Is It Enough Yet? Part I

I ask this question in regards to two different Op-Eds in the New York Times.  On October 6, 2024, we have Bret Stephens piece:  "The Year American Jews Woke Up."  Stephens had been a conservative writer at the Wall Street Journal, but as an anti-Trumper he left and went to the Times.  Then, on October 13, 2024, we have the article by Dr. Feroze Sidhwa:  "What 65 Doctors, Nurses and Paramedics Saw in Gaza."  Dr. Sidhwa worked as a trauma surgeon for approximately two weeks in Gaza.  Both articles merit discussion.

After recounting various antisemitic incidents across America over this past year, Stephens makes a very important assessment of what it means to be a Jew in America.  "At some point, an awakening of sorts occurred.  Perhaps not for every American Jew, but for many.  I've called them the Oct. 8 Jews - those who woke up a day after our greatest tragedy since the Holocaust to see how little empathy there was for us in many of the spaces and communities and institutions we thought we comfortably inhabited.  It was an awakening that often came with a deeper set of realizations.  One realization:  American Jews should not expect reciprocity."

Stephens discusses the history of American Jews supporting many progressive causes, only to see those same progressive individuals and organizations turning on us after October 7, 2023.  A second realization:  "'Zionist' has become just another word for Jew."  "Anti-Zionists" claim that they have nothing against Jews, but rather the political idea of Zionism, reflecting a return to the land of Israel for the Jewish people.  Stephens makes it clear that the attacks on "Zionists" have become indistinguishable from attacks on individual Jews.  At that point, "the distinctions between anti-Zionist and antisemite blur to the point of invisibility."

A third realization:  "This isn't going to end anytime soon."  In part because American politics has moved "towards forms of illiberalism."  Stephens is referring to a move away from classical liberalism; something this writer has discussed many times, and particularly in the July 17, 2016 post "Classical Liberalism."  Stephens:  "Unless this changes, the American Jewish community is on its way to living how the European Jewish community has for decades:  apprehensive, suspected and under ever increasing layers of private and state protection."  

Stephens then discusses the current "grand theory of "settler colonialism," a label which the antisemites place on the Jews (settler colonialists).  Stephens:  "Zionism, which since the days of the Maccabees has been the most enduring anticolonial struggle in history, is now the epitome of what college activists seem to think is colonialism, the only solution to which is its eradication."

Noting that the college educated are often the worst offenders, Stephens tells us:  "When people argue that education is the answer to bigotry, they often forget that bigotry is a moral failing, not an intellectual one - and few people are more dangerous than educated bigots."  Where Stephens and I diverge is on his apparent emphasis on the right-wing, and the unnamed Trump, moving us away from classical liberalism - towards illiberalism.  But that has been going on for some time, well before Trump came on the scene.  

Citing a book discussing where German Jews had gone wrong politically, we are told:  "They had, in tolerant Prussia, lost their instinct for danger, which had preserved them through the ages."  That is a discussion which my conservative friends and I have frequently had.  When will American Jews wake up?  Many are so consumed by their hatred of Donald Trump, that they have remained blind to all the dangers of the radical left, and of radical Islam.  

Stephens:  "Are we going to be proud Jews or (mostly) indifferent ones?  And if proud, what does that entail?  It's an open question that each of us will have to answer for ourself."  For Stephens:  "To be a Jew obliges us to many things, particularly our duty to be our brother's, and sister's, keeper.  That means never to forsake one another, much less to join in the vilification of our own people."  Finally, it means "to embrace - often as a thoughtful critic, but never as a hateful scold - the great, complicated, essential project of a Jewish state.  To imagine we can do without it is to forget how close we came to extinction before it was born." 

So, is it enough yet?  Have my fellow Jews seen enough antisemitism and outright Jew hatred to awaken from their slumber?  Have they seen enough to realize that, no matter how much they may detest Donald Trump, the problem is far wider and deeper than Trump.  I don't expect them to recognize Trump as the best President for Israel and the Jewish people.  But maybe they will awaken to the fact that the these college protesters, and their anti-Israel professors and administrators, are on the Left.  That most of the mainstream media is on the Left.  The same applies to Hollywood.  It is a mistake to assume that these Leftists are on our side.

I have said in the blog that antisemitism, whether from the Right, the Left or Radical Islam - is all bad.  I made it a point of criticizing Tucker Carlson twice, for his apparent antisemitism, because he is such a prominent voice on the Right.  It's past time for my fellow Jews on the Left to criticize those on the Left, such as Bernie Sanders and members of the Squad, for their anti-Israel and anti-Jewish/antisemitic comments. 

My Chabad Rabbis teach that this is not the time to shrink from one's Judaism.  This is the time to be a proud Jew.  Put a mezuzah on the entry to your home.  Wear your yarmulke (kippah) in public.  And go to services.  And, as I have advocated previously, speak out for Israel and against antisemitism everywhere - on social media, in print media and at every opportunity you have.  As a friend said to me, if we don't speak up now, Never Again will happen again.    

Just How Many Times Can Joe Biden Be Wrong? (Part II, Some Other Voices)

Gerard Baker, in the October 1, 2024 Wall Street Journal, made this observation:  "Israel has in 12 months done nothing less than redraw the balance of global security, not just in the region, but in the wider world."  But today's leaders in the Western world do not understand.  And, like Biden, they are fearful.  Baker:  "In Europe, they have gone even further, as usual, rewarding Hamas and Hezbollah by nominally recognizing a nonexistent Palestinian state and prosecuting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on bogus war-crime charges."  

In an Op-Ed in the September 17, 2024 WSJ, Walter Russell Mead discussed a report issued by the Commission on the National Defense Strategy.  The report was written by eight "experts" appointed by both parties from the House and Senate Armed Services committees.  With unanimous opinion, the Commission wrote that the US currently faces the "most serious and most challenging" threats since 1945, including a real risk of "near-term major war."  Said the Commission:  "...the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat."  

Mead does not lay all the blame on Biden, stating that there has been a generation of failed leadership.  Mead:  "Even more appalling than the report is the general indifference with which it has been received," citing Mitch McConnell as an exception.  But the WSJ title of their September 23, 2024 editorial observed:  "How Freedom Faded on Biden's Watch."  After citing numerous foreign policy failures by the Biden-Harris Administration, they conclude with this:  "All of this and more adds up to the worst decline in world order, and the largest decline in U.S. influence, since the 1930's."

But does our President even have a clue?  The WSJ:  "Yet Mr. Biden continues to speak and act as if he's presided over an era of spreading peace and prosperity."  Additionally, Biden "has proposed a cut in real defense spending each year of his Presidency, which may be his greatest abdication."    The Journal:  "The first task will be restoring U.S. deterrence, which will require more hard power and political will."  And that, my dear readers, will require a U.S. leader who does not fear the threat, and if necessary, the use of military power.

I am well aware that there is a segment of the Republican Party that wants nothing to do with "foreign" wars.  A fair number are even isolationists.  I am not of that mind.  But I am of the mind that believes in peace through strength.  Peace does not come about through weakness and trying to appease the evil actors in the world.  Such weakness and appeasement only increases the likelihood of war.  The other issue is whether we side with our allies, or defer to our enemies.  Biden's actions have mostly sided with our ally Israel, but his words have deferred to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.  

"Mr. Biden has undermined the U.S. ability to deter adversaries because he fears any escalation, ceding the advantage to Iran, Russia and China.  Israel can't afford such indulgence.  It's survival is at stake."  (From the 9/30/24 editorial in the WSJ.)  

At the very beginning of my blog, in 2009, I wrote a post called "Iranian Nukes."  (It was written on 9/26/09 and posted on 11/26/09 - the date my daughters set up the blog for me.)  That post was followed shortly thereafter with "Iranian Nukes, Part II," posted 2/21/10.  Then, on 3/11/2012, I posted "What To Do About Iran?"  That post gives the opinions of multiple commentators.  As you can see, the issue of how to deal with the nuclear program of the religious fanatics who rule Iran has been going on for quite some time.  

When George W. Bush was president, I advocated for a joint strike force of the U.S., France, the U.K. and Israel, conducting an aerial assault on Iran's then much less developed nuclear facilities.  I felt that such a unified force would send a message to Russia and China to stay out of it.  But, while many U.S. presidents have said they would not allow Iran to get nukes, the reality has been quite different.  

Which is why I agree with the 10/3/2024 editorial in the WSJ:  "If Mr. Biden won't take this opportunity to destroy Iran's nuclear program, the least he can do is not stop Israel from doing the job for its own self-preservation."  After all, says the Journal:  "Israel has made its biggest military and strategic gains when it has ignored such U.S. advice" to stand down.  Amen to that.   

Just How Many Times Can Joe Biden Be Wrong? (Part I, A Look At Some History)

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates famously said that "I think he's (Biden) been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades."  Let's take a look at a few past examples, before we get to today.

Recall his January, 2022 press conference, during which he suggested that a "minor incursion" by Russia into Ukraine might be acceptable.  Was that supposed to give comfort to the Ukrainian people, or any of our European allies.  Anyway, big surprise.  The next month - February, 2022 - Russia invaded Ukraine.  I trust I need not remind everyone of the disastrous withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, because Biden was determined to exit before 9/1/2021.  

In 2020 he criticized Saudi Arabia and sided with Yemen/the Houthis in their war.  After becoming President, Biden took the Houthis off the list of terror organizations, after which they promptly attacked Western shipping in the Red Sea.  Yes, he eventually put the Houthis back on the terror list, but after much damage had already been done.  And the Houthis continue to act with impunity.   

Remember the Abraham Accords?  I guess Biden did not, as he has been unable to expand on it.  However, he did restore funding to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, as well as to UNRWA in Gaza, a UN organization that has been shown to work hand in glove with Hamas.  What did Biden ask in return for this largesse?  You know, maybe commit to stop killing Jews.  Nope.  No such thing.  But Trump did all that - cut off funding to the PA and UNRWA, as long as they participated in, or assisted in, the killing of Jews.

But let's talk about Iran.  It was bad enough that Biden refused to enforce the sanctions on Iran.  This allowed Iran to sell oil (mostly to China) and make billions of dollars.  He even gave them six billion dollars.  Guess where Iran spent their billions?  Supplying Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.  Biden basically begged Iran to reenter the nuclear deal, which Trump realized was nothing other than a path to get nukes for Iran.  

So what about now?  What about after Iran attacked Israel for the second time in six months, with the latest attack resulting in over 180 ballistic missiles being fired at Israel by Iran.  Let's think about the current situation.  Iran's proxy in Gaza - Hamas - has been significantly degraded by Israel.  Iran's strongest proxy - Hezbollah in Lebanon - has also been significantly weakened.  Almost all of Iran's missiles fired at Israel were shot down, by Israel's multi-layered anti-ballistic missile system and with the help of the US.  The political head of Hamas, Haniyeh, has been taken out - when he was a guest in Tehran no less.  The head of Hezbollah, Nasrallah, has been taken out.  (Hezbollah, recall, was responsible for the deaths of 241 US Marines in Lebanon in 1983.)  

So, with Hamas and Hezbollah weakened, with Iran unsuccessful with their missile attack, what does Biden counsel the Israelis?  Might this be the time to take out Iran's developing nuke program?  Maybe even bring about regime change in Iran?  Not a chance.  Not when Biden fears our enemies more than they fear him.  Hence, his policy is one of appeasement.  Which does not work, and has never worked.  When Trump was in the White House, our enemies feared him.  Which would explain why Russia and Hamas did not try anything during his four years in office.  

Anyway, Biden made sure to get the leaders of the G7 on board when he was at the gathering of the UNGA.  What was the consensus pushed by Biden?  Israel should not attack any of Iran's nuclear sites.  And probably not their oil fields either.  Just as Russia got the message in early 2022 (see the top of this post), Iran has undoubtedly gotten the message now - you are free to develop nuclear weapons.  Would Iran use nukes against Israel?  The Ayatollahs have repeatedly said they want to destroy Israel.  Would Iran possibly attack the US - who they refer to as the Great Satan?  One thing is certain - it would be far more dangerous for Israel to attack Iran once it has nuclear weapons.  Yet that seems to be what Biden wants.  Biden's fear of a wider war makes that war all the more likely.    

Let's Talk Turkey - I Need To Talk About Some People, Part III

It's unclear if Tucker Carlson does not like Israel, and/or he does not like Jews, of if he is just another antisemite.  I previously discussed Carlson's problems with Jews in my 12/31/23 post "Year End Reflections, Part VI (My Beef With Tucker Carlson).  Now, we have another story about Carlson, reflecting very poor judgment at best, or antisemitism at the worst. 

Recently, Carlson conducted an interview with Darryl Cooper, an individual he referred to as "the best and most honest popular historian working in the United States today."  Carlson:  "I want people to know who you are and I want you to be widely recognized as the most important historian in the United States."  Really?

According to this "historian" (as reported in an editorial in the 9/11/24 WSJ), the Nazis had "launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners...they went in with no plan for that and just threw these people into camps."  

And then what happened?  "Millions of people ended up dead there."  They just ended up dead?  Anybody know how that happened?  I do.  It's called the Holocaust!  One of the most well documented events in history.  And the Jews did not just end up dead.  They were murdered - brutally slaughtered - by the Nazis.  This very impressive historian also blames Churchill, not Hitler, for WWII.  Trump and Vance need to stay away from Carlson.  Far away.

And what about Jeremy Mayer?  Okay, I did not know who he is either, until I read a recent Op-Ed of his in the USA Today.  Turns out that he is a professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, in Arlington, Virginia.  In discussing the recent explosions of pagers and walkie talkies in Lebanon, the Professor tells us that 37 people were killed, including 2 children, and that thousands were wounded.  

Although Israel has not claimed credit, Mayer tells us that the operation "almost certainly originated in Tel Aviv."  That was the first clue as to his political leanings.  He did not say originated in Jerusalem, the capital city of Israel, because many on the Left do not accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital.  (Yes, I know, Israel's military headquarters are in Tel Aviv, but I'd bet the professor was not thinking that.)

Professor Mayer goes on to question both the "morality and legality" of sabotaging pagers, because of the high risk of collateral damage.  And, he asserts that some of the pagers did not go to Hezbollah fighters but to medical staff and others.  Mayer:  "As an American, I financially support Israel with my tax dollars.  If they are murdering Lebanese children, then to some extent, I did that."

And there it is - Israel is murdering children.  In a recent post, I expressed my displeasure with many on the Left saying that, of course, Israel has a right to defend itself.  There should be no need to say that.  It's obvious.  What these people are really saying is that Israel has a right to defend itself - as long as they don't kill anybody.  As usual, sympathy lies with Israel only when Jews are dead.  Not when they fight back. 

Here is my favorite part of his Op-Ed, after saying that a war between Hezbollah forces and the Lebanese army would end within one week, with Hezbollah as the victor.  "The long term hope for Israel in its relationship with Lebanon has to be that Hezbollah is eventually brought under control of the political authorities in Beirut, and that a coalition of Sunni, Druze, Christian and moderate Shiite leaders makes peace with Israel."  "That is the dream..."  The "hope" and the "dream."  Could there be any better proof of my oft stated truism that liberals let their beliefs (as reflected in his hopes and dreams) dictate their reality, whereas conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs.           

Let's Talk Turkey - I Need To Talk About Some People, Part II

President Biden has said that Trump is "dangerous."  He has said that Trump leads "an extremist movement that does not share the basic beliefs of our democracy."  I share those basic beliefs of our democracy.  But it has been my opinion that the reason for the extreme hostility between the two sides is that the Democrats are no longer the party of classical liberalism.  Rather, they are leftists.  And leftists everywhere oppose Western democracy.  

VP Kamala Harris has said that "Trump is a danger to our troops, our security, and our democracy."  She also said that Trump was behind "the worst attack on democracy since the Civil War."  Trump was not indicted for "insurrection."  He said the protesters on January 6 should march "peacefully and patriotically" over to the Capitol.  As I have said before, I did not approve of everything Trump said that day.  But Harris clearly has a different understanding of the threats to American democracy from my understanding.  

David Plouffe was Obama's first campaign manager.  Here's Plouffe:  "It is not enough to beat Trump.  He must be destroyed thoroughly.  His kind must not be allowed to rise again."  "Destroyed thoroughly."  Wow!  Not sure I want to ask him what he thinks should happen to Trump.  

Hillary Clinton wasted no time.  Only one day after the second assassination attempt on Trump, she called him a "danger to our country and the world."  How's that exactly?  The magazine The Economist agreed, saying "Donald Trump poses the greatest danger to the world in 2024."  This is all rather curious.  Trump started no wars.  Russia did not invade Ukraine, as they did with both Obama and Biden in office.  Hamas did not attack Israel, as they did with Obama and Biden in office.  Trump brought us the Abraham Accords.  But Trump is more dangerous than Putin, Xi, the Ayatollahs and various others?  I get it.  Some on the Left call Trump "Hitler."  So, as ridiculous as that comparison is, it's not a stretch for those who believe in that comparison to say that Trump is the biggest danger to the world.  

I would be remiss if I did not mention a critique of my 8/4/24 post ("I don't view the Dems with the same fear as I do Trump").  In that post, which started as an email to friend who is also a reader of the blog, I also said "As Rome is burning all around us, you will vote for the most radical presidential candidate in history, someone who just may help bring about the end of Israel, and the end of America as you and I have known it."  There was no risk of that email inducing my friend, whom I have known for 70 years, to cause harm to VP Harris.  I suppose the question is whether I should have removed that sentence when I put the email online as a blog post.  I'll allow my readers to opine on that, should they choose.  For now, I accept the criticism, and I shall think about if different phrasing would have made the same point in a less inflammatory manner.

Speaking of Hillary Clinton.  She is apparently concerned with "Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda (referring to the Russians indicted by Mueller), and whether they should be civilly, or even in some cases criminally, charged is something that would be a better deterrence, because the Russians are unlikely, except in a very few cases, to ever stand trial in the United States."  Can you believe it?  She wants to criminally charge Americans for their speech?  As I said at the beginning of this post, the Left has no appreciation for the values of Western democracies.  But they very much do care about power, in order to gain ever greater control over our lives.

But lets think about it for a moment.  Can Clinton be prosecuted for pushing the phony Russian collusion story?  Can many in the media be prosecuted for the same thing?  Can Clinton be prosecuted for saying that Trump was an illegitimate president?  Can we prosecute the 51 then current and former intelligence officials who told us that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation - when, in fact, it was Biden's actual laptop?  Based on Clinton's approach, why can't they all be prosecuted?  

Let's Talk Turkey - I Need To Talk About Some People, Part I

First, I want to talk about "anonymous," and specifically his/her comment on my September 8, 2024 post, "Odds & Ends."  Here is the criticism of me:  "And because of some loud mouthed stupid students you are going to vote for Trump who is a convicted felon who only cares about himself and give away our country!!"  I have to assume that the "loud mouthed stupid students" the writer refers to are the pro-Hamas crowds on college campuses.  Does this writer really believe that those students constitute the full extent of the growing antisemitism, Jew hatred and Israel hatred?  Can you believe it?

Let's see.  Protests on college campuses around the country.  Professors and administrators siding with these Jew haters.  Protests on the streets in other countries around the world.  Elected officials in Congress and in localities across the country (virtually all Democrats) who speak against Israel and on behalf of Hamas.  Don't get me started on the UN.  Israel at war since October 7, 2023.  80,000 to 100,000 Israelis displaced from their homes in the North and the South.  Over 100 hostages still being held by Hamas.  

Iran funding Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis - thanks to Biden.  Yes, Biden!  Trump had sanctions on Iran.  Biden lifted those sanctions, allowing Iran to make billions from the sale of oil.  Biden released funds to Iran.  The question is not why would I vote for Trump.  Rather, the question is why any Jew would ever vote for these Democrats who are funding Iran with money used to kill their fellow Jews.  The writer of the ridiculous comment suggested I move to Russia.  I suggest that he/she moves to Gaza.  And let me ask:  is there another country being so demonized that there are calls from around the world for its destruction?  No, only Israel has calls for its destruction.

The writer also calls Trump a convicted felon.  I'm sure he/she means a "wrongly" convicted felon.  Not only was the prosecution purely political in nature.  What did Trump allegedly do?  He is said to have mischaracterized so-called "hush money" payments as legal expenses.  When Hillary Clinton was determined by the FEC to have mischaracterized payments for the phony Steele dossier as legal expenses, her campaign was fined $113,000.  She was not prosecuted.  But the double-standard political prosecution is only half the story.

The other half is that the Federal government determines violations of federal election laws, not some local Democrat DA hack.  The question is - why didn't Attorney General Garland step in to prevent this prosecution from going forward, and preserve what we lawyers refer to as "federal preemption."  When Congress passes a law, if it is determined that the law occupies the field, then federal supremacy over state law applies.  And, lo and behold, the Federal Election Campaign Act does indeed say that the federal law's provisions "supersede and preempt any provision of state law with respect to election to Federal office."

So why didn't AG Garland step in and seek an injunction against Manhattan DA Bragg?  Recall that Obama's AG, Eric Holder, had no hesitation in seeking to block Arizona from enforcing federal immigration law.  All Arizona wanted to do was enforce federal immigration law.  But Holder said they can't do that.  The Supreme Court ended up agreeing with Holder, for the most part.  Did anyone really expect Merrick Garland to protect federal supremacy of the law when there was a chance to get Trump?  This conviction will have to be overturned on appeal.

Speaking of Merrick Garland...we have now had a second assassination attempt on president Trump.  A mere two months apart.  July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania, and September 15 at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, only 5 minutes from Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach.  Garland told the country that "we are grateful he (Trump) is safe."  Excuse me if I do not believe that for one second.  Garland said they will "spare no resource," and "tirelessly work together" with federal and state and local law enforcement in order to do a thorough investigation of this latest attempt on Trump's life.  Sure.  

Let me understand this.  The Democrats tried to keep Trump off the ballot is several states.  That failed, as the Supreme Court nixed that by a 9-0 vote.  They have tried to imprison Trump for the rest of his life.  So far, at least, that has not been successful either.  They clearly do not want to risk losing to him at the ballot box.  So what's left?  Could it be assassination?  

 

"Harris, Gaza and the Voters She Leaves Behind"

Such was the headline of an Op-Ed in the Sunday, September 1, 2024, New York Times.  A mere six days before the 11 month anniversary of the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust.  It is safe to assume that when an Op-Ed appears in the NY Times, the paper agrees with the contents.  This particular Op-Ed was written by Hala Alyan, who describes herself as a Palestinian American.  Ms. Alyan tells us that she was "raised on stories of the nakba (Arabic for catastrophe, and used to describe the founding of Israel), land theft, a boy burned alive, a young American woman mangled by an Israeli bulldozer (see Rachel Corrie), the searing image of a man trying to protect his son from flying bullets."  She then adds:  "Palestinian Americans and their allies are bringing a context to this election."  

Unfortunately, she gives no context to the events she described.  And one, the nakba, can explain everything that has happened between and the Arabs since Israel's founding in 1948.  It can explain all the attacks on Israel. the intifadas, the suicide bombers, the nonstop rockets and missiles sent into Israel.  The nakba.  The refusal to accept the existence of the State of Israel.  76 years later still living in denial. 

Ms. Alyan expressed her appreciation for Kamala Harris at the DNC, when Harris spoke of Palestinians right to "freedom" and "self-determination," and saying "the scale of suffering is heartbreaking."  But she wanted more.  She wanted Harris to give a "direct naming of who is killing and starving Palestinians."  She wanted Harris to name the perpetrator.  If she did not, allow me:  Hamas!  Along with every Arab who refuses to accept the existence, on a tiny strip of land, of the one Jewish country in the world.  Those are your perpetrators, Ms. Alyan.

However, in her Op-Ed, Ms. Alyan never mentions Hamas.  She never mentions October 7.  She does manage to throw in the usual falsehoods, such as Israel being an apartheid state, and Israel committing genocide.  And she speaks favorably of those who voted "uncommitted" during the Democratic primary, hoping to send a message to party leaders to reverse course on their support for Israel.  Ms. Alyan not only seeks to have a ceasefire, she wants sanctions placed on Israel, and she wants an arms embargo.

I would love to ask Ms. Alyan if she would like to see the United States supply arms to Hamas.  The same Hamas that our country has defined as a terrorist organization.  I would like to ask her why she did not mention the October 7 massacre.  And, if she didn't care about the brutal murder of so many innocents, including children, and the rape and mutilation of women.  I would like to ask her why she did not mention Hamas.  Does she think Hamas bears any responsibility for the events that occurred on October 7 and thereafter?  

As she continues to refer to the "nakba," does that mean Ms. Alyan does not believe Israel has the right to exist?  I'd like to ask her.  Does she support all the wars against Israel?  Does she want to see the Jewish people eliminated?  What does she stand for?  I'd like to ask her.  If she was to ask me my opinion on the killing of innocents in Gaza, I would refer her to my 11/26/23 post about an Op-Ed written by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.  Mr. Kristof repeatedly asked "how many dead Gazan children are too many?"  

My reply was:  "Here is the answer, Mr. Kristof - one is too many.  But that cannot deter Israel from doing what it must to defeat Hamas.  Were it otherwise, Israel would have to sit back and just accept attack after attack after attack."  

Ms. Alyan writes:  "Ultimately, nobody is owed constituents.  Nobody is owed votes.  They must be earned."  Her conclusion:  "A democratic system that doesn't represent the wishes of its constituents is either malfunctioning or misnamed."  If that is truly what Ms. Alyan believes, then she does not understand what a democracy is.  I'd like her to explain how her policy towards Israel would represent  Jewish American constituents, and the majority of Americans, who believe the United States should support Israel.  It appears that. for Ms. Alyan. the United States can only be called a democracy, when and if it supports Hamas.

I have so many questions for Ms. Alyan.  Does she think that Hamas, as the governing body of Gaza, operates as a democracy?  Does she support the taking of hostages, including babies?  Does she support Hamas using the people of Gaza as human shields, placing their weapons and arms in people's homes, in hospitals and in mosques?  And, of course, I'd like to ask her what she thinks about the harassment of Jewish students in this country?  And, what place does she see for the Jewish people in America, and in the world?   

Odds & Ends

(Note.  Over the years I have written various posts about "Odds and Ends."  When it's a busy news cycle, there are many things to cover, but I can't write 7 different posts.  So, I put all the issues together in a single post, with a short commentary on each.)

A brief remark about the third comment written on the post titled "Never Mind."  (One of the 8/25/24 posts.)  The commentator says I am willing to give my country away and allow Trump to be a dictator on day one.  The reference is clearly to an interview Trump gave to Sean Hannity.  When Trump made that remark, Hannity asked him to explain.  Hannity knew Trump made a poor choice of words with "dictator", and that the Democrat Party-Mainstream Media Complex would lie about it, just as they had done with Charlottesville.  So Hannity asked Trump to explain what he meant.  "I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill...After that, I'm not a dictator."  Except, that is not being a dictator at all.  Those are policy decisions.  Closing the wide-open border that the Biden-Harris administration has allowed.  And reversing the non-stop attacks on the oil and gas industry.  An industry that has fostered our modern civilization.  Unfortunately, a poor choice of words by Trump has allowed the DP-MSMC to run with it, and those such as the commentator on the blog buy into it.

Tim Walz was at a State Fair in St. Paul, Minnesota the other day.  Someone (a reporter?) could be heard asking him:  "What's your reaction to the six hostages being found dead in Gaza?"  Walz then waved goodbye as he said "All right, thanks everybody," and walked away.  Newsweek suggested that perhaps Walz did not hear the question.  Of course, Trump would never get any such benefit of the doubt.  My guess is, he feared saying anything that might interfere with the messaging of the Harris campaign, trying to play both sides in the Israel-Hamas war.  And trying not to offend the Arab Muslim population in Minnesota.  Walz later issued a statement condemning Hamas as a "brutal terrorist organization."  Fine, but why couldn't he just say that in front of all the people at the fair, instead of releasing a statement that probably few saw.  

Having watched the video, I don't buy Newsweek's explanation for one second.  Plus, here is what Walz said when speaking to WCMU radio in Michigan, also with a large Arab Muslim population.  Speaking about the protesters, Walz said:  "Those folks who are speaking out loudly are speaking out for all the right reasons.  It's a humanitarian crisis.  It can't stand the way it is."  All the right reasons?  Such as calling for the end of Israel with "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free."  Such as claiming Israel is committing genocide?  Such as saying Zionists are...fill in the blank...racists, Nazis, genocide supporters.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of Democrats saying Israel has the right to defend itself, as if that is somehow an issue.  Of course Israel has the right to defend itself.  Why must that pointed out about the sole Jewish country in the world?  Why not just say:  "Hamas started this war, with a brutal massacre of 1200 people, which was the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust.  Hamas needs to be eliminated...permanently!"

This was a shocker.  Lifelong Democrat, 86 year-old Alan Dershowitz, announced that he has left the party and become an independent.  Most telling was his explanation:  "I was disgusted at the Democratic National Convention.  Absolutely disgusted."  Why?  "It was the most anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, anti-Zionist convention I've experienced."  While he likely will not be voting for Harris, he has not said that he will for Trump.  Nevertheless, I would love it if my fellow Jews would wake up to the fact of what the Democrat party has become.

The Democrats keep calling for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.  And I understand that many in Israel are asking for the same thing, in order to get the hostages home.  So let's think about it for a minute.  I have heard some pro-Israel commentators say there was already a ceasefire before October 7, when Hamas started this latest war.  That's simply not accurate.  During this period of a ceasefire/peace, Hamas has continually fired rockets into Israel.  Hamas has fired nearly 20,000 rockets into Israel since 2005, when Israel vacated Gaza.  That's no ceasefire!  Now, Hamas has promised to conduct another operation like the one on October 7 over and over and over again.  So, my only question to those calling for this ceasefire, is:  "What is your plan for when Hamas rearms and carries out the repeated attacks again and again, and takes more hostages?"  What is the plan?

Here is another shocker.  After the SCOTUS decision regarding presidential immunity, special counsel Jack Smith refiled the same charges against Trump.  Trump asked US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to delay further proceedings until 2025 - after the election, and after his inauguration should he win.  She refused, agreeing to the timeline suggested by Smith for the filing of motions regarding immunity and other issues.  This timeline - before the election - gives Smith an opportunity to air whatever dirty laundry he has about Trump, in his continued efforts at election interference.  But here is what Judge Chutkan had to say:  "The electoral process...is not relevant here.  This court is not concerned with the electoral schedule."  Excuse me?  It only happens every 4 years, when the country gets to decide who they want to hold the highest office office in the land, and the most important office in the world.  How is that not far more important than the any case before the court?  Oh, that's right.  Judge Chutkan presides over the election interference case.  I think the voting public is well aware of all the claims on both sides.  Why not step back and let the voters decide?  Besides, I thought Justice Department policy was to avoid this type of situation, which clearly has the appearance of election interference.  But, like everything else when it comes to Trump, the usual rules do not apply.

The executive director (Ilya Bratman) of the Hillel at Baruch College, held a welcome dinner for incoming students at the Mr. Broadway kosher deli in midtown Manhattan.  Baruch College is part of CUNY - the City University of New York.  There are an estimated 800 different chapters of Hillel at colleges and universities throughout North America.  Hillel provides not only a meeting place for Jewish students on campus, but religious services and learning as well.  No doubt on some of the more leftwing campuses, they support "social action."  At the welcome dinner, the Jewish students were harassed by pro-Hamas protesters, their faces covered by keffiyehs.  Here is some of what the students heard.  "Where's Hersh, you ugly ass bitch?  Go bring them home."  (Hersh Goldberg-Polin was the American among the six recently murdered hostages.)  The students also reported hearing:  "You ain't going home tonight," "All Zionists are terrorists," and "Ilya Bratman you can't hide, you're committing genocide."  Apparently sponsored by the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Students for Justice in Palestine, the SJP wants CUNY to cut all ties with Hillel International.  How nice that these are the people the Democrats are trying to placate in order to get their votes.  And for those on the Left, voting with people who want to kill all the Jews, is somehow better than voting for Trump. 

What About Governor Walz?

It was a different Democratic National Convention.  There was much talk of "freedom," not something I usually hear Democrats talk about.  There were lots of American flags and much talk of "patriotism."  I'd say good for the Democrats if I thought that they were sincere about it.  And the focus seemed to be on "joy," apparently replacing Obama's "hope and change."  There were many attacks on Trump, and little discussion of policy, except for abortion.  But all that is for other posts.  Let's talk about the VP pick.

We know that Walz was a teacher, a football coach, and a man who spent over two decades in the National Guard.  But what does he believe?  What are his values?  We get some insight from his signing into law a bill regarding "Ethnic Studies Requirements."  The State's Department of Education fleshed out the details of the new law, which applies to all school districts within the state, beginning with the 2025-2026 school year.  Some have called this new law the most radical in the country.  (Note.  Much of the information for this post comes from an Op-Ed by Katherine Kersten, of the Center of the American Experiment, in the 8/22/24 Wall Street Journal.  Some information also came from an article in the National Review.)

First graders are to "identify examples of ethnicity, equality, liberation and systems of power...(and) to construct meanings for those terms."  Excuse me?  First graders?  Makes sense.  If you indoctrinate five year-olds, those ideas will become part of their worldview, and will be difficult to shake off.  You will have lifelong Democrats, possibly lifelong Marxists, as that appears to be the goal.

How about fourth graders?  I remember in elementary school (not sure of the grade) being told to trace a map of the United States, and then trying to correctly name the state for each outline.  Later on we learned countries and oceans of the world.  I actually have loved looking at maps, and atlases from different eras, ever since.  But that is so passe.  Now, fourth graders are to "identify the processes and impacts of colonization and examine how discrimination and the oppression of various racial and ethnic groups have produced resistance movements."  

What about high school?  Those students will be told to "develop an analysis of racial capitalism."  It was obvious that capitalism would come under attack, as this curriculum is Marxist based.  High school students would also be taught about "anti-Blackness," and "racialized hierarchies" based on "dominant European beauty standards."  With a little bit of luck, either white students will be hated by all minorities, and/or they will hate themselves.  Very healthy.

One of the individuals involved in developing this curriculum for the state is Brian Lozenski.  He is a founder of "Education for Liberation Minnesota," aka EdLibMN.  Mr. Lozenski's feelings about America can be summarized in an article that he wrote following the death of George Floyd.  He described the riots that followed as "mass uprisings against racialized state violence," leading to "the inevitable death...(of the) social order that prioritizes vulgar economics."  Again, clearly Marxist.  

It should come as a surprise to no one that America haters also tend to be Israel haters.  "Ethnic Studies explores the colonial roots of the dispossession of Palestinian land and the creation of Zionism."  The curriculum will discuss "the devastating impact of Israeli colonialism."  Also, "studying Israeli settler colonialism in comparison to US settler colonialism" will be a main focus of Ethnic Studies.  Less than two weeks after the massacre of October 7, Lozenski called for a "Student Walkout for Gaza."   

I am frequently asked by my non-Jewish friends why Jews overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.  Do I think that Democrat run states (Minnesota is not alone with these Ethnic Studies curricula) indoctrinating an entire generation of young people into hatred for Israel and the Jewish people will change the minds of my fellow Jews, many of whom I personally know?  Come this November's election results, we should know.  

Trump was recently heavily criticized for saying that "Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion.  They hate everything about Israel and they should be ashamed of themselves because Israel will be destroyed."  I get the criticism.  I would have counseled him not to say that.  He also said "Any Jewish person who votes for a Democrat or votes for Biden should have their head examined."  I don't see that comment being significantly different from Biden telling a black audience during the 2020 race:  "if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."   

"Never Mind"

I watch most events that are of historical significance.  The two political party's presidential nominating conventions definitely qualify.  I did not watch every speech at either convention.  Prior to the opening hour of the DNC convention, I texted a friend (the subject of the first post on 8/4/24) and asked if he thought any of the speakers would condemn the pro-Hamas protesters outside the convention.  After reading Biden's late night speech, I texted him "never mind."

Here was President Biden:  "Those protesters out in the street, they have a point.  A lot of innocent people are being killed on both sides."  I wish the Democrats would stop it.  Stop talking about "both sides."  Hamas started this war.  Hamas targets civilians.  Hamas has made it clear that they do not even care about the civilians in Gaza.  They say dead Gazans are martyrs.  They say people die in war.  Yes, and even more do when Hamas terrorists hide themselves and their weapons in schools, hospitals and mosques.  These protesters do NOT have a point because all they do is blame Israel, and it's sickening.

Which of the protesters has a point?  "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free?"  The point of ending Israel?  "Israel commits genocide?"  That lie?  How about this protester, who was interviewed on Fox:  "Every Palestinian supports Hamas.  Not just me.  Every Palestinian."  Asked if he agreed with the October 7 attack, he replied:  "Yes I do.  What's wrong with October 7?  You tell me."  When the interviewer brought up that women and children were massacred, he replied with "bullshit."  Lovely.

Then, there was the protester walking around with a large Nazi flag.  Did he have a good point?  The Democrats continued to bring up the lie about Charlottesville (claiming that Trump said there were "very fine people" on both sides), a lie has been debunked even by Snopes.  Yet, it sure sounded like Biden had his Charlottesville moment.  Just don't expect the Democratic Party-Mainstream Media Complex to criticize him for it.  

But Biden is no longer running.  What about Harris?  When speaking about a pro-Hamas crowd on campuses, she said:  "I do understand their concerns and I will never attempt to stifle or silence young people from expressing their concerns."  When a student/protester accused Israel of genocide, Harris replied:  "I appreciate you raising the subject and I appreciate your leadership."  Only one side is sworn to the genocide of the other, and that is Hamas, vowing to kill all the Jews.  And Harris appreciates accusing Israel of genocide? 

But Harris appointed an Israeli born, American Jew (Ilan Goldenberg) to be the head of her Jewish outreach.  That's good, right?  This is a man who opposed moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital city of Jerusalem.  That was something that President Trump did.  Goldenberg has supported US funding of the Palestinian Authority, something that President Trump cut, given the PA's support for terrorists who kill Jews.  He disagreed with President Trump's recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the strategic Golan Heights.  He supported the Iran nuclear deal.  And he felt that Trump was wrong to side with Israel over the Palestinians.  So, if you are a self-hating Jew, Goldenberg is your man, and Harris is your candidate.   

Remember Josh Shapiro, the Jewish Governor of Pennsylvania, who was in the running to be Harris' VP nominee.  (Never mind that Harris feared offending the Arab Muslims in Michigan and Minnesota had she picked a Jew.)  Here is what Shapiro had to say about the pro-Hamas protesters:  I think protesters absolutely have a right to have their voices be heard."  That is simply stating the obvious, although if similar speech was directed at blacks or any other minority, it would be condemned as "hate speech."  Here is more from Shapiro:  "They gotta follow the rules, but their voices should be heard and they should be encouraged to exercise their First Amendment rights.  Whether I agree with them or not is beside the point."  Attaboy, Josh.  "They should be encouraged" to voice their hateful rhetoric against Israel and the Jewish people.  You make me so proud. 

The Democrats have a problem.  They love accusing Republicans of not being moral.  But just how much moral compass does it take to condemn, not praise or encourage, the pro-Hamas, Israel-hating and Jew-hating protesters?  It appears to require a greater degree of moral compass than is possessed by today's Democrats. 

Kamala Harris and Israel

I was not happy that both VP Kamala Harris and Republican VP candidate J.D. Vance failed to attend the speech given by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a joint meeting of Congress on July 24.  Harris' absence was more significant, as she would have jointly presided over the meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson.  And, Harris is a nominee for president, not vice president.  Axios estimated that approximately half of the Democrats in Congress (the House and Senate) failed to attend the speech.  Shameful!  Israel is our major ally in the Middle East, and one of our best allies in the world, and is in a fight for its existence.  Yet all those Democrats couldn't be bothered to attend?  Well, Harris did have to speak at a sorority convention, which of course takes precedence over NOTHING!

Harris did meet with Netanyahu the next day, after which she spoke to the press from previously written remarks.  I will say, she has learned how to read her speeches without her previous unserious demeanor.  And without the ridiculous laughter.  Harris:  "I also expressed with the Prime Minister, my serious concern about the scale of human suffering in Gaza.  Including the death of far too many innocent civilians.  And I made clear my serious concern about the dire humanitarian situation there."

If she had bothered to attend Netanyahu's speech, she would have heard him say that Israel has allowed over 40,000 aid trucks to enter Gaza, delivering half a million tons of food.  According to Netanyahu, that amounts to over 3000 calories a day for every man, woman and child in Gaza.  Except, of course, that we don't know how much Hamas steals and gives to their own leaders and fighters.

Harris:  "The images of dead children, and desperate hungry people fleeing for safety...We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies.  We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering and I will not be silent."  If that's the best you've got, Madam VP, I wish you would shut up.  Yes, war is terrible.  Yes, images of dead children are especially heart wrenching.  But I think we can all be grateful that you were not leading the country during WWII.  I can only imagine how much you would have fretted over the deaths of Germans.  Would you have told Eisenhower to stand down, because too many Germans might die?  I won't even discuss the bombing of Dresden. 

After saying there was a deal on the table, Harris said this:  "It is time for this war to end.  And end in a way where Israel is secure, all the hostages are released, the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people can exercise their right to freedom, dignity and self-determination."  Is it time for the war to end before Hamas is eradicated?  Or, do we let Hamas remain in power, even though they have promised to commit another October 7 type raid on Israel over and over and over again?  

How will you make sure Israel is secure, Madam VP?  How will you make sure all the hostages are released?  Did you ever talk about the suffering of Palestinians before October 7, having to live under the dictatorial rule of Hamas?  Because, in your speech you told Israel what it must do.  What must Hamas do?  It would have been nice if you said Hamas must lay down its arms and agree to an unconditional surrender.  But I guess not.  

With a rather strident tone, Harris admonished Netanyahu:  "It is time to get this deal done!"  And:  "To everyone who yearns for peace, I see you and I hear you...And ultimately, I remain committed to a path forward that can lead to a two state solution."  You think that the Israelis don't yearn for peace.  In their short 76 years since declaring independence, Israel has had to fight war after war after war.  Since this current war began on October 7, 2023, it is estimated that up to 100,000 Israelis have been displaced from their homes, some in the North (because of Hezbollah's missiles, thousands of which have been launched since October 8) and some in the South (since Hamas invaded Israel).  Where is your sympathy for that humanitarian crisis?  

Madam Vice President, either you are incredibly naive, or you believe that the bad guys of the world should be appeased.  Which is what Obama and Biden believe.  Maybe you ought to take a lesson from Winston Churchill.  Recall the Munich Agreement, when in 1938 British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain agreed that Germany could take over the Sudetenland.  In believing he had avoided war, Chamberlain returned to England and announced "peace for our time."  But Churchill knew better:  "You were given the choice between war and dishonor.  You chose dishonor, and you will have war."  Which is exactly what Biden's and your appeasement of Iran has accomplished.  War.   

Kamala Harris

Yes, I know she was anointed.  Biden had the right to run as the Democratic nominee by getting enough delegates following his primary victories.  But, following his disastrous debate performance, he was forced out.  Even the New York Times opined that he had to go.  My first thought was that the Democrats would have an open convention, as the the delegates previously bound to vote for Biden were now free to vote for whomever they might want.  I was interested in seeing who might jump in.  But the Democratic power brokers would have none of that.  They did not dare risk a contentious convention - not after seeing how unified the Republicans were at their convention.  

The Democrats could not even tolerate the usual floor vote at the convention, announcing in advance that the delegates had voted and Harris won.  I'm old enough to remember the talk of the "smoke filled backroom deals," when party bosses had a say as to who the nominees for president and vice president would be.  But today's Democrat Party is the party that is going to save our democracy.  Just don't ask them to participate in the democratic process.   And, of course, there's the money.  The $200 million Biden war chest that would pass to Harris because she was (would be) on the ticket with Biden.  

Yes, J.D. Vance had previously made a ridiculous comment about "childless cat ladies."  But does anyone seriously expect the Democratic Mainstream Media Complex to tell us about what Harris has previously said?  Let's take a look.  December, 2017, she expressed her irate concern about illegal immigrant children this way:  "How dare we speak Merry Christmas!" when these children are suffering.  On it's face, it may sound nice.  A concern for the kids.  But is it?  Some kids are suffering in various places around the world at all times.  Does that mean we should take all the joy out of life?  Dennis Prager says happiness is a moral imperative, as happy people make the world a better place.  But, if you prefer to be miserable, I would choose the meme my daughter sent to me:  "If you replace your morning coffee with green tea, you can lose up to 87% of what little joy you have left in life."

On various occasions, and on September 11, 2022, Harris said this:  "The border is secure."  Maybe that depends on what your definition of "secure" is.  But if you watch Fox TV, you would see the daily hordes crossing into our country from countries all around the world.  But she won't watch Fox.  And the border czar isn't interested in going to the border.  But just ignore this, or you might think that Harris is a liar - and we know that only Trump lies.   

August 16, 2019:  "We're not gonna treat people who are undocumented (who) cross the border, as criminals."  Well, except that federal law says it is a crime to enter into the U.S. without authorization.  But, hey, Biden doesn't care about the law either, as he has kept up with his student loan forgiveness plan even after the Supreme Court said he had no power to do so.  Democrats - the party that will protect democracy.  Remember?

Speaking of power.  On September 4, 2019, Harris said this:  "As President of the United States I am prepared to get rid of the filibuster to pass a green new deal."  Just curious, how does the President have the power to change the Senate's filibuster rule?

Harris likes to remind us that she was a prosecutor.  She's tough.  Well, not on illegal aliens.  Or on those arrested following the riots after George Floyd was killed by a police officer.  Here was Harris' post on Twitter:  "If you're able to, chip in now to the MN Freedom Fund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota."  She said the protesters would not stop, and they shouldn't stop.  Although, she did condemn the violence and looting.  I see.  So, on January 6, 2021, when Trump said the various things he said, and also said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," that didn't count?  Harris get a pass for supporting rioters by saying she condemns violence.  Did Trump get a pass for his support for the January 6 protesters, by saying to protest "peacefully and patriotically?"  Of course not.

And this tough prosecutor said this on September 22, 2020:  "It is wrongheaded thinking to think that the only way you're gonna get communities to be safe is to put more police officers on the street."  That's funny.  It is so lacking in common sense that it must have been meant as a joke.  Cities across the country tried this defunding the police nonsense, and then reversed course when crime spiked.  Crime on NYC subways got so bad that the Governor ordered National Guard troops to assist the police.  Right, who needs cops on the street.

Here is something that Harris said that should offend all Americans.  She was speaking at a Los Angeles mosque:  "We must have the courage  to object when they use that term, "radical Islamic terrorism," which ignores how Muslims have overwhelmingly been the greatest victims of terror."  Listen up, Madam VP, it was RADICAL ISLAMIST TERRORISTS who killed nearly 3000 Americans (and others) on September 11, 2001.  How dare you suggest otherwise!  In fact, law-abiding and America loving Muslims should have also been offended by that comment, because I would think that they would want to distance themselves from the radical Islamists.  And, if Muslims have been the greatest victims of terror, it has been at the hands of radical Islamists.   

What about Harris and Israel?  Please see the next post.  

"I don't view the Dems with the same fear as I do Trump."

So said a dear friend who is a reader of the blog.  I believe he is a registered independent, and describes himself as center-right.  I know he agrees with much of what follows - which is why I frequently said "I think you agree."  After an exchange of some texts, and upon seeing the above from him, I replied as follows:

"I almost don't know what to make of that.  The Left (Democrats) has ruined every institution that they have gained control over.  They ruined our education system, turning it into leftwing America hating and Israel hating and now Jew hating bastions of propaganda.  I think you agree.

They ruined the mainstream media, which only challenges power when it is exercised by Republicans.  They act as a mouthpiece for Democrats.  That is not healthy for our democracy.  I think you agree.

They ruined Hollywood, too, which is now just another leftwing propaganda machine.  I think you agree.

Much of our federal and state bureaucracies are infected with leftwing woke bullcrap and DEI.  I think you agree.

The Democrats have ceded American sovereignty to the drug cartels, in the hopes that all those illegals will become Democrats.  I think you agree.

The Democrats seek permanent power, as occurred in California.  End the filibuster, add states to get extra Senate seats, now the latest Supreme Court "reforms."  You know as well as I do that Biden would not be saying that SCOTUS is a threat to our democracy if all nine justices were leftwing.  I think you agree.

Support for Israel from the Democrats has been waning for some time.  I think you agree.

Leftwing DAs, defunding the police, have made many cities unsafe.  I think you agree.

But you fear Trump.  You and I did not like his words or deeds on January 6.  But, he didn't ask the military to keep him in power.  He left the White House without being thrown out.  The Left has always exaggerated what Trump would do.  Before he took office, they said he would start WWIII.  Just the opposite.  The Abraham Accords.  Russia did not invade Ukraine, as with Obama and Biden.  Hamas didn't attack Israel, as with Obama and Biden.  He didn't appease Iran.  He enforced sanctions so they wouldn't have money to support terrorism.  He killed Soleimani.  There is only peace through strength - from Washington to Kennedy to Reagan to Trump.  Appeasement brings war.  

He's not going to end NATO.  He may not support Ukraine the way you and I would like.  And I've said for decades that neither party watches out for the people's money.  You, my dear friend, are more concerned about a bunch of "what ifs" over "what is."

I am sure that I told you about the best phone call to talk radio that I ever heard.  A self described Jewish woman called (conservative talk radio host) Dennis Prager, and said her father loves Prager, always listens to his show, and always agrees with him.  Prager very knowingly asked:  how does he vote?  I was in my car, and before she could answer I blurted out:  Democrat, I'm sure.  Yep, Democrat.  You are that woman's father.  Your self identity is so ingrained in being a Democrat (I don't care how you're registered), in having a Democratic way of looking at the world, that you are unable to escape it.

As Rome is burning all around us, you will vote for the most radical presidential candidate in history, someone who just may help bring about the end of Israel, and the end of America as you and I have known it.  Because, Trump might start WWIII."

I gave my friend the opportunity to reply to any or all of the above, indicating I would post it as his rebuttal without further comment by me.  He declined.    

The Attempted Assassination Of Former President, And Current Presumptive Republican Nominee For President, Donald Trump

Some were not surprised.  After all, ever since riding the escalator down within Trump Tower in NYC on June 16, 2015, Trump has likely been the most persecuted person in U.S. history.  Type into the search bar of the web version of the blog:  "The Deposing of an American President," written on March 12, 2017.  That's right.  Less than 2 months into his presidential term, Democrats were looking for ways to get Trump out of office.  Because, you know, they care about democracy, as they constantly tell us.  Unless, the democratic vote results in a Donald Trump elected to the presidency, in which case he became an "illegitimate" president, and democracy be damned. 

I also suggest taking a look at my June 16, 2018 post, "The Left's Non-Stop Hate."  More recently, we know that the Democrats and President Biden have repeatedly called Trump a threat to our country and our democracy.  And, too often, there have been those who have equated Trump with Hitler.  What a disgusting comparison.  As one friend and reader texted me about the way he heard Biden's comments:  "I am so glad to hear that Donald J. Hitler, aka 'son of Satan' is okay."  Dark?  Yes.  Disturbing?  Yes.  But hard to miss his point.  

Here was Biden in January of this year:  "Whether democracy is still America's sacred cause is the most urgent question of our time...that's what the 2024 election is all about."  And this:  "Now these MAGA voices who know the truth about Trump on January 6th have abandoned the truth and abandoned democracy."  

In case there was any doubt, here was Biden's deputy campaign manager:  "Our campaign believes that it is a moral obligation that we paint the picture of the threat that Donald Trump and the Republican Party pose to America."  There it is - the Republican Party is a threat to America.  They've said it enough that many now believe it.  I am curious as to how referring to half of the country as a threat to the country is in any way unifying, as Biden assured us multiple times, that he would be.  (No, I am not, and have not, excused the bad things Trump has said.  But he was the one who was shot, so I'm looking at those who may have motivated this shooter.  And, if Trump's own words turn out to be the motivation for the shooting, I will report that.)

But, I digress.  What we do know is that the shooter was a 20 year old resident of Pennsylvania.  As of now, we do not have his motive for the shooting.  And I have repeatedly said, that when it comes to these political shootings (it's political by its very nature, even if politics was not the motive) we should always blame the shooter - the perpetrator.  We know that at age 17, the perpetrator made a small donation of $15.00 to a Democratic PAC.  At age 18 he registered to vote as a Republican.  He was also described as a loner, as many of these shooters often are.  

It has also been reported that bombs and/or bomb making material, were found in the shooter's home and vehicle.  We also know that there was a major security failure that allowed the shooter to take up a position with a rifle on the roof of a building about 150 yards from where Trump was speaking.  Why was that site left unsecured?  It was also reported that a police officer climbed up the side of the building, but retreated when the shooter pointed his rifle at the officer.  Shades of Uvalde.  I can understand ducking down, but why not raise your hand with your weapon over the top of the roof and start firing?  Even if the officer missed, the shots would have alerted the protective detail and they could have removed Trump from the stage.

I was very impressed by the agents surrounding former President Trump, shielding him with their own bodies.  And while the female agent also did the same, it was quite obvious that she was considerably shorter than Trump, making it difficult, if not impossible, for her to protect his head.  I heard or read that thanks to DEI, the Secret Service had a goal of having 30% women.  Not really the best idea.  But were there no tall women available to protect Trump?  

Sadly, a 50 year old man, Corey Comperatore, was killed by the shooter.  Corey used his body to shield his daughters, and in doing so suffered the fatal wound.  May G-d bless his soul, and his family, and may his memory forever be a blessing.  Two others were wounded and originally listed in critical condition.  Thankfully, they are both now described as being stable.  

Tonight, President Biden spoke to the nation from the oval office.  Biden:  "...while we may disagree, we are not enemies.  We are neighbors, we are friends, coworkers, citizens, and most importantly we are fellow Americans.  We must stand together."  Again, it is still unknown if any of the heated political rhetoric played a role in motivating the shooter.  And Biden's comments are 180 degrees away from his earlier statements.  Now let's see if he, and others, follow through with what he said.

Presidential Immunity - Part III (Let's Get Real)

In a July 2 Wall Street Journal editorial, reported online, they referred to something called the "Empirical SCOTUS" blog.  According to that site, 45.8% of the cases decided in the 2023-2024 term were unanimous.  Yes, I know.  Unanimous decisions often result from cases with less controversial issues.  Nevertheless, unanimity is unanimity.  And all nine justices agreed that states could not decide to keep Trump off the ballot.  And, all nine refused to give standing to pro-life doctors who wanted to sue the FDA and keep the abortion pill mifepristone off the market.

The paper notes that 22 cases were decided by a 6-3 decision; but only half of those were along ideological lines of 6 conservatives vs. 3 liberals.  Then, of course, there were the 8-1 decisions and 7-2 decisions.  So, let's get real with regards to the Democrats' self-professed panic mode.  They are the ones undermining the legitimacy of the Court for their own political ends.  

In dissent, Justice Sotomayor gave the most extreme possible examples of the abuse of presidential power, and then claimed a president could get away with it.  Such as a president ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, or organizing a military coup.  Please.  Notwithstanding his protestations about the fairness of the 2020 election, Trump left office with doing no such thing as a military coup.

The New York Post's July 1 editorial had it right.  "The best course now would be for Smith to drop the (January 6) case altogether and for prosecutors, and their Democratic patrons, to swear off the use of further lawfare to take down political foes once and for all."  And:  "All that continuing this prosecution does is continue to sow division and weaken the nation's already shaky political institutions."  

What the Democrats and the left ignore are all the remedies still available to protect the country from a power hungry president.  A president can be impeached by the House, and if convicted by the Senate, is removed from office.  I fully acknowledge that those voting must be people of good will - but that's a problem with the Congress, not the presidency.  A president may also be removed from office by a vote of the people.  It's called an election.

And, in their July 2 editorial in their paper, the Wall street Journal noted:  "Another principle is that the burden is on the prosecutor to show that an official act doesn't deserve immunity."  They were referring to a quote from Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion:  "At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch."  An exception to every rule.  

In reply to Justice Sotomayor, the Chief Justice opined:  "As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today."  I am, curious, however, as to which of her fellow justices she believes would find that using Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival (no, I cannot imagine any president doing that) to be beyond prosecutorial reach.  I wish she had shown the courage to have named them. 

Presidential Immunity - Part II (The Elected Officials)

Democrat elected officials were no better in their comments.  Here was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:  "The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control."  What is she talking about?  "Today's ruling (on immunity) represents an assault on American democracy.  It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture."  You want to defend our nation - protect the border!  "I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return."

Impeach who?  All 6 of the conservative leaning justices?  Because you disagree with their decisions?  Just another example of the Democratic left's threat to democracy - change the makeup of the Court in order to get the "right" decision.  The ends justify the means.  Make no mistake, Ocasio-Cortez is no isolated member of The Squad.  

Here is Hakeem Jeffries, the Minority Leader in the House, and future Speaker if the Democrats gain control of the House:  "House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme far right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution."  "Extreme far right?"  Always the name calling by the left.  "Brought into compliance with the Constitution?"  How's that exactly?  The Court is a separate and co-equal branch of government.  The Court is tasked with interpreting the Constitution.  What's the plan - threaten justices who don't conform their opinions to left-wing ideology?  Oh wait, Schumer already did that when he threatened Gorsuch and Kavanaugh over the abortion decision.  

Speaking of Schumer, the Majority Leader in the Senate, he called the decision "disgraceful."  Schumer:  "This is a sad day for our democracy.  The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law.  Treason or incitement to insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president."  Okay, but Trump was neither charged with treason nor incitement to insurrection.  

Schumer:  "This decision undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court, and suggests that political influence trumps all in our courts today."  Wow!  That's what Jews call chutzpah!   The Democrats are doing everything in their power to undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court with their non-stop attacks.  Just because they disagree with some of the Court's decisions.  And they do it intentionally, hoping to scare the voting public into thinking that everyone is going to lose all their rights, unless a Democrat is always in the White House, always able to appoint left-wing justices.  Clearly, the Democrats have no respect for the Constitution's separation of powers.

Here is Senator Richard Blumenthal, (D-Conn):  "My stomach turns with fear and anger that our democracy can be so endangered by an out of control Court.  The members of (the) Court's conservative majority will now be rightly perceived by the American people as extreme partisan hacks - politicians in robes."  Isn't that nice and respectful?  Calling Supreme Court Justices "partisan hacks," simply because you disagree with some of their decisions.  Again, just another Democrat seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, while at the same time trying to frighten the voting public.

Not surprisingly, President Biden chimed in as well.  "No one, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States...(with) today's Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed.  For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do."  He's wrong, of course.  And he clearly has no appreciation for how the decision protects him from future prosecution.  Ordinarily, I would say it's the president's job to say something like this:  "While I disagree with the Court's decision, they have now ruled.  And under our Constitution's separation of powers, we need to be respectful of that - even when we disagree."  Didn't Biden promise to be the unifier?  Unfortunately, he has repeatedly acted as the divider in chief.  

  

Presidential Immunity - Part I (The Commentators)

The Supreme Court decision prompted the usual emotional and over-the-top reactions from Democrats and the left.  In a 6-3 decision, along ideological lines (mostly), the Court held that a president has absolute immunity in carrying out the core functions of the executive.  See Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution for those core functions.  The Court further held that a president has "presumptive immunity" from criminal prosecution for official acts that are outside of the core functions.  Finally, there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

I suspect that the Court was concerned about the extensive lawfare being conducted against former President Trump, with a possible tit for tat reaction the next time Republicans gained control of the White House.  Here is what the ACLU said in November, 2010:  "The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat."  Without immunity, Obama could be prosecuted for murder.  How about prosecuting Biden for failing in his duty to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed."  (Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.)  

Biden has certainly not taken care that our immigration laws be enforced.  Wasn't it foreseeable that large amounts of illegal drugs, especially fentanyl, would be smuggled into our country - resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans.  The Supreme Court had previously ruled that Biden had no authority to forgive student loans.  After all, someone ends up paying those loans - the taxpayers.  To come with that money requires an act of Congress.  Article I, section 7, states "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..."  It is a simple separation of powers issue.  Yet, the Democrats and the left had no problem with Biden having that power, because they agreed with the policy.  And Biden ignored the Court's decision.  As always, the ends justify the means for the left.  

Laurence Tribe is a well known left-wing Professor (now Professor Emeritus) at Harvard Law School.  In a July 2 Op-Ed in the New York Times, he called the immunity decision an "outrage."  Tribe expressed his concern that if Trump returned to the White House, he would use "the Justice Department to engage in politically motivated prosecutions."  Isn't that ironic?  Recall that the New York Times had reported increasing pressure on AG Merrick Garland to prosecute Trump over the events of January 6. 

As reported by the New York Post in 2022, a front page article of the New York Times said:  "As recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted , according to two people familiar with his comments.  And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6." 

Isn't that interesting?  Biden tells his inner circle that Trump is threat to democracy.  He clearly wants to see Trump prosecuted.  How convenient then, that some aides then tell the New York Times what Biden said privately, and Merrick Garland gets the message.  This way, Biden can claim that he never directed his AG to prosecute Trump.  But Tribe is worried about Trump using the Justice Department to prosecute people...really?  Tribe's solution is awful.  He suggests a permanent and separate branch of government, "charged with investigating and prosecuting violations of federal criminal laws."  Then what would be the responsibility of the AG and the 93 United States Attorneys (and all the associate attorneys) spread out across the country?  Unless Tribe has in mind that this separate branch would target members of Congress and presidents only.  Also a terrible idea.  It would be the equivalent of round the clock special counsels, likely interfering with the president and the Congress carrying out their duties.

Erwin Chemerinsky was no better.  In his June 30 Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times (not directly discussing the immunity decision, but indicative of left-wing thinking), he criticized recent SCOTUS  decisions as being "simply a matter of conservative justices imposing conservative ideology to come to conservative results."  Just an obvious attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, because he's just another leftist unhappy with there being a conservative majority on the Court.  And what was Roe v. Wade, other than liberal justices imposing liberal ideology to come to liberal results.  There was no constitutional basis for that decision.   

Just How Bad Can It Get?

I have long considered myself an optimist.  I'm not sure how much longer I can be when it comes to the growing antisemitism and outright Jew hatred in our country.  In a poll from December of last year, so after the October 7 attack by Hamas, we see quite a divergence between the two parties.  69% of Republicans said they were more sympathetic to the Israelis, with only 2% saying they were more sympathetic to the Palestinians.  Not so for the Democrats.  Fully half - 50% - said their sympathies were evenly divided.  As for the rest, 24% were more sympathetic to the Palestinians, with only 17% more sympathetic to the Israelis.  69% to 17%.  Jews have clearly lost the Democratic Party.  (Poll by Pew and WSJ.)

On June 12, the New York Post reported that the Democratic Party of Wisconsin held their statewide convention, and passed a pro-Palestinian resolution.  The resolution called for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, and went on to say that Israel's response to the horrific October 7 attack by Hamas, constituted "genocide" and an "egregious violation of humanitarian laws."  Did the resolution call the October 7 attack on Israeli civilians a genocide?  According to the Post, it did not even mention October 7 or the hostages. 

Here's a heart warming story out of New York City.  On June 10, a pro-Hamas crowd took over a subway.  Here is what a member of that mob yelled at the passengers:  "Raise your hand if you're a Zionist.  Raise your hand if you're a Zionist.  This is your chance to get out."  Another shouted that he wished "Hitler was still here"...to "wipe out" the Jews.    

And we have this story out of NYC.  The entrance to the home of the Jewish Director of the Brooklyn Museum was vandalized.  The building is a condo or apartment building with many other residents.  In red paint splashed across the front was this sign:  "Anne Pasternak, Brooklyn Museum, White Supremacist Zionist."  And on the ground in red paint was this:  "Blood on Your Hands."  Meanwhile, the pro-Hamas crowd set up an encampment in the museum.  According to the NY Post, they "defaced" artwork and hung a banner calling the war in Gaza a "genocide."

In yet another heart warming story out of Brooklyn, we are told that a pro-Hamas sympathizer assaulted a couple at their child's elementary school graduation.  Although the Mom and her kids are Jewish, her husband is a Dominican and a Catholic.  That did not stop at least one Jew hater from throwing the husband to the ground, and kicking him and punching him.  The Mom was also assaulted.  The police arrested one El-Al Dean Bazar, age 26.  But no surprise, he was released on his own recognizance.  

Said one educator there:  "We consistently warned that tolerating overtly antisemitic views would create a toxic environment for Jewish students and families, inevitably leading to physical violence."  And arresting and then immediately releasing those who attack Jews, hardly seems like a policy that will deter anyone from doing anything.    

But I don't want readers who are Angelenos to feel left out.  The Pico-Robertson area of West LA is a largely Jewish neighborhood.  On Pico Boulevard is the Adas Torah synagogue, an orthodox shul or synagogue.  An event was being held advertising properties for sale in Israel.  The pro-Hamas crowd showed up, with the intent of trying to shut down any sale of "stolen Palestinian land."  Because these Jew haters consider all of Israel to be stolen Palestinian land.  Of course, the crowd was seen wearing their keffiyehs and carrying Palestinian flags.  At least one paper reported that the front entrance was blocked off by the police - from the Jews.  

Yes, there were the usual chants of "free, free Palestine," and "long live intifada."  The mob blocked traffic and the entrance to the synagogue.  And yes, the protest turned violent.  I was not there to see who may have thrown the first punch...but I know where my money would go.    Van Jones is a host on CNN, and a former member of the Obama White House.  Said Jones:  "I have no problem with people protesting policy.  You cannot protest a people.  That is not a protest.  That is a pogrom."  A pogrom - here in Los Angeles, and obviously in NYC as well.  This from a decidedly left leaning Van Jones.

Meanwhile, we continue to get nothing but lip service from Democratic Mayor of LA, Karen Bass, from Democratic Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, and from Democratic President, Joe Biden.  The same applies to the Democratic officials running the City and State of New York.

But here's a bit of late breaking good news.  Leftwing, Jew hating, Squad member Jamaal Bowman, lost today's Democratic primary to George Latimer.  At a rally over the weekend, attended by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and self-hating Jewish Senator Bernie Sanders, Bowman went a little berserk.  He grabbed a stool, lifted it in the air, and shouted at the crowd to "show fucking AIPAC the power of the motherfucking South Bronx."  AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is a pro-Israel lobbying group that supports members of both parties in Congress who are pro-Israel.  Bowman was not that, and AIPAC supported his opponent.  Goodbye and good riddance, Bowman. 

Now I'd like to see the rest of the Jew haters gone from Congress.  I just won't hold my breath.  Led by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill), 69 members of the House and Senate - all Democrats - wrote to the Biden White House, urging that certain Palestinians be allowed to enter the US as refugees.  Isn't that great?  Maybe we can get more Rashida Tlaib's, the Jew hating Palestinian member of Congress from Michigan.        

Goodbye America, Part IV - Maybe I Was Wrong

(Note.  Parts I, II and III of "Goodbye America" were posted on June 1, 2024.)  I have often told people that the point of the blog is not to persuade people, although, of course, I do hope that people are persuaded.  But the larger point is to try to provide information, and opinion, that one will not find in the Democratic Party - Mainstream Media Complex.  Anyway, as I often do, I was reading my last posts, and I may have just persuaded myself.  Allow me to explain.

I've probably followed every presidential election since 1960.  I'm old school.  I remember staying up until about 1am on election night in 2020.  I saw the tide was turning in favor of Biden, and I immediately wrote in the next post that I accepted that Biden had won.  I was criticized by quite a few conservative friends, but I stood my ground.  I had been watching Fox, and Fox called it for Biden, although no network did so until later in the week.

But I was rereading Part I of "Goodbye America," and I got to thinking.  In 2012, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lied (he virtually admitted it subsequently) about Mitt Romney not paying taxes for ten years.  It was done for the sole purpose of reelecting Barack Obama to another four years to the White House.  

In 2016, Hillary Clinton and the DNC promulgated the phony Steele dossier, alleging Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.  Why the deception?  Again, for the purpose of defeating Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for president.  But Trump won, and thereafter the Democrats did everything possible to remove him from office.  They could not tolerate that Clinton lost.  Clinton and many other Democrats continued to call Trump an "illegitimate" president.  And, we had the whole Special Counsel investigation by Robert Mueller, taking up nearly 3 years of the Trump presidency.  And, of course, the two impeachments.

What about 2020?  The New York Post printed an article saying they had located a laptop that they said belonged to Hunter Biden.  But the disclosure of the contents on the laptop might damage the election chances of Joe Biden.  And the goal, of course, was to defeat Trump at all costs; as the Democrats were unsuccessful in getting Trump removed from office during his first term.  But the fear by Biden and his supporters was that the contents of the laptop might have shown efforts at influence peddling by Hunter Biden, when his father was Vice President.

So what a surprise that in October, 2020, before the election, 51 members of the intelligence community signed onto a letter claiming that the emails on the laptop were phony, and had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."  Now, this letter was not simply signed by second or third tier intelligence officials.  No, the signatories included John Brennan, John McLaughlin, Michael Morell, Leon Panetta and Michael Hayden - all former directors of the CIA.  Now we know that the FBI verified the contents of the laptop.  In fact, items on the laptop were used in the Hunter Biden trial.

Now, we are in 2024.  We have seen the Democrats attempt to keep Trump off the ballot in various states.  The Supreme Court knocked that down.  We have seen nonstop "lawfare" waged against Trump.  As this blog pointed out, Trump was prosecuted over things for which Hillary Clinton's campaign was merely fined.  Do I believe all these cases against Trump magically appeared, without coordination, in 2024?  No.  This is too much of a coincidence for me to believe there was no coordination.  

So what else are the Democrats pulling?  Manhattan DA Bragg wants the Judge to keep the gag order in place, even though the trial is over.  And surprise, surprise, special prosecutor Jack Smith wants a gag order in place also.  What a coincidence!  Days before the first debate between Biden and Trump, gag orders are being pushed on Trump.  This way, Biden conveniently gets to say "convicted felon," and Trump cannot reply without risking contempt and jail time.  

So, maybe I was wrong.  Wrong to so readily accept the election results of 2020 showing Biden to be the winner.  After all, there is almost no dirty trick that the Democrats will not use to keep their party in power.   

Goodbye America - Part III - The Trial And Its Aftermath

What about the Judge?  I've heard that the Judges are supposed to be assigned to cases on a rotating basis, yet somehow Judge Juan Merchan was assigned to Trump's case, as well as other Trump associates' cases.  Judge Merchan had donated, very small amounts, to Biden and progressive causes, which, it seems to me, a judge should avoid doing.  Apparently, the NY State Commission on Judicial Conduct, saw no conflict.  I disagree.  Merchan's daughter is the president of Authentic Campaigns, which does fundraising and advertising for Democrats.  And has done so for Biden and Adam Schiff.  Yet, with these appearances of a conflict, the Judge refused to recuse himself from the Trump case.

The Trump defense team wanted to call former Federal Election Commission Chairman, Bradley Smith, as an expert witness with regards to federal election campaign laws.  The Judge said they could call him as a witness, but would not be able to ask him anything about how to interpret those laws or how to apply them to this case.  What???  Exactly what would be the point in calling him as a witness, if he is not allowed to address the issue at hand.  There was no point, so the defense did not call him.  The D-MSMC made a big deal out of Trump saying he wasn't allowed to call Smith as a witness, when he was.  Okay, but the truth is Trump was effectively denied the right to call Smith as a witness, as he would not be allowed to ask him anything about the pertinent issues.  

DA Bragg was able to get Matthew Colangelo, holding the third highest position in the Biden DOJ (Acting Associate Attorney General) to lead the Trump prosecution.  I'm sure there was no coordination with Garland, and/or Biden, in Colangelo leaving such a high position.  Right?

I also heard that the defense team was not allowed to discuss the law in their closing argument.  What???  If that is true, that would be like a judge telling me I could write a trial brief on one of my cases, but I better not discuss the law.  

What about the Constitutional requirement of unanimity in the verdict?  Well, the jury did have to all agree about the falsification of records.  But that alleged crime was a misdemeanor and was barred by the statute of limitations.  It was revived only if the falsification was done in the furtherance of another crime.  And for that, the Judge gave the jury three options - violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, violation of the tax laws and falsification of other business records.  On these later crimes, the Judge said there need NOT be unanimity in the decision.  Four jurors could pick violation of the tax laws, four could pick violation of the federal election law, and four could pick falsification of other records.  What???

In 2016, I would hear at Trump rallies shouts of "lock her up," a reference to Hillary Clinton.  Although Clinton obviously violated the law, I cringed at those shouts.  I simply did not like the idea of having one's political opponents locked up.  Thankfully, Trump made no effort to do so.  But that was then.  Now, I would like to see conservative DA's, in red states, prosecute Biden, Obama, the two Clintons, Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff and other Democrats.  And I would like to see the House immediately impeach Biden.

Allow me to explain.  Like many Republicans, I'm old school.  I've long had a belief in, and faith in, our institutions.  But even though the Founders set up the best system of government and justice, any system - no matter how good - depends on the good will of those in power.  Without that, the institutions are meaningless.  But I know Republicans.  They will not do what I suggest.  They will say they have to defend the institutions, even if the Democrats will not do so.  But that would be wrong.  

Biden and the Democrats are bullies.  They have repeatedly shown their disdain for our institutions and for historical precedents.  And you don't make a bully stop by doing nothing.  You have to fight a bully to get him to stop.  Therefore, Biden and the Democrats need to be fought, in the same manner that they are bullying Trump.  As I am not confident that the Republicans will fight back, I say Goodbye America.  You were great while you lasted.  Now, I find myself agreeing with a good friend when he refers to the Democrat Party as the Evil Party.  How else would I describe a party seeking to end the country in which I grew up.