One of our President-elect's bad ideas is his belief that flag burning should be criminalized. This writer has always been a strong proponent of the First Amendment. I have even opposed the criminalizing of Holocaust denial, as has been done in a number of European countries. Classical liberalism teaches that we fight bad ideas with good ideas.
Said Trump: "Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag...if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or a year in jail." In the case of Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989), the US Supreme Court held that flag burning was a form of protected speech. Make no mistake, flag burning is considered extremely disrespectful by this writer and by most Americans. But speech that is not controversial rarely requires protection; it is odious speech that the First Amendment really needs to protect. Flag burning is usually done to make a political statement, albeit an odious one.
In a dissenting opinion in the Johnson case, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote: "The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our nation." I am concerned that the appreciation for the significance of the flag (and our Constitution) is not being passed on to the younger generations. I am concerned that some see it as a piece of cloth and nothing more. California law only requires students to engage in a "patriotic exercise" each day - not to recite the Pledge.
If we criminalize flag burning, what's next? What do we do with someone who throws the flag on the ground and stomps on it? What do we do with a Colin Kaepernick, who kneels during the playing of the national anthem, rather than standing with his hand over his heart while facing the flag? Criminalizing flag burning is a step down a slippery slope that we should not be taking.
Trump is taking credit for saving 1000 jobs at Carrier Corporation in Indiana. I assume everyone is happy for the people whose jobs are being saved. The question is, was it good policy? Indiana decided to give 7 million dollars in tax breaks in exchange for Carrier keeping those jobs there. Government should not be favoring any company at taxpayer expense; that is not how capitalism works.
Trump is also threatening to impose a tariff on the goods of any company that leaves the US and then tries to sell their products back in the US. Another bad idea that will only hurt consumers, increasing the cost of numerous goods. On the other hand, if Trump's promise to reduce corporate taxes and reduce the burden of regulations was a factor in convincing Carrier to keep some jobs here, then I can only say that I hope that Trump follows through with that promise. I do believe that he will.
Trump did not run as a conservative. He ran as a populist. In earlier posts I explained why I would never vote for Clinton, and why I would vote for Trump. I did not believe that I would agree with Trump on everything, but that I would on some things. I knew that I would not agree with Clinton on anything. So, I continue to be cautiously optimistic about a Trump Administration, notwithstanding these differences. Most of his top level appointments have been solid people.
The truth-uncensored started eight years ago, with the beginning of the Obama Administration. I have been highly critical of Obama's policies, which I believe have greatly harmed this country. Hopefully, Trump will do much better. The truth-uncensored will continue to report on the important issues facing our country and the world - under this new Administration.
Sunday, December 4, 2016
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Any Chance They'll Ever Get It? I Hope Not.
The left, including many mainstream democrats just do not get it. They cannot get over the fact that Donald Trump won the election. After all, wasn't Hillary entitled to win? That pretty much tells the story. The left is always entitled to get what they want because they are females or blacks or Hispanics or whatever. And they truly believe it.
But one Columbia University professor does get it. His piece in the November 20, 2016 New York Times is entitled "The End of Identity Liberalism." Said Professor Mark Lilla: "...the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life." "By the time they (young people) reach college many assume that diversity discourse exhausts political discourse, and have shockingly little to say about such perennial questions as class, war, the economy and the common good."
The "common good." That is a notion that is completely contrary to the notion of "identity politics." The "common good" is a concern of Republicans and conservatives only. The left says Hillary lost because of the glass ceiling, or because of biased and false news stories, or because of the electoral college or because of... It does not occur to the left (most of today's democrats) that they lost because most Americans were unhappy with the direction that the country has gone under their leadership, and under Obama.
The "glass ceiling" argument is one of those "identity" issues that the left believes contributed to Clinton's defeat. I still see letters to the editor bemoaning the defeat of the first woman candidate for President, as if being a woman entitles you. They fail to recognize what a flawed candidate she was, and what a flawed campaign she ran. Like many on the left and in the mainstream media, Hillary totally believed that Trump supporters were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic." It was identity politics taken to a new height.
The same rationale applies to the left's belief that the electoral college caused Hillary's defeat. The electoral college gives every state a say in who is elected President. Yes, Hillary won the popular vote; but the campaign was run based on the electoral college vote - not the popular vote. And Trump won 30 states to Hillary's 19 plus the District of Columbia. Maine split their electoral votes. But the elitists of the left believe the West Coast and the Northeast should control the country - on a permanent basis. After all, the "flyover country" is nothing more than working class/blue collar whites and rednecks - and who cares about them anyway? They are not one of the favored "identity" groups. The electoral college assures that a Presidential candidate must appeal to large areas of the country. How long would our country last, given the extreme divisiveness already, if one or two regions of the country were able to permanently dictate to the rest of the country?
We should not neglect to mention the left's hypocrisy. If Hillary won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, they would be thrilled with the system. They were appalled that Trump said the election might be rigged and would not guarantee his acceptance of the results. Now who is unable to accept the results? Many on the left actually want the electors who make up the electoral college to switch their votes to Hillary, with no concern whatsoever about the damage that it would do to our democracy and republican form of government.
Of all the beefs the left has about their defeat, my favorite concerns the complaint about biased and false news stories. Both the November 17th LA Times and the November 20th NY Times had editorials on the subject of false news stories in the digital universe. They both opined that Google and Facebook needed to better police their information platforms. The argument is absolutely stunning, for two reasons.
The first reason is related to an Op-Ed piece by PA President Mahmoud Abbas in the NY Times at the end of 2011. In an email exchange I had with the then Public Editor of the Times I complained about that very issue - false histories in news or Op-Ed pieces, and all the lies told by Abbas in his opinion piece. The reply I received was that, while editorials and Op-Eds should be factually accurate, "it is much harder to police...in part because deploying facts to support argument tends very often toward coloring them right to the boundary between accuracy and distortion." (For the full exchange, see the 1/21/12 post "Media Bias, Part III.") So, while the Times will not monitor themselves, they expect Facebook and Google to do what the Times will not.
But the second, and far more significant point regarding factual reporting is this - we on the right believe that on a daily basis the mainstream newspapers distort and mislead the public. Who is going to oversee them? Not Facebook or Google, even with regards to their online editions. No, these papers do not believe they are in need of any monitoring. Conservatives understand that the mainstream media has long ago given up on accurate and fair reporting of news in favor of their left-wing agenda. In fact, most Americans now believe that. So, how do we monitor the propaganda of the mainstream media that passes for reporting?
Here is one recent example. The November 15th edition of the NY Times had a front page article (continued on page 17) about various controversies surrounding potential Trump nominees. Richard Grenell was mentioned as a possible pick for UN Ambassador. He had worked under John Bolton when Bolton was UN Ambassador. What was the controversy surrounding Grenell? When he worked on the Romney campaign some religious conservatives complained about Mr. Grenell being gay. How in the world is that a controversy about Grenell? It might be a controversy for the Romney campaign. The NY Times has been the leading paper in the country pushing for gay marriage and gay rights. If Trump were to nominate Grenell for UN Ambassador, it would make Grenell the highest official to ever hold office and to be openly gay. But does the NY Times give Trump any credit for considering Grenell? No, because their left-wing agenda takes precedence over truth (that was a made up controversy concerning Grenell); and it also reveals the left's bias in really only caring about liberal gays (or liberal women or liberal blacks, etc.).
In a final bit of irony, the publisher and editor-in-chief of the NY Times put out a letter to their readers concerning their coverage of the election. It was a non-apology apology. Said these two: "...we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor..." Having acknowledged no bias on their part during this election, one wonders why they feel a need to "rededicate" themselves to the truth. If anyone actually buys this nonsense I will make you an offer. Pick out any edition of the NY Times from now going forward, and I will show you one or more examples of the paper's continued left-wing bias. It has happened virtually daily since that letter was issued. Let me know - we'll do coffee.
But one Columbia University professor does get it. His piece in the November 20, 2016 New York Times is entitled "The End of Identity Liberalism." Said Professor Mark Lilla: "...the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life." "By the time they (young people) reach college many assume that diversity discourse exhausts political discourse, and have shockingly little to say about such perennial questions as class, war, the economy and the common good."
The "common good." That is a notion that is completely contrary to the notion of "identity politics." The "common good" is a concern of Republicans and conservatives only. The left says Hillary lost because of the glass ceiling, or because of biased and false news stories, or because of the electoral college or because of... It does not occur to the left (most of today's democrats) that they lost because most Americans were unhappy with the direction that the country has gone under their leadership, and under Obama.
The "glass ceiling" argument is one of those "identity" issues that the left believes contributed to Clinton's defeat. I still see letters to the editor bemoaning the defeat of the first woman candidate for President, as if being a woman entitles you. They fail to recognize what a flawed candidate she was, and what a flawed campaign she ran. Like many on the left and in the mainstream media, Hillary totally believed that Trump supporters were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic." It was identity politics taken to a new height.
The same rationale applies to the left's belief that the electoral college caused Hillary's defeat. The electoral college gives every state a say in who is elected President. Yes, Hillary won the popular vote; but the campaign was run based on the electoral college vote - not the popular vote. And Trump won 30 states to Hillary's 19 plus the District of Columbia. Maine split their electoral votes. But the elitists of the left believe the West Coast and the Northeast should control the country - on a permanent basis. After all, the "flyover country" is nothing more than working class/blue collar whites and rednecks - and who cares about them anyway? They are not one of the favored "identity" groups. The electoral college assures that a Presidential candidate must appeal to large areas of the country. How long would our country last, given the extreme divisiveness already, if one or two regions of the country were able to permanently dictate to the rest of the country?
We should not neglect to mention the left's hypocrisy. If Hillary won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, they would be thrilled with the system. They were appalled that Trump said the election might be rigged and would not guarantee his acceptance of the results. Now who is unable to accept the results? Many on the left actually want the electors who make up the electoral college to switch their votes to Hillary, with no concern whatsoever about the damage that it would do to our democracy and republican form of government.
Of all the beefs the left has about their defeat, my favorite concerns the complaint about biased and false news stories. Both the November 17th LA Times and the November 20th NY Times had editorials on the subject of false news stories in the digital universe. They both opined that Google and Facebook needed to better police their information platforms. The argument is absolutely stunning, for two reasons.
The first reason is related to an Op-Ed piece by PA President Mahmoud Abbas in the NY Times at the end of 2011. In an email exchange I had with the then Public Editor of the Times I complained about that very issue - false histories in news or Op-Ed pieces, and all the lies told by Abbas in his opinion piece. The reply I received was that, while editorials and Op-Eds should be factually accurate, "it is much harder to police...in part because deploying facts to support argument tends very often toward coloring them right to the boundary between accuracy and distortion." (For the full exchange, see the 1/21/12 post "Media Bias, Part III.") So, while the Times will not monitor themselves, they expect Facebook and Google to do what the Times will not.
But the second, and far more significant point regarding factual reporting is this - we on the right believe that on a daily basis the mainstream newspapers distort and mislead the public. Who is going to oversee them? Not Facebook or Google, even with regards to their online editions. No, these papers do not believe they are in need of any monitoring. Conservatives understand that the mainstream media has long ago given up on accurate and fair reporting of news in favor of their left-wing agenda. In fact, most Americans now believe that. So, how do we monitor the propaganda of the mainstream media that passes for reporting?
Here is one recent example. The November 15th edition of the NY Times had a front page article (continued on page 17) about various controversies surrounding potential Trump nominees. Richard Grenell was mentioned as a possible pick for UN Ambassador. He had worked under John Bolton when Bolton was UN Ambassador. What was the controversy surrounding Grenell? When he worked on the Romney campaign some religious conservatives complained about Mr. Grenell being gay. How in the world is that a controversy about Grenell? It might be a controversy for the Romney campaign. The NY Times has been the leading paper in the country pushing for gay marriage and gay rights. If Trump were to nominate Grenell for UN Ambassador, it would make Grenell the highest official to ever hold office and to be openly gay. But does the NY Times give Trump any credit for considering Grenell? No, because their left-wing agenda takes precedence over truth (that was a made up controversy concerning Grenell); and it also reveals the left's bias in really only caring about liberal gays (or liberal women or liberal blacks, etc.).
In a final bit of irony, the publisher and editor-in-chief of the NY Times put out a letter to their readers concerning their coverage of the election. It was a non-apology apology. Said these two: "...we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor..." Having acknowledged no bias on their part during this election, one wonders why they feel a need to "rededicate" themselves to the truth. If anyone actually buys this nonsense I will make you an offer. Pick out any edition of the NY Times from now going forward, and I will show you one or more examples of the paper's continued left-wing bias. It has happened virtually daily since that letter was issued. Let me know - we'll do coffee.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Post Election Observations
In a stunning upset predicted by almost no one, Donald Trump has become President-Elect of the United States. He won the electoral college vote 290 to 228. The popular vote totals vary slightly from site to site, with CNN reporting 59,755,284 for Hillary Clinton to 59,535,522 for Donald Trump. The difference in the popular vote is about two-tenths of one percent. It is difficult to imagine a closer vote tally out of a total of approximately 120 million votes.
Republicans held the House of Representatives 239 to 193, with 3 undecided. Republicans even held the Senate 51 to 48, with one undecided. Republicans increased their hold on governor mansions, with the new total 33 Republican to 15 Democrat. Whether one considers these results to reflect Trump's coattails, or a preference for Republican policies, the numbers are impressive. If you can, take a look at page 9A of the 11/10/16 USA Today. There is a map of the US showing each county in each state. The counties won by Trump are in red. Those won by Clinton are in blue. The map is overwhelmingly red.
There were very few states, if any, that Trump ignored. The electoral college is again in the spotlight as it appears Hillary may have won the popular vote. Small states are definitely given an advantage with the electoral college system. It also means that states with large populations (which today are generally democratic) will not have the final say. Trump wisely went into states with even a low electoral total, and he spent much time in the rust belt states. He carried Wisconsin - the first Republican to do so since Ronald Reagan did in 1984. And once again Ohioans showed that they are a reliable predictor of the winner.
In the nights since the election we have seen mobs of mostly young people in cities around the country protesting Trump's victory. Seattle, Portland, Oakland, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Richmond and Los Angeles, to name some. In Los Angeles, demonstrators were able to shut down a busy freeway. There was vandalism and tagging in places, destruction of property, and I saw at least one sign reading "F... Trump." Some of the Oakland demonstrators revealed what they really think about America and our democratic system. One said "we want a revolution." Another said "some will die on both sides."
It is unclear what these demonstrators were protesting against. Trump is not the President yet. These spoiled millennials were upset that their candidate did not win. You know what? Get over it! That is how our democracy works. You spoiled brats have no right to block traffic and stop people from going where they need to go. That is not speech. Many of us were extremely disappointed and upset when Barack Obama won in 2008, and then again in 2012. But we were not out in the streets. Some organized Tea Parties, and held rallies - after obtaining proper permits - at various locations across the country. This writer was also motivated to do something. My blog started shortly after Obama took office.
On Facebook and Twitter many were beside themselves over the Trump victory, with some threatening to move to other countries. I would tell them what my father used to say: "Don't let the door hit you on the way out." Of course, the Hollywood crowd was unable to cope. Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin wrote a letter to his wife and daughters, describing Trump as a "pig." Here's some bad news for Sorkin - most Americans really do not care what you think. Here's the bottom line - leftists do not believe in democracy. If there was a way to keep Trump from the White House and put Clinton in they would do it. They do not care about our Constitutional system, and often see capitalism as part of the problem.
Politics can be a dirty business, and this election campaign was no exception. However, having seen Trump's gracious victory speech, and Hillary's also gracious concession speech, and Obama's hosting of Trump at the White House, I am hopeful that mature Americans will follow their lead. Clearly, major policy differences exist between the two parties. And for those who think Trump needs to compromise on everything with Democrats, let me remind everyone what Obama said in 2010: "We don't mind the Republicans joining us; they can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in the back." This was after previously telling Republicans: "I won."
Unfortunately, racists and anti-semites have been expressing their hatred. This gets blamed on Trump. When blacks in various cities across the country engaged in the ill-named "knockout game" was that Obama's fault? After all, he was an extremely divisive President, and helped race relations deteriorate to levels not seen in decades. In Chicago, a white man was just beaten up by a group of young blacks for allegedly voting for Trump. Said one: "You voted Trump. You gonna pay for that sh.." Said another: "Beat his ass." (Information from Alex Jones' Infowars.) When police officers are murdered in the street by angry blacks, do we blame Obama? After all, his racial rhetoric has been extremely divisive.
I am well aware of how dangerous words can be, especially coming from a President or President-elect. I have been extremely impressed by Kellyanne Conway, who seems to have found a way to keep Trump focused, and away from the junior high school rhetoric. I hope she has a place in the Trump Administration. I do not believe he should go after Hillary and seek her prosecution. He needs to stay focused on all the work that needs to be done: rolling back taxes and regulations in order to allow for job creation, controlling our borders, strengthening our weakened military, and coming up with much better strategies for dealing with healthcare than Obamacare.
And, as much as I like Sean Hannity, I take issue with his suggestion that Trump seek a new Speaker of the House in place of Paul Ryan, and a new Senate majority leader in place of Mitch McConnell. Why? First, because Congress is a separate branch of government and Trump should not try to dictate who their leaders are. Second, Ryan, at least, has expressed a willingness to work with Trump in order to accomplish his agenda. So, I would not look for battles that may not be necessary.
So, as we conservatives and Republicans had to do after the election of Obama, a man seeking to "fundamentally change" the best nation on earth, I suggest everyone take a deep breath and realize we will all survive. I am hopeful that Trump will pick solid people for his Cabinet and White House advisers. And, as my brother liked to say, "we still have to get up and go to work each day." (Actually, he's now retired, so...)
Republicans held the House of Representatives 239 to 193, with 3 undecided. Republicans even held the Senate 51 to 48, with one undecided. Republicans increased their hold on governor mansions, with the new total 33 Republican to 15 Democrat. Whether one considers these results to reflect Trump's coattails, or a preference for Republican policies, the numbers are impressive. If you can, take a look at page 9A of the 11/10/16 USA Today. There is a map of the US showing each county in each state. The counties won by Trump are in red. Those won by Clinton are in blue. The map is overwhelmingly red.
There were very few states, if any, that Trump ignored. The electoral college is again in the spotlight as it appears Hillary may have won the popular vote. Small states are definitely given an advantage with the electoral college system. It also means that states with large populations (which today are generally democratic) will not have the final say. Trump wisely went into states with even a low electoral total, and he spent much time in the rust belt states. He carried Wisconsin - the first Republican to do so since Ronald Reagan did in 1984. And once again Ohioans showed that they are a reliable predictor of the winner.
In the nights since the election we have seen mobs of mostly young people in cities around the country protesting Trump's victory. Seattle, Portland, Oakland, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Richmond and Los Angeles, to name some. In Los Angeles, demonstrators were able to shut down a busy freeway. There was vandalism and tagging in places, destruction of property, and I saw at least one sign reading "F... Trump." Some of the Oakland demonstrators revealed what they really think about America and our democratic system. One said "we want a revolution." Another said "some will die on both sides."
It is unclear what these demonstrators were protesting against. Trump is not the President yet. These spoiled millennials were upset that their candidate did not win. You know what? Get over it! That is how our democracy works. You spoiled brats have no right to block traffic and stop people from going where they need to go. That is not speech. Many of us were extremely disappointed and upset when Barack Obama won in 2008, and then again in 2012. But we were not out in the streets. Some organized Tea Parties, and held rallies - after obtaining proper permits - at various locations across the country. This writer was also motivated to do something. My blog started shortly after Obama took office.
On Facebook and Twitter many were beside themselves over the Trump victory, with some threatening to move to other countries. I would tell them what my father used to say: "Don't let the door hit you on the way out." Of course, the Hollywood crowd was unable to cope. Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin wrote a letter to his wife and daughters, describing Trump as a "pig." Here's some bad news for Sorkin - most Americans really do not care what you think. Here's the bottom line - leftists do not believe in democracy. If there was a way to keep Trump from the White House and put Clinton in they would do it. They do not care about our Constitutional system, and often see capitalism as part of the problem.
Politics can be a dirty business, and this election campaign was no exception. However, having seen Trump's gracious victory speech, and Hillary's also gracious concession speech, and Obama's hosting of Trump at the White House, I am hopeful that mature Americans will follow their lead. Clearly, major policy differences exist between the two parties. And for those who think Trump needs to compromise on everything with Democrats, let me remind everyone what Obama said in 2010: "We don't mind the Republicans joining us; they can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in the back." This was after previously telling Republicans: "I won."
Unfortunately, racists and anti-semites have been expressing their hatred. This gets blamed on Trump. When blacks in various cities across the country engaged in the ill-named "knockout game" was that Obama's fault? After all, he was an extremely divisive President, and helped race relations deteriorate to levels not seen in decades. In Chicago, a white man was just beaten up by a group of young blacks for allegedly voting for Trump. Said one: "You voted Trump. You gonna pay for that sh.." Said another: "Beat his ass." (Information from Alex Jones' Infowars.) When police officers are murdered in the street by angry blacks, do we blame Obama? After all, his racial rhetoric has been extremely divisive.
I am well aware of how dangerous words can be, especially coming from a President or President-elect. I have been extremely impressed by Kellyanne Conway, who seems to have found a way to keep Trump focused, and away from the junior high school rhetoric. I hope she has a place in the Trump Administration. I do not believe he should go after Hillary and seek her prosecution. He needs to stay focused on all the work that needs to be done: rolling back taxes and regulations in order to allow for job creation, controlling our borders, strengthening our weakened military, and coming up with much better strategies for dealing with healthcare than Obamacare.
And, as much as I like Sean Hannity, I take issue with his suggestion that Trump seek a new Speaker of the House in place of Paul Ryan, and a new Senate majority leader in place of Mitch McConnell. Why? First, because Congress is a separate branch of government and Trump should not try to dictate who their leaders are. Second, Ryan, at least, has expressed a willingness to work with Trump in order to accomplish his agenda. So, I would not look for battles that may not be necessary.
So, as we conservatives and Republicans had to do after the election of Obama, a man seeking to "fundamentally change" the best nation on earth, I suggest everyone take a deep breath and realize we will all survive. I am hopeful that Trump will pick solid people for his Cabinet and White House advisers. And, as my brother liked to say, "we still have to get up and go to work each day." (Actually, he's now retired, so...)
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Hillary's Views of the Supreme Court and the Constitution
In her own words, Hillary Clinton told us her views of the Supreme Court and Constitutional issues. "And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights,on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."
She continued: "...it is important that...we stand up and basically say - the Supreme Court should represent all of us." There is so much wrong with everything she has said, it is difficult to know where to begin. Let's start with the last comment. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to represent anyone or anything but the rule of law and the upholding of the Constitution. Representatives and Senators represent the people, judges do not.
Clinton says that the Court should not stand on the side of powerful corporations and the wealthy. She certainly seems to be saying that the Court should never decide in favor of corporations or the wealthy - even if the law and Constitution should favor their side in any case. What her comment really tells us is that she has moved towards the growing socialist-left side of her party; the Bernie Sanders side always complaining about corporations - the job creators.
Whether it is women's rights or LGBT rights, a case only reaches the Supreme Court when there are competing interests, often arguing for competing rights. Should the Court always hold in favor of any party who is female or part of the LGBT community? Regardless of what the competing interest may be? Regardless of the law and the Constitution? Apparently.
Clinton has made it clear she wants to see Citizens United overturned, or an actual Amendment to the Constitution reversing that decision. Recall that the Citizens United decision overturned part of the Campaign Reform Act banning political ads/expenditures by corporations and unions within 60 days of a general election and within 30 days of a primary election. It is difficult to imagine that in this country, with our First Amendment, that there would ever be a ban on the type of speech that is the most protected - political speech. Following the decision, unions and corporations are able to spend unlimited sums of money on political advertising, as long as there is no coordination with a candidate or candidate's campaign.
I have been rethinking why the Democrats object to this decision. And the answer, while disturbing, is not surprising. At the very beginning of Obama's first term, there was a concerted effort by him, and all the top people in his Administration, to delegitimize the Fox News Network. The Democrats have on their side virtually all of the media - CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and most major newspapers in the country. The Democrats have most of Hollywood, and therefore most TV shows and movies, many of which contain anti-Republican or anti-conservative messages. The Democrats also have an overwhelming number of professors in the academy.
But under Citizens United, conservative groups have been able to use TV and radio in order to widely disseminate a different message through paid advertisements. And this disturbs Democrats. This anti-speech agenda is profoundly anti-American. But the support by Democrats for overturning Citizens United is proof of another point I have often made. When Democrats were classical liberals they had no problem tolerating opposing viewpoints. But as today's Democrats are mostly socialists and leftists, they do not have the same appreciation for our fundamental values, such as free speech. Rather, it's all about their left-wing agenda. Let me be clear - Democrats do not want the American people exposed to a differing opinion. This attitude, my friends, is no different than that of Soviet Russia.
Hillary also said she disagreed with the Supreme Court decision in Heller vs. District of Columbia. The Court declared certain provisions in the DC law to be unconstitutional - in violation of the Second Amendment. The DC law required that all firearms in the home be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The law also restricted handgun ownership to those handguns registered prior to 1975, when the law was enacted. In other words, the purchase of handguns after 1975 was barred. Given that Clinton disagreed with the Court's decision, do not think for one minute that she is being truthful when she says she does not want to ban gun ownership.
So, forgetting the corruption issues, we have in Hillary Clinton a candidate who, reflecting her party, has no belief in the freedoms given by the First and Second Amendments. Not speech. Not gun ownership, which has been an individual right that has existed since the founding of this country. And she seems to believe that who you are (female, gay, transgender, etc.) should determine your success at the Supreme Court.
She continued: "...it is important that...we stand up and basically say - the Supreme Court should represent all of us." There is so much wrong with everything she has said, it is difficult to know where to begin. Let's start with the last comment. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to represent anyone or anything but the rule of law and the upholding of the Constitution. Representatives and Senators represent the people, judges do not.
Clinton says that the Court should not stand on the side of powerful corporations and the wealthy. She certainly seems to be saying that the Court should never decide in favor of corporations or the wealthy - even if the law and Constitution should favor their side in any case. What her comment really tells us is that she has moved towards the growing socialist-left side of her party; the Bernie Sanders side always complaining about corporations - the job creators.
Whether it is women's rights or LGBT rights, a case only reaches the Supreme Court when there are competing interests, often arguing for competing rights. Should the Court always hold in favor of any party who is female or part of the LGBT community? Regardless of what the competing interest may be? Regardless of the law and the Constitution? Apparently.
Clinton has made it clear she wants to see Citizens United overturned, or an actual Amendment to the Constitution reversing that decision. Recall that the Citizens United decision overturned part of the Campaign Reform Act banning political ads/expenditures by corporations and unions within 60 days of a general election and within 30 days of a primary election. It is difficult to imagine that in this country, with our First Amendment, that there would ever be a ban on the type of speech that is the most protected - political speech. Following the decision, unions and corporations are able to spend unlimited sums of money on political advertising, as long as there is no coordination with a candidate or candidate's campaign.
I have been rethinking why the Democrats object to this decision. And the answer, while disturbing, is not surprising. At the very beginning of Obama's first term, there was a concerted effort by him, and all the top people in his Administration, to delegitimize the Fox News Network. The Democrats have on their side virtually all of the media - CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and most major newspapers in the country. The Democrats have most of Hollywood, and therefore most TV shows and movies, many of which contain anti-Republican or anti-conservative messages. The Democrats also have an overwhelming number of professors in the academy.
But under Citizens United, conservative groups have been able to use TV and radio in order to widely disseminate a different message through paid advertisements. And this disturbs Democrats. This anti-speech agenda is profoundly anti-American. But the support by Democrats for overturning Citizens United is proof of another point I have often made. When Democrats were classical liberals they had no problem tolerating opposing viewpoints. But as today's Democrats are mostly socialists and leftists, they do not have the same appreciation for our fundamental values, such as free speech. Rather, it's all about their left-wing agenda. Let me be clear - Democrats do not want the American people exposed to a differing opinion. This attitude, my friends, is no different than that of Soviet Russia.
Hillary also said she disagreed with the Supreme Court decision in Heller vs. District of Columbia. The Court declared certain provisions in the DC law to be unconstitutional - in violation of the Second Amendment. The DC law required that all firearms in the home be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The law also restricted handgun ownership to those handguns registered prior to 1975, when the law was enacted. In other words, the purchase of handguns after 1975 was barred. Given that Clinton disagreed with the Court's decision, do not think for one minute that she is being truthful when she says she does not want to ban gun ownership.
So, forgetting the corruption issues, we have in Hillary Clinton a candidate who, reflecting her party, has no belief in the freedoms given by the First and Second Amendments. Not speech. Not gun ownership, which has been an individual right that has existed since the founding of this country. And she seems to believe that who you are (female, gay, transgender, etc.) should determine your success at the Supreme Court.
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Why I Do Not Support a Two State Solution Between Israel and the Palestinians
One need not go back very far in time to see why a two state solution between Israel and the Palestinians is not sensible. As I fully understand that not even all Jews see either the religious or historical basis for Israel maintaining full control over Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), I will show why, even from a practical point of view, such a two state arrangement makes no sense.
Last month, both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu spoke at the UN General Assembly annual meeting. After bemoaning the "notorious Balfour Declaration" of 1917, Abbas claimed that it "paved the road for the Nakba (catastrophe) of Palestinian people and their dispossession and displacement from their land." At the end of the Great War Allied forces had captured much of the Middle East, which had been under the control of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. Britain had control of the area known as Palestine. In 1917 British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour announced "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."
Palestine was a geographic area, not a country, which had also been the biblical and historical Jewish homeland. Israel did exist as a country there - 2000 years ago. So, the first question is, if the Palestinians view the establishment of the modern state of Israel as a "catastrophe," how does that make a two state solution feasible? After several decades of control, the British turned over their "Mandate" area of Palestine to the UN, which in 1947 voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Abbas: "Israeli forces seized more land than that allotted to Israel..."
Seized more land? In 1948, following the 1947 vote for partition, the tiny State of Israel declared their independence. The very next day at least five Arab countries attacked the new state, in the Arabs first effort to wipe Israel off the map. Israelis were greatly outnumbered and outgunned. But a miracle occurred (with G-d's help, perhaps) and the tiny country won their war for independence. And yes, at the end of that war in 1949, Israel did control more land than the original partition granted them.
But Israel did not "seize" that land. The Jews were willing to accept the tiny bit of land allotted to them by the partition. But the Arabs announced before the UN vote that they would never accept the existence of a Jewish state. So, the second question is, in what ways have the Arabs shown a change in their attitudes towards Israel since 1948? By lying about Israel "seizing" land, as opposed to being attacked and winning? By the constant wars and terrorist attacks against Israel since 1948? By the Palestinians launching thousands of rockets and missiles into civilian areas of Israel? By Abbas repeatedly saying that not one single Jew may live in a new state of Palestine, while over a million Arabs live in the State of Israel? Or by Abbas still referring to Israel's existence as the Palestinian Nakba?
Abbas went on to engage in more lies by claiming that "Israel reneged on the (Oslo) agreements it signed..." Here is the third question: when the Palestinians consistently reject their own state as long as Israel still exists, how is a two state solution feasible? You see, Abbas was lying again. He neglected to mention the meeting at the White House with President Bill Clinton and then Israeli P.M. Ehud Barak and P.A. leader Yasser Arafat. Barak offered Arafat a state on almost all of the West Bank. Arafat walked out, went back to his headquarters in Ramallah, and started the second intifada in which Arab suicide bombers blew up Jews on buses, in cafes and other places, and even at a Passover Seder. And Abbas also turned down a state when offered one by then Israeli P.M. Ehud Olmert. But Abbas stands up at the UN and says it is Israel that is not abiding by agreements.
Israeli P.M. Netanyahu had been the Israeli Ambassador to the UN from 1984 to 1988. It was the custom for many Israeli political and military leaders to meet with the Chabad Lubavitch Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The Rebbe is widely considered to be the most influential rabbi of the twentieth century. So, upon his appointment, Netanyahu, too, spoke with the Rebbe. As Netanyahu tells it, the Rebbe advised: "You will be serving in a house of many lies. Remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide." Clearly, Netanyahu took to heart the Rebbe's advice, and to this day speaks with greater moral clarity at the annual UN assembly than any other world leader.
In addressing the General Assembly last month, Netanyahu said this: The UN "began as a moral force and has become a moral farce." In recognizing the ongoing refusal of Palestinian leaders to accept Israel's existence, Netanyahu said: "How can we expect young Palestinians to support peace when their leaders poison their minds?"
It is anticipated that the French will put forth their resolution to the UN Security Council establishing a Palestinian state on land now controlled by Israel, after the US Presidential elections. While the US has consistently vetoed such anti-Israel measures, the Obama Administration this time advised Israeli leaders that there is no guarantee they will do so again. So Netanyahu, as leader of the tiny Jewish nation, announced: "We will not accept any attempt by the UN to dictate terms to Israel. The road to peace runs through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not through New York."
I believe that the world should stop pretending that a two state solution is feasible. After all, the Palestinians have shown no such pretense.
Last month, both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu spoke at the UN General Assembly annual meeting. After bemoaning the "notorious Balfour Declaration" of 1917, Abbas claimed that it "paved the road for the Nakba (catastrophe) of Palestinian people and their dispossession and displacement from their land." At the end of the Great War Allied forces had captured much of the Middle East, which had been under the control of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. Britain had control of the area known as Palestine. In 1917 British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour announced "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."
Palestine was a geographic area, not a country, which had also been the biblical and historical Jewish homeland. Israel did exist as a country there - 2000 years ago. So, the first question is, if the Palestinians view the establishment of the modern state of Israel as a "catastrophe," how does that make a two state solution feasible? After several decades of control, the British turned over their "Mandate" area of Palestine to the UN, which in 1947 voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Abbas: "Israeli forces seized more land than that allotted to Israel..."
Seized more land? In 1948, following the 1947 vote for partition, the tiny State of Israel declared their independence. The very next day at least five Arab countries attacked the new state, in the Arabs first effort to wipe Israel off the map. Israelis were greatly outnumbered and outgunned. But a miracle occurred (with G-d's help, perhaps) and the tiny country won their war for independence. And yes, at the end of that war in 1949, Israel did control more land than the original partition granted them.
But Israel did not "seize" that land. The Jews were willing to accept the tiny bit of land allotted to them by the partition. But the Arabs announced before the UN vote that they would never accept the existence of a Jewish state. So, the second question is, in what ways have the Arabs shown a change in their attitudes towards Israel since 1948? By lying about Israel "seizing" land, as opposed to being attacked and winning? By the constant wars and terrorist attacks against Israel since 1948? By the Palestinians launching thousands of rockets and missiles into civilian areas of Israel? By Abbas repeatedly saying that not one single Jew may live in a new state of Palestine, while over a million Arabs live in the State of Israel? Or by Abbas still referring to Israel's existence as the Palestinian Nakba?
Abbas went on to engage in more lies by claiming that "Israel reneged on the (Oslo) agreements it signed..." Here is the third question: when the Palestinians consistently reject their own state as long as Israel still exists, how is a two state solution feasible? You see, Abbas was lying again. He neglected to mention the meeting at the White House with President Bill Clinton and then Israeli P.M. Ehud Barak and P.A. leader Yasser Arafat. Barak offered Arafat a state on almost all of the West Bank. Arafat walked out, went back to his headquarters in Ramallah, and started the second intifada in which Arab suicide bombers blew up Jews on buses, in cafes and other places, and even at a Passover Seder. And Abbas also turned down a state when offered one by then Israeli P.M. Ehud Olmert. But Abbas stands up at the UN and says it is Israel that is not abiding by agreements.
Israeli P.M. Netanyahu had been the Israeli Ambassador to the UN from 1984 to 1988. It was the custom for many Israeli political and military leaders to meet with the Chabad Lubavitch Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The Rebbe is widely considered to be the most influential rabbi of the twentieth century. So, upon his appointment, Netanyahu, too, spoke with the Rebbe. As Netanyahu tells it, the Rebbe advised: "You will be serving in a house of many lies. Remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide." Clearly, Netanyahu took to heart the Rebbe's advice, and to this day speaks with greater moral clarity at the annual UN assembly than any other world leader.
In addressing the General Assembly last month, Netanyahu said this: The UN "began as a moral force and has become a moral farce." In recognizing the ongoing refusal of Palestinian leaders to accept Israel's existence, Netanyahu said: "How can we expect young Palestinians to support peace when their leaders poison their minds?"
It is anticipated that the French will put forth their resolution to the UN Security Council establishing a Palestinian state on land now controlled by Israel, after the US Presidential elections. While the US has consistently vetoed such anti-Israel measures, the Obama Administration this time advised Israeli leaders that there is no guarantee they will do so again. So Netanyahu, as leader of the tiny Jewish nation, announced: "We will not accept any attempt by the UN to dictate terms to Israel. The road to peace runs through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not through New York."
I believe that the world should stop pretending that a two state solution is feasible. After all, the Palestinians have shown no such pretense.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Will I STILL Vote for Trump? Part II
The media has been focusing on the source of the emails being released by Wikileaks. It may be Russia. It is certainly troublesome if a foreign power is trying to influence our election. It is proper for the media to investigate. But many emails have been released by the FBI, through Congressional hearings, and Freedom of Information requests by groups such as Judicial Watch. But the media seems less concerned with the content of the emails.
Clinton discussed favoring open borders. Clinton's top aides mocked Catholics. Clinton campaign manager John Podesta bemoaned the fact that the San Bernardino terrorists/murderers were not typical Americans. They were Muslims. But do not expect any of this to be big news in the mainstream media. In fact, the Daily Caller reported on various reporters/news organizations who apparently believe their job is to help Clinton win the election. No need for unbiased reporting.
John Harwood is the CNBC chief Washington correspondent, and a commentator for the NY Times. But according to the Daily Caller, the emails reveal Harwood praising Clinton to John Podesta.
Donna Brazile was at CNN when she apparently gave Clinton advance notice of a question Clinton would be getting at a town hall. Brazile is now the head of the DNC - strictly coincidental I am sure.
A producer for MSNBC's "All in with Chris Hayes," apparently told a Clinton spokesperson that Clinton is an "amazing, intelligent woman." And this: "She is smarter than most men and more qualified than most men to be President."
Haim Saban, chairman of Univision, apparently gave advice to the Clinton campaign on how to deal with Trump's comments about Mexicans.
Marjorie Prithcard is the Op-Ed editor of the Boston Globe. Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta, wanted an opinion piece by Clinton or her campaign published in the paper. Pritchard to Podesta: "Just wondering if we are still on for that piece. Brian said last week it was ready and just needed approval. It would be good to get it in on Tuesday, when she is in New Hampshire. That would give her big presence on Tuesday with the piece and on Wednesday with the news story."
Excuse me? Here we have a case of the major newspaper in New England coordinating both the Op-Ed and news pages with the Clinton campaign.
I do not condone the language about women used by Trump. I do not condone the actions that he is accused of engaging in, should they pan out to be truthful. But I see no need to focus on that in this blog. The mainstream media is already doing that non-stop on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In what way do these allegations against Trump affect the country or the average American?
On the other hand, corruption, cover-up, and media complicity, damage this country in numerous ways. Our system of laws, in which no person is supposed to be above the law, has been made a mockery. And just what is the point of a free press when it decides that acting as an organ of the Democratic party is more important than doing their traditional job of challenging abuse of power, and doing investigative journalism.
Clinton discussed favoring open borders. Clinton's top aides mocked Catholics. Clinton campaign manager John Podesta bemoaned the fact that the San Bernardino terrorists/murderers were not typical Americans. They were Muslims. But do not expect any of this to be big news in the mainstream media. In fact, the Daily Caller reported on various reporters/news organizations who apparently believe their job is to help Clinton win the election. No need for unbiased reporting.
John Harwood is the CNBC chief Washington correspondent, and a commentator for the NY Times. But according to the Daily Caller, the emails reveal Harwood praising Clinton to John Podesta.
Donna Brazile was at CNN when she apparently gave Clinton advance notice of a question Clinton would be getting at a town hall. Brazile is now the head of the DNC - strictly coincidental I am sure.
A producer for MSNBC's "All in with Chris Hayes," apparently told a Clinton spokesperson that Clinton is an "amazing, intelligent woman." And this: "She is smarter than most men and more qualified than most men to be President."
Haim Saban, chairman of Univision, apparently gave advice to the Clinton campaign on how to deal with Trump's comments about Mexicans.
Marjorie Prithcard is the Op-Ed editor of the Boston Globe. Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta, wanted an opinion piece by Clinton or her campaign published in the paper. Pritchard to Podesta: "Just wondering if we are still on for that piece. Brian said last week it was ready and just needed approval. It would be good to get it in on Tuesday, when she is in New Hampshire. That would give her big presence on Tuesday with the piece and on Wednesday with the news story."
Excuse me? Here we have a case of the major newspaper in New England coordinating both the Op-Ed and news pages with the Clinton campaign.
I do not condone the language about women used by Trump. I do not condone the actions that he is accused of engaging in, should they pan out to be truthful. But I see no need to focus on that in this blog. The mainstream media is already doing that non-stop on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In what way do these allegations against Trump affect the country or the average American?
On the other hand, corruption, cover-up, and media complicity, damage this country in numerous ways. Our system of laws, in which no person is supposed to be above the law, has been made a mockery. And just what is the point of a free press when it decides that acting as an organ of the Democratic party is more important than doing their traditional job of challenging abuse of power, and doing investigative journalism.
Will I STILL Vote for Trump? Part I
My last post discussed whether I might vote for Trump following the release of an 11 year old video, in which Trump is essentially saying he could do whatever he wanted with women. There was a question of whether it was braggadocio or a reflection of his behavior. Now, we have a number of women coming forward alleging sexual harassment incidents involving Trump, although often regarding events from decades ago. Nevertheless, the question has arisen: even now, will I still vote for Trump?
When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State she set up a private email server in her home. Why would someone do that unless they anticipated that they would want future communications kept from the public? Eventually, we find out that Clinton was sending and receiving emails on her private system which had been marked classified. Further emails revealed the improper communications between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton State Department.
Following an FBI "investigation," Director Comey announced that Clinton was extremely careless with classified documents, but would not be recommending prosecution. Later, we find out that top Clinton aids were given permission to destroy their computers. It also became clear that all of Clinton's emails were not, in fact, turned over, and many were destroyed (recall Bleachbit).
Then, Bill Clinton "coincidentally" runs into Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport. From everything we now know, it is likely that Lynch was assuring Bill that there would be no prosecution of Hillary. In fact, the day after the FBI Director announces that he will not recommend prosecution of Hillary with regards to the mishandling of classified information, AG Lynch announces that their investigation is over. The AG did not even pretend to take the time to review all (any) of the FBI file and investigation. After all, it is the prosecutors who decide whether or not to file a case, not the FBI investigators.
There were FBI investigators who would have recommended prosecution. There were career prosecutors in the Justice Department who would have pursued the case. But no matter. The fix was in at the highest levels of government.
In summary, we had official corruption and misconduct by Hillary Clinton and her State Department. We had a cover-up of that misconduct at the highest levels of government. Was Obama involved in the squashing of a prosecution? Well, do you think he wants to see Hillary or Trump succeed him? I think that answers the question. To top it off, we have a media complicit in the cover-up.
Remember Watergate? Corruption and cover-up, but an aggressive media that never stopped following up leads until the full story came out. The result: numerous prosecutions and the resignation of a sitting President. So, please excuse me if I am a little offended by those who only want to talk about Trump, yet completely ignore facts that, in another era, might bring down a President, and Presidential candidate. As for today's media, see Part II.
When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State she set up a private email server in her home. Why would someone do that unless they anticipated that they would want future communications kept from the public? Eventually, we find out that Clinton was sending and receiving emails on her private system which had been marked classified. Further emails revealed the improper communications between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton State Department.
Following an FBI "investigation," Director Comey announced that Clinton was extremely careless with classified documents, but would not be recommending prosecution. Later, we find out that top Clinton aids were given permission to destroy their computers. It also became clear that all of Clinton's emails were not, in fact, turned over, and many were destroyed (recall Bleachbit).
Then, Bill Clinton "coincidentally" runs into Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport. From everything we now know, it is likely that Lynch was assuring Bill that there would be no prosecution of Hillary. In fact, the day after the FBI Director announces that he will not recommend prosecution of Hillary with regards to the mishandling of classified information, AG Lynch announces that their investigation is over. The AG did not even pretend to take the time to review all (any) of the FBI file and investigation. After all, it is the prosecutors who decide whether or not to file a case, not the FBI investigators.
There were FBI investigators who would have recommended prosecution. There were career prosecutors in the Justice Department who would have pursued the case. But no matter. The fix was in at the highest levels of government.
In summary, we had official corruption and misconduct by Hillary Clinton and her State Department. We had a cover-up of that misconduct at the highest levels of government. Was Obama involved in the squashing of a prosecution? Well, do you think he wants to see Hillary or Trump succeed him? I think that answers the question. To top it off, we have a media complicit in the cover-up.
Remember Watergate? Corruption and cover-up, but an aggressive media that never stopped following up leads until the full story came out. The result: numerous prosecutions and the resignation of a sitting President. So, please excuse me if I am a little offended by those who only want to talk about Trump, yet completely ignore facts that, in another era, might bring down a President, and Presidential candidate. As for today's media, see Part II.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)