On December 23, 2016, Obama exacted his pound of flesh from Israel. Our closest ally in the Middle East, one of our closest allies in the world, and the only democracy in the Middle East - Israel - was unanimously condemned by the UN Security Council, in a resolution that the Truth-Uncensored has feared for months, if not years. In a 14-0 vote, with the United States abstaining, the Security Council essentially laid out the parameters of a Palestinian state, with the US giving up on longstanding policy that any resolution must be negotiated between the two sides. As this blog anticipated, Obama waited until after the US election to betray Israel.
In pertinent part, the resolution said the UN "reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity, and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace."
And the UN "reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard, underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines including with regards to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations."
Finally, the UN "calls upon all states, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967."
For all intents and purposes, this UN resolution establishes a Palestinian state on the pre-war 1967 borders - the 1967 war being yet another war in which Israel had to defend itself against the surrounding Arab countries. As a reminder, Israel won that war, capturing the Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Israel has since returned the Sinai to Egypt, and withdrawn from Gaza. The pre-war 1967 boundaries are simply the armistice lines existing at the end of Israel's war for independence, fought from 1948 to 1949, against the surrounding Arab countries. There is nothing special about the so-called 1967 lines.
Having declared the boundaries of a Palestinian state, which includes "East Jerusalem," who actually thinks the Palestinians now have any reason to sit and negotiate with the Israelis? Before the 1967 war, Jordan controlled the West Bank, including the area referred to as "East Jerusalem." There never was a Palestinian state that existed on that land, or any land. The Holy Old City is in East Jerusalem. The Western Wall (the Kotel) of the Second Temple is in East Jerusalem - and has now been declared by the UN to be Palestinian territory. When the Arabs under Jordan controlled the Old City, not only were Jews denied access to the Western Wall, the Arabs destroyed Jewish holy sites in the West Bank.
The UN resolution says the boundary lines may be changed only by "negotiations" between the parties. Does any sane person believe that the Palestinians will be willing to negotiate away control of the Old City, where the Al-Aksa Mosque sits? Does any sane person believe that Israel will ever, short of defeat in war, give up their control of the Kotel and the Old City? Obama abstained from a resolution that not only increases the chances for war, but takes away from the Jews the holiest sites in Judaism. There is no explanation for that other than the age-old one of anti-Semitism. It mattered not to the UN or Obama that under Israeli control all religions have had access to their holy sites in the Old City.
But the UN was not done yet. With the last paragraph quoted above, the UN has now put itself fully behind the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement. Yes, the resolution claims to distinguish between the State of Israel inside the 1967 boundaries and the land controlled by Israel outside of those boundaries. But who really thinks most countries and NGOs are actually going to make that distinction? Besides. a boycott of Israeli products made in the West Bank hurts not only Israel, but the Palestinians who work for Israeli companies there as well.
At this point, the Palestinians have no reason to negotiate anything. The outline of their state has been declared. As Israel is said to have no legal right to the West Bank, they have no land to exchange for peace. The Palestinians have no reason to stop their 68 year old war against Israel, and certainly have no reason to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. It is only a matter of time until the Palestinians lay out their "legal" claims to all of Israel. Thank you so much, Obama, for your hateful attitude towards the one Jewish state in the world.
Saturday, December 24, 2016
Sunday, December 18, 2016
Year End Reflections, Part II
Soon to be former First Lady Michelle Obama recently said this: "We are feeling what not having hope feels like." The left just can not believe that Trump won the election. In fact, right up to the last minute they have been trying to persuade/pressure the Republican members of the Electoral College to break their commitments to Trump and vote for anyone else. They will not succeed. As for the First Lady, I imagine that most of her life - other than the eight years her husband was President - has been and will continue to be a huge disappointment. After all, this was her sentiment back in 2008: "People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and...for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."
Soon to be former Secretary-General of the United Nations recently made this stunning, albeit hardly surprising, factual admission: "Decades of political maneuverings have created a disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel." In reply, Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, said: "The Secretary-General admitted the clear truth, the UN's hypocrisy towards Israel has broken records over the past decades...During this time the UN passed 223 resolutions condemning Israel while (passing) only eight resolutions condemning the Syrian regime as it has massacred its citizens over the past six years. This is absurd."
The Trump website has this: "The bond between Israel and the United States runs deep, and I will ensure there is no daylight between us when I'm president." Trump has nominated attorney and longtime adviser David Friedman to be the US ambassador to Israel. Friedman: "We trust Israel...We think it is doing an excellent job of balancing its respect for human rights and its security needs in a very difficult neighborhood. Israel is a partner with the US in the global war against terrorism."
Friedman has also said what has always been obvious to this writer: "It is inconceivable there would be mass evacuations (of the over 300,000 Jews from the West Bank) on that magnitude, in the unlikely event that there was an otherwise comprehensive peace agreement...It makes no sense for Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) to be Judenrein (free of Jews) any more than it makes sense for Israel to be Arabrein (free of Arabs). It's not fair." Under Obama and Kerry we have yet to hear any objections to Abbas' repeated assertions that no Jew may live in a new Palestinian state.
Following Clinton's loss of the electoral vote, but large popular vote victory, many on the left now want to eliminate the electoral college. In an Op-Ed in the 12/15/16 New York Times, Columbia Law School professor David Pozen referred to the electoral college as being "fundamentally undemocratic." I wonder if the professor believes that the US Senate is also "fundamentally undemocratic." After all, a state with under one million people gets the same number of senators as the State of California, which is nearing 40 million people. How is that fair? Would the professor argue for the abolition of the Senate? Would the professor push for a unicameral federal legislative body, based on proportionate representation for each state, as the House is currently constituted? Or, is the Senate yet another one of those checks and balances put into the Constitution by our Founders? The Senate tends to lend some stability to government, whereas the House - with members up for election every two years - is more likely to reflect popular sentiment of the time.
As noted by George Will in his 12/18/16 column in the Ventura County Star, Bill Clinton won the 1992 election with only 43% of the popular vote. While he did get more votes than George H. W. Bush, that was the year Ross Perot ran and got a whopping 19,743,821 votes. Together, Bush and Perot had over 56% of the votes. A large majority of the people clearly did not want Clinton to be president. But Clinton won easily with 370 electoral votes to 168 for Bush. Perot was unable to get any electoral votes.
Will explained the genius of our Founders: "So the Electoral College shapes the character of majorities by helping to generate those that are neither geographically nor ideologically narrow, and that depict, more than the popular vote does, national decisiveness." But the left wants to perpetuate both geographic (Northeast and West Coast) majorities and ideological (left-wing) majorities. The left wants to abolish the Electoral College on the assumption that their side can generate enough votes in the Northeast and West Coast - two liberal voting blocs - to maintain permanent control of the presidency.
I would love to have seen a poll asking how many on the left would have agreed that Obama should have cancelled the election if it was known to a near certainty that Trump was going to win. With all of the pressure that has been placed on the electors, I suspect that such a poll number would not be that small.
Soon to be former Secretary-General of the United Nations recently made this stunning, albeit hardly surprising, factual admission: "Decades of political maneuverings have created a disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel." In reply, Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, said: "The Secretary-General admitted the clear truth, the UN's hypocrisy towards Israel has broken records over the past decades...During this time the UN passed 223 resolutions condemning Israel while (passing) only eight resolutions condemning the Syrian regime as it has massacred its citizens over the past six years. This is absurd."
The Trump website has this: "The bond between Israel and the United States runs deep, and I will ensure there is no daylight between us when I'm president." Trump has nominated attorney and longtime adviser David Friedman to be the US ambassador to Israel. Friedman: "We trust Israel...We think it is doing an excellent job of balancing its respect for human rights and its security needs in a very difficult neighborhood. Israel is a partner with the US in the global war against terrorism."
Friedman has also said what has always been obvious to this writer: "It is inconceivable there would be mass evacuations (of the over 300,000 Jews from the West Bank) on that magnitude, in the unlikely event that there was an otherwise comprehensive peace agreement...It makes no sense for Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) to be Judenrein (free of Jews) any more than it makes sense for Israel to be Arabrein (free of Arabs). It's not fair." Under Obama and Kerry we have yet to hear any objections to Abbas' repeated assertions that no Jew may live in a new Palestinian state.
Following Clinton's loss of the electoral vote, but large popular vote victory, many on the left now want to eliminate the electoral college. In an Op-Ed in the 12/15/16 New York Times, Columbia Law School professor David Pozen referred to the electoral college as being "fundamentally undemocratic." I wonder if the professor believes that the US Senate is also "fundamentally undemocratic." After all, a state with under one million people gets the same number of senators as the State of California, which is nearing 40 million people. How is that fair? Would the professor argue for the abolition of the Senate? Would the professor push for a unicameral federal legislative body, based on proportionate representation for each state, as the House is currently constituted? Or, is the Senate yet another one of those checks and balances put into the Constitution by our Founders? The Senate tends to lend some stability to government, whereas the House - with members up for election every two years - is more likely to reflect popular sentiment of the time.
As noted by George Will in his 12/18/16 column in the Ventura County Star, Bill Clinton won the 1992 election with only 43% of the popular vote. While he did get more votes than George H. W. Bush, that was the year Ross Perot ran and got a whopping 19,743,821 votes. Together, Bush and Perot had over 56% of the votes. A large majority of the people clearly did not want Clinton to be president. But Clinton won easily with 370 electoral votes to 168 for Bush. Perot was unable to get any electoral votes.
Will explained the genius of our Founders: "So the Electoral College shapes the character of majorities by helping to generate those that are neither geographically nor ideologically narrow, and that depict, more than the popular vote does, national decisiveness." But the left wants to perpetuate both geographic (Northeast and West Coast) majorities and ideological (left-wing) majorities. The left wants to abolish the Electoral College on the assumption that their side can generate enough votes in the Northeast and West Coast - two liberal voting blocs - to maintain permanent control of the presidency.
I would love to have seen a poll asking how many on the left would have agreed that Obama should have cancelled the election if it was known to a near certainty that Trump was going to win. With all of the pressure that has been placed on the electors, I suspect that such a poll number would not be that small.
Year End Reflections, Part I
On December 8, 2016, America lost a true hero. John Glenn, born July 18, 1921, died at the age of 95. As one of the original Mercury 7 astronauts, Glenn was the first American to orbit the earth. That was in 1962 in the Friendship 7. But Glenn was also a war hero, having flown 63 combat missions in the Korean war, as well as 59 combat missions in World War II. Among his many medals was the Distinguished Flying Cross, which he actually earned 6 different times. The people of Ohio elected Glenn to the US Senate 4 times. John Glenn was truly a man who had the "right stuff."
On July 2, 2016 we also lost the moral voice of Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel. Wiesel was born September 30, 1928. He lost his mother and father and a sister to the Holocaust. In one of the rare instances that I agree with President Obama, he said this about Wiesel: "Elie Wiesel was one of the great moral voices of our time, and in many ways, the conscience of the world."
Wiesel's book, "Night," recounted the horrors of the Holocaust. "Never shall I forget that night, the first night in the camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed...Never shall I forget the little faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath a silent blue sky. Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever." But Wiesel later in life saw a restoration of his faith: "I belong to a traumatized generation that often felt abandoned by G-d and betrayed by mankind. And yet, I believe that one must not estrange oneself from either G-d or man."
This year we also saw the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia was born March 11, 1936 and died unexpectedly on February 13, 2016. His belief in "originalism," interpreting the Constitution in the way the Framers intended, would, at times, result in his siding with the liberal wing of the Court. On affirmative action he tended to be in the minority, saying: "To pursue the concept of racial entitlement - even for the most admirable and benign of purposes - is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American."
This year also saw the passing of a man who will not be missed, at least not by those who still have a moral compass. Fidel Castro was born August 13, 1926, and died November 25, 2016. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said: "Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation...We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader." Obama: "History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him."
Said Jill Stein: "Fidel Castro was a symbol of the struggle for justice in the shadow of empire." Jimmy Carter: "We (Rosalynn and I) remember fondly our visits with him in Cuba and his love of his country." UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "Fidel Castro's death marks the passing of a huge figure of modern history, national independence and 20th century socialism. From building a world class health and education system, to Cuba's record of international solidarity abroad, Castro's achievements were many."
So much for the left's horribly immoral view of the world. Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said: "Now that Fidel Castro is dead, the cruelty and oppression of his regime should die with him." And from President-elect Trump, whom the left hates in ways that they have never shown with regards to Castro, we heard this: "Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades." I'll stick with Ryan and Trump, thank you. The left's love for dictators never ceases to amaze.
May G-d bless John Glenn, Elie Wiesel and Antonin Scalia. As for Castro, he should not be sharing the same afterlife as the other three.
On July 2, 2016 we also lost the moral voice of Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel. Wiesel was born September 30, 1928. He lost his mother and father and a sister to the Holocaust. In one of the rare instances that I agree with President Obama, he said this about Wiesel: "Elie Wiesel was one of the great moral voices of our time, and in many ways, the conscience of the world."
Wiesel's book, "Night," recounted the horrors of the Holocaust. "Never shall I forget that night, the first night in the camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed...Never shall I forget the little faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath a silent blue sky. Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever." But Wiesel later in life saw a restoration of his faith: "I belong to a traumatized generation that often felt abandoned by G-d and betrayed by mankind. And yet, I believe that one must not estrange oneself from either G-d or man."
This year we also saw the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia was born March 11, 1936 and died unexpectedly on February 13, 2016. His belief in "originalism," interpreting the Constitution in the way the Framers intended, would, at times, result in his siding with the liberal wing of the Court. On affirmative action he tended to be in the minority, saying: "To pursue the concept of racial entitlement - even for the most admirable and benign of purposes - is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American."
This year also saw the passing of a man who will not be missed, at least not by those who still have a moral compass. Fidel Castro was born August 13, 1926, and died November 25, 2016. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said: "Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation...We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader." Obama: "History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him."
Said Jill Stein: "Fidel Castro was a symbol of the struggle for justice in the shadow of empire." Jimmy Carter: "We (Rosalynn and I) remember fondly our visits with him in Cuba and his love of his country." UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "Fidel Castro's death marks the passing of a huge figure of modern history, national independence and 20th century socialism. From building a world class health and education system, to Cuba's record of international solidarity abroad, Castro's achievements were many."
So much for the left's horribly immoral view of the world. Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said: "Now that Fidel Castro is dead, the cruelty and oppression of his regime should die with him." And from President-elect Trump, whom the left hates in ways that they have never shown with regards to Castro, we heard this: "Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades." I'll stick with Ryan and Trump, thank you. The left's love for dictators never ceases to amaze.
May G-d bless John Glenn, Elie Wiesel and Antonin Scalia. As for Castro, he should not be sharing the same afterlife as the other three.
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
On the 75th Anniversary of the Attack on Pearl Harbor
Today, December 7, 2016, is the 75th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. 2,403 Americans were killed in that attack. As reported in today's Wall Street Journal, over 100 surviving veterans went to Hawaii to participate in the day's commemorative activities. However, as the paper notes, organizers expect that this may be the last major gathering of the survivors. After all, most are in their nineties.
One of the survivor's explained the significance of the day, beyond the individual tragedies: "That (day) was when we were called to save the world." And save the world is exactly what American soldiers ultimately did.
Now, one might think that this historic anniversary, with the few remaining survivors nearing the end of their time on this earth, would be a front page story in every newspaper across the country. But, for the "paper of record," the New York Times, the 75th anniversary of Pearl Harbor was not worth any space on the front page of today's paper. In fact, it was not worth any space anywhere in the paper!
You see, the elitists at the NY Times would never engage in such parochialism. They would certainly never demonstrate any semblance of patriotism or pride in this country. No, the people at the Times are citizens of the world, not of the United States. To people like that, the United States is no better than any other country. Besides, look what the USA did to Japan - we dropped nuclear bombs on their cities. Whatever the Japanese did to us, we did much worse to them. So, what is there to commemorate? We saved the world - who says?
It is difficult for me to constrain myself and not utter every four letter word in the book, all directed at the editors and publisher of the NY Times. But that has never been the approach of this blog. So, instead, I will simply express my agreement with the Mayor of Honolulu, Kirk Caldwell, who said: "I plan to go up and give them (each survivor) a hug. We are so proud of what they did for our country."
One of the survivor's explained the significance of the day, beyond the individual tragedies: "That (day) was when we were called to save the world." And save the world is exactly what American soldiers ultimately did.
Now, one might think that this historic anniversary, with the few remaining survivors nearing the end of their time on this earth, would be a front page story in every newspaper across the country. But, for the "paper of record," the New York Times, the 75th anniversary of Pearl Harbor was not worth any space on the front page of today's paper. In fact, it was not worth any space anywhere in the paper!
You see, the elitists at the NY Times would never engage in such parochialism. They would certainly never demonstrate any semblance of patriotism or pride in this country. No, the people at the Times are citizens of the world, not of the United States. To people like that, the United States is no better than any other country. Besides, look what the USA did to Japan - we dropped nuclear bombs on their cities. Whatever the Japanese did to us, we did much worse to them. So, what is there to commemorate? We saved the world - who says?
It is difficult for me to constrain myself and not utter every four letter word in the book, all directed at the editors and publisher of the NY Times. But that has never been the approach of this blog. So, instead, I will simply express my agreement with the Mayor of Honolulu, Kirk Caldwell, who said: "I plan to go up and give them (each survivor) a hug. We are so proud of what they did for our country."
Sunday, December 4, 2016
Rep. Keith Ellison for Head of the Democratic National Committee?
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., is the front runner for being the new leader of the DNC. He is being supported by the far left wing - perhaps now the dominant wing - of the Democratic party. Not surprisingly, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders support Ellison. But so does Chuck Schumer, the new minority leader in the Senate. As Nancy Pelosi overwhelmingly won the contest for minority leader in the House, there seems to be little evidence that the moderates in the Democratic party still exist in any great numbers. The party might more accurately be named the Socialist Progressive Party.
So, who is Keith Ellison? He has represented Minnesota's 5th congressional district since 2007. He was the first Muslim elected to Congress. From about 1989 to 1998, Ellison was involved with Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. In 1995, he claimed Farrakhan was not an anti-Semite. Also in 1995, Ellison organized a rally held at the University of Minnesota, at which Khalid Abdul Muhammad was a featured speaker. Said Muhammad: "...if words were swords, the chests of Jews, gays and whites would be pierced."
Muhammad previously spoke about why Hitler did what he did, saying: "They (Jews) went in there, in Germany, the way they do everywhere they go, and they supplanted, they usurped, they turned around, and a German in his own country, would almost have to go to a Jew to get money. They had undermined the very fabric of the society." In 1997, Ellison defended a woman who said that Jews are "the most racist white people."
When running for Congress in 2006, Ellison received $50,000 from CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations), which was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial. Holy Land was funneling money to the terrorist group Hamas. IN 2010 Ellison was instrumental in getting 53 other Congressmen to sign onto what became known as the "Gaza 54" letter to President Obama, urging Obama to pressure Israel to lift the blockade of Gaza. The blockade was in place in order to deter Hamas, a terrorist organization, from being able to import more weapons used to kill Jews, and building materials used to build underground tunnels into Israel - also used to kill Jews. Somehow, even with the blockade, Hamas was able to get their hands on weapons and building supplies. Perhaps it did not occur to Ellison to question why Hamas used their building supplies to construct tunnels instead of building homes for the people of Gaza.
In 2012, the Minnesota Representative traveled to New Jersey to campaign against fellow Democratic Representative Steve Rothman. Ellison spoke at NJ mosques urging Arab-Americans to vote against Rothman in his primary election. Why would Ellison do that? Maybe it was because Rothman was a strong supporter of Israel. In 2014, Ellison was one of eight Congress members who voted against the funding of Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system. Israel fought a war with Hamas in July and August of 2014, with Israel attempting to stop the incessant rocket attacks from Gaza. Hamas fires their rockets at civilian targets in Israel. Iron Dome has been said to have a 90% success rate in shooting down incoming rockets deemed to be a threat to Israel's civilian population.
Then there is this remark by Ellison in 2010: "The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?" Everything changes? What would that be, other than the end of bipartisan support for Israel?
But it appears that the Democratic party is there already. In a poll conducted from 11/18-11/23/16 by the Brookings Institution, it was found that 53% of Democrats view Israel as a burden to the US. Only 24% of Republicans feel that way. 55% of Democrats thought that Israel has "too much influence on American politics and policies." On the other hand, 54% of Republicans said that Israel had the "right level" of influence. Fully 60% of Democrats support economic sanctions and more serious measures against Israel, while only 31% of Republicans agree. (The poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.5-3.04%.)
I am well aware that the Democrats move away from Israel commenced before Obama took office. But Obama has done everything he could do to express his displeasure with Israel and support for the Palestinians. It has clearly paid off as he has taken the Democratic party away from Israel with him. Just look at the numbers in the above paragraph. I am also aware of the fact that some of Trump's nominees, and potential nominees (mostly military), also view Israel as a burden.
As Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick explains in her 11/17/16 essay, "Jews, and particularly the Jewish state, along with evangelical Christians and cops are the only groups that you are allowed to hate, discriminate against and scapegoat in the (left's) authoritarian PC universe." So, are the left and the Democrats correct? Should the US be supporting Israel or the Palestinians? Israel or the Arab world? The Jewish state or the Muslim world?
There is only one country in the Middle East that shares Western values with the US, that shares the Judeo-Christian values - the values upon which this country was founded. That country is Israel. Whereas Arabs and Muslims regularly chant "Death to America," Israelis do not. The 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Israel built a memorial to the victims of 9/11. The Saudis fund many (most?) of the mosques in this country, with their radical brand of Wahabbism, believing that Islam should govern all people.
What about all the financial aid received by Israel? Israel is required to use most of that money by making purchases from the US, generally military hardware. Israel then uses that hardware when fighting war after war against their Arab neighbors. Then, Israel notifies US manufacturers of any problems with the hardware, allowing necessary modifications to be made - which then directly benefits US military personnel. Need a proving ground for testing new military hardware? Without having to put US military personnel at risk? Without having to pay for a testing facility? It's called Israel.
Intelligence? The Israelis are second to none, including our European allies, in providing intelligence. Drones? Israeli technology. Training in urban warfare? US soldiers are trained by Israelis. Anti-missile systems? Developed in conjunction with Israeli scientists.
If we go just by the numbers, as Congressman Ellison suggests (8 million Israelis to 350 million Arabs and 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide), then Israel loses. If we go by everything else, then you know why Israel is, and should remain, our main ally in the Middle East. But Keith Ellison clearly disagrees. And as head of the DNC, what type of Democrats do you think Ellison will try to get elected to Congress? With whom do you agree - me or Ellison?
So, who is Keith Ellison? He has represented Minnesota's 5th congressional district since 2007. He was the first Muslim elected to Congress. From about 1989 to 1998, Ellison was involved with Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. In 1995, he claimed Farrakhan was not an anti-Semite. Also in 1995, Ellison organized a rally held at the University of Minnesota, at which Khalid Abdul Muhammad was a featured speaker. Said Muhammad: "...if words were swords, the chests of Jews, gays and whites would be pierced."
Muhammad previously spoke about why Hitler did what he did, saying: "They (Jews) went in there, in Germany, the way they do everywhere they go, and they supplanted, they usurped, they turned around, and a German in his own country, would almost have to go to a Jew to get money. They had undermined the very fabric of the society." In 1997, Ellison defended a woman who said that Jews are "the most racist white people."
When running for Congress in 2006, Ellison received $50,000 from CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations), which was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial. Holy Land was funneling money to the terrorist group Hamas. IN 2010 Ellison was instrumental in getting 53 other Congressmen to sign onto what became known as the "Gaza 54" letter to President Obama, urging Obama to pressure Israel to lift the blockade of Gaza. The blockade was in place in order to deter Hamas, a terrorist organization, from being able to import more weapons used to kill Jews, and building materials used to build underground tunnels into Israel - also used to kill Jews. Somehow, even with the blockade, Hamas was able to get their hands on weapons and building supplies. Perhaps it did not occur to Ellison to question why Hamas used their building supplies to construct tunnels instead of building homes for the people of Gaza.
In 2012, the Minnesota Representative traveled to New Jersey to campaign against fellow Democratic Representative Steve Rothman. Ellison spoke at NJ mosques urging Arab-Americans to vote against Rothman in his primary election. Why would Ellison do that? Maybe it was because Rothman was a strong supporter of Israel. In 2014, Ellison was one of eight Congress members who voted against the funding of Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system. Israel fought a war with Hamas in July and August of 2014, with Israel attempting to stop the incessant rocket attacks from Gaza. Hamas fires their rockets at civilian targets in Israel. Iron Dome has been said to have a 90% success rate in shooting down incoming rockets deemed to be a threat to Israel's civilian population.
Then there is this remark by Ellison in 2010: "The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?" Everything changes? What would that be, other than the end of bipartisan support for Israel?
But it appears that the Democratic party is there already. In a poll conducted from 11/18-11/23/16 by the Brookings Institution, it was found that 53% of Democrats view Israel as a burden to the US. Only 24% of Republicans feel that way. 55% of Democrats thought that Israel has "too much influence on American politics and policies." On the other hand, 54% of Republicans said that Israel had the "right level" of influence. Fully 60% of Democrats support economic sanctions and more serious measures against Israel, while only 31% of Republicans agree. (The poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.5-3.04%.)
I am well aware that the Democrats move away from Israel commenced before Obama took office. But Obama has done everything he could do to express his displeasure with Israel and support for the Palestinians. It has clearly paid off as he has taken the Democratic party away from Israel with him. Just look at the numbers in the above paragraph. I am also aware of the fact that some of Trump's nominees, and potential nominees (mostly military), also view Israel as a burden.
As Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick explains in her 11/17/16 essay, "Jews, and particularly the Jewish state, along with evangelical Christians and cops are the only groups that you are allowed to hate, discriminate against and scapegoat in the (left's) authoritarian PC universe." So, are the left and the Democrats correct? Should the US be supporting Israel or the Palestinians? Israel or the Arab world? The Jewish state or the Muslim world?
There is only one country in the Middle East that shares Western values with the US, that shares the Judeo-Christian values - the values upon which this country was founded. That country is Israel. Whereas Arabs and Muslims regularly chant "Death to America," Israelis do not. The 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Israel built a memorial to the victims of 9/11. The Saudis fund many (most?) of the mosques in this country, with their radical brand of Wahabbism, believing that Islam should govern all people.
What about all the financial aid received by Israel? Israel is required to use most of that money by making purchases from the US, generally military hardware. Israel then uses that hardware when fighting war after war against their Arab neighbors. Then, Israel notifies US manufacturers of any problems with the hardware, allowing necessary modifications to be made - which then directly benefits US military personnel. Need a proving ground for testing new military hardware? Without having to put US military personnel at risk? Without having to pay for a testing facility? It's called Israel.
Intelligence? The Israelis are second to none, including our European allies, in providing intelligence. Drones? Israeli technology. Training in urban warfare? US soldiers are trained by Israelis. Anti-missile systems? Developed in conjunction with Israeli scientists.
If we go just by the numbers, as Congressman Ellison suggests (8 million Israelis to 350 million Arabs and 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide), then Israel loses. If we go by everything else, then you know why Israel is, and should remain, our main ally in the Middle East. But Keith Ellison clearly disagrees. And as head of the DNC, what type of Democrats do you think Ellison will try to get elected to Congress? With whom do you agree - me or Ellison?
Trump's Bad Ideas
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)