Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court. First, let's dispense with the nonsense that the open seat is owed to the Democrats, in light of the Republicans refusal to hold hearings on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. Here is what Chuck Schumer said in 2007: "We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances..." After all, the election season was heating up, Bush had already appointed Roberts and Alito, so why give him another pick? In 1992, Joe Biden was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and felt that Bush the first "should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed." Biden added that his committee would perhaps "not schedule confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over." (Quotes from the 2/2/17 Wall Street Journal editorial.)
Here is Judge Gorsuch's basic approach to judging: "I respect, too, the fact that in our legal order it is for Congress and not the Courts to write new laws. It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people's representatives. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge." Exactly, because such a judge would be deciding cases on his or her political agenda, rather than applying the Constitution and the law to the facts of the case. A judge who either upholds or strikes down a particular law based not on the law's Constitutionality, but on their personal views, is simply acting as a super-legislator.
But a super-legislature is what Democrats expect the courts to be. After describing the Gorsuch nomination as a "very hostile appointment," House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, said this: "If you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take medicine or in any other way interact with the Courts this is a very bad decision." She went on to describe Gorsuch as "well outside the mainstream of American legal thought." I would advise Ms. Pelosi that it is up to Congress to make laws regarding clean air, clean water, and safe food and medicines. It is definitely not the job of the courts. What Pelosi and people like her really want in a Supreme Court Justice is a guarantee that they will uphold every left-wing piece of legislation passed by Congress and every left-wing rule made by the Administrative state - the Constitution be damned.
Free speech again is front and center. With regards to the violent protests at UC Berkeley, forcing the cancellation of a speech by Milo Yiannopoulus, I was very pleased to see the Los Angeles Times come down on the right side of the issue. As the Times said in their 2/3/17 editorial, the prevention of Yiannopoulos "from speaking to a willing audience of campus Republicans should make supporters of free speech shiver." Added the times: "This is just the latest variation on the age old argument of the censor that 'error has no rights,' or, put another way, that one only has a right to free speech if one is speaking the 'truth.' It's an insidious notion that needs to be opposed in every generation." This blog has criticized the Times in the past, but now I wish to give credit where credit is due. Although, the LA Times has been accused of refusing to print letters to the editor in rebuttal to climate change - so I am not sure how that comports with their editorial.
Elizabeth Warren was prevented from continuing her Senate floor speech against Jeff Sessions when Mitch McConnell raised Senate Rule XIX. That rule prohibits Senators from "besmirching the character and motives of their colleagues." (From the 2/9/17 WSJ editorial.) Sessions, nominated for Attorney General, was a Senator at the time of the debate over his qualifications. Clearly, the House and the Senate have the right to make their own rules. Warren had been reading from a letter about Sessions written by Coretta Scott King, the late widow of Martin Luther King. On the one hand, the free speech advocate in me says she should have been allowed to continue her speech from the Senate floor. (She did continue it on Facebook and in various media outlets, getting far more attention than a Senate speech would ordinarily get.) On the other hand, the Hubert Humphrey approach to politics in me (Humphrey was known as the Happy Warrior, remaining friendly with his political adversaries) sides with the WSJ comment that "the Senate is an institution that used to run on civility and comity." So, should the Senate enforce their rule on civility, or should it be allowed to reflect the ever-growing hostility between liberals and conservatives, a hostility that plays out daily in our personal lives, on social media and in society as a whole?
A 2/12/17 editorial in the New York Times rightfully raises concerns about some proposed laws in various states which, if enacted, might have a chilling effect on speech. However, their editorial, "Peaceful Protests Are Not a Crime," fails to discuss the issue of exactly when a protest crosses the line from "peaceful" to something else. We can all agree that what we saw recently at UC Berkely, with the setting of fires and smashing of store windows and an ATM, cannot in any way be considered "peaceful." But I am not sure the NY Times sees a problem with demonstrators blocking roads and highways, without a permit. Do non-protesters lose their right to get to work on time, or wherever they may be going, because of protesters? Do emergency vehicles - fire, ambulance and police - not have a right to take care of the people who need them? And what about people waiting for that ambulance or fire engine or police car? Do protesters have a right to shout down members of Congress at a
Townhall meeting, preventing the Congress member from speaking? Why does their right to protest exceed the right of the people's representative to speak to his constituents? Does the NY Times support the "heckler's veto?"
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Hollywood Propaganda
In the television show "Homeland," Mandy Patinkin plays Saul Berenson, the head of CIA operations in Europe. In the January 29, 2017 episode, "The Covenant," Berenson goes to visit his sister, who lives in a Jewish, West Bank community. (Berenson and his sister are Jews.) The sister had moved with her now deceased husband from Indiana to Israel. She complained to her brother Saul that he should have tried to be more understanding of her husband.
Saul: "There's no bending with a fanatic." Sister: "Moshe (the husband) made me proud to be a Jew." Saul: "He turned you against your family. He brought you to live in a place that's not yours. Where you don't belong." Sister: "Please, Saul, let's not do this." Saul: "Haven't you driven enough people from their homes already? Bulldozed their villages. Seized their property under laws they had no part in making."
Sister: "This land was promised to Avraham (Abraham)." Saul: "Promised? A covenant with G-d made thousands of years ago. Doesn't that strike you as a form of insanity?" Sister: "You don't understand Saul. You never have. I love the life that G-d has given me." Saul: "How can you love making enemies? How can you love knowing that your very presence here makes peace less possible?" Sister: "I have a family, a community, a life filled with faith and purpose. Saul, what do you have?"
So there you have it. In a rather short scene, we get to hear that Israel has no right to any land in the West Bank, that Jews are the reason there is no peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and, of course, no belief in the Jews' biblical/historical ties to the land. All the left-wing positions regarding that part of the Middle East.
In yet another scene in the same episode, we see Saul interrogating a money man for the Iranian government. He claims to have used much of the millions to which he had access as a down payment for the purchase of the latest Russian anti-ballistic missile system. He then added this: "Something you should know. Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon. Never did...Three decades of sanctions are killing us. We had to find a way to get them lifted. So we started spinning centrifuges. That got some attention. So we start some more - even more attention. In the end, all we had to do was negotiate away a program we never wanted in the first place."
While Saul does not seem to believe the man, the point was made. The Iranians really do not want nukes. So, I guess there is little point in enacting further sanctions; and certainly no point in ever using military force. You got that, Trump? Don't create another Iraq. At least, that's the message.
I get the fact that this is TV. It's fictional. But here, the subject matter addressed some major real world issues of our time. So, I think it is fair to ask - how many people are sucked into this left-wing propaganda, as if it is the truth? At the end of each day my wife and I usually watch a one hour drama. There are many instances where I will pause a show and point out yet another, often subtle, gratuitous left-wing talking point. These shows often act as vehicles for allowing the expression of left-wing views. The same biases can be seen on a daily basis in the mainstream media; and can be heard regularly from left-wing professors at our colleges and universities. No one should underestimate the power of propaganda. No one should underestimate the left's ability to sway people's views by repeating the same thing over and over - especially given their ability to communicate those views in so many different forums.
Saul: "There's no bending with a fanatic." Sister: "Moshe (the husband) made me proud to be a Jew." Saul: "He turned you against your family. He brought you to live in a place that's not yours. Where you don't belong." Sister: "Please, Saul, let's not do this." Saul: "Haven't you driven enough people from their homes already? Bulldozed their villages. Seized their property under laws they had no part in making."
Sister: "This land was promised to Avraham (Abraham)." Saul: "Promised? A covenant with G-d made thousands of years ago. Doesn't that strike you as a form of insanity?" Sister: "You don't understand Saul. You never have. I love the life that G-d has given me." Saul: "How can you love making enemies? How can you love knowing that your very presence here makes peace less possible?" Sister: "I have a family, a community, a life filled with faith and purpose. Saul, what do you have?"
So there you have it. In a rather short scene, we get to hear that Israel has no right to any land in the West Bank, that Jews are the reason there is no peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and, of course, no belief in the Jews' biblical/historical ties to the land. All the left-wing positions regarding that part of the Middle East.
In yet another scene in the same episode, we see Saul interrogating a money man for the Iranian government. He claims to have used much of the millions to which he had access as a down payment for the purchase of the latest Russian anti-ballistic missile system. He then added this: "Something you should know. Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon. Never did...Three decades of sanctions are killing us. We had to find a way to get them lifted. So we started spinning centrifuges. That got some attention. So we start some more - even more attention. In the end, all we had to do was negotiate away a program we never wanted in the first place."
While Saul does not seem to believe the man, the point was made. The Iranians really do not want nukes. So, I guess there is little point in enacting further sanctions; and certainly no point in ever using military force. You got that, Trump? Don't create another Iraq. At least, that's the message.
I get the fact that this is TV. It's fictional. But here, the subject matter addressed some major real world issues of our time. So, I think it is fair to ask - how many people are sucked into this left-wing propaganda, as if it is the truth? At the end of each day my wife and I usually watch a one hour drama. There are many instances where I will pause a show and point out yet another, often subtle, gratuitous left-wing talking point. These shows often act as vehicles for allowing the expression of left-wing views. The same biases can be seen on a daily basis in the mainstream media; and can be heard regularly from left-wing professors at our colleges and universities. No one should underestimate the power of propaganda. No one should underestimate the left's ability to sway people's views by repeating the same thing over and over - especially given their ability to communicate those views in so many different forums.
Trump's America First Immigration Policy
President Trump has been the object of much criticism over his newly announced immigration policy. With his "America first" policy, Trump said this: "And let the test of everything we do be a simple one: Is it good for the American people?"
As for illegal immigration, Trump was strong, as usual. "All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens."
Trump continued: "In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace...We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
Okay, I owe you all an apology. As in the last post, the above quotes are not from Trump at all. Rather, the above words were said by then President Bill Clinton in his 1995 State of the Union address. So, what's the point? Just to play a trick on everyone? Hardly. The first point is to demonstrate the never ending hypocrisy of the left. When a Republican utters certain words and proposes certain policies - we see demonstrations and even rioting in the streets. When said or done by a Democrat - nary a peep.
But, there is a far larger and more important point. When today's Democrats talk about what is "mainstream" they are really talking about their leftist worldview. Mainstream American values, as enunciated by Bill Clinton, and especially when said by Donald Trump, are now completely anathema to a large segment of the Democratic Party. As previously noted in this blog, the Democrats have been moving further and further to the left, a move which Obama accelerated. However, because of their inability to see how far they have moved, they think it is the Republican Party that has moved further to the right. Think of it as being a passenger (democrat) in a car and looking at a pedestrian (republican) standing on the sidewalk. The car takes a left turn, but the passenger doesn't have any sensation of movement. Therefore, the passenger perceives that the pedestrian is walking away in the opposite direction - to the right.
Here's the proof. Try reading the above quotes to a democrat and see what their reaction is. If you are a democrat reading this, then truthfully, how did you react before you knew it was Clinton speaking those words?
As for illegal immigration, Trump was strong, as usual. "All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens."
Trump continued: "In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace...We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
Okay, I owe you all an apology. As in the last post, the above quotes are not from Trump at all. Rather, the above words were said by then President Bill Clinton in his 1995 State of the Union address. So, what's the point? Just to play a trick on everyone? Hardly. The first point is to demonstrate the never ending hypocrisy of the left. When a Republican utters certain words and proposes certain policies - we see demonstrations and even rioting in the streets. When said or done by a Democrat - nary a peep.
But, there is a far larger and more important point. When today's Democrats talk about what is "mainstream" they are really talking about their leftist worldview. Mainstream American values, as enunciated by Bill Clinton, and especially when said by Donald Trump, are now completely anathema to a large segment of the Democratic Party. As previously noted in this blog, the Democrats have been moving further and further to the left, a move which Obama accelerated. However, because of their inability to see how far they have moved, they think it is the Republican Party that has moved further to the right. Think of it as being a passenger (democrat) in a car and looking at a pedestrian (republican) standing on the sidewalk. The car takes a left turn, but the passenger doesn't have any sensation of movement. Therefore, the passenger perceives that the pedestrian is walking away in the opposite direction - to the right.
Here's the proof. Try reading the above quotes to a democrat and see what their reaction is. If you are a democrat reading this, then truthfully, how did you react before you knew it was Clinton speaking those words?
Monday, January 23, 2017
Trump's "Dark" Inaugural Speech
The mainstream media lost no time in saying that Trump's inaugural speech was "dark." For example, the first page of the next day's New York Times referred to a "uniquely dark vision of the U.S." Their lead editorial that day was entitled "President Trump's Dark Vision." So let's take a look at the darkest paragraph in Trump's speech.
"That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the way we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet."
To be honest, that does sound somewhat bleak, perhaps dark even. Except, it was not Donald Trump who uttered those words. The above paragraph actually came from the January 20, 2009 inaugural address given by Barack Obama. And the very same New York Times criticizing Trump, said this about Obama's speech: "President Obama gave them (the people in attendance) the clarity and respect for which all Americans have hungered. In about 20 minutes, he swept away eight years of President George Bush's false choices and failed policies..." Does anyone really not understand why Trump does not trust the media?
Trump was also accused of giving a divisive, rather than a unifying, speech. Here is what he said: "The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans." Divisive? How? "When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. The Bible tells us 'how good and pleasant it is when G-d's people live together in unity.'" Not exactly divisive.
Trump: "It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag." Why is that not unifying? Admittedly, he did not mention each and every interest group that the left panders to - the Muslims, the gays, the transgenders and the rest of the "identity politics" crowd. Now, before any of you accuse me of G-d knows what, let me be clear. I have lived my life with the simple philosophy of treating everyone I come across as another human being - entitled to respect as such, until proven otherwise. But Republicans and conservatives look at the world differently from the way the left does. For us, regardless of you who are, if you are here legally, you are a fellow American. We don't care if you are a black American or gay American or any other type of American.
Trump: "And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator." Dark? How? It would not surprise me if Trump feels far more motivated to help those kids in Detroit, and in other troubled cities across America, than Obama ever did. If he even tries, he will have done more than Obama did. If he succeeds, he should have no expectation that the media will praise him.
Go ahead and read Trump's inaugural speech. Perhaps those on the left will only see darkness and divisiveness; and those on the right will only see a unifying and uplifting speech. This writer has frequently noted that perception becomes reality. And while many on the right have criticized Trump (myself included) over various issues, do not look for the left to praise him on anything. And definitely do not look for the mainstream media to give a fair take on any of Trump's words and deeds.
"That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the way we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet."
To be honest, that does sound somewhat bleak, perhaps dark even. Except, it was not Donald Trump who uttered those words. The above paragraph actually came from the January 20, 2009 inaugural address given by Barack Obama. And the very same New York Times criticizing Trump, said this about Obama's speech: "President Obama gave them (the people in attendance) the clarity and respect for which all Americans have hungered. In about 20 minutes, he swept away eight years of President George Bush's false choices and failed policies..." Does anyone really not understand why Trump does not trust the media?
Trump was also accused of giving a divisive, rather than a unifying, speech. Here is what he said: "The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans." Divisive? How? "When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. The Bible tells us 'how good and pleasant it is when G-d's people live together in unity.'" Not exactly divisive.
Trump: "It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag." Why is that not unifying? Admittedly, he did not mention each and every interest group that the left panders to - the Muslims, the gays, the transgenders and the rest of the "identity politics" crowd. Now, before any of you accuse me of G-d knows what, let me be clear. I have lived my life with the simple philosophy of treating everyone I come across as another human being - entitled to respect as such, until proven otherwise. But Republicans and conservatives look at the world differently from the way the left does. For us, regardless of you who are, if you are here legally, you are a fellow American. We don't care if you are a black American or gay American or any other type of American.
Trump: "And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator." Dark? How? It would not surprise me if Trump feels far more motivated to help those kids in Detroit, and in other troubled cities across America, than Obama ever did. If he even tries, he will have done more than Obama did. If he succeeds, he should have no expectation that the media will praise him.
Go ahead and read Trump's inaugural speech. Perhaps those on the left will only see darkness and divisiveness; and those on the right will only see a unifying and uplifting speech. This writer has frequently noted that perception becomes reality. And while many on the right have criticized Trump (myself included) over various issues, do not look for the left to praise him on anything. And definitely do not look for the mainstream media to give a fair take on any of Trump's words and deeds.
Monday, January 16, 2017
I'm Sick Of It!
I'm sick of the left-wing intolerance, outright bullying and hypocrisy. I implore my conservative friends and readers to stand up to the left's harassment at every opportunity. And I would hope that those on the other side of the political fence will also speak out against the bullying and harassment.
A dear friend recently took down her Facebook page. She explained: "I'm just sick to death of bleeding heart liberals pointing accusatory fingers in my direction. I've kept my mouth shut for eight long, miserable years and the second I express an opinion, I'm excoriated. I'm just so tired of it. What with Trump being inaugurated this coming week, the abuse is about to get much worse."
At least 28 Democratic members of the House say they will not attend the Trump inauguration. A presidential inauguration is a demonstration of this country's peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. The entire world watches. But, the Democrats are fond of boycotts. After all, 58 Democrats refused to attend Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress in early 2015, when he explained his opposition to the Iranian nuke deal.
Democratic Representative John Lewis is referred to as a "civil rights icon." That makes it all the more disappointing that he said "I don't see this President-elect as a legitimate president." He explained that Russian involvement helped elect Trump and destroy Hillary. Of course, whatever Russian involvement there may have been (which should be investigated) does not mean that is why Trump won. And wasn't Lewis, along with many other Democrats, outraged that some attacked Obama's legitimacy, based on where he might have have been born?
California Congresswoman Barbara Lee explained why she would not attend: "I will not be celebrating. I will be organizing and preparing for resistance." Wait a second. In 2009, weren't the Democrats whining about Republicans allegedly saying they wanted Obama to fail, when they really wanted Obama not to be successful in passing his left-wing agenda? Sounds like Lee is saying she wants Trump to fail. When Republicans did it, many said it was because they were racist. Anybody accusing Lee of being racist? No, because conservatives understand policy differences do not equate to racism.
Singer Jennifer Holliday had to withdraw from participating in the Trump inauguration. According to The Blaze, Holliday explained: "It brought a lot of threats from people already saying I'll never work again. If that's what America has come to, where we all hate and bully people, there's no more freedom of speech." Holliday then apologized to her LGBT supporters for her "lapse of judgment." If I had the opportunity, I would explain to Ms. Holliday that today's leftists do not even recognize that they are no different than Joseph McCarthy. Assuming they know what McCarthyism was, they would still condemn it, yet miss the irony of engaging in the same tactics themselves.
The Daily Mail reported that opera singer Andrea Bocelli also withdrew from participating in the inauguration. His reason? He received death threats. Threats, intimidation, bullying - none of it will stop unless people on that side of the fence strongly speak out against it.
CIA Director John Brennan felt a need to publicly warn Trump about easing sanctions on Russia. "I think he does not have a full appreciation and understanding of what the implications are of going down that road." Apparently, Brennan must have felt that Obama had a much better understanding of Russia. Like when Obama was caught on the open mic telling Medvedev: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it's important for him (Putin) to give me space...This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir (Putin)."
It turned out that Putin was the one with more flexibility. Sensing Obama's weakness, Putin and Russia took over the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and helped Bashar Assad slaughter tens of thousands in Syria. Of course, the prior President, Bush, did not exactly have a good grip on Putin's nature either. Bush: "I looked the man in the eye...I found him very straight-forward and trustworthy...I was able to get a sense of his soul."
Lastly, FBI Director James Comey is going to be investigated by the Justice Department's Inspector General. The investigation will look into Comey's handling of the Clinton email scandal. The left not only wants a "fall guy" to explain why Hillary lost. They also want another reason to question Trump's legitimacy as President. The Russians got Trump elected. Comey got Trump elected. The deplorables got Trump elected. Here's the truth: Obama got Trump elected; in the same way that Bush got Obama elected.
A dear friend recently took down her Facebook page. She explained: "I'm just sick to death of bleeding heart liberals pointing accusatory fingers in my direction. I've kept my mouth shut for eight long, miserable years and the second I express an opinion, I'm excoriated. I'm just so tired of it. What with Trump being inaugurated this coming week, the abuse is about to get much worse."
At least 28 Democratic members of the House say they will not attend the Trump inauguration. A presidential inauguration is a demonstration of this country's peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. The entire world watches. But, the Democrats are fond of boycotts. After all, 58 Democrats refused to attend Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress in early 2015, when he explained his opposition to the Iranian nuke deal.
Democratic Representative John Lewis is referred to as a "civil rights icon." That makes it all the more disappointing that he said "I don't see this President-elect as a legitimate president." He explained that Russian involvement helped elect Trump and destroy Hillary. Of course, whatever Russian involvement there may have been (which should be investigated) does not mean that is why Trump won. And wasn't Lewis, along with many other Democrats, outraged that some attacked Obama's legitimacy, based on where he might have have been born?
California Congresswoman Barbara Lee explained why she would not attend: "I will not be celebrating. I will be organizing and preparing for resistance." Wait a second. In 2009, weren't the Democrats whining about Republicans allegedly saying they wanted Obama to fail, when they really wanted Obama not to be successful in passing his left-wing agenda? Sounds like Lee is saying she wants Trump to fail. When Republicans did it, many said it was because they were racist. Anybody accusing Lee of being racist? No, because conservatives understand policy differences do not equate to racism.
Singer Jennifer Holliday had to withdraw from participating in the Trump inauguration. According to The Blaze, Holliday explained: "It brought a lot of threats from people already saying I'll never work again. If that's what America has come to, where we all hate and bully people, there's no more freedom of speech." Holliday then apologized to her LGBT supporters for her "lapse of judgment." If I had the opportunity, I would explain to Ms. Holliday that today's leftists do not even recognize that they are no different than Joseph McCarthy. Assuming they know what McCarthyism was, they would still condemn it, yet miss the irony of engaging in the same tactics themselves.
The Daily Mail reported that opera singer Andrea Bocelli also withdrew from participating in the inauguration. His reason? He received death threats. Threats, intimidation, bullying - none of it will stop unless people on that side of the fence strongly speak out against it.
CIA Director John Brennan felt a need to publicly warn Trump about easing sanctions on Russia. "I think he does not have a full appreciation and understanding of what the implications are of going down that road." Apparently, Brennan must have felt that Obama had a much better understanding of Russia. Like when Obama was caught on the open mic telling Medvedev: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it's important for him (Putin) to give me space...This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir (Putin)."
It turned out that Putin was the one with more flexibility. Sensing Obama's weakness, Putin and Russia took over the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and helped Bashar Assad slaughter tens of thousands in Syria. Of course, the prior President, Bush, did not exactly have a good grip on Putin's nature either. Bush: "I looked the man in the eye...I found him very straight-forward and trustworthy...I was able to get a sense of his soul."
Lastly, FBI Director James Comey is going to be investigated by the Justice Department's Inspector General. The investigation will look into Comey's handling of the Clinton email scandal. The left not only wants a "fall guy" to explain why Hillary lost. They also want another reason to question Trump's legitimacy as President. The Russians got Trump elected. Comey got Trump elected. The deplorables got Trump elected. Here's the truth: Obama got Trump elected; in the same way that Bush got Obama elected.
Monday, January 9, 2017
Politics, Hollywood Style
It was a hardly a surprise that some of the Hollywood crowd could not resist taking a few digs at President-Elect Donald Trump at last night's Golden Globes Awards. After all, they have just been beside themselves over Hillary's loss to Trump. The main attack came from Meryl Streep, but Viola Davis had a few choice words as well. As Trump does have a knack for leaving himself open to criticism, let's see if any of these critiques are legitimate.
Viola Davis: "There is no way that we can have anyone in office that is not an extension of our own belief system, so then what does that say about us?" How incredibly arrogant and narrow-minded. As soon as Obama first said he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to our country, I knew that he was not an "extension" of my belief system. Either Ms. Davis thinks most people believe exactly as she does (maybe) or she believes people with contrary views are simply not worthy of holding office (probable).
The Golden Globes are sponsored by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Said Meryl Streep: "You and all of us in this room really belong to the most vilified segments in American Society right now. Think about it: Hollywood, foreigners and the press." Let's break it down. First, I disagree with the entire premise. I believe that Republicans are actually more vilified. (See the 7/29/16 post discussing the personal attacks on this writer.) On a regular basis I see verbal assaults on Republicans and conservatives in TV shows and movies. Almost daily, I can see the written assaults on Republicans and conservatives in the mainstream media.
Additionally, it is not all foreigners who are vilified. It is terrorists who come here with the intent to kill Americans who are vilified. And people who come here illegally are not vilified just because people on the right believe that immigrants should come here legally. As for the press and Hollywood, if they want more respect from the public, then stop insulting half the country and start reporting the news fairly. See above paragraph.
Streep: "We need the principled press to hold power to account, to call him (she refused to say Trump's name, childish) on the carpet for every outrage. That's why our Founders enshrined the press and its freedoms in the Constitution." She goes on to ask those present to support "the Committee to Protect Journalists, because we're gonna need them going forward, and they'll need us to safeguard the truth." To borrow a phrase from SNL's "The Church Lady": "Now isn't that special." Exactly when did the press hold Obama to account during the last eight years? Where were all the articles about the "Imperial Presidency," when Obama said he would act if Congress did not - as if he had the power of a dictator. Obama said he had a pen and a phone; he did not seem to care much for the Constitution.
Where was Ms. Streep and the rest of Hollywood when Obama improperly and inaccurately attacked conservative media (Fox News and conservative talk radio). Where was Ms. Streep and the rest of Hollywood when Obama and Holder went after Fox News reporter James Rosen, and his family! So, this Committee to Protect Journalists, along with Hollywood, is going to "safeguard the truth?" What truth would that be? The same "truth" we regularly hear from the left wing's media/Hollywood propaganda machine? (This blog has regularly written about media bias.)
Streep was most distraught about Trump's alleged mocking of a reporter's disability. Trump denies it. Listening to Larry Elder on talk radio today, he said that the jerky movements Trump made have been made by Trump both before and after the run-in with the reporter. Apparently, Trump has a tendency to make those jerky movements when he is mocking someone whom he believes is not giving a straight answer. Mocking someone's disability, if true, is highly inappropriate. Mocking someone for evasiveness is another matter. And clearly, neither a presidential candidate nor a president-elect (especially a president-elect) should engage in mockery.
Trump, being Trump, was not able to control himself; he simply could not refrain from replying to Streep - when restraint was called for. Trump then proceeded to Tweet that Streep was "one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood." Except, she's not. She is widely considered to be the premier actress of her generation. Trump Tweeted that he was attacked by someone who "doesn't know me." Well, he better get used to it, as thousands of reporters and others in Hollywood (who will also not know him) will continue to attack him during the next four years. It comes with the territory, and he would be wise to follow the example of George W. Bush in that regard.
Viola Davis: "There is no way that we can have anyone in office that is not an extension of our own belief system, so then what does that say about us?" How incredibly arrogant and narrow-minded. As soon as Obama first said he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to our country, I knew that he was not an "extension" of my belief system. Either Ms. Davis thinks most people believe exactly as she does (maybe) or she believes people with contrary views are simply not worthy of holding office (probable).
The Golden Globes are sponsored by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Said Meryl Streep: "You and all of us in this room really belong to the most vilified segments in American Society right now. Think about it: Hollywood, foreigners and the press." Let's break it down. First, I disagree with the entire premise. I believe that Republicans are actually more vilified. (See the 7/29/16 post discussing the personal attacks on this writer.) On a regular basis I see verbal assaults on Republicans and conservatives in TV shows and movies. Almost daily, I can see the written assaults on Republicans and conservatives in the mainstream media.
Additionally, it is not all foreigners who are vilified. It is terrorists who come here with the intent to kill Americans who are vilified. And people who come here illegally are not vilified just because people on the right believe that immigrants should come here legally. As for the press and Hollywood, if they want more respect from the public, then stop insulting half the country and start reporting the news fairly. See above paragraph.
Streep: "We need the principled press to hold power to account, to call him (she refused to say Trump's name, childish) on the carpet for every outrage. That's why our Founders enshrined the press and its freedoms in the Constitution." She goes on to ask those present to support "the Committee to Protect Journalists, because we're gonna need them going forward, and they'll need us to safeguard the truth." To borrow a phrase from SNL's "The Church Lady": "Now isn't that special." Exactly when did the press hold Obama to account during the last eight years? Where were all the articles about the "Imperial Presidency," when Obama said he would act if Congress did not - as if he had the power of a dictator. Obama said he had a pen and a phone; he did not seem to care much for the Constitution.
Where was Ms. Streep and the rest of Hollywood when Obama improperly and inaccurately attacked conservative media (Fox News and conservative talk radio). Where was Ms. Streep and the rest of Hollywood when Obama and Holder went after Fox News reporter James Rosen, and his family! So, this Committee to Protect Journalists, along with Hollywood, is going to "safeguard the truth?" What truth would that be? The same "truth" we regularly hear from the left wing's media/Hollywood propaganda machine? (This blog has regularly written about media bias.)
Streep was most distraught about Trump's alleged mocking of a reporter's disability. Trump denies it. Listening to Larry Elder on talk radio today, he said that the jerky movements Trump made have been made by Trump both before and after the run-in with the reporter. Apparently, Trump has a tendency to make those jerky movements when he is mocking someone whom he believes is not giving a straight answer. Mocking someone's disability, if true, is highly inappropriate. Mocking someone for evasiveness is another matter. And clearly, neither a presidential candidate nor a president-elect (especially a president-elect) should engage in mockery.
Trump, being Trump, was not able to control himself; he simply could not refrain from replying to Streep - when restraint was called for. Trump then proceeded to Tweet that Streep was "one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood." Except, she's not. She is widely considered to be the premier actress of her generation. Trump Tweeted that he was attacked by someone who "doesn't know me." Well, he better get used to it, as thousands of reporters and others in Hollywood (who will also not know him) will continue to attack him during the next four years. It comes with the territory, and he would be wise to follow the example of George W. Bush in that regard.
Sunday, January 8, 2017
What Ifs?
Three days ago the United States House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution declaring their support for the State of Israel. The resolution followed the Obama Administration's refusal to veto the anti-Israel resolution that was passed by the United Nations Security Council in December.
The House resolution declared that: "...the United States Government should oppose and veto future United Nations Security Council resolutions that seek to impose solutions to final status issues, or are one-sided and anti-Israel; and the House of Representatives opposes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 and will work to strengthen the United States-Israel relationship, and calls for United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to be repealed or fundamentally altered so that (A) it is no longer one-sided and anti-Israel, and (B) it allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties."
The resolution passed 342 to 80. All but 4 Republicans voted for, and one said he voted against because it was not strong enough against the UN. 109 Democrats voted for the resolution, but 76 voted against. Among those opposing the resolution was House Minority Leader, and former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. So, WHAT IF the Democrats won back the House? Pelosi would then be Speaker again, and would never have allowed such a pro-Israel measure come to the floor of the House for a vote. After all, following Kerry's speech attempting to justify Obama's sellout of Israel, Pelosi said Kerry's speech was "a reaffirmation of America's commitment to a secure, Jewish and democratic Israel, and a state for the Palestinians."
Guess who else voted against the House resolution? Keith Ellison and Andre Carson - the two Muslim members of Congress. Ellison is in the running to become head of the Democratic National Committee. In fact, most news reports say that Ellison is the front-runner for getting the job. WHAT IF this far left, anti-Israel Congressman becomes head of the DNC? Imagine the type of candidates he will support for Congress with the vast sums of money that would be at his disposal.
Trump has been saying that his Administration will move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. WHAT IF he does? What if after all these years the embassy is finally moved to Israel's capital city, Jerusalem, where it belongs? Israel's neighbor, Jordan, which has a peace treaty with Israel, says that moving the embassy would be a "red line" and would "inflame the Arab streets." (As reported in the 1/6/17 Times of Israel.) Secretary of State John Kerry said the move would cause "an explosion in the region, not just in the West Bank, and perhaps even in Israel itself, but throughout the region." (From the same article.)
The first question I have about the possible move of the embassy is this: if the embassy is moved to "Western" Jerusalem, where the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) sits, why should that bother anyone? I thought that the Arab Palestinians were only claiming "East" Jerusalem. So why would there be a problem? Or maybe, as this blog has noted many times, the Palestinians and other Arabs are revealing to those who will see and hear what they really want - all of Jerusalem and all of Israel. The second question I have about this is: when does the Western world stop appeasing terrorists and start making demands of Arab leaders. When do we demand that Arab countries start speaking the truth to their people, instead of constantly teaching hatred of Jews and Israel? When do we start telling Arab leaders that if the "street" reacts it's their problem, because for decades they have refused to tell their people to accept Israel as the Jewish state.
The two-state solution that continues to be pushed by many is supposed to bring an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as well as the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. The border between the two states is supposed to be the 1967 borders, which, again, is nothing other than the 1949 armistice lines. Those lines simply reflected the territory held by each side when the fighting stopped after Israel's war for independence, fought from 1948 to 1949. When that war ended, Israel occupied more land than had been given to them in 1947 by the original UN partition of the British Mandate area.
So, let me ask. WHAT IF the anti-Israel Europeans and Obama and Kerry and Pelosi got their way? Imagine that we now have two states, on the basis of the 1967 borders, because the world says Israel must return all the land won in the 1967 war? Who thinks that the establishment of a Palestinian state will end the conflict? Who still believes in the tooth fairy? Here is what I think will happen. After getting their state, the Palestinians will next make the argument that inasmuch as Israel had to give up land they won in war in 1967, then logically Israel should have to give up the land they won in their war of independence in 1948 and 1949, land that Israel "occupied" beyond the original UN partition lines.
Those of you who still believe in the tooth fairy would probably tell me that such a further reduction in Israel's size would never be demanded of it by the rest of the world. Really? The December UN resolution already declared the holiest sites in Israel, in so-called East Jerusalem, to be Palestinian territory. In the middle of last year UNESCO passed a resolution denying Jewish connection to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. 3000 years of Jewish history - gone! Just like that. So, go ahead, say nothing bad would happen if Israel just gave up the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). I think my fellow Jews in America have perhaps had it too good here for too long, resulting in a certain complacency that causes them to think nothing bad can happen to the Jews or to Israel. Nothing bad - except for all of history.
The House resolution declared that: "...the United States Government should oppose and veto future United Nations Security Council resolutions that seek to impose solutions to final status issues, or are one-sided and anti-Israel; and the House of Representatives opposes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 and will work to strengthen the United States-Israel relationship, and calls for United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to be repealed or fundamentally altered so that (A) it is no longer one-sided and anti-Israel, and (B) it allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties."
The resolution passed 342 to 80. All but 4 Republicans voted for, and one said he voted against because it was not strong enough against the UN. 109 Democrats voted for the resolution, but 76 voted against. Among those opposing the resolution was House Minority Leader, and former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. So, WHAT IF the Democrats won back the House? Pelosi would then be Speaker again, and would never have allowed such a pro-Israel measure come to the floor of the House for a vote. After all, following Kerry's speech attempting to justify Obama's sellout of Israel, Pelosi said Kerry's speech was "a reaffirmation of America's commitment to a secure, Jewish and democratic Israel, and a state for the Palestinians."
Guess who else voted against the House resolution? Keith Ellison and Andre Carson - the two Muslim members of Congress. Ellison is in the running to become head of the Democratic National Committee. In fact, most news reports say that Ellison is the front-runner for getting the job. WHAT IF this far left, anti-Israel Congressman becomes head of the DNC? Imagine the type of candidates he will support for Congress with the vast sums of money that would be at his disposal.
Trump has been saying that his Administration will move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. WHAT IF he does? What if after all these years the embassy is finally moved to Israel's capital city, Jerusalem, where it belongs? Israel's neighbor, Jordan, which has a peace treaty with Israel, says that moving the embassy would be a "red line" and would "inflame the Arab streets." (As reported in the 1/6/17 Times of Israel.) Secretary of State John Kerry said the move would cause "an explosion in the region, not just in the West Bank, and perhaps even in Israel itself, but throughout the region." (From the same article.)
The first question I have about the possible move of the embassy is this: if the embassy is moved to "Western" Jerusalem, where the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) sits, why should that bother anyone? I thought that the Arab Palestinians were only claiming "East" Jerusalem. So why would there be a problem? Or maybe, as this blog has noted many times, the Palestinians and other Arabs are revealing to those who will see and hear what they really want - all of Jerusalem and all of Israel. The second question I have about this is: when does the Western world stop appeasing terrorists and start making demands of Arab leaders. When do we demand that Arab countries start speaking the truth to their people, instead of constantly teaching hatred of Jews and Israel? When do we start telling Arab leaders that if the "street" reacts it's their problem, because for decades they have refused to tell their people to accept Israel as the Jewish state.
The two-state solution that continues to be pushed by many is supposed to bring an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as well as the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. The border between the two states is supposed to be the 1967 borders, which, again, is nothing other than the 1949 armistice lines. Those lines simply reflected the territory held by each side when the fighting stopped after Israel's war for independence, fought from 1948 to 1949. When that war ended, Israel occupied more land than had been given to them in 1947 by the original UN partition of the British Mandate area.
So, let me ask. WHAT IF the anti-Israel Europeans and Obama and Kerry and Pelosi got their way? Imagine that we now have two states, on the basis of the 1967 borders, because the world says Israel must return all the land won in the 1967 war? Who thinks that the establishment of a Palestinian state will end the conflict? Who still believes in the tooth fairy? Here is what I think will happen. After getting their state, the Palestinians will next make the argument that inasmuch as Israel had to give up land they won in war in 1967, then logically Israel should have to give up the land they won in their war of independence in 1948 and 1949, land that Israel "occupied" beyond the original UN partition lines.
Those of you who still believe in the tooth fairy would probably tell me that such a further reduction in Israel's size would never be demanded of it by the rest of the world. Really? The December UN resolution already declared the holiest sites in Israel, in so-called East Jerusalem, to be Palestinian territory. In the middle of last year UNESCO passed a resolution denying Jewish connection to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. 3000 years of Jewish history - gone! Just like that. So, go ahead, say nothing bad would happen if Israel just gave up the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). I think my fellow Jews in America have perhaps had it too good here for too long, resulting in a certain complacency that causes them to think nothing bad can happen to the Jews or to Israel. Nothing bad - except for all of history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)