The self-described "paper of record," the New York Times, is another participant in the fake news world. Following the shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise and others by a left-wing fanatic, the New York Times tried to do what the left commonly does - create an equivalency with the right when someone on their side engages in bad behavior. In this case, the paper attempted to equate the shooting of Scalise with the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords six years ago.
Said the Times in one of their editorials: "Before the shooting (of Gabby Giffords) Sarah Palin's political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs." First, the cross hairs were over the districts - not on individual politicians. Second, the shooting of Gabby Giffords was in 2011. It has been common knowledge for quite some time that the shooter had no particular political affiliation that motivated him to commit his murderous acts. He was thought to be a mentally ill individual.
So, why would the New York Times run with such a story in their editorial? They had to know it was false. This editorial is best understood as yet another example of what motivates the left - their left-wing agenda. As I have noted before, truth often bows to the agenda. Their "issues" are their values, which also explains why the left and the right do not share the same values. The right relies on fundamental religious and Constitutional values.
The allegations against Sarah Palin were so obviously false that the Times had to issue a "correction." It read as follows: "An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established." However, there was such a link between the shooting of Representative Scalise and his shooter - as that shooter clearly hated Republicans. The "correction" did not include an apology to Sarah Palin, who is now suing the Times over the editorial.
Recently, another anti-Trump news outlet - CNN - had their own controversy. Three of their journalists were forced to resign. A story run by CNN accused Trump adviser, Anthony Scaramucci, of having improper ties to Russia. Mr. Scaramucci denied the allegations and the network did not have the facts to back up the claim.
James O'Keefe runs Project Veritas. One of his people was speaking with a CNN producer, John Bonifield. Bonifield: "Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords. And the CEO of CNN (Jeff Zucker) said in our internal meeting...he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we are done with that, let's get back to Russia." Queried the Project Veritas reporter: "Then why is CNN constantly, like, Russia this, Russia that?" Bonifield: "Because it's ratings." To which I would add, it is also consistent with their left-wing, attack Trump news.
Just how biased against Trump is the mainstream media? Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy sought to study that issue, looking at Trump's first 100 days in office. The results should not be surprising to anyone. CNN and NBC had the worst records for fair reporting, with 93% of their news coverage of Trump being negative, with only 7% being positive. As for the rest: CBS was 91% negative and 9% positive, The New York Times was 87% negative and 13% positive, The Washington Post was 83% negative and 17% positive, The Wall Street Journal was 70% negative and 30% positive, and Fox News (formerly under the slogan "Fair and Balanced" but now "Most Watched, Most Trusted") was the only one of these media outlets to have balanced reporting - 52% negative and 48% positive.
Overall, Trump's coverage was 80% negative and only 20% positive. Obama's first hundred days came in at 60% positive to 40% negative. That is a 40% shift towards the negative. Notwithstanding these statistics, it does not mean that I believe Trump should engage in a Twitter war with every critical news outlet or individual. I would like to see him use Twitter to discuss his accomplishments and his policies. But, an occasional Tweet against the "fake media" is sometimes in order.
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Saturday, July 1, 2017
I Hate You More!
Phil Montag, a former Nebraska Democratic party official (since fired) had these kind words to say after Congressmen Steve Scalise was shot: "I hate this motherf..... I'm f...... glad he got shot. I'm glad he got shot. I'm not going to f...... say that in public. I wish he was f...... dead."
Comedian Marcella Arguello said this: "If a few old ass conservative white men have to die in order to get the gun control issue discussed then I'm willing to take that risk."
Regarding the Senate Republicans' healthcare plan, Elizabeth Warren said: "These cuts are blood money. People will die. Let's be very clear - Senate Republicans are paying for tax cuts for the wealthy with American lives."
Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton said this: "Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this bill they're the death party." I have to say a word or two here. Remember how Sarah Palin was mocked and laughed at for suggesting that Obamacare would lead to rationing; and with rationing comes decisions about who gets treatment and who does not - in some cases, who lives and who dies. But, Elizabeth Warren can say the Republican plan will kill people; Hillary Clinton can say it - and no outcry. Nothing. Crickets.
Here is the latest from Johnny Depp, to an approving audience in Glastonbury, UK: "When was the last time an actor assassinated a President?" So clever. I do hope that the Secret Service pays him a visit.
Chelsey Gentry-Tipton is the Democratic Black Caucus Chairwoman in Nebraska. She had this to say about the shooting of Steve Scalise and others: "The very people that push NRA legislation in efforts to pad their pockets with complete disregard for human life. Yeah, having a hard time feeling bad for them."
One writer for the Huffington Post, Jesse Benn, said this: "What's more harmful: putting millions already on the margins more at risk via draconian policies, or shooting a racist lawmaker in the hip?" Here is what is more harmful: your inability to view those who hold differing views as being human beings. The same applies to all the others quoted above.
Here is a real hater - Professor Johnny Williams of Trinity College in Connecticut: "It is past time for the racially oppressed to do what people who believe themselves to be 'white' will not do, put end to the vectors of their destructive mythology of whiteness and their white supremacy system #let them f...... die" "The time is now to confront these inhuman a..holes and end this now."
Today's Los Angeles Times reports on a new Pew Research poll concerning how Democrats and Republicans feel about one another. It is not a pretty picture. 47% of Democrats say Republicans make them angry, but 46% of Republicans say the same thing about Democrats. No difference between the parties there. But there was a very interesting difference: 52% of Republicans say that Democrats are more closed-minded than other Americans. But a whopping 70% of Democrats say Republicans are more closed-minded than other Americans. Do I believe that Republicans are more closed-minded than Democrats? Of course not. Given the above quotes, and once again given what happened to me personally (discussed in last summer's post entitled "A Personal Tale of Intolerance"), I could certainly make the case that Democrats are more closed-minded.
In fact, it is the rare case where I encounter a liberal Democrat who tells me that they read or listen to opposing views. I am not alone in expressing the concern that we seem to be in a civil war in this country - albeit a mostly non-violent one. There are an increasing number of commentators who are now expressing the same sentiment. I am seeing an increasing number of articles discussing what might be done to increase tolerance for divergent views, especially on college campuses. For now, however, one commentator said it best about colleges - colleges provide tremendous diversity of race, religion and ethnic background, so long as everyone thinks alike.
I have previously discussed that I believe that a core problem is that Democrats and Republicans no longer share the same fundamental values. That certainly makes it easier to disrespect those with whom you disagree. It is time - past time - to bring back the fundamentals to our schools. Requiring recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance daily. Teaching civics. Teaching how our governing document - the Constitution - works, and why it is the greatest governing document ever written. And teaching why allowing the expression of many viewpoints is one of our greatest freedoms, a freedom that we have because the First Amendment to the Constitution protects that right.
Comedian Marcella Arguello said this: "If a few old ass conservative white men have to die in order to get the gun control issue discussed then I'm willing to take that risk."
Regarding the Senate Republicans' healthcare plan, Elizabeth Warren said: "These cuts are blood money. People will die. Let's be very clear - Senate Republicans are paying for tax cuts for the wealthy with American lives."
Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton said this: "Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this bill they're the death party." I have to say a word or two here. Remember how Sarah Palin was mocked and laughed at for suggesting that Obamacare would lead to rationing; and with rationing comes decisions about who gets treatment and who does not - in some cases, who lives and who dies. But, Elizabeth Warren can say the Republican plan will kill people; Hillary Clinton can say it - and no outcry. Nothing. Crickets.
Here is the latest from Johnny Depp, to an approving audience in Glastonbury, UK: "When was the last time an actor assassinated a President?" So clever. I do hope that the Secret Service pays him a visit.
Chelsey Gentry-Tipton is the Democratic Black Caucus Chairwoman in Nebraska. She had this to say about the shooting of Steve Scalise and others: "The very people that push NRA legislation in efforts to pad their pockets with complete disregard for human life. Yeah, having a hard time feeling bad for them."
One writer for the Huffington Post, Jesse Benn, said this: "What's more harmful: putting millions already on the margins more at risk via draconian policies, or shooting a racist lawmaker in the hip?" Here is what is more harmful: your inability to view those who hold differing views as being human beings. The same applies to all the others quoted above.
Here is a real hater - Professor Johnny Williams of Trinity College in Connecticut: "It is past time for the racially oppressed to do what people who believe themselves to be 'white' will not do, put end to the vectors of their destructive mythology of whiteness and their white supremacy system #let them f...... die" "The time is now to confront these inhuman a..holes and end this now."
Today's Los Angeles Times reports on a new Pew Research poll concerning how Democrats and Republicans feel about one another. It is not a pretty picture. 47% of Democrats say Republicans make them angry, but 46% of Republicans say the same thing about Democrats. No difference between the parties there. But there was a very interesting difference: 52% of Republicans say that Democrats are more closed-minded than other Americans. But a whopping 70% of Democrats say Republicans are more closed-minded than other Americans. Do I believe that Republicans are more closed-minded than Democrats? Of course not. Given the above quotes, and once again given what happened to me personally (discussed in last summer's post entitled "A Personal Tale of Intolerance"), I could certainly make the case that Democrats are more closed-minded.
In fact, it is the rare case where I encounter a liberal Democrat who tells me that they read or listen to opposing views. I am not alone in expressing the concern that we seem to be in a civil war in this country - albeit a mostly non-violent one. There are an increasing number of commentators who are now expressing the same sentiment. I am seeing an increasing number of articles discussing what might be done to increase tolerance for divergent views, especially on college campuses. For now, however, one commentator said it best about colleges - colleges provide tremendous diversity of race, religion and ethnic background, so long as everyone thinks alike.
I have previously discussed that I believe that a core problem is that Democrats and Republicans no longer share the same fundamental values. That certainly makes it easier to disrespect those with whom you disagree. It is time - past time - to bring back the fundamentals to our schools. Requiring recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance daily. Teaching civics. Teaching how our governing document - the Constitution - works, and why it is the greatest governing document ever written. And teaching why allowing the expression of many viewpoints is one of our greatest freedoms, a freedom that we have because the First Amendment to the Constitution protects that right.
Thursday, June 15, 2017
"Terminate the Republican Party"
Apparently, that was the name of a group to which today's shooter in Alexandria belonged. This man (for new readers this blog does not give the names of evil perpetrators), who hated Republicans and was a Bernie Sanders supporter, shot up a practice baseball game of Republican Congressmen.
Said the man's brother: "I know he wasn't happy with the the way things were going, the election results and stuff." A lot of people were not happy with the election results. The media, the Left, the Democratic Party have engaged in non-stop "resistance" that frequently exceeds the bounds of decency and civility.
We recall Madonna telling us that "I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House." Stephen Colbert thought it was funny to joke about Trump's mouth being a receptacle for Putin's private parts. Recently, we had Kathy Griffin holding up a head made to look like the bloody decapitated head of the President. But, do not for one minute think it's just the Hollywood crowd that acts so disrespectfully and inadvisedly.
Let's not forget what Hillary Clinton thought of Trump supporters - the basket of deplorables - "the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." It is not just that she said that - it is that so many on the Left actually believe it. If you think that about your political opponents, it is easy to think of them as not deserving of respect. If you doubt that, see last summer's post entitled "A Personal Tale of Intolerance."
With regards to the Republican's American Heath Care Act, numerous Democratic politicians said that the bill, if passed, would result in people dying. Those politicians include Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Terry McAuliffe, John Lewis, and undoubtedly others. These comments could be taken as saying that a vote for the bill essentially makes you a murderer - you are voting to get people killed. Rather extreme rhetoric. And clearly also believed by many on the Left. For example, the Chairman of the Democratic Party said this about Republicans: "Republicans don't give a shit about people." I'd say that is fairly clear as to what mainstream Democrats think about Republicans. Add in all the insults to Republicans from the mainstream media, and from academia, and you've got quite the vortex of hatred.
As for the shooter, he was quite active on social media, with comments such as: "Trump is guilty and should go to prison for treason." And this: "It's time for the Republican congressmen to grow up. Maybe if they weren't so full of hate, they could see what they are doing to this country." And this very ominous one: "Trump has destroyed our democracy, it's time to destroy Trump."
As of this writing, Congressman Steve Scalise remains in critical condition. As he is the Majority Whip, he had a security detail of two Capitol Police officers. Although wounded themselves, these officers (one man and one woman) stood their ground and returned fire, wounding the shooter, whose wounds later proved fatal. Two others were also wounded. One thing is certain - everyone there was extremely grateful that there were armed good guys able to take down the shooter. Otherwise, it might have been a massacre. The actions of these officers reflect the finest of the men and women in blue who protect us on a daily basis.
Six years ago, when Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot and severely wounded by a deranged man, the mainstream media wasted no time in blaming Republicans/conservatives/the right for the shooting. The 1/11/11 LA Times editorial said this: "the Right bears the brunt of responsibility for this poisoned atmosphere." The lead editorial in the 1/10/11 NY Times opined: "...it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media (an obvious reference to talk radio) responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge."
I am ending this post with two thoughts. One, I wonder how the mainstream media will spin this so that the shooter's actions do not reflect negatively on the Left; and maybe even find a way to blame Republicans. Two, and I am not happy that this thought even occurred to me, but what if it was President Trump who was shot? I have personally experienced the vitriol from the Left. I have seen the outpouring of animosity and pure hatred coming from the Left towards Republicans generally, and towards Trump particularly. So, my question is, if Trump was the victim, would we be seeing celebrations by the Left across the country, with the hope that Trump wouldn't make it? The fact that such a scenario seems possible tells us about the sad state of politics today in the - still - United States of America.
We recall Madonna telling us that "I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House." Stephen Colbert thought it was funny to joke about Trump's mouth being a receptacle for Putin's private parts. Recently, we had Kathy Griffin holding up a head made to look like the bloody decapitated head of the President. But, do not for one minute think it's just the Hollywood crowd that acts so disrespectfully and inadvisedly.
Let's not forget what Hillary Clinton thought of Trump supporters - the basket of deplorables - "the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." It is not just that she said that - it is that so many on the Left actually believe it. If you think that about your political opponents, it is easy to think of them as not deserving of respect. If you doubt that, see last summer's post entitled "A Personal Tale of Intolerance."
With regards to the Republican's American Heath Care Act, numerous Democratic politicians said that the bill, if passed, would result in people dying. Those politicians include Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Terry McAuliffe, John Lewis, and undoubtedly others. These comments could be taken as saying that a vote for the bill essentially makes you a murderer - you are voting to get people killed. Rather extreme rhetoric. And clearly also believed by many on the Left. For example, the Chairman of the Democratic Party said this about Republicans: "Republicans don't give a shit about people." I'd say that is fairly clear as to what mainstream Democrats think about Republicans. Add in all the insults to Republicans from the mainstream media, and from academia, and you've got quite the vortex of hatred.
As for the shooter, he was quite active on social media, with comments such as: "Trump is guilty and should go to prison for treason." And this: "It's time for the Republican congressmen to grow up. Maybe if they weren't so full of hate, they could see what they are doing to this country." And this very ominous one: "Trump has destroyed our democracy, it's time to destroy Trump."
As of this writing, Congressman Steve Scalise remains in critical condition. As he is the Majority Whip, he had a security detail of two Capitol Police officers. Although wounded themselves, these officers (one man and one woman) stood their ground and returned fire, wounding the shooter, whose wounds later proved fatal. Two others were also wounded. One thing is certain - everyone there was extremely grateful that there were armed good guys able to take down the shooter. Otherwise, it might have been a massacre. The actions of these officers reflect the finest of the men and women in blue who protect us on a daily basis.
Six years ago, when Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot and severely wounded by a deranged man, the mainstream media wasted no time in blaming Republicans/conservatives/the right for the shooting. The 1/11/11 LA Times editorial said this: "the Right bears the brunt of responsibility for this poisoned atmosphere." The lead editorial in the 1/10/11 NY Times opined: "...it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media (an obvious reference to talk radio) responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge."
I am ending this post with two thoughts. One, I wonder how the mainstream media will spin this so that the shooter's actions do not reflect negatively on the Left; and maybe even find a way to blame Republicans. Two, and I am not happy that this thought even occurred to me, but what if it was President Trump who was shot? I have personally experienced the vitriol from the Left. I have seen the outpouring of animosity and pure hatred coming from the Left towards Republicans generally, and towards Trump particularly. So, my question is, if Trump was the victim, would we be seeing celebrations by the Left across the country, with the hope that Trump wouldn't make it? The fact that such a scenario seems possible tells us about the sad state of politics today in the - still - United States of America.
Monday, June 12, 2017
J. "Edgar" Comey
For those unfamiliar with the first director of the F.B.I., J. Edgar Hoover had a reputation for keeping secret files, or dossiers, on politicians - just in case. Some think those secret files helped keep Hoover in office as the Director from 1935 through 1972. That's some tenure.
Last week, another Director (albeit former Director) of the F.B.I., James Comey, testified before the US Senate Intelligence Committee. Lost in all the noise coming from the Left was the fact that Comey presented no evidence of Trump's alleged collusion with Russia. There were "no new bombshells about Russian meddling in the 2016 election or improper contacts by the Trump campaign or the White House with Russian authorities." That, from the liberal LA Times (6/9/17). And from Chris Matthews, we were told that those who claim the president colluded with the Russians to affect the election - "what came apart this morning was that theory."
Having lunch with two friends afterwards, I suggested that the mainstream media had several options for the next day's headlines. Comey: No collusion with Russia. Comey: No votes affected by any Russian interference. However, my prediction was this: Comey: Trump lied! So, how did I do? USA Today: "Comey calls Trump a liar." LA Times: "Comey accuses Trump of 'lies, plain and simple.'" NY Times: "TRUMP TRIED TO SINK INQUIRY, COMEY SAYS." The sub-headline does, however, say Comey "Condemns President's 'Lies.'" Not too bad in my prognostications. Or, as one of those two friends later texted me: "Nostramichaelus." But, really, just how difficult is it to predict what the mainstream media will say?
Exactly what did Comey say Trump lied about? That the F.B.I. was poorly led and in disarray, as the alleged reasons for firing Comey. There's a shocker - a dispute between an employer and employee over the reasons for the employee's termination. That's the type of dispute that occurs daily across the country. And that's what makes the headlines in the mainstream media. Apparently, the Russian collusion story is already acknowledged by the Left to be a lost cause. Ten months in and we have no hard evidence of collusion with the Russians. At least the media can call Trump a liar, given Comey's testimony.
It turns out that the "big" story to come out of Comey's testimony was his claim that Trump asked him if he could "see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go," because Flynn is a good man. Before Comey was the Director of the FBI, beginning in September of 2013, he was in the private sector. However, prior to that he was the US Deputy Attorney General from December, 2003 to August, 2005. And prior to that he was the US Attorney for the Southern Distract of New York. That US Attorney office is one of the top two US Attorney offices in the country, along with the one in Washington, D.C. The Southern District of NY gets very tough cases, including organized crime and terrorism cases. But, suddenly, Comey tells us he is not that tough after all.
Apparently, it was not only Trump who thought he might have some influence, when expressing his "hope" that Comey could let the Flynn investigation go. It turns out that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch made her own request of Comey when she asked him to refer to the Clinton e-mail investigation as a "matter" and not an "investigation." Comey said that request "confused me and concerned me." It also made him feel "queasy." Later on, when Lynch agreed to the meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix, Comey declared that "that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the F.B.I. and the Justice Department."
Senator Dianne Feinstein, (Dem., CA) asked Comey why he did not tell Trump that his request regarding Flynn was wrong. Why not say: "I cannot discuss this with you?" Comey: "Maybe if I were stronger, I would have." And: "Maybe other people would be stronger in that circumstance." Let's examine that. The man who was a Deputy US Attorney General, and a former federal prosecutor in one of the most important offices in the country, and ultimately the top cop in the country - turns out to be a wimp? Is that what we are supposed to believe? If so, he did no service to this country and no service to the President. The President does not need a "yes" man in such an important position. Any President needs an F.B.I. Director who will speak truthfully to him. Comey, if he is to be believed, failed in that; and that alone forms a sufficient basis for his termination.
Another way to look at it is that Comey acted as just another member of the "deep state," extremely distrustful of this outsider Trump. Comey says he kept memos (like dossiers?) of his discussions with Trump. Did he keep memos of his discussions with Loretta Lynch? Did he think that the directive to use the term "matter" came from Lynch, or that Obama instructed her to tell him? When Lynch then met with Bill Clinton, that "capped" it for him, and he went public with his assessment of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation. Why didn't he resign? He clearly felt that Lynch was not impartial. If he felt that Trump was asking him to do something improper, why didn't he resign, or at least report it to higher-ups in the Justice Department? Comey made it clear that he would still be the Director had Trump not fired him. Apparently, he saw nothing so egregious that would prompt his resignation.
J. Edgar Hoover has been credited with making the F.B.I. the modern, preeminent law enforcement agency that it is. He was also a man who apparently relished in the power that he wielded. So, was Comey the wimp, unable to stand up to any higher official? Or, was he also enamored of his power, writing memos to be used against political foes as necessary - memos that, perhaps, he assumed would protect his job? Astonishingly, Comey admitted to leaking his memo about the Trump meeting to his friend who teaches at Columbia Law School, encouraging him, in turn, to turn it over to the NY Times. Quite a manipulative scenario. But what if this happened - what if Comey, when asked if he could let the Flynn matter go, responded "Mr. President, that is an improper request and we cannot be discussing that." Then, Trump's reaction would tell us if he meant to exert any undue influence or not. That is what someone who is not a wimp, or manipulator, does. As for any obstruction of justice, liberal law professor Jonathan Turley said this: "the legal fact is that Comey's testimony does not establish a prima facie - or even a strong - case for obstruction." Just don't expect the mainstream media to drop the unproven allegations against Trump from their front pages for the next four years.
Last week, another Director (albeit former Director) of the F.B.I., James Comey, testified before the US Senate Intelligence Committee. Lost in all the noise coming from the Left was the fact that Comey presented no evidence of Trump's alleged collusion with Russia. There were "no new bombshells about Russian meddling in the 2016 election or improper contacts by the Trump campaign or the White House with Russian authorities." That, from the liberal LA Times (6/9/17). And from Chris Matthews, we were told that those who claim the president colluded with the Russians to affect the election - "what came apart this morning was that theory."
Having lunch with two friends afterwards, I suggested that the mainstream media had several options for the next day's headlines. Comey: No collusion with Russia. Comey: No votes affected by any Russian interference. However, my prediction was this: Comey: Trump lied! So, how did I do? USA Today: "Comey calls Trump a liar." LA Times: "Comey accuses Trump of 'lies, plain and simple.'" NY Times: "TRUMP TRIED TO SINK INQUIRY, COMEY SAYS." The sub-headline does, however, say Comey "Condemns President's 'Lies.'" Not too bad in my prognostications. Or, as one of those two friends later texted me: "Nostramichaelus." But, really, just how difficult is it to predict what the mainstream media will say?
Exactly what did Comey say Trump lied about? That the F.B.I. was poorly led and in disarray, as the alleged reasons for firing Comey. There's a shocker - a dispute between an employer and employee over the reasons for the employee's termination. That's the type of dispute that occurs daily across the country. And that's what makes the headlines in the mainstream media. Apparently, the Russian collusion story is already acknowledged by the Left to be a lost cause. Ten months in and we have no hard evidence of collusion with the Russians. At least the media can call Trump a liar, given Comey's testimony.
It turns out that the "big" story to come out of Comey's testimony was his claim that Trump asked him if he could "see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go," because Flynn is a good man. Before Comey was the Director of the FBI, beginning in September of 2013, he was in the private sector. However, prior to that he was the US Deputy Attorney General from December, 2003 to August, 2005. And prior to that he was the US Attorney for the Southern Distract of New York. That US Attorney office is one of the top two US Attorney offices in the country, along with the one in Washington, D.C. The Southern District of NY gets very tough cases, including organized crime and terrorism cases. But, suddenly, Comey tells us he is not that tough after all.
Apparently, it was not only Trump who thought he might have some influence, when expressing his "hope" that Comey could let the Flynn investigation go. It turns out that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch made her own request of Comey when she asked him to refer to the Clinton e-mail investigation as a "matter" and not an "investigation." Comey said that request "confused me and concerned me." It also made him feel "queasy." Later on, when Lynch agreed to the meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix, Comey declared that "that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the F.B.I. and the Justice Department."
Senator Dianne Feinstein, (Dem., CA) asked Comey why he did not tell Trump that his request regarding Flynn was wrong. Why not say: "I cannot discuss this with you?" Comey: "Maybe if I were stronger, I would have." And: "Maybe other people would be stronger in that circumstance." Let's examine that. The man who was a Deputy US Attorney General, and a former federal prosecutor in one of the most important offices in the country, and ultimately the top cop in the country - turns out to be a wimp? Is that what we are supposed to believe? If so, he did no service to this country and no service to the President. The President does not need a "yes" man in such an important position. Any President needs an F.B.I. Director who will speak truthfully to him. Comey, if he is to be believed, failed in that; and that alone forms a sufficient basis for his termination.
Another way to look at it is that Comey acted as just another member of the "deep state," extremely distrustful of this outsider Trump. Comey says he kept memos (like dossiers?) of his discussions with Trump. Did he keep memos of his discussions with Loretta Lynch? Did he think that the directive to use the term "matter" came from Lynch, or that Obama instructed her to tell him? When Lynch then met with Bill Clinton, that "capped" it for him, and he went public with his assessment of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation. Why didn't he resign? He clearly felt that Lynch was not impartial. If he felt that Trump was asking him to do something improper, why didn't he resign, or at least report it to higher-ups in the Justice Department? Comey made it clear that he would still be the Director had Trump not fired him. Apparently, he saw nothing so egregious that would prompt his resignation.
J. Edgar Hoover has been credited with making the F.B.I. the modern, preeminent law enforcement agency that it is. He was also a man who apparently relished in the power that he wielded. So, was Comey the wimp, unable to stand up to any higher official? Or, was he also enamored of his power, writing memos to be used against political foes as necessary - memos that, perhaps, he assumed would protect his job? Astonishingly, Comey admitted to leaking his memo about the Trump meeting to his friend who teaches at Columbia Law School, encouraging him, in turn, to turn it over to the NY Times. Quite a manipulative scenario. But what if this happened - what if Comey, when asked if he could let the Flynn matter go, responded "Mr. President, that is an improper request and we cannot be discussing that." Then, Trump's reaction would tell us if he meant to exert any undue influence or not. That is what someone who is not a wimp, or manipulator, does. As for any obstruction of justice, liberal law professor Jonathan Turley said this: "the legal fact is that Comey's testimony does not establish a prima facie - or even a strong - case for obstruction." Just don't expect the mainstream media to drop the unproven allegations against Trump from their front pages for the next four years.
Sunday, June 4, 2017
Some Reflections on Kathy Griffin and Other News
Somehow, comedienne Kathy Griffin thought it would be funny to hold up (a la ISIS) a fake head of Donald Trump dripping with fake blood. Nobody laughed; although the Secret Service did open an investigation into the matter. After receiving blowback from all sides of the political spectrum, Ms. Griffin apologized. Not directly to Trump and his family. But she did acknowledge that she crossed the line, and begged for forgiveness.
No surprise, but the President and his family were not amused. They Tweeted their disgust, with Trump calling it "sick." In the time of ISIS, whose members have held up the severed heads of "infidels," I cannot imagine where she saw the humor. Her apology was not accepted by everyone. She lost her endorsement contract with Squatty Potty, and was fired by CNN, where she has cohosted the New Year's Eve program with Anderson Cooper for the last 10 years. She was also told by certain entertainment venues that some of her scheduled appearances had been canceled. Admittedly pretty rough for one bad mistake.
But, the next day Griffin appeared with attorney Lisa Bloom, giving a press conference, in which she blamed Trump and his family for her misfortunes. Griffin: "I'm not afraid of Donald Trump. I've dealt with older white guys trying to keep me down my whole life, my whole career." What is she talking about? How does Trump being an older white guy have anything to do with her poor decision to hold up what looked like Trump's bloody, severed head? This is a perfect example of what the left often does - they make the perpetrator the victim. We saw it in the mainstream media after the 9/11 attacks. Somehow, Muslims became the victims. We saw it after Michael Brown attacked officer Darren Wilson. The media made him a victim - of his own actions.
The best line by Ms. Griffin was this one: "...what's happening to me has never happened - ever - in the history of this country." Where has she been living? Oh, that's right, she resides in the liberal, entertainment world where only conservatives are supposed to be the bad guys. Does she even know about all the attacks and threats against conservatives, especially those who try to speak on college campuses? Has she ever spoken up in favor of the speech rights of conservatives? Clearly, if she is getting death threats, those people should be caught and prosecuted.
Actually, maybe the best line she said was this one: "It's quite clear to me they're trying to use me as a distraction. I'm not going to be collateral damage for this fool." Hmmm. That sounds suspiciously like a left-wing anti-Trump talking point. Do I think she came up with that on her own? I do not. On the other hand, her attorney is Lisa Bloom, who just happens to be the daughter of Democrat-supporter Gloria Allred. Coincidence? You tell me.
Evergreen State College is a liberal school in Washington State. Since the 1970s, they have had a yearly "Day of Absence," when faculty and students of color meet off campus. The idea, apparently, is to make whites realize the significance of the minority community. This year, however, the minority students decided to "invite" whites to leave the campus for a day. One white, liberal professor was apparently offended by the idea, and was not treated respectfully.
I'm offended by the whole thing. I'm offended by the incessant need of the left to always draw distinctions between the races. How is that supposed to create racial harmony? It does not. But if you want to know all you need to know about "higher" education today, consider this - the school has a position with the title of "Director of First Peoples Multicultural Advising Services." I'd like to say that I'm just kidding, but no, I'm not.
Having terminated Kathy Griffin's New Year's Eve cohosting duties, I wonder what, if anything, CNN will do Reza Aslan. Aslan on Trump: "This piece of sh.. is not just an embarrassment to America and a stain on the presidency. He's an embarrassment to humankind." Let me say that Aslan is an embarrassment to journalism and intellectual discourse everywhere.
Every once in a while I get to agree with the LA Times. From today's lead editorial: "The drumbeat of hatred, incivility and intolerance threatens our political system in ways big and small. It demeans individuals, disrupts discourse and exacerbates divisions. It weakens our claim to be a culture that values a free and open exchange of ideas. And at worst, it devolves into violence, which is unacceptable." Maybe the Times can lead the way and stop with the name-calling of conservatives, and the use of other derogatory terms we see in so many mainstream editorials.
No surprise, but the President and his family were not amused. They Tweeted their disgust, with Trump calling it "sick." In the time of ISIS, whose members have held up the severed heads of "infidels," I cannot imagine where she saw the humor. Her apology was not accepted by everyone. She lost her endorsement contract with Squatty Potty, and was fired by CNN, where she has cohosted the New Year's Eve program with Anderson Cooper for the last 10 years. She was also told by certain entertainment venues that some of her scheduled appearances had been canceled. Admittedly pretty rough for one bad mistake.
But, the next day Griffin appeared with attorney Lisa Bloom, giving a press conference, in which she blamed Trump and his family for her misfortunes. Griffin: "I'm not afraid of Donald Trump. I've dealt with older white guys trying to keep me down my whole life, my whole career." What is she talking about? How does Trump being an older white guy have anything to do with her poor decision to hold up what looked like Trump's bloody, severed head? This is a perfect example of what the left often does - they make the perpetrator the victim. We saw it in the mainstream media after the 9/11 attacks. Somehow, Muslims became the victims. We saw it after Michael Brown attacked officer Darren Wilson. The media made him a victim - of his own actions.
The best line by Ms. Griffin was this one: "...what's happening to me has never happened - ever - in the history of this country." Where has she been living? Oh, that's right, she resides in the liberal, entertainment world where only conservatives are supposed to be the bad guys. Does she even know about all the attacks and threats against conservatives, especially those who try to speak on college campuses? Has she ever spoken up in favor of the speech rights of conservatives? Clearly, if she is getting death threats, those people should be caught and prosecuted.
Actually, maybe the best line she said was this one: "It's quite clear to me they're trying to use me as a distraction. I'm not going to be collateral damage for this fool." Hmmm. That sounds suspiciously like a left-wing anti-Trump talking point. Do I think she came up with that on her own? I do not. On the other hand, her attorney is Lisa Bloom, who just happens to be the daughter of Democrat-supporter Gloria Allred. Coincidence? You tell me.
Evergreen State College is a liberal school in Washington State. Since the 1970s, they have had a yearly "Day of Absence," when faculty and students of color meet off campus. The idea, apparently, is to make whites realize the significance of the minority community. This year, however, the minority students decided to "invite" whites to leave the campus for a day. One white, liberal professor was apparently offended by the idea, and was not treated respectfully.
I'm offended by the whole thing. I'm offended by the incessant need of the left to always draw distinctions between the races. How is that supposed to create racial harmony? It does not. But if you want to know all you need to know about "higher" education today, consider this - the school has a position with the title of "Director of First Peoples Multicultural Advising Services." I'd like to say that I'm just kidding, but no, I'm not.
Having terminated Kathy Griffin's New Year's Eve cohosting duties, I wonder what, if anything, CNN will do Reza Aslan. Aslan on Trump: "This piece of sh.. is not just an embarrassment to America and a stain on the presidency. He's an embarrassment to humankind." Let me say that Aslan is an embarrassment to journalism and intellectual discourse everywhere.
Every once in a while I get to agree with the LA Times. From today's lead editorial: "The drumbeat of hatred, incivility and intolerance threatens our political system in ways big and small. It demeans individuals, disrupts discourse and exacerbates divisions. It weakens our claim to be a culture that values a free and open exchange of ideas. And at worst, it devolves into violence, which is unacceptable." Maybe the Times can lead the way and stop with the name-calling of conservatives, and the use of other derogatory terms we see in so many mainstream editorials.
The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling!
After President Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Accords, one might reasonably conclude that the end is near. After all, the LA Times 6/2/17 lead editorial told us that Trump "put the world on a path - potentially, but increasingly inevitably - to irreversible catastrophe." Let's put aside for a moment that in the 1970s, some scientists were warning of a coming ice age as increasing amounts of particulate matter in the atmosphere would block the sun's rays and lower global temperatures. Let's take an honest and calm look at what the President has done.
It turns out that in 2014, diplomats of the world were unable to come together and reach a binding agreement about how to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Hardly surprising, especially given the need of developing countries to use plentiful and relatively cheap carbon-based fuels to grow their economies. That would include countries such as China and India, who together have over 2.6 billion of the world's estimated 7.5 billion people. That is over 1/3 of the world's population in just those two still developing countries.
So, if the countries of the world were unable to reach a binding agreement, what does the Paris Accord actually do? It requires each signatory to submit an "Intended Nationally Determined Contribution," or INDC.
Here are two important quotes. "In truth, the agreement does not require any country to do anything; after the failure of the 1997 Kyoto Accord, the United Nations, which oversees climate change negotiations, decided that it simply did not have the authority to force a legally binding agreement." That quote is not from a conservative commentator; rather, it is from the 6/2/17 editorial in the New York Times. Here is another quote from that editorial: "Partly because of investments in cleaner fuels, partly because of revolutionary improvements in efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, carbon dioxide emissions in this country actually fell nearly 12 percent in the last decade."
The Times continues: "Market forces all seem to be headed in the right direction. Technologies are improving." Yes, conservative ideals carry the day again - market forces and technological breakthroughs in the private sector.
Before the international conference in Kyoto, the US Senate voted 95-0 against participating in any protocol that required a reduction in greenhouse-gases in the US - unless developing countries were also mandated to do so. Hence, there was no point in submitting the Kyoto protocol for ratification by the Senate, the Senate having already unanimously rejected the one-sided proposal. But here is another conservative idea. If the Paris Accord is of such significance, then why shouldn't there be compliance with the Constitutional requirements for approval of treaties? Obama did not submit it to the Senate when he signed off. But Article II, Section 2 reads as follows: "He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."
Meanwhile, while my liberal friends worry about what the Europeans are saying about the US, the 6/1/17 lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal tells us: "...Germany's emissions have increased in the last two years as more coal is burned to compensate for reduced nuclear energy and unreliable solar and wind power." And they are lecturing us? The 6/2/17 Journal editorial tells us that "over the past five years U.S. emissions have fallen by 270 million tons, while China-the No. 1 CO2 emitter-added 1.1 billion tons."
I understand that my liberal friends worry about the US being the odd country out. That does not bother me at all. We are already leading the developed world with substantially reduced carbon-based emissions. The Paris Accord would require the US to give away billions of dollars to developing countries in order to assist them with their energy needs - green energy needs. And why not? The first page of the 6/1/17 New York Times tells us "The United States, with its love of big cars, big houses and blasting air conditioners, has contributed more than any other country to the atmospheric carbon dioxide that is scorching the planet."
So, I ask the editors at the New York Times and other liberal papers, and I ask my liberal friends, how small a car do you drive? How small a house do you live in? Are you willing to give up air conditioning? Are you willing to walk or bike to your job and when you run errands? Of course, if we all stopped exhaling that should significantly reduce CO2 emissions, but I think we can agree that is not a feasible option.
It turns out that in 2014, diplomats of the world were unable to come together and reach a binding agreement about how to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Hardly surprising, especially given the need of developing countries to use plentiful and relatively cheap carbon-based fuels to grow their economies. That would include countries such as China and India, who together have over 2.6 billion of the world's estimated 7.5 billion people. That is over 1/3 of the world's population in just those two still developing countries.
So, if the countries of the world were unable to reach a binding agreement, what does the Paris Accord actually do? It requires each signatory to submit an "Intended Nationally Determined Contribution," or INDC.
Here are two important quotes. "In truth, the agreement does not require any country to do anything; after the failure of the 1997 Kyoto Accord, the United Nations, which oversees climate change negotiations, decided that it simply did not have the authority to force a legally binding agreement." That quote is not from a conservative commentator; rather, it is from the 6/2/17 editorial in the New York Times. Here is another quote from that editorial: "Partly because of investments in cleaner fuels, partly because of revolutionary improvements in efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, carbon dioxide emissions in this country actually fell nearly 12 percent in the last decade."
The Times continues: "Market forces all seem to be headed in the right direction. Technologies are improving." Yes, conservative ideals carry the day again - market forces and technological breakthroughs in the private sector.
Before the international conference in Kyoto, the US Senate voted 95-0 against participating in any protocol that required a reduction in greenhouse-gases in the US - unless developing countries were also mandated to do so. Hence, there was no point in submitting the Kyoto protocol for ratification by the Senate, the Senate having already unanimously rejected the one-sided proposal. But here is another conservative idea. If the Paris Accord is of such significance, then why shouldn't there be compliance with the Constitutional requirements for approval of treaties? Obama did not submit it to the Senate when he signed off. But Article II, Section 2 reads as follows: "He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."
Meanwhile, while my liberal friends worry about what the Europeans are saying about the US, the 6/1/17 lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal tells us: "...Germany's emissions have increased in the last two years as more coal is burned to compensate for reduced nuclear energy and unreliable solar and wind power." And they are lecturing us? The 6/2/17 Journal editorial tells us that "over the past five years U.S. emissions have fallen by 270 million tons, while China-the No. 1 CO2 emitter-added 1.1 billion tons."
I understand that my liberal friends worry about the US being the odd country out. That does not bother me at all. We are already leading the developed world with substantially reduced carbon-based emissions. The Paris Accord would require the US to give away billions of dollars to developing countries in order to assist them with their energy needs - green energy needs. And why not? The first page of the 6/1/17 New York Times tells us "The United States, with its love of big cars, big houses and blasting air conditioners, has contributed more than any other country to the atmospheric carbon dioxide that is scorching the planet."
So, I ask the editors at the New York Times and other liberal papers, and I ask my liberal friends, how small a car do you drive? How small a house do you live in? Are you willing to give up air conditioning? Are you willing to walk or bike to your job and when you run errands? Of course, if we all stopped exhaling that should significantly reduce CO2 emissions, but I think we can agree that is not a feasible option.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Trump and the Middle East
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)