On his first overseas trip as President, Trump's first stop was to Saudi Arabia, where he spoke to the assembled leaders of the Arab and Muslim world. In thanking his host, King Salman, Trump referred to the "magnificent Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." He spoke of the "splendor" of the country, the "kindness" of its citizens, and the "grandeur of this remarkable place." Was he over the top with his rhetoric? Given the Saudi's history of human rights abuses, yes he was. But clearly Trump and his team had decided to practice realpolitik. As Trump stated: "We are not here to lecture - we are not here to tell other people how to live..." Rather, Trump was there with three goals in mind: uniting these countries in the fight against ISIS and terrorism, establishing a bulwark against Iran's hegemony, and gaining acceptance for Israel's right to exist as the Jewish state in exchange for a peace deal with the Palestinians.
Trump was exceptionally strong in his urging the Muslim world to participate in the fight against terrorism. Trump: "Terrorists do not worship
G-d, they worship death." And, using a phrase that may turn out to be historic, Trump said: "A better future is possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out." But words are not enough. Qatar helps fund Hamas. The Saudis help to fund many mosques in the US and around the world, with their radical brand of Wahhabbism. Is there any reason to believe that these countries will change their ways?
In seeking to reestablish our ties to the Sunni Arab world, after eight years of disengagement by Obama, Trump signed a $110 billion dollar arms deal with King Salman. Over the long haul, the deal is expected to reach $400 billion. As the Saudis have no peace agreement with Israel, and no recognition of Israel, the Israelis were not pleased. The intent, again, is to shift the balance away from the Ayatollahs which Obama pursued, back to our more traditional allies. As a Jew, and as a supporter of Israel, I find the arms deal disconcerting - even though I understand it.
The mainstream media, however, remains critical of anything and everything Trump does. The New York Times expressed their concern over the "unsettling path" Trump has taken to align the US with the likes of Saudi Arabia. The Times: "The Saudi human rights record is no better than Iran's." Was the Times so concerned with human rights when Obama aligned himself with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or the Ayatollahs in Iran? The reality is that US policy has traditionally aligned with the Sunni Arabs, if for no other reason than they are the keepers of the oil.
The Times also expressed their disappointment with Trump choosing to "single out Iran, the leading Shiite-majority state and Saudi Arabia's main enemy." After acknowledging the Iranians support for "militias" in Lebanon and Yemen, and its backing of Assad in Syria, the Times agrees that "many of Iran's activities are indeed destabilizing." Many? Iran remains the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
During his stay in Israel, Trump was welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with these words: "We are absolutely delighted to welcome you and Melania to the P.M.'s residence in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people, and the united capital of the Jewish State." It is sad that Netanyahu must continue to remind US leaders that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and that it will remain undivided and in Israeli hands. Unfortunately, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reiterated the nonsense we so often hear about the Middle East: "We solve the Israeli-Palestinian peace dilemma, we start solving a lot of the peace throughout the Middle East region."
Trump repeated the same fallacy, following the lead of not only Tillerson and the State Department holdovers from the Obama Administration, but also what has been a long-term attitude of State towards Israel. Exactly how will "solving" the Israeli-Palestinian issue affect these other issues in the Middle East: the Sunni-Shiite divide within Islam; the desire by Iran to expand its control over the Middle East and export terrorism around the world; the Syrian civil war; the failed states in Iraq, Libya and Yemen; and the overall lack of freedom throughout the Arab world? The truth is that the Palestinian issue has nothing to do with most of the problems in the Middle East. Nothing. And the Sunni Arab world was already moving closer towards Israel, seeing it as an ally in the fight against terror and against Iran; not to mention that they see the technological and economic benefits of dealing with Israel.
As Caroline Glick notes in her most recent column, 98% of the Palestinians live in Areas A and B in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), and have been under Palestinian Authority control since 1996. Glick: "They carry Palestinian passports. Their births and deaths are recorded in the Palestinian population registry. They vote in Palestinian elections." Although, it should be stated that Abbas has refused to hold elections for his office for well over a decade. But Israel can never give up Area C, an area mostly unpopulated, but which allows for Israeli control over the Jordan river valley. Without Israeli control over the borders of the West Bank, how long before Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and ISIS move in? Abbas and the PA are not strong enough to keep them out. Abbas' regime would fall quickly. Are the US policy makers so blinded by their pro-Arab outlook, and against Israel, that they are unable to see what will happen?
Let me put it another way. If, G-d forbid, Israel were overrun and the Jews killed or evicted and all the land was in the hands of the Arabs, who actually believes that the result would be peace throughout the Middle East? Who? For those of us who live in, or have visited, Southern California, imagine that you are traveling northbound on the 405 Freeway from the city side of Los Angeles into the San Fernando Valley. As you reach the top of the hill and start to descend into the Valley, you can see across the Valley floor to the mountain range on the other side of the Valley. That short distance is equal to the entire width of Israel in some places. Should Israel give up complete control of the West Bank, they are looking at enemies who also will have elevated vantage points in the hills of Judea and Samaria; vantage points from which they can easily attack Jerusalem, the Knesset, Ben Gurion airport, and even Tel Aviv and most of Israel's population centers.
Trump visited the Western Wall (the Kotel), but as it sits in what much of the world calls disputed "East" Jerusalem, he did not invite Netanyahu to go with him. He visited Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Memorial Museum. Early on he said he would move the US embassy to Israel's capital city of Jerusalem. He has since backed off. Trump seems to be falling under the same anti-Israel influences that permeate much of our State Department and other Federal agencies. Trump's efforts to get the Arab and Muslim world united in a fight against terrorism is to be commended. His desire to align the Sunni Arabs with Israel against the Ayatollahs is worthy of admiration. But, there is no point in forcing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East, and our best ally there, to commit suicide. None.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Why My Friend is Wrong
Recently, a friend, who also reads the blog, asked why I have not been discussing the big issues of the day. Issues such as "Korea, Yates, Flynn, Sessions, Comey, Putin, Russia and the French election." Admittedly, I have not discussed much about those issues. Those are issues that do require more research and more time to prepare. I fully acknowledge that it is likely that many readers would like to see me address those issues. Recently, I have discussed Hollywood propaganda (using the TV show "Designated Survivor" as an example), and the lack of tolerance for conservative speech on college and university campuses. My friend told me that those issues were the least of our problems in light of all the other issues he referred to. I disagree.
It is not that all of those issues are not important. Of course they are. But I believe the bigger issue is the civil war which we are currently experiencing. I have described it as a mostly non-violent war. You see, this war did not start with a few college protests. We have an entire generation that has been spoon fed propaganda by the Left - from Hollywood TV and movies, from academia and from the mainstream media. Not only have they been "taught" left wing views, they have been taught that those who disagree are the basket of deplorables - haters, bigots, racists, sexists, homophobes, and so on. Once those labels are attached, it quite easy to have no respect for such people.
We now have some newspapers refusing to print opinion pieces opposing gay marriage. The rationale is that gay marriage is the law of the land. Of course, when heterosexual marriage was the law of the land they had no problem printing news stories and op-eds in favor of gay marriage. Some papers will not print opinion pieces rebutting global warming. They say that the science is settled. Once upon a time the science was settled that the earth was flat. I am reminded of the death sentence given to Socrates for "refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state." Some would like to see climate change deniers imprisoned. Shall we return to the time of Socrates, which was 2,416 years ago? Of course, we need not go back that far, as in the 20th Century, Communists in particular have meted out harsh sentences to those who dared to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies in their societies.
Today, we see young people unable to even hear an opposing viewpoint. Instead they need their safe spaces. Worse, it is not just young people. I was part of a group email with the aforementioned friend. After a while, I was kicked off of that group email by adults who could not tolerate an opposing viewpoint. And it is not simply an unwillingness to hear my views. I know very well what some on the Left think of me as an individual because of my conservative views. For proof, please go back and read my 7/29/16 post "A Personal Tale of Left-Wing Intolerance," as well as the 8/1/16 post "An Email Exchange With the Woman From the Last Post." That incident last year was not the first time I was yelled at by someone who disagreed with me.
Obviously, I am not the only conservative who feels the dislike and even hatred from the Left. We now have families where those who voted for Trump are made to feel unwelcome at family get togethers, and are even uninvited to holiday dinners. It's bad enough to see the violent protests and vandalism at colleges where conservative speakers are scheduled to speak. In a 5/10/17 piece by Michelangelo Signorile, which the Huffington Post saw fit to put online, this is what Mr. Signorile recommended: "Starting today and from here on, no elected official - certainly those in the GOP defending and supporting Trump on a variety of issues, for example - should be able to sit down for a nice, quiet lunch or dinner in a Washington, D.C. eatery or even in their own homes. They should be hounded by protestors everywhere, especially in public - in restaurants, in shopping centers, in their districts, and yes, on the public property outside their homes and apartments, in Washington and back in their home states."
Mr. Signorile continued: "The elected officials and White House staffers must be challenged going to and from their cars and at the many public speeches they give at organizations and think tanks throughout DC and elsewhere. They should be bombarded with questions and placards by groups of people as they head to media appearances at the cable networks where they spew their lies every day. And they should be challenged when they come off TV for what they just lied about."
Then there's this: "Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, should not be able to attend any function, eat in public, or enjoy dinner at home without hearing people expressing how his actions are harming their lives and their families' lives in terrible ways." Signorile goes on to state he is not calling for violent or thuggish behavior. Rather, he claims he wants to see protests the way the AIDS activist group, ACT UP, did in the 1980s and 1990s. Of course, he is dreaming if he believes this type of in-your-face harassment does not lead to people getting hurt, or worse. I do not remember any call to treat liberals/leftists with such disrespect while Obama was in office, even though many of us felt that Obama constantly lied and was a danger to this country.
The Left has been engaging in an effort to hurt the "enemy" (Republicans and conservatives) for some time. As an example, recall how they wanted to hurt Chick Fil-A because the owner said he personally believed in the traditional definition of marriage. And the hatred towards Donald Trump has been so great that we have heard talk of his impeachment from the day he took office. So, my friend is concerned about my not addressing certain "big" issues. Our country has always faced such types of issues. But, there was only one time when we were engaged in a violent civil war. Actual civility is not a value for the Left. We have seen it in the vulgar tirades from late night talk show hosts. We see it in the likes of Mr. Signorile's call for harassment and intimidation. We even see it in the mainstream media's name calling and demagoguery.
This civil war will not be north versus south. But it will, and already has, divided families - just as the first one did. Where this one will end still remains to be seen. But I fail to see how the possible failure of the United States to stay united is not the most important issue facing our country.
It is not that all of those issues are not important. Of course they are. But I believe the bigger issue is the civil war which we are currently experiencing. I have described it as a mostly non-violent war. You see, this war did not start with a few college protests. We have an entire generation that has been spoon fed propaganda by the Left - from Hollywood TV and movies, from academia and from the mainstream media. Not only have they been "taught" left wing views, they have been taught that those who disagree are the basket of deplorables - haters, bigots, racists, sexists, homophobes, and so on. Once those labels are attached, it quite easy to have no respect for such people.
We now have some newspapers refusing to print opinion pieces opposing gay marriage. The rationale is that gay marriage is the law of the land. Of course, when heterosexual marriage was the law of the land they had no problem printing news stories and op-eds in favor of gay marriage. Some papers will not print opinion pieces rebutting global warming. They say that the science is settled. Once upon a time the science was settled that the earth was flat. I am reminded of the death sentence given to Socrates for "refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state." Some would like to see climate change deniers imprisoned. Shall we return to the time of Socrates, which was 2,416 years ago? Of course, we need not go back that far, as in the 20th Century, Communists in particular have meted out harsh sentences to those who dared to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies in their societies.
Today, we see young people unable to even hear an opposing viewpoint. Instead they need their safe spaces. Worse, it is not just young people. I was part of a group email with the aforementioned friend. After a while, I was kicked off of that group email by adults who could not tolerate an opposing viewpoint. And it is not simply an unwillingness to hear my views. I know very well what some on the Left think of me as an individual because of my conservative views. For proof, please go back and read my 7/29/16 post "A Personal Tale of Left-Wing Intolerance," as well as the 8/1/16 post "An Email Exchange With the Woman From the Last Post." That incident last year was not the first time I was yelled at by someone who disagreed with me.
Obviously, I am not the only conservative who feels the dislike and even hatred from the Left. We now have families where those who voted for Trump are made to feel unwelcome at family get togethers, and are even uninvited to holiday dinners. It's bad enough to see the violent protests and vandalism at colleges where conservative speakers are scheduled to speak. In a 5/10/17 piece by Michelangelo Signorile, which the Huffington Post saw fit to put online, this is what Mr. Signorile recommended: "Starting today and from here on, no elected official - certainly those in the GOP defending and supporting Trump on a variety of issues, for example - should be able to sit down for a nice, quiet lunch or dinner in a Washington, D.C. eatery or even in their own homes. They should be hounded by protestors everywhere, especially in public - in restaurants, in shopping centers, in their districts, and yes, on the public property outside their homes and apartments, in Washington and back in their home states."
Mr. Signorile continued: "The elected officials and White House staffers must be challenged going to and from their cars and at the many public speeches they give at organizations and think tanks throughout DC and elsewhere. They should be bombarded with questions and placards by groups of people as they head to media appearances at the cable networks where they spew their lies every day. And they should be challenged when they come off TV for what they just lied about."
Then there's this: "Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, should not be able to attend any function, eat in public, or enjoy dinner at home without hearing people expressing how his actions are harming their lives and their families' lives in terrible ways." Signorile goes on to state he is not calling for violent or thuggish behavior. Rather, he claims he wants to see protests the way the AIDS activist group, ACT UP, did in the 1980s and 1990s. Of course, he is dreaming if he believes this type of in-your-face harassment does not lead to people getting hurt, or worse. I do not remember any call to treat liberals/leftists with such disrespect while Obama was in office, even though many of us felt that Obama constantly lied and was a danger to this country.
The Left has been engaging in an effort to hurt the "enemy" (Republicans and conservatives) for some time. As an example, recall how they wanted to hurt Chick Fil-A because the owner said he personally believed in the traditional definition of marriage. And the hatred towards Donald Trump has been so great that we have heard talk of his impeachment from the day he took office. So, my friend is concerned about my not addressing certain "big" issues. Our country has always faced such types of issues. But, there was only one time when we were engaged in a violent civil war. Actual civility is not a value for the Left. We have seen it in the vulgar tirades from late night talk show hosts. We see it in the likes of Mr. Signorile's call for harassment and intimidation. We even see it in the mainstream media's name calling and demagoguery.
This civil war will not be north versus south. But it will, and already has, divided families - just as the first one did. Where this one will end still remains to be seen. But I fail to see how the possible failure of the United States to stay united is not the most important issue facing our country.
Sunday, May 14, 2017
More Hollywood Propaganda
In the 2/1/17 post, I showed how the TV show "Homeland" managed to weave their left-wing message into the story line. Much of television and the movies is similar. So, here is yet another example, this time from the TV show "Designated Survivor." The premise of the show is that the character played by Kiefer Sutherland (HUD Secretary) becomes President because, as the low man on the totem pole, he was chosen to stay behind during the President's State of the Union address. When the Capitol is bombed and the government is wiped out, Sutherland, as the 'designated survivor" becomes President.
This is the first season of the show. In episode 19, "Misalliance," we see in the first 20 minutes quite a few left-wing talking points. As a high school band is performing at the White House, the teacher tells the President: "This might be the end of playing music for a lot of these kids...most of their families can't afford private lessons." The President: "Mine couldn't either...I think every student in this country should have access to the arts for their education."
Shortly thereafter, the President is conversing with the Speaker of the House. POTUS: "How familiar are you with the Federal art grants that make these kinds of programs possible?" Speaker: "I remember that bill (authorizing the current funding). The sunset clause was added to get it past some of my more conservative colleagues." There you have it - every student is entitled to what, a musical instrument? At government expense?
I do give some credit to the show, as they have the House Ways and Means Committee Chairman telling POTUS: "Look, I love music as much as anyone. But a lot of folks think we should throw everything we've got into science, technology, engineering and math. We used to lead the world in those areas. Now, we're barely in the middle of the pack." The overall gist of these scenes, however, was that Democrats love music and kids, Republicans - not so much. In fact, the Speaker tells her political nemesis - the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee - that she will resign on this condition: "I want the public arts and education funding reauthorized before I go." The Speaker gives up her career to save the arts for the kids - and from the meanie Republicans.
In yet another scene, there was a discussion about clean water between POTUS and a man in a wheelchair, although I am not clear what position that man held. POTUS: "Clean water should not even be a fight." Man in wheelchair: "You know that business executives only think about bottom line costs." POTUS: "Well, if their only concern is costs you should remind them how much it costs to clean up their mess, especially after we start fining them." Message: business is bad, government is good.
In one of my "favorite" scenes, we hear that the French Ambassador would like to see a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in the world. Said one aide to POTUS: "Liberals in France have been railing against nuclear escalation for decades, but now even the conservatives are beginning to wonder why they're spending so much damn money just to maintain weapons in Europe." Well, thankfully, there is no danger from the likes of Russia, Iran or North Korea. One aide does question what happens if the Russians fail to reciprocate and reduce their nuclear arsenal. (Is Russia really the only threat?) The President tells everyone assembled that if Russia does not reciprocate, then "we stop." But why are we starting? Just because we "hope" the Russians will respond in good faith? Is the subtle message that the Iranians and North Koreans are no threat at all?
Whether a TV show or movie is based in the world of politics or not, the writers seamlessly weave their left-wing views into the story line. Frankly, it is really not significantly different from what the left-wing mainstream media does, with their left-wing spin part of so many stories.
This is the first season of the show. In episode 19, "Misalliance," we see in the first 20 minutes quite a few left-wing talking points. As a high school band is performing at the White House, the teacher tells the President: "This might be the end of playing music for a lot of these kids...most of their families can't afford private lessons." The President: "Mine couldn't either...I think every student in this country should have access to the arts for their education."
Shortly thereafter, the President is conversing with the Speaker of the House. POTUS: "How familiar are you with the Federal art grants that make these kinds of programs possible?" Speaker: "I remember that bill (authorizing the current funding). The sunset clause was added to get it past some of my more conservative colleagues." There you have it - every student is entitled to what, a musical instrument? At government expense?
I do give some credit to the show, as they have the House Ways and Means Committee Chairman telling POTUS: "Look, I love music as much as anyone. But a lot of folks think we should throw everything we've got into science, technology, engineering and math. We used to lead the world in those areas. Now, we're barely in the middle of the pack." The overall gist of these scenes, however, was that Democrats love music and kids, Republicans - not so much. In fact, the Speaker tells her political nemesis - the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee - that she will resign on this condition: "I want the public arts and education funding reauthorized before I go." The Speaker gives up her career to save the arts for the kids - and from the meanie Republicans.
In yet another scene, there was a discussion about clean water between POTUS and a man in a wheelchair, although I am not clear what position that man held. POTUS: "Clean water should not even be a fight." Man in wheelchair: "You know that business executives only think about bottom line costs." POTUS: "Well, if their only concern is costs you should remind them how much it costs to clean up their mess, especially after we start fining them." Message: business is bad, government is good.
In one of my "favorite" scenes, we hear that the French Ambassador would like to see a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in the world. Said one aide to POTUS: "Liberals in France have been railing against nuclear escalation for decades, but now even the conservatives are beginning to wonder why they're spending so much damn money just to maintain weapons in Europe." Well, thankfully, there is no danger from the likes of Russia, Iran or North Korea. One aide does question what happens if the Russians fail to reciprocate and reduce their nuclear arsenal. (Is Russia really the only threat?) The President tells everyone assembled that if Russia does not reciprocate, then "we stop." But why are we starting? Just because we "hope" the Russians will respond in good faith? Is the subtle message that the Iranians and North Koreans are no threat at all?
Whether a TV show or movie is based in the world of politics or not, the writers seamlessly weave their left-wing views into the story line. Frankly, it is really not significantly different from what the left-wing mainstream media does, with their left-wing spin part of so many stories.
What the (Bleep)?
Comedians are not exactly known for their judicious use of language and gestures, especially left-wing comedians when it comes to "jokes" about Donald Trump.
Recently, Bill Maher said this: "A lot of us thought, 'Oh, Ivanka is gonna be our saving grace. When (Trump's) about to f...... nuke Finland or something, she is gonna walk into the bedroom and you know...Daddy, Daddy, don't do it, Daddy,' with Maher making an obscene gesture of a sexual nature with his hand, suggesting Ivanka would calm her father down with a particular sexual activity. Very classy.
Not to be outdone was Stephen Colbert. "You (Trump) talk like a sign language gorilla that got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's c..k holster." Imagine if anyone spoke about Obama in that manner. They'd bring back tar and feathering.
It is not simply these comedians who speak coarsely. Democrat politicians tend to have similarly "colorful" speech when speaking of Republicans. Current Chair of the DNC, Tom Perez, said "Republicans don't give a sh.. about people." At a recent town hall, Republican Representative Paul Labrador apparently said "nobody dies because they don't have access to healthcare." He claimed the statement was taken out of context as it was replayed by the left-wing media. California's newest Senator, Kamala Harris, said in reply to Labrador: "Like this guy, this congressman, you might as well say, 'people don't starve because they don't have food.' What the f... is that?"
Democratic Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, recently said this: "...we're here to help people, and if we're not helping people, we should go the f... home."
In a 2015 report by the Daily Caller, they cited a study of language used by US Democrats and Republicans done by Queen Mary University in London. They noted that liberals were more prone than conservatives to use profanity on Twitter. Words often used by liberals were "sh.., f..., happy, like, feel and amaze." For conservatives it was "G-d, psalm, America, country and border." Liberals would frequently use "I" and "me" (as did Obama). Conservatives used "we" and "ours" (as did George W. Bush).
Just to be clear, I am not prudish. I have heard all the words, and undoubtedly used many of them. The point is that this is how liberals debate; it is how they make a point. They debate with insults, mockery and name calling. It is not simply comedians and politicians. Disagree with the left-wing mainstream media and they call you names - bigot, racist, homophobe, etc. It's Hillary's basket of deplorables. This type of language reflects the total disdain in which Democrats hold Republicans. Hence, name calling and vulgarity, insults and mockery - these are the stock in trade of the Left.
Recently, Bill Maher said this: "A lot of us thought, 'Oh, Ivanka is gonna be our saving grace. When (Trump's) about to f...... nuke Finland or something, she is gonna walk into the bedroom and you know...Daddy, Daddy, don't do it, Daddy,' with Maher making an obscene gesture of a sexual nature with his hand, suggesting Ivanka would calm her father down with a particular sexual activity. Very classy.
Not to be outdone was Stephen Colbert. "You (Trump) talk like a sign language gorilla that got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's c..k holster." Imagine if anyone spoke about Obama in that manner. They'd bring back tar and feathering.
It is not simply these comedians who speak coarsely. Democrat politicians tend to have similarly "colorful" speech when speaking of Republicans. Current Chair of the DNC, Tom Perez, said "Republicans don't give a sh.. about people." At a recent town hall, Republican Representative Paul Labrador apparently said "nobody dies because they don't have access to healthcare." He claimed the statement was taken out of context as it was replayed by the left-wing media. California's newest Senator, Kamala Harris, said in reply to Labrador: "Like this guy, this congressman, you might as well say, 'people don't starve because they don't have food.' What the f... is that?"
Democratic Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, recently said this: "...we're here to help people, and if we're not helping people, we should go the f... home."
In a 2015 report by the Daily Caller, they cited a study of language used by US Democrats and Republicans done by Queen Mary University in London. They noted that liberals were more prone than conservatives to use profanity on Twitter. Words often used by liberals were "sh.., f..., happy, like, feel and amaze." For conservatives it was "G-d, psalm, America, country and border." Liberals would frequently use "I" and "me" (as did Obama). Conservatives used "we" and "ours" (as did George W. Bush).
Just to be clear, I am not prudish. I have heard all the words, and undoubtedly used many of them. The point is that this is how liberals debate; it is how they make a point. They debate with insults, mockery and name calling. It is not simply comedians and politicians. Disagree with the left-wing mainstream media and they call you names - bigot, racist, homophobe, etc. It's Hillary's basket of deplorables. This type of language reflects the total disdain in which Democrats hold Republicans. Hence, name calling and vulgarity, insults and mockery - these are the stock in trade of the Left.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
The Left's New Theory of "Free Speech" Under the First Amendment
As Americans, most of us have assumed that we are free to say whatever we want about whoever and whatever we want to speak about. We understand that there are exceptions for things like libel, slander and yelling fire in a theater. But the Left feels differently. It is not just that they oppose speech with which they disagree, or speech that they find "insulting" or "hateful;" they are now providing an intellectual basis for making legal changes to our First Amendment rights.
Former Labor Secretary and now Public Policy Professor at UC Berkeley, Robert Reich, said this: "Unfortunately, Berkeley and other universities have played into a narrative that the right would love to advance...The narrative assumes a cultural plot against the free expression of right-wing views in which academe, mainstream media - every facet of the establishment - is organized against them...That's a narrative Trump used to get into the White House." A "narrative?" Just a story?
As discussed in recent posts in this blog, conservative speakers Milo Yiannopoulos, Charles Murray, Heather MacDonald and now Ann Coulter have been prevented from speaking or been disinvited or forced to back out from speaking on college campuses. But those are simply the most recent examples. Here are some more: Karl Rove at U. Mass, Rand Paul at Howard, Ben Carson at Johns Hopkins, Ben Shapiro at Cal State L.A., Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali at Brandeis, and Jason Riley at Va. Tech. Then there is the objection to Israeli speakers: then Israeli Amb. to the US Michael Oren at UC Irvine, and Benjamin Netanyahu, now Israeli P.M., at Concordia Univ. in Montreal. All these speakers constitute nothing more than "a narrative (that) assumes a cultural plot against the free expression of right-wing views?" Let's get real!
NYU Professor Ulrich Baer had an op-ed in the 4/24/17 NY Times entitled "What Snowflakes Get Right About Free Speech." Baer: "During the 1980s and '90s, a shift occurred in American culture; personal experience and testimony, especially of suffering and oppression, began to challenge the primacy of argument. Freedom of expression became a flash point in this shift." How does this work? Those who were oppressed get to censor speech of the alleged oppressors? The descendants of those who were formerly oppressed get to censor the descendants of those claimed to be the oppressors? Who gets to decide who belongs in each group - and what words are permissible?
The new standard seems to be that we allow only that speech which enhances the "public good." Baer: "Some topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms." First, notice the elitist attitude that certain groups need some sort of government protection from speech, because they are not able to "debate...on the same terms." Second, who gets to decide what topics are off limits for public debate, and what enforcement mechanisms will be utilized? Once again, we can infer that the Left will look to the government to determine proper speech. Is that really the direction in which we should be going? How long before we end up with a complete suppression of speech, as we have seen in various Communist - and other dictatorial - countries.
Baer: For speech to be considered a "common, public good...requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing." Baer continued: "As a scholar of literature, history and politics, I am especially attuned to the next generation's demands to revise existing definitions of free speech to accommodate previously delegitimized experiences. Freedom of expression is not an unchanging absolute." Well, I am always glad to hear from scholars of this, that and the other thing. No, I am not against intellectual thought and analysis. But, intellectuals and scholars do not have such a great track record of defending liberty. They often supported the murderous Communist regime in Soviet Russia. They have supported Castro's Cuba. And they often support the terrorism-committing Palestinians in their efforts to wipe Israel off the map. So, spare me the intellectual gobbledygook. What we are really talking about is tyranny.
Baer finishes his piece with this: "We should thank the student protesters, the activists in Black Lives Matter and other "overly sensitive souls" for keeping watch over the soul of our republic." Yes, let's thank Black Lives Matter for things like "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon." I guess that highly offensive speech - calling cops pigs, and suggesting they be fried - coming from the Left is to be permitted. I guess we get to see that not all offensive speech is banned - depending on which side of the political divide is uttering it.
A former head of the DNC, Howard Dean, expressed that "hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment." He's wrong. One letter writer to the USA Today said this: "Just because you can say something doesn't mean it should be said, freedom or not." He's right, of course. However, he left out that it also does not mean that the government should be able to punish those who say things that, perhaps, are indeed best left unsaid. The letter writer suggests using good judgment and common sense, with which, again, I totally concur. But he ends his letter saying: "So you can take your ivory tower interpretation of what free speech means and park it down your apologist street." This writer's approach would mean that those who take offense would be able to bar speech of those whose speech offends them. That is exactly what we have now in academia. Why is the closure of debate a good thing? Why is the Left unable to rebut speech with which they disagree? Because they have been oppressed? History is replete with writings and speeches by those who have suffered true oppression - the oppressed have not been unable to speak. Now, with the internet and social media, there is virtually an unlimited ability to speak. It is both elitist and tyrannical to suggest that government needs to protect certain people from certain speech.
Given how so many people today take offense so easily, if we were to abide by this new theory of permissible speech, there would be precious little speech left. Sadly, the above-mentioned letter writer does not appreciate that in a free society we do have to tolerate speech that may be obnoxious to us. It is called liberty. But liberty is not a value for the Left. As this blog has previously pointed out, the fundamental American values always take a back seat to the Left's agenda-driven issues. As another letter writer to the USA Today so astutely pointed out, "Speech that is not offensive does not need protection. The First Amendment was created precisely to protect speech that some may find offensive..."
Former Labor Secretary and now Public Policy Professor at UC Berkeley, Robert Reich, said this: "Unfortunately, Berkeley and other universities have played into a narrative that the right would love to advance...The narrative assumes a cultural plot against the free expression of right-wing views in which academe, mainstream media - every facet of the establishment - is organized against them...That's a narrative Trump used to get into the White House." A "narrative?" Just a story?
As discussed in recent posts in this blog, conservative speakers Milo Yiannopoulos, Charles Murray, Heather MacDonald and now Ann Coulter have been prevented from speaking or been disinvited or forced to back out from speaking on college campuses. But those are simply the most recent examples. Here are some more: Karl Rove at U. Mass, Rand Paul at Howard, Ben Carson at Johns Hopkins, Ben Shapiro at Cal State L.A., Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali at Brandeis, and Jason Riley at Va. Tech. Then there is the objection to Israeli speakers: then Israeli Amb. to the US Michael Oren at UC Irvine, and Benjamin Netanyahu, now Israeli P.M., at Concordia Univ. in Montreal. All these speakers constitute nothing more than "a narrative (that) assumes a cultural plot against the free expression of right-wing views?" Let's get real!
NYU Professor Ulrich Baer had an op-ed in the 4/24/17 NY Times entitled "What Snowflakes Get Right About Free Speech." Baer: "During the 1980s and '90s, a shift occurred in American culture; personal experience and testimony, especially of suffering and oppression, began to challenge the primacy of argument. Freedom of expression became a flash point in this shift." How does this work? Those who were oppressed get to censor speech of the alleged oppressors? The descendants of those who were formerly oppressed get to censor the descendants of those claimed to be the oppressors? Who gets to decide who belongs in each group - and what words are permissible?
The new standard seems to be that we allow only that speech which enhances the "public good." Baer: "Some topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms." First, notice the elitist attitude that certain groups need some sort of government protection from speech, because they are not able to "debate...on the same terms." Second, who gets to decide what topics are off limits for public debate, and what enforcement mechanisms will be utilized? Once again, we can infer that the Left will look to the government to determine proper speech. Is that really the direction in which we should be going? How long before we end up with a complete suppression of speech, as we have seen in various Communist - and other dictatorial - countries.
Baer: For speech to be considered a "common, public good...requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing." Baer continued: "As a scholar of literature, history and politics, I am especially attuned to the next generation's demands to revise existing definitions of free speech to accommodate previously delegitimized experiences. Freedom of expression is not an unchanging absolute." Well, I am always glad to hear from scholars of this, that and the other thing. No, I am not against intellectual thought and analysis. But, intellectuals and scholars do not have such a great track record of defending liberty. They often supported the murderous Communist regime in Soviet Russia. They have supported Castro's Cuba. And they often support the terrorism-committing Palestinians in their efforts to wipe Israel off the map. So, spare me the intellectual gobbledygook. What we are really talking about is tyranny.
Baer finishes his piece with this: "We should thank the student protesters, the activists in Black Lives Matter and other "overly sensitive souls" for keeping watch over the soul of our republic." Yes, let's thank Black Lives Matter for things like "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon." I guess that highly offensive speech - calling cops pigs, and suggesting they be fried - coming from the Left is to be permitted. I guess we get to see that not all offensive speech is banned - depending on which side of the political divide is uttering it.
A former head of the DNC, Howard Dean, expressed that "hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment." He's wrong. One letter writer to the USA Today said this: "Just because you can say something doesn't mean it should be said, freedom or not." He's right, of course. However, he left out that it also does not mean that the government should be able to punish those who say things that, perhaps, are indeed best left unsaid. The letter writer suggests using good judgment and common sense, with which, again, I totally concur. But he ends his letter saying: "So you can take your ivory tower interpretation of what free speech means and park it down your apologist street." This writer's approach would mean that those who take offense would be able to bar speech of those whose speech offends them. That is exactly what we have now in academia. Why is the closure of debate a good thing? Why is the Left unable to rebut speech with which they disagree? Because they have been oppressed? History is replete with writings and speeches by those who have suffered true oppression - the oppressed have not been unable to speak. Now, with the internet and social media, there is virtually an unlimited ability to speak. It is both elitist and tyrannical to suggest that government needs to protect certain people from certain speech.
Given how so many people today take offense so easily, if we were to abide by this new theory of permissible speech, there would be precious little speech left. Sadly, the above-mentioned letter writer does not appreciate that in a free society we do have to tolerate speech that may be obnoxious to us. It is called liberty. But liberty is not a value for the Left. As this blog has previously pointed out, the fundamental American values always take a back seat to the Left's agenda-driven issues. As another letter writer to the USA Today so astutely pointed out, "Speech that is not offensive does not need protection. The First Amendment was created precisely to protect speech that some may find offensive..."
Sunday, April 23, 2017
The Latest From Academia
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)