The latest attack on Jews occurred last night in Monsey, New York, a suburb north of New York City. A black man wielding what has been described alternatively as a machete or a large knife, entered the home of a Rabbi celebrating Chanukah with dozens of guests. He stabbed five people, with at least one in critical condition. This was the second attack on Jews in the small city of Monsey within the last month. It was earlier this month that a man and a woman, both black, set out to attack Jews at a kosher market in Jersey City, NJ. In that attack, three people in the store, along with one police officer, were murdered.
Meanwhile, in New York City, attacks on Jews have not only been increasing, but in the past week they have occurred on a daily basis. ABC reported that anti-Semitic hate crimes against Jews in New York City increased 53% this year over last year. And the FBI reported that in 2018, Jews were the victims of religious hate crimes in the USA approximately 60% of the time. Yet Jews only make up about 2% of the US population.
So enough is enough! It is time for everyone to stand up against anti-Semitism. But it is especially time for all Jews, regardless of political affiliation, to stand up against anti-Semitism, regardless of the source. We know that anti-Semitism can come from anywhere - white supremacist/neo-Nazis, Islamists, the Left and increasingly blacks. But the mainstream media and others on the left have a difficult time when the perpetrators fall within one of the Left's favored groups. Here is just one perfect example. When a kosher market was attacked in Paris in 2015, President Barack Obama would not name either the victims or the perpetrators. He refused to say that Jews were the victims, as Jews are not a favored minority of the Left. And he refused to say that the attacker was Muslim, as Muslims are a favored minority. Instead, Obama said the attack was when someone "randomly shot a bunch of folks in a deli." No Jew should accept that type of denial any longer. The shooter targeted Jews in a kosher deli, there was nothing random about it. And the shooter was a Muslim. Period.
If you are Jewish, the Left does not like you. Bernie Sanders, for example, has the anti-Semite, Linda Sarsour, as one of his advisers. Sanders wants to divert the aid given by the US to Israel to the Palestinians. Yes, Sanders is Jewish; but his socialism/progressivism/Leftism has replaced Judaism as his religion of choice.
Recall the Chicago Dyke March in 2017 when Jewish women with a rainbow flag with a Jewish Star of David on it were uninvited to the march. For the Left, Jewish=Israel=Zionism=racism. These days, some on the Left actually refer to Jews as white supremacists and Nazis.
Caroline Glick recently opined that the anti-Semitism emanating from the Left, blacks and Muslims is more dangerous to Jews in America than the Jew hatred of the white supremacists/neo-Nazis. No doubt the latter group has overall been more violent. But as Glick observes, the white supremacists/neo-Nazis have no home in any major party, as they are roundly condemned by all sides. (Please don't tell me about Charlottesville, when Trump said that there were good people on both sides regarding the issue of Confederate statues. If Trump is a neo-Nazi, he is doing a damn poor job of showing it. Aside from his own daughter and grandkids being Jewish, he has been the most pro-Israel President in US history. And, unlike Sanders, he has cut aid to the Palestinians until they agree to stop killing Jews. Not to mention that he moved the American embassy to Israel's actual capital city, Jerusalem. He has recognized Israeli sovereignty over the strategic Golan Heights. And he has made sure that his Ambassador to the UN has protected Israel from one anti-Israel, anti-Semitic resolution after the next.)
Whereas the white supremacists/neo-Nazis are marginalized, Glick tells us that the "progressive, Islamist and black anti-Semites are deeply embedded in the political left. Over the past 15 years, they have become powerful actors in the Democratic party capable of bending the party to their will." And, she says, these anti-Semitic groups all cover for one another. (See the third and fourth paragraphs of this post. And recall when Nancy Pelosi refused to criticize Ilhan Omar for one anti-Semitic comment after the next, defending and excusing her in each instance.) I am a realist. I do not expect left-wing Jews to suddenly vote for Trump or any Republican. But is it asking too much of my fellow Jews to not support candidates who are anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. Need I remind you that Israel has been a safe haven for Jews from around the world.
Recently, President Trump signed an Executive Order that would apply the protections of the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to Jewish college students. The left-wing media and leftist Jews complained, alleging that such an order would stifle debate about the BDS movement. Aside from the fact that the First Amendment protects such speech, these leftists express precious little concern for the regular and ongoing harassment of Jewish college students. Recall, Jews are not a protected group for the Left. The reason for the order was to encourage college administrators to do a much better job of protecting Jewish students. Sadly, the Jewish Left has such a visceral hatred of Trump, that they are unable to acknowledge the good he has done for the Jewish people.
I understand the aversion that people have to Trump's at times crude comments. I really do get it. If you know me, you know it is not my style. What I do not understand is how those words "trump" his policies. Obama spoke nicely, yet during his entire term in office he maligned Israel and ultimately sold Israel out at the UN in December, 2016. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer someone on my side, who is on the side of the Jewish people, to someone who speaks well but will stab me in the back. As a very bright, religious man said to me: "The miracle is that Trump knows there are 2 Jewish communities, and he does not withhold his support for Jewish causes and Israel despite being attacked again and again and again by members of the Jewish people. He loves the more observant and traditional Jew, and he loves Israel." Amen to that.
Sunday, December 29, 2019
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Year End Reflections, Part III
I'll get to it. But first, I was struck by what I read in the 12/16/19 Jerusalem Post. Three headlines in particular caught my attention. 1. "Israel develops 'breakthrough' method to identify thyroid cancer." 2. "Israeli pancreatic cancer treatment could extend lives of 3/4 of patients." 3. "Israelis develop 'self-healing' cars powered by machine learning and AI." Not too bad for the tiny "start-up" nation of only 9 million people. So who supports cutting off aid to Israel besides the leftist democrats? If you do, or if you support the BDS movement, then perhaps you should have no right to benefit from Israeli technological innovations.
Okay, so the House voted to impeach President Trump. Is anybody really surprised? Does anybody really think this is about President Trump's telephone conversation with the Ukranian President? If so, perhaps you can explain this comment by Jerry Nadler immediately after Trump's victory in 2016: "We cannot wait four years to vote Mr. Trump out of office...so we must do everything we can to stop Trump and his extreme agenda now." The Dems hate Trump and always have. And they really hate the fact that he defeated Clinton in 2016. "Extreme agenda?" The best economy in decades. The best stock market. The lowest unemployment rate in decades. New trade deals. A return of manufacturing jobs. The most supportive of Israel of any President.
Even before the election, here is what Politico asked in April, 2016: "Could Trump be impeached shortly after he takes office?" Again, this blog saw what was happening less than two months into the Trump Presidency. See the 3/12/17 post "The Deposing of an American President." Even Pelosi admitted it. When asked if the impeachment hearing was not a little too quick, she replied that the investigation was going on for 2 1/2 years. That is well before the July, 2019 telephone call between Trump and Zelensky. And 19 minutes after Trump was sworn in, this was on the Washington Post site: "The campaign to Impeach President Trump has Begun."
Here's Jerry Nadler during the Clinton impeachment proceedings: "The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election...There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other." Oh. Then so much for today's impeachment vote. On the first Article, abuse of power, the vote was 230-197. On the second Article, obstruction of Congress, the vote was 229-198. The votes were entirely along party lines, except for the handful of Democrats who defected. Tulsi Gabbard voted "present" on both Articles. Jeff Van Drew (NJ) and Collin Peterson (Minn) were two Democrats who voted no on both Articles. And another Democrat, Jared Golden (Maine), voted no on obstruction. All the Republicans voted no.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also had a different attitude 20 years ago from what the Dems are saying now. Now, they claim that McConnell is not going to be an impartial juror in the Senate trial because he said he was going to consult with Trump, the defendant in the trial. But in 1999, Schumer seemed to agree with McConnell, saying this: In this process (the Clinton impeachment) "we'll be consulting the White House because it's the President who's the defendant and due process would guarantee him, or fairness certainly, would guarantee him certain rights."
Now, Schumer and the Dems say the Senate must have a full trial, with subpoenaing documents and calling witnesses. In 1999, Schumer said this: "It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses." The issue of witnesses also demonstrates the inappropriateness of the Second Article - Obstruction of Congress. The House acted as if once subpoenas are issued to the President, the President, representing the co-equal branch of the Executive, had no right to object, no right to seek the intervention of the Courts, which generally resolves conflicts between the other two branches.
But the House could not wait for a Court battle, which might not be resolved until the spring or summer. After 3 years of searching and running non-stop investigations of the President, and having found something that they thought would finally resonate with the American people (it did not), they needed to act quickly as the primaries were only a couple of months away. Therefore, they charged Trump with obstruction, for the simple act of seeking to have his day in Court. Imagine that. I'd say that the Democrats have abused their power with all this nonsense. But I'm looking forward to November, as it looks as if this totally political exercise has locked in a reelection victory for the President.
Okay, so the House voted to impeach President Trump. Is anybody really surprised? Does anybody really think this is about President Trump's telephone conversation with the Ukranian President? If so, perhaps you can explain this comment by Jerry Nadler immediately after Trump's victory in 2016: "We cannot wait four years to vote Mr. Trump out of office...so we must do everything we can to stop Trump and his extreme agenda now." The Dems hate Trump and always have. And they really hate the fact that he defeated Clinton in 2016. "Extreme agenda?" The best economy in decades. The best stock market. The lowest unemployment rate in decades. New trade deals. A return of manufacturing jobs. The most supportive of Israel of any President.
Even before the election, here is what Politico asked in April, 2016: "Could Trump be impeached shortly after he takes office?" Again, this blog saw what was happening less than two months into the Trump Presidency. See the 3/12/17 post "The Deposing of an American President." Even Pelosi admitted it. When asked if the impeachment hearing was not a little too quick, she replied that the investigation was going on for 2 1/2 years. That is well before the July, 2019 telephone call between Trump and Zelensky. And 19 minutes after Trump was sworn in, this was on the Washington Post site: "The campaign to Impeach President Trump has Begun."
Here's Jerry Nadler during the Clinton impeachment proceedings: "The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election...There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other." Oh. Then so much for today's impeachment vote. On the first Article, abuse of power, the vote was 230-197. On the second Article, obstruction of Congress, the vote was 229-198. The votes were entirely along party lines, except for the handful of Democrats who defected. Tulsi Gabbard voted "present" on both Articles. Jeff Van Drew (NJ) and Collin Peterson (Minn) were two Democrats who voted no on both Articles. And another Democrat, Jared Golden (Maine), voted no on obstruction. All the Republicans voted no.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also had a different attitude 20 years ago from what the Dems are saying now. Now, they claim that McConnell is not going to be an impartial juror in the Senate trial because he said he was going to consult with Trump, the defendant in the trial. But in 1999, Schumer seemed to agree with McConnell, saying this: In this process (the Clinton impeachment) "we'll be consulting the White House because it's the President who's the defendant and due process would guarantee him, or fairness certainly, would guarantee him certain rights."
Now, Schumer and the Dems say the Senate must have a full trial, with subpoenaing documents and calling witnesses. In 1999, Schumer said this: "It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses." The issue of witnesses also demonstrates the inappropriateness of the Second Article - Obstruction of Congress. The House acted as if once subpoenas are issued to the President, the President, representing the co-equal branch of the Executive, had no right to object, no right to seek the intervention of the Courts, which generally resolves conflicts between the other two branches.
But the House could not wait for a Court battle, which might not be resolved until the spring or summer. After 3 years of searching and running non-stop investigations of the President, and having found something that they thought would finally resonate with the American people (it did not), they needed to act quickly as the primaries were only a couple of months away. Therefore, they charged Trump with obstruction, for the simple act of seeking to have his day in Court. Imagine that. I'd say that the Democrats have abused their power with all this nonsense. But I'm looking forward to November, as it looks as if this totally political exercise has locked in a reelection victory for the President.
Sunday, December 8, 2019
Year End Reflections, Part II
The constitutional scholars testify about impeachment. One of the Democrats' witnesses, Noah Feldman, was ready to impeach President Trump only months into his presidency. Feldman was offended by Trump's use of the expression "fake news." He felt that it might "curtail press freedoms (and) frighten the press," resulting in the press "ceasing to be effective critics." Not only did that not happen, but the reverse happened. You could not find a positive article about Trump or his policies in almost any of the mainstream media.
Pamela Karlan, another of the Dems' constitutional scholars, could barely hide her total disdain for Trump. As early as 2017, she also, dare I say, hated Trump. On a trip into D.C., she mentioned (again, this was 2017) that she was walking to her hotel, and "I was walking past what used to be the old post office building and is now Trump Hotel. I had to cross the street, of course." Of course, otherwise she might catch the plague. Asked if she was staying there, she replied: "G-d no! Never!"
The fake news opines. In an online piece in the New York Times on 12/6/19, we are hit with this headline: "With Impeachment Unfolding Amid a Booming Economy, What Will Voters Prioritize?" We are told that America is in an 11 year expansion. Get that? They throw in all eight years of Obama. The same Obama who told us to get used to a 2% growth rate. The same Obama who told us that manufacturing jobs would never return, and mocked Trump for saying that he would bring those jobs back, as if he had a magic wand. Anyway, the article tells us that "employers have hired 2.2 million people over the past 12 months," and that unemployment "is at 3.5% - it's lowest in half a century." But, proving that they are, indeed, the fake news, the Times tells us: "those gains have often come in spite of Mr. Trump's policies, not because of them." That's right, NEVER EVER give Trump credit for anything good. Ever!
The economy could not possibly have responded to the lowering of taxes, the cutting of regulations or the new trade deals, all thanks to Trump. Trudeau mocked Trump at the recent European summit. Too bad Canada lost 71,000 jobs in November, while the US gained 266,000 jobs. So mock away. We also gained 54,000 of those manufacturing jobs Obama said would never come back. (This blog has discussed the issue of media bias going all the way back to 2011. For those interested, see the posts on "Media Bias, Parts I-IV," posted 12/17/11, 1/7/12, 1/21/12, and 2/3/13. The issue has come up in numerous other posts as well.)
The House passes an anti-Israel resolution. The vote was 226 to 188, almost entirely along party lines. Only 5 Republicans voted in favor, with 4 Democrats (the "Squad" members) voting against. The resolution says, among other things, "Whereas the United States has long sought a just and stable future for Palestinians, and an end to the occupation, including settlement activity and moves toward unilateral annexation in Palestinian territory..." First, this resolution was intended to counter the recent declaration of the Trump Administration, made by Secretary of State Pompeo, that the settlements are not per se in violation of international law. Second, the resolution picks up where Obama left off, using the Palestinian term "occupation." Third, again picking up where Obama left off, the resolution refers to "Palestinian territory," as if the boundaries of that area are somehow a foregone conclusion. Obama allowed the passage of a UN Security Council resolution his last month in office, which set forth the boundaries of a Palestinian state, with the area encompassing Gaza, the West Bank and "East" Jerusalem.
You see, the Dems have given up on a negotiated resolution between the two sides. Rather, they want to pressure who? Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East and possibly in the world. And the Democratic candidates for President? They appeared at the left-wing meeting of J-Street, which bills itself as pro-Israel, but is not. These candidates - Biden and Sanders and Warren and Buttigieg - did not appear at the more centrist AIPAC convention. Sanders: "What is going on in Gaza right now is absolutely inhumane, it is unacceptable, it is unsustainable." So, don't blame Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip. Don't blame Hamas, which spends millions to build and buy weaponry to use against Israel. No, blame Israel, and threaten to cut US funding to Israel. Let's not forget that soon after taking office in 2009, Obama said we needed to create "daylight" between the US and Israel. And the Democrats have sought to do just that ever since. (For a detailed discussion of the history and geography of Israel and the Middle East, see the 3/25/11 post, "Letter to a College Student.")
Schiff violates people's civil rights and the mainstream media yawns. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, obtained the phone records of Devin Nunes, ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, reporter John Solomon and others. Then Schiff put the information in his report to the Judiciary Committee. The content of the calls was not revealed; rather, it was the metadata - showing the phone numbers, the length of the calls and when the calls were made. It appears that this was a first, with one member of Congress (Democrat Schiff) spying on another member (Republican Nunes). As the 12/5/19 editorial in the Wall Street Journal said, "This is unprecedented and looks like an abuse of government surveillance authority for partisan gain." Partisan gain? That has a familiar ring to it. When do we get to see the call logs of Adam Schiff and his staff with the "whistle blower," so that we might see what coordination there was in setting up this whole Ukraine story.
Kimberly Strassel, in her 12/6/19 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, said this: "The media is treating this as a victory, when it is a disgraceful breach of ethical and legal propriety." The New York Times was, in fact, elated over the disclosure. In their 12/4/19 edition, on page A17, is this headline: "Phone Records Support Idea That Giuliani Ran Shadow Foreign Policy." As if no other president ever had unofficial advisers. As if no other president ever had a "kitchen cabinet." Nowhere in the article did I see that the reporters asked any legal scholars if the release of the names and phone metadata of those surveilled was appropriate under the law. But why would they. Why would Schiff abusing the powers of his office to go after his political opponents bother the mainstream media. If they do not want to be referred to as the "fake news," then maybe they should start acting as if they are not.
Pamela Karlan, another of the Dems' constitutional scholars, could barely hide her total disdain for Trump. As early as 2017, she also, dare I say, hated Trump. On a trip into D.C., she mentioned (again, this was 2017) that she was walking to her hotel, and "I was walking past what used to be the old post office building and is now Trump Hotel. I had to cross the street, of course." Of course, otherwise she might catch the plague. Asked if she was staying there, she replied: "G-d no! Never!"
The fake news opines. In an online piece in the New York Times on 12/6/19, we are hit with this headline: "With Impeachment Unfolding Amid a Booming Economy, What Will Voters Prioritize?" We are told that America is in an 11 year expansion. Get that? They throw in all eight years of Obama. The same Obama who told us to get used to a 2% growth rate. The same Obama who told us that manufacturing jobs would never return, and mocked Trump for saying that he would bring those jobs back, as if he had a magic wand. Anyway, the article tells us that "employers have hired 2.2 million people over the past 12 months," and that unemployment "is at 3.5% - it's lowest in half a century." But, proving that they are, indeed, the fake news, the Times tells us: "those gains have often come in spite of Mr. Trump's policies, not because of them." That's right, NEVER EVER give Trump credit for anything good. Ever!
The economy could not possibly have responded to the lowering of taxes, the cutting of regulations or the new trade deals, all thanks to Trump. Trudeau mocked Trump at the recent European summit. Too bad Canada lost 71,000 jobs in November, while the US gained 266,000 jobs. So mock away. We also gained 54,000 of those manufacturing jobs Obama said would never come back. (This blog has discussed the issue of media bias going all the way back to 2011. For those interested, see the posts on "Media Bias, Parts I-IV," posted 12/17/11, 1/7/12, 1/21/12, and 2/3/13. The issue has come up in numerous other posts as well.)
The House passes an anti-Israel resolution. The vote was 226 to 188, almost entirely along party lines. Only 5 Republicans voted in favor, with 4 Democrats (the "Squad" members) voting against. The resolution says, among other things, "Whereas the United States has long sought a just and stable future for Palestinians, and an end to the occupation, including settlement activity and moves toward unilateral annexation in Palestinian territory..." First, this resolution was intended to counter the recent declaration of the Trump Administration, made by Secretary of State Pompeo, that the settlements are not per se in violation of international law. Second, the resolution picks up where Obama left off, using the Palestinian term "occupation." Third, again picking up where Obama left off, the resolution refers to "Palestinian territory," as if the boundaries of that area are somehow a foregone conclusion. Obama allowed the passage of a UN Security Council resolution his last month in office, which set forth the boundaries of a Palestinian state, with the area encompassing Gaza, the West Bank and "East" Jerusalem.
You see, the Dems have given up on a negotiated resolution between the two sides. Rather, they want to pressure who? Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East and possibly in the world. And the Democratic candidates for President? They appeared at the left-wing meeting of J-Street, which bills itself as pro-Israel, but is not. These candidates - Biden and Sanders and Warren and Buttigieg - did not appear at the more centrist AIPAC convention. Sanders: "What is going on in Gaza right now is absolutely inhumane, it is unacceptable, it is unsustainable." So, don't blame Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip. Don't blame Hamas, which spends millions to build and buy weaponry to use against Israel. No, blame Israel, and threaten to cut US funding to Israel. Let's not forget that soon after taking office in 2009, Obama said we needed to create "daylight" between the US and Israel. And the Democrats have sought to do just that ever since. (For a detailed discussion of the history and geography of Israel and the Middle East, see the 3/25/11 post, "Letter to a College Student.")
Schiff violates people's civil rights and the mainstream media yawns. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, obtained the phone records of Devin Nunes, ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, reporter John Solomon and others. Then Schiff put the information in his report to the Judiciary Committee. The content of the calls was not revealed; rather, it was the metadata - showing the phone numbers, the length of the calls and when the calls were made. It appears that this was a first, with one member of Congress (Democrat Schiff) spying on another member (Republican Nunes). As the 12/5/19 editorial in the Wall Street Journal said, "This is unprecedented and looks like an abuse of government surveillance authority for partisan gain." Partisan gain? That has a familiar ring to it. When do we get to see the call logs of Adam Schiff and his staff with the "whistle blower," so that we might see what coordination there was in setting up this whole Ukraine story.
Kimberly Strassel, in her 12/6/19 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, said this: "The media is treating this as a victory, when it is a disgraceful breach of ethical and legal propriety." The New York Times was, in fact, elated over the disclosure. In their 12/4/19 edition, on page A17, is this headline: "Phone Records Support Idea That Giuliani Ran Shadow Foreign Policy." As if no other president ever had unofficial advisers. As if no other president ever had a "kitchen cabinet." Nowhere in the article did I see that the reporters asked any legal scholars if the release of the names and phone metadata of those surveilled was appropriate under the law. But why would they. Why would Schiff abusing the powers of his office to go after his political opponents bother the mainstream media. If they do not want to be referred to as the "fake news," then maybe they should start acting as if they are not.
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Year End Reflections, Part I
Impeachment. It was nice having a week break from impeachment talk, at least from the House of Representatives, which was on its Thanksgiving recess. The mainstream media took no such break, as on any given day in any given paper, one could find about 5 anti-Trump, pro-impeachment articles. So allow me to present some opposing views. Former diplomat Dave Seminara had an Op-Ed in the 11/22/19 Wall Street Journal. Commenting on the criticism of Trump for going outside state department channels and using Rudy Giuliani to promote the Trump agenda, Seminara reminds us that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchanged over 150 emails about Libya with Sidney Blumenthal, who was not in the government, and not one email exchange with our Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. Seminara emphasizes how the various diplomats who testified had no real "insight into the president's decision-making," which is "not uncommon for officers of their rank."
Seminara went on to discuss how the diplomats spoke of the importance of fighting corruption in Ukraine, yet could not bring themselves to truly criticize Joe Biden. With Biden's son, Hunter, being paid $50,000 per month by the Ukranian energy company Burisma, which was under investigation for corruption, then VP Biden was put in charge of White House policy on Ukraine. Seminara explained that the diplomats who testified should have "at least argue(d) that Joe Biden should have recused himself from Ukraine policy, but they didn't seize" (the opportunity). Their failure to do so supported my argument in the last post that these diplomats had an anti-Trump bias. Finally, Seminara told us that the diplomats saying they worked under both Democratic and Republican presidents was not terribly meaningful, as "it's currently true of every career diplomat with three years on the job."
The truth about the Democrats' and media's view of Trump. In her 11/26/19 Op-Ed in the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg undoubtedly speaks for millions when she dismisses the legitimacy of the Trump presidency, based upon two "big lies." "The first big lie is that "the people" elected Trump, and that the constitutional provision of impeachment would invalidate their choice. In fact, Trump is president only because a constitutional provision invalidated the choice of the American people." Here is a little history lesson for Ms. Goldberg - the US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. "The people" do indeed elect the president, but they do so through the electoral college, which is part of our Constitution. That is the way it has been done for 230 years. Goldberg: "The second big lie is that Russia didn't help elect Trump, and that the president has been absolved of collusion." Of course, she presents no hard evidence of how the Russians helped Trump win. But that is not the point. The point is the Dems and the media have never and will never accept Trump as President, which is why we have been hearing about impeachment for the last three years and counting, and why we will continue to hear about it for four more years.
Israel. President Trump has been the most pro-Israel president in our history. On 11/18/19, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said this: "the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law." Pompeo also added that the ultimate status of the West Bank will have to be decided by the two sides. That comment is generally left out of the criticisms flowing from left-wing groups. Demonstrating how Trump and Pompeo let reality dictate their beliefs, Pompeo also said: "...calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law hasn't worked. It hasn't advanced the cause of peace." No surprise, but the EU and many Dems opposed Pompeo's assertion. Elizabeth Warren would reverse that policy if elected. Trump moved the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel's capital. Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Trump withheld aid from the Palestinian Authority because of their funding of terrorists. I suspect most (all?) of the current Democratic candidates for president would reverse most (all?) of Trump's pro-Israel policies. In fact, 107 Democratic members of the House (that is 46%, nearly half, of the 233 House Democrats) sent a letter to Pompeo asking him to reverse this latest policy pronouncement.
US organizations were split in their support for Pompeo's declaration. Caroline Glick reports that the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) was, as expected, strongly supportive. As was the Orthodox Union. So was Christians United for Israel (CUFI). But the Union of Reform Judaism, and, of course, J Street (which deceptively bills itself as pro-Israel) were opposed. Sadly, the Jewish Federations of North America had no comment. Most disappointing to this writer was the reaction of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is the largest pro-Israel Jewish lobbying group in Washington, and has many Democrats among its leaders. AIPAC: "AIPAC does not take a position on settlements..." As Glick argues, every anti-Semitic, anti-Israel group uses the alleged "illegality" of the settlements to support the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement, and their anti-Israel attitudes. As Herb Keinon opined in his 11/24/19 piece in The Jerusalem Post: "The Democrats are lowering the standard for what is considered pro-Israel, while the Republicans are raising it."
Pompeo's declaration was a direct repudiation of Obama's policy. Recall that at the end of his term in December, 2016, President Obama refused to have our UN Ambassador veto a Security Council resolution that said: "...the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law..." (For a complete discussion and understanding of the significance of that UN resolution, see the 12/24/16 post "The United States Abandons Israel at the United Nations.") In brief, Obama supported a resolution essentially establishing a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders - borders which have no legal significance, and ceded control of "East" Jerusalem, the location of the most holy sites in Judaism, to the Palestinians. Contrary to the assertions in that UN resolution, no Palestinian state has ever existed on that land.
Both major parties in Israel were highly supportive and appreciative of Pompeo's statement, reflecting the Trump Administration's ongoing support for Israel. I would like to be able to say that Jews on both sides of the political divide in the US are also supportive, but that is not the case. I would not be surprised to see the same 70%-80% of American Jews vote for the Democratic candidate next year, even if that candidate pledges to undo each and every one of Trump's pro-Israel policies. Given the growing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attitudes and actions in the US and throughout the world, it is difficult to understand.
Seminara went on to discuss how the diplomats spoke of the importance of fighting corruption in Ukraine, yet could not bring themselves to truly criticize Joe Biden. With Biden's son, Hunter, being paid $50,000 per month by the Ukranian energy company Burisma, which was under investigation for corruption, then VP Biden was put in charge of White House policy on Ukraine. Seminara explained that the diplomats who testified should have "at least argue(d) that Joe Biden should have recused himself from Ukraine policy, but they didn't seize" (the opportunity). Their failure to do so supported my argument in the last post that these diplomats had an anti-Trump bias. Finally, Seminara told us that the diplomats saying they worked under both Democratic and Republican presidents was not terribly meaningful, as "it's currently true of every career diplomat with three years on the job."
The truth about the Democrats' and media's view of Trump. In her 11/26/19 Op-Ed in the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg undoubtedly speaks for millions when she dismisses the legitimacy of the Trump presidency, based upon two "big lies." "The first big lie is that "the people" elected Trump, and that the constitutional provision of impeachment would invalidate their choice. In fact, Trump is president only because a constitutional provision invalidated the choice of the American people." Here is a little history lesson for Ms. Goldberg - the US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. "The people" do indeed elect the president, but they do so through the electoral college, which is part of our Constitution. That is the way it has been done for 230 years. Goldberg: "The second big lie is that Russia didn't help elect Trump, and that the president has been absolved of collusion." Of course, she presents no hard evidence of how the Russians helped Trump win. But that is not the point. The point is the Dems and the media have never and will never accept Trump as President, which is why we have been hearing about impeachment for the last three years and counting, and why we will continue to hear about it for four more years.
Israel. President Trump has been the most pro-Israel president in our history. On 11/18/19, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said this: "the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law." Pompeo also added that the ultimate status of the West Bank will have to be decided by the two sides. That comment is generally left out of the criticisms flowing from left-wing groups. Demonstrating how Trump and Pompeo let reality dictate their beliefs, Pompeo also said: "...calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law hasn't worked. It hasn't advanced the cause of peace." No surprise, but the EU and many Dems opposed Pompeo's assertion. Elizabeth Warren would reverse that policy if elected. Trump moved the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel's capital. Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Trump withheld aid from the Palestinian Authority because of their funding of terrorists. I suspect most (all?) of the current Democratic candidates for president would reverse most (all?) of Trump's pro-Israel policies. In fact, 107 Democratic members of the House (that is 46%, nearly half, of the 233 House Democrats) sent a letter to Pompeo asking him to reverse this latest policy pronouncement.
US organizations were split in their support for Pompeo's declaration. Caroline Glick reports that the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) was, as expected, strongly supportive. As was the Orthodox Union. So was Christians United for Israel (CUFI). But the Union of Reform Judaism, and, of course, J Street (which deceptively bills itself as pro-Israel) were opposed. Sadly, the Jewish Federations of North America had no comment. Most disappointing to this writer was the reaction of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is the largest pro-Israel Jewish lobbying group in Washington, and has many Democrats among its leaders. AIPAC: "AIPAC does not take a position on settlements..." As Glick argues, every anti-Semitic, anti-Israel group uses the alleged "illegality" of the settlements to support the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement, and their anti-Israel attitudes. As Herb Keinon opined in his 11/24/19 piece in The Jerusalem Post: "The Democrats are lowering the standard for what is considered pro-Israel, while the Republicans are raising it."
Pompeo's declaration was a direct repudiation of Obama's policy. Recall that at the end of his term in December, 2016, President Obama refused to have our UN Ambassador veto a Security Council resolution that said: "...the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law..." (For a complete discussion and understanding of the significance of that UN resolution, see the 12/24/16 post "The United States Abandons Israel at the United Nations.") In brief, Obama supported a resolution essentially establishing a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders - borders which have no legal significance, and ceded control of "East" Jerusalem, the location of the most holy sites in Judaism, to the Palestinians. Contrary to the assertions in that UN resolution, no Palestinian state has ever existed on that land.
Both major parties in Israel were highly supportive and appreciative of Pompeo's statement, reflecting the Trump Administration's ongoing support for Israel. I would like to be able to say that Jews on both sides of the political divide in the US are also supportive, but that is not the case. I would not be surprised to see the same 70%-80% of American Jews vote for the Democratic candidate next year, even if that candidate pledges to undo each and every one of Trump's pro-Israel policies. Given the growing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attitudes and actions in the US and throughout the world, it is difficult to understand.
Sunday, November 17, 2019
Impeachment!
We have finally arrived at the Democrat's long sought after goal of impeaching President Trump. This goal began with his 2016 election, with talk of impeachment beginning even before Trump won the election. We have a so-called "whistle blower" represented by attorney Mark Zaid. Mr. Zaid, in turn, Tweeted this on 1/30/17, a mere 10 days after Trump was sworn in: "# coup has started. First of many steps. # rebellion. # impeachment will follow ultimately. # lawyers." In 7/17 Zaid said this: "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @real Donald Trump not finishing out his full term as president." I am confident that it was strictly coincidental that Zaid ended up representing this "whistle blower," and that CNN has had almost non-stop anti-Trump coverage. Sure I am.
The Democrats and the mainstream media so hated Trump, that this blog had already devoted a full post to the subject less than two months into the Trump Presidency. In the 3/12/17 post, "The Deposing of an American President," we saw Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, discussing what sounded like the need for violent demonstrations in the street. We saw a former DOD employee discussing the possible need for a military coup! Most of the dislike for Trump so early in his term had to do with the fact that the Dems/media could not accept that he defeated Hillary. After all, she was a shoo-in. The only issue for them was Trump himself. They did not like him, his personality, his ego, his name calling and so on.
To illustrate the point, I had an interesting discussion with someone who told me that Trump was an egotist and a narcissist. I agreed; and then I asked if he felt the same way about Obama. He did not. I pointed out that I was struck by how often Obama said "I" (as in "I did" or "I instructed") during one of his speeches. I decided to compare it with one of Bush's speeches. Throughout Bush's speech were many "we's" and "they's (as in "we decided" or "they/the army/the troops" were able to...). I pointed out to this individual that he never noticed it because Obama seemed "nicer" to him, and he liked Obama. As such, he was less critical of Obama's words and deeds. One could easily conclude from the way Obama spoke (with all his "I's") that he personally killed Osama bin Ladin. But, as we know, perception is reality for some.
How interesting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, in charge of these proceedings. I assume she was not overly impressed with the Mueller hearings (a dud for the Democrats) run by Jerry Nadler, chair of the Judiciary Committee. And, unlike the Nixon and Clinton proceedings, the minority party (Republicans) may only call witnesses with Schiff's approval. I trust we will not be able to hear from Hunter Biden or Joe Biden. The measure authorizing the impeachment proceeding was only brought to a vote after the House investigation had begun. It resulted in a strictly partisan measure, with no Republicans voting in favor, with two Democrats even opposing the measure. Schiff is the one who told us that there is "plenty of evidence of collusion" before Mueller determined that there was not.
Did you notice that the Democrats switched their talking points from "quid pro quo" to "bribery?" The poll numbers were not moving sufficiently in favor of impeachment for "quid pro quo." So they held a focus group of voters and found that "bribery" was far more likely to get people's attentions. What was the "quid pro quo?" That Trump held back aid from our "vital ally," Ukraine, until the Ukranian president would publicly agree to look into Ukranian influence in the 2016 election, which would include the role of the Bidens. The charge is that Trump used his office for personal political interests, seeking to hurt Democratic front runner Joe Biden. A couple of things. I believe a number of presidents have been accused of using the power of their office for political gain, such as when a president is alleged to have started a military operation to either bolster sagging poll numbers or to distract from domestic problems or scandals.
Another thing I noticed is that Ukraine almost overnight became a vital ally to the US. Did that happen when the two witnesses testified on Wednesday? The testimony was given by two State Department employees - George Kent (Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs) and William Taylor (the US charge d'affaires in Ukraine). On Friday, former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified. I was able to catch some of their testimony. I was struck by the fact that much of the discussion seemed to be about policy. Ukraine is apparently a vital ally, presumably in the battle against Russia; and contending with a hostile Russia is the basis for much of our foreign policy.
Just today, on Face the Nation, Speaker Pelosi claimed that Trump's foreign policy is geared towards helping Russia. Clearly, she has not given up on "Russian collusion." So, why did Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, present the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, with a red "reset" button, meant to symbolize Obama's effort to reset relations with Russia. And, let's not forget to mention Obama's message to Putin that he would have more flexibility after his re-election. Putin rightly took it as a sign of weakness by Obama, and seized the Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine as well. Did Obama send offensive weapons to Ukraine to help fight the Russians? No, Trump did that. Obama did not want to offend the Russians. And Obama followed the lead of France and Germany, who opposed supplying arms to the Ukranians.
Here are a few things we are being asked to believe. Chairman Schiff does not know the identity of the "whistle blower," who met with members of Schiff's staff, assuming he did not meet directly with Schiff. My guess is he did, but if he did not, Schiff's staff kept the name a secret - even from their boss. The State Department employees have no bias and are career civil servants just doing their jobs. Would that be like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were just FBI employees doing their job with no bias against Trump? (Recall their text messages calling Trump "awful" and a "disaster" - and those were the nicer messages. Other messages concerned what these FBI employees would need to do in the unlikely event Trump won the election.) Like Andrew McCabe and James Comey were just doing their jobs? The Hill reported in October, 2016, that $1,959,467 was donated by the end of September, 2016, to the two campaigns by federal employees across 14 different departments. Nearly 95% of those donations went to Hillary Clinton. And for the State Department employees? Over 99% of the donations went to Clinton. Can you say "deep state?"
We are also asked to believe that Obama denying necessary military aid to Ukraine in order to fight the Russians was no big deal. But Trump holding up such aid for a short period of time is a catastrophe, jeopardizing our national security, and a sign that Trump works for the Russians. And, we are not allowed to know about any Ukranian efforts to affect the 2016 election on behalf of Clinton, because that might suggest Trump had a legitimate reason to ask the Ukranians to look into the 2016 election and any "collusion" with the Obama/Biden/Clinton team.
Lastly, we are asked to believe that this impeachment hearing is all about protecting the Constitution. See the 10/6/19 post regarding that nonsense. No, Democrat Congressman Al Green told us what this is really all about. Green said he was "concerned if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." Because the Democrats do not respect the process. They could not believe the American people elected Donald Trump to be President. And they cannot take the chance that the people (aka the "deplorables") will re-elect him. I still see articles suggesting that if Trump loses in 2020 he will not accept the results and will have to be forcefully removed from the White House. Who cannot accept what?
The Democrats and the mainstream media so hated Trump, that this blog had already devoted a full post to the subject less than two months into the Trump Presidency. In the 3/12/17 post, "The Deposing of an American President," we saw Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, discussing what sounded like the need for violent demonstrations in the street. We saw a former DOD employee discussing the possible need for a military coup! Most of the dislike for Trump so early in his term had to do with the fact that the Dems/media could not accept that he defeated Hillary. After all, she was a shoo-in. The only issue for them was Trump himself. They did not like him, his personality, his ego, his name calling and so on.
To illustrate the point, I had an interesting discussion with someone who told me that Trump was an egotist and a narcissist. I agreed; and then I asked if he felt the same way about Obama. He did not. I pointed out that I was struck by how often Obama said "I" (as in "I did" or "I instructed") during one of his speeches. I decided to compare it with one of Bush's speeches. Throughout Bush's speech were many "we's" and "they's (as in "we decided" or "they/the army/the troops" were able to...). I pointed out to this individual that he never noticed it because Obama seemed "nicer" to him, and he liked Obama. As such, he was less critical of Obama's words and deeds. One could easily conclude from the way Obama spoke (with all his "I's") that he personally killed Osama bin Ladin. But, as we know, perception is reality for some.
How interesting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, in charge of these proceedings. I assume she was not overly impressed with the Mueller hearings (a dud for the Democrats) run by Jerry Nadler, chair of the Judiciary Committee. And, unlike the Nixon and Clinton proceedings, the minority party (Republicans) may only call witnesses with Schiff's approval. I trust we will not be able to hear from Hunter Biden or Joe Biden. The measure authorizing the impeachment proceeding was only brought to a vote after the House investigation had begun. It resulted in a strictly partisan measure, with no Republicans voting in favor, with two Democrats even opposing the measure. Schiff is the one who told us that there is "plenty of evidence of collusion" before Mueller determined that there was not.
Did you notice that the Democrats switched their talking points from "quid pro quo" to "bribery?" The poll numbers were not moving sufficiently in favor of impeachment for "quid pro quo." So they held a focus group of voters and found that "bribery" was far more likely to get people's attentions. What was the "quid pro quo?" That Trump held back aid from our "vital ally," Ukraine, until the Ukranian president would publicly agree to look into Ukranian influence in the 2016 election, which would include the role of the Bidens. The charge is that Trump used his office for personal political interests, seeking to hurt Democratic front runner Joe Biden. A couple of things. I believe a number of presidents have been accused of using the power of their office for political gain, such as when a president is alleged to have started a military operation to either bolster sagging poll numbers or to distract from domestic problems or scandals.
Another thing I noticed is that Ukraine almost overnight became a vital ally to the US. Did that happen when the two witnesses testified on Wednesday? The testimony was given by two State Department employees - George Kent (Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs) and William Taylor (the US charge d'affaires in Ukraine). On Friday, former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified. I was able to catch some of their testimony. I was struck by the fact that much of the discussion seemed to be about policy. Ukraine is apparently a vital ally, presumably in the battle against Russia; and contending with a hostile Russia is the basis for much of our foreign policy.
Just today, on Face the Nation, Speaker Pelosi claimed that Trump's foreign policy is geared towards helping Russia. Clearly, she has not given up on "Russian collusion." So, why did Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, present the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, with a red "reset" button, meant to symbolize Obama's effort to reset relations with Russia. And, let's not forget to mention Obama's message to Putin that he would have more flexibility after his re-election. Putin rightly took it as a sign of weakness by Obama, and seized the Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine as well. Did Obama send offensive weapons to Ukraine to help fight the Russians? No, Trump did that. Obama did not want to offend the Russians. And Obama followed the lead of France and Germany, who opposed supplying arms to the Ukranians.
Here are a few things we are being asked to believe. Chairman Schiff does not know the identity of the "whistle blower," who met with members of Schiff's staff, assuming he did not meet directly with Schiff. My guess is he did, but if he did not, Schiff's staff kept the name a secret - even from their boss. The State Department employees have no bias and are career civil servants just doing their jobs. Would that be like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were just FBI employees doing their job with no bias against Trump? (Recall their text messages calling Trump "awful" and a "disaster" - and those were the nicer messages. Other messages concerned what these FBI employees would need to do in the unlikely event Trump won the election.) Like Andrew McCabe and James Comey were just doing their jobs? The Hill reported in October, 2016, that $1,959,467 was donated by the end of September, 2016, to the two campaigns by federal employees across 14 different departments. Nearly 95% of those donations went to Hillary Clinton. And for the State Department employees? Over 99% of the donations went to Clinton. Can you say "deep state?"
We are also asked to believe that Obama denying necessary military aid to Ukraine in order to fight the Russians was no big deal. But Trump holding up such aid for a short period of time is a catastrophe, jeopardizing our national security, and a sign that Trump works for the Russians. And, we are not allowed to know about any Ukranian efforts to affect the 2016 election on behalf of Clinton, because that might suggest Trump had a legitimate reason to ask the Ukranians to look into the 2016 election and any "collusion" with the Obama/Biden/Clinton team.
Lastly, we are asked to believe that this impeachment hearing is all about protecting the Constitution. See the 10/6/19 post regarding that nonsense. No, Democrat Congressman Al Green told us what this is really all about. Green said he was "concerned if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." Because the Democrats do not respect the process. They could not believe the American people elected Donald Trump to be President. And they cannot take the chance that the people (aka the "deplorables") will re-elect him. I still see articles suggesting that if Trump loses in 2020 he will not accept the results and will have to be forcefully removed from the White House. Who cannot accept what?
Sunday, November 3, 2019
Israel is Caught in the Cross Hairs of the Left-Wing Dreamers of the Democratic Party
As noted previously, Elizabeth Warren said that "everything is on the table" when it comes to aid to Israel. Pete Buttigieg has similar views. Now, yet another Democratic presidential candidate has come out against Israel. Bernie Sanders: "...we need an even-handed proposal for both peoples (Israelis and Palestinians). What is going on in Gaza right now, for example, is absolutely inhumane. It is unacceptable. It is unsustainable." Bernie wants to blame Israel for the poor living conditions in Gaza. Sanders: "I would use the leverage of $3.8 billion - it is a lot of money, and we cannot give it carte blanche to the Israeli government, or for that matter to any government at all. We have a right to demand respect for human rights and democracy."
I agree that we can not give aid "carte blanche" to any country. Sanders is saying there must be a "quid pro quo" with regard to US foreign aid. Sounds familiar. But our aid to Israel already requires them to use most, if not all, of that aid to buy military equipment from the USA. That acts as an indirect subsidy to our industries. And it gives the US military the benefit of seeing how new weapons systems work in the field, as Israel almost always needs to use the military hardware they buy.
As a throwaway line, Sanders gave a not terribly severe critique of the Palestinian leaders: "Let us recognize there has been corruption in terms of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Let's recognize that as well." So, let's "recognize" the Palestinians have some issues, but let's punish Israel. And let's not recognize that Hamas get millions of dollars in foreign aid that they use to build rockets, buy missiles, and build underground tunnels into Israel in order to be able to capture and kill Israelis. And let's definitely not insist that Hamas cease buying weaponry that they use to attack civilian targets in Israel.
Sanders: "I think it is fair to say that some of that $3.8 billion should go right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza." Good to know that Sanders trusts Hamas to use money flowing into Gaza for humanitarian purposes. Also nice to know that Sanders does not care about the fact that the aid to Israel was approved by Congress. Hmmm, Sanders wants to divert money approved by Congress to some other purpose.
Kelly Craft is the current US Ambassador to the United Nations, having been appointed by President Trump. Compare the Trump Administration's attitude towards Hamas and Israel with the Democrats' attitudes. At the recent UN Security Council meeting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, most countries condemned Israel, just like the Democrats are doing. On the other hand, Craft called Hamas "a terrorist organization that oppresses the Palestinian people in Gaza through intimidation and outright violence, while inciting violence against Israel."
Craft said that when Hamas fires rockets into Israel they are "just as likely to hit a classroom full of children as it is to strike a military asset." Craft: "If there is anything more despicable than Hamas' attacks on civilian areas, it is the way they treat their own children as pawns in a political game. Every Friday, Hamas encourages minors to join riots at the security fence (between Israel and Gaza), hoping that violence will erupt, and that the children will be injured or even killed as a result, thereby feeding their propaganda machine. A more cynical and shameful approach could not be devised. This is child abuse, plain and simple, and I condemn it. We all should."
Notice how the Trump Administration is very clear about Hamas being a terrorist organization, with no qualms about describing their tactics, such as attacking civilian targets in Israel, and using their own children as props. Craft does not give us a meaningless throwaway line like Sanders did about Palestinian "corruption." The Trump Administration acknowledges the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg and other Democrats continue to live in their dream world, speaking as if more money going to Hamas will result in hope for the Palestinian people. But I've said it before: conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs, liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality.
I agree that we can not give aid "carte blanche" to any country. Sanders is saying there must be a "quid pro quo" with regard to US foreign aid. Sounds familiar. But our aid to Israel already requires them to use most, if not all, of that aid to buy military equipment from the USA. That acts as an indirect subsidy to our industries. And it gives the US military the benefit of seeing how new weapons systems work in the field, as Israel almost always needs to use the military hardware they buy.
As a throwaway line, Sanders gave a not terribly severe critique of the Palestinian leaders: "Let us recognize there has been corruption in terms of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Let's recognize that as well." So, let's "recognize" the Palestinians have some issues, but let's punish Israel. And let's not recognize that Hamas get millions of dollars in foreign aid that they use to build rockets, buy missiles, and build underground tunnels into Israel in order to be able to capture and kill Israelis. And let's definitely not insist that Hamas cease buying weaponry that they use to attack civilian targets in Israel.
Sanders: "I think it is fair to say that some of that $3.8 billion should go right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza." Good to know that Sanders trusts Hamas to use money flowing into Gaza for humanitarian purposes. Also nice to know that Sanders does not care about the fact that the aid to Israel was approved by Congress. Hmmm, Sanders wants to divert money approved by Congress to some other purpose.
Kelly Craft is the current US Ambassador to the United Nations, having been appointed by President Trump. Compare the Trump Administration's attitude towards Hamas and Israel with the Democrats' attitudes. At the recent UN Security Council meeting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, most countries condemned Israel, just like the Democrats are doing. On the other hand, Craft called Hamas "a terrorist organization that oppresses the Palestinian people in Gaza through intimidation and outright violence, while inciting violence against Israel."
Craft said that when Hamas fires rockets into Israel they are "just as likely to hit a classroom full of children as it is to strike a military asset." Craft: "If there is anything more despicable than Hamas' attacks on civilian areas, it is the way they treat their own children as pawns in a political game. Every Friday, Hamas encourages minors to join riots at the security fence (between Israel and Gaza), hoping that violence will erupt, and that the children will be injured or even killed as a result, thereby feeding their propaganda machine. A more cynical and shameful approach could not be devised. This is child abuse, plain and simple, and I condemn it. We all should."
Notice how the Trump Administration is very clear about Hamas being a terrorist organization, with no qualms about describing their tactics, such as attacking civilian targets in Israel, and using their own children as props. Craft does not give us a meaningless throwaway line like Sanders did about Palestinian "corruption." The Trump Administration acknowledges the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg and other Democrats continue to live in their dream world, speaking as if more money going to Hamas will result in hope for the Palestinian people. But I've said it before: conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs, liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality.
Saturday, October 26, 2019
The Cultural and Political Wars, Part IV (How Bad Can It Get?)
At a recent Dallas Cowboys game, Ellen DeGeneres was seen on TV sitting next to former President George W. Bush, with whom she is friendly. Not surprisingly, she was criticized by the Twitter mob. Ellen: "I'm friends with a lot of people who don't share the same beliefs that I have." I used to be able to say that, but as those left-wing "friends" lost their tolerance for opposing views, that is no longer the case.
Barbra Streisand saw fit to Tweet a cartoon of a very high heel shoe with the name Pelosi on it, impaling the back of a Trump-like figure. I understand that Twitter allows up to 280 characters. What a shame that Streisand was unable to say something intelligent, as opposed to picturing the killing of Trump.
As people were leaving the arena in Minneapolis where President Trump had a recent rally, some were verbally and physically assaulted by left-wing thugs. One thug was waving a Communist flag, while another called Trump supporters "Nazis." Ironic. Yet another burned a number of MAGA hats. Another display of how the left "debates."
Senator Rand Paul was eating lunch at a California restaurant, when a left-wing couple decided that he should not be allowed to do so. The woman angrily yelled at Paul: "You just ran into two people from New York, kiddo, and we're not putting up with your Republican bullshit." How incredibly rude and ill-mannered. And what did she mean "not put up" with it? What would she do to Paul? If she was part of a larger mob, would she join in beat-down of Paul? This is just another example of the intolerance that the left has for anyone who opposes their agenda.
Former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman came up with this gem: "Hitler has nothing on Trump." It is such an outrageous, preposterous lie that I could write pages rebutting such nonsense. Let me just say that anyone who believes this is sick.
Beto O'Rourke said that he would end tax exemption for churches that did not honor same-sex marriage. "There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone, or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us." Such a position is tantamount to the government dictating the tenets of a religion, under the threat of suffering serious consequences. As Ben Shapiro pointed out, the First Amendment protections of religion are meant to protect religion from the government, not protect government from religion. Again, the left tolerates no dissent.
Dennis Prager recently posted an article discussing a new policy of Air Canada. The airline is doing away with the now insulting phrase "ladies and gentlemen." Airline employees will be allowed to say "everybody" and "tout le monde" ("everybody" in French). I had predicted many of these changes years ago. I argued that once the definition of marriage changes, many other changes will follow. (For a further discussion of this issue see the blog posts of 7/20/14 "My Ex-Wife," 10/19/14 "My Ex-Son and Ex-Daughters," 8/23/15 "Who Controls Your Language?," and 10/22/17 "As Predicted, It Will Never End.")
Daryl Morey is the General Manager of the Houston Rockets NBA team. He recently Tweeted "Stand for freedom, stand for Hong Kong." The Chinese government would not tolerate the support for Hong Kong. Basketball is a big sport in China, with the NBA having a great deal of business there. After Morey's comment, CCTV, the national broadcaster, would not air the games of the Nets and Lakers. Chinese sponsorship also ended. LeBron James disappointed with his comment that Morey "wasn't educated on the situation at hand." He also admonished "just be careful what we Tweet and say and we do, even though, yes, we do have freedom of speech, but there can be a lot of negative that comes with that, too." As I stated in my 9/15/19 post, China uses its soft power (economics) to "encourage self-censorship by the recipients of Chinese aid."
And, in what I find to be the most disturbing story in this post, is a decision by the Supreme Court refusing to hear the appeal of a Maryland high school student. Some left-wing teacher (I am assuming) gave an assignment that they undoubtedly felt was politically correct and "inclusive." The student refused to comply with the assignment. The assignment was to write the Islamic conversion prayer, "there is no god but..." I will not finish it. The recitation of that prayer is considered to be tantamount to a conversion to Islam. Once you are a Muslim, there can be no conversion back, as many Muslim countries forbid it. I have no doubt that had the assignment said that "there is no god but Christ," the Court would have jumped in to strike down such an assignment. In an early blog post I stated that after 9/11, the left and the media made Muslims the victims. That attitude continues to this day.
Barbra Streisand saw fit to Tweet a cartoon of a very high heel shoe with the name Pelosi on it, impaling the back of a Trump-like figure. I understand that Twitter allows up to 280 characters. What a shame that Streisand was unable to say something intelligent, as opposed to picturing the killing of Trump.
As people were leaving the arena in Minneapolis where President Trump had a recent rally, some were verbally and physically assaulted by left-wing thugs. One thug was waving a Communist flag, while another called Trump supporters "Nazis." Ironic. Yet another burned a number of MAGA hats. Another display of how the left "debates."
Senator Rand Paul was eating lunch at a California restaurant, when a left-wing couple decided that he should not be allowed to do so. The woman angrily yelled at Paul: "You just ran into two people from New York, kiddo, and we're not putting up with your Republican bullshit." How incredibly rude and ill-mannered. And what did she mean "not put up" with it? What would she do to Paul? If she was part of a larger mob, would she join in beat-down of Paul? This is just another example of the intolerance that the left has for anyone who opposes their agenda.
Former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman came up with this gem: "Hitler has nothing on Trump." It is such an outrageous, preposterous lie that I could write pages rebutting such nonsense. Let me just say that anyone who believes this is sick.
Beto O'Rourke said that he would end tax exemption for churches that did not honor same-sex marriage. "There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone, or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us." Such a position is tantamount to the government dictating the tenets of a religion, under the threat of suffering serious consequences. As Ben Shapiro pointed out, the First Amendment protections of religion are meant to protect religion from the government, not protect government from religion. Again, the left tolerates no dissent.
Dennis Prager recently posted an article discussing a new policy of Air Canada. The airline is doing away with the now insulting phrase "ladies and gentlemen." Airline employees will be allowed to say "everybody" and "tout le monde" ("everybody" in French). I had predicted many of these changes years ago. I argued that once the definition of marriage changes, many other changes will follow. (For a further discussion of this issue see the blog posts of 7/20/14 "My Ex-Wife," 10/19/14 "My Ex-Son and Ex-Daughters," 8/23/15 "Who Controls Your Language?," and 10/22/17 "As Predicted, It Will Never End.")
Daryl Morey is the General Manager of the Houston Rockets NBA team. He recently Tweeted "Stand for freedom, stand for Hong Kong." The Chinese government would not tolerate the support for Hong Kong. Basketball is a big sport in China, with the NBA having a great deal of business there. After Morey's comment, CCTV, the national broadcaster, would not air the games of the Nets and Lakers. Chinese sponsorship also ended. LeBron James disappointed with his comment that Morey "wasn't educated on the situation at hand." He also admonished "just be careful what we Tweet and say and we do, even though, yes, we do have freedom of speech, but there can be a lot of negative that comes with that, too." As I stated in my 9/15/19 post, China uses its soft power (economics) to "encourage self-censorship by the recipients of Chinese aid."
And, in what I find to be the most disturbing story in this post, is a decision by the Supreme Court refusing to hear the appeal of a Maryland high school student. Some left-wing teacher (I am assuming) gave an assignment that they undoubtedly felt was politically correct and "inclusive." The student refused to comply with the assignment. The assignment was to write the Islamic conversion prayer, "there is no god but..." I will not finish it. The recitation of that prayer is considered to be tantamount to a conversion to Islam. Once you are a Muslim, there can be no conversion back, as many Muslim countries forbid it. I have no doubt that had the assignment said that "there is no god but Christ," the Court would have jumped in to strike down such an assignment. In an early blog post I stated that after 9/11, the left and the media made Muslims the victims. That attitude continues to this day.
Getting Rid of Trump
Of course, the mainstream media/propaganda arm of the Democratic Party wants Trump out of office one way or the other. If they don't succeed with impeachment and conviction, then by "undoing the great mistake of 2016." So said the LA Times in their October 20, 2109 editorial. Their editorial sets out some generalities that they believe justify voting Trump out of office next November. I do wonder who their target audience might be. After all, California voted overwhelmingly for Hillary (8,753,788 to Trump's 4,483,810), so not much risk of California going for Trump in 2020.
Not surprisingly, the Times is unable to see anything positive that Trump has accomplished. And the negatives that apply to Trump were never applied to Obama. The Times attack on Trump continued in all their editorials this past week. In their October 22 editorial, "The train-wreck presidency," the Times sets out a number of Trump's alleged failures. For example, they tell us that Trump has "insulted and alienated the nation's friends and allies." Also, they say that Trump "has cozied up to right-wing nationalist dictators and autocrats."
Presumably, Obama did not insult allies or cozy up to dictators. In 2009 Obama gave his speech to the Muslim world, from Cairo, Egypt. He invited the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood to attend, a direct slap in the face to our ally Egypt. Egyptian President Mubarak then refused to attend the speech. Obama drew his red line in Syria, advising them of severe consequences if they should again use chemical weapons. They did, and Obama did nothing against the dictator in Syria, undermining US credibility in the world.
When it came to Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East and perhaps in the entire world, Obama was downright hostile. Recall that when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House, Obama rudely kept Netanyahu waiting while he went upstairs to eat dinner with Michelle and his kids. One of Obama's senior aide's referred to Netanyahu as a "chickenshit." In December, 2016, Obama's last full month in office, he had his UN ambassador abstain from a completely anti-Israel Security Council resolution, turning over all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to the terrorist Palestinians. East Jerusalem contains the Old City, with Judaism's holiest sites - the Temple Mount and the Western Wall (Kotel). So much for respecting allies.
Recall the 2009 Iranian Green Revolution, when people took to the streets to contest what they saw as a rigged election with Ahmadinejad the declared victor. Obama was slow to speak out, and never really supported the protesters. Later, we learned that Obama was already reaching out to the Ayatollahs, which ultimately resulted in the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. Let's not forget the $150 billion in cash sent to the Iranians as part of that deal, cash that allowed them to extend their influence across the Middle East.
Then we have Obama cozying up to one of the world's worst dictators, Russian Premier Vladimir Putin. In the infamous conversation, caught on an open mic, with nominal Russian President Medvedev, Obama said to let Vladimir know that he would have more flexibility after his assumed reelection in 2012. One of Russia's biggest concerns was with a planned missile defense system by the US, which Obama made clear was one issue on which he'd have more flexibility. Obama had flexibility on the security of the US and its allies.
Following the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris on the satirical paper Charlie Hebdo, and on the kosher market, where terrorists killed 16 people and injured 19, world leaders came together to march with millions of French citizens. It was a march in support of freedom, free speech and against anti-Semitism and terrorism. Marching alongside French President Hollande was a total of over 40 world leaders, including British PM David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Israeli PM Netanyahu. Obama had no interest. Obama had no interest in marching against Islamic terrorism.
The Times editorial discussed other alleged failings of Trump. They say Trump "flirted with repudiating NATO." Yet, Trump's cajoling of our NATO allies resulted in those countries contributing billions of dollars more towards NATO, resulting in the strengthening of that alliance. Many of the paper's complaints centered around Trump's language and demeanor. On that issue, many people on both sides might agree. But Republicans see his demeanor as a secondary issue, with policies being primary. I stand with that group who may not always agree with Trump's demeanor and language, but often agree with his policies. And I would almost never agree with the left-wing policies of the Democratic Party.
Not surprisingly, the Times is unable to see anything positive that Trump has accomplished. And the negatives that apply to Trump were never applied to Obama. The Times attack on Trump continued in all their editorials this past week. In their October 22 editorial, "The train-wreck presidency," the Times sets out a number of Trump's alleged failures. For example, they tell us that Trump has "insulted and alienated the nation's friends and allies." Also, they say that Trump "has cozied up to right-wing nationalist dictators and autocrats."
Presumably, Obama did not insult allies or cozy up to dictators. In 2009 Obama gave his speech to the Muslim world, from Cairo, Egypt. He invited the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood to attend, a direct slap in the face to our ally Egypt. Egyptian President Mubarak then refused to attend the speech. Obama drew his red line in Syria, advising them of severe consequences if they should again use chemical weapons. They did, and Obama did nothing against the dictator in Syria, undermining US credibility in the world.
When it came to Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East and perhaps in the entire world, Obama was downright hostile. Recall that when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House, Obama rudely kept Netanyahu waiting while he went upstairs to eat dinner with Michelle and his kids. One of Obama's senior aide's referred to Netanyahu as a "chickenshit." In December, 2016, Obama's last full month in office, he had his UN ambassador abstain from a completely anti-Israel Security Council resolution, turning over all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to the terrorist Palestinians. East Jerusalem contains the Old City, with Judaism's holiest sites - the Temple Mount and the Western Wall (Kotel). So much for respecting allies.
Recall the 2009 Iranian Green Revolution, when people took to the streets to contest what they saw as a rigged election with Ahmadinejad the declared victor. Obama was slow to speak out, and never really supported the protesters. Later, we learned that Obama was already reaching out to the Ayatollahs, which ultimately resulted in the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. Let's not forget the $150 billion in cash sent to the Iranians as part of that deal, cash that allowed them to extend their influence across the Middle East.
Then we have Obama cozying up to one of the world's worst dictators, Russian Premier Vladimir Putin. In the infamous conversation, caught on an open mic, with nominal Russian President Medvedev, Obama said to let Vladimir know that he would have more flexibility after his assumed reelection in 2012. One of Russia's biggest concerns was with a planned missile defense system by the US, which Obama made clear was one issue on which he'd have more flexibility. Obama had flexibility on the security of the US and its allies.
Following the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris on the satirical paper Charlie Hebdo, and on the kosher market, where terrorists killed 16 people and injured 19, world leaders came together to march with millions of French citizens. It was a march in support of freedom, free speech and against anti-Semitism and terrorism. Marching alongside French President Hollande was a total of over 40 world leaders, including British PM David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Israeli PM Netanyahu. Obama had no interest. Obama had no interest in marching against Islamic terrorism.
The Times editorial discussed other alleged failings of Trump. They say Trump "flirted with repudiating NATO." Yet, Trump's cajoling of our NATO allies resulted in those countries contributing billions of dollars more towards NATO, resulting in the strengthening of that alliance. Many of the paper's complaints centered around Trump's language and demeanor. On that issue, many people on both sides might agree. But Republicans see his demeanor as a secondary issue, with policies being primary. I stand with that group who may not always agree with Trump's demeanor and language, but often agree with his policies. And I would almost never agree with the left-wing policies of the Democratic Party.
Sunday, October 6, 2019
The Impeachment Compulsion
At a recent press conference with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House intelligence committee, announced the "urgency" with which impeachment proceedings needed to progress. Why the rush? The Democrats know that the Senate will not convict Trump, which requires a two-thirds vote. They talk about the threat to democracy and the Constitution. That is a farce. The Democrats rarely support the Constitution. They do not support the First Amendment. See today's other blog post. They do not support the Second Amendment. They do not support the Electoral College. They say that they support the separation of powers, except that when Obama said that he had a pen and a phone, and would take action on his own if Congress did not act, that did not seem to bother them. When Obama decided which provisions of the ACA, passed by Congress, he would enforce, that did not seem to bother them. So, sure, I buy the Dems' rationale that they need to protect the Constitution.
So what is the urgency? I can think of several reasons. First, if the proceedings go into the new year, many people who may otherwise support the Dems, are going to wonder why they are doing it with an election only months away, when the people will decide. Second, the primaries start in February. Do they want the Democratic candidates' messaging to be focused on impeachment? Third, it may be that the Democrats are worried that support for impeachment will wane with time, which happened with all their other "impeachable" offenses - Russian collusion, obstruction, Stormy Daniels, we just don't like Trump and so on. Interestingly, Hannity showed a clip covering every single month of Trump's Presidency, January, 2017 through now, in which either a Democrat in Congress or a talking head in the media, was advocating for impeachment. Every single month of Trump's presidency! But Tucker Carlson did one better. He found a video of an Obama appointee, Evelyn Farkas, from BEFORE the 2016 election. Farkas: "...if Donald Trump were elected, I believe he'd be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government, and I'm not even joking." Somebody else would take over? What, a military coup? Because a non-violent coup has been in the works since Farkas' comment.
Meanwhile, the esteemed Congressman Schiff got himself 4 Pinocchios from the Washington Post (the biggest lie), after claiming that he found out about the whistleblower from the ICIG (intelligence community's inspector general) only days before September 13. Actually, he knew about it a month earlier, but kept it quiet. On September 17, Schiff told MSNBC "we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower." Not so, as the whistleblower had contacted Schiff's committee for advice. And let's not forget that the inspector general stated that the whistleblower had an "arguable political bias...in favor of a rival candidate."
The propaganda arm of the Democratic party (formerly referred to as the mainstream media) did not hesitate to plaster their front pages and inside pages with transcripts of Trump's telephone call with the Ukranian President. Nor did they hesitate in claiming a "cover-up" by Trump - a "cover-up" that Schiff knew about and...covered up!
I have long admired the Democrats ability to speak with one voice - the way in which they perfectly coordinate their talking points. Whatever station I turned to, whatever Democrat was on, they all discussed the "threat to national security." Their concern for national security strikes me as being as sincere as their concern about the Constitution. They have no concern about protecting our borders. Some advocate no borders at all - aka "open borders." Remember when Obama was caught on the open mic telling Medvedev to let Vladimir (Putin) know that he would have more flexibility after the (2012) election? I do not recall the media or other Democrats being terribly concerned. I do not recall them asking if Obama might have engaged in some quid pro quo with Putin, and whether that flexibility reflected some unspoken deal that affected our national security. But why ask? It was Obama, after all. Everyone can trust him.
Of course, the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party was ready, willing and able to make excuses for Joe Biden, as Vice President, pushing the Ukranian government to fire their top prosecutor - under threat of not receiving $1 billion dollars in loan guarantees from the US. There is a video of Biden bragging about getting that prosecutor fired, and essentially claiming that he did so under the authority of then President Obama. That prosecutor, by the way, was investigating the Ukranian energy company, Burisma Holdings, on whose board sat one Hunter Biden. New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg (10/1/19 Op-Ed) told us that Joe Biden knew nothing of his son's business dealings, telling his son only "I hope you know what you are doing." You see, the Bidens had been through a lot, and Joe did not want to give his son a hard time. Just reverse the names, say, to Donald Trump and Donald, Jr., and I'm sure Goldberg would give the same unquestioning understanding to the Trumps.
Goldberg told us that Hunter Biden's position on the Board was "untoward," and trading on his father's name was "sleazy." But let's not criticize Joe. The 10/3/19 USA Today Editorial leads with the "stipulation" that there is no proof that Hunter engaged in illegal activity. Who is stipulating? They told us there is no basis to claim that Joe acted improperly in pushing for the prosecutor's dismissal. I get it - we can just assume that the Biden's are innocent, just as we can assume that the Trumps are always guilty of something.
What's that? You want me to discuss President Trump's 7/25/19 telephone call with Ukranian President Zelensky? The call that is purportedly the reason for all this impeachment talk. But is it really? Nancy Pelosi was telling us how serious it was before she even read the transcript. Did she already know what was in it from Schiff? Did they work together on the timing of all this? I think I'll pass. The President should be able to speak with foreign leaders without the Congress listening in. It is the President who speaks for the country on matters of foreign affairs. We just suffered through over two years of the Russian collusion story. They told us that Trump was a Russian asset. It was not that long ago that the Democrats and their propaganda arm were telling us that Trump was going to get us into a nuclear war with North Korea. More recently, they told us that Trump was going to start a major Middle Eastern war with Iran. Frankly, I am sick of the hypocrisy, the double standard, and the non-stop lies about Trump. So, I will not join in their games.
So what is the urgency? I can think of several reasons. First, if the proceedings go into the new year, many people who may otherwise support the Dems, are going to wonder why they are doing it with an election only months away, when the people will decide. Second, the primaries start in February. Do they want the Democratic candidates' messaging to be focused on impeachment? Third, it may be that the Democrats are worried that support for impeachment will wane with time, which happened with all their other "impeachable" offenses - Russian collusion, obstruction, Stormy Daniels, we just don't like Trump and so on. Interestingly, Hannity showed a clip covering every single month of Trump's Presidency, January, 2017 through now, in which either a Democrat in Congress or a talking head in the media, was advocating for impeachment. Every single month of Trump's presidency! But Tucker Carlson did one better. He found a video of an Obama appointee, Evelyn Farkas, from BEFORE the 2016 election. Farkas: "...if Donald Trump were elected, I believe he'd be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government, and I'm not even joking." Somebody else would take over? What, a military coup? Because a non-violent coup has been in the works since Farkas' comment.
Meanwhile, the esteemed Congressman Schiff got himself 4 Pinocchios from the Washington Post (the biggest lie), after claiming that he found out about the whistleblower from the ICIG (intelligence community's inspector general) only days before September 13. Actually, he knew about it a month earlier, but kept it quiet. On September 17, Schiff told MSNBC "we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower." Not so, as the whistleblower had contacted Schiff's committee for advice. And let's not forget that the inspector general stated that the whistleblower had an "arguable political bias...in favor of a rival candidate."
The propaganda arm of the Democratic party (formerly referred to as the mainstream media) did not hesitate to plaster their front pages and inside pages with transcripts of Trump's telephone call with the Ukranian President. Nor did they hesitate in claiming a "cover-up" by Trump - a "cover-up" that Schiff knew about and...covered up!
I have long admired the Democrats ability to speak with one voice - the way in which they perfectly coordinate their talking points. Whatever station I turned to, whatever Democrat was on, they all discussed the "threat to national security." Their concern for national security strikes me as being as sincere as their concern about the Constitution. They have no concern about protecting our borders. Some advocate no borders at all - aka "open borders." Remember when Obama was caught on the open mic telling Medvedev to let Vladimir (Putin) know that he would have more flexibility after the (2012) election? I do not recall the media or other Democrats being terribly concerned. I do not recall them asking if Obama might have engaged in some quid pro quo with Putin, and whether that flexibility reflected some unspoken deal that affected our national security. But why ask? It was Obama, after all. Everyone can trust him.
Of course, the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party was ready, willing and able to make excuses for Joe Biden, as Vice President, pushing the Ukranian government to fire their top prosecutor - under threat of not receiving $1 billion dollars in loan guarantees from the US. There is a video of Biden bragging about getting that prosecutor fired, and essentially claiming that he did so under the authority of then President Obama. That prosecutor, by the way, was investigating the Ukranian energy company, Burisma Holdings, on whose board sat one Hunter Biden. New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg (10/1/19 Op-Ed) told us that Joe Biden knew nothing of his son's business dealings, telling his son only "I hope you know what you are doing." You see, the Bidens had been through a lot, and Joe did not want to give his son a hard time. Just reverse the names, say, to Donald Trump and Donald, Jr., and I'm sure Goldberg would give the same unquestioning understanding to the Trumps.
Goldberg told us that Hunter Biden's position on the Board was "untoward," and trading on his father's name was "sleazy." But let's not criticize Joe. The 10/3/19 USA Today Editorial leads with the "stipulation" that there is no proof that Hunter engaged in illegal activity. Who is stipulating? They told us there is no basis to claim that Joe acted improperly in pushing for the prosecutor's dismissal. I get it - we can just assume that the Biden's are innocent, just as we can assume that the Trumps are always guilty of something.
What's that? You want me to discuss President Trump's 7/25/19 telephone call with Ukranian President Zelensky? The call that is purportedly the reason for all this impeachment talk. But is it really? Nancy Pelosi was telling us how serious it was before she even read the transcript. Did she already know what was in it from Schiff? Did they work together on the timing of all this? I think I'll pass. The President should be able to speak with foreign leaders without the Congress listening in. It is the President who speaks for the country on matters of foreign affairs. We just suffered through over two years of the Russian collusion story. They told us that Trump was a Russian asset. It was not that long ago that the Democrats and their propaganda arm were telling us that Trump was going to get us into a nuclear war with North Korea. More recently, they told us that Trump was going to start a major Middle Eastern war with Iran. Frankly, I am sick of the hypocrisy, the double standard, and the non-stop lies about Trump. So, I will not join in their games.
The Cultural and Political Wars, Part III
In a sad story out of Los Angeles, we learned that an LA City Attorney, 60 years of age, shot and killed his 60 year old wife and 19 year old son. Thankfully, his 25 year old daughter escaped. Then I read a Facebook post by the sister of the deceased wife. I had to reread it a couple of times. "You never think this is going to happen to your immediate family. Still in shock, but completely heartbroken about losing my dear sister Sandy, nephew Michael and brother-in-law Eric to gun violence today..." What? Eric murdered your sister and nephew, and you put him in the same sentence, and make it about gun violence? No moral judgment about your now dead brother-in-law's horrific act of murder. No, the guns did it. I would bet this woman could make a moral judgment about second-hand smoke.
Earlier this year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal declared a Fort Collins, Colorado ordinance to be illegal. The ordinance forbid women from appearing topless in public. The Court's rationale is indicative of leftist thinking. They said the ordinance "discriminated against women and that it reinforced 'negative stereotypes depicting women's breasts, but not men's breasts, as sex objects.'" I get it - men's breasts are the same as women's, because there is no difference between men and women. I never needed an ordinance to tell me that a woman's breasts are sex objects. I bet I knew that by age 12. This is a perfect example of my oft repeated truism that the left lets their beliefs dictate their reality (while conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs). On the other hand, my next blog post will likely be from Fort Collins.
Here's a good one out of New York City. The Commission on Human Rights told residents they may be fined up to $250,000 for the offense of "threatening to call ICE when motivated by discrimination, derogatory use of the term 'illegal alien,' and discrimination based on limited English proficiency," because such acts constitute unlawful discrimination. Apparently, this rule provides that the fine shall be paid to the person making the complaint. That won't encourage abuse. And the First Amendment? What's that? The same commission previously barred employers and landlords from the use of gender pronouns if different from the preferred pronoun of the employee or tenant.
Here's a pleasant surprise. The Jewish Press reported on a Siena College poll. It turns out that only 4% of New York Jews support Bernie Sanders for President. Bernie does little to show his Judaism. He constantly criticizes Israel. He named Linda Sarsour to have some position in his campaign. He has supported the anti-Semites in Congress. Apparently, it has all caught up with him. In another interesting result from the poll, 44% of New York Jews have a favorable view of Trump (although only 33% say they will vote for him). Nevertheless, that favorability number is higher than for whites in general in New York.
In an Op-Ed in the 10/6/19 New York Times, is a piece by Andrew Marantz with this headline: "Free Speech is Killing Us." His concern has to do with Trump's use of the media, and the more serious issue of social media which may encourage some to commit acts of violence. Marantz is also concerned with speech "that's designed to drive a woman out of her workplace or to bully a teenager into suicide or to drive a democracy toward totalitarianism." After 3 years of the left telling us that democracy is dead under Trump, I've yet to see it or experience it. The First Amendment, as interpreted, does allow for certain time, place and manner restrictions on speech. And, Marantz, on staff at "The New Yorker," acknowledges that certain content may be even be banned - libel, incitement to violence and child pornography, for examples. Marantz: "We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks." But can we really protect unpopular speech from the government? See two paragraphs above re: the New York City Commission on Human Rights.
September 17 was Constitution Day, the Constitution having been ratified on September 17, 1787. A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center revealed that 22% of Americans were unable to name even one branch of government. 25% named one branch, 14% named two branches and 39% named all three branches of government. The Center for American Progress reports that only nine states plus Washington, D.C., have a year long mandatory class on civics for their high school students. (D.C. plus Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, West Virginia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Virginia and Maryland.) I am confident that many of those unable to name a single branch of government would be able to tell us all about their favorite celebrities.
And finally, there was a rather upsetting story out of Texas, when a black man sitting in his own apartment and minding his own business was shot and killed by a white, female police officer. She was off duty and claimed that she believed she walking into her own apartment with an intruder inside. As I often do on police matters, I went to my friend, a retired cop. He opined that the female officer had many options short of discharging her weapon, starting with calling for back-up. She would also have had other non-lethal weapons on her, such as a taser and a baton. My friend: "I was proud to wear the uniform, but never thought it gave me a pass to be immoral, unethical or placed me above the people I served." Well said; it's an approach by which all of us could live.
Earlier this year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal declared a Fort Collins, Colorado ordinance to be illegal. The ordinance forbid women from appearing topless in public. The Court's rationale is indicative of leftist thinking. They said the ordinance "discriminated against women and that it reinforced 'negative stereotypes depicting women's breasts, but not men's breasts, as sex objects.'" I get it - men's breasts are the same as women's, because there is no difference between men and women. I never needed an ordinance to tell me that a woman's breasts are sex objects. I bet I knew that by age 12. This is a perfect example of my oft repeated truism that the left lets their beliefs dictate their reality (while conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs). On the other hand, my next blog post will likely be from Fort Collins.
Here's a good one out of New York City. The Commission on Human Rights told residents they may be fined up to $250,000 for the offense of "threatening to call ICE when motivated by discrimination, derogatory use of the term 'illegal alien,' and discrimination based on limited English proficiency," because such acts constitute unlawful discrimination. Apparently, this rule provides that the fine shall be paid to the person making the complaint. That won't encourage abuse. And the First Amendment? What's that? The same commission previously barred employers and landlords from the use of gender pronouns if different from the preferred pronoun of the employee or tenant.
Here's a pleasant surprise. The Jewish Press reported on a Siena College poll. It turns out that only 4% of New York Jews support Bernie Sanders for President. Bernie does little to show his Judaism. He constantly criticizes Israel. He named Linda Sarsour to have some position in his campaign. He has supported the anti-Semites in Congress. Apparently, it has all caught up with him. In another interesting result from the poll, 44% of New York Jews have a favorable view of Trump (although only 33% say they will vote for him). Nevertheless, that favorability number is higher than for whites in general in New York.
In an Op-Ed in the 10/6/19 New York Times, is a piece by Andrew Marantz with this headline: "Free Speech is Killing Us." His concern has to do with Trump's use of the media, and the more serious issue of social media which may encourage some to commit acts of violence. Marantz is also concerned with speech "that's designed to drive a woman out of her workplace or to bully a teenager into suicide or to drive a democracy toward totalitarianism." After 3 years of the left telling us that democracy is dead under Trump, I've yet to see it or experience it. The First Amendment, as interpreted, does allow for certain time, place and manner restrictions on speech. And, Marantz, on staff at "The New Yorker," acknowledges that certain content may be even be banned - libel, incitement to violence and child pornography, for examples. Marantz: "We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks." But can we really protect unpopular speech from the government? See two paragraphs above re: the New York City Commission on Human Rights.
September 17 was Constitution Day, the Constitution having been ratified on September 17, 1787. A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center revealed that 22% of Americans were unable to name even one branch of government. 25% named one branch, 14% named two branches and 39% named all three branches of government. The Center for American Progress reports that only nine states plus Washington, D.C., have a year long mandatory class on civics for their high school students. (D.C. plus Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, West Virginia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Virginia and Maryland.) I am confident that many of those unable to name a single branch of government would be able to tell us all about their favorite celebrities.
And finally, there was a rather upsetting story out of Texas, when a black man sitting in his own apartment and minding his own business was shot and killed by a white, female police officer. She was off duty and claimed that she believed she walking into her own apartment with an intruder inside. As I often do on police matters, I went to my friend, a retired cop. He opined that the female officer had many options short of discharging her weapon, starting with calling for back-up. She would also have had other non-lethal weapons on her, such as a taser and a baton. My friend: "I was proud to wear the uniform, but never thought it gave me a pass to be immoral, unethical or placed me above the people I served." Well said; it's an approach by which all of us could live.
Sunday, September 15, 2019
The Cultural and Political Wars, Part II
Bring back the 1950's blacklist? Debra Messing and Eric McCormack star/starred (I don't know, I never watched it) in the TV series "Will & Grace." McCormack Tweeted: "Hey @THR (The Hollywood Reporter), kindly report on everyone attending this event (a Trump fundraiser in Hollywood), so the rest of us can be clear about who we don't wanna work with. Thx." Messing added: "Please print a list of all attendees." They were rebuked by none other than Whoopi Goldberg, who had to remind them of the blacklisting of the 1950s. "...a lot of really good people were accused of stuff. Nobody cared whether it was true or not. They were accused. And they lost their right to work...In this country, people can vote for who they want to." The two actors then backpedaled, claiming they just wanted transparency, and it had nothing to do with keeping people from working. Right - "so the rest of us can be clear about who we don't wanna work with." Got it.
Messing makes more noise. Recently, Messing "liked" a church sign that referred to Blacks who voted for Trump as being "mentally ill." But don't worry. Messing will not be fired like Roseanne Barr was. No, Barr was a conservative, and Messing is a liberal. Therefore, it is permissible to suggest that Blacks are too stupid to think for themselves; and if they voted for Trump then what else could it be but mental illness? Do not expect Messing to be accused of racism.
Of course Democrats support the Courts. Or do they? Five US Senators filed a "friend of the court" (amicus curiae) brief in a gun control case at the Supreme Court. The five Democrats (Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Dick Durbin and Kirsten Gillibrand) offered this: "The Supreme Court is not well. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics." That looks like these Senators using politics in an effort to influence, nay, threaten, the Court. The Wall Street Journal (8/16/19) aptly referred to the brief as an "enemy of the court brief."
Are your ideas good enough? Molly Worthen is a journalist, and has a PhD in the history of American religion. She penned an Op-Ed in the 9/1/19 New York Times, titled "Can We Guarantee Intellectual Diversity?" She opined that the allegations made by the web site "The Evil Empire on Campus" are "laughably overblown." I did not research all their allegations. However, a quick Google search shows that a number of studies of major universities reflect an overwhelming percentage of Democratic professors over Republican professors. Anywhere from 10 to 1 to 13 to 1, with the ratio being much higher if the math and science departments are excluded. Worthen: "Not all ideas deserve admission to academic discussion on equal terms, if at all." I can agree with that. But would we agree on which ideas should be excluded?
Ah, yes - assumptions. Worthen explains the academic method: "Explain your terms, identify your assumptions, admit the possibility that you could change your mind." Sounds right. However, the attack on assumptions has often been an attack on religion, Western Civilization and - yes - what makes America great.
The end of wars? Stephen Wertheim had an Op-Ed in the 9/14/19 New York Times, titled: "The Only Way to End 'Endless War.'" His policy proposal? "...end America's commitment to armed supremacy and embrace a world of pluralism and peace." Do we all get to hold hands and sing Kumbaya? I get the fact that the US has entered into wars that good people have opposed on legitimate grounds. But, let us not be naive. We still live in a very dangerous world. Pluralism and peace? Is that like Russia taking over the Crimea and part of the Ukraine? Or propping up the dictator in Syria? Or threatening Israel to not attack any further installations in Syria? Russia now supports the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis. Russia has extended its reach into Africa and Latin America. Let's not forget Russia's cyber attacks against other government's elections.
And what about China? While Russia uses both hard power (its military) as well as soft power (economic influence), China has been busy extending its reach around the globe through soft power (economics and culture and education). China has been sending money to foreign universities and think tanks, and "training" foreign journalists. The goal, of course, is to encourage support for China and its leadership and policies, while also encouraging self-censorship by the recipients of Chinese aid. Meanwhile, China has been rapidly building its military, and working to develop new weapons systems.
What about the others? There are plenty of bad actors, not just Russia and China. Iran. North Korea. The countless Islamic terrorist organizations. I must ask Mr. Wertheim, what pluralism? What peace?
Let's end with Mattis. James Mattis is the former Secretary of Defense, and a retired Marine Corps General. In his recent book, he discusses what he sees as our two main foreign policy threats - Russia and China. No disagreement there. He also discusses our two greatest internal threats. One is our ever-growing national debt. I have said for years that neither party cares about your money. But the second is perhaps the most disturbing of all: "it's the lack of friendliness, it's the increasing contempt I see between Americans who have different opinions...If we want this country to survive, we're going to have to work together...That's the way a democracy is set up." I wholeheartedly agree. I am just not sure how we will get past differences about the fundamental nature of what America is and should be.
Messing makes more noise. Recently, Messing "liked" a church sign that referred to Blacks who voted for Trump as being "mentally ill." But don't worry. Messing will not be fired like Roseanne Barr was. No, Barr was a conservative, and Messing is a liberal. Therefore, it is permissible to suggest that Blacks are too stupid to think for themselves; and if they voted for Trump then what else could it be but mental illness? Do not expect Messing to be accused of racism.
Of course Democrats support the Courts. Or do they? Five US Senators filed a "friend of the court" (amicus curiae) brief in a gun control case at the Supreme Court. The five Democrats (Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Dick Durbin and Kirsten Gillibrand) offered this: "The Supreme Court is not well. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics." That looks like these Senators using politics in an effort to influence, nay, threaten, the Court. The Wall Street Journal (8/16/19) aptly referred to the brief as an "enemy of the court brief."
Are your ideas good enough? Molly Worthen is a journalist, and has a PhD in the history of American religion. She penned an Op-Ed in the 9/1/19 New York Times, titled "Can We Guarantee Intellectual Diversity?" She opined that the allegations made by the web site "The Evil Empire on Campus" are "laughably overblown." I did not research all their allegations. However, a quick Google search shows that a number of studies of major universities reflect an overwhelming percentage of Democratic professors over Republican professors. Anywhere from 10 to 1 to 13 to 1, with the ratio being much higher if the math and science departments are excluded. Worthen: "Not all ideas deserve admission to academic discussion on equal terms, if at all." I can agree with that. But would we agree on which ideas should be excluded?
Ah, yes - assumptions. Worthen explains the academic method: "Explain your terms, identify your assumptions, admit the possibility that you could change your mind." Sounds right. However, the attack on assumptions has often been an attack on religion, Western Civilization and - yes - what makes America great.
The end of wars? Stephen Wertheim had an Op-Ed in the 9/14/19 New York Times, titled: "The Only Way to End 'Endless War.'" His policy proposal? "...end America's commitment to armed supremacy and embrace a world of pluralism and peace." Do we all get to hold hands and sing Kumbaya? I get the fact that the US has entered into wars that good people have opposed on legitimate grounds. But, let us not be naive. We still live in a very dangerous world. Pluralism and peace? Is that like Russia taking over the Crimea and part of the Ukraine? Or propping up the dictator in Syria? Or threatening Israel to not attack any further installations in Syria? Russia now supports the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis. Russia has extended its reach into Africa and Latin America. Let's not forget Russia's cyber attacks against other government's elections.
And what about China? While Russia uses both hard power (its military) as well as soft power (economic influence), China has been busy extending its reach around the globe through soft power (economics and culture and education). China has been sending money to foreign universities and think tanks, and "training" foreign journalists. The goal, of course, is to encourage support for China and its leadership and policies, while also encouraging self-censorship by the recipients of Chinese aid. Meanwhile, China has been rapidly building its military, and working to develop new weapons systems.
What about the others? There are plenty of bad actors, not just Russia and China. Iran. North Korea. The countless Islamic terrorist organizations. I must ask Mr. Wertheim, what pluralism? What peace?
Let's end with Mattis. James Mattis is the former Secretary of Defense, and a retired Marine Corps General. In his recent book, he discusses what he sees as our two main foreign policy threats - Russia and China. No disagreement there. He also discusses our two greatest internal threats. One is our ever-growing national debt. I have said for years that neither party cares about your money. But the second is perhaps the most disturbing of all: "it's the lack of friendliness, it's the increasing contempt I see between Americans who have different opinions...If we want this country to survive, we're going to have to work together...That's the way a democracy is set up." I wholeheartedly agree. I am just not sure how we will get past differences about the fundamental nature of what America is and should be.
The Cultural and Political Wars, Part I
Where's the evil? The New York Times put up this Tweet, before taking it down under pressure: "Eighteen years have passed since airplanes took aim at the World Trade Center and brought them down." Those evil airplanes! Do not blame the perpetrators, who were radical Muslims who wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. No, 9/11 was about planes taking down buildings. The same "analysis" is used by the Left when it comes to guns. The guns do the killing, not the evil perpetrators. Where's the call to ban airplanes? Never mind; the Green New Deal proposes just that.
Speaking of guns. The Board of Supervisors for the County of San Francisco. actually passed a resolution describing the NRA as a "domestic terrorist organization." The resolution asserts that the NRA uses "its considerable wealth and organization to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence." Incite gun owners to acts of violence? When? Where? If this were even partly true we would have millions of gun deaths a year. (Just under 40,000 gun deaths occurred in 2017. Most were suicides.) The NRA expressed their disappointment that the Supervisors do not care about "the real problems facing San Francisco, such as rampant homelessness, drug abuse and skyrocketing petty crime, to name a few." The NRA also sued, seeking court action "to instruct elected officials that freedom of speech means you cannot silence or punish those with whom you disagree." The Left does not care about the First Amendment, or the Second Amendment, or much else of the Constitution.
The mainstream media (MSM) tries to help. The MSM was, apparently, quite concerned about the 10 Democrats engaging in the last debate. Prior to the debate, two of the main MSM papers had Op-Eds on 9/9/19 intended to help the candidates. The USA Today Op-Ed was titled "2020 is a referendum on Trump. Full stop." The writer made several suggestions, including: "...if you're not focused on the Electoral College and only the Electoral College, resign yourself to a decade of Trumps in the White House." And this: "Heart, guts and being great on TV beat brains and policy over and over again." Not bad.
The New York Times chimed in. The Op-Ed in the self-described "paper of record" was titled "Democrats Need to Get More Ruthless." Interestingly, the writer recommends that the Dems drop proposals that are not supported by a majority of Americans. They tell us that 67% of Americans oppose decriminalizing border crossings, 63% oppose reparations for slavery, and 55% oppose getting rid of private health insurance. If you watched the debate you know that advice did not work.
Medical school too? In an Op-Ed in the 9/13/19 Wall Street Journal, a former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania medical school, was lamenting the intrusion of left-wing ideology into the school. For instance, he was criticized for failing to include a course on climate change. But the former dean tells us that is only the beginning, as "curricula will increasingly focus on climate change, social inequities, gun violence, bias and other progressive causes only tangentially related to treating illness." Says the writer: "the prospect of this 'new,' politicized medical education should worry all Americans."
Racism, again. Mayor Pete Buttigeig told us that if we support immigration policies that are racist, then we are racist also. Let's analyze that. Clearly, Mayor Pete was referring to support for Trump and his policies. What if, hypothetically, I disagree with Trump on immigration (I don't), but agree with him on other matters. If I vote for him based on those other issues am I still a racist? And why should anyone accept his conclusion that supporting a stricter immigration policy is racist? Heather MacDonald commented in an 8/19/19 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal with this retort: "to the academic and democratic left, however, a commitment to border enforcement can only arise from 'hate.' Such a pre-emptive interpretation is a means of foreclosing debate and stigmatizing dissent from liberal orthodoxy."
The 1619 Project. The New York Times made a big hoopla with their 1619 Project, telling us that American history began when the first slaves were brought over 400 years ago. Others in the MSM picked up on it, as did the Dems, and we've heard quite a bit about slavery and racism since. Robert Woodson is the founder and president of the Woodson Center. The Center was established in 1981 to "help residents of low-income neighborhoods address the problems of their communities." In an Op-Ed in the 8/29/19 Wall Street Journal, Woodson made this observation: "Barraging minorities with constant reminders of the injuries their ancestors suffered only discourages them from working to surmount the obstacles in their way." I have often held that so-called Black leaders who tell Black youth that the "system" is stacked against them, are committing evil. They are discouraging an entire generation from achieving.
Woodson continued. "Black America's history of success and achievement - and its continuing legacy today - is a vital, inspiring part of our nation's past. It's sadly overlooked in 'The 1619 Project.'" Woodson closes with this, which he says is paraphrasing C.S. Lewis: "some prisons have locks that are on the inside." Robert Woodson is 82 years old; and he is Black.
Speaking of guns. The Board of Supervisors for the County of San Francisco. actually passed a resolution describing the NRA as a "domestic terrorist organization." The resolution asserts that the NRA uses "its considerable wealth and organization to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence." Incite gun owners to acts of violence? When? Where? If this were even partly true we would have millions of gun deaths a year. (Just under 40,000 gun deaths occurred in 2017. Most were suicides.) The NRA expressed their disappointment that the Supervisors do not care about "the real problems facing San Francisco, such as rampant homelessness, drug abuse and skyrocketing petty crime, to name a few." The NRA also sued, seeking court action "to instruct elected officials that freedom of speech means you cannot silence or punish those with whom you disagree." The Left does not care about the First Amendment, or the Second Amendment, or much else of the Constitution.
The mainstream media (MSM) tries to help. The MSM was, apparently, quite concerned about the 10 Democrats engaging in the last debate. Prior to the debate, two of the main MSM papers had Op-Eds on 9/9/19 intended to help the candidates. The USA Today Op-Ed was titled "2020 is a referendum on Trump. Full stop." The writer made several suggestions, including: "...if you're not focused on the Electoral College and only the Electoral College, resign yourself to a decade of Trumps in the White House." And this: "Heart, guts and being great on TV beat brains and policy over and over again." Not bad.
The New York Times chimed in. The Op-Ed in the self-described "paper of record" was titled "Democrats Need to Get More Ruthless." Interestingly, the writer recommends that the Dems drop proposals that are not supported by a majority of Americans. They tell us that 67% of Americans oppose decriminalizing border crossings, 63% oppose reparations for slavery, and 55% oppose getting rid of private health insurance. If you watched the debate you know that advice did not work.
Medical school too? In an Op-Ed in the 9/13/19 Wall Street Journal, a former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania medical school, was lamenting the intrusion of left-wing ideology into the school. For instance, he was criticized for failing to include a course on climate change. But the former dean tells us that is only the beginning, as "curricula will increasingly focus on climate change, social inequities, gun violence, bias and other progressive causes only tangentially related to treating illness." Says the writer: "the prospect of this 'new,' politicized medical education should worry all Americans."
Racism, again. Mayor Pete Buttigeig told us that if we support immigration policies that are racist, then we are racist also. Let's analyze that. Clearly, Mayor Pete was referring to support for Trump and his policies. What if, hypothetically, I disagree with Trump on immigration (I don't), but agree with him on other matters. If I vote for him based on those other issues am I still a racist? And why should anyone accept his conclusion that supporting a stricter immigration policy is racist? Heather MacDonald commented in an 8/19/19 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal with this retort: "to the academic and democratic left, however, a commitment to border enforcement can only arise from 'hate.' Such a pre-emptive interpretation is a means of foreclosing debate and stigmatizing dissent from liberal orthodoxy."
The 1619 Project. The New York Times made a big hoopla with their 1619 Project, telling us that American history began when the first slaves were brought over 400 years ago. Others in the MSM picked up on it, as did the Dems, and we've heard quite a bit about slavery and racism since. Robert Woodson is the founder and president of the Woodson Center. The Center was established in 1981 to "help residents of low-income neighborhoods address the problems of their communities." In an Op-Ed in the 8/29/19 Wall Street Journal, Woodson made this observation: "Barraging minorities with constant reminders of the injuries their ancestors suffered only discourages them from working to surmount the obstacles in their way." I have often held that so-called Black leaders who tell Black youth that the "system" is stacked against them, are committing evil. They are discouraging an entire generation from achieving.
Woodson continued. "Black America's history of success and achievement - and its continuing legacy today - is a vital, inspiring part of our nation's past. It's sadly overlooked in 'The 1619 Project.'" Woodson closes with this, which he says is paraphrasing C.S. Lewis: "some prisons have locks that are on the inside." Robert Woodson is 82 years old; and he is Black.
Sunday, August 25, 2019
My letter to the Los Angeles Times
The Sunday, August 25,2019, Los Angeles Times front page lead story was titled "Conservative radio host is an internet smash." The subheadline is "His online 'university' makes hugely popular videos that aim to indoctrinate the right." Dennis Prager has a radio show based out of Los Angeles. He and Allen Estrin founded Prager University for the purpose of, as Prager often says, "teaching what isn't taught" in schools and universities. What follows is my letter to the Times about their one-sided coverage of Prager U.
"Your article on Prager U is so one-sided and biased, it is why the President refers to the mainstream media as "fake news." Let's start with your subheadline that Prager's aim is to"indoctrinate" the right. The assertion of "indoctrination" is repeated in the second column on page one, and is repeated yet again in the very first paragraph on page eleven where the story continues. You then go on to assert that Prager's messages are "polarizing."
This article is a perfect example of why Prager U is needed, and how you in the media, in Hollywood and in academia live in such a left-wing bubble that you are unable to recognize your own biases. Rather, you believe "your" truth is "the" truth. You are unable to even see the "indoctrination" perpetrated by you in the media and by Hollywood and by academia. Yet, you say Prager and Adam Carolla are releasing a documentary, "No Safe Spaces," about the "intolerance for conservatives on college campuses." You say it is one of their favorite subjects. Why does it not bother the Times that conservative views are not permitted in academia? Shouldn't the lack of tolerance for diverse viewpoints at colleges and universities be one of the Times' favorite subjects?
How ironic that you are able to quote one left-wing source after the next, yet, in this lengthy hit piece you were unable to find a single subscriber to Prager U in order to seek another opinion. You acknowledge that Prager U has had over 2 billion views - but you could not locate a single individual to ask what he or she thought of the videos.
You quote a UCLA professor who states that Prager U "is much more effective than the version of this content available on the liberal side." You wonder why that might be? Everywhere in society we are inundated with left-wing voices and talking points. Liberals/leftists need only read the LA Times or NY Times, or watch NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC for the left-wing view of issues. They need only attend left-leaning (most) colleges and universities. However, people who want to hear another side of the issues - the conservative side - need to seek it out.
You close with an assertion that Prager has a "combative view of ideological debate." I have listened to his radio show for decades. Not only is Prager not combative with callers, he is the most likely, of the various talk show hosts, to allow callers to make their points without interruption.
The fact that you chose to make this totally biased and one-sided story about Prager U your front page lead story in the Sunday paper speaks volumes about your biases - and your inability to recognize them. This should have been an Op-Ed."
"Your article on Prager U is so one-sided and biased, it is why the President refers to the mainstream media as "fake news." Let's start with your subheadline that Prager's aim is to"indoctrinate" the right. The assertion of "indoctrination" is repeated in the second column on page one, and is repeated yet again in the very first paragraph on page eleven where the story continues. You then go on to assert that Prager's messages are "polarizing."
This article is a perfect example of why Prager U is needed, and how you in the media, in Hollywood and in academia live in such a left-wing bubble that you are unable to recognize your own biases. Rather, you believe "your" truth is "the" truth. You are unable to even see the "indoctrination" perpetrated by you in the media and by Hollywood and by academia. Yet, you say Prager and Adam Carolla are releasing a documentary, "No Safe Spaces," about the "intolerance for conservatives on college campuses." You say it is one of their favorite subjects. Why does it not bother the Times that conservative views are not permitted in academia? Shouldn't the lack of tolerance for diverse viewpoints at colleges and universities be one of the Times' favorite subjects?
How ironic that you are able to quote one left-wing source after the next, yet, in this lengthy hit piece you were unable to find a single subscriber to Prager U in order to seek another opinion. You acknowledge that Prager U has had over 2 billion views - but you could not locate a single individual to ask what he or she thought of the videos.
You quote a UCLA professor who states that Prager U "is much more effective than the version of this content available on the liberal side." You wonder why that might be? Everywhere in society we are inundated with left-wing voices and talking points. Liberals/leftists need only read the LA Times or NY Times, or watch NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC for the left-wing view of issues. They need only attend left-leaning (most) colleges and universities. However, people who want to hear another side of the issues - the conservative side - need to seek it out.
You close with an assertion that Prager has a "combative view of ideological debate." I have listened to his radio show for decades. Not only is Prager not combative with callers, he is the most likely, of the various talk show hosts, to allow callers to make their points without interruption.
The fact that you chose to make this totally biased and one-sided story about Prager U your front page lead story in the Sunday paper speaks volumes about your biases - and your inability to recognize them. This should have been an Op-Ed."
Sunday, August 18, 2019
Out of Control California
Let's be honest. California Governor Gavin Newsom never really cared much about the law. After all, when he was Mayor of San Francisco, he ordered the city to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, even though state law at the time declared marriage to be between a man and a woman. Newsom's disregard for the law ended when the state Supreme Court put an end to it. Therefore, I suppose we should not be surprised at Newsom's attempted end run around the US Constitution. Newsom signed into law a bill that prevented any presidential candidate from getting on the ballot in California's primary election (now in March, 2020) unless the candidate disclosed the last five years of their tax returns by November 26, 2019. Obviously, the super-majority Democrat legislature and Democrat Newsom were targeting President Trump, who has not released his tax returns.
The US Constitution sets out three requirements for eligibility to be president - a natural born citizen, 35 years of age and 14 years a resident in the United States. In vetoing similar legislation, prior Democrat Governor Jerry Brown opined that such a law may be unconstitutional. Then he added: "Second, it sets a 'slippery slope' precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?" To which I would add, the requirements would likely vary from state to state, with each state determining the requirements to be president. This law, intended to deny Trump access to California's delegates to the Republican Party convention, is clearly unconstitutional.
Yet, the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, wrote an Op-Ed in the 8/1/19 LA Times explaining why he thought the law was Constitutional. First, he discusses why the voting public might be interested in a candidate's tax returns. No doubt many would. But, as Jerry Brown explained, there are many things the public might want to know about a presidential candidate. Then, Chemerinsky acknowledges that most cases dealing with the issue have addressed access to the ballot for state and local elections. He then asserts that the "constitutional principles are the same" for the office of President. That is a rather odd conclusion. Clearly, states can set forth their own requirements for eligibility for state and local offices, assuming they do not discriminate on the basis of wealth or political party affiliation. Judicial Watch and several individuals have already filed suit to block this law. I am confident that this law will be struck down by the Courts.
It is also generally not a good idea to so obviously target a specific individual - Trump. When Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution limiting a President to two terms after FDR's election four times, they put a provision in the Amendment specifically excluding the person holding the office of President when the Article was proposed. That person was Harry Truman. California could have made their law effective after the 2020 election. But, as they were targeting Trump, that would not do. Whether or not Newsom seriously expects the law to survive a court challenge, it is clear that this is his announcement that he will be running for president in 2024.
California also has a bill proposing that a class in "ethnic studies" be required for high school graduation. The devil, as they say, is in the details; and in this case the details are made up of a bunch of left-wing propaganda. In their 8/4/19 editorial, even the LA Times recognized that the current draft proposal "is an impenetrable melange of academic jargon and politically correct pronouncements. It's hard to wade through all the references to hxrstory and womxn and misogynoir and cisheteropatriarchy." Whew! The Wall Street Journal had a 7/30/19 Op-Ed telling us that the course defines itself as "the interdisciplinary study of race, ethnicity, and indigeneity with an emphasis on experiences of people of color in the United States."
Most Jewish groups opposed the model curriculum as being anti-Jewish. After all, the course would include discussions of "Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, dehumanization, microaggression and the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement..." (As noted in the Jewish Journal of LA.) Curiously, there is no mention of anti-Semitism, nor, apparently of Judaism. One might think this odd as anti-Semitism is growing, and we are not terribly far removed from the shooting at the synagogue in Poway, California.
Capitalism is not looked on too fondly. Rather, capitalism fares no better than racism, white supremacy, patriarchy and ableism - all of which are described as a "form of power and oppression." Students would then be encouraged to be "agents of change, social justice organizers and advocates." So, first brainwash the students with leftist ideology, and then send them out into the world to become agents of "change."
After much protest by Jewish groups and others, the state Board of Education announced that they would "substantially redesign" the course program. But so what? I already know enough that I would never send my kids to public school today if they were young. After all, how does such a curriculum even get proposed? Instead of "Ethnic Studies," the redesigned class should be called "We Will teach You to Hate America, Hate Capitalism, Hate Jews and Israel, and Of Course, Hate White People."
The US Constitution sets out three requirements for eligibility to be president - a natural born citizen, 35 years of age and 14 years a resident in the United States. In vetoing similar legislation, prior Democrat Governor Jerry Brown opined that such a law may be unconstitutional. Then he added: "Second, it sets a 'slippery slope' precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?" To which I would add, the requirements would likely vary from state to state, with each state determining the requirements to be president. This law, intended to deny Trump access to California's delegates to the Republican Party convention, is clearly unconstitutional.
Yet, the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, wrote an Op-Ed in the 8/1/19 LA Times explaining why he thought the law was Constitutional. First, he discusses why the voting public might be interested in a candidate's tax returns. No doubt many would. But, as Jerry Brown explained, there are many things the public might want to know about a presidential candidate. Then, Chemerinsky acknowledges that most cases dealing with the issue have addressed access to the ballot for state and local elections. He then asserts that the "constitutional principles are the same" for the office of President. That is a rather odd conclusion. Clearly, states can set forth their own requirements for eligibility for state and local offices, assuming they do not discriminate on the basis of wealth or political party affiliation. Judicial Watch and several individuals have already filed suit to block this law. I am confident that this law will be struck down by the Courts.
It is also generally not a good idea to so obviously target a specific individual - Trump. When Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution limiting a President to two terms after FDR's election four times, they put a provision in the Amendment specifically excluding the person holding the office of President when the Article was proposed. That person was Harry Truman. California could have made their law effective after the 2020 election. But, as they were targeting Trump, that would not do. Whether or not Newsom seriously expects the law to survive a court challenge, it is clear that this is his announcement that he will be running for president in 2024.
California also has a bill proposing that a class in "ethnic studies" be required for high school graduation. The devil, as they say, is in the details; and in this case the details are made up of a bunch of left-wing propaganda. In their 8/4/19 editorial, even the LA Times recognized that the current draft proposal "is an impenetrable melange of academic jargon and politically correct pronouncements. It's hard to wade through all the references to hxrstory and womxn and misogynoir and cisheteropatriarchy." Whew! The Wall Street Journal had a 7/30/19 Op-Ed telling us that the course defines itself as "the interdisciplinary study of race, ethnicity, and indigeneity with an emphasis on experiences of people of color in the United States."
Most Jewish groups opposed the model curriculum as being anti-Jewish. After all, the course would include discussions of "Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, dehumanization, microaggression and the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement..." (As noted in the Jewish Journal of LA.) Curiously, there is no mention of anti-Semitism, nor, apparently of Judaism. One might think this odd as anti-Semitism is growing, and we are not terribly far removed from the shooting at the synagogue in Poway, California.
Capitalism is not looked on too fondly. Rather, capitalism fares no better than racism, white supremacy, patriarchy and ableism - all of which are described as a "form of power and oppression." Students would then be encouraged to be "agents of change, social justice organizers and advocates." So, first brainwash the students with leftist ideology, and then send them out into the world to become agents of "change."
After much protest by Jewish groups and others, the state Board of Education announced that they would "substantially redesign" the course program. But so what? I already know enough that I would never send my kids to public school today if they were young. After all, how does such a curriculum even get proposed? Instead of "Ethnic Studies," the redesigned class should be called "We Will teach You to Hate America, Hate Capitalism, Hate Jews and Israel, and Of Course, Hate White People."
Trump and Netanyahu and Omar and Tlaib
It did not begin with Trump's Tweet: "It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds." It began earlier this month when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer accompanied 40 other Democratic members of Congress to Israel. These Congress members were able to meet with Netanyahu, opposition leader Benny Gantz, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. That trip was sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation, which is an affiliate of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), a pro-Israel lobbying group. As AIPAC seeks bipartisan support in Congress for Israel, and as they believe in a two-state solution, there was neither a desire nor attempt to prevent the Congress members from meeting with Palestinians. Nevertheless, left-wing groups pressured these Democrats not to go.
Notably absent from that trip were Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar. Rather, they planned their own trip to "Palestine." Not surprisingly, Israel was not on their itinerary. Their trip was sponsored by Miftah, a Palestinian NGO that not only supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel, but has also praised Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers that blow up innocent Jews. The two had not planned to meet with any Israeli leaders, not even Arab members of the Knesset, Israel's parliament. Omar disputes that, although their itinerary does not show any such meetings.
We know that Rashid, a Palestinian-American, does not believe that Israel has a right to exist, and certainly not as a Jewish state. She has frequently stated her desire to see a one-state solution, and in various ways has made it clear that the one state would be Palestine. In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Tlaib was given an opportunity to recognize Israel's right to exist. Tapper: "Do you think the Jewish people have the right to a state in the area where Israel exists now?" Tlaib: "Look, I truly believe the State of Israel exists, correct..." What? It is easy to say she believes Israel exists as it does exist. She did not acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist. She continued: "...but understand, does it (Israel) exist in the detriment of inequality for the Palestinian people." Hence, her belief in a one-state solution called Palestine.
Last month, Israeli Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, said the two extremist members of Congress would be allowed to go on their trip "out of respect for the US Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America." In 2017, Israel enacted a law that allows the government to deny entry to those who wish to harm the country, such as through boycotts. But no doubt that Trump's Tweet put Israeli PM Netanyahu in the awkward position of being in the middle of Trump and two members of the "Squad."
After Tlaib complained that this trip might be her last chance to see her 90 year-old grandmother, and after Tlaib agreed not to pursue BDS attacks on Israel while there, Israel relented. But shortly thereafter Tlaib decided against the trip, complaining of the "oppressive" conditions set out by Israel, and because it would "break my grandmother's heart." If I were a betting man, I would bet on Tlaib having been pressured by the Palestinians to not agree to Israel's terms. Israel's Interior Minister, Aryeh Deri, then said this: "I approved her request as a gesture of goodwill on a humanitarian basis, but it was just a provocative request, aimed at bashing the State of Israel. Apparently her hate for Israel overcomes her love for her grandmother." Which brings to mind a saying often attributed to Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister from March, 1969 to June, 1974. "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." Nothing much has changed in that regard since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, and even earlier.
There are at least two issues here. One, was it proper for the President of the United States to suggest to a foreign country that two duly elected members of Congress not be allowed entry? It always helps to imagine a slightly different scenario. Imagine that these two Congress members were anti-Semitic white nationalists who claimed Israel controlled the world. Or, what if the two Congress members were Jewish extremists who argued for the extermination of the Arabs. Sooner or later, you will find a scenario where an increasing number of people agree that the President was right to call for a ban on such people - members of Congress or not - visiting Israel.
Of course, the second issue is whether or not Israel should have caved (likely they did) to the President's Tweet. Certainly, Israel is not the first country to bar an elected official from entering. Just one example: Dutch Parliament member Geert Wilders was barred from entering the UK. Wilders has been outspoken in his concern over the "Islamization" of The Netherlands. But the British Home Office labeled Wilders an "undesirable person," adding "the Government opposes extremism in all its forms." Just one example of a democratic country denying entry to an elected official they deemed to be an extremist. Are Rashid and Omar extremists? No doubt. But Israel had to anticipate the significant blow back that they are now getting from the Democrats in Congress. All appropriation measures originate in the House. Israel is a recipient of US foreign aid. It is also true that Israel is a great ally to the US - technologically, in terms of providing intelligence on the Middle East and in other ways.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media has condemned Israel for their decision. I could make the argument either way, but my preference was that Israel allow the visit. Now, these two Israel-haters are likely to get increasing support within their party.
Notably absent from that trip were Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar. Rather, they planned their own trip to "Palestine." Not surprisingly, Israel was not on their itinerary. Their trip was sponsored by Miftah, a Palestinian NGO that not only supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel, but has also praised Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers that blow up innocent Jews. The two had not planned to meet with any Israeli leaders, not even Arab members of the Knesset, Israel's parliament. Omar disputes that, although their itinerary does not show any such meetings.
We know that Rashid, a Palestinian-American, does not believe that Israel has a right to exist, and certainly not as a Jewish state. She has frequently stated her desire to see a one-state solution, and in various ways has made it clear that the one state would be Palestine. In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Tlaib was given an opportunity to recognize Israel's right to exist. Tapper: "Do you think the Jewish people have the right to a state in the area where Israel exists now?" Tlaib: "Look, I truly believe the State of Israel exists, correct..." What? It is easy to say she believes Israel exists as it does exist. She did not acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist. She continued: "...but understand, does it (Israel) exist in the detriment of inequality for the Palestinian people." Hence, her belief in a one-state solution called Palestine.
Last month, Israeli Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, said the two extremist members of Congress would be allowed to go on their trip "out of respect for the US Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America." In 2017, Israel enacted a law that allows the government to deny entry to those who wish to harm the country, such as through boycotts. But no doubt that Trump's Tweet put Israeli PM Netanyahu in the awkward position of being in the middle of Trump and two members of the "Squad."
After Tlaib complained that this trip might be her last chance to see her 90 year-old grandmother, and after Tlaib agreed not to pursue BDS attacks on Israel while there, Israel relented. But shortly thereafter Tlaib decided against the trip, complaining of the "oppressive" conditions set out by Israel, and because it would "break my grandmother's heart." If I were a betting man, I would bet on Tlaib having been pressured by the Palestinians to not agree to Israel's terms. Israel's Interior Minister, Aryeh Deri, then said this: "I approved her request as a gesture of goodwill on a humanitarian basis, but it was just a provocative request, aimed at bashing the State of Israel. Apparently her hate for Israel overcomes her love for her grandmother." Which brings to mind a saying often attributed to Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister from March, 1969 to June, 1974. "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." Nothing much has changed in that regard since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, and even earlier.
There are at least two issues here. One, was it proper for the President of the United States to suggest to a foreign country that two duly elected members of Congress not be allowed entry? It always helps to imagine a slightly different scenario. Imagine that these two Congress members were anti-Semitic white nationalists who claimed Israel controlled the world. Or, what if the two Congress members were Jewish extremists who argued for the extermination of the Arabs. Sooner or later, you will find a scenario where an increasing number of people agree that the President was right to call for a ban on such people - members of Congress or not - visiting Israel.
Of course, the second issue is whether or not Israel should have caved (likely they did) to the President's Tweet. Certainly, Israel is not the first country to bar an elected official from entering. Just one example: Dutch Parliament member Geert Wilders was barred from entering the UK. Wilders has been outspoken in his concern over the "Islamization" of The Netherlands. But the British Home Office labeled Wilders an "undesirable person," adding "the Government opposes extremism in all its forms." Just one example of a democratic country denying entry to an elected official they deemed to be an extremist. Are Rashid and Omar extremists? No doubt. But Israel had to anticipate the significant blow back that they are now getting from the Democrats in Congress. All appropriation measures originate in the House. Israel is a recipient of US foreign aid. It is also true that Israel is a great ally to the US - technologically, in terms of providing intelligence on the Middle East and in other ways.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media has condemned Israel for their decision. I could make the argument either way, but my preference was that Israel allow the visit. Now, these two Israel-haters are likely to get increasing support within their party.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
Racism, Racism, Everywhere is Racism
(I need to preface this post by stating the obvious, lest I be accused of racism. Yes, racism exists. Yes, judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character is both wrong and morally repugnant. But what the Left has done with the terms "racist" and "racism" is comparable to what the boy who cried wolf did to the fear of wolves. Let's take a look.)
For many on the Left, if you simply voted for Donald Trump for president you are automatically a racist. That makes 63 million Americans racists. One actress, Ellen Pompeo, commented on the fact that Kamala Harris seemed to be focusing most of her attacks on Joe Biden. Pompeo commented on that with this: "Because she is overconfident and believes he is her only competitor." Perhaps one of my readers can educate me about why that is a racist comment. Yet, that is what many on social media claimed. Said one person: "Black women are allowed only a certain amount of confidence. Must always yield to whatever white man is around." Make a note to add "overconfident" to go along with the "N" word and other racial slurs.
Of course, President Trump is always accused of racism. The latest accusations were in connection with his feud with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD). Trump was unhappy with Cummings' treatment of the Homeland Security Secretary during the Secretary's Congressional testimony. Trump then accused Cummings, who is black, and a civil rights icon to many, of being a "brutal bully." He referred to Cummings' district as being a "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess"...and "far worse and more dangerous than the Southern border." For these comments, Trump was condemned, by many Democratic politicians and left-wing commentators, as being a racist.
But what about Bernie Sanders? During an earlier visit to Baltimore, Sanders made this remark: "Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you're in a wealthy nation. You would think that you were in a Third World country." Comparing parts of Baltimore to a Third World country was apparently not racist, allowing Bernie to criticize Trump for his alleged racism.
How about this? The former black Mayor of Baltimore, Catherine Pugh, while walking around one of Baltimore's blighted neighborhoods, was shocked by what she saw and smelled. "What the hell? We should just take all this shit down...whoa, you can smell the rats...whew, Jesus...oh my G-d, you can smell the dead animals." But not racist, because Trump did not say that. But imagine if he did.
Then we have this comment from 1998 by none other than Elijah Cummings: "This morning I left my community of Baltimore, a drug infested area where a lot of the drugs we're talking about today have already taken the lives of so many children..." But not racist, because Trump did not say it.
In a July 31 Op-Ed in The New York Times, Steve Phillips writes "Make Trump's Racism an Issue," referring to the 2020 election. Says Phillips: "In every presidential election for the past 50 years, a majority of white voters have voted against the Democrat, and the overwhelming majority of people of color have sided with the party's nominee." Assuming those numbers to be accurate, I am not surprised. Democrats have been using "identity politics" for quite some time; and have also promised "free" stuff to garner votes. Identity politics is aimed at minority groups. It tells those minority voters that they are all victims - often of white society. You want divisive? Then keep playing identity politics.
In Charles Blow's July 22 Op-Ed in The New York Times, "Denying Racism Supports It," he was surprised by the findings in a USA Today/Ipsos poll, published July 17. Apparently, "more than twice as many Americans believe that people who call others racist do so 'in bad faith,' compared with those who do not believe it." Blow concludes "this all contributes to whittling away at the reality of racism itself..." That is one way to look at it. Another way is that people are tired of hearing the boy cry wolf.
For many on the Left, if you simply voted for Donald Trump for president you are automatically a racist. That makes 63 million Americans racists. One actress, Ellen Pompeo, commented on the fact that Kamala Harris seemed to be focusing most of her attacks on Joe Biden. Pompeo commented on that with this: "Because she is overconfident and believes he is her only competitor." Perhaps one of my readers can educate me about why that is a racist comment. Yet, that is what many on social media claimed. Said one person: "Black women are allowed only a certain amount of confidence. Must always yield to whatever white man is around." Make a note to add "overconfident" to go along with the "N" word and other racial slurs.
Of course, President Trump is always accused of racism. The latest accusations were in connection with his feud with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD). Trump was unhappy with Cummings' treatment of the Homeland Security Secretary during the Secretary's Congressional testimony. Trump then accused Cummings, who is black, and a civil rights icon to many, of being a "brutal bully." He referred to Cummings' district as being a "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess"...and "far worse and more dangerous than the Southern border." For these comments, Trump was condemned, by many Democratic politicians and left-wing commentators, as being a racist.
But what about Bernie Sanders? During an earlier visit to Baltimore, Sanders made this remark: "Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you're in a wealthy nation. You would think that you were in a Third World country." Comparing parts of Baltimore to a Third World country was apparently not racist, allowing Bernie to criticize Trump for his alleged racism.
How about this? The former black Mayor of Baltimore, Catherine Pugh, while walking around one of Baltimore's blighted neighborhoods, was shocked by what she saw and smelled. "What the hell? We should just take all this shit down...whoa, you can smell the rats...whew, Jesus...oh my G-d, you can smell the dead animals." But not racist, because Trump did not say that. But imagine if he did.
Then we have this comment from 1998 by none other than Elijah Cummings: "This morning I left my community of Baltimore, a drug infested area where a lot of the drugs we're talking about today have already taken the lives of so many children..." But not racist, because Trump did not say it.
In a July 31 Op-Ed in The New York Times, Steve Phillips writes "Make Trump's Racism an Issue," referring to the 2020 election. Says Phillips: "In every presidential election for the past 50 years, a majority of white voters have voted against the Democrat, and the overwhelming majority of people of color have sided with the party's nominee." Assuming those numbers to be accurate, I am not surprised. Democrats have been using "identity politics" for quite some time; and have also promised "free" stuff to garner votes. Identity politics is aimed at minority groups. It tells those minority voters that they are all victims - often of white society. You want divisive? Then keep playing identity politics.
In Charles Blow's July 22 Op-Ed in The New York Times, "Denying Racism Supports It," he was surprised by the findings in a USA Today/Ipsos poll, published July 17. Apparently, "more than twice as many Americans believe that people who call others racist do so 'in bad faith,' compared with those who do not believe it." Blow concludes "this all contributes to whittling away at the reality of racism itself..." That is one way to look at it. Another way is that people are tired of hearing the boy cry wolf.
Monday, July 22, 2019
A Few Words From A Few People
The Los Angeles Times reprinted some letters to the editor that they printed shortly after the historic Moon landing of July 20, 1969. Said one: "It is inconceivable to me that persons on earth should go hungry, uneducated, die of cancer while technology has put a man on the moon." Fast forward to July, 2019, and we have this letter to the editor of the New York Times: "Through increased wildfires, storm damage, flooding, rising sea levels and a thousand other cuts, climate change is already costing us lives and conflict and billions of dollars. We need a moonshot, all right - a moonshot effort to stop and reverse climate change. We cannot afford both." In fairness, allow me to acknowledge my own bias - I have always been interested in the space program and astronomy. Nevertheless, there will always be those on the left who cannot enjoy life because...(fill in the blank of some problems or difficulties somewhere). As noted in the July 4th post, some people were unable to celebrate our nation's birthday because of issues with the border. I prefer the "can do" attitude to the "I can't be excited about anything when suffering exists anywhere." I am not heartless, but I am neither morose nor pessimistic about our capabilities.
Here is another one that I simply cannot understand. One letter writer to the LA Times was a self-described daughter of Holocaust survivors, her father and grandfather both having escaped Nazi Germany. Which makes it all the more inconceivable that she would write: "It may seem hyperbolic to liken our president to Adolf Hitler, though his playbook looks very much the same." Really? The writer was upset by President Trump's comments about "The Squad." (See the last post.) But a Holocaust survivor's daughter draws a comparison between Trump and Hitler? Is she racing to leave this country, fearful for her life? I am curious, did this Jewish letter writer get equally offended by the frequent anti-Semitic comments by Ilhan Omar? I would bet not.
Recall that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi of singling out the newly elected women of color. Before Trump opened his mouth and united the Democrats, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd expressed her displeasure with the Democratic infighting. (See her July 14 column "Scaling Wokeback Mountain.") Dowd: "The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom." That is just precious. I guess Dowd is unaware that what she described is exactly how the left thinks about and treats all conservatives.
In the July 19th LA Times was a page 2 article by columnist Caroline Engelmayer, attempting to explain why Trump verbally attacked Ilhan Omar. Her article is a perfect example of what Trump calls the "fake news." Engelmayer discusses the various anti-Semitic remarks by Omar, then saying she always apologized, except after the last comment alleging Israel's supporters only have allegiance to a foreign country. Why would Engelmayer believe a single apology was sincere when Omar continued making one anti-Semitic comment after the next? Then, Engelmayer claims that after Omar's "allegiance to a foreign country" claim, the "House passed a resolution condemning anti-Semitism." No, that is a lie, or at best a half-truth. As discussed in the last post, the House refused to pass any resolution condemning Omar. The House refused to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Rather, the resolution that passed condemned all bigotry, such as Islamophobia, even though the original motivating factor and purpose was to condemn Omar and her anti-Semitism.
Not surprisingly, the left was unhappy with Trump's July 4th celebration observing our country's birthday. After all, there were two stationary tanks there, along with some flyovers. You would think that no other president ever displayed any military hardware. It is pure nonsense. And, G-d forbid, Trump claimed "we all were made by the same almighty G-d." According to one letter writer to the LA Times, "that pious take ignored how 'G-d' has numerous disparate definitions, and how more than 30 million Americans hold nontheistic beliefs." So what? As one Op-Ed in the July 8 USA Today noted: "Mentioning G-d annoys the left." To which I might add: what doesn't? I am sure, however, that this letter writer always complained when Obama mentioned G-d.
In the 7/21 edition of the LA Times is a page 3 article discussing how Benjamin Netanyahu has now become the longest serving Prime Minister in the history of modern Israel. Early in the article they acknowledge that Netanyahu "has ruled Israel for a full decade of economic and diplomatic achievements." As the paper views Netanyahu as "a hard-line rightest and close ally of President Trump," most of the article is, obviously, not flattering. Then, they quote a left-wing writer for the left-wing Israeli paper Ha'aretz. The Times quotes Anshel Pfeffer: "His (referring to Netanyahu) legacy is longevity, and precious little else." What? Why would the Times put that quote in the article after they acknowledged Netanyahu's economic and diplomatic achievements? Further, it is patently false, another example of "fake news" from the mainstream media. Under Netanyahu, Israel has become an economic and technological powerhouse. Diplomatically, he has improved relations with the Sunni Arab nations. And he has been a leading statesman on the world stage. But...he is a "close ally of President Trump."
Here is another one that I simply cannot understand. One letter writer to the LA Times was a self-described daughter of Holocaust survivors, her father and grandfather both having escaped Nazi Germany. Which makes it all the more inconceivable that she would write: "It may seem hyperbolic to liken our president to Adolf Hitler, though his playbook looks very much the same." Really? The writer was upset by President Trump's comments about "The Squad." (See the last post.) But a Holocaust survivor's daughter draws a comparison between Trump and Hitler? Is she racing to leave this country, fearful for her life? I am curious, did this Jewish letter writer get equally offended by the frequent anti-Semitic comments by Ilhan Omar? I would bet not.
Recall that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi of singling out the newly elected women of color. Before Trump opened his mouth and united the Democrats, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd expressed her displeasure with the Democratic infighting. (See her July 14 column "Scaling Wokeback Mountain.") Dowd: "The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom." That is just precious. I guess Dowd is unaware that what she described is exactly how the left thinks about and treats all conservatives.
In the July 19th LA Times was a page 2 article by columnist Caroline Engelmayer, attempting to explain why Trump verbally attacked Ilhan Omar. Her article is a perfect example of what Trump calls the "fake news." Engelmayer discusses the various anti-Semitic remarks by Omar, then saying she always apologized, except after the last comment alleging Israel's supporters only have allegiance to a foreign country. Why would Engelmayer believe a single apology was sincere when Omar continued making one anti-Semitic comment after the next? Then, Engelmayer claims that after Omar's "allegiance to a foreign country" claim, the "House passed a resolution condemning anti-Semitism." No, that is a lie, or at best a half-truth. As discussed in the last post, the House refused to pass any resolution condemning Omar. The House refused to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Rather, the resolution that passed condemned all bigotry, such as Islamophobia, even though the original motivating factor and purpose was to condemn Omar and her anti-Semitism.
Not surprisingly, the left was unhappy with Trump's July 4th celebration observing our country's birthday. After all, there were two stationary tanks there, along with some flyovers. You would think that no other president ever displayed any military hardware. It is pure nonsense. And, G-d forbid, Trump claimed "we all were made by the same almighty G-d." According to one letter writer to the LA Times, "that pious take ignored how 'G-d' has numerous disparate definitions, and how more than 30 million Americans hold nontheistic beliefs." So what? As one Op-Ed in the July 8 USA Today noted: "Mentioning G-d annoys the left." To which I might add: what doesn't? I am sure, however, that this letter writer always complained when Obama mentioned G-d.
In the 7/21 edition of the LA Times is a page 3 article discussing how Benjamin Netanyahu has now become the longest serving Prime Minister in the history of modern Israel. Early in the article they acknowledge that Netanyahu "has ruled Israel for a full decade of economic and diplomatic achievements." As the paper views Netanyahu as "a hard-line rightest and close ally of President Trump," most of the article is, obviously, not flattering. Then, they quote a left-wing writer for the left-wing Israeli paper Ha'aretz. The Times quotes Anshel Pfeffer: "His (referring to Netanyahu) legacy is longevity, and precious little else." What? Why would the Times put that quote in the article after they acknowledged Netanyahu's economic and diplomatic achievements? Further, it is patently false, another example of "fake news" from the mainstream media. Under Netanyahu, Israel has become an economic and technological powerhouse. Diplomatically, he has improved relations with the Sunni Arab nations. And he has been a leading statesman on the world stage. But...he is a "close ally of President Trump."
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Trump Tells "The Squad" To Go Back From Whence They Came
Over the weekend, President Trump Tweeted "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infected places from which they come. Then come back and show us how it is done." Although not mentioning anyone by name, it was apparent that he was referring to the four radical leftists in the House - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley - a group known as the "squad." Prior to his Tweet, the Democrats were attacking each other. Kamala Harris attacked Biden for his fraternizing with segregationist Senators. AOC attacked Pelosi for singling out four women of color (the squad). Trump's Tweet resulted in uniting the divided Democrats in attacking Trump.
Today, the House passed a resolution condemning "President Donald Trump's racist comments..." I am not impressed. It was a strictly political move on the part of Speaker Pelosi. Recall that when Ilhan Omar made incredibly anti-Semitic comments earlier this year, Pelosi would not condemn her, Omar being a member of Pelosi's Democratic caucus. Even when Republicans agreed to remove specific mention of Omar from the resolution, but still condemning anti-Semitism, Pelosi would not allow it to come to a vote. It was only when the resolution that was intended to combat anti-Semitism was watered down to condemn all bigotry, including Islamophobia and white supremacy, that Pelosi allowed a vote on the measure. Afterwards, Omar was exhilirated in announcing the first ever anti-Islamophobia resolution passed by the House. As the Black Caucus opposed the resolution only condemning anti-Semitism, can we say the entire Black Caucus is anti-Semitic?
So, the anti-Semite Omar got to celebrate a victory instead of suffering a deserved defeat. Pelosi not only refused to condemn Omar, she defended her. "I don't think our colleague is anti-Semitic. I think she has a different experience in the use of words..." The extremely articulate Omar does not understand her words? The same Omar who said Israel has hypnotized the world; who said of supporters of Israel "it's all about the Benjamins." The same Omar who joked about people reacting badly to hearing "Al Qaeda" said, but not reacting badly when "America" is mentioned.
Another member of the squad, Ayanna Pressley, said this: "We don't need any more brown faces that don't want want to be a brown voice. We don't need black faces that don't want to be a black voice..." She continued to make the same point about Muslims and queers (her word). So, who's the racist? Blacks who do not think as she does are not needed? It is a point I have made many times before: left-wing women only support other left-wing women. It is a lie when they say they support all women. And left-wing blacks only support other left-wing blacks, and so on. These left-wing women in the squad would not support the election of, say, Nikki Haley as president. We even just saw it in the attack on Pelosi by AOC, claiming that Pelosi was singling out women of color.
Another anti-Semitic member of the squad, Rashida Tlaib, recently accused Israel of dehumanizing and racist policies. What will she say about the treatment of women, gays and Christians by Hamas? In March, 2016, Newsweek reported that Hamas executed one of their commanders for "moral turpitude," their euphemism for gay sex.
I get that Trump's comments were not well received, even by some on the right. Were the comments racist? He did say after they leave they should come back. But even senior Fox News political analyst Brit Hume attacked Trump's comments as "nativist, xenophobic, counterfactual and politically stupid." (As an aside, tell me when an MSNBC commentator ever praised Trump.) I do not know if Trump is racist or not. He is often attacked for being anti-Semitic, notwithstanding the great friendship he has shown to Israel. Personally, I do not believe Trump is racist or anti-Semitic. He is most likely the mirror image of Ayanna Pressley, having no use for people who disagree with him politically - just like Pressley.
Condemn Trump? Then condemn Pressley. And it is way past time to condemn the anti-Semitic Muslim members of the squad. Yesterday, the Attorney General of the United States, William Barr, gave a strong and passionate speech condemning anti-Semitism. Barr: "The most ancient and stubborn form of racism throughout Western history has been anti-Semitism." If and when Speaker Pelosi sees fit to condemn the anti-Semitic and racist members of her caucus, then you can talk to me about condemning Trump. Until then...
Today, the House passed a resolution condemning "President Donald Trump's racist comments..." I am not impressed. It was a strictly political move on the part of Speaker Pelosi. Recall that when Ilhan Omar made incredibly anti-Semitic comments earlier this year, Pelosi would not condemn her, Omar being a member of Pelosi's Democratic caucus. Even when Republicans agreed to remove specific mention of Omar from the resolution, but still condemning anti-Semitism, Pelosi would not allow it to come to a vote. It was only when the resolution that was intended to combat anti-Semitism was watered down to condemn all bigotry, including Islamophobia and white supremacy, that Pelosi allowed a vote on the measure. Afterwards, Omar was exhilirated in announcing the first ever anti-Islamophobia resolution passed by the House. As the Black Caucus opposed the resolution only condemning anti-Semitism, can we say the entire Black Caucus is anti-Semitic?
So, the anti-Semite Omar got to celebrate a victory instead of suffering a deserved defeat. Pelosi not only refused to condemn Omar, she defended her. "I don't think our colleague is anti-Semitic. I think she has a different experience in the use of words..." The extremely articulate Omar does not understand her words? The same Omar who said Israel has hypnotized the world; who said of supporters of Israel "it's all about the Benjamins." The same Omar who joked about people reacting badly to hearing "Al Qaeda" said, but not reacting badly when "America" is mentioned.
Another member of the squad, Ayanna Pressley, said this: "We don't need any more brown faces that don't want want to be a brown voice. We don't need black faces that don't want to be a black voice..." She continued to make the same point about Muslims and queers (her word). So, who's the racist? Blacks who do not think as she does are not needed? It is a point I have made many times before: left-wing women only support other left-wing women. It is a lie when they say they support all women. And left-wing blacks only support other left-wing blacks, and so on. These left-wing women in the squad would not support the election of, say, Nikki Haley as president. We even just saw it in the attack on Pelosi by AOC, claiming that Pelosi was singling out women of color.
Another anti-Semitic member of the squad, Rashida Tlaib, recently accused Israel of dehumanizing and racist policies. What will she say about the treatment of women, gays and Christians by Hamas? In March, 2016, Newsweek reported that Hamas executed one of their commanders for "moral turpitude," their euphemism for gay sex.
I get that Trump's comments were not well received, even by some on the right. Were the comments racist? He did say after they leave they should come back. But even senior Fox News political analyst Brit Hume attacked Trump's comments as "nativist, xenophobic, counterfactual and politically stupid." (As an aside, tell me when an MSNBC commentator ever praised Trump.) I do not know if Trump is racist or not. He is often attacked for being anti-Semitic, notwithstanding the great friendship he has shown to Israel. Personally, I do not believe Trump is racist or anti-Semitic. He is most likely the mirror image of Ayanna Pressley, having no use for people who disagree with him politically - just like Pressley.
Condemn Trump? Then condemn Pressley. And it is way past time to condemn the anti-Semitic Muslim members of the squad. Yesterday, the Attorney General of the United States, William Barr, gave a strong and passionate speech condemning anti-Semitism. Barr: "The most ancient and stubborn form of racism throughout Western history has been anti-Semitism." If and when Speaker Pelosi sees fit to condemn the anti-Semitic and racist members of her caucus, then you can talk to me about condemning Trump. Until then...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)