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?