Last Monday, Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, revealed his true attitude about the Jewish people. Referring to the Holocaust, Abbas said this: "So the Jewish question that was widespread throughout Europe was not against their religion, but against their social function, which relates to usury and banking and such." Abbas has been a Holocaust denier for most of his life. The fact that he relies on antisemitic tropes should come as no surprise.
Even the left-wing NY Times announced that Mr. Abbas had to go. Their concern, however, remains the establishment of a Palestinian state. The Times: "Arab nations, once the Palestinians' patrons, have lost interest and have turned their attention to fighting wars in Yemen and Syria and checking Iran's regional influence." Well, excuse my saying so, but - Duh! Iran is directly, and through their involvement in Syria and Yemen, a threat to the Sunni Arab countries. As long as the Arab countries leave Israel alone, they know that Israel is no threat to them. The Times: "Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia faulted Palestinian leaders for complaining and rejecting past Israeli peace offers." (Quotes from the 5/3/18 editorial in the NY Times.) But the Times can be expected to continue to fault the "hardline" (their term) Netanyahu government for the lack of peace.
Today, Israeli papers are reporting that Iran is threatening to attack military bases in Israel. In the past month, Israel has attacked Iranian bases in Syria, with those attacks resulting in over 30 Iranians being killed. Israeli PM Netanyahu: "We are determined to block the Iranian entrenchment (in Syria), even at the cost of confrontation." How could it be otherwise? Iran has repeatedly vowed to wipe Israel off the map. How could Israel tolerate the existence of Iranian bases in Syria - right at their border? Should Israel risk that all the advanced weaponry possessed by Iran might be moved a few miles from their border? Should Israel risk Iran deciding to mass hundreds of thousands of troops on the tiny country's border?
Yet, as mentioned in my 4/19/18 post, there are Jewish groups and Jewish individuals who do not support Israel. One of those groups, not mentioned in the earlier post, is Jewish Voice for Peace. As with many other anti-Israel groups, the JVP supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. Writing in The Jerusalem Post, Isi Leibler was harsh, yet accurate, in his assessment: "Twenty years ago, it would have been inconceivable to have any other then delusional Jewish fringe groups attacking Israel. Today, especially on campuses, it requires courage to even stand up against these perverted anti-Israel Jew." As I said, harsh.
But consider this comment from a friend and reader who is a registered Independent, and far more middle of the road than this writer: "Very difficult to deal with group-think. Imagine, it's controversial and unacceptable for Jews to speak up for Israel. Unthinkable for most of our lives. The pressure to conform and assimilate has always been strong throughout history...be glad that tens of millions of Americans are more pro-Israel than large swaths of American Jews. Very weird concept. Hard to accept and imagine even 20 years ago. But the Left is very dominant, especially among American Jews...and the Left doesn't care about Jews or Israel...and the Left wants the US to be in line with the EU, and we see what that means...huge number of American Jews want to conform and be accepted as good progressives, and Israel and Judaism just don't fit in." Something for left-wing Jews to think about.
Sunday, May 6, 2018
More on the Culture Wars
Students at George Washington University are petitioning to change the school mascot from "Colonials" to some other name, such as "Hippos" or "Riverhorses." Don't ask. Obviously, it was Washington who led the Colonies (hence "Colonials") in the American Revolution. No matter. The students claim that the name is "extremely offensive" and "glorifies the act of systemic oppression." I think that it is only a matter of time before the name of the school is changed; after all, Washington was a slave owner. After that, do we take down the Washington Monument?
A lawmaker in Minnesota has a bill that would require all Minnesota schools to post the national motto "In God We Trust." In 2011, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution, 396-9, in which "Congress reaffirms 'In God We Trust' as the official motto of the United States and supports and encourages the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions." We know that all references to God have been pretty much been removed from the public square. However, the motto remains on our coins and currency, notwithstanding lawsuits by atheists seeking its removal.
A week ago I had the opportunity to have lunch at home and turned on MSNBC. I do like to hear what the other side has to say from time to time. The first 13 minutes at the top of the hour focused on Stormy Daniels. Not North and South Korea. Not the possible impending war between Israel and Iran over Iran's bases in Syria. Not the caravan at California's border. No - it was all Stormy Daniels. The next story (I failed to time how long it went on for) was all about gossip about Trump from inside the White House. Negative gossip, of course. Can you say "fake news?"
I care no more about Stormy Daniels than I did about Monica Lewinsky. However, I do question what her motivation is, and whether she desires to be the one to bring down a sitting President, aside from possible financial incentives.
There was a disturbing story in the USA Today about the recent NRA convention in Dallas. Not surprisingly, there was a protest being held a few blocks away. A father of one of the students killed at the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School spoke at the protest. The USA Today reported that some pro-gun rights people heckled that father. If so, that is highly inappropriate. The man lost his daughter. Unless he actively engaged the pro-gun people, they should have had sufficient respect for his suffering to have left him alone. Disappointing.
And finally, the Boy Scouts of America is dropping "Boy" from its name. As membership has decreased, also affecting the bottom line, the Boy Scouts has been accepting girls. Needless to say, the Girl Scouts are not too pleased with that development. The Cub Scouts have no need for a name change. But in the 11-17 age group the new name will be Scouts USA. Here's my beef - if boys no longer have the option to be in all boys group, that would be disappointing. And, of course, girls should have the option of being in an all girls group. And I am concerned about possible pressure to join a mixed boy/girl group. Of course, I understand that the Left increasingly sees no difference between the two sexes.
A lawmaker in Minnesota has a bill that would require all Minnesota schools to post the national motto "In God We Trust." In 2011, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution, 396-9, in which "Congress reaffirms 'In God We Trust' as the official motto of the United States and supports and encourages the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions." We know that all references to God have been pretty much been removed from the public square. However, the motto remains on our coins and currency, notwithstanding lawsuits by atheists seeking its removal.
A week ago I had the opportunity to have lunch at home and turned on MSNBC. I do like to hear what the other side has to say from time to time. The first 13 minutes at the top of the hour focused on Stormy Daniels. Not North and South Korea. Not the possible impending war between Israel and Iran over Iran's bases in Syria. Not the caravan at California's border. No - it was all Stormy Daniels. The next story (I failed to time how long it went on for) was all about gossip about Trump from inside the White House. Negative gossip, of course. Can you say "fake news?"
I care no more about Stormy Daniels than I did about Monica Lewinsky. However, I do question what her motivation is, and whether she desires to be the one to bring down a sitting President, aside from possible financial incentives.
There was a disturbing story in the USA Today about the recent NRA convention in Dallas. Not surprisingly, there was a protest being held a few blocks away. A father of one of the students killed at the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School spoke at the protest. The USA Today reported that some pro-gun rights people heckled that father. If so, that is highly inappropriate. The man lost his daughter. Unless he actively engaged the pro-gun people, they should have had sufficient respect for his suffering to have left him alone. Disappointing.
And finally, the Boy Scouts of America is dropping "Boy" from its name. As membership has decreased, also affecting the bottom line, the Boy Scouts has been accepting girls. Needless to say, the Girl Scouts are not too pleased with that development. The Cub Scouts have no need for a name change. But in the 11-17 age group the new name will be Scouts USA. Here's my beef - if boys no longer have the option to be in all boys group, that would be disappointing. And, of course, girls should have the option of being in an all girls group. And I am concerned about possible pressure to join a mixed boy/girl group. Of course, I understand that the Left increasingly sees no difference between the two sexes.
Abusive Government Power
Alfie Evans was a 23 month old child when the UK government's national health plan ordered his breathing tubes removed. The young parents did not want that, and were desperate for anything that might save their son's life. Eventually, the Pope was able to get the Italian government to agree to take Alfie and treat him. After the tubes were removed, Alfie did continue to breathe on his own for a while. But the government and the Courts would not let Alfie leave the country for Italy.
Imagine if Alfie were a healthy child and he and his parents were leaving the UK on vacation to Italy. No problem. So, maybe someone can defend the idea of an otherwise "free" society deciding what treatment a child can get, and even whether they should have a chance at life-saving treatment. Maybe someone can explain why a "free" society would act like the former USSR and not let their citizens leave. The fact that Alfie did not survive, and likely could not be saved, is irrelevant. You see, the UK had already decided that Alfie's life was no longer worth the ongoing expense. But then they went a step further and decided that no one else could spend money trying to save Alfie either.
You have to ask why the government was so invested in their national health plan that they deemed it preferable to allowing Alfie to die, rather than release him to Italy. I wonder if all those supporting Obamacare would still mock Sarah Palin when she talked about "death panels." Palin: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of healthcare. Such a system is downright evil." Amen to that. The decision by the UK's national healthcare plan was downright evil.
Back in the USA, a couple days ago, US District Court Judge T.S. Ellis told the prosecution team of Robert Mueller to turn over to him an unredacted copy of the "scope" memo which set forth the parameters of Mueller's investigation. Congress has already been stonewalled by the DOJ and Rosenstein in their efforts to get the full memo. The Mueller team claimed that some of his powers are secret because they involve ongoing investigations and national security. Secret prosecutions? Again, I have to ask if we are back in the USSR.
The issue arose when Paul Manafort's defense attorneys claimed that Mueller was acting outside the scope of his authority to investigate Russian collusion in the 2016 election. The Judge noted that the alleged crimes by Manafort "manifestly don't have have anything to do with the campaign or with Russian collusion." Judge Ellis: "You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud. You really care about getting information that Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump." The Judge noted that the Michael Cohen case was turned over to the US Attorney's office in Manhattan, and questioned why the Manafort case should be handled any differently.
Then the Judge made this extremely important observation: "What we don't want in this country is we don't want anyone with unfettered power." Yet unfettered power is what Mueller and his team seem to believe they have.
Michael Caputo was a former aid to the Trump campaign. Between the investigation and various lawsuits, he has incurred legal fees of $125,000. He has had to sell his house, all because he worked for Trump. Caputo did agree to speak with Mueller's team, and spent three hours doing so. Caputo: "I think they want to destroy the President. They want to destroy his family. They want to destroy his businesses. They want to destroy his friends - so that no billionaire, in let's say 15 years, wakes up and tells his wife 'you know what, the country's broken and only I can fix it.' His wife will say 'are you crazy? Did you see what happened to Donald Trump and everybody around him.'"
Do I think the Left cares about this "unfettered" government power? Not at all. First, for the Left the ends justify the means; and the end here is to get Trump no matter the cost. They hate him. Leftists that I talk to tell me that they hate Trump. Second, and more disturbing, is the fact that the Left craves ever increasing government power over our lives. They were in favor of the government taking over their healthcare. And now Democrats seem to favor socialism over capitalism - government mandated regulation of the economy over the free market. Free speech? Not if they disagree or find it offensive. Many would now have the government regulate our speech. Government mandated maximum wage, not just minimum wage. Government confiscation of guns.
Many on the Left would no doubt say that they don't support socialism, or government control over all wages, or government determining the parameters of speech, and so on. But then ask who they will vote for, and it will be the Democrats every time. The party that seeks ever increasing government power - unfettered power - over more and more aspects of our lives.
Imagine if Alfie were a healthy child and he and his parents were leaving the UK on vacation to Italy. No problem. So, maybe someone can defend the idea of an otherwise "free" society deciding what treatment a child can get, and even whether they should have a chance at life-saving treatment. Maybe someone can explain why a "free" society would act like the former USSR and not let their citizens leave. The fact that Alfie did not survive, and likely could not be saved, is irrelevant. You see, the UK had already decided that Alfie's life was no longer worth the ongoing expense. But then they went a step further and decided that no one else could spend money trying to save Alfie either.
You have to ask why the government was so invested in their national health plan that they deemed it preferable to allowing Alfie to die, rather than release him to Italy. I wonder if all those supporting Obamacare would still mock Sarah Palin when she talked about "death panels." Palin: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of healthcare. Such a system is downright evil." Amen to that. The decision by the UK's national healthcare plan was downright evil.
Back in the USA, a couple days ago, US District Court Judge T.S. Ellis told the prosecution team of Robert Mueller to turn over to him an unredacted copy of the "scope" memo which set forth the parameters of Mueller's investigation. Congress has already been stonewalled by the DOJ and Rosenstein in their efforts to get the full memo. The Mueller team claimed that some of his powers are secret because they involve ongoing investigations and national security. Secret prosecutions? Again, I have to ask if we are back in the USSR.
The issue arose when Paul Manafort's defense attorneys claimed that Mueller was acting outside the scope of his authority to investigate Russian collusion in the 2016 election. The Judge noted that the alleged crimes by Manafort "manifestly don't have have anything to do with the campaign or with Russian collusion." Judge Ellis: "You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud. You really care about getting information that Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump." The Judge noted that the Michael Cohen case was turned over to the US Attorney's office in Manhattan, and questioned why the Manafort case should be handled any differently.
Then the Judge made this extremely important observation: "What we don't want in this country is we don't want anyone with unfettered power." Yet unfettered power is what Mueller and his team seem to believe they have.
Michael Caputo was a former aid to the Trump campaign. Between the investigation and various lawsuits, he has incurred legal fees of $125,000. He has had to sell his house, all because he worked for Trump. Caputo did agree to speak with Mueller's team, and spent three hours doing so. Caputo: "I think they want to destroy the President. They want to destroy his family. They want to destroy his businesses. They want to destroy his friends - so that no billionaire, in let's say 15 years, wakes up and tells his wife 'you know what, the country's broken and only I can fix it.' His wife will say 'are you crazy? Did you see what happened to Donald Trump and everybody around him.'"
Do I think the Left cares about this "unfettered" government power? Not at all. First, for the Left the ends justify the means; and the end here is to get Trump no matter the cost. They hate him. Leftists that I talk to tell me that they hate Trump. Second, and more disturbing, is the fact that the Left craves ever increasing government power over our lives. They were in favor of the government taking over their healthcare. And now Democrats seem to favor socialism over capitalism - government mandated regulation of the economy over the free market. Free speech? Not if they disagree or find it offensive. Many would now have the government regulate our speech. Government mandated maximum wage, not just minimum wage. Government confiscation of guns.
Many on the Left would no doubt say that they don't support socialism, or government control over all wages, or government determining the parameters of speech, and so on. But then ask who they will vote for, and it will be the Democrats every time. The party that seeks ever increasing government power - unfettered power - over more and more aspects of our lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)