As far as I can tell, none of the terrible consequences - both foreign and domestic - feared and predicted by the Left, that were to have flowed from a Trump Presidency, have come to fruition. Nevertheless, the mainstream media still views the Trump Presidency as a disaster. The 12/26/17 LA Times main front page headline read: "Foreign leaders say U.S. losing stature." The 12/29/17 NY Times front page headline read: "Insurgent President Alters, Unpredictably, America's Global Role." So, let's take a look.
Not surprisingly, one of the liberal media's main concerns was Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital city, especially after the UN General Assembly voted to demand that the United States rescind its decision recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The vote was 128 to 9, with 35 abstentions. And, our Western European "allies" in the UK, France and Germany voted with the likes of China, Russia and the 57 nation Islamic block. Unlike Obama, willing to defer on US sovereignty to international organizations, Trump is not. Why should the UN get to decide where the USA puts its embassy? This is the same UN that once declared "Zionism" to be racism; a decision only reversed later on through the efforts of the US.
Our UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, said this after the vote: "We will remember (this vote) when we are called upon to once again make the world's largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit." Thereafter, the US announced a $285 million cut in our contribution to the UN. Said one commentator in the Wall Street Journal: "Diplomacy based on denying reality isn't helpful." In true conservative fashion, Trump acknowledged the reality of Jerusalem as Israel's historic and religious capital. The Leftist media and Europeans would prefer to continue the appeasement of the Palestinians, as if that appeasement has actually moved the parties closer towards peace.
Both the LA and NY Times suggested that Trump's Jerusalem decision was nothing more than a pandering to his base. The NY Times: "...evangelicals and some hard-line, pro-Israel American Jews exulted..." Actually, unlike his predecessors, Trump actually kept his campaign promise. By doing so, he also fulfilled a 1995 Congressional measure passed overwhelmingly by the House (374 to 37) and the Senate (93 to 5) calling for the relocation of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The NY Times: "The president takes credit for eradicating the caliphate built by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq,, though he mainly accelerated a battle plan developed by President Barack Obama." What utter nonsense! Trump "takes credit for...?" No, Trump deserves the credit for eradicating ISIS from the territory they had held in Iraq and Syria. He followed Obama's plan? Then how come in 8 years Obama could not succeed against ISIS? No, Trump made a campaign pledge to destroy ISIS in their strongholds. Another campaign promise kept.
The LA Times quotes with favor one Iranian commentator as follows: "Now Russia is celebrating its victory in Syria, and America is watching as an onlooker." Very confusing. The left-wing media cannot seem to decide if the US should withdraw from Middle East entanglements or get more involved. Wasn't it Obama who said that Syrian use of chemical weapons would be a red line, which, if the Syrians crossed, would not be tolerated? Well, they crossed it - and Obama did nothing. Trump, on the other hand, had 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles sent into Syria. Not a devastating blow, but a clear message that there are consequences.
Meanwhile, the NY Times frets over the reactions of the Europeans to Trump. They quote Angela Merkel: "We Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands. The times in which we can fully count on others - they are somewhat over." Is there a reason they are not able to take care of themselves? Britain and France are nuclear powers. Germany is an economic powerhouse. And, succeeding where his predecessors have failed, thanks to Trump the Europeans are starting to increase their monetary contributions to NATO.
As for North Korea, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson wrote in an Op-Ed in the 12/28/17 New York Times, Trump "abandoned the failed policy of strategic patience." Says Tillerson: "This year, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted three of the strongest sanctions resolutions in history...Our peaceful pressure campaign has cut off roughly 90 percent of North Korea's export revenue, much of which is used to fund illegal weapons development." As for Trump's name calling exchanges with Kim Jong-un - I've said before I've never been fond of the name calling. But who knows? Maybe the Korean dictator fears a tough talker such as Trump; and fear can often change minds.
Of course, while there are many other topics that could be discussed under the "foreign policy" umbrella, I cannot end this post without a discussion of Russia. Trump's recently released national security strategy paper "accused the Russians of using 'subversion' as a tactic and said that countering both rival (Russia and China) powers was necessary" (from the LA Times). But, the Times then asserts "Trump's refusal to overtly criticize Russia, some diplomats say, has emboldened Putin in his military actions in Ukraine." I'm trying to not laugh too hard. It was Obama and Hillary who had the "reset" with Russia. It was Obama who mocked Romney for calling Russia the greatest geopolitical threat to the US. It was Obama who told Medvedev to tell Putin that he (Obama) would have more "flexibility" after his reelection.
Obama stood by and did nothing when Russia invaded Ukraine. Did Obama's criticizing of Russia deter Putin? Of course not. Yet, the LA Times seems to believe that some harsh words from Trump would produce a different result. Russia supports Syria's Assad. Obama did not nothing to Russia's client state after they used chemical weapons. Trump sent in cruise missiles. Which one was more likely to upset Russia? Trump has now announced the US will send Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine, to aid in their fight against Russian backed forces. Anyone think that such action enamors the US in Putin's eyes?
Overall, Trump has had a successful foreign policy first year. But notice how the mainstream media spins their front page "news" stories in order to reflect negatively on Trump. At what point does left-wing spin become "fake" news?
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Year End Reflections, Part V (John Kerry vs Nikki Haley - No Contest)
In December of last year, the United States - by abstaining - allowed the passage of UN Security Resolution 2334. As was typical of the Obama-Kerry team, the resolution criticized Israel for building in Jerusalem, blamed Israel for the lack of a peace agreement, and, as usual tried to appease the Palestinians by giving them everything they want - and still expecting the Palestinians to come to the bargaining table.
Now, a year later later, Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the UN, said this: "Given the chance to vote again on Resolution 2334, I can say with complete confidence that the US would vote no, and we would exercise our veto power." The other day, the UN Security Council voted 14-1 on an Egyptian sponsored resolution declaring that the US should annul its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. As the one "no" vote was cast by Nikki Haley on behalf of the US, and as the US is one of the five permanent members with veto power, the resolution did not pass. Haley: the US "will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy."
Kerry, last December: "Now you may have heard that some criticize this resolution for calling East Jerusalem occupied territory. But to be clear, there was absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution (2334) on that issue." Except, that was not true, as previous policy was that the final status of Jerusalem was to be negotiated between the parties. No excuse making by Haley, however, as she asserted that the US had the "courage and honesty to recognize a fundamental reality: Jerusalem has been the political, cultural and spiritual homeland of the Jewish people for thousands of years; they have had no other capital city."
Last December, Kerry gave a 70 minute speech defending the contents of resolution 2334. The resolution included a provision claiming that Israeli "settlements" were "a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace." Here is what Haley just said about which party constitutes the biggest obstacle to peace: by "misplacing the blame for the failure of the peace efforts squarely on Israeli settlements, the resolution gave a pass to Palestinian leaders who for many years rejected one peace proposal after another."
Haley, with no hand wringing, and no doubt about what was right and what side the United States should take, then tweeted this: "At the UN we're always asked to do more and give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American ppl, about where to locate our embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us. On Thursday, there'll be a vote (this time in the General Assembly where the US has no veto power) criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names."
No apologies. No appeasement. No agonizing over using US power and influence. Does it make sense to keep providing foreign aid to countries who then poke us in the eye and vote against US interests at the UN? My take? G-d bless Nikki Haley and G-d bless Donald Trump for appointing her to be UN Ambassador.
Postscript: We can reasonably predict how the Western European, anti-Israel, Palestinian-appeasing countries will vote. For example, and representative of the Western European leaders, French President Emmanuel Macron referred to Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital "regrettable." But it is worth noting the words of Czech President Milos Zeman: "The European Union, cowards, are doing all they can so a pro-Palestinian terrorist movement can have supremacy over a pro-Israeli movement."
Now, a year later later, Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the UN, said this: "Given the chance to vote again on Resolution 2334, I can say with complete confidence that the US would vote no, and we would exercise our veto power." The other day, the UN Security Council voted 14-1 on an Egyptian sponsored resolution declaring that the US should annul its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. As the one "no" vote was cast by Nikki Haley on behalf of the US, and as the US is one of the five permanent members with veto power, the resolution did not pass. Haley: the US "will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy."
Kerry, last December: "Now you may have heard that some criticize this resolution for calling East Jerusalem occupied territory. But to be clear, there was absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution (2334) on that issue." Except, that was not true, as previous policy was that the final status of Jerusalem was to be negotiated between the parties. No excuse making by Haley, however, as she asserted that the US had the "courage and honesty to recognize a fundamental reality: Jerusalem has been the political, cultural and spiritual homeland of the Jewish people for thousands of years; they have had no other capital city."
Last December, Kerry gave a 70 minute speech defending the contents of resolution 2334. The resolution included a provision claiming that Israeli "settlements" were "a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace." Here is what Haley just said about which party constitutes the biggest obstacle to peace: by "misplacing the blame for the failure of the peace efforts squarely on Israeli settlements, the resolution gave a pass to Palestinian leaders who for many years rejected one peace proposal after another."
Haley, with no hand wringing, and no doubt about what was right and what side the United States should take, then tweeted this: "At the UN we're always asked to do more and give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American ppl, about where to locate our embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us. On Thursday, there'll be a vote (this time in the General Assembly where the US has no veto power) criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names."
No apologies. No appeasement. No agonizing over using US power and influence. Does it make sense to keep providing foreign aid to countries who then poke us in the eye and vote against US interests at the UN? My take? G-d bless Nikki Haley and G-d bless Donald Trump for appointing her to be UN Ambassador.
Postscript: We can reasonably predict how the Western European, anti-Israel, Palestinian-appeasing countries will vote. For example, and representative of the Western European leaders, French President Emmanuel Macron referred to Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital "regrettable." But it is worth noting the words of Czech President Milos Zeman: "The European Union, cowards, are doing all they can so a pro-Palestinian terrorist movement can have supremacy over a pro-Israeli movement."
Sunday, December 17, 2017
Year End Reflections, Part IV (Do You Still Believe the Mainstream Media?)
Following President Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the New York Times ran a story entitled: "Jerusalem, Explained: Why Trump's Decision Matters and What's Next." The article by Max Fisher ran in the 12/10/17 edition. Fisher: "Evangelical Christians have been joined by a subset of American Jews and others on the political right in arguing that the United States should overtly back Israel in the conflict." I guess, if we ignore the May, 2016 Pew poll showing that Americans back Israel over the Palestinians by 54% to 19%.
And why wouldn't Americans back Israel, given the shared Judeo values as well as the shared values of democracy and liberty. Fisher says that the pro-Israel position "hardened during the second intifada, a period of vicious Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the early 2000s." The truth is that it was a period of vicious terrorist attacks started by Yasser Arafat after he rejected an Israeli offer of a Palestinian state and walked out on then President Bill Clinton. By "vicious conflict" he means Arabs blowing up Jews on buses, in cafes and even at a Passover Seder.
Fisher suggests that Trump backed full Israeli control over all of Jerusalem, ignoring Trump's comments that the final decision on the borders of Jerusalem are to be decided by the parties.
In an Op-Ed in the 12/7/17 LA Times, UCLA Professor Saree Makdisi writes of "Trump's Mideast disaster." Admittedly, an Op-Ed piece is not a news story. However, mainstream papers such as the NY Times and LA Times excel at letting left-wing writers use the papers' opinion pages to express ideas which these papers support. The beauty of it is it allows the papers to say that they are simply giving voice to "other" opinions - which the papers just happen to share. Makdisi: "For Trump to endorse Israel's claim to the entire city, then, is to endorse illegality." Allow me to reiterate: Trump endorsed Jerusalem as Israel's capital, clearly stating that the final boundaries are up to the parties.
These papers obviously know that Israel's government offices are in the Western part of Jerusalem, and that any US Embassy will also be in the Western part of Jerusalem. Why, then, do they permit their writers to state "facts" that simply are not true? That would be because they want Trump to look bad, and they want Israel to look bad. The left-wing crowd is anti-Trump and anti-Israel. After accusing Trump of supporting white supremacy and being Islamophobic, the Professor concludes with what I imagine is her real wish for Israel. Accusing Israel of apartheid, she says this: "...what looks like a victory for Israeli apartheid now may well turn out to be a turning point on the road to its eventual demise."
In the 12/15/17 edition of the NY Times, the paper had a chart, or diagram if you will, on page 12 above the fold, with the title "What Is the 'Russia Story?'" Above that are these words: "Confused by all the news about Russia and the 2016 presidential election? We are here to help." Well, isn't that special? Is the Times there to help with the major scandal of the century (see the prior post) and give us a diagram of all the players involved in the cover-up of the Clinton email scandal, the Trump dossier and fabricated Russian collusion story, and the effort by high government officials to prevent Trump from getting elected, and to resort to other tactics to get him removed from office should he win? Just asking.
However, the winner for the most overt bias against, and hatred of, Trump will have to be the USA Today. Their 12/13/17 editorial discusses Trump's dust-up with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. After calling for Trump to resign, Trump responded in his usual attack mode. He said that Gillibrand previously came to his office (before he was President) "begging" for campaign contributions, and "would do anything for them." Now, maybe I'm naive, but I did not attach any sexual innuendo to that comment. To me, it's a politician making promises - and saying anything - in order to get a campaign contribution. Nothing more. But for the USA Today, and others on the Left, Trump was essentially calling Gillibrand a "whore" (per their editorial).
Of course, by interpreting the remark the way the USA Today does, it fits in with the overall attack on Trump based on allegations of sexual harassment and other improprieties. After all, and as noted in the prior post, the Russian story is not going anywhere, so another plan is needed to help remove Trump from office. And then, the USA Today goes where no other mainstream paper has gone before (sorry, I loved Star Trek): "A president who would all but call Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., a whore is not fit to clean the toilets in the planned Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush."
Of course I would trust any "news" story they might now print about Trump. Their total hatred and loathing of Trump could not possibly bleed over into their news pages. Right?
And why wouldn't Americans back Israel, given the shared Judeo values as well as the shared values of democracy and liberty. Fisher says that the pro-Israel position "hardened during the second intifada, a period of vicious Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the early 2000s." The truth is that it was a period of vicious terrorist attacks started by Yasser Arafat after he rejected an Israeli offer of a Palestinian state and walked out on then President Bill Clinton. By "vicious conflict" he means Arabs blowing up Jews on buses, in cafes and even at a Passover Seder.
Fisher suggests that Trump backed full Israeli control over all of Jerusalem, ignoring Trump's comments that the final decision on the borders of Jerusalem are to be decided by the parties.
In an Op-Ed in the 12/7/17 LA Times, UCLA Professor Saree Makdisi writes of "Trump's Mideast disaster." Admittedly, an Op-Ed piece is not a news story. However, mainstream papers such as the NY Times and LA Times excel at letting left-wing writers use the papers' opinion pages to express ideas which these papers support. The beauty of it is it allows the papers to say that they are simply giving voice to "other" opinions - which the papers just happen to share. Makdisi: "For Trump to endorse Israel's claim to the entire city, then, is to endorse illegality." Allow me to reiterate: Trump endorsed Jerusalem as Israel's capital, clearly stating that the final boundaries are up to the parties.
These papers obviously know that Israel's government offices are in the Western part of Jerusalem, and that any US Embassy will also be in the Western part of Jerusalem. Why, then, do they permit their writers to state "facts" that simply are not true? That would be because they want Trump to look bad, and they want Israel to look bad. The left-wing crowd is anti-Trump and anti-Israel. After accusing Trump of supporting white supremacy and being Islamophobic, the Professor concludes with what I imagine is her real wish for Israel. Accusing Israel of apartheid, she says this: "...what looks like a victory for Israeli apartheid now may well turn out to be a turning point on the road to its eventual demise."
In the 12/15/17 edition of the NY Times, the paper had a chart, or diagram if you will, on page 12 above the fold, with the title "What Is the 'Russia Story?'" Above that are these words: "Confused by all the news about Russia and the 2016 presidential election? We are here to help." Well, isn't that special? Is the Times there to help with the major scandal of the century (see the prior post) and give us a diagram of all the players involved in the cover-up of the Clinton email scandal, the Trump dossier and fabricated Russian collusion story, and the effort by high government officials to prevent Trump from getting elected, and to resort to other tactics to get him removed from office should he win? Just asking.
However, the winner for the most overt bias against, and hatred of, Trump will have to be the USA Today. Their 12/13/17 editorial discusses Trump's dust-up with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. After calling for Trump to resign, Trump responded in his usual attack mode. He said that Gillibrand previously came to his office (before he was President) "begging" for campaign contributions, and "would do anything for them." Now, maybe I'm naive, but I did not attach any sexual innuendo to that comment. To me, it's a politician making promises - and saying anything - in order to get a campaign contribution. Nothing more. But for the USA Today, and others on the Left, Trump was essentially calling Gillibrand a "whore" (per their editorial).
Of course, by interpreting the remark the way the USA Today does, it fits in with the overall attack on Trump based on allegations of sexual harassment and other improprieties. After all, and as noted in the prior post, the Russian story is not going anywhere, so another plan is needed to help remove Trump from office. And then, the USA Today goes where no other mainstream paper has gone before (sorry, I loved Star Trek): "A president who would all but call Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., a whore is not fit to clean the toilets in the planned Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush."
Of course I would trust any "news" story they might now print about Trump. Their total hatred and loathing of Trump could not possibly bleed over into their news pages. Right?
Saturday, December 16, 2017
Year End Reflections, Part III (The Scandal of the Century)
It's a story which the mainstream media has little interest in reporting. It's a story that the Democrats claim is merely a distraction from the real story about Trump collusion with Russia. As a year has passed without any evidence of such collusion, the focus of the media and the Dems is now on getting Trump out of office based on allegations of sexual harassment. If that does not work, they will come up with something else. But, I digress.
Almost nobody expected Donald Trump to capture the Republican nomination for President. To make matters worse for the Dems and the mainstream media, it looked as if Hillary Clinton's email scandal might derail her path to the Presidency. The only question is, how high up in the Obama Administration did the "fix" originate. At the end of June, 2016, Bill Clinton "coincidentally" ran into Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General of the United States, on the tarmac in Phoenix, while Lynch was "coincidentally" investigating Hillary Clinton and her private email server. "Coincidentally," days later FBI Director James Comey publicly exonerated Hillary Clinton.
Now, we find out that Peter Strzok, then head of the FBI's Counter-intelligence Division, had a hand in changing Director Comey's draft speech regarding Hillary Clinton. The Comey speech originally said that Hillary Clinton was "grossly negligent" in the handling of classified emails, which would be a federal felony. However, Mr. Strzok changed that language to "excessively careless." If the media were interested in this story, they would be investigating why Comey allowed that change to be made. This "coincidentally" occurred after Loretta Lynch told Comey to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a "matter" - not an "investigation."
Now, it turns out that Mr. Strzok and Lisa Page, an attorney at the FBI, had a personal relationship. Some of their text message exchanges have now been released and they are rather interesting. Aside from the references to Trump as an "idiot" and "loathsome," we have this: "She (obviously referring to Clinton) just has to win now." Did I mention that Mr. Strzok "coincidentally" headed up the Russia investigation shortly after Comey/Strzok exonerated Clinton? Here is a text message by Strzok that the media might refer to as a smoking gun, if it had come from a Republican: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's (likely Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI) office - that there's no way he (undoubtedly Trump) gets elected - but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." EXCUSE ME? They can't take the risk that the people of the United States might elect someone of whom they disapprove?
Mr. Strzok continued: "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40." As in the unlikely event Trump gets elected? What insurance policy? A phony Russian collusion story? Page: "And maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you're meant to protect us from that menace." Strzok: "Thanks. And of course I'll try and approach it that way. I can protect our country at many levels." If you think that if any of this were really true you would know all about it from the mainstream media, keep deceiving yourself. For example, one of the lead stories on the front page above the fold of the 12/13/17 New York Times was "SALVOS BY TRUMP ESCALATE DISPUTE ON HARASSMENT," referring to the exchange between Trump and Senator Gillibrand. In a tiny box below the fold, we are advised that we can turn to page 15 for a story about FBI officials who felt Clinton "just has to win."
On page 15, we learn from the Times that "F.B.I. officials who worked directly with Mr. Strzok on the Clinton and Trump investigations said they never detected any bias in his investigative work." Well isn't that special? The esteemed New York Times takes the word of the agency that appears to be involved in possible illegal activity. Of course, none of the juicier quotes are to be found in this page 15 article. And the Times makes it sound as if Strzok and Page were equally concerned about a Clinton Presidency.
Then, we have Bruce Ohr, a senior staffer at the DOJ. He apparently neglected to talk about meetings he had with people who put together the Trump dossier. The dossier was supposed to be opposition research on Trump, and was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The firm hired to put together the dossier was Fusion GPS, which, "coincidentally" has as an employee Mr. Ohr's wife. Aside from all the obvious conflicts of interest noted above, the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, is close friends with a key witness - James Comey. That is actually a disqualifying conflict. However, Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, just testified before Congress that he sees no issue with the Trump-Russia investigation.
Bottom Line? Trump is crude. He's crass. He says things that I wish he would not say. But do not be distracted by that. Trump went to Washington to "drain the swamp." To change things. To upset the proverbial apple cart. That could not and would not be tolerated by the Democrats, who feared he would overturn much of what Obama accomplished. Neither was Trump accepted by the Washington insider Republicans. As noted before, if you threaten to drain the swamp, the swamp will fight back. But here is the most important issue for all of us - is it acceptable to have people high up in the government plotting to prevent someone they oppose from becoming President? Having failed in the prevention, is it acceptable for those people to create a false Russian collusion story in an effort to get Trump removed from office? In other words, do you agree with what is nothing less than an attempted coup because you hate Trump so much? Do the ends justify the means? If you do, what does that say about the future for democracy in the USA? And what of future Presidents? Will they bow to the will of the deep state simply to stay in office? What kind of government, and media, do you want?
Almost nobody expected Donald Trump to capture the Republican nomination for President. To make matters worse for the Dems and the mainstream media, it looked as if Hillary Clinton's email scandal might derail her path to the Presidency. The only question is, how high up in the Obama Administration did the "fix" originate. At the end of June, 2016, Bill Clinton "coincidentally" ran into Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General of the United States, on the tarmac in Phoenix, while Lynch was "coincidentally" investigating Hillary Clinton and her private email server. "Coincidentally," days later FBI Director James Comey publicly exonerated Hillary Clinton.
Now, we find out that Peter Strzok, then head of the FBI's Counter-intelligence Division, had a hand in changing Director Comey's draft speech regarding Hillary Clinton. The Comey speech originally said that Hillary Clinton was "grossly negligent" in the handling of classified emails, which would be a federal felony. However, Mr. Strzok changed that language to "excessively careless." If the media were interested in this story, they would be investigating why Comey allowed that change to be made. This "coincidentally" occurred after Loretta Lynch told Comey to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a "matter" - not an "investigation."
Now, it turns out that Mr. Strzok and Lisa Page, an attorney at the FBI, had a personal relationship. Some of their text message exchanges have now been released and they are rather interesting. Aside from the references to Trump as an "idiot" and "loathsome," we have this: "She (obviously referring to Clinton) just has to win now." Did I mention that Mr. Strzok "coincidentally" headed up the Russia investigation shortly after Comey/Strzok exonerated Clinton? Here is a text message by Strzok that the media might refer to as a smoking gun, if it had come from a Republican: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's (likely Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI) office - that there's no way he (undoubtedly Trump) gets elected - but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." EXCUSE ME? They can't take the risk that the people of the United States might elect someone of whom they disapprove?
Mr. Strzok continued: "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40." As in the unlikely event Trump gets elected? What insurance policy? A phony Russian collusion story? Page: "And maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you're meant to protect us from that menace." Strzok: "Thanks. And of course I'll try and approach it that way. I can protect our country at many levels." If you think that if any of this were really true you would know all about it from the mainstream media, keep deceiving yourself. For example, one of the lead stories on the front page above the fold of the 12/13/17 New York Times was "SALVOS BY TRUMP ESCALATE DISPUTE ON HARASSMENT," referring to the exchange between Trump and Senator Gillibrand. In a tiny box below the fold, we are advised that we can turn to page 15 for a story about FBI officials who felt Clinton "just has to win."
On page 15, we learn from the Times that "F.B.I. officials who worked directly with Mr. Strzok on the Clinton and Trump investigations said they never detected any bias in his investigative work." Well isn't that special? The esteemed New York Times takes the word of the agency that appears to be involved in possible illegal activity. Of course, none of the juicier quotes are to be found in this page 15 article. And the Times makes it sound as if Strzok and Page were equally concerned about a Clinton Presidency.
Then, we have Bruce Ohr, a senior staffer at the DOJ. He apparently neglected to talk about meetings he had with people who put together the Trump dossier. The dossier was supposed to be opposition research on Trump, and was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The firm hired to put together the dossier was Fusion GPS, which, "coincidentally" has as an employee Mr. Ohr's wife. Aside from all the obvious conflicts of interest noted above, the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, is close friends with a key witness - James Comey. That is actually a disqualifying conflict. However, Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, just testified before Congress that he sees no issue with the Trump-Russia investigation.
Bottom Line? Trump is crude. He's crass. He says things that I wish he would not say. But do not be distracted by that. Trump went to Washington to "drain the swamp." To change things. To upset the proverbial apple cart. That could not and would not be tolerated by the Democrats, who feared he would overturn much of what Obama accomplished. Neither was Trump accepted by the Washington insider Republicans. As noted before, if you threaten to drain the swamp, the swamp will fight back. But here is the most important issue for all of us - is it acceptable to have people high up in the government plotting to prevent someone they oppose from becoming President? Having failed in the prevention, is it acceptable for those people to create a false Russian collusion story in an effort to get Trump removed from office? In other words, do you agree with what is nothing less than an attempted coup because you hate Trump so much? Do the ends justify the means? If you do, what does that say about the future for democracy in the USA? And what of future Presidents? Will they bow to the will of the deep state simply to stay in office? What kind of government, and media, do you want?
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
Jerusalem!
Breaking from his predecessors, President Trump today gave official US recognition to Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, and ordered the State Department to start the process of relocating the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trump: "Israel is a sovereign nation with the right, like every other sovereign nation to determine its own capital. Acknowledging this fact is a necessary condition for achieving peace." Exactly. How can we expect the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world to acknowledge the reality of Jerusalem as Israel's capital if the US and the rest of the Western world will not do so?
Jerusalem has been the "capital" of the Jewish people for 3000 years, and the official capital of the modern State of Israel since its birth in 1948. The Left, including the Jewish Left, has it backwards. For example, the VP of government affairs of "J Street" (which holds itself out as a pro-Israel group, but to conservatives appears to be anything but) said this: "It (the US embassy) shouldn't be moved prior to agreement by the parties to the conflict as part of a comprehensive agreement ending the conflict."
But for those who still foresee a possibility of peace, J Street and others on the Left have it backwards. As Oren Dorell noted in Today's USA Today: "The Palestinians have learned that by saying "no" they can always get something better next time. They have to learn that if they say no, next time they won't get the same offer." Yes, that is how the real world works. The appeasement promulgated by the Left never works. It has only encouraged the "Palestinians" to seek the ultimate destruction of Israel.
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), having voted for the 1995 resolution for the US embassy to be moved to Jerusalem, is now suddenly opposed. Feinstein fears that the move will "spark violence, further alienate the United States and undermine the prospects of a two-state solution." Spark violence? That is the equivalent of giving a "heckler's veto" - denying the right to speak because the audience may behave badly. It is also similar to: "let the kid have what he wants so he stops crying/complaining."
The British and French, not surprisingly, are opposed to the move. British P.M. May said this: our "longstanding" position "is that the status of Jerusalem should be determined in negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians..." Oh, really? So, Madam Prime Minister, how is it that you and your French counterparts voted for the UN Security Council resolution on December 23, 2016, condemning Israel, and ceding "East Jerusalem" to the Palestinians? You ceded the holiest sites in Judaism to the Palestinians. You call that a negotiated settlement?
So how did the Arab/Palestinian world react to Trump's declaration? Let's see. The Palestinians were burning the US flag in Gaza. (Meanwhile, Israel was projecting a large image of the US flag on the Western Wall.) Hamas said that Trump opened "the gates of hell." And in case anyone doubts their intentions, Hamas also said that Trump's action "will not succeed in changing the reality of Jerusalem being Islamic Arab land." How is that? The Jewish people have been around for over 3000 years; Islam started in about 600 C.E. That's 1400 years by my count. And the PA's chief representative to Britain said this: "He (Trump) is declaring war in the Middle East, he is declaring war against 1.5 billion Muslims."
None of that is true. Trump did not declare that Israel will maintain sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. The placement of the US embassy will undoubtedly be in the western part of Jerusalem, where the Israeli government offices are, and have been, for the last 70 years. Trump: "But today we finally acknowledge the obvious. That Jerusalem is Israel's capital. This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality." By making this move Trump is showing his conservative stripes - he is letting reality dictate his belief about where the embassy should be. We'll allow the Left to continue in their dream world of letting their beliefs dictate their reality.
I cannot end this post without once again demonstrating the total lack of candor and honesty displayed by the New York Times in their December 6, 2017 editorial on Trump's anticipated announcement on Jerusalem. They claim that the big winner is Israeli PM Netanyahu, "whose hard-line government has shown no serious interest in peace." What "interest in peace" have the Arabs shown? Would that be all the thousands of missiles launched at Israel? The intifadas? The paying of thousands of dollars (US dollars, no less) to the murderers of Israelis? Then, the Times resorts to the Left-wing hand-wringing over what the reaction of the Arab world will be, as if it has been wonderful to date. Then, this gem - after expecting the negative reaction from the Saudis, they write that "Jerusalem is home to the Aqsa Mosque and that the Saudi king holds the title of custodian of Islam's two other holiest mosques, in Mecca and Medina."
Nice deflection. The Times, the so-called "paper of record," with "all the news that's fit to print," does not bother to inform its readers of the following little tidbit. After Israel won the the 1967 war, and captured the rest of Jerusalem with the Jewish Holy sites and the Aqsa Mosque, they turned over control of the Temple Mount where the mosque sits to the Jordanian Waqf. That's right. The Temple Mount, also the holiest site in Judaism, was turned over to the Jordanians. Keep in mind that when the Jordanians had control from 1948 until the 1967 war, Israelis were not given access to their holy sites. Under Israeli military control, Jews, Christians and Muslims all have access to their holy sites. Just a little tidbit that the "paper of record" did not see fit to comment upon.
Jerusalem has been the "capital" of the Jewish people for 3000 years, and the official capital of the modern State of Israel since its birth in 1948. The Left, including the Jewish Left, has it backwards. For example, the VP of government affairs of "J Street" (which holds itself out as a pro-Israel group, but to conservatives appears to be anything but) said this: "It (the US embassy) shouldn't be moved prior to agreement by the parties to the conflict as part of a comprehensive agreement ending the conflict."
But for those who still foresee a possibility of peace, J Street and others on the Left have it backwards. As Oren Dorell noted in Today's USA Today: "The Palestinians have learned that by saying "no" they can always get something better next time. They have to learn that if they say no, next time they won't get the same offer." Yes, that is how the real world works. The appeasement promulgated by the Left never works. It has only encouraged the "Palestinians" to seek the ultimate destruction of Israel.
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), having voted for the 1995 resolution for the US embassy to be moved to Jerusalem, is now suddenly opposed. Feinstein fears that the move will "spark violence, further alienate the United States and undermine the prospects of a two-state solution." Spark violence? That is the equivalent of giving a "heckler's veto" - denying the right to speak because the audience may behave badly. It is also similar to: "let the kid have what he wants so he stops crying/complaining."
The British and French, not surprisingly, are opposed to the move. British P.M. May said this: our "longstanding" position "is that the status of Jerusalem should be determined in negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians..." Oh, really? So, Madam Prime Minister, how is it that you and your French counterparts voted for the UN Security Council resolution on December 23, 2016, condemning Israel, and ceding "East Jerusalem" to the Palestinians? You ceded the holiest sites in Judaism to the Palestinians. You call that a negotiated settlement?
So how did the Arab/Palestinian world react to Trump's declaration? Let's see. The Palestinians were burning the US flag in Gaza. (Meanwhile, Israel was projecting a large image of the US flag on the Western Wall.) Hamas said that Trump opened "the gates of hell." And in case anyone doubts their intentions, Hamas also said that Trump's action "will not succeed in changing the reality of Jerusalem being Islamic Arab land." How is that? The Jewish people have been around for over 3000 years; Islam started in about 600 C.E. That's 1400 years by my count. And the PA's chief representative to Britain said this: "He (Trump) is declaring war in the Middle East, he is declaring war against 1.5 billion Muslims."
None of that is true. Trump did not declare that Israel will maintain sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. The placement of the US embassy will undoubtedly be in the western part of Jerusalem, where the Israeli government offices are, and have been, for the last 70 years. Trump: "But today we finally acknowledge the obvious. That Jerusalem is Israel's capital. This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality." By making this move Trump is showing his conservative stripes - he is letting reality dictate his belief about where the embassy should be. We'll allow the Left to continue in their dream world of letting their beliefs dictate their reality.
I cannot end this post without once again demonstrating the total lack of candor and honesty displayed by the New York Times in their December 6, 2017 editorial on Trump's anticipated announcement on Jerusalem. They claim that the big winner is Israeli PM Netanyahu, "whose hard-line government has shown no serious interest in peace." What "interest in peace" have the Arabs shown? Would that be all the thousands of missiles launched at Israel? The intifadas? The paying of thousands of dollars (US dollars, no less) to the murderers of Israelis? Then, the Times resorts to the Left-wing hand-wringing over what the reaction of the Arab world will be, as if it has been wonderful to date. Then, this gem - after expecting the negative reaction from the Saudis, they write that "Jerusalem is home to the Aqsa Mosque and that the Saudi king holds the title of custodian of Islam's two other holiest mosques, in Mecca and Medina."
Nice deflection. The Times, the so-called "paper of record," with "all the news that's fit to print," does not bother to inform its readers of the following little tidbit. After Israel won the the 1967 war, and captured the rest of Jerusalem with the Jewish Holy sites and the Aqsa Mosque, they turned over control of the Temple Mount where the mosque sits to the Jordanian Waqf. That's right. The Temple Mount, also the holiest site in Judaism, was turned over to the Jordanians. Keep in mind that when the Jordanians had control from 1948 until the 1967 war, Israelis were not given access to their holy sites. Under Israeli military control, Jews, Christians and Muslims all have access to their holy sites. Just a little tidbit that the "paper of record" did not see fit to comment upon.
Saturday, December 2, 2017
Year End Reflections, Part II (Privilege)
"Privilege," especially the idea of "white privilege," is currently a very big deal on college campuses and generally on the Left. One professor at the City University of New York expressed this: "the white-nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy." The professor also complained about "reproducing white children" that are "part of the problem." Also, when white people leave their homes to their children, they are perpetuating inequality.
At an Ohio State University workshop students were told "whiteness grants you power and access to things." And students were also told that only white people are capable of being racist, and that whites can never be "victims." None of this compares to the comments by a now terminated nurse at the Indiana University Health Hospital. "Every white woman raises a detriment to society when they raise a son. Someone with the HIGHEST propensity to be a terrorist, rapist, racist killer, and domestic violence all star. Historically every son you had should be sacrificed to the wolves b....."
My first observation is that post Obama we are clearly not a post-racial society. As I mentioned often during Obama's eight years in office, rather than acting as a unifying President, he was divisive and encouraged a sense of "victimhood" in the black community. The idea of "white privilege" is by its very nature a racist concept. After all, racism is treating people a certain way simply based on their race or skin color. The individual is not even recognized as such.
This idea of "privilege" is, unfortunately, not restricted to white people. In a recent edition of the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, a UCLA student penned an article with this title: "Are Jewish College Students Privileged?" Discussing another Jewish student's comments, the writer states that this other student suffered from a "moral conflict he felt as an American Jew. Yes, Jews face anti-Semitism, sometimes subtly and other times hideously, but Jews also have a come a long way - succeeding at getting our foot in the door of American politics and, by extension, American privilege."
Here's a question. When I think about the Jews who came here after the Holocaust with nothing but the clothes they were wearing, but managed to make a life for themselves and their families, should they be embarrassed about their success? Said the UCLA student: "If Jewish students want to be true partners to our progressive peers, it is our responsibility to check our privilege..." Check our privilege? What does that mean? Stop being white? Stop being Jewish? Don't speak?
This is the kind of drivel that young people are taught at college. I don't know about the rest of you, but I learned that we treat people as individuals. That is also what I taught my children. It is not just discriminatory/racist to treat people as members of groups (black vs white, for example). Think of the various genocides committed throughout history. Genocides were committed because one group was unable to see the individual humanity in others. If the above referenced professor thinks white children are the problem, I am reluctant to ponder what that professor would see as a solution. And the nurse mentioned above? If whites are rapists and killers, well, we can only imagine what her solution would be. Would it be similar to Hitler's "Final Solution" for the Jews? So, allow me to correct myself. This is not simply drivel that college students are being taught about "privilege." It is dangerous and evil.
At an Ohio State University workshop students were told "whiteness grants you power and access to things." And students were also told that only white people are capable of being racist, and that whites can never be "victims." None of this compares to the comments by a now terminated nurse at the Indiana University Health Hospital. "Every white woman raises a detriment to society when they raise a son. Someone with the HIGHEST propensity to be a terrorist, rapist, racist killer, and domestic violence all star. Historically every son you had should be sacrificed to the wolves b....."
My first observation is that post Obama we are clearly not a post-racial society. As I mentioned often during Obama's eight years in office, rather than acting as a unifying President, he was divisive and encouraged a sense of "victimhood" in the black community. The idea of "white privilege" is by its very nature a racist concept. After all, racism is treating people a certain way simply based on their race or skin color. The individual is not even recognized as such.
This idea of "privilege" is, unfortunately, not restricted to white people. In a recent edition of the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, a UCLA student penned an article with this title: "Are Jewish College Students Privileged?" Discussing another Jewish student's comments, the writer states that this other student suffered from a "moral conflict he felt as an American Jew. Yes, Jews face anti-Semitism, sometimes subtly and other times hideously, but Jews also have a come a long way - succeeding at getting our foot in the door of American politics and, by extension, American privilege."
Here's a question. When I think about the Jews who came here after the Holocaust with nothing but the clothes they were wearing, but managed to make a life for themselves and their families, should they be embarrassed about their success? Said the UCLA student: "If Jewish students want to be true partners to our progressive peers, it is our responsibility to check our privilege..." Check our privilege? What does that mean? Stop being white? Stop being Jewish? Don't speak?
This is the kind of drivel that young people are taught at college. I don't know about the rest of you, but I learned that we treat people as individuals. That is also what I taught my children. It is not just discriminatory/racist to treat people as members of groups (black vs white, for example). Think of the various genocides committed throughout history. Genocides were committed because one group was unable to see the individual humanity in others. If the above referenced professor thinks white children are the problem, I am reluctant to ponder what that professor would see as a solution. And the nurse mentioned above? If whites are rapists and killers, well, we can only imagine what her solution would be. Would it be similar to Hitler's "Final Solution" for the Jews? So, allow me to correct myself. This is not simply drivel that college students are being taught about "privilege." It is dangerous and evil.
Year End Reflections, Part I (Sexual Harassment)
On the old TV show Laugh-In (1968-1973) there was a recurring skit with Ruth Buzzi sitting on one end of a park bench, clutching her purse. Arte Johnson, playing the dirty old man, would sit down on the opposite side of the bench, and then sidle over next to Buzzi. He would then ask her: "Do you believe in the hereafter?" She would nod or state her agreement, after which he would reply: "Then you know what I'm here after." Newsflash: all men believe in the hereafter.
The number of famous, wealthy and powerful men now accused of sexual harassment is getting too numerous for me to list them all. I have often held, however, that the rich and famous do not believe that the regular norms of society apply to them. Clearly, the behavior of these men confirms my belief. Journalist Angela Rocco DeCarlo recently wrote in a piece in the Wall Street Journal that her mother told her: "Never go to a man's hotel room." Noting that her mother likely was never in a hotel room, DeCarlo concurred: "...going to a man's hotel room alone is rarely a smart choice."
Then, DeCarlo referred to a story in her local paper showing a picture of a teenage girl with a low neckline holding this sign: "Instead of body shaming girls, teach boys that girls are not sexual objects." DeCarlo then commented on the idea that "girls should be able to appear in any state of undress and no one, especially boys, (has) any right to react." DeCarlo: "Sorry, young lady. The world doesn't work that way. Somebody should have told you."
But, the Left would never teach that. Not only would that idea be contrary to their idea of sexual "equality," and their idea that men and women are the same, it is a further reminder of my oft repeated truism that the Left lets their beliefs dictate their reality (whereas conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs). After all, look at how the Left mocked Mike Pence for saying that he would not dine alone with a woman, or be at an affair where alcohol is served unless his wife was also present. What's wrong with Pence? Isn't he able to control himself? I am sure that a man such as Pence is able to do that, but he also understands the concept of temptation, and that sometimes we may do things which we will immediately regret doing.
Earlier this year, Robin Abcarian wrote a piece for the LA Times about Pence. First, she states that "removing temptation (in the form of women) from men is a staple of many patriarchal faiths." But, she then asserts that there is "a more important principle...in the eyes of the law and the government, women are equal to men. They are deserving of the same workplace opportunities that historically have presented themselves to men. If professional women and men cannot be alone together, women are the ones who will pay a price. They will not have the kind of mentoring that promotes workplace advancement. They will not develop the same kinds of relationships with bosses that their male colleagues do. They will lose out."
I agree that Ms. Abcarian makes some legitimate points. What is left out of the analysis, however, is that the law is one thing, reality is another. Just how many cases of sexual harassment cases do we need to hear about before that point sinks in? Before I receive any criticism, allow me to make clear that I do not condone sexual (or other) harassment. I have never cheated on my wife and do not condone those who cheat on their spouse. I do believe women should be treated as equal to men under the law. And I do believe that men should control themselves. But I do not see how not understanding men's sexual nature benefits anyone. It is a matter of letting reality dictating my beliefs.
After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that he believed the women accusing Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, the New York Times ran an editorial entitled "Republicans Finally Believe Women." The Times never passes on an opportunity to score political points - even when the facts are not on their side. I am curious as to how the Times would explain the utter silence of the Leftists in Hollywood ignoring for decades the cases of sexual harassment occurring all around them. Then, the Times makes this feeble concession: "Some Democrats maligned the women who had accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment, molestation and rape as looney tunes and trailer trash." Some Democrats? Don't they mean most Democrats, including their 2016 Presidential choice Hillary Clinton? I have long ago abandoned hope of Times' editorials demonstrating journalistic integrity.
The number of famous, wealthy and powerful men now accused of sexual harassment is getting too numerous for me to list them all. I have often held, however, that the rich and famous do not believe that the regular norms of society apply to them. Clearly, the behavior of these men confirms my belief. Journalist Angela Rocco DeCarlo recently wrote in a piece in the Wall Street Journal that her mother told her: "Never go to a man's hotel room." Noting that her mother likely was never in a hotel room, DeCarlo concurred: "...going to a man's hotel room alone is rarely a smart choice."
Then, DeCarlo referred to a story in her local paper showing a picture of a teenage girl with a low neckline holding this sign: "Instead of body shaming girls, teach boys that girls are not sexual objects." DeCarlo then commented on the idea that "girls should be able to appear in any state of undress and no one, especially boys, (has) any right to react." DeCarlo: "Sorry, young lady. The world doesn't work that way. Somebody should have told you."
But, the Left would never teach that. Not only would that idea be contrary to their idea of sexual "equality," and their idea that men and women are the same, it is a further reminder of my oft repeated truism that the Left lets their beliefs dictate their reality (whereas conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs). After all, look at how the Left mocked Mike Pence for saying that he would not dine alone with a woman, or be at an affair where alcohol is served unless his wife was also present. What's wrong with Pence? Isn't he able to control himself? I am sure that a man such as Pence is able to do that, but he also understands the concept of temptation, and that sometimes we may do things which we will immediately regret doing.
Earlier this year, Robin Abcarian wrote a piece for the LA Times about Pence. First, she states that "removing temptation (in the form of women) from men is a staple of many patriarchal faiths." But, she then asserts that there is "a more important principle...in the eyes of the law and the government, women are equal to men. They are deserving of the same workplace opportunities that historically have presented themselves to men. If professional women and men cannot be alone together, women are the ones who will pay a price. They will not have the kind of mentoring that promotes workplace advancement. They will not develop the same kinds of relationships with bosses that their male colleagues do. They will lose out."
I agree that Ms. Abcarian makes some legitimate points. What is left out of the analysis, however, is that the law is one thing, reality is another. Just how many cases of sexual harassment cases do we need to hear about before that point sinks in? Before I receive any criticism, allow me to make clear that I do not condone sexual (or other) harassment. I have never cheated on my wife and do not condone those who cheat on their spouse. I do believe women should be treated as equal to men under the law. And I do believe that men should control themselves. But I do not see how not understanding men's sexual nature benefits anyone. It is a matter of letting reality dictating my beliefs.
After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that he believed the women accusing Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, the New York Times ran an editorial entitled "Republicans Finally Believe Women." The Times never passes on an opportunity to score political points - even when the facts are not on their side. I am curious as to how the Times would explain the utter silence of the Leftists in Hollywood ignoring for decades the cases of sexual harassment occurring all around them. Then, the Times makes this feeble concession: "Some Democrats maligned the women who had accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment, molestation and rape as looney tunes and trailer trash." Some Democrats? Don't they mean most Democrats, including their 2016 Presidential choice Hillary Clinton? I have long ago abandoned hope of Times' editorials demonstrating journalistic integrity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)