(Note: As regular readers of this blog know, I recently wrote two posts discussing this issue. See the 1/30/18 post "The Last Acceptable Prejudice," as well as the next one of 2/6/18 entitled "In Case Anyone Needed Further Proof...". As a result of some personal interactions, along with an LA Times Op-Ed, I was prompted to write this further post on the incivility of the Left.)
A Ron Berler wrote an Op-Ed that appeared in the 2/18/18 LA Times. He is 68 years old and was having dinner with a long time friend, a man who had been at his wedding, a man whom Berler said "was important to me." Berler describes their friendship as having "frayed" over a period of 18 months because of Donald Trump. Although they had agreed not to discuss politics, Berler says he "just couldn't help it."
Berler wrote that he just had to have an answer about Trump's character: "...the things he's said and done - the race-baiting, the name calling, the womanizing, the divisive attacks on immigrants and refugees and everyone who opposes him - doesn't that make you question his character?" Of course, what Berler was really asking his friend was this: "What is wrong with you? How can you not detest Trump?" His friend, clearly being more civil, answered as follows: "I don't judge people." While that may be unlikely, I suspect that his friend was trying to politely avoid politics - a topic that they had agreed they would not discuss.
Had Berler asked that question of me, I likely would have given this answer: "How in the world did you support Obama? (He does not say that he did, but it seems to be a fair assumption.) His race-baiting of the Cambridge police, the Ferguson police, and every time a black man was involved with the police. Race relations were set back decades thanks to Obama. What about Obama's name calling and demonization of those who opposed him? From day one he attacked Fox News. He attacked the Tea Party. He attacked all Republicans as wanting dirty air and dirty water, among other accusations. He favored immigrants over American citizens, and mocked Americans who 'cling to their guns and religion.' And lies? Sure, Trump lied about things like the size of the crowd at his inauguration. But Obama lied about important policy decisions. Obama told us: 'If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor; if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.' Now, what were you asking me about Trump?"
Berler next revealed his true contempt for those who might disagree with him. He consulted with three psychology professors claiming to seek an explanation for the "chasm" that had developed between him and his friend. But his real motivation was revealed a few paragraphs later as he asked one of the professors this question: "Why will a person go to irrational lengths to defend an act that he or she knows is indefensible?" Once again, Berler's real question is: "What is wrong with my friend?" And: "How can anyone defend Trump?" And then Berler asks the third psychologist this question: "What is the likelihood that my friend will return to rational thought?" What sheer arrogance!
Berler agreed not to discuss politics with his friend. Having broken that agreement, his friend refused to take the bait. And his friend is the one lacking in rational thought? This is just another example of a Leftist abandoning a long term friendship because they are unable to accept the notion that someone - anyone - might not share their viewpoints. No surprise to those of us who are conservatives.
On a more personal level, I recently ran into a man I have known for 40 years. He is older than I am, and not having seen him in a while, and out of my respect and fondness for him, I approached him and gave him a hug. He was standoffish. I mentioned something about him and his wife getting together with me and my wife. He has known my wife for probably 38 years. He deflected my invitation. Subsequently, I sent him an email indicating that I wanted to apologize for whatever I may have said or done to upset him. Basically, I did not do or say anything. Having read some of my blog posts, he just could not understand my politics. Disappointing? Yes. Hurtful? Yes again. But, as a conservative it is something that I have come to expect from those on the intolerant and uncivil Left.
One more personal note. Our youngest daughter recently went out on a date. During the course of the conversation, the young man uttered these words: "I hate Republicans." Maybe in California he thought it was a safe bet to assume that everyone is a liberal Democrat (which is a Leftist today). While my daughter is definitely more liberal than her Dad, she also loves her Republican Dad. I would like to suggest that this young man might benefit from taking a look at "How to Win Friends and Influence People."
In what may be a rare instance of agreement with Nicholas Kristof, he ended his 2/18/18 column in the NY Times with this: "Civility is not a sign of weakness, but of civilization."
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Sunday, February 11, 2018
Israel and the Americans
When it comes to US support for Israel, thank G-d for the Republicans. A new Pew Research poll reports on whether people sympathize more with Israel or the Palestinians. Not surprisingly, Republicans come in at 79% sympathetic with Israel. Democrats were at what I believe is their all time low for support for Israel - only 27% sympathize more with Israel. As most American Jews are Democrats, this does not speak well of American Jews support for Israel.
Several Israeli papers reported that former US Secretary of State John Kerry recently met with a top confidante of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Kerry was to have asked that this message be passed on to Abbas: "hold on and be strong." Kerry is also alleged to have expressed that Abbas should "play for time" and "not yield to President Trump's demands." Finally, Kerry is also reported to have said that "Trump won't be in office for long." (According to the Jerusalem Post.)
Kerry's behavior is outrageous, arguably treasonous in the sense of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. But it is telling just how far the Democrats have moved away from support for Israel towards supporting the Palestinians. Nor did it matter to Kerry that Abbas still claims the Jews have no right to Israel. This is what Abbas recently said about the Jews' historic and biblical claim to the land of Israel: "Colonialism created Israel to perform a certain function. It is a colonial project that has nothing to do with Judaism, but rather used the Jews as a tool under the slogan of the 'Promised Land.'"
Of course, the Bible tells us that over 3000 years ago G-d told Abraham to leave his home in Mesopotamia to travel to "a land that I will show you," the land of Canaan. On his recent trip to Israel, Vice President Mike Pence spoke to the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset. Said Pence: "The Jewish people's unbreakable bond to this sacred city (Jerusalem) reaches back more than 3000 years. It was here, in Jerusalem, on Mount Moriah, that Abraham offered his son, Issac, and was credited with righteousness for his faith in G-d. It was here, in Jerusalem, that King David consecrated the capital of the Kingdom of Israel. And since its rebirth, the modern State of Israel has called this city the seat of its government."
I challenge all my Jewish friends and readers who are Democrats to tell me what Democrat could be counted on to give similar words of support to Israel. Kerry? Clinton? We know Obama did not. What future Democratic President or Vice President would say to the Knesset these words that Mike Pence said: "...I am here to convey a simple message from the heart of the American people: America stands with Israel. We stand with Israel because your cause is our cause, your values are our values, and your fight is our fight." The Vice President also quoted our first two Presidents, including this quote from John Adams, that the Jews "have done more to civilize man than any other nation."
Different Jewish holidays have different prayers that are said. But they also have one prayer in common - the shehecheyanu. It is a short and simple prayer with which Jews thank G-d for giving us life, sustaining us, and bringing us to this day. Acknowledging that Israel is about to celebrate the 70th anniversary of its rebirth, Pence declared: "I say, along with the good people of Israel, here and around the world: shehecheyanu, v'kiy'manu, v'higiyana la'z'man ha'zeh."
But Jews who vote Democrat vote for the same candidates that Muslim Americans support. After all, both religious groups vote in large numbers for Democrats. According to "The Israel Group," the NY Post recently reported that Imams across the US spoke to their congregants in their mosques with these, or similar, words: "Oh Allah, count them (the Jews) one by one and annihilate them down to the very last one." (For more on these distressing comments, see the 8/10/17 post, "Guess the Countries.") It is projected that sometime in the 2040's, the number of Muslims will exceed the number of Jews in the USA. When that happens, and if life in America becomes as difficult for Jews as life in many European countries has already become, and when American support for Israel ends under possible successive Democratic Administrations, I wonder what my fellow Jews who vote Democrat will think then.
Several Israeli papers reported that former US Secretary of State John Kerry recently met with a top confidante of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Kerry was to have asked that this message be passed on to Abbas: "hold on and be strong." Kerry is also alleged to have expressed that Abbas should "play for time" and "not yield to President Trump's demands." Finally, Kerry is also reported to have said that "Trump won't be in office for long." (According to the Jerusalem Post.)
Kerry's behavior is outrageous, arguably treasonous in the sense of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. But it is telling just how far the Democrats have moved away from support for Israel towards supporting the Palestinians. Nor did it matter to Kerry that Abbas still claims the Jews have no right to Israel. This is what Abbas recently said about the Jews' historic and biblical claim to the land of Israel: "Colonialism created Israel to perform a certain function. It is a colonial project that has nothing to do with Judaism, but rather used the Jews as a tool under the slogan of the 'Promised Land.'"
Of course, the Bible tells us that over 3000 years ago G-d told Abraham to leave his home in Mesopotamia to travel to "a land that I will show you," the land of Canaan. On his recent trip to Israel, Vice President Mike Pence spoke to the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset. Said Pence: "The Jewish people's unbreakable bond to this sacred city (Jerusalem) reaches back more than 3000 years. It was here, in Jerusalem, on Mount Moriah, that Abraham offered his son, Issac, and was credited with righteousness for his faith in G-d. It was here, in Jerusalem, that King David consecrated the capital of the Kingdom of Israel. And since its rebirth, the modern State of Israel has called this city the seat of its government."
I challenge all my Jewish friends and readers who are Democrats to tell me what Democrat could be counted on to give similar words of support to Israel. Kerry? Clinton? We know Obama did not. What future Democratic President or Vice President would say to the Knesset these words that Mike Pence said: "...I am here to convey a simple message from the heart of the American people: America stands with Israel. We stand with Israel because your cause is our cause, your values are our values, and your fight is our fight." The Vice President also quoted our first two Presidents, including this quote from John Adams, that the Jews "have done more to civilize man than any other nation."
Different Jewish holidays have different prayers that are said. But they also have one prayer in common - the shehecheyanu. It is a short and simple prayer with which Jews thank G-d for giving us life, sustaining us, and bringing us to this day. Acknowledging that Israel is about to celebrate the 70th anniversary of its rebirth, Pence declared: "I say, along with the good people of Israel, here and around the world: shehecheyanu, v'kiy'manu, v'higiyana la'z'man ha'zeh."
But Jews who vote Democrat vote for the same candidates that Muslim Americans support. After all, both religious groups vote in large numbers for Democrats. According to "The Israel Group," the NY Post recently reported that Imams across the US spoke to their congregants in their mosques with these, or similar, words: "Oh Allah, count them (the Jews) one by one and annihilate them down to the very last one." (For more on these distressing comments, see the 8/10/17 post, "Guess the Countries.") It is projected that sometime in the 2040's, the number of Muslims will exceed the number of Jews in the USA. When that happens, and if life in America becomes as difficult for Jews as life in many European countries has already become, and when American support for Israel ends under possible successive Democratic Administrations, I wonder what my fellow Jews who vote Democrat will think then.
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
In Case Anyone Needed Further Proof...
In my last post I asserted that the last acceptable prejudice was anti-conservatism. I claimed that "many on the Left act as if they have an absolute right to be rude to conservatives, to mock us, to insult us, to ignore us, and to simply stop being friends with us." The examples abound on a non-stop basis. Here are a few recent ones.
A Tweet from Stephen King: "A train load of Republicans on their way to a pricey retreat hit a garbage truck. My friend Russ calls that Karma." Yes, let's make fun of injuries, death and destruction. Jonathan Tasini, a regular commentator on CNN, Tweeted this: "Wow, btwn train full of Goopers hitting truck and this (Trey Gowdy announcing his retirement from Congress), G-d is working hard today to clean up the stink. Thank her..." The "stink," aka Republicans.
Jimmy Kimmel: "It just so happens that almost every talk show host is a liberal and that's because it requires a level of intelligence." While some claimed it was a joke, the point is that he said it knowing it would get a huge laugh, and it did. Because, after all, conservatives are dimwits. Although I would not mind seeing a debate between Mr. Kimmel and one of those dimwit radio talk show hosts, such as Dennis Prager, Larry Elder or Michael Medved.
One reader emailed me after reading the last post to tell me he had been hiking when he ran into another person on the trail. It was an isolated area and apparently the two of them were the only hikers in the area. As they crossed paths they stopped and chatted for a while. When he returned to his car there was a note from the unknown hiker on his windshield: "Nice to talk. Here is my personal info. Maybe we can get together. If you voted for Trump, though, the offer is definitely retracted."
In case anyone claims these stories are simply anecdotal, and not reflective of the mainstream Left, think again. The premier left-wing newspaper is the New York Times. Following President Trump's State of the Union speech, the Times' lead editorial of 1/31/18, said this: "...underneath distracting surface spectacles like his trolling on Twitter, he is delivering the most ruthless, conventionally conservative domestic policy in memory." So, for the NY Times, "conventional conservatism" is "ruthless." Got it. The Times editorial continued: "Nowhere is this more evident than in the way he is packing the courts - including the Supreme Court - with far-right justices." Hmmm...a conservative President appointing conservative judges. Didn't left-wing Obama appoint far-left justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan? Conservative Presidents don't have the right to appoint conservative justices because...why? Oh, that's right, conservatives are ruthless.
Lastly, we have MSNBC's Joy Reid's Tweet after Trump's State of the Union speech: "Church..family..police...military...the national anthem...Trump trying to call on all the tropes of 1950's-era nationalism. The goal of this speech appears to be to force the normalization of Trump on the terms of the bygone era his supporters are nostalgic for." I hope that Joy Reid and others on the Left continue with their out-of-touch elitism. What people like her do not realize is that it is not only conservatives who respect their church and family, the police and military and yes, the national anthem. After seeing a reduction in both attendance and TV viewership following the kneeling during the national anthem at NFL games, it was hardly a surprise that the league went out of its way to showcase numerous military veterans during the Super Bowl.
To sum up, conservatives are garbage, stink, are dimwits, Trump voters and ruthless. On other the hand, we value church (synagogue for some of us), family, the police, the military and the national anthem. I can deal with the demonization and demagoguery. After all, we are sustained by our faith, families, and basic American institutions. Not too shabby.
A Tweet from Stephen King: "A train load of Republicans on their way to a pricey retreat hit a garbage truck. My friend Russ calls that Karma." Yes, let's make fun of injuries, death and destruction. Jonathan Tasini, a regular commentator on CNN, Tweeted this: "Wow, btwn train full of Goopers hitting truck and this (Trey Gowdy announcing his retirement from Congress), G-d is working hard today to clean up the stink. Thank her..." The "stink," aka Republicans.
Jimmy Kimmel: "It just so happens that almost every talk show host is a liberal and that's because it requires a level of intelligence." While some claimed it was a joke, the point is that he said it knowing it would get a huge laugh, and it did. Because, after all, conservatives are dimwits. Although I would not mind seeing a debate between Mr. Kimmel and one of those dimwit radio talk show hosts, such as Dennis Prager, Larry Elder or Michael Medved.
One reader emailed me after reading the last post to tell me he had been hiking when he ran into another person on the trail. It was an isolated area and apparently the two of them were the only hikers in the area. As they crossed paths they stopped and chatted for a while. When he returned to his car there was a note from the unknown hiker on his windshield: "Nice to talk. Here is my personal info. Maybe we can get together. If you voted for Trump, though, the offer is definitely retracted."
In case anyone claims these stories are simply anecdotal, and not reflective of the mainstream Left, think again. The premier left-wing newspaper is the New York Times. Following President Trump's State of the Union speech, the Times' lead editorial of 1/31/18, said this: "...underneath distracting surface spectacles like his trolling on Twitter, he is delivering the most ruthless, conventionally conservative domestic policy in memory." So, for the NY Times, "conventional conservatism" is "ruthless." Got it. The Times editorial continued: "Nowhere is this more evident than in the way he is packing the courts - including the Supreme Court - with far-right justices." Hmmm...a conservative President appointing conservative judges. Didn't left-wing Obama appoint far-left justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan? Conservative Presidents don't have the right to appoint conservative justices because...why? Oh, that's right, conservatives are ruthless.
Lastly, we have MSNBC's Joy Reid's Tweet after Trump's State of the Union speech: "Church..family..police...military...the national anthem...Trump trying to call on all the tropes of 1950's-era nationalism. The goal of this speech appears to be to force the normalization of Trump on the terms of the bygone era his supporters are nostalgic for." I hope that Joy Reid and others on the Left continue with their out-of-touch elitism. What people like her do not realize is that it is not only conservatives who respect their church and family, the police and military and yes, the national anthem. After seeing a reduction in both attendance and TV viewership following the kneeling during the national anthem at NFL games, it was hardly a surprise that the league went out of its way to showcase numerous military veterans during the Super Bowl.
To sum up, conservatives are garbage, stink, are dimwits, Trump voters and ruthless. On other the hand, we value church (synagogue for some of us), family, the police, the military and the national anthem. I can deal with the demonization and demagoguery. After all, we are sustained by our faith, families, and basic American institutions. Not too shabby.
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
The Last Acceptable Prejudice
We know that it is unacceptable to be biased against or prejudiced against or discriminate against blacks, women, Hispanics, any member of the LGBTQ community, Muslims, and so on. Right? Wrong! It is perfectly permissible to mistreat any member of those groups if they are conservatives. In fact, prejudice against conservatives occurs on a daily basis. If you doubt the claim of such bias being acceptable against even members of the favored "victim" classes, consider the following. Pro-life women were discouraged or banned from participating in some of the women's marches. The same for pro-Israel women. Some in the Hollywood crowd had no problem with recently body shaming Sarah Sanders, President Trump's Press Secretary. After all, she is a conservative.
You see, marches such as the women's marches should really be referred to as the progressive/leftist women's marches. Are you a conservative black? Uncle Tom! This prejudice against conservatives is pervasive throughout our society. In fact, many on the Left act as if they have an absolute right to be rude to conservatives, to mock us, to insult us, to ignore us, and to simply stop being friends with us. The mainstream media's editorials mock conservatives all the time. It is nearly impossible to find a network TV show that does not attack or mock conservatives in at least one scene. College campuses? Do I really need to list all the times professors have insulted Republicans and conservatives. Let's not forget Hillary's "basket of deplorables." Democrats are the party of "tolerance?" Please.
On a more personal level, see my summer of 2016 post "A Personal Tale of Intolerance," wherein I describe being verbally assaulted and in fear of being struck by someone who was angry beyond words that I would be voting for Trump. I have had people tell me to my face that they "hate" Republicans, knowing that I am one. I have been mocked, otherwise treated rudely, and lost friends simply because my political beliefs are "unacceptable." Being a conservative makes me a lesser human being in the eyes of the Left. I am a "deplorable."
The Left has so incorporated this disparagement of conservatives into their worldview, that they believe it is, or should be, legal to discriminate against conservatives. Don't believe that either? Recall the various big city mayors across the country, all Democrats, telling Chick fil-A that they were not welcome to do business in their cities, after the owner of the company said he believed in the traditional definition of marriage. These mayors did not believe that the owner had First Amendment rights; they did not believe that he had a right to conduct business. Why? Because he expressed a conservative viewpoint. You want to live in a society where you must pass a political litmus test to get into a college, or get a job, or run a business? What happens when they ask if you are pro-Israel, or Jewish, and if you are, you are rejected. Some of us remember being down that road before.
In California, we already have legal discrimination against Republicans. In the primary elections, all candidates of both parties (multiple parties in California) are listed on a single ballot. The top two vote getters make the general election ballot. In California, the top two are Democrats. Therefore, we have no Republicans holding statewide office. We have an overwhelming Democrat legislature. One party rule. That is what the Left is aiming for on a national level. Welcome back to the USSR.
I have a confession to make. (No, I'm not a Christian.) I made the mistake of thinking that if I engaged with people on the Left, but did so in the manner of the "Happy Warrior," Hubert Humphrey, that I would be well received. I did my best to be polite, not be "in your face," and to stick to facts and logic. I was wrong. I forgot a truism that I have often stated. That is, many on the Left have so internalized their Leftist worldview that it has become a part of their self-identity. Therefore, if you criticize Obama, for example, it is as if you are personally attacking them. No matter how nice you are, they will get mad at you, because it is as if you are attacking them. You may as well be screaming at them. My bad. I forgot.
Therefore, I have decided that I will no longer engage with those on the Left about politics. I'll stick to "my own kind." Is that better for society if we cannot respectfully engage with one another? If the Left stays in their Left-wing bubble, and the Right stays in theirs? Some will say yes, there was less division in society when people discussed neither politics nor religion with one another. Others will say it is not better, that the inability to cross the political divide is a sign that it is the beginning of the end of this great country. That we will ultimately split into two countries. How do you see it?
You see, marches such as the women's marches should really be referred to as the progressive/leftist women's marches. Are you a conservative black? Uncle Tom! This prejudice against conservatives is pervasive throughout our society. In fact, many on the Left act as if they have an absolute right to be rude to conservatives, to mock us, to insult us, to ignore us, and to simply stop being friends with us. The mainstream media's editorials mock conservatives all the time. It is nearly impossible to find a network TV show that does not attack or mock conservatives in at least one scene. College campuses? Do I really need to list all the times professors have insulted Republicans and conservatives. Let's not forget Hillary's "basket of deplorables." Democrats are the party of "tolerance?" Please.
On a more personal level, see my summer of 2016 post "A Personal Tale of Intolerance," wherein I describe being verbally assaulted and in fear of being struck by someone who was angry beyond words that I would be voting for Trump. I have had people tell me to my face that they "hate" Republicans, knowing that I am one. I have been mocked, otherwise treated rudely, and lost friends simply because my political beliefs are "unacceptable." Being a conservative makes me a lesser human being in the eyes of the Left. I am a "deplorable."
The Left has so incorporated this disparagement of conservatives into their worldview, that they believe it is, or should be, legal to discriminate against conservatives. Don't believe that either? Recall the various big city mayors across the country, all Democrats, telling Chick fil-A that they were not welcome to do business in their cities, after the owner of the company said he believed in the traditional definition of marriage. These mayors did not believe that the owner had First Amendment rights; they did not believe that he had a right to conduct business. Why? Because he expressed a conservative viewpoint. You want to live in a society where you must pass a political litmus test to get into a college, or get a job, or run a business? What happens when they ask if you are pro-Israel, or Jewish, and if you are, you are rejected. Some of us remember being down that road before.
In California, we already have legal discrimination against Republicans. In the primary elections, all candidates of both parties (multiple parties in California) are listed on a single ballot. The top two vote getters make the general election ballot. In California, the top two are Democrats. Therefore, we have no Republicans holding statewide office. We have an overwhelming Democrat legislature. One party rule. That is what the Left is aiming for on a national level. Welcome back to the USSR.
I have a confession to make. (No, I'm not a Christian.) I made the mistake of thinking that if I engaged with people on the Left, but did so in the manner of the "Happy Warrior," Hubert Humphrey, that I would be well received. I did my best to be polite, not be "in your face," and to stick to facts and logic. I was wrong. I forgot a truism that I have often stated. That is, many on the Left have so internalized their Leftist worldview that it has become a part of their self-identity. Therefore, if you criticize Obama, for example, it is as if you are personally attacking them. No matter how nice you are, they will get mad at you, because it is as if you are attacking them. You may as well be screaming at them. My bad. I forgot.
Therefore, I have decided that I will no longer engage with those on the Left about politics. I'll stick to "my own kind." Is that better for society if we cannot respectfully engage with one another? If the Left stays in their Left-wing bubble, and the Right stays in theirs? Some will say yes, there was less division in society when people discussed neither politics nor religion with one another. Others will say it is not better, that the inability to cross the political divide is a sign that it is the beginning of the end of this great country. That we will ultimately split into two countries. How do you see it?
Monday, January 22, 2018
The LA Times Looks Back on Trump's First Year
In one of their 01/21/18 editorials, the LA Times discusses "Year One of the Trump era." They begin with this assertion: (Trump) "is temperamentally and intellectually unfit to serve as president of the United States." Temperamentally, Trump is, among other things, a brash New Yorker. It is rather clear that he does not care about political correctness. And, he has no hesitation in fighting back against an extremely hostile mainstream media and extremely hostile Left. Would I, at times, prefer that he be more circumspect in his speech? I have said so on various occasions. Intellectually unfit? That is elitist nonsense. Jimmy Carter is said to have been one of brightest Presidents - and not a very good one. Trump managed to defeat 16 Republican challengers in the primaries. Not because he is stupid; rather, he was able to read the American people and what their concerns were.
Still, the Times says they will take a look at what Trump has actually done. They start with this: "In brief, it's bad." So, let's see. The Times: "Despite some early drama over NATO's budget, Trump has followed a fairly traditional policy of supporting the postwar alliance." So, not bad then? "...Trump signed legislation imposing sanctions on Russia." Also not bad. Trump "approved selling lethal weapons to help Ukraine fend off pro-Russia separatists." Still not bad.
The Times says Trump "no doubt deserves some of the credit for routing Islamic State from strongholds in Iraq and Syria," although they claim he was building on Obama's policies. Even if true, Trump let the military loose so they could win. In any event, still not bad. The Times gives Obama credit for the booming economy (unemployment down, stocks up, wages up), but begrudgingly adds "those trends have continued on his (Trump's) watch, boosted by his business friendly agenda." So, still not bad. They do say there is "wide income inequality," but that was true under Obama already.
Then this: "Trump has been successful in quietly reshaping the judiciary...most (of his judicial appointments) have been the sort of well-credentialed conservative jurists that any GOP president would be likely to appoint." While Leftists would not be happy with conservative jurists, those appointments would hardly qualify as Trump doing something "bad." In fact, by now I am sure most of you are wondering where all the bad stuff is; and in light of all the good things noted above, I think that we can say that the Times should have said Trump's first year was "good," or, at worst, "mixed" (like most Presidents). Were the Times editorial writers being disingenuous in saying Trump's first year was "bad," or, are they "intellectually unfit" for the writing of logical editorials? But let us move on.
Let's get right to some of the things done by Trump and his Administration that the Times believes are, in fact, bad. "Attorney General Jeff Sessions (ended) federal oversight of troubled police departments." Are there bad cops? Sure, as in any other profession or endeavor. But Sessions and Trump have declared war on criminal gangs, such as MS-13. Personally, I prefer a war on gangs over a war on cops. But that's just me. Sessions endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which allows the government to seize someone's property even when not charged with a crime. On this, the Times is correct. While asset forfeiture has been used to deprive criminal gangs of drugs and money, it has also been used against individuals never convicted of any crime. It is improper and unjust in a free society.
The Times complains about Trump "appointing foxes to oversee such henhouses as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau." This complaint is akin to the comment about Trump's judicial appointees. The Times may not like the appointments, but conservatives do. A difference in political ideology does not make these appointments "bad." The Times is unhappy with what they call Trump's "opposition to immigration." That is just a blatant lie often stated by those on the Left. Trump opposes "illegal" immigration as do most conservatives; but the Left makes no distinction between "legal" and "illegal."
Then the Times claims that Trump ended DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program put into place by Obama. This assertion is only partly true. When Obama issued his executive order putting DACA in place, he essentially acknowledged that he did not have the legal authority to do so. Trump, Obama's intellectual inferior to the Times, saw the inappropriateness of a President trying to make laws that is entirely within the purview of the Congress. In ordering the end of DACA, Trump said he wanted to encourage Congress to actually carry out their responsibilities and finally deal with the issue of immigration, and would defer enforcement of his order until at least the end of March in order to give Congress time to act. It seems that the intellectually inferior Trump understands the responsibilities of the three different branches of government better than do Obama and the LA Times.
The Times: Trump "has been less than supportive of the United Nations, withdrawing the U.S. from UNESCO and cutting aid to the agency that works with Palestinian refugees..." Now, the best that I can say about the Times is they have entered the arena of lunacy. The Palestinian relief agency, UNRWA, should not even exist 70 years after it was established. Every descendant of every refugee, or others who entered Gaza and the West Bank, are treated as "refugees" - and apparently will be in perpetuity. It is nonsense. Worse, UNRWA works hand in glove with Hamas, whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel. UNESCO is the UN agency that declared the holiest Jewish sites to be Palestinian. I thank G-d for Trump (and Nikki Haley) acknowledging the truth about these UN agencies.
The Times: Trump's "decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital seems certain to damage the prospects for peace in the region." Trump's intellect clearly outshines the "intellects" who wrote this editorial. The Times editorial writers actually believe that the continued appeasement of the Palestinians will achieve peace, as if that approach of the last 70 years has worked so well. The appeasement has only encouraged the Palestinians to engage in war after war, terrorist attack after terrorist attack, and missile attack after missile attack. For years I have argued that we need a President who will tell the truth to the Palestinians, because as long as the Palestinians only hear fairy tales and lies there will be no movement towards peace. Trump is the President we have needed because Trump is the President to tell the truth about Israel and the Palestinians.
The Times' editorial did discuss some other issues. However, I think it is fairly clear at this point that the Times has no support for their proposition that Trump's first year, in brief, has been "bad." Nor is there support for their allegation of Trump's intellectual unsuitability for the office of President. I would, however, like to see more honest, logical and well reasoned editorials by the Times - assuming they are intellectually up to the task.
Still, the Times says they will take a look at what Trump has actually done. They start with this: "In brief, it's bad." So, let's see. The Times: "Despite some early drama over NATO's budget, Trump has followed a fairly traditional policy of supporting the postwar alliance." So, not bad then? "...Trump signed legislation imposing sanctions on Russia." Also not bad. Trump "approved selling lethal weapons to help Ukraine fend off pro-Russia separatists." Still not bad.
The Times says Trump "no doubt deserves some of the credit for routing Islamic State from strongholds in Iraq and Syria," although they claim he was building on Obama's policies. Even if true, Trump let the military loose so they could win. In any event, still not bad. The Times gives Obama credit for the booming economy (unemployment down, stocks up, wages up), but begrudgingly adds "those trends have continued on his (Trump's) watch, boosted by his business friendly agenda." So, still not bad. They do say there is "wide income inequality," but that was true under Obama already.
Then this: "Trump has been successful in quietly reshaping the judiciary...most (of his judicial appointments) have been the sort of well-credentialed conservative jurists that any GOP president would be likely to appoint." While Leftists would not be happy with conservative jurists, those appointments would hardly qualify as Trump doing something "bad." In fact, by now I am sure most of you are wondering where all the bad stuff is; and in light of all the good things noted above, I think that we can say that the Times should have said Trump's first year was "good," or, at worst, "mixed" (like most Presidents). Were the Times editorial writers being disingenuous in saying Trump's first year was "bad," or, are they "intellectually unfit" for the writing of logical editorials? But let us move on.
Let's get right to some of the things done by Trump and his Administration that the Times believes are, in fact, bad. "Attorney General Jeff Sessions (ended) federal oversight of troubled police departments." Are there bad cops? Sure, as in any other profession or endeavor. But Sessions and Trump have declared war on criminal gangs, such as MS-13. Personally, I prefer a war on gangs over a war on cops. But that's just me. Sessions endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which allows the government to seize someone's property even when not charged with a crime. On this, the Times is correct. While asset forfeiture has been used to deprive criminal gangs of drugs and money, it has also been used against individuals never convicted of any crime. It is improper and unjust in a free society.
The Times complains about Trump "appointing foxes to oversee such henhouses as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau." This complaint is akin to the comment about Trump's judicial appointees. The Times may not like the appointments, but conservatives do. A difference in political ideology does not make these appointments "bad." The Times is unhappy with what they call Trump's "opposition to immigration." That is just a blatant lie often stated by those on the Left. Trump opposes "illegal" immigration as do most conservatives; but the Left makes no distinction between "legal" and "illegal."
Then the Times claims that Trump ended DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program put into place by Obama. This assertion is only partly true. When Obama issued his executive order putting DACA in place, he essentially acknowledged that he did not have the legal authority to do so. Trump, Obama's intellectual inferior to the Times, saw the inappropriateness of a President trying to make laws that is entirely within the purview of the Congress. In ordering the end of DACA, Trump said he wanted to encourage Congress to actually carry out their responsibilities and finally deal with the issue of immigration, and would defer enforcement of his order until at least the end of March in order to give Congress time to act. It seems that the intellectually inferior Trump understands the responsibilities of the three different branches of government better than do Obama and the LA Times.
The Times: Trump "has been less than supportive of the United Nations, withdrawing the U.S. from UNESCO and cutting aid to the agency that works with Palestinian refugees..." Now, the best that I can say about the Times is they have entered the arena of lunacy. The Palestinian relief agency, UNRWA, should not even exist 70 years after it was established. Every descendant of every refugee, or others who entered Gaza and the West Bank, are treated as "refugees" - and apparently will be in perpetuity. It is nonsense. Worse, UNRWA works hand in glove with Hamas, whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel. UNESCO is the UN agency that declared the holiest Jewish sites to be Palestinian. I thank G-d for Trump (and Nikki Haley) acknowledging the truth about these UN agencies.
The Times: Trump's "decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital seems certain to damage the prospects for peace in the region." Trump's intellect clearly outshines the "intellects" who wrote this editorial. The Times editorial writers actually believe that the continued appeasement of the Palestinians will achieve peace, as if that approach of the last 70 years has worked so well. The appeasement has only encouraged the Palestinians to engage in war after war, terrorist attack after terrorist attack, and missile attack after missile attack. For years I have argued that we need a President who will tell the truth to the Palestinians, because as long as the Palestinians only hear fairy tales and lies there will be no movement towards peace. Trump is the President we have needed because Trump is the President to tell the truth about Israel and the Palestinians.
The Times' editorial did discuss some other issues. However, I think it is fairly clear at this point that the Times has no support for their proposition that Trump's first year, in brief, has been "bad." Nor is there support for their allegation of Trump's intellectual unsuitability for the office of President. I would, however, like to see more honest, logical and well reasoned editorials by the Times - assuming they are intellectually up to the task.
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
New Year Reflections, Part III (The Political Circus)
Today, I had the opportunity to watch some of the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on immigration. Testifying was Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. It was quite the spectacle. Some questions were about immigration, some about cyber security. Then, it was Senator Patrick Leahy's (Dem-Vt) turn. Leahy decide that the most important issue of the day facing the USA was whether Trump really referred to certain countries as "shitholes." As Nielsen was present during the meeting in question, he wanted her answer. She testified that she did not hear Trump use that word, but that he was passionate about his point of view.
Leahy said this: "Now last week in the oval office, President Trump reportedly said the most vulgar and racist things I've ever heard a President of either party utter. In fact, I've never heard any President, Republican or Democrat, utter anything even similar." And I am shocked, shocked, that there's gambling going on. Rather an odd comment for a nearly 77 year old Senator. Democratic President Lyndon Johnson frequently used the "N" word when referring to blacks. Republican President Richard Nixon called Mexicans "dishonest," said blacks lived "like a bunch of dogs," and that San Francisco was full of "fags." Italians didn't "have their heads screwed on right." The Irish? "Virtually every Irish I've known gets mean when he drinks." As for my people: "The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality." In other words, Nixon did not like anyone.
Although Senator Leahy claims that he never heard the vulgar language from these other Presidents, I wonder if he ever heard of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I do not know what language Roosevelt used, but I do know that he ordered the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II - something not done to German or Italian Americans. How would the good Senator Leahy compare that to Trump's alleged description of third world countries? Speaking of which, Senator Lindsay Graham, also shocked by Trump's alleged comment, once referred to Mexico and other Latin American countries as "hellholes."
Additionally, Democrats cannot fathom Trump's apparent hostility to immigration. Trump: "All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large number of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our Administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens."
And this from Trump: "We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it." Okay, the above two quotes are actual quotes - but not from Trump. Bill Clinton made both of the above comments. And former Democratic Senator Harry Reid introduced a bill in 1993 to revoke so-called birthright citizenship. His concern was that there was an "incentive for pregnant alien women to enter the United States illegally, often at risk to mother and child, for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for the child and accompanying federal financial benefits. And: "unless changes are made, our dinner table eventually will collapse, and no one will have security and opportunity."
I suppose we may claim that Leahy and others like him are hypocrites. We might claim that Leahy's assertions that he has never heard such bad words from other Presidents is simply not believable. Or, we can rely on that old standby: how can you tell that a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
Leahy said this: "Now last week in the oval office, President Trump reportedly said the most vulgar and racist things I've ever heard a President of either party utter. In fact, I've never heard any President, Republican or Democrat, utter anything even similar." And I am shocked, shocked, that there's gambling going on. Rather an odd comment for a nearly 77 year old Senator. Democratic President Lyndon Johnson frequently used the "N" word when referring to blacks. Republican President Richard Nixon called Mexicans "dishonest," said blacks lived "like a bunch of dogs," and that San Francisco was full of "fags." Italians didn't "have their heads screwed on right." The Irish? "Virtually every Irish I've known gets mean when he drinks." As for my people: "The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality." In other words, Nixon did not like anyone.
Although Senator Leahy claims that he never heard the vulgar language from these other Presidents, I wonder if he ever heard of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I do not know what language Roosevelt used, but I do know that he ordered the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II - something not done to German or Italian Americans. How would the good Senator Leahy compare that to Trump's alleged description of third world countries? Speaking of which, Senator Lindsay Graham, also shocked by Trump's alleged comment, once referred to Mexico and other Latin American countries as "hellholes."
Additionally, Democrats cannot fathom Trump's apparent hostility to immigration. Trump: "All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large number of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our Administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens."
And this from Trump: "We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it." Okay, the above two quotes are actual quotes - but not from Trump. Bill Clinton made both of the above comments. And former Democratic Senator Harry Reid introduced a bill in 1993 to revoke so-called birthright citizenship. His concern was that there was an "incentive for pregnant alien women to enter the United States illegally, often at risk to mother and child, for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for the child and accompanying federal financial benefits. And: "unless changes are made, our dinner table eventually will collapse, and no one will have security and opportunity."
I suppose we may claim that Leahy and others like him are hypocrites. We might claim that Leahy's assertions that he has never heard such bad words from other Presidents is simply not believable. Or, we can rely on that old standby: how can you tell that a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
Monday, January 15, 2018
New Year Reflections, Part II (Race in America - A Tale of Two Perspectives)
Perhaps it's a result of age difference. Perhaps its a consequence of political differences. But two articles in major papers this Martin Luther KIng, Jr. weekend could not have more diametrically opposing viewpoints. One, by Ibram X. Kendi, a 35 year old professor at American University, has a theme of how racist America is and has always been, and that whites of all political persuasions, left and right, are in denial of their racism. (Op-Ed in the Sunday, January 14, 2018 New York Times) The other, by Shelby Steele, a 72 year old senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, has as its theme that blacks in America no longer suffer from the oppression of racism, because that oppression is over with.
(Op-Ed in the 1/13-14 weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal) Both men are black.
Kendi: "Begin with the eight presidents who held slaves while in the oval office. Then consider how Abraham Lincoln urged black people to leave the United States." "Thomas Jefferson was not a founding father of equality. He was a founding father of the heartbeat of denial that lives through both Mr. Trump's denials and the assertion that his racial views are abnormal for America and its presidents."
Steele refers to "a simple truth that is both obvious and unutterable: The oppression of black people is over with. This is politically incorrect news, but it is true nonetheless." After acknowledging that there is still racism - "racism is endemic to the human condition" - Steele states that racism is now "recognized as a scourge, as the crowning immorality of our age and our history." Steele says that blacks then were "confronted with a new problem: the shock of freedom." Steele: "Freedom holds us accountable no matter the disadvantages we inherit from the past."
After discussing how Nixon developed a new strategy to get support from voters who would not have to admit to their racism, Kendi says: "A new vocabulary emerged, allowing users to evade admissions of racism. It still holds fast after all these years. The vocabulary list includes these: law and order. War on drugs. Model minority. Reverse discrimination. Race-neutral. Welfare queen. Handout. Tough on crime. Personal responsibility. Black-on-black crime. Achievement gap. No excuses. Race card. Colorblind. Post-racial. Illegal immigrant. Obamacare. War on Cops. Blue Lives Matter. All Lives Matter. Entitlements. Voter fraud. Economic anxiety. The denials using these phrases come from both conservatives and white liberals."
Steele: "For any formerly oppressed group, there will be an expectation that the past will somehow be an excuse for difficulties in the present." "We end up giving victimization the charisma of black authenticity. Suffering, poverty and underdevelopment are the things that make you 'truly black.' Success and achievement throw your authenticity into question." "The near-hysteria around the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and others is also a hunger for the excuse of racial victimization, a determination to keep it alive."
Steele: "And you would feel this abstract, fabricated oppression as if it were your personal truth, the truth around which your character is formed. Watching the antics of Black Lives Matter is like watching people literally aspiring to black victimization, longing for it as for a consummation." Kendi: "Only racists say they are not racist. Only the racist lives by the heartbeat of denial."
The Truth-Uncensored: I chose to allow these two black scholars to present their viewpoints without any intervening commentary by me. Ultimately, the reader will decide which one makes the most sense, and states the most truth. From my viewpoint, I go by how I lived my own life. Looking forward, not backward. Doing the best that you can given whatever your circumstances may be. Telling young people that they can achieve whatever they want if they work hard enough. Substantial gains and changes have occurred in American society over the last nearly 70 years. By focusing on those positive changes, instead of the negative history, we give an uplifting message. That does not mean we forget the past. No, we learn from it and go forward - with an attitude of optimism, not victimization. And, we judge others as my mother taught me, and as Martin Luther King told all of us, by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Kendi: "Begin with the eight presidents who held slaves while in the oval office. Then consider how Abraham Lincoln urged black people to leave the United States." "Thomas Jefferson was not a founding father of equality. He was a founding father of the heartbeat of denial that lives through both Mr. Trump's denials and the assertion that his racial views are abnormal for America and its presidents."
Steele refers to "a simple truth that is both obvious and unutterable: The oppression of black people is over with. This is politically incorrect news, but it is true nonetheless." After acknowledging that there is still racism - "racism is endemic to the human condition" - Steele states that racism is now "recognized as a scourge, as the crowning immorality of our age and our history." Steele says that blacks then were "confronted with a new problem: the shock of freedom." Steele: "Freedom holds us accountable no matter the disadvantages we inherit from the past."
After discussing how Nixon developed a new strategy to get support from voters who would not have to admit to their racism, Kendi says: "A new vocabulary emerged, allowing users to evade admissions of racism. It still holds fast after all these years. The vocabulary list includes these: law and order. War on drugs. Model minority. Reverse discrimination. Race-neutral. Welfare queen. Handout. Tough on crime. Personal responsibility. Black-on-black crime. Achievement gap. No excuses. Race card. Colorblind. Post-racial. Illegal immigrant. Obamacare. War on Cops. Blue Lives Matter. All Lives Matter. Entitlements. Voter fraud. Economic anxiety. The denials using these phrases come from both conservatives and white liberals."
Steele: "For any formerly oppressed group, there will be an expectation that the past will somehow be an excuse for difficulties in the present." "We end up giving victimization the charisma of black authenticity. Suffering, poverty and underdevelopment are the things that make you 'truly black.' Success and achievement throw your authenticity into question." "The near-hysteria around the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and others is also a hunger for the excuse of racial victimization, a determination to keep it alive."
Steele: "And you would feel this abstract, fabricated oppression as if it were your personal truth, the truth around which your character is formed. Watching the antics of Black Lives Matter is like watching people literally aspiring to black victimization, longing for it as for a consummation." Kendi: "Only racists say they are not racist. Only the racist lives by the heartbeat of denial."
The Truth-Uncensored: I chose to allow these two black scholars to present their viewpoints without any intervening commentary by me. Ultimately, the reader will decide which one makes the most sense, and states the most truth. From my viewpoint, I go by how I lived my own life. Looking forward, not backward. Doing the best that you can given whatever your circumstances may be. Telling young people that they can achieve whatever they want if they work hard enough. Substantial gains and changes have occurred in American society over the last nearly 70 years. By focusing on those positive changes, instead of the negative history, we give an uplifting message. That does not mean we forget the past. No, we learn from it and go forward - with an attitude of optimism, not victimization. And, we judge others as my mother taught me, and as Martin Luther King told all of us, by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)