Ann Coulter was invited by the Berkeley College Republicans to speak on their campus. As tends to happen with conservative speakers who are invited to speak at college campuses, the complaints from those needing safe spaces rolled in. Berkeley officials initially said the speech would have to be cancelled, citing safety and security concerns. After then reconsidering, it was apparently determined by UC Berkeley administrators that the speech should be given in the afternoon. Of course, most students would be in classes during the afternoon.
It was also claimed that the location of the speech would not be announced until close to the time of the event. Of course, that would mean few students would know where to go to hear the speech.
The administration claim about safety is disturbing on at least two fronts. First, notice how when liberal commentators are scheduled to speak at college campuses there never seems to be any worry about safety and security. The reason is simple - conservatives respect the First Amendment and the right to free speech, even when disagreeing with the speaker. Leftists, however, do not have the same respect for the First Amendment, and clearly do not believe in free speech. How else to explain the constant protests every time a conservative is scheduled to speak on campus?
Here are some examples. One protester was holding a sign "Out of Berkeley Nazi Scum." Who really acts as fascists - the intolerant leftists or the tolerant conservatives? One student expressed this sentiment: "I think sometimes the free speech amendment is used as a way to frame violent conversation as a matter of free speech." Violent conversation? I believe that would be any speech which this student finds offensive. What this student, and many like him, do not understand is that non-controversial speech does not need protection, as it tends to offend no one.
Another student felt that speakers coming to Berkeley needed to be held accountable to the school's "principles of community," and ought to "promote constructive dialogue rather than destructive dialogue." Constructive to who? Once again, we have a generation of students who have not been taught the importance of the First Amendment. Why? Because as has been discussed in this blog before, the Left does not share in the fundamental American values - such as free speech. For the Left, their agenda always takes precedence over other values. Which explains why they believe the content of the speech is all that matters - either they agree with it and then no problem, or they disagree and the speech should be barred.
As mentioned above, there is another problem with preventing speech based on a claim of safety and security concerns. It is the equivalent of allowing a heckler's veto. The answer is to increase security. The answer is not to stand down and allow protesters to interfere with lawful speech. The answer is to arrest and charge those who obstruct ingress and egress to where speeches are being given.
The bigger picture is that it is up to parents, and teachers and professors, to instill those fundamental American values, to instill a belief in the right to speak. Adults need to explain that one need not agree with speech to understand that it is entitled to protection none the less. But given that teachers and professors engage in their own misbehavior, all we have is hoping for the best. One high school teacher in West Virginia wore a jacket to school with these words on the back: "Tuck Frump." The letters f-u-c-k were all in white. Clearly, not a teacher who believes in the fundamental American values.
Sunday, April 23, 2017
What a Difference!
Recall that under President Obama, he had his UN Ambassador, Samantha Power, abstain from the completely one-sided anti-Israel Security Council resolution in December, 2016. That resolution, essentially establishing a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders, said that the purpose was to reaffirm "that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity, and constitutes...a major obstacle to the achievement of the two state solution."
The same resolution also called for the boycott of Israeli goods originating in the West Bank. As for the UN, the inaptly named Human Rights Council passed 67 anti-Israel resolutions in a ten year period ending early 2016, but none against China, Russia or Saudi Arabia, to name a few.
Now, we have a new President in Trump, and a new UN Ambassador - Nikki Haley. Upon arriving at the UN Security Council, Haley got to see first hand that the Council's attention was not focused on Hezbollah or Iran and its exporting of terror to other countries in the Middle East and much of Latin America. Their focus was not on Syria and Assad. Haley: "instead, the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East."
Haley announced to the other members of the Council: "I'm here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this anymore...I'm here to underscore the ironclad support of the United States for Israel...I'm here to emphasize the United States is determined to stand up to the UN's anti-Israel bias." And finally, this: "The days of Israel-bashing are over."
What a difference a new President makes! What a difference a new UN Ambassador makes! But, for the anti-Israel Left, the change is not an improvement. For the anti-Israel Left, including leftist Jews, this new support for Israel is not well received. Just remember when you see the leftists out there demonstrating against Trump, this new pro-Israel attitude is one of the things that they are demonstrating against. And ask yourselves if you think that a President Hillary Clinton would have appointed a Nikki Haley to be UN Ambassador.
Recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke at the Organized Crime Council and Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force in D.C. Sessions: "Under President Trump, the Justice Department has zero tolerance for gang violence." Sessions went on to say that gangs "represent one of the gravest threats to American safety."
Sessions: "If you are a gang member, we will find you - we will devastate your networks. We will starve your revenue sources, deplete your ranks, and seize your profits. We will not concede a single block or street corner to your vicious attacks." What an impressive turnaround in approach from the prior AG.
An article in the 12/7/14 NY Post said this: "In the past five years, (Eric) Holder has more than doubled the number of police department probes compared with the previous five years, opening more than 20 investigations and pressuring 15 consent orders to stop "biased policing," and other alleged violations." You see, whereas Sessions has declared war on criminal gangs, Holder declared war on the police departments across the country.
Not surprisingly, under the various "consent" decrees, police enforcement decreased and crime increased. One example: Seattle. Following a "consent" decree to require training of police in "bias free" policing, crime went up. From 2012 to 2014 murders were up 21%, car theft 44%, and aggravated assault 14%.
So, remember, when you see people in the street demonstrating against Trump, they are protesting the new war on criminals. I remember these same people also protested against the police. So, no joy on the left with an Attorney General who actually wants to fight crime. But what a difference a new President makes! What a difference a new Attorney General makes!
Which side are you on? The police or the criminals? Israel or the Palestinians who want to destroy Israel? For me, it's two more reasons to support Trump.
The same resolution also called for the boycott of Israeli goods originating in the West Bank. As for the UN, the inaptly named Human Rights Council passed 67 anti-Israel resolutions in a ten year period ending early 2016, but none against China, Russia or Saudi Arabia, to name a few.
Now, we have a new President in Trump, and a new UN Ambassador - Nikki Haley. Upon arriving at the UN Security Council, Haley got to see first hand that the Council's attention was not focused on Hezbollah or Iran and its exporting of terror to other countries in the Middle East and much of Latin America. Their focus was not on Syria and Assad. Haley: "instead, the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East."
Haley announced to the other members of the Council: "I'm here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this anymore...I'm here to underscore the ironclad support of the United States for Israel...I'm here to emphasize the United States is determined to stand up to the UN's anti-Israel bias." And finally, this: "The days of Israel-bashing are over."
What a difference a new President makes! What a difference a new UN Ambassador makes! But, for the anti-Israel Left, the change is not an improvement. For the anti-Israel Left, including leftist Jews, this new support for Israel is not well received. Just remember when you see the leftists out there demonstrating against Trump, this new pro-Israel attitude is one of the things that they are demonstrating against. And ask yourselves if you think that a President Hillary Clinton would have appointed a Nikki Haley to be UN Ambassador.
Recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke at the Organized Crime Council and Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force in D.C. Sessions: "Under President Trump, the Justice Department has zero tolerance for gang violence." Sessions went on to say that gangs "represent one of the gravest threats to American safety."
Sessions: "If you are a gang member, we will find you - we will devastate your networks. We will starve your revenue sources, deplete your ranks, and seize your profits. We will not concede a single block or street corner to your vicious attacks." What an impressive turnaround in approach from the prior AG.
An article in the 12/7/14 NY Post said this: "In the past five years, (Eric) Holder has more than doubled the number of police department probes compared with the previous five years, opening more than 20 investigations and pressuring 15 consent orders to stop "biased policing," and other alleged violations." You see, whereas Sessions has declared war on criminal gangs, Holder declared war on the police departments across the country.
Not surprisingly, under the various "consent" decrees, police enforcement decreased and crime increased. One example: Seattle. Following a "consent" decree to require training of police in "bias free" policing, crime went up. From 2012 to 2014 murders were up 21%, car theft 44%, and aggravated assault 14%.
So, remember, when you see people in the street demonstrating against Trump, they are protesting the new war on criminals. I remember these same people also protested against the police. So, no joy on the left with an Attorney General who actually wants to fight crime. But what a difference a new President makes! What a difference a new Attorney General makes!
Which side are you on? The police or the criminals? Israel or the Palestinians who want to destroy Israel? For me, it's two more reasons to support Trump.
Saturday, April 15, 2017
Is Your Child or Grandchild a Budding Fascist?
It is fairly well known that, today, colleges and universities are among the least free places in our country. Left-wing professors teach left-wing ideology, and even express their hatred for any group with whom they disagree - conservatives, Republicans, supporters of Israel, supporters of the police, and so on. The result is a "no tolerance" policy at these schools, meaning no tolerance for contrary viewpoints.
One professor at Fresno State University, Lars Maischak, had this to say on Twitter: "To save American democracy, Trump must hang...the sooner and the higher, the better." Here is some more by this professor: "You fascist Trump-voting white trash scum can wallow in your filthy hell-holes of flyover states. Enjoy." And this: "Justice = the execution of two Republicans for each deported immigrant." He says his quotes should not be taken literally. Really? Trump must hang? Republicans should be executed? Who's the fascist here? This is sick; and worse yet - he is paid by the taxpayers of California.
Heather MacDonald is a Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a contributing editor to the City Journal. She was scheduled to speak at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California. The college is a small (1347 undergraduates) liberal arts school. Approximately 250 protesters blocked the entrance to where MacDonald was scheduled to speak on the campus. Ms. MacDonald wrote a book entitled "The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe." Not only did these protesters not want to hear Ms. MacDonald speak (which is their right), they did not believe anyone else should be able to hear her (not their right). She said people were chanting "black lives matter," and she was called a "white supremacist." She also heard this chant: "(Expletive) the police, KKK."
The President of the college defended the lack of police action this way: "Based on the judgment of the Claremont Police Department, we jointly concluded that any forced interventions or arrests would have created unsafe conditions for students, faculty, staff, and guests." This is liberal mentality at its worst, yet we have seen it time and again. When those in authority refuse to act against misbehavior, it sends a signal (in this case, to students everywhere) that others can also get away with inappropriate and even violent behavior. The same lack of police action was seen when Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley. There, protesters smashed store windows and an ATM, and set a small fire. This inaction by college administrators and campus police, although on a smaller scale, is no different than Obama's inaction against tyrants during his eight years as President. Obama's failure to take action against Syria for using chemical weapons, after drawing a red line, only encouraged Assad to believe that he could get away with using chemical weapons again. And he did. College students get the same message - nothing will happen to them, even with violent protests.
Middlebury College is a small school (2526 undergraduates) in Vermont. Charles Murray, a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was scheduled to speak at Middlebury. He was being hosted by Professor Allison Stanger. In yet another example left-wing intolerance/fascism, Mr. Murray was prevented from speaking as planned - by a mob of screaming students. He and Professor Stanger were to have had what was to be a public discussion; instead the discussion had to be moved to a different location and then broadcast online. Afterwards, Murray and Stanger left to go to dinner together, along with the college's VP for Communications. According to Murray: "protesters surrounded the car, banging on the sides and the windows and rocking the car, climbing onto the hood."
Professor Stanger got it partly right. Clearly, she believes in the right of free speech - for the speaker and for those who wish to hear. However, like many on the left she does not understand the concept of having consequences for one's actions. Stanger: "We have got to do better by those who feel and are marginalized...especially when our current President is blind to the evils he has unleashed." However the students "feel" does not excuse their misconduct. I am reminded of a scene from an old Woody Allen movie. In a flashback to his childhood, his mother is seen complaining to his father that their black maid is stealing from them. The father replies, more or less to this effect: "She's entitled to steal from us, she's black."
It is what the left does - they make victims of the perpetrators. This same mentality explains how after 9/11 the media - the left-wing media - made Muslims, the perpetrators of 9/11, out to be the victims. And they have done so ever since. Obama looked at the bad actors in the world as being victims of US power, so he did nothing. So they obliged by carrying out more bad acts. College and University administrators have decided to do nothing in the face of illegal conduct by their students. Predictably, we can expect such bad behavior to continue and even increase.
One professor at Fresno State University, Lars Maischak, had this to say on Twitter: "To save American democracy, Trump must hang...the sooner and the higher, the better." Here is some more by this professor: "You fascist Trump-voting white trash scum can wallow in your filthy hell-holes of flyover states. Enjoy." And this: "Justice = the execution of two Republicans for each deported immigrant." He says his quotes should not be taken literally. Really? Trump must hang? Republicans should be executed? Who's the fascist here? This is sick; and worse yet - he is paid by the taxpayers of California.
Heather MacDonald is a Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a contributing editor to the City Journal. She was scheduled to speak at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California. The college is a small (1347 undergraduates) liberal arts school. Approximately 250 protesters blocked the entrance to where MacDonald was scheduled to speak on the campus. Ms. MacDonald wrote a book entitled "The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe." Not only did these protesters not want to hear Ms. MacDonald speak (which is their right), they did not believe anyone else should be able to hear her (not their right). She said people were chanting "black lives matter," and she was called a "white supremacist." She also heard this chant: "(Expletive) the police, KKK."
The President of the college defended the lack of police action this way: "Based on the judgment of the Claremont Police Department, we jointly concluded that any forced interventions or arrests would have created unsafe conditions for students, faculty, staff, and guests." This is liberal mentality at its worst, yet we have seen it time and again. When those in authority refuse to act against misbehavior, it sends a signal (in this case, to students everywhere) that others can also get away with inappropriate and even violent behavior. The same lack of police action was seen when Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley. There, protesters smashed store windows and an ATM, and set a small fire. This inaction by college administrators and campus police, although on a smaller scale, is no different than Obama's inaction against tyrants during his eight years as President. Obama's failure to take action against Syria for using chemical weapons, after drawing a red line, only encouraged Assad to believe that he could get away with using chemical weapons again. And he did. College students get the same message - nothing will happen to them, even with violent protests.
Middlebury College is a small school (2526 undergraduates) in Vermont. Charles Murray, a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was scheduled to speak at Middlebury. He was being hosted by Professor Allison Stanger. In yet another example left-wing intolerance/fascism, Mr. Murray was prevented from speaking as planned - by a mob of screaming students. He and Professor Stanger were to have had what was to be a public discussion; instead the discussion had to be moved to a different location and then broadcast online. Afterwards, Murray and Stanger left to go to dinner together, along with the college's VP for Communications. According to Murray: "protesters surrounded the car, banging on the sides and the windows and rocking the car, climbing onto the hood."
Professor Stanger got it partly right. Clearly, she believes in the right of free speech - for the speaker and for those who wish to hear. However, like many on the left she does not understand the concept of having consequences for one's actions. Stanger: "We have got to do better by those who feel and are marginalized...especially when our current President is blind to the evils he has unleashed." However the students "feel" does not excuse their misconduct. I am reminded of a scene from an old Woody Allen movie. In a flashback to his childhood, his mother is seen complaining to his father that their black maid is stealing from them. The father replies, more or less to this effect: "She's entitled to steal from us, she's black."
It is what the left does - they make victims of the perpetrators. This same mentality explains how after 9/11 the media - the left-wing media - made Muslims, the perpetrators of 9/11, out to be the victims. And they have done so ever since. Obama looked at the bad actors in the world as being victims of US power, so he did nothing. So they obliged by carrying out more bad acts. College and University administrators have decided to do nothing in the face of illegal conduct by their students. Predictably, we can expect such bad behavior to continue and even increase.
Sunday, April 9, 2017
The LA Times vs. Trump
This past week, the Los Angeles Times ran daily and lengthy editorials outlining their numerous problems with President Trump. The April 4 editorial was entitled "Why the president lies." The Times claims that Trump has an "apparent disregard for fact so profound as to suggest that he may not see much practical distinction between lies, if he believes they serve him, and the truth." Regular readers of this blog may recall the countless times I have discussed how for the left (people like Obama, Reid and Pelosi) the truth is not a value. Rather, their approach to politics is that the ends justify the means. If lying works, they lie. Of course, when Obama, Reid and Pelosi were in charge, the Times was completely unaware of the concept that for some the ends justify the means. Now that Trump, a Republican, is in charge, they've awakened to the idea that politicians may lie.
My favorite example of the Dems using the approach of the ends justify the means is a quote from Harry Reid. When Romney was running against Obama, then Senate Majority leader Reid spoke on the Senate floor and accused Romney of not paying any federal income tax. It was a total lie, of course. A number of years later, a reporter asked Reid if he wanted to apologize for that comment about Romney. In reply, Reid said this: "Well, he (Romney) didn't win, did he?" A perfect example of Reid demonstrating no moral qualms about the lie, because maybe that lie helped reelect Obama. The ends justify the means.
Another lie, given little attention by the mainstream media, was the claim that a movie/video trailer was responsible for the assault on our consulate in Benghazi. Obama and Clinton told that lie. It was only a couple of months before the 2012 election, and the spin from Obama was that bin Laden was dead, and terrorism was defeated. So, it was felt that the true story would conflict with that spin. And let's not forget that paragon of honesty, Susan Rice, who went on five Sunday talk shows to repeat the lie about the movie trailer. (Which, although unrelated, certainly makes me want to believe everything she now says about the unmasking and leaking of names of Trump campaign officials.)
The April 5 editorial was entitled "His Authoritarian Vision." The Times is shocked by the fact that Trump has called for "agency budgets to be chopped by up to 30%." Imagine, a President who does not want to see the federal bureaucracy, along with the federal debt, continue to grow exponentially. And, shockingly, Trump has "appointed a string of Cabinet secretaries who were hostile to much of their agencies' missions and the laws they're responsible for enforcing." Would that be like Obama failing to enforce the immigration laws he was responsible for enforcing? Or, ignoring those parts of the Affordable Care Act that he decided should not be enforced before his campaign for reelection, lest it negatively affect the vote for him.
The April 6 editorial was entitled "The War on Journalism." The Times takes great offense at Trump referring to "fake news," and referring to journalists as the "enemies of the people." Calling journalists the "enemies of the people" is not something he should have said. Yes, reporters are almost always going to be biased against Republicans. And when Trump calls out specific instances of bias, I have no problem with it. But the words of Trump apparently upset the Times far more than the actions of Obama. The Times apparently realized how it would look if they completely ignored the ways Obama mistreated the press, and therefore noted: "President Obama's press operation tried to exclude Fox News reporters from interviews, blocked many officials from talking to journalists and, most troubling, prosecuted more national security whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous presidents combined."
Let's not forget the words of Obama and his top advisers early on, as they all appeared on mainstream and cable news channels, asserting that Fox News was not a real news organization. Or how Obama had Fox News reporter James Rosen surveilled - watching his comings and goings, and collecting his emails and phone records. Or how the Obama Administration seized telephone records of AP reporters and editors. No, for the Times it's all about some of the words Trump has said; words Trump says because he actually fights back, instead of taking the abuse - like this series by the Times.
My favorite example of the Dems using the approach of the ends justify the means is a quote from Harry Reid. When Romney was running against Obama, then Senate Majority leader Reid spoke on the Senate floor and accused Romney of not paying any federal income tax. It was a total lie, of course. A number of years later, a reporter asked Reid if he wanted to apologize for that comment about Romney. In reply, Reid said this: "Well, he (Romney) didn't win, did he?" A perfect example of Reid demonstrating no moral qualms about the lie, because maybe that lie helped reelect Obama. The ends justify the means.
Another lie, given little attention by the mainstream media, was the claim that a movie/video trailer was responsible for the assault on our consulate in Benghazi. Obama and Clinton told that lie. It was only a couple of months before the 2012 election, and the spin from Obama was that bin Laden was dead, and terrorism was defeated. So, it was felt that the true story would conflict with that spin. And let's not forget that paragon of honesty, Susan Rice, who went on five Sunday talk shows to repeat the lie about the movie trailer. (Which, although unrelated, certainly makes me want to believe everything she now says about the unmasking and leaking of names of Trump campaign officials.)
The April 5 editorial was entitled "His Authoritarian Vision." The Times is shocked by the fact that Trump has called for "agency budgets to be chopped by up to 30%." Imagine, a President who does not want to see the federal bureaucracy, along with the federal debt, continue to grow exponentially. And, shockingly, Trump has "appointed a string of Cabinet secretaries who were hostile to much of their agencies' missions and the laws they're responsible for enforcing." Would that be like Obama failing to enforce the immigration laws he was responsible for enforcing? Or, ignoring those parts of the Affordable Care Act that he decided should not be enforced before his campaign for reelection, lest it negatively affect the vote for him.
The April 6 editorial was entitled "The War on Journalism." The Times takes great offense at Trump referring to "fake news," and referring to journalists as the "enemies of the people." Calling journalists the "enemies of the people" is not something he should have said. Yes, reporters are almost always going to be biased against Republicans. And when Trump calls out specific instances of bias, I have no problem with it. But the words of Trump apparently upset the Times far more than the actions of Obama. The Times apparently realized how it would look if they completely ignored the ways Obama mistreated the press, and therefore noted: "President Obama's press operation tried to exclude Fox News reporters from interviews, blocked many officials from talking to journalists and, most troubling, prosecuted more national security whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous presidents combined."
Let's not forget the words of Obama and his top advisers early on, as they all appeared on mainstream and cable news channels, asserting that Fox News was not a real news organization. Or how Obama had Fox News reporter James Rosen surveilled - watching his comings and goings, and collecting his emails and phone records. Or how the Obama Administration seized telephone records of AP reporters and editors. No, for the Times it's all about some of the words Trump has said; words Trump says because he actually fights back, instead of taking the abuse - like this series by the Times.
The Californians
"The Californians" was a recurring segment on Saturday Night Live, depicting the shallowness of people in California. Of course, it was an exaggeration, and the real emphasis should have been on the left-wing kooky ideas generated by the state. With the state being overwhelmingly Democratic, not surprisingly, it has elected an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. What follows are some of the wacky proposals that may be enacted into law by the far left state.
While various cities within the state have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities, there is now a proposal to make the entire state a sanctuary state. SB 54 has already passed the state Senate by a vote of 27-12. A request by ICE to local or state law enforcement, asking that they detain people in custody, can be ignored. There are exceptions permitting local law enforcement to notify ICE before convicted or violent felons are released. According to Republican Jeff Stone, Republican State Senator, the bill does not require notification to ICE when human traffickers, child abusers or others about to be released - absent a court order. Said Stone: "How many more Kate Steinle's do we need?" Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal alien in 2015. California is estimated to have 25% of the country's illegal aliens. If the bill is enacted into law we can expect that percentage to grow.
Here's a good one. A bill was proposed in the State Assembly to deal with the issue of "fake news." The bill would make it unlawful to "knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following: (a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election, (b) Any candidate for election to public office." The measure is obviously unconstitutional. It does not apply to the print media, as apparently even the drafters must have suspected that the measure was of questionable constitutionality. They may have overlooked the fact that virtually all mainstream newspapers also operate online. But the real issue is this - just who gets to decide what is "false or deceptive" under the law? A government bureaucrat? Would they categorize any of the posts in this blog as being "false or deceptive?" Of course, there would be no chance that only right-wing sites would be targeted, right? Thankfully, this measure has apparently been tabled.
Perhaps my "favorite" of the many ridiculous proposals to come out of the California State Legislature is one reported in the March 16, 2017 Wall Street Journal. This proposal would exempt teachers in California from paying any state income tax, if they have been teaching for five years or more. The first problem with this proposal is the sheer arrogance of legislators not being the least bit embarrassed by the enormity of their corruption. This would be yet another example of the teachers' unions, contributing millions to Democratic coffers, then being rewarded by those same Democrats in Sacramento, with taxpayer money. Let's be honest, if one segment of society, teachers, pays zero income tax, everybody else will have to make up the difference.
Here's another problem. If teachers get this tax break, imagine what those who risk their lives for the public - the police, firefighters and corrections officers - will have to say. The argument is simple, if anyone deserves such relief from paying taxes, they do. The next argument will be from the rest of the state and local government employees. And why not? All the public employee unions overwhelmingly contribute to Democrats, barely at all to Republicans. So, why shouldn't the corrupt Democrats reward them as well? Does everybody understand why the ability of public employees to unionize and contribute to elected officials is contrary to the interests of the rest of the people in the state?
Lastly, there is a proposal by certain groups to have California secede from the United States. Maybe not such a bad idea. The Californians could go in their own crazy direction. The rest of the country would benefit greatly. The USA would have millions of fewer Democrats. California's 55 electoral college votes would disappear, instead of automatically going to any Democratic Presidential candidate. Those 55 electoral votes give Democrats 20% of the total needed to win, and the Democrats do not even need to campaign here. They only come to raise money. The only downside is for those of us who are conservative. Many of us would probably decide to leave and move to a different state. Still, it might be a small price to pay...
While various cities within the state have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities, there is now a proposal to make the entire state a sanctuary state. SB 54 has already passed the state Senate by a vote of 27-12. A request by ICE to local or state law enforcement, asking that they detain people in custody, can be ignored. There are exceptions permitting local law enforcement to notify ICE before convicted or violent felons are released. According to Republican Jeff Stone, Republican State Senator, the bill does not require notification to ICE when human traffickers, child abusers or others about to be released - absent a court order. Said Stone: "How many more Kate Steinle's do we need?" Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal alien in 2015. California is estimated to have 25% of the country's illegal aliens. If the bill is enacted into law we can expect that percentage to grow.
Here's a good one. A bill was proposed in the State Assembly to deal with the issue of "fake news." The bill would make it unlawful to "knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following: (a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election, (b) Any candidate for election to public office." The measure is obviously unconstitutional. It does not apply to the print media, as apparently even the drafters must have suspected that the measure was of questionable constitutionality. They may have overlooked the fact that virtually all mainstream newspapers also operate online. But the real issue is this - just who gets to decide what is "false or deceptive" under the law? A government bureaucrat? Would they categorize any of the posts in this blog as being "false or deceptive?" Of course, there would be no chance that only right-wing sites would be targeted, right? Thankfully, this measure has apparently been tabled.
Perhaps my "favorite" of the many ridiculous proposals to come out of the California State Legislature is one reported in the March 16, 2017 Wall Street Journal. This proposal would exempt teachers in California from paying any state income tax, if they have been teaching for five years or more. The first problem with this proposal is the sheer arrogance of legislators not being the least bit embarrassed by the enormity of their corruption. This would be yet another example of the teachers' unions, contributing millions to Democratic coffers, then being rewarded by those same Democrats in Sacramento, with taxpayer money. Let's be honest, if one segment of society, teachers, pays zero income tax, everybody else will have to make up the difference.
Here's another problem. If teachers get this tax break, imagine what those who risk their lives for the public - the police, firefighters and corrections officers - will have to say. The argument is simple, if anyone deserves such relief from paying taxes, they do. The next argument will be from the rest of the state and local government employees. And why not? All the public employee unions overwhelmingly contribute to Democrats, barely at all to Republicans. So, why shouldn't the corrupt Democrats reward them as well? Does everybody understand why the ability of public employees to unionize and contribute to elected officials is contrary to the interests of the rest of the people in the state?
Lastly, there is a proposal by certain groups to have California secede from the United States. Maybe not such a bad idea. The Californians could go in their own crazy direction. The rest of the country would benefit greatly. The USA would have millions of fewer Democrats. California's 55 electoral college votes would disappear, instead of automatically going to any Democratic Presidential candidate. Those 55 electoral votes give Democrats 20% of the total needed to win, and the Democrats do not even need to campaign here. They only come to raise money. The only downside is for those of us who are conservative. Many of us would probably decide to leave and move to a different state. Still, it might be a small price to pay...
Monday, March 27, 2017
Israel, Hamas, Trump, the Democrats, Anti-Semitism and the Jews
Today, Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, spoke at the annual AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) convention. Dermer: "For the first time in many years, perhaps even many decades, there is no daylight between our two governments." That was, perhaps, an oblique reference to President Obama's 2009 comment about relations between Israel and the U.S over the prior eight years: "When there is no daylight (between the U.S. and Israel), Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with Arab states." It was, of course, a total lie as Israel offered a state to the Palestinians in 2000 and 2008. But that was simply the beginning of Obama creating as much daylight as possible between the U.S. and Israel, including the enabling of Iran's nuclear weapons program, and ending with Obama's selling out of Israel at the U.N. in December, 2016.
In the March 20, 2017 Wall Street Journal, Andrew Stein and Douglas Schoen, jointly penned an opinion piece entitled "Democrats Turn Against Israel." As these two Democrats wrote: "The Democrats used to be the pro-Israel party." They continued: "President Obama created an atmosphere of outright hostility between the U.S. and Israel." They concluded by asserting that they, along with many other Jewish Democrats, "may decide that the time has come to find new political affiliations," if the Democrats do not reaffirm support for Israel. I don't see it.
The current Palestinian leader of Hamas in Gaza recently said this: "Hamas will continue in the path of Yassin (Hamas founder, killed in an Israeli airstrike) for the liberation of all of Palestine - we will not surrender even a morsel" of the land. By "Palestine," he means all of the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. They will never give up their terror attacks and wars against Israel as long as the Jews possess even one "morsel" of land.
Yet, 187 of the 193 voting Democrats in the House, with two non-voting Democrats and two Republicans, signed off on a letter to President Trump urging him to stand with the two-state solution. Twenty of the twenty-one Jewish members of the House signed the letter. What two-state solution do these people have in mind? There's Israel, Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in parts of the West Bank, along with Israel in parts of the West Bank. So, a three-state solution? And why continue to push a fantasy? Given the quote from the leader of Hamas in Gaza, can the idea of a two-state solution be characterized as anything but a fantasy?
Anti-Semitism continues to grow on college campuses here in the U.S., and throughout the Western world. When the student newspaper at McGill University in Montreal refused to print a pro-Israel article by visiting professor Gil Troy, he decided to post it online. The paper, according to the professor, has a policy of not publishing any article promoting a "Zionist worldview." As for the intolerance of the left to contrary views, Professor Troy said it best: "...you wrap your bigotry in a mantle of self-righteousness, mocking the progressive thought you claim to embrace." For the Left, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attitudes are central to their worldview - liberalism, tolerance to opposing views and open debate are not.
As for Zionism, Professor Troy again said it best: "Zionism has three fundamental propositions: that the Jews are a people; that the Jewish people have one historic homeland, the land of Israel; and that like all other peoples they have collective rights to establish - and now perfect - a country in that homeland." As much as I would like to believe that Stein and Schoen are right - that the Democrats leftward shift away from support for Israel will result in Jews abandoning that party - I just don't see it. I see Jews clinging to their leftist ideology, and showing total contempt for Donald Trump, even when he expresses his strong support for Israel.
After Obama lied about Israel sitting on the sidelines, after he enabled the Iranian nuclear program, and after he sold Israel out at the U.N. as a lame-duck President, I believe the same percentages of Jews who voted for Obama twice would vote for him a third time, if they could. Not only is the Democratic party not reaffirming their support for Israel, they nearly elected the radical leftist/socialist, Bernie Sanders, to head the Democratic ticket. They nearly elected the radical leftist and Muslim anti-Israel Congressman, Keith Ellison, to be the head of their party. He is now vice chair of the party. In no way do I view the party as moving back towards support of Israel. It is a party moving further and further to the left. As with the rest of the Left, it is leftism over Zionism, and leftism over Judaism. For the Democrats to again become the party that supports Israel, they would need to return to classical liberalism. The trend, however, as noted above, is in the opposite direction.
In the March 20, 2017 Wall Street Journal, Andrew Stein and Douglas Schoen, jointly penned an opinion piece entitled "Democrats Turn Against Israel." As these two Democrats wrote: "The Democrats used to be the pro-Israel party." They continued: "President Obama created an atmosphere of outright hostility between the U.S. and Israel." They concluded by asserting that they, along with many other Jewish Democrats, "may decide that the time has come to find new political affiliations," if the Democrats do not reaffirm support for Israel. I don't see it.
The current Palestinian leader of Hamas in Gaza recently said this: "Hamas will continue in the path of Yassin (Hamas founder, killed in an Israeli airstrike) for the liberation of all of Palestine - we will not surrender even a morsel" of the land. By "Palestine," he means all of the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. They will never give up their terror attacks and wars against Israel as long as the Jews possess even one "morsel" of land.
Yet, 187 of the 193 voting Democrats in the House, with two non-voting Democrats and two Republicans, signed off on a letter to President Trump urging him to stand with the two-state solution. Twenty of the twenty-one Jewish members of the House signed the letter. What two-state solution do these people have in mind? There's Israel, Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in parts of the West Bank, along with Israel in parts of the West Bank. So, a three-state solution? And why continue to push a fantasy? Given the quote from the leader of Hamas in Gaza, can the idea of a two-state solution be characterized as anything but a fantasy?
Anti-Semitism continues to grow on college campuses here in the U.S., and throughout the Western world. When the student newspaper at McGill University in Montreal refused to print a pro-Israel article by visiting professor Gil Troy, he decided to post it online. The paper, according to the professor, has a policy of not publishing any article promoting a "Zionist worldview." As for the intolerance of the left to contrary views, Professor Troy said it best: "...you wrap your bigotry in a mantle of self-righteousness, mocking the progressive thought you claim to embrace." For the Left, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attitudes are central to their worldview - liberalism, tolerance to opposing views and open debate are not.
As for Zionism, Professor Troy again said it best: "Zionism has three fundamental propositions: that the Jews are a people; that the Jewish people have one historic homeland, the land of Israel; and that like all other peoples they have collective rights to establish - and now perfect - a country in that homeland." As much as I would like to believe that Stein and Schoen are right - that the Democrats leftward shift away from support for Israel will result in Jews abandoning that party - I just don't see it. I see Jews clinging to their leftist ideology, and showing total contempt for Donald Trump, even when he expresses his strong support for Israel.
After Obama lied about Israel sitting on the sidelines, after he enabled the Iranian nuclear program, and after he sold Israel out at the U.N. as a lame-duck President, I believe the same percentages of Jews who voted for Obama twice would vote for him a third time, if they could. Not only is the Democratic party not reaffirming their support for Israel, they nearly elected the radical leftist/socialist, Bernie Sanders, to head the Democratic ticket. They nearly elected the radical leftist and Muslim anti-Israel Congressman, Keith Ellison, to be the head of their party. He is now vice chair of the party. In no way do I view the party as moving back towards support of Israel. It is a party moving further and further to the left. As with the rest of the Left, it is leftism over Zionism, and leftism over Judaism. For the Democrats to again become the party that supports Israel, they would need to return to classical liberalism. The trend, however, as noted above, is in the opposite direction.
Sunday, March 12, 2017
The Deposing of an American President
I have never been a conspiracy theorist. But what is being done to undermine, and even bring down, a sitting American President, should be frightening to everyone. It did not start with the women's march on January 21, the day after Trump's inauguration; although the posters being carried reflected many marchers really had no interest in seeing what policies Trump would put in place. It was not just the constant media attacks on virtually every Trump associate and adviser: from Steve Bannon (calling him an anti-Semite with no proof of same) to Stephen Miller to Michael Flynn to Kellyanne Conway (how horrible that she sat on the couch in the Oval Office with her legs folded back under her - but not horrible when Obama put his feet on the Resolute Desk on multiple occasions) to Jeff Sessions, and on and on. This is more than the left-wing hypocrisy, which I have demonstrated in many of my recent posts. What we are witnessing, less than two months into his Presidency, is an attempt to get Trump removed from office. It is unprecedented.
When the Watergate scandal was initially being investigated by the Washington Post about 45 years ago, most of the stories were buried somewhere deep in the paper. Now, notwithstanding no conclusive evidence of any wrongdoing or criminal activity by Trump or his people, the stories (allegations) are readily splashed across the front pages of most major newspapers. Why? Question: what motivated the Obama Administration, only days before Obama left office, to allow the sharing of raw intelligence data gathered by the NSA with all the other (16) intelligence agencies. The greater the access to that data, the greater the likelihood of leaks. And, not surprisingly, leaks there have been: from our President's telephone conversations with the Mexican President and the Australian Prime Minister, to the illegal release of Michael Flynn's name, while Flynn had a telephone conversation with the Russian Ambassador. The surveillance of foreign government officials on US soil is no surprise. However, the names of Americans involved in such conversations are to be redacted - it is illegal to release American's names.
On January 20, the day of Trump's inauguration, the front page of the New York Times had this headline: "Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry Of Trump Aides." What an interesting headline. The article found no evidence of wrongdoing; and the Times subsequently deleted "wiretapped" from the headline. But, why was this a front page story? If there was no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, and no actual wiretapping of Trump aides, what point was the Times trying to make here? Or, was it just part of a concerted effort to bring an abrupt end to the Trump Presidency? Was it just coincidental that the day after Trump's well received speech to Congress that the Washington Post prints the story about Jeff Sessions communications with the Russian Ambassador?
During Sessions' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Al Franken tells Sessions that CNN just published a report that "Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump," and that "there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government." Franken: "If it's true it's obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?" So, in that context, relating to the campaign, Senator Sessions answers as follows: "I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communication with the Russians." It turns out that Mr. Sessions, as a Senator, did have two conversations with the Russian Ambassador. One, at the Republican convention, where they had a brief conversation. The other was in Sessions' Senate office, with two of his aides present - hardly the place to have a surreptitious meeting; and nothing like the basements of parking structures where Woodward and Bernstein would meet with "deep throat" during their investigation of the Watergate scandal. Nevertheless, it clearly would have been preferable if Sessions had simply said "as a Senator, I speak with many foreign officials, and as a Senator I did speak twice with the Russian Ambassador."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: "Because the Department of Justice should be above reproach, for the good of the country, Attorney General Sessions should resign." It's a shame that Schumer did not feel that way when Obama was President and Loretta Lynch was the Attorney General. When asked about Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton, while her department had Hillary Clinton under investigation, Schumer opined: "She (Lynch) has said nothing was discussed related to the investigation. So you have two choices - to say this didn't matter, or she's lying. I think it didn't matter. I don't think she's lying." Of course, lying is not the issue now. No, it's "above reproach." Two AGs, two standards. And yet another attempt to have another Trump appointee removed from his post.
The 3/3/17 USA Today printed an opinion piece by Jason Sattler, described as a member of the paper's Board of Contributors. The headline was: "Democrats, Time to Talk Impeachment." I have already seen Democratic Congressmen on TV, calling for Trump's impeachment. One member of the Democratic National Committee (Gilda Cobb-Hunter) apparently said this: "You have someone (Trump) trying to erase your (Obama's) legacy. You have to do all that you can to make sure that doesn't happen." "...do all that you can..." Is it just a coincidence that the Obamas are leasing a house in Washington, D.C., in addition to the home they purchased in Rancho Mirage, California? Is it just a coincidence that "Obama for America" is now "Organizing for America?" Did anyone really believe that Obama would not interfere with Trump, the way Bush refused to criticize or speak out against Obama?
But Obama is not alone. His last Attorney General, the aforementioned Loretta Lynch, recently made a video. Here is what she said: "I know that this is a time of great fear and uncertainty for so many people. I know it's a time of concern for people, who see our rights being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back. I know that this is difficult, but I remind you that this has never been easy. We have always had to work to move this country forward to achieve the great ideals of our Founding Fathers. It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They've marched, they've bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again."
What is she talking about? It was Obama who spied on reporter James Rosen and his family. It was Obama who spied on the AP. It was Obama who used the IRS to target conservative individuals and groups. And it was Lynch who threatened to prosecute otherwise protected speech - if directed against Islam or Muslims. Does it not sound like Lynch is now calling for violence in the streets? Because of what? What has Trump done that would warrant this type of reaction?
Another former official in the Obama Administration, Rosa Brooks, who worked at the D.O.D., just recently wrote a piece for Foreign Policy magazine. Brooks: "Donald Trump's first week as President has made it all too clear: yes, he is as crazy as everyone feared." After Trump was President for only one week she was prepared to ask: "Are we truly stuck with Donald Trump?" Then, she gave the options. One, wait for the 2020 elections. Two, impeachment. Three, invoke the 25th Amendment. That Amendment allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to declare the President unfit for office, with the result being that the VP becomes Acting President. And the last option given by Brooks: "The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders." A military coup. Like Lynch, Brooks is also an attorney, and is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
No, I do not need to be a conspiracy theorist at all to see that something very serious is happening. The constant barrage of news stories filled with innuendo and allegations, but little hard facts. The premature calls for Trump's impeachment - by the media and Democratic officials. And the call for what seems like rioting in the streets and a military coup by two lawyers who worked for Obama. Does Trump, at times, say some crazy things? Yes, but not as crazy as what appears to be a call for a civil war in this country.
When the Watergate scandal was initially being investigated by the Washington Post about 45 years ago, most of the stories were buried somewhere deep in the paper. Now, notwithstanding no conclusive evidence of any wrongdoing or criminal activity by Trump or his people, the stories (allegations) are readily splashed across the front pages of most major newspapers. Why? Question: what motivated the Obama Administration, only days before Obama left office, to allow the sharing of raw intelligence data gathered by the NSA with all the other (16) intelligence agencies. The greater the access to that data, the greater the likelihood of leaks. And, not surprisingly, leaks there have been: from our President's telephone conversations with the Mexican President and the Australian Prime Minister, to the illegal release of Michael Flynn's name, while Flynn had a telephone conversation with the Russian Ambassador. The surveillance of foreign government officials on US soil is no surprise. However, the names of Americans involved in such conversations are to be redacted - it is illegal to release American's names.
On January 20, the day of Trump's inauguration, the front page of the New York Times had this headline: "Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry Of Trump Aides." What an interesting headline. The article found no evidence of wrongdoing; and the Times subsequently deleted "wiretapped" from the headline. But, why was this a front page story? If there was no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, and no actual wiretapping of Trump aides, what point was the Times trying to make here? Or, was it just part of a concerted effort to bring an abrupt end to the Trump Presidency? Was it just coincidental that the day after Trump's well received speech to Congress that the Washington Post prints the story about Jeff Sessions communications with the Russian Ambassador?
During Sessions' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Al Franken tells Sessions that CNN just published a report that "Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump," and that "there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government." Franken: "If it's true it's obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?" So, in that context, relating to the campaign, Senator Sessions answers as follows: "I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communication with the Russians." It turns out that Mr. Sessions, as a Senator, did have two conversations with the Russian Ambassador. One, at the Republican convention, where they had a brief conversation. The other was in Sessions' Senate office, with two of his aides present - hardly the place to have a surreptitious meeting; and nothing like the basements of parking structures where Woodward and Bernstein would meet with "deep throat" during their investigation of the Watergate scandal. Nevertheless, it clearly would have been preferable if Sessions had simply said "as a Senator, I speak with many foreign officials, and as a Senator I did speak twice with the Russian Ambassador."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: "Because the Department of Justice should be above reproach, for the good of the country, Attorney General Sessions should resign." It's a shame that Schumer did not feel that way when Obama was President and Loretta Lynch was the Attorney General. When asked about Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton, while her department had Hillary Clinton under investigation, Schumer opined: "She (Lynch) has said nothing was discussed related to the investigation. So you have two choices - to say this didn't matter, or she's lying. I think it didn't matter. I don't think she's lying." Of course, lying is not the issue now. No, it's "above reproach." Two AGs, two standards. And yet another attempt to have another Trump appointee removed from his post.
The 3/3/17 USA Today printed an opinion piece by Jason Sattler, described as a member of the paper's Board of Contributors. The headline was: "Democrats, Time to Talk Impeachment." I have already seen Democratic Congressmen on TV, calling for Trump's impeachment. One member of the Democratic National Committee (Gilda Cobb-Hunter) apparently said this: "You have someone (Trump) trying to erase your (Obama's) legacy. You have to do all that you can to make sure that doesn't happen." "...do all that you can..." Is it just a coincidence that the Obamas are leasing a house in Washington, D.C., in addition to the home they purchased in Rancho Mirage, California? Is it just a coincidence that "Obama for America" is now "Organizing for America?" Did anyone really believe that Obama would not interfere with Trump, the way Bush refused to criticize or speak out against Obama?
But Obama is not alone. His last Attorney General, the aforementioned Loretta Lynch, recently made a video. Here is what she said: "I know that this is a time of great fear and uncertainty for so many people. I know it's a time of concern for people, who see our rights being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back. I know that this is difficult, but I remind you that this has never been easy. We have always had to work to move this country forward to achieve the great ideals of our Founding Fathers. It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They've marched, they've bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again."
What is she talking about? It was Obama who spied on reporter James Rosen and his family. It was Obama who spied on the AP. It was Obama who used the IRS to target conservative individuals and groups. And it was Lynch who threatened to prosecute otherwise protected speech - if directed against Islam or Muslims. Does it not sound like Lynch is now calling for violence in the streets? Because of what? What has Trump done that would warrant this type of reaction?
Another former official in the Obama Administration, Rosa Brooks, who worked at the D.O.D., just recently wrote a piece for Foreign Policy magazine. Brooks: "Donald Trump's first week as President has made it all too clear: yes, he is as crazy as everyone feared." After Trump was President for only one week she was prepared to ask: "Are we truly stuck with Donald Trump?" Then, she gave the options. One, wait for the 2020 elections. Two, impeachment. Three, invoke the 25th Amendment. That Amendment allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to declare the President unfit for office, with the result being that the VP becomes Acting President. And the last option given by Brooks: "The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders." A military coup. Like Lynch, Brooks is also an attorney, and is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
No, I do not need to be a conspiracy theorist at all to see that something very serious is happening. The constant barrage of news stories filled with innuendo and allegations, but little hard facts. The premature calls for Trump's impeachment - by the media and Democratic officials. And the call for what seems like rioting in the streets and a military coup by two lawyers who worked for Obama. Does Trump, at times, say some crazy things? Yes, but not as crazy as what appears to be a call for a civil war in this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)