing journalists, and lower taxes and pollution.
Here's how I look at it - if Krugman can make all these scurrilous comments about Trump and Republicans, then why can't I claim that Democrats will seek to imprison Republicans? Maybe Democrats will force Republicans into slavery and prostitution. Don't blame me. It's a time honored Democratic approach to the opposition - demagoguery and name-calling instead of true debate with facts and logical argument. Just ask Hillary. And Obama. And Pelosi and Reid and the rest of them.
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Democratic Voices
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is seeking reelection. One of his opponents is TV star Cynthia Nixon. Nixon has called our Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) a "terrorist" organization which should be abolished.
Not to be outdone, Governor Cuomo said this: "We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great." Yes, his media people tried to walk that back. But the fact that those words came out of his mouth is clearly a reflection of the left's continuing attacks on America.
Here is another. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren referred to our criminal justice system as "racist...front to back." Didn't some recent Democratic officials high up in our government feel the same way about the police and our criminal justice system? That's right - President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder.
We cannot leave Hillary Clinton out of this. When an eleven year old sixth grader in Maryland decided to take a knee during the Pledge of Allegiance, Clinton supported her. I realize that today's kids are more sophisticated and more worldly than we were at that age, but how much of this girl's actions was actually being promoted by her parents? Here's Clinton: "It takes courage to exercise your right to protest injustice, especially when you're 11. Keep up the good work..."
Is that what we want as a society? Or do we want our kids to stand and say the Pledge? Do we want to instill a love of country? A love for the Flag and what it represents? As noted in the last post, a country is held together by shared values. When those values come under constant attack, then how can anyone be surprised by how divided we are as a nation.
Not to be outdone, Governor Cuomo said this: "We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great." Yes, his media people tried to walk that back. But the fact that those words came out of his mouth is clearly a reflection of the left's continuing attacks on America.
Here is another. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren referred to our criminal justice system as "racist...front to back." Didn't some recent Democratic officials high up in our government feel the same way about the police and our criminal justice system? That's right - President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder.
We cannot leave Hillary Clinton out of this. When an eleven year old sixth grader in Maryland decided to take a knee during the Pledge of Allegiance, Clinton supported her. I realize that today's kids are more sophisticated and more worldly than we were at that age, but how much of this girl's actions was actually being promoted by her parents? Here's Clinton: "It takes courage to exercise your right to protest injustice, especially when you're 11. Keep up the good work..."
Is that what we want as a society? Or do we want our kids to stand and say the Pledge? Do we want to instill a love of country? A love for the Flag and what it represents? As noted in the last post, a country is held together by shared values. When those values come under constant attack, then how can anyone be surprised by how divided we are as a nation.
Newspapers Across the Country Unite For Freedom of the Press
Today, August 16, 2018, over 300 newspapers across the country expressed - in separate editorials - why a free press is of critical importance to this country. Big City papers, small town papers, weeklies all joined in the call made by The Boston Globe to make today's editorials on this one topic. As I said at the beginning of the last post, I support newspapers. I like holding them, and folding the pages. There is no doubt that newspapers provide a great service to this country - from challenging abusive or corrupt government and businesses, to human interest stories, to sports, business and entertainment. Whether in print or online, it is how we find out what is happening in our communities, our state, our country and our world. In fact, the Los Angeles Times Sunday edition, during college football season, is my favorite paper - covering most of the Saturday games.
So, then why the big controversy and need to unite as one voice? In a word - Trump. The mainstream media feels that they are under attack with President Trump's frequent allegations of "fake news." Here is part of today's editorial from the Topeka Capital-Journal: "We're not separate from the public. We are the public. We live and work and play in Topeka and surrounding areas. We go to restaurants and send our children to school. We drive the same roads, see the same doctors. We're not the enemy of the people. We are the people." A similar sentiment was expressed in other papers' editorials. It sounds reasonable - but is it true?
We know that San Francisco is one of the most left-wing cities in the country. In 2013, only 8.6% of registered voters had registered as Republicans. Not terribly surprising. But Politico reported, based on data from Nate Silver, that in 2013 only 7% of journalists identified as Republican. In other words, the people that write the news are more left-wing than one of the most left-wing cities in the country. Does that make them just like the rest of us when it comes to reporting anything that may have a political aspect to it? Arthur O. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, wrote after the 2016 election: "Did Donald Trump's unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?" No, Mr. Sulzberger, I disagree. When the overwhelming number of your journalists are left-wing, when they adored Hillary Clinton, they simply were unable to see or understand the appeal of a Donald Trump. I would suggest to Mr. Sulzberger that he try bringing true diversity - diversity of opinion - to the Gray Lady.
The USA Today was too easy on themselves in today's editorial by Manny Garcia, their "standards" editor. Here is what he wrote: "Treat everyone with fairness, dignity and respect, especially our harshest critics. Always take the high road. Never twist the knife." Platitudes are nice, but when they are ignored, they are just that - platitudes. Take the high road? Would that be when the USA Today wrote "a president (referring to Trump) who would all but call Senator Kirsten Gillibrand a whore (he didn't) is not fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush." Is that how the USA Today treats everyone with dignity - especially the President of the United States? Is that the high road?
I do not recall the mainstream media being so distressed over the way President Obama and others in his Administration spoke about Fox News. Then White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said this: "We're going to treat them (Fox News) the way we would treat an opponent. (Kind of like an enemy?) We don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." Obama's political adviser, David Axelrod said that Fox is "not really a news station." Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gave the same talking point, opining that Fox is "not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." And here's Obama: Fox is "a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world." Yet, the mainstream media was apoplectic when Trump would not call on CNN's Jim Acosta at a White House press briefing. I am trying to understand. Calling Fox "destructive" to our society and not a real news organization is acceptable, but calling out CNN and others for "fake news" is the end of our democracy?
Former President Obama was at it again earlier this year: "If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you listen to NPR." I cannot be 100% certain, but I would be willing to bet that Obama thinks more highly of NPR listeners than he does of the Fox News audience. And Obama said this: "One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don't share a common baseline of facts." I could not disagree more. As a man of the left, Obama ignores what truly separates us - values. I have discussed this lack of agreement on values for years. What were common American values shared by both sides are now held by one side only, Republicans/conservatives. Just a few examples. Freedom of speech? Only conservative speech is shut down. Capitalism? The left prefers socialism. Support for our laws and police? The Democrats want to abolish ICE, have open borders, and we know what Obama thought of the police. Respect for the flag? No comment needed. Support for one of our closest allies, Israel? Not by Democrats.
Not only does Obama not get it, but the above sentences reflect his continuing attack on conservatives, in his subtle way of mocking those who watch Fox News and disagree with him and the left. No doubt Trump, being a New Yorker, is much more direct and in-your-face, while Obama is much smoother and more elegant in his insults. It is easy to be fooled by the tact with which Obama mocks the right, but there is no mistaking Trump's insults for anything but. The other difference is that we, on the right, can see that Trump is divisive. The left remains unable to see the divisiveness of Obama.
So, were today's editorials defending the press necessary? They were more akin to a self-congratulatory pat on the back. Which is fine. But the platitudes, and the continuing inability to recognize their own political biases, will remain a problem for the foreseeable future, absent structural changes in the media.
So, then why the big controversy and need to unite as one voice? In a word - Trump. The mainstream media feels that they are under attack with President Trump's frequent allegations of "fake news." Here is part of today's editorial from the Topeka Capital-Journal: "We're not separate from the public. We are the public. We live and work and play in Topeka and surrounding areas. We go to restaurants and send our children to school. We drive the same roads, see the same doctors. We're not the enemy of the people. We are the people." A similar sentiment was expressed in other papers' editorials. It sounds reasonable - but is it true?
We know that San Francisco is one of the most left-wing cities in the country. In 2013, only 8.6% of registered voters had registered as Republicans. Not terribly surprising. But Politico reported, based on data from Nate Silver, that in 2013 only 7% of journalists identified as Republican. In other words, the people that write the news are more left-wing than one of the most left-wing cities in the country. Does that make them just like the rest of us when it comes to reporting anything that may have a political aspect to it? Arthur O. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, wrote after the 2016 election: "Did Donald Trump's unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?" No, Mr. Sulzberger, I disagree. When the overwhelming number of your journalists are left-wing, when they adored Hillary Clinton, they simply were unable to see or understand the appeal of a Donald Trump. I would suggest to Mr. Sulzberger that he try bringing true diversity - diversity of opinion - to the Gray Lady.
The USA Today was too easy on themselves in today's editorial by Manny Garcia, their "standards" editor. Here is what he wrote: "Treat everyone with fairness, dignity and respect, especially our harshest critics. Always take the high road. Never twist the knife." Platitudes are nice, but when they are ignored, they are just that - platitudes. Take the high road? Would that be when the USA Today wrote "a president (referring to Trump) who would all but call Senator Kirsten Gillibrand a whore (he didn't) is not fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush." Is that how the USA Today treats everyone with dignity - especially the President of the United States? Is that the high road?
I do not recall the mainstream media being so distressed over the way President Obama and others in his Administration spoke about Fox News. Then White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said this: "We're going to treat them (Fox News) the way we would treat an opponent. (Kind of like an enemy?) We don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." Obama's political adviser, David Axelrod said that Fox is "not really a news station." Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gave the same talking point, opining that Fox is "not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." And here's Obama: Fox is "a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world." Yet, the mainstream media was apoplectic when Trump would not call on CNN's Jim Acosta at a White House press briefing. I am trying to understand. Calling Fox "destructive" to our society and not a real news organization is acceptable, but calling out CNN and others for "fake news" is the end of our democracy?
Former President Obama was at it again earlier this year: "If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you listen to NPR." I cannot be 100% certain, but I would be willing to bet that Obama thinks more highly of NPR listeners than he does of the Fox News audience. And Obama said this: "One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don't share a common baseline of facts." I could not disagree more. As a man of the left, Obama ignores what truly separates us - values. I have discussed this lack of agreement on values for years. What were common American values shared by both sides are now held by one side only, Republicans/conservatives. Just a few examples. Freedom of speech? Only conservative speech is shut down. Capitalism? The left prefers socialism. Support for our laws and police? The Democrats want to abolish ICE, have open borders, and we know what Obama thought of the police. Respect for the flag? No comment needed. Support for one of our closest allies, Israel? Not by Democrats.
Not only does Obama not get it, but the above sentences reflect his continuing attack on conservatives, in his subtle way of mocking those who watch Fox News and disagree with him and the left. No doubt Trump, being a New Yorker, is much more direct and in-your-face, while Obama is much smoother and more elegant in his insults. It is easy to be fooled by the tact with which Obama mocks the right, but there is no mistaking Trump's insults for anything but. The other difference is that we, on the right, can see that Trump is divisive. The left remains unable to see the divisiveness of Obama.
So, were today's editorials defending the press necessary? They were more akin to a self-congratulatory pat on the back. Which is fine. But the platitudes, and the continuing inability to recognize their own political biases, will remain a problem for the foreseeable future, absent structural changes in the media.
Sunday, August 12, 2018
Just Lazy Reporting? Or Fake News?
Let me begin with my own biases about the media. As someone who is "old school" I like to hold newspapers in my hands. I have no desire to see newspapers go out of business. As a conservative I am often annoyed and disheartened by the agenda driven reporting of the mainstream media. Here is just one example. On page A13 of the August 12, 2018 edition of the LA Times is an article titled "Asked about her book, Trump calls Omarosa ' a lowlife.'"
Omarosa Manigault Newman was a contestant on Trump's "The Apprentice." She later had a position in the Trump campaign and after that in the Trump White House. This week Omarosa has one of those tell-all books coming out: "Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House." I have never been fond of these "now I'm going to turn on my boss and tell you the real truth about him" books. These books are disloyal to those who helped the authors, and seek to profit off of personal "inside" gossip. I have never purchased one of them and I do not intend to purchase Omarosa's. I distinguish these books from those who write about policy and decision making.
Back to the article. The Times tells us that Omarosa claims Trump used racial slurs on the set of The Apprentice, and that Omarosa concludes that Trump is a racist and a bigot. One might think, for purposes of balance and accurate reporting, that the Times would tell us if Omarosa praised the President before her book deal. The Times might have told us that Omarosa was the Director of African American Outreach for Trump; that she described herself as a "Trumplican," after becoming a Republican.
The Times might have told us that in 2016 Omarosa wrote: "I'm black, female and Donald Trump is my friend." And they should have told their readers that Omarosa said: "He (Trump) does not judge people by their gender or race. He judges them on their ability to do the job." Instead, the Times would rather repeat unsubstantiated allegations made by Omarosa in her book. The Times: "In the book, Manigault Newman says without evidence that tapes exist of Trump using the N-word repeatedly on the reality show's set. She acknowledges she had never been able to obtain or hear the tapes but said three unnamed sources had described their contents."
A word on journalistic integrity. I suppose, if the Times were asked about printing this story, they would say that they simply picked it up from the Associated Press. And the Associated Press might say that they were just retelling what Omarosa wrote in her book. But here is a question for all of them - do they normally print serious allegations about public figures when the source of the information admits to having no direct knowledge of the tapes in question, only that three unnamed sources vouch for its authenticity? Is it any wonder that so much of the public has such a low opinion of the mainstream media.
Now, let me assume that Trump has, at times, used the "N" word in private. So what? I have also been told by some on the Left that Trump is anti-Semitic. Really? Would that be demonstrated by his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Would that anti-Semitism be reflected in his appointment of Nikki Haley as US Ambassador to the UN, and Haley's constant defense of Israel in the Security Council? Richard Nixon was said to not be terribly fond of the Jews. Yet, Henry Kissinger was Nixon's National Security Adviser and Secretary of State. When the Israelis faced possible defeat in the surprise attack known as the Yom Kippur War (the Arabs attacking on the holiest day on the Jewish calendar), it was Nixon who ordered that supplies and weapons be sent to Israel. Some say Nixon saved the Jewish state. Should I care much if he made anti-Semitic comments in private?
Imagine if the mainstream media were not so incredibly anti-Trump and driven by their Left-wing agenda, and were willing to challenge their sources for news. Then the headline might not have been "Asked about her book, Trump calls Omarosa 'a lowlife.'" Rather, it might have been "From Praise to Condemnation - Which Omarosa is to be Believed?" Or, to borrow an old lawyer's trick: "Was She Lying Then or is She Lying Now?"
Omarosa Manigault Newman was a contestant on Trump's "The Apprentice." She later had a position in the Trump campaign and after that in the Trump White House. This week Omarosa has one of those tell-all books coming out: "Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House." I have never been fond of these "now I'm going to turn on my boss and tell you the real truth about him" books. These books are disloyal to those who helped the authors, and seek to profit off of personal "inside" gossip. I have never purchased one of them and I do not intend to purchase Omarosa's. I distinguish these books from those who write about policy and decision making.
Back to the article. The Times tells us that Omarosa claims Trump used racial slurs on the set of The Apprentice, and that Omarosa concludes that Trump is a racist and a bigot. One might think, for purposes of balance and accurate reporting, that the Times would tell us if Omarosa praised the President before her book deal. The Times might have told us that Omarosa was the Director of African American Outreach for Trump; that she described herself as a "Trumplican," after becoming a Republican.
The Times might have told us that in 2016 Omarosa wrote: "I'm black, female and Donald Trump is my friend." And they should have told their readers that Omarosa said: "He (Trump) does not judge people by their gender or race. He judges them on their ability to do the job." Instead, the Times would rather repeat unsubstantiated allegations made by Omarosa in her book. The Times: "In the book, Manigault Newman says without evidence that tapes exist of Trump using the N-word repeatedly on the reality show's set. She acknowledges she had never been able to obtain or hear the tapes but said three unnamed sources had described their contents."
A word on journalistic integrity. I suppose, if the Times were asked about printing this story, they would say that they simply picked it up from the Associated Press. And the Associated Press might say that they were just retelling what Omarosa wrote in her book. But here is a question for all of them - do they normally print serious allegations about public figures when the source of the information admits to having no direct knowledge of the tapes in question, only that three unnamed sources vouch for its authenticity? Is it any wonder that so much of the public has such a low opinion of the mainstream media.
Now, let me assume that Trump has, at times, used the "N" word in private. So what? I have also been told by some on the Left that Trump is anti-Semitic. Really? Would that be demonstrated by his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Would that anti-Semitism be reflected in his appointment of Nikki Haley as US Ambassador to the UN, and Haley's constant defense of Israel in the Security Council? Richard Nixon was said to not be terribly fond of the Jews. Yet, Henry Kissinger was Nixon's National Security Adviser and Secretary of State. When the Israelis faced possible defeat in the surprise attack known as the Yom Kippur War (the Arabs attacking on the holiest day on the Jewish calendar), it was Nixon who ordered that supplies and weapons be sent to Israel. Some say Nixon saved the Jewish state. Should I care much if he made anti-Semitic comments in private?
Imagine if the mainstream media were not so incredibly anti-Trump and driven by their Left-wing agenda, and were willing to challenge their sources for news. Then the headline might not have been "Asked about her book, Trump calls Omarosa 'a lowlife.'" Rather, it might have been "From Praise to Condemnation - Which Omarosa is to be Believed?" Or, to borrow an old lawyer's trick: "Was She Lying Then or is She Lying Now?"
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Trump Won. Time For The Left To Get Over It.
In the Sunday, July 29, 2018 Los Angeles Times, was an Op-Ed by writer Virginia Heffernan: "Was the 2016 election legitimate?" Let's take a look at her analysis. First, she tells us: "A nation devoted to majority rule has a minority president. Who squeaked into high office on an electoral college technicality." You have to admire the way in which, knowing she is stating half-truths, she describes Trump's election victory as some sinister scheme. Majority rule? Yes, our Constitution says that a majority of the Electoral College vote determines the winner. A "technicality?" That pretty much describes what many on the left think of the US Constitution - a technicality.
Yes, other Presidents have been elected by winning the Electoral College, but not the popular vote. Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and George Bush in 2000. And let's not forget that John Quincy Adams won in 1824 with neither the popular vote nor the Electoral College vote. Adams won in the House of Representatives.
Heffernan says Trump won "Against most data projections. Using voter suppression. Using Russian disinformation." Against most date projection? Wow - I did not realize elections were decided by projections. If they were, we would have had a President-elect Dewey in 1948, inasmuch as Dewey was the overwhelming favorite over Truman - to the point where the advance printing of the Chicago Daily Tribune announced "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN." There is a famous photo of a beaming Truman holding up that erroneous edition of the paper. Voter suppression? Heffernan's evidence is an article in the left-wing publication Mother Jones, claiming that discriminatory ID laws in Wisconsin prevented many from voting. So, voter suppression by duly passed laws? Were those laws challenged in the courts? We don't know from her article. We do know that Trump was busy campaigning throughout the Midwest while Clinton was...just hanging out with Bill, savoring their anticipated victory? Because, you know, Hillary thought her election victory was already decided - by the projections.
Russian disinformation? No doubt that Putin and Russia try to interfere with Western democracies, including our own. But Robert Mueller is busy prosecuting Paul Manafort over allegations of tax evasion from years ago, with absolutely nothing to do with Russia or Russian collusion. Another reason why I'm opposed to the appointment of special counsel - unlimited prosecutorial power with the ability to go after anyone they want to.
Curiously, in addition to seemingly not knowing about how our Constitution and electoral system works, and ignoring the other Presidential elections with electoral but not popular vote winners, Heffernan also seems to not know or care about our alleged rigged Presidential elections. The most well known one in our lifetimes was the 1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon election. Quite a few people thought that Chicago Mayor Daley, along with the Chicago mob, purposely waited until the morning after election day to turn in Chicago's vote tallies - perhaps with the Cook County machine waiting to make sure they had enough votes to put Kennedy over the top.
Leftists tell me they are sick of Trump. Well, conservatives are sick of leftists being unable to accept that Trump won the election - and that he is the President. So, now that we've established everybody is upset about something, I suggest we let reason replace emotion so that everyone may calm down a bit. And I'd like to see mainstream papers like the LA Times stop printing distorted Op-Eds like this one.
Yes, other Presidents have been elected by winning the Electoral College, but not the popular vote. Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and George Bush in 2000. And let's not forget that John Quincy Adams won in 1824 with neither the popular vote nor the Electoral College vote. Adams won in the House of Representatives.
Heffernan says Trump won "Against most data projections. Using voter suppression. Using Russian disinformation." Against most date projection? Wow - I did not realize elections were decided by projections. If they were, we would have had a President-elect Dewey in 1948, inasmuch as Dewey was the overwhelming favorite over Truman - to the point where the advance printing of the Chicago Daily Tribune announced "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN." There is a famous photo of a beaming Truman holding up that erroneous edition of the paper. Voter suppression? Heffernan's evidence is an article in the left-wing publication Mother Jones, claiming that discriminatory ID laws in Wisconsin prevented many from voting. So, voter suppression by duly passed laws? Were those laws challenged in the courts? We don't know from her article. We do know that Trump was busy campaigning throughout the Midwest while Clinton was...just hanging out with Bill, savoring their anticipated victory? Because, you know, Hillary thought her election victory was already decided - by the projections.
Russian disinformation? No doubt that Putin and Russia try to interfere with Western democracies, including our own. But Robert Mueller is busy prosecuting Paul Manafort over allegations of tax evasion from years ago, with absolutely nothing to do with Russia or Russian collusion. Another reason why I'm opposed to the appointment of special counsel - unlimited prosecutorial power with the ability to go after anyone they want to.
Curiously, in addition to seemingly not knowing about how our Constitution and electoral system works, and ignoring the other Presidential elections with electoral but not popular vote winners, Heffernan also seems to not know or care about our alleged rigged Presidential elections. The most well known one in our lifetimes was the 1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon election. Quite a few people thought that Chicago Mayor Daley, along with the Chicago mob, purposely waited until the morning after election day to turn in Chicago's vote tallies - perhaps with the Cook County machine waiting to make sure they had enough votes to put Kennedy over the top.
Leftists tell me they are sick of Trump. Well, conservatives are sick of leftists being unable to accept that Trump won the election - and that he is the President. So, now that we've established everybody is upset about something, I suggest we let reason replace emotion so that everyone may calm down a bit. And I'd like to see mainstream papers like the LA Times stop printing distorted Op-Eds like this one.
Monday, July 30, 2018
On Friendship
(Note: Regular readers will immediately notice that this post, like a couple of others I have done (7/22/17 - Lessons From My Childhood, and 11/12/17 - More Stories From My Youth) is not a political post, although politics does come into play in our times - even in friendships. I have been on a short two week hiatus, partly unsure about what I wanted to discuss, and partly just having hit a wall. Now, however, I feel fully refreshed, and have several new posts already written - in my head that is. We'll see what time permits me to post this week.)
Most of us are blessed to have what we would call "good friends." We also have "acquaintances," and often "colleagues." For me, the "boys in New Jersey," as I refer to the guys with whom I grew up, have mostly remained life-long friends. Two buddies from college have also remained friends to this day. The writer George Eliot (Mary Anne Evans) said: "Friendship is the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person, having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words."
Of course, we - hopefully - continue to make new friends throughout our lives. Some of those friendships last, others do not. Some that I thought of as friends abandoned me because of my conservative politics. Recently, a friend/colleague was telling me that Trump's divisiveness is responsible for much of the anger that he, and other liberals/leftists feel towards their, in some cases, now former friends who are conservatives. I tried to explain that was no excuse. Our three children were taught that they could only control their own behavior, and that other's misbehavior would never excuse their own. Yet, this man seemed to justify his nearly uncontrollable anger based on Trump's demeanor. I also explained my admiration for triple H, Hubert Horatio Humphrey, a Democrat who was known as "The Happy Warrior," because his passion for his beliefs never interfered with his respect for those with whom he disagreed politically.
However, Humphrey's outlook is not the prevalent attitude of today. Indeed, some of today's leftists have abandoned their friendships with me because of our political differences. While I am sure they rationalize their dropping even long-term friends, such attitudes - such intolerance - only makes me think less of them. "To go against the dominant thinking of your friends, of most of the people you see every day, is perhaps the most difficult act of heroism you can perform." So said the historian, Theodore H. White.
As painful as it is, I take personal responsibility for the loss of a friend, who was in mourning following the death of a close family member. I unintentionally said something that was rather insensitive to another in his family. It was a stupid thing to say, and I wished I could take it back almost immediately. It was the end of the friendship. I was disappointed. I thought of how the boys in Jersey might have reacted. They probably would have called me a dumb moron (okay, it would have been much worse, but I avoid those words in the blog). The point is, they would have expressed their anger at me, deservedly, yet we would have remained friends. "Real friends don't get offended when you insult them. They smile and call you something even more offensive." Writer unknown.
I am fortunate to have friends who are there in times of need - emotional, financial and who simply allow me to vent. Friends who understand that I may falter at times, but will give me a second and third and fourth chance. Ralph Waldo Emerson opined that true friendship was elusive, perhaps unattainable. Emerson: "Every man alone is sincere. At the entrance of a second person, hypocrisy begins. We parry and fend the approach of our fellow man by compliments, by gossip, by amusements, by affairs. We cover up our thought from him under a hundred folds."
A rather disconcerting view of friendships. I'm with George Eliot, and treasure those with whom I neither have to weigh thoughts nor measure words. I'm with those who will not write me off when I falter. And I promise to do the same in return. I want friends who will tell me when I am wrong - not just about politics, but about life, about family, about anything. When friends do that for us, instead of abandoning us, they make us better people.
To end on a humorous note, I once asked one of the boys in Jersey what he thought of my blog. They do not all read it. He said he agreed about 70% of the time, disagreed about 20% of the time, and the remaining 10% of the time he thought I was bat-shit crazy. He certainly did not worry about having to measure his words. Exactly the kind of friend I want.
Most of us are blessed to have what we would call "good friends." We also have "acquaintances," and often "colleagues." For me, the "boys in New Jersey," as I refer to the guys with whom I grew up, have mostly remained life-long friends. Two buddies from college have also remained friends to this day. The writer George Eliot (Mary Anne Evans) said: "Friendship is the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person, having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words."
Of course, we - hopefully - continue to make new friends throughout our lives. Some of those friendships last, others do not. Some that I thought of as friends abandoned me because of my conservative politics. Recently, a friend/colleague was telling me that Trump's divisiveness is responsible for much of the anger that he, and other liberals/leftists feel towards their, in some cases, now former friends who are conservatives. I tried to explain that was no excuse. Our three children were taught that they could only control their own behavior, and that other's misbehavior would never excuse their own. Yet, this man seemed to justify his nearly uncontrollable anger based on Trump's demeanor. I also explained my admiration for triple H, Hubert Horatio Humphrey, a Democrat who was known as "The Happy Warrior," because his passion for his beliefs never interfered with his respect for those with whom he disagreed politically.
However, Humphrey's outlook is not the prevalent attitude of today. Indeed, some of today's leftists have abandoned their friendships with me because of our political differences. While I am sure they rationalize their dropping even long-term friends, such attitudes - such intolerance - only makes me think less of them. "To go against the dominant thinking of your friends, of most of the people you see every day, is perhaps the most difficult act of heroism you can perform." So said the historian, Theodore H. White.
As painful as it is, I take personal responsibility for the loss of a friend, who was in mourning following the death of a close family member. I unintentionally said something that was rather insensitive to another in his family. It was a stupid thing to say, and I wished I could take it back almost immediately. It was the end of the friendship. I was disappointed. I thought of how the boys in Jersey might have reacted. They probably would have called me a dumb moron (okay, it would have been much worse, but I avoid those words in the blog). The point is, they would have expressed their anger at me, deservedly, yet we would have remained friends. "Real friends don't get offended when you insult them. They smile and call you something even more offensive." Writer unknown.
I am fortunate to have friends who are there in times of need - emotional, financial and who simply allow me to vent. Friends who understand that I may falter at times, but will give me a second and third and fourth chance. Ralph Waldo Emerson opined that true friendship was elusive, perhaps unattainable. Emerson: "Every man alone is sincere. At the entrance of a second person, hypocrisy begins. We parry and fend the approach of our fellow man by compliments, by gossip, by amusements, by affairs. We cover up our thought from him under a hundred folds."
A rather disconcerting view of friendships. I'm with George Eliot, and treasure those with whom I neither have to weigh thoughts nor measure words. I'm with those who will not write me off when I falter. And I promise to do the same in return. I want friends who will tell me when I am wrong - not just about politics, but about life, about family, about anything. When friends do that for us, instead of abandoning us, they make us better people.
To end on a humorous note, I once asked one of the boys in Jersey what he thought of my blog. They do not all read it. He said he agreed about 70% of the time, disagreed about 20% of the time, and the remaining 10% of the time he thought I was bat-shit crazy. He certainly did not worry about having to measure his words. Exactly the kind of friend I want.
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Much Ado About Putin
Many on all sides have been highly critical of President Trump for not being sufficiently rough and tough on Vladimir Putin in their post summit press conference in Helsinki, Finland. While Trump expressed confidence in the US intelligence community, he also said that Putin gave a "strong and powerful" denial of any Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election. Trump went on to say he did not "see any reason why" Russia would be behind any meddling in our election. Trump went on to say there was no collusion with Russia in the 2016 election.
Here's George Bush in 2001: "I looked the man (Putin) in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul." Respectfully to former President Bush - that was moronic.
In 2009, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, presented Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, with a "reset" button. So, Democrats can make nice with Russia, and try to reset relations between the two countries, but not Republicans? Then, we have Obama telling Medvedev (unbeknownst to Obama he was caught on an open mic): "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space...This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility." Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir (Putin)." Maybe that "flexibility" encouraged Putin enough to take the Crimea and invade eastern Ukraine. Was there, shhh, collusion between Obama and Putin?
Let us not forget the 2012 debate between Obama and Romney. Recall that Obama mocked Romney for claiming that Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat. Obama: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years." Uh-oh. Did Putin have something on Obama? Between this and the "flexibility" comment, I'm very suspicious.
At the time of the 2016 election, Obama was President, Loretta Lynch was the Attorney General, James Comey was the Director of the FBI, and John Brennan was the CIA Director. Surely, 2016 was not the first year Russia tried to interfere in our elections. Surely, Obama and his Administration were on the lookout for Russian cyber attacks during the election, and took the threat very seriously. So how is it that in October, 2016, only one month before the election, Obama said that there's "no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections." So, no collusion could affect the outcome of an election...until Trump upset Clinton and then...collusion!
But one President got it right, calling the Soviet Union the "evil empire." That, of course, was Ronald Reagan, who was highly criticized for daring to make such a comment. Reagan was called a "warmonger." I am confused. Reagan was a warmonger, but Bush and Obama were just trying to make nice with Putin and his evil empire?
Would I have preferred some tougher talk at the press conference? Probably, but I don't know what was discussed privately. It appears Trump sought assurances about the safety of Israel with regards to all the parties fighting in Syria. What else was discussed? And didn't the media claim that Trump just getting us into nuclear war when he talked tough to "little rocket man?" Let's be honest. Trump can never win. And, if he did cave in to Putin, he clearly would not be the first President to do so. Just the most highly criticized - along with Reagan, the too tough talking warmonger. No wonder I'm confused.
Here's George Bush in 2001: "I looked the man (Putin) in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul." Respectfully to former President Bush - that was moronic.
In 2009, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, presented Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, with a "reset" button. So, Democrats can make nice with Russia, and try to reset relations between the two countries, but not Republicans? Then, we have Obama telling Medvedev (unbeknownst to Obama he was caught on an open mic): "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space...This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility." Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir (Putin)." Maybe that "flexibility" encouraged Putin enough to take the Crimea and invade eastern Ukraine. Was there, shhh, collusion between Obama and Putin?
Let us not forget the 2012 debate between Obama and Romney. Recall that Obama mocked Romney for claiming that Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat. Obama: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years." Uh-oh. Did Putin have something on Obama? Between this and the "flexibility" comment, I'm very suspicious.
At the time of the 2016 election, Obama was President, Loretta Lynch was the Attorney General, James Comey was the Director of the FBI, and John Brennan was the CIA Director. Surely, 2016 was not the first year Russia tried to interfere in our elections. Surely, Obama and his Administration were on the lookout for Russian cyber attacks during the election, and took the threat very seriously. So how is it that in October, 2016, only one month before the election, Obama said that there's "no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections." So, no collusion could affect the outcome of an election...until Trump upset Clinton and then...collusion!
But one President got it right, calling the Soviet Union the "evil empire." That, of course, was Ronald Reagan, who was highly criticized for daring to make such a comment. Reagan was called a "warmonger." I am confused. Reagan was a warmonger, but Bush and Obama were just trying to make nice with Putin and his evil empire?
Would I have preferred some tougher talk at the press conference? Probably, but I don't know what was discussed privately. It appears Trump sought assurances about the safety of Israel with regards to all the parties fighting in Syria. What else was discussed? And didn't the media claim that Trump just getting us into nuclear war when he talked tough to "little rocket man?" Let's be honest. Trump can never win. And, if he did cave in to Putin, he clearly would not be the first President to do so. Just the most highly criticized - along with Reagan, the too tough talking warmonger. No wonder I'm confused.
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
The New York Times Takes on Trump's SCOTUS Pick
In their lead editorial in their July 10, 2018 edition, The NY Times describes the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court as "awful," with the result being a "shift (of) the balance of constitutional jurisprudence to the right." Had President Trump nominated a left-wing judge to the Court would the Times, and the rest of the Left, be concerned about a shift of the balance of constitutional jurisprudence to the left? A 5-4 conservative majority proves to be a cause for fear-mongering. A 9-0 left-wing Court would likely cause no concern whatsoever.
We know that the Left cannot tolerate losing. Recall that when Trump won in 2016, the Left's answer was to get rid of the Electoral College. Now, with their alleged concern over the "polarization" of the Court, the Times suggests "there are structural fixes, like term limits, that could counteract this trend." The Times: "One proposal would limit justices to 18-year terms, which would create an opening on the court every two years," assuming a staggered process. The elimination of the Electoral College and term limits for Supreme Court Justices would require Constitutional Amendments. But that has not stopped the Left from seeking other - underhanded - means to achieve their goals.
With regards to the Electoral College, left-wing states have been forming a compact to give their electoral votes to whichever candidate gets the most popular votes - totally undermining the majority of people in any of those states which may have voted against the national popular vote winner. So, we'll have to see what they come up with to change the conservative majority or limit their terms.
The Times asserts that Trump's list of potential nominees were all proposed by the Federalist Society and/or the Heritage Foundation, as if that is just evil. Not all of the leftist groups are, let us say, of the intellectual variety - think Occupy Wall Street and Antifa, for example. Then we have the countless left-wing activist organizations, such as MoveOn.org, and the left-wing think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for American Progress and the Open Society Foundation, among others. Would the Times have a beef with left-wing groups proposing SCOTUS nominees to a Democratic President? Not likely.
I love this quite telling comment by the editorial writers: "The Federalist Society claims to value the so-called strict construction of the Constitution, but this supposedly neutral mode of constitutional interpretation lines up suspiciously well with Republican policy preferences..." Suspicious? Why? How? Because Republicans support the Constitution - and do not believe that one's race, sex, religion or gender should automatically determine who wins a case. (See the prior post.)
The Times concludes with these thoughts. First, the "Constitution is about to be hijacked by a small group of conservative radicals..." As noted in the last post, all conservatives are now considered "radical" or "extreme" or "arch-conservative" by the Left. Second, the Times tells us that there is "a global movement against the idea of liberal democracy" in places like Hungary and Poland, and presumably they include the USA under Trump as well. This blog has commented in numerous posts how liberals here no longer believe in liberal democracy, for the simple reason that liberals no longer believe in classical liberalism - rather, they are Leftists. Many just do not know it.
I think that the July 10 Wall Street Journal editorial on Kavanaugh said it best: "The American left is distraught because it fears losing the Court as its preferred legislature." Which explains why the Left is unhappy with judges who simply interpret the law. The Left wants judges to write the laws that they are unable to get passed in Congress or the State Legislatures. If one of the senior liberal Justices should retire or otherwise leave the Court during Trump's term, allowing Trump yet another nominee, I can only imagine the fits and tantrums that we will see from the Left.
We know that the Left cannot tolerate losing. Recall that when Trump won in 2016, the Left's answer was to get rid of the Electoral College. Now, with their alleged concern over the "polarization" of the Court, the Times suggests "there are structural fixes, like term limits, that could counteract this trend." The Times: "One proposal would limit justices to 18-year terms, which would create an opening on the court every two years," assuming a staggered process. The elimination of the Electoral College and term limits for Supreme Court Justices would require Constitutional Amendments. But that has not stopped the Left from seeking other - underhanded - means to achieve their goals.
With regards to the Electoral College, left-wing states have been forming a compact to give their electoral votes to whichever candidate gets the most popular votes - totally undermining the majority of people in any of those states which may have voted against the national popular vote winner. So, we'll have to see what they come up with to change the conservative majority or limit their terms.
The Times asserts that Trump's list of potential nominees were all proposed by the Federalist Society and/or the Heritage Foundation, as if that is just evil. Not all of the leftist groups are, let us say, of the intellectual variety - think Occupy Wall Street and Antifa, for example. Then we have the countless left-wing activist organizations, such as MoveOn.org, and the left-wing think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for American Progress and the Open Society Foundation, among others. Would the Times have a beef with left-wing groups proposing SCOTUS nominees to a Democratic President? Not likely.
I love this quite telling comment by the editorial writers: "The Federalist Society claims to value the so-called strict construction of the Constitution, but this supposedly neutral mode of constitutional interpretation lines up suspiciously well with Republican policy preferences..." Suspicious? Why? How? Because Republicans support the Constitution - and do not believe that one's race, sex, religion or gender should automatically determine who wins a case. (See the prior post.)
The Times concludes with these thoughts. First, the "Constitution is about to be hijacked by a small group of conservative radicals..." As noted in the last post, all conservatives are now considered "radical" or "extreme" or "arch-conservative" by the Left. Second, the Times tells us that there is "a global movement against the idea of liberal democracy" in places like Hungary and Poland, and presumably they include the USA under Trump as well. This blog has commented in numerous posts how liberals here no longer believe in liberal democracy, for the simple reason that liberals no longer believe in classical liberalism - rather, they are Leftists. Many just do not know it.
I think that the July 10 Wall Street Journal editorial on Kavanaugh said it best: "The American left is distraught because it fears losing the Court as its preferred legislature." Which explains why the Left is unhappy with judges who simply interpret the law. The Left wants judges to write the laws that they are unable to get passed in Congress or the State Legislatures. If one of the senior liberal Justices should retire or otherwise leave the Court during Trump's term, allowing Trump yet another nominee, I can only imagine the fits and tantrums that we will see from the Left.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Reply to UCLA Law School Professor's Op-Ed on Trump's SCOTUS Pick
(Note: In the July 9, 2018 Los Angeles Times was an Op-Ed by UCLA Law School Professor Jon D. Michaels. The writing below was my email to him commenting on his article. His article, "A case for bold dissent," anticipated Trump's not yet named nominee being approved by the Senate, and called for the four left-wing Justices to be more vigorous in their dissents (also anticipating more 5-4 decisions). Professor Michaels opined that President Trump's pick would be an "arch-conservative." For the Left, all conservatives are now either "arch-conservatives" or "radical conservatives" or "extremists." It is not necessary to have read the Op-Ed to follow this post.)
I do take issue with a couple of your points. To the Left, every conservative is an "arch conservative." After all, before knowing the pick you dubbed him/her to be an "arch conservative." Furthermore, even with five of these "arch conservatives" on the court, we both know that the overturning of Roe vs. Wade is not likely. Does C.J. Roberts really strike you as the type of Justice to overturn a 45 year old precedent?
(This paragraph was added by me the next morning as a P.S.) Yes, Janus overturned a 1977 precedent (Abood). However, I see a significant difference between not compelling support for speech with which one disagrees, versus taking away a right (abortion) that has existed for nearly half a century.
Of greater concern is that you seem to believe that the Constitution needs to change/be reinterpreted based upon demographic changes in society. Is that how it should work? The law varies based upon the ethnic, racial, religious or gender identity of the people involved? "Formal equality?" The "justice is blind" type of equality? Apparently, as you go on to express your concern about the "realities of structural poverty, racism, sexism and homophobia."
Assuming there is such a thing as "structural poverty," what do you expect the Courts to do? Wouldn't that be a legislative issue? It is disappointing that what the Left is unable to achieve through legislation they believe should be accomplished through the Courts.
I would surmise that you agree with President Obama's approach to the Bill of Rights - changing it from protecting the individual from abusive government power to mandating that the government provide ... (fill in the blanks).
Hillary Clinton, an attorney, said that "the Supreme Court should represent all of us." When did the Courts become a representative branch of the government? She also opined: "...the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of powerful corporations and the wealthy." Should we tar and feather the wealthy as well? And this from her: "...we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United..." Again, one's identity should predetermine the outcome of a case? Rather shocking, no? Why would we even need Courts?
As for Citizens United, a couple of quick points. Before the Citizens United decision, who was paying $35,000 to $40,000 per plate at Obama's (and other politicians) fundraisers? The average Joe? Hardly. Where was the concern about that money? Lastly, why the outcry about conservative money? Might it be because the Left has a virtual monopoly on political speech otherwise? Think the LA Times, the NY Times, The Washington Post, and most of the written mainstream papers. Think ABC, NBC and CBS. Think MSNBC, CNN. Then, we have Hollywood - TV shows, movies - one left-wing message after the next. Billionaires? Gates, Buffet and Zuckerberg are left-wing.
I am always amazed that so many on the Left are unhappy with the American system - providing more freedom than any other in history; and lifting more people out of poverty than any other. Yet, President Obama said we needed "fundamental change."
I do take issue with a couple of your points. To the Left, every conservative is an "arch conservative." After all, before knowing the pick you dubbed him/her to be an "arch conservative." Furthermore, even with five of these "arch conservatives" on the court, we both know that the overturning of Roe vs. Wade is not likely. Does C.J. Roberts really strike you as the type of Justice to overturn a 45 year old precedent?
(This paragraph was added by me the next morning as a P.S.) Yes, Janus overturned a 1977 precedent (Abood). However, I see a significant difference between not compelling support for speech with which one disagrees, versus taking away a right (abortion) that has existed for nearly half a century.
Of greater concern is that you seem to believe that the Constitution needs to change/be reinterpreted based upon demographic changes in society. Is that how it should work? The law varies based upon the ethnic, racial, religious or gender identity of the people involved? "Formal equality?" The "justice is blind" type of equality? Apparently, as you go on to express your concern about the "realities of structural poverty, racism, sexism and homophobia."
Assuming there is such a thing as "structural poverty," what do you expect the Courts to do? Wouldn't that be a legislative issue? It is disappointing that what the Left is unable to achieve through legislation they believe should be accomplished through the Courts.
I would surmise that you agree with President Obama's approach to the Bill of Rights - changing it from protecting the individual from abusive government power to mandating that the government provide ... (fill in the blanks).
Hillary Clinton, an attorney, said that "the Supreme Court should represent all of us." When did the Courts become a representative branch of the government? She also opined: "...the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of powerful corporations and the wealthy." Should we tar and feather the wealthy as well? And this from her: "...we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United..." Again, one's identity should predetermine the outcome of a case? Rather shocking, no? Why would we even need Courts?
As for Citizens United, a couple of quick points. Before the Citizens United decision, who was paying $35,000 to $40,000 per plate at Obama's (and other politicians) fundraisers? The average Joe? Hardly. Where was the concern about that money? Lastly, why the outcry about conservative money? Might it be because the Left has a virtual monopoly on political speech otherwise? Think the LA Times, the NY Times, The Washington Post, and most of the written mainstream papers. Think ABC, NBC and CBS. Think MSNBC, CNN. Then, we have Hollywood - TV shows, movies - one left-wing message after the next. Billionaires? Gates, Buffet and Zuckerberg are left-wing.
I am always amazed that so many on the Left are unhappy with the American system - providing more freedom than any other in history; and lifting more people out of poverty than any other. Yet, President Obama said we needed "fundamental change."
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
And Now, A Few Words From Our Founders
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (In Congress, July 4, 1776. The Declaration of Independence.) "All men are created equal." No King, no Lords that are somehow inherently better than anyone else. "Endowed by their Creator." Our Founders were God-fearing men. "Unalienable Rights...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Imagine how novel these ideas were in 1776. A document that put the individual as the center of society - not subservient to it.
When we turn to the Constitution, we are looking at the greatest governing document ever created by mere mortals. Our original governing documents, the Articles of Confederation, were deemed insufficient to keep our thirteen colonies/states united behind a centralized government. Hence, the Constitution. In an Op-Ed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Joseph Tartakovsky told us that since 1789, the year of enacting our Constitution, "the average life span of national constitutions world-wide has been 19 years" (citing research out of the University of Chicago).
Our Founders were some of the greatest political philosophers in history. Imagine creating a government strong enough to hold the states together, but limited enough in its powers to keep the well-being of the individual as the purpose for the government. Benjamin Franklin was the oldest, and by some measures the wisest, of all those who participated in the Constitutional Convention. Franklin: "...I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a blessing to the People if well administered..." But Franklin was also concerned about all societies devolving into despotism.
The House of Representatives in its entirety is elected every two years. As the "People's House," it is meant to reflect the current attitudes of the society. But to offset what might be dangerous trends we have the Senate, with Senators serving a term of six years, long enough to outlast some of those trends. To further assure that end, only 1/3 of the Senators are up for election every two years. While a President may veto Congressional legislation, that executive is not all-powerful, as the Congress may override any veto by a two-thirds vote.
When we look at Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution we see the enumerated powers given to Congress. Why delineate a specific number of powers? Because the Founders were very concerned about too powerful a central government. The President, a civilian, was made Commander-in-Chief of the military. The President has the power to appoint his principal officers in the executive department - but only with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. The President was to put in charge of foreign policy, having the power to enter into treaties with other nations - but, again, with approval of the Senate by "two-thirds of the Senators present." And the President is elected by an electoral college, to avoid giving the most populated states permanent control over the executive branch. Otherwise, the smaller states would have been reluctant to join this union.
While the Constitution did create a federal judiciary, it not specifically give the Courts the right to declare legislation or executive orders to be "unconstitutional." That power the Supreme Court took upon itself in its famous decision by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. Marshall: "The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States..." And: "The constitution is either superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it." But Article V sets forth the limited manner in which the Constitution may be amended.
Some of the Founders realized that, while the Constitution set forth the structure of the government, it neglected to ensure the rights of the individual to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Hence, the first 10 Amendments - our Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights makes us the freest people on the planet. The freest people in history. We have the right to speech, to practice our own religion, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to "not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
As the above-referenced Mr. Tartakovsky wrote: "It is not in having a constitution that our strength lies, but in cherishing it." Yet, many today, generally on the Left, have little appreciation for the Constitution. They would amend the First Amendment to deal with Citizens United, or to prohibit hurtful speech. They would eliminate the right to keep and bear arms. And they would have no respect for property rights, with this trend particularly present in millennials. In one poll, 44% of millennials preferred socialism, 7% supported communism, and 7% even supported fascism. Compared to the majority (51%) preferring socialism/communism, only 42% preferred capitalism.
Ben Franklin is alleged to have been asked, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, what type of government the Founders created. His reply: "A Republic, if you can keep it." Maybe we can all do our best to keep it. God bless America. And Happy Birthday!
When we turn to the Constitution, we are looking at the greatest governing document ever created by mere mortals. Our original governing documents, the Articles of Confederation, were deemed insufficient to keep our thirteen colonies/states united behind a centralized government. Hence, the Constitution. In an Op-Ed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Joseph Tartakovsky told us that since 1789, the year of enacting our Constitution, "the average life span of national constitutions world-wide has been 19 years" (citing research out of the University of Chicago).
Our Founders were some of the greatest political philosophers in history. Imagine creating a government strong enough to hold the states together, but limited enough in its powers to keep the well-being of the individual as the purpose for the government. Benjamin Franklin was the oldest, and by some measures the wisest, of all those who participated in the Constitutional Convention. Franklin: "...I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a blessing to the People if well administered..." But Franklin was also concerned about all societies devolving into despotism.
The House of Representatives in its entirety is elected every two years. As the "People's House," it is meant to reflect the current attitudes of the society. But to offset what might be dangerous trends we have the Senate, with Senators serving a term of six years, long enough to outlast some of those trends. To further assure that end, only 1/3 of the Senators are up for election every two years. While a President may veto Congressional legislation, that executive is not all-powerful, as the Congress may override any veto by a two-thirds vote.
When we look at Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution we see the enumerated powers given to Congress. Why delineate a specific number of powers? Because the Founders were very concerned about too powerful a central government. The President, a civilian, was made Commander-in-Chief of the military. The President has the power to appoint his principal officers in the executive department - but only with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. The President was to put in charge of foreign policy, having the power to enter into treaties with other nations - but, again, with approval of the Senate by "two-thirds of the Senators present." And the President is elected by an electoral college, to avoid giving the most populated states permanent control over the executive branch. Otherwise, the smaller states would have been reluctant to join this union.
While the Constitution did create a federal judiciary, it not specifically give the Courts the right to declare legislation or executive orders to be "unconstitutional." That power the Supreme Court took upon itself in its famous decision by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. Marshall: "The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States..." And: "The constitution is either superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it." But Article V sets forth the limited manner in which the Constitution may be amended.
Some of the Founders realized that, while the Constitution set forth the structure of the government, it neglected to ensure the rights of the individual to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Hence, the first 10 Amendments - our Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights makes us the freest people on the planet. The freest people in history. We have the right to speech, to practice our own religion, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to "not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
As the above-referenced Mr. Tartakovsky wrote: "It is not in having a constitution that our strength lies, but in cherishing it." Yet, many today, generally on the Left, have little appreciation for the Constitution. They would amend the First Amendment to deal with Citizens United, or to prohibit hurtful speech. They would eliminate the right to keep and bear arms. And they would have no respect for property rights, with this trend particularly present in millennials. In one poll, 44% of millennials preferred socialism, 7% supported communism, and 7% even supported fascism. Compared to the majority (51%) preferring socialism/communism, only 42% preferred capitalism.
Ben Franklin is alleged to have been asked, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, what type of government the Founders created. His reply: "A Republic, if you can keep it." Maybe we can all do our best to keep it. God bless America. And Happy Birthday!
Saturday, June 30, 2018
A View From the Left
In a major electoral upset in the primary election in New York's 14th district, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez upset 10 term Congressman Joe Crowley, a man who many expected might be the next Speaker of the House should the Dems take the House back. New York's 14th district, heavily Democratic, is made up of parts of the Bronx and Queens, with the primary winner being the likely winner in the general election. Ocasio-Cortez is an open socialist, and is allied with the Democratic Socialists of America, a group that supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel.
Following the recent violent efforts by Gazans to breach Israel's border, resulting in the deaths of at least 60 people - 50 of whom were Hamas members - Ocasio-Cortez called it a massacre. "This is a massacre. I hope my peers have the moral courage to call it such...Democrats can't be silent about this anymore." Yes, the Democrats need to rise up against Israel. And I have no reason to believe that the liberal/leftist Jews won't follow right along.
Ocasio-Cortez's platform includes abolishing ICE, universal Medicare, a jobs guarantee for all, free college, housing (presumably free) as a human right, and, of course, the impeachment of President Trump. I wonder if anyone has to pay for all this "free" stuff. Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Ilhan Omar is the likely successor to Rep. Keith Ellison (one of the two Muslim members of Congress), as Ellison is running for Attorney General of Minnesota. Omar has referred to Israel as an "apartheid" state. In case that does not make it sufficiently clear what he thinks of Israel, here is a now deleted Tweet of his: "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." Again, the outright hostility towards Israel will be no deterrent to left-wing Jews supporting these people and their party.
Proving that they will stop at nothing to defeat Trump, a group of states - blue states - have proposed legislation for their respective states that would bar anyone from being on the ballot for President unless they release their tax returns. Clearly, these measures are aimed at Trump, who has not released his tax returns. As the Constitution only requires that someone be a natural born citizen, be at least 35 years old, and been 14 years a resident within the United States, this underhanded effort to prevent Trump from being on the ballot will clearly fail on Constitutional grounds. Just another example of the Left's "the ends justify the means" approach to life.
With Justice Kennedy resigning from the Supreme Court, the Left has been apoplectic (a common emotion for the Left) over Trump having the opportunity to appoint another Justice. The Dems/Left (they are one and the same) say they are concerned about a shift in the ideological balance of the Court. Of course, that is a blatant lie. If President Trump were to appoint another Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Dems/Left would be in a state of jubilation. The LA Times basically said as much in their 6/28/18 editorial regarding Kennedy's replacement: "Since that person is unlikely to be a liberal - Trump's politics won't lead him to a new Ruth Bader Ginsburg or a Thurgood Marshall - let us make another suggestion." Clearly, there would be zero outcry were Trump to tilt the ideological direction of the Court to the left. The politicians and mainstream media are a group of hypocrites.
The New York Times was...well, the New York Times. Their 6/28/18 editorial, as might be expected, essentially told us that the sky is falling. "It is a dark moment in the history of the court and the nation, and it's about to get a lot darker." It does not get any clearer than that. Any conservative Republican President would appoint a conservative Justice. But the Dems/Left are now so extreme that any conservative appointment will be a "dark moment in the history of the...nation." Is it any wonder that they call us deplorables, haters, bigots and so on. They truly hate us. After all, conservatives make the country dark and getting darker.
Michelle Goldberg is a regular opinion writer for the New York Times. In her 6/26/18 Op-Ed in the Times, and after calling Trump a "racist," she said this: "I'm agnostic on the question of whether publicly rebuking Trump collaborators is tactically smart." Trump collaborators? That's what it is when you work in the White House now? You are a collaborator. As I said, they hate us. And they believe that we are evil. As for the way some Administration officials have been publicly mistreated, Ms. Goldberg tells us it was just "the sort of public opprobrium due members of any other white nationalist organization." That's how it works for the Left. There is no need to debate the issues when all they have to do (actually, all they have) is hatred and demagoguery.
The Los Angeles Times has the answer for dealing with those who cross our border illegally. Don't charge them with the crime of crossing illegally into the country. In fact, just don't detain them. Who says the Left does not want open borders?
So, there you have it. The Dems/Left are the party of open borders, hatred toward conservatives, "free" stuff for everybody, using whatever means necessary (harassment, unconstitutional laws, and so on) to accomplish their ends, and, of course, are virulently anti-Israel. My left-wing friends, even the Jewish ones, can hardly wait to vote for all that in November.
Following the recent violent efforts by Gazans to breach Israel's border, resulting in the deaths of at least 60 people - 50 of whom were Hamas members - Ocasio-Cortez called it a massacre. "This is a massacre. I hope my peers have the moral courage to call it such...Democrats can't be silent about this anymore." Yes, the Democrats need to rise up against Israel. And I have no reason to believe that the liberal/leftist Jews won't follow right along.
Ocasio-Cortez's platform includes abolishing ICE, universal Medicare, a jobs guarantee for all, free college, housing (presumably free) as a human right, and, of course, the impeachment of President Trump. I wonder if anyone has to pay for all this "free" stuff. Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Ilhan Omar is the likely successor to Rep. Keith Ellison (one of the two Muslim members of Congress), as Ellison is running for Attorney General of Minnesota. Omar has referred to Israel as an "apartheid" state. In case that does not make it sufficiently clear what he thinks of Israel, here is a now deleted Tweet of his: "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." Again, the outright hostility towards Israel will be no deterrent to left-wing Jews supporting these people and their party.
Proving that they will stop at nothing to defeat Trump, a group of states - blue states - have proposed legislation for their respective states that would bar anyone from being on the ballot for President unless they release their tax returns. Clearly, these measures are aimed at Trump, who has not released his tax returns. As the Constitution only requires that someone be a natural born citizen, be at least 35 years old, and been 14 years a resident within the United States, this underhanded effort to prevent Trump from being on the ballot will clearly fail on Constitutional grounds. Just another example of the Left's "the ends justify the means" approach to life.
With Justice Kennedy resigning from the Supreme Court, the Left has been apoplectic (a common emotion for the Left) over Trump having the opportunity to appoint another Justice. The Dems/Left (they are one and the same) say they are concerned about a shift in the ideological balance of the Court. Of course, that is a blatant lie. If President Trump were to appoint another Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Dems/Left would be in a state of jubilation. The LA Times basically said as much in their 6/28/18 editorial regarding Kennedy's replacement: "Since that person is unlikely to be a liberal - Trump's politics won't lead him to a new Ruth Bader Ginsburg or a Thurgood Marshall - let us make another suggestion." Clearly, there would be zero outcry were Trump to tilt the ideological direction of the Court to the left. The politicians and mainstream media are a group of hypocrites.
The New York Times was...well, the New York Times. Their 6/28/18 editorial, as might be expected, essentially told us that the sky is falling. "It is a dark moment in the history of the court and the nation, and it's about to get a lot darker." It does not get any clearer than that. Any conservative Republican President would appoint a conservative Justice. But the Dems/Left are now so extreme that any conservative appointment will be a "dark moment in the history of the...nation." Is it any wonder that they call us deplorables, haters, bigots and so on. They truly hate us. After all, conservatives make the country dark and getting darker.
Michelle Goldberg is a regular opinion writer for the New York Times. In her 6/26/18 Op-Ed in the Times, and after calling Trump a "racist," she said this: "I'm agnostic on the question of whether publicly rebuking Trump collaborators is tactically smart." Trump collaborators? That's what it is when you work in the White House now? You are a collaborator. As I said, they hate us. And they believe that we are evil. As for the way some Administration officials have been publicly mistreated, Ms. Goldberg tells us it was just "the sort of public opprobrium due members of any other white nationalist organization." That's how it works for the Left. There is no need to debate the issues when all they have to do (actually, all they have) is hatred and demagoguery.
The Los Angeles Times has the answer for dealing with those who cross our border illegally. Don't charge them with the crime of crossing illegally into the country. In fact, just don't detain them. Who says the Left does not want open borders?
So, there you have it. The Dems/Left are the party of open borders, hatred toward conservatives, "free" stuff for everybody, using whatever means necessary (harassment, unconstitutional laws, and so on) to accomplish their ends, and, of course, are virulently anti-Israel. My left-wing friends, even the Jewish ones, can hardly wait to vote for all that in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)