Writing in the New Yorker Magazine, a Dan Piepenbring wrote an article entitled "Chick fil-A's creepy infiltration of New York City." Piepenbring: "Chick fil-A's arrival in New York City feels like an infiltration in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism." And, we are told that the company headquarters is "adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple's feet." The horrors! I would be willing to bet that Mr. Piepenbring would never dare to express that Islam had a "creepy infiltration of New York City." No, the Left's attack on Christianity continues.
At he University of Southern California, one wall has a mural with these words: "Dismantle Whiteness and Misogyny on this campus." I will leave that one alone.
Penn State decided to eliminate their homecoming King and Queen. Instead, two students "regardless of their gender, gender identity, and/or gender expression" will be picked to be the "Guide State Forward Award" winners. Someone needs to tell the Royals in the U.K. about this. They still have a Queen, and in the not too distant future will have a King. The Queen is Elizabeth, a woman. The King will likely be William, a man. I know, the Left does not think there are men and women. An article in the USA Today discusses a study in which LGBT parents are coming up with parental names other than Mommy and Daddy. As the article states, the rationale is "undoing gender." Ironic that the Left says the Right ignores science. Are there not scientifically demonstrable differences between a "man" and a "woman"?
Fox reported on a new, yet to be distributed AP US History textbook entitled "By the People - A History of the United States." Here is a quote from the book: "Clinton supporters feared that the election had been determined by people who were afraid of a rapidly developing ethnic diversity of the country, discomfort with their candidate's gender, and nostalgia for an earlier time in the nation's history." Ethnic diversity is hardly the problem. Sure, there is tiny fringe group that hates anybody not like them.
However, the real problem is that the Democrats are mostly unaware that their party no longer consists of classical liberals. They are Leftists; and most could not tell you the difference. As for Clinton's gender, I heard the same nonsense about Obama not being able to win in 2008 because he was a black man. The Left, believing the worst of the American people - that they were racists - asserted that a black could never win. I would tell them that such a position was ridiculous. How about Clinton simply not being the right woman, and folding at the end of the campaign. That was the problem. If there was nostalgia, it was for a time when people had jobs - jobs which were lost under the Democratic Administration of Barack Obama.
Most of us have heard about the two black men arrested at a Philadelphia area Starbucks. Apparently, they were denied access to the restroom because they had not yet made a purchase. They indicated they were waiting for third man to arrive. The police were called and the men were arrested. A number of establishments have a similar policy about using a restroom prior to any purchase. I probably would have bought my coffee and then gone to the restroom. Nevertheless, the arrest of these two men seemed extreme, and if they refused to make a purchase even after the police arrived, the police could have simply asked them to leave. I am not aware if the police did so.
As a result of this incident, and apparent threats of a nationwide boycott, Starbucks will be closing all 8000 of its US stores on the afternoon of May 29 for the purpose of providing "racial-bias training." Participating in the training will be former AG Eric Holder, who referred to Americans as "essentially a nation of cowards" when it comes to matters of race. I have been in countless Starbucks in various locations. I have never witnessed any of the employees behave in anything but a polite manner. But when the Left threatens, the business world cowers. When the Left threatened Chick-fil-A with boycotts after the owner said he believed in the traditional definition of marriage, many Americans rallied around the company, helping sales soar.
To recap, in the culture wars we see an attack on Christianity, an attack on "whiteness," an attack on gender and science, the usual suggestion (a la Clinton) that the country is filled with racists and sexists, and the threat of Left-wing boycotts. Almost makes me nostalgic for a different time.
Sunday, April 29, 2018
Thursday, April 19, 2018
As Israel Turns 70 Who Will Defend Her?
Wednesday night into Thursday, Israelis and Jews in the Diaspora (the land outside of Israel) who support Israel, celebrated the miracle of Israel and its 70th birthday. Seventy years ago, and six months after the UN voted for partition of the British Mandate, David Ben-Gurion announced the establishment of the State of Israel in Eretz-Israel (the land of Israel). Ben Gurion: "We appeal to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream - the redemption of Israel."
At the time, Jews in the Diaspora did rally round the new Jewish state. As Howard Sachar wrote: "...by the end of the war (WWII), the revelations of the death camps and the plight of the Jewish displaced persons effectively transformed Zionism into the single most urgent force within the American-Jewish community." (Quote from "A History of the Jews in the Modern World.") As an aside, the Jews of Palestine fought alongside the Allies in WWII, whereas the Arabs of Palestine, under the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, sided with Hitler and the Axis Powers. Today, we have any number of Left-wing Jewish anti-Israel groups, such as J Street, The New Israel Fund, and IfNotNow. These groups, along with individual Left-wing Jews, opposed President Trump recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and his commitment to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. For these Jews, every other country can declare their capital city, but not Israel.
In speaking with one of those Left-wing Jews who opposed the recognition of Jerusalem, I was told that it would result in hundreds being killed. Why, I do not know. Actually, slowly but surely other countries are deciding to also move their embassies to Jerusalem. Even worse, I was informed by that same individual that, as the United States has nuclear weapons, and as France and the U.K. also have nuclear weapons, why shouldn't Iran also be allowed to have nuclear weapons. There is no possible reply that would get through to someone with that mindset. Clearly, Iran being a leading state sponsor of terror was not an issue for this individual. Iran repeatedly threatening to wipe Israel, the sole Jewish country in the world, off the map, did not resonate with this Jewish, Left-wing individual. So, I doubt it would make any difference to this individual that in February, Israel shot down an armed Iranian drone over Israeli territory, the drone having been launched from an Iranian base in Syria. Such an attempted attack is, of course, an act of war. Said a former head of the Mossad: "We are on a collision course with the Iranians..."
The mainstream media, such as the New York Times, is not supportive of the Jewish state. In their 4/12/18 editorial, "A Violent Response to Nonviolent Protests," the paper was highly critical of Israel for using, at times, deadly force to defend its border with Gaza. The Times: "...in general, the protests have been peaceful." In that case, "in general" the response by the Israeli Defense Forces has also been peaceful. Of course, the burning of hundreds of tires in order to create a smokescreen that would allow the Arabs to tear down the border fence and sneak into Israel would not warrant any mention. The Times tells us that since these Friday protests began at the border, "Israeli forces have killed at least 29 Palestinians and wounded more than 1000." It's always a numbers game for the Times, which seems disappointed that not enough Jews have been killed, as the Times told us: "There have been no known Israeli casualties."
The editorial also tells us that the Arab protesters are only "demanding to return to lands their families lost in the 1948 war that accompanied Israel's founding." What actually accompanied Israel's founding was an attempt by five surrounding Arab countries to destroy Israel after Ben-Gurion issued Israel's declaration of independence. The Arab world announced before the UN partition vote their complete opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state. Notwithstanding Arab hostility, Ben-Gurion said this in the declaration of independence: "We appeal - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions." As the Times well knows, these Arabs are not seeking a return of the relatively small number of still surviving dispossessed Arabs from 1948, but millions of their descendants. That would effectively end Israel as the sole Jewish state, and create the 23rd Arab state.
As a reminder, Palestine, never a country, was the Jewish homeland. The Arabs of Palestine continue to refer to the establishment of the State of Israel as the "Nakba," or catastrophe. With that in mind, the New York Times was only too happy to print an Op-Ed by Ayman Odeh, the head of the Joint List, the leading Arab political party in Israel. Mr. Odeh is a member of the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament. His Op-Ed focuses on what happened to his family and other Arabs during Israel's war for independence. All the blame, of course, lies with Israel, as Mr. Odeh ignores the historical facts surrounding Israel having to fight a war for independence. He ignores that there were three different causes for Arabs being displaced from their homes: the surrounding Arab countries told them to get out and that they would be able to return after Israel was destroyed, some left of their own accord in order to not be caught up in the war, and yes, some were displaced by the Jews. And, he gives little attention to the fact that he, and other Arabs, serve in the Israeli legislature.
Seventy years ago, the European Jews displaced by WWII and the Holocaust resettled in other countries, including in Israel. Seventy years ago, the hundreds of thousands of Jews displaced from their historical homes in the surrounding Arab countries resettled elsewhere, including in Israel. But for seventy years the Arabs of Palestine have been used as props by the Arab world, in part to distract from their own internal problems. Hamas, the rulers of Gaza, uses their own people as props, telling them that they will get all the land of Israel. So, instead of building their own modern society, Hamas uses tens of millions of dollars to build rockets to send into Israel, and uses building materials to build underground tunnels so they can sneak into Israel and kill Jews. Just recently, Israel located and destroyed what may have been the longest of such tunnels.
Seventy years ago, no one would have predicted that Israel would survive its war for independence against the much larger Arab armies. It was a true miracle, as the new country of Israel was not defeated. Seventy years later, the Israelis have created a modern society, with a dynamic economy. They are leaders in science, medicine and technology. Is Israel a perfect society? Perfection does not occur in this world. The aforementioned individual with whom I was speaking expressed that Israel would be overrun demographically by the Arab population, advising me that Jews constituted only 65% of the population of Israel. I corrected him by stating that Jews were at least 75% of the population. Then, I am sure that I caused him to be completely dumbfounded by my further comment regarding the demographics. If it actually came down to Israel being a majority Jewish country versus a true democracy, I said that I come down on the side of Israel remaining a Jewish country. Who will defend Israel? I will. Am Yisrael Chai! The nation of Israel lives! The Jewish people live!
At the time, Jews in the Diaspora did rally round the new Jewish state. As Howard Sachar wrote: "...by the end of the war (WWII), the revelations of the death camps and the plight of the Jewish displaced persons effectively transformed Zionism into the single most urgent force within the American-Jewish community." (Quote from "A History of the Jews in the Modern World.") As an aside, the Jews of Palestine fought alongside the Allies in WWII, whereas the Arabs of Palestine, under the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, sided with Hitler and the Axis Powers. Today, we have any number of Left-wing Jewish anti-Israel groups, such as J Street, The New Israel Fund, and IfNotNow. These groups, along with individual Left-wing Jews, opposed President Trump recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and his commitment to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. For these Jews, every other country can declare their capital city, but not Israel.
In speaking with one of those Left-wing Jews who opposed the recognition of Jerusalem, I was told that it would result in hundreds being killed. Why, I do not know. Actually, slowly but surely other countries are deciding to also move their embassies to Jerusalem. Even worse, I was informed by that same individual that, as the United States has nuclear weapons, and as France and the U.K. also have nuclear weapons, why shouldn't Iran also be allowed to have nuclear weapons. There is no possible reply that would get through to someone with that mindset. Clearly, Iran being a leading state sponsor of terror was not an issue for this individual. Iran repeatedly threatening to wipe Israel, the sole Jewish country in the world, off the map, did not resonate with this Jewish, Left-wing individual. So, I doubt it would make any difference to this individual that in February, Israel shot down an armed Iranian drone over Israeli territory, the drone having been launched from an Iranian base in Syria. Such an attempted attack is, of course, an act of war. Said a former head of the Mossad: "We are on a collision course with the Iranians..."
The mainstream media, such as the New York Times, is not supportive of the Jewish state. In their 4/12/18 editorial, "A Violent Response to Nonviolent Protests," the paper was highly critical of Israel for using, at times, deadly force to defend its border with Gaza. The Times: "...in general, the protests have been peaceful." In that case, "in general" the response by the Israeli Defense Forces has also been peaceful. Of course, the burning of hundreds of tires in order to create a smokescreen that would allow the Arabs to tear down the border fence and sneak into Israel would not warrant any mention. The Times tells us that since these Friday protests began at the border, "Israeli forces have killed at least 29 Palestinians and wounded more than 1000." It's always a numbers game for the Times, which seems disappointed that not enough Jews have been killed, as the Times told us: "There have been no known Israeli casualties."
The editorial also tells us that the Arab protesters are only "demanding to return to lands their families lost in the 1948 war that accompanied Israel's founding." What actually accompanied Israel's founding was an attempt by five surrounding Arab countries to destroy Israel after Ben-Gurion issued Israel's declaration of independence. The Arab world announced before the UN partition vote their complete opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state. Notwithstanding Arab hostility, Ben-Gurion said this in the declaration of independence: "We appeal - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions." As the Times well knows, these Arabs are not seeking a return of the relatively small number of still surviving dispossessed Arabs from 1948, but millions of their descendants. That would effectively end Israel as the sole Jewish state, and create the 23rd Arab state.
As a reminder, Palestine, never a country, was the Jewish homeland. The Arabs of Palestine continue to refer to the establishment of the State of Israel as the "Nakba," or catastrophe. With that in mind, the New York Times was only too happy to print an Op-Ed by Ayman Odeh, the head of the Joint List, the leading Arab political party in Israel. Mr. Odeh is a member of the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament. His Op-Ed focuses on what happened to his family and other Arabs during Israel's war for independence. All the blame, of course, lies with Israel, as Mr. Odeh ignores the historical facts surrounding Israel having to fight a war for independence. He ignores that there were three different causes for Arabs being displaced from their homes: the surrounding Arab countries told them to get out and that they would be able to return after Israel was destroyed, some left of their own accord in order to not be caught up in the war, and yes, some were displaced by the Jews. And, he gives little attention to the fact that he, and other Arabs, serve in the Israeli legislature.
Seventy years ago, the European Jews displaced by WWII and the Holocaust resettled in other countries, including in Israel. Seventy years ago, the hundreds of thousands of Jews displaced from their historical homes in the surrounding Arab countries resettled elsewhere, including in Israel. But for seventy years the Arabs of Palestine have been used as props by the Arab world, in part to distract from their own internal problems. Hamas, the rulers of Gaza, uses their own people as props, telling them that they will get all the land of Israel. So, instead of building their own modern society, Hamas uses tens of millions of dollars to build rockets to send into Israel, and uses building materials to build underground tunnels so they can sneak into Israel and kill Jews. Just recently, Israel located and destroyed what may have been the longest of such tunnels.
Seventy years ago, no one would have predicted that Israel would survive its war for independence against the much larger Arab armies. It was a true miracle, as the new country of Israel was not defeated. Seventy years later, the Israelis have created a modern society, with a dynamic economy. They are leaders in science, medicine and technology. Is Israel a perfect society? Perfection does not occur in this world. The aforementioned individual with whom I was speaking expressed that Israel would be overrun demographically by the Arab population, advising me that Jews constituted only 65% of the population of Israel. I corrected him by stating that Jews were at least 75% of the population. Then, I am sure that I caused him to be completely dumbfounded by my further comment regarding the demographics. If it actually came down to Israel being a majority Jewish country versus a true democracy, I said that I come down on the side of Israel remaining a Jewish country. Who will defend Israel? I will. Am Yisrael Chai! The nation of Israel lives! The Jewish people live!
Monday, April 9, 2018
Who Are The Real Threats To Our Democracy?
The Friday New York Times editorial, "Mr. Trump's War on the Truth," ties in with their Sunday hit piece on President Trump by former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright. That piece starts on the first page of the Sunday Review section of the paper, and is entitled "Fascism on the March." The premise of these articles is that Trump is a threat to democracy. Let's see where the threats lie.
In their editorial, the Times claims that Trump has been attacking the Washington Post because they have been "holding his administration to account." Maybe. Trump does fight back. But how is this any different from Obama going after Fox News, the one TV outlet that sought to hold the Obama administration to account. The Times: "Such attacks on the integrity of news organizations confuse the public about what's true. Many Republican voters have long been skeptical of the mainstream news media, but their trust in it has fallen sharply since 2016, according to the Pew Research Center." Well, to use the modern day vernacular, duh!
This blog has been skeptical of the mainstream media (MSM) since well before 2016, and numerous prior posts, in whole or in part, have discussed the topic of media bias. One of my favorite examples of news bias in the MSM involves the very same New York Times. In a 5/27/13 lengthy article regarding riots in Stockholm, Sweden, the Times made reference to the fact that young immigrants had also been rioting in other cities in Europe, such as in London, Paris and Malmo. Curiously, nowhere over this two page article did the Times tell us that the rioting young immigrants were, in each instance, Muslims. Does the Times have a war on truth? Do the Times editors really believe that their news pages are not biased? The Times editorial goes on to insinuate that Trump is responsible for attacks on the press in countries around the world.
Albright's article then picks up on this ridiculous thesis. Among the numerous allegations she makes against Trump is this: Trump "has led America into isolated positions on trade, climate change and Middle East peace." The underlying assumption in her comment is that the USA should follow the world's lead or the UN's lead - and not the other way around. Besides, why should other countries get to take advantage of the USA in trade? Why should the USA/taxpayers participate in a climate deal that will cost the USA billions of dollars for the purpose of "redistributing" money to poorer countries. As for the Middle East, Trump decided he would not appease terrorists, including Palestinian terrorists. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, noting that peace will never be possible if the truth cannot be told.
Albright claimed that Trump has failed to stand up for the values of a free society. But it was Trump who spoke to many leaders of Muslim countries telling them there was a "crisis of Islamic extremism." After telling these leaders to drive the extremists out of their places of worship and communities, Trump said "we are here to offer a partnership - based on shared interests and values - to pursue a better future for us all." Albright claims that Trump "exacerbate(s) religious, social and racial divisions." And I thought it was Obama who attacked white police officers every time a black suspect was involved with police. Obama is the one who had the race-baiter Al Sharpton to the White House on numerous occasions. It was Obama who preached class socioeconomic class warfare against the 1%. And it was Obama who mocked those whom he said "cling to their guns and religion."
Albright makes various other easily rebuttable allegations against Trump intended to prove his support for fascism. It's nonsense. But let's see from where some actual threats to democracy emanate. Diamond and Silk are two black women who are ardent supporters of President Trump. They have 1.2 million followers on Facebook. The Gateway Pundit reports that Facebook is interfering with their posts. Diamond and Silk claim that Facebook's explanation was short, with no real explanation whatsoever: "The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community." What? Their pro-Trump You Tube videos are unsafe? To whom? This is utter nonsense that, not surprisingly, is intended to shut down conservative voices. There's a danger to democracy. As I recall, it was Obama who used the IRS to target conservative 501(c)(3) organizations. Democracy at work?
The Daily Caller reports that Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, described as "great" an article by Peter Leyden and Ruy Texeira, discussing the current political divide. The authors wrote this: "In this current period of American politics, at this juncture in our history, there's no way that a bipartisan path provides the way forward...the way forward is on the path California blazed about 15 years ago." You see, the authors describe the US as being in a new civil war, and believe ending the Republican party for a couple generations would be a good idea. Might Dorsey's left-wing attitudes affect Twitter policy?
I'm curious. How many of you support one-party rule? You know, like in Russia? Like the Democrats put in place in California. Soon, California will have a primary election for the office of governor, among other positions. In California's primary system, the top two vote getters move on to the ballot in the general election in November. In California, the top two tend to both be Democrats. It's quite a clever way to eliminate the Republican party. And the head of Twitter likes the California model, the one party rule model, a la Russia, as long as that one party is the Democrat party. Democracy? Or fascism?
Want to assure an end to democracy? Then teach kids that the Constitution is outdated. That speech should not be protected if it is "hurtful" or "offensive" or "non-inclusive." A Gallup/James L. Knight Foundation poll found that while 70% of college students prefer an open learning environment even if "offensive" speech is protected, 29% favor a "positive environment" that would prohibit certain speech. But when it comes to the issues of "diversity and inclusion," speech loses, with 53% siding with diversity and only 46% willing to defend speech. There's the future of your democracy. But the mainstream media will daily tell their readers that the true threat is Donald Trump. It's the Big Lie - say it loud enough and frequently enough, and people will believe it. Too bad the MSM has come to believe that their role in society is to perpetuate the Big Lie.
In their editorial, the Times claims that Trump has been attacking the Washington Post because they have been "holding his administration to account." Maybe. Trump does fight back. But how is this any different from Obama going after Fox News, the one TV outlet that sought to hold the Obama administration to account. The Times: "Such attacks on the integrity of news organizations confuse the public about what's true. Many Republican voters have long been skeptical of the mainstream news media, but their trust in it has fallen sharply since 2016, according to the Pew Research Center." Well, to use the modern day vernacular, duh!
This blog has been skeptical of the mainstream media (MSM) since well before 2016, and numerous prior posts, in whole or in part, have discussed the topic of media bias. One of my favorite examples of news bias in the MSM involves the very same New York Times. In a 5/27/13 lengthy article regarding riots in Stockholm, Sweden, the Times made reference to the fact that young immigrants had also been rioting in other cities in Europe, such as in London, Paris and Malmo. Curiously, nowhere over this two page article did the Times tell us that the rioting young immigrants were, in each instance, Muslims. Does the Times have a war on truth? Do the Times editors really believe that their news pages are not biased? The Times editorial goes on to insinuate that Trump is responsible for attacks on the press in countries around the world.
Albright's article then picks up on this ridiculous thesis. Among the numerous allegations she makes against Trump is this: Trump "has led America into isolated positions on trade, climate change and Middle East peace." The underlying assumption in her comment is that the USA should follow the world's lead or the UN's lead - and not the other way around. Besides, why should other countries get to take advantage of the USA in trade? Why should the USA/taxpayers participate in a climate deal that will cost the USA billions of dollars for the purpose of "redistributing" money to poorer countries. As for the Middle East, Trump decided he would not appease terrorists, including Palestinian terrorists. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, noting that peace will never be possible if the truth cannot be told.
Albright claimed that Trump has failed to stand up for the values of a free society. But it was Trump who spoke to many leaders of Muslim countries telling them there was a "crisis of Islamic extremism." After telling these leaders to drive the extremists out of their places of worship and communities, Trump said "we are here to offer a partnership - based on shared interests and values - to pursue a better future for us all." Albright claims that Trump "exacerbate(s) religious, social and racial divisions." And I thought it was Obama who attacked white police officers every time a black suspect was involved with police. Obama is the one who had the race-baiter Al Sharpton to the White House on numerous occasions. It was Obama who preached class socioeconomic class warfare against the 1%. And it was Obama who mocked those whom he said "cling to their guns and religion."
Albright makes various other easily rebuttable allegations against Trump intended to prove his support for fascism. It's nonsense. But let's see from where some actual threats to democracy emanate. Diamond and Silk are two black women who are ardent supporters of President Trump. They have 1.2 million followers on Facebook. The Gateway Pundit reports that Facebook is interfering with their posts. Diamond and Silk claim that Facebook's explanation was short, with no real explanation whatsoever: "The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community." What? Their pro-Trump You Tube videos are unsafe? To whom? This is utter nonsense that, not surprisingly, is intended to shut down conservative voices. There's a danger to democracy. As I recall, it was Obama who used the IRS to target conservative 501(c)(3) organizations. Democracy at work?
The Daily Caller reports that Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, described as "great" an article by Peter Leyden and Ruy Texeira, discussing the current political divide. The authors wrote this: "In this current period of American politics, at this juncture in our history, there's no way that a bipartisan path provides the way forward...the way forward is on the path California blazed about 15 years ago." You see, the authors describe the US as being in a new civil war, and believe ending the Republican party for a couple generations would be a good idea. Might Dorsey's left-wing attitudes affect Twitter policy?
I'm curious. How many of you support one-party rule? You know, like in Russia? Like the Democrats put in place in California. Soon, California will have a primary election for the office of governor, among other positions. In California's primary system, the top two vote getters move on to the ballot in the general election in November. In California, the top two tend to both be Democrats. It's quite a clever way to eliminate the Republican party. And the head of Twitter likes the California model, the one party rule model, a la Russia, as long as that one party is the Democrat party. Democracy? Or fascism?
Want to assure an end to democracy? Then teach kids that the Constitution is outdated. That speech should not be protected if it is "hurtful" or "offensive" or "non-inclusive." A Gallup/James L. Knight Foundation poll found that while 70% of college students prefer an open learning environment even if "offensive" speech is protected, 29% favor a "positive environment" that would prohibit certain speech. But when it comes to the issues of "diversity and inclusion," speech loses, with 53% siding with diversity and only 46% willing to defend speech. There's the future of your democracy. But the mainstream media will daily tell their readers that the true threat is Donald Trump. It's the Big Lie - say it loud enough and frequently enough, and people will believe it. Too bad the MSM has come to believe that their role in society is to perpetuate the Big Lie.
Sunday, April 1, 2018
Israel Under Attack - Blame Israel
On Friday, March 30, approximately 30,000 Gazans massed at the border with Israel. As it was not an entirely peaceful demonstration, with some members of the Hamas military wing trying to breach the border, and throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at the Israeli Defense Forces, Israeli forces, in return, used live fire aimed at those people. Some 16 or 17 people were killed, with as many as 1000 or so injured. Just to give some perspective to the numbers, 30,000 people at Israels's border, with Israel having 8.6 million people, would be like 1.15 million people massing on the US border; the US being a country of 330 million people.
The Palestinians refer to these yearly demonstrations at the border as their "March of Return." Hamas expects a "right of return" for the remaining survivors who were displaced in the 1948-1949 Israeli War for Independence, and for their millions of descendants. Such an influx would mean the end of Israel as the only Jewish state in the world. Make no mistake - the end of Israel is what Hamas seeks. Said the Hamas chief in Gaza: "The March of Return will continue...until we remove this transient border...our people can't give up one inch of the land of Palestine."
Trump spokesperson Jason Greenblatt said this: "Hamas should focus on desperately needed improvements to the lives of Palestinians in Gaza instead of inciting violence against Israel..." Not surprisingly, the rest of the world does not blame Hamas; rather, they blame Israel. "The killing of Palestinian demonstrators by Israeli forces in Gaza is tragic. It is the right of all people to protest for a better future without a violent response." So said Bernie Sanders, who apparently does not believe that a country has the right to protect its borders against potential terrorists. Oh yeah, no different from Bernies's attitude about the US border.
Kuwait was able to get an emergency session of the UN Security Council. Thanks to President Trump, they were unable to pass a resolution condemning Israel. However, that did not stop Secretary-General Antonio Guterres from calling for an "independent and transparent" investigation of the deaths and injuries. In other words, an investigation into Israel's actions. This emergency session was held on Friday night. Aside from Friday night being the start of the Jewish Sabbath, Friday night was also the first night of Passover, with Jews around the world celebrating our liberation from Egypt over 3000 years ago at Passover Seders. Consequently, no Jewish representatives were present to argue against Security Council action. Again, thank G-d for Donald Trump.
Not surprisingly, several European countries expressed their dismay, and even displeasure, with Israel. Turkey's Islamist leader, Recep Erdogan, condemned Israel for its "inhumane attack." In return, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu replied: "The most moral army in the world will not be lectured to by someone who for years has indiscriminately bombed civilian populations."
Some additional history. Arabs were not the only ones displaced during and after Israel's War for Independence. Approximately 800,000 Jews who were citizens of the surrounding Arab countries were either forced out or had life made so difficult they left. Most were resettled in the new land of Israel, becoming Israeli citizens. As Egypt controlled Gaza after the 1948-49 war, and Jordan controlled the West Bank, you would have to ask those two countries why they did not make their fellow Arabs citizens of their countries. Perhaps better to use them as pawns in their ongoing struggles against Israel, than to help them become citizens of Egypt or Jordan.
In 1976, Israel did take some Arab land in the area of the Galilee. Looked at in context, this was land that Israel won in the 1967 Six Day War. Looked at in further context, Israel had to fight much of the Arab world in their War for Independence. They fought again in 1956, 1967, and in 1973's Yom Kippur War. To say that Israeli leaders were concerned about the security of their people, and being able to defend their tiny country against the much larger Arab armies, would be an understatement. While some may feel the taking of land was indefensible, others saw it as protection from an Arab population continuously seeking their annihilation. As the Hamas in Gaza leader said, they are seeking all the land of Palestine. The British Mandate in Palestine included land that now makes up the country of Israel. There was never a country of Palestine. It was a geographic area controlled for nearly 2000 years by foreign invaders. Palestine was also the homeland of the Jewish people, having been displaced from the ancient land of Israel some 2000 years ago.
Finally, we need to remember that in 2005, Israeli P.M. Ariel Sharon ordered the forcible removal of all Jews living in Gaza. That territory was turned over to the Arabs. In return, what did Israel get? Constant rocket and missile attacks, and numerous underground tunnels used by the Arabs in an effort to infiltrate Israel and kill Jews. And this repeated yearly effort on "Land Day" to breach the Israeli border. Unlike our Arab neighbors, we Jews are taught that we do not celebrate any deaths, even of our enemies. But that does not mean that Israelis should not be able to defend themselves and their borders.
The Palestinians refer to these yearly demonstrations at the border as their "March of Return." Hamas expects a "right of return" for the remaining survivors who were displaced in the 1948-1949 Israeli War for Independence, and for their millions of descendants. Such an influx would mean the end of Israel as the only Jewish state in the world. Make no mistake - the end of Israel is what Hamas seeks. Said the Hamas chief in Gaza: "The March of Return will continue...until we remove this transient border...our people can't give up one inch of the land of Palestine."
Trump spokesperson Jason Greenblatt said this: "Hamas should focus on desperately needed improvements to the lives of Palestinians in Gaza instead of inciting violence against Israel..." Not surprisingly, the rest of the world does not blame Hamas; rather, they blame Israel. "The killing of Palestinian demonstrators by Israeli forces in Gaza is tragic. It is the right of all people to protest for a better future without a violent response." So said Bernie Sanders, who apparently does not believe that a country has the right to protect its borders against potential terrorists. Oh yeah, no different from Bernies's attitude about the US border.
Kuwait was able to get an emergency session of the UN Security Council. Thanks to President Trump, they were unable to pass a resolution condemning Israel. However, that did not stop Secretary-General Antonio Guterres from calling for an "independent and transparent" investigation of the deaths and injuries. In other words, an investigation into Israel's actions. This emergency session was held on Friday night. Aside from Friday night being the start of the Jewish Sabbath, Friday night was also the first night of Passover, with Jews around the world celebrating our liberation from Egypt over 3000 years ago at Passover Seders. Consequently, no Jewish representatives were present to argue against Security Council action. Again, thank G-d for Donald Trump.
Not surprisingly, several European countries expressed their dismay, and even displeasure, with Israel. Turkey's Islamist leader, Recep Erdogan, condemned Israel for its "inhumane attack." In return, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu replied: "The most moral army in the world will not be lectured to by someone who for years has indiscriminately bombed civilian populations."
Some additional history. Arabs were not the only ones displaced during and after Israel's War for Independence. Approximately 800,000 Jews who were citizens of the surrounding Arab countries were either forced out or had life made so difficult they left. Most were resettled in the new land of Israel, becoming Israeli citizens. As Egypt controlled Gaza after the 1948-49 war, and Jordan controlled the West Bank, you would have to ask those two countries why they did not make their fellow Arabs citizens of their countries. Perhaps better to use them as pawns in their ongoing struggles against Israel, than to help them become citizens of Egypt or Jordan.
In 1976, Israel did take some Arab land in the area of the Galilee. Looked at in context, this was land that Israel won in the 1967 Six Day War. Looked at in further context, Israel had to fight much of the Arab world in their War for Independence. They fought again in 1956, 1967, and in 1973's Yom Kippur War. To say that Israeli leaders were concerned about the security of their people, and being able to defend their tiny country against the much larger Arab armies, would be an understatement. While some may feel the taking of land was indefensible, others saw it as protection from an Arab population continuously seeking their annihilation. As the Hamas in Gaza leader said, they are seeking all the land of Palestine. The British Mandate in Palestine included land that now makes up the country of Israel. There was never a country of Palestine. It was a geographic area controlled for nearly 2000 years by foreign invaders. Palestine was also the homeland of the Jewish people, having been displaced from the ancient land of Israel some 2000 years ago.
Finally, we need to remember that in 2005, Israeli P.M. Ariel Sharon ordered the forcible removal of all Jews living in Gaza. That territory was turned over to the Arabs. In return, what did Israel get? Constant rocket and missile attacks, and numerous underground tunnels used by the Arabs in an effort to infiltrate Israel and kill Jews. And this repeated yearly effort on "Land Day" to breach the Israeli border. Unlike our Arab neighbors, we Jews are taught that we do not celebrate any deaths, even of our enemies. But that does not mean that Israelis should not be able to defend themselves and their borders.
Thursday, March 29, 2018
A Bundle of News
A little over one week ago, the city council of Los Alamitos, in Orange County, California, voted to opt out of California's sanctuary state law. This week, the Orange County supervisors voted to fight the California sanctuary law. Meanwhile, the Orange County sheriff indicated that the Sheriff Department will post online the names of the prisoners about to be released. This will allow ICE to be able to pick up those criminals here illegally who should be deported, without violating the state law by directly communicating with the Feds.
In the 3/28/18 LA Times, a front page headline tells us that "O.C.'s conservative side is alive and well." My first question is: why do liberals want to protect criminal aliens here illegally? The article tells us that the vote by the County supervisors "added a powerful voice to a growing backlash against California's pro-immigrant policies." My next question: why does the LA Times lie? I do not know conservatives who oppose legal immigration of non-criminals. But for the mainstream media, immigrant = illegal immigrant = criminal illegal alien, including those guilty of violent crimes. Yes, let's protect those people.
Meanwhile, retired Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times this week, opining that the original purpose of the Second Amendment is no longer defensible. Said the Justice: "Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states" was the original rationale. "Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century." We already have 4 Justices who would not interpret the Second Amendment to allow an individual to own a firearm. Hence, another example of the significance of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
In what comes as no surprise for those who follow the goings on of the United Nations, the UN Human Rights Council (ironically named) passed 5 resolutions last week against Israel. But, under President Trump and US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, the US voted against all 5 resolutions. Quite a change from the team of Obama, Kerry and Power. Australia was the only other country voting against all the resolutions.
In a recent telephone call to Vladimir Putin, President Trump congratulated Putin on his recent reelection. It is something that world leaders tend to do. Obama did the same thing with Putin. But the MSM (mainstream media) says things are different today, with the Russian collusion story and all. Therefore, they had yet another reason to criticize Trump. Personally, I would have preferred that Trump did not congratulate Putin on his farcical reelection. But, it hardly warranted the attention it received.
President Trump recently announced that he was replacing General McMaster as National Security Adviser with former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. The Left and the MSM are nearly apoplectic over the announcement. They cast Bolton as a warmonger. I have seen Bolton numerous times on TV. I have repeatedly heard Bolton discuss diplomacy and sanctions. Bolton: "If you want to punish a country for behavior you don't accept, you need punishing sanctions that are broad, not targeted,and they need to be enforced."
Bolton did oppose Bill Clinton's "Agreed Framework" with North Korea, which did prove to be a failure - given the North's continuing nuclear weapons program. Bolton also opposed Obama's nuke deal with Iran, fearing that the end result will be the same as with North Korea.
And, in what is today an affront to the Left and many Democrats, Bolton is a tremendous supporter of Israel. He does not believe in the two state solution; although he has discussed the possibility of a three state solution, with Egypt again taking control of Gaza and Jordan resuming control over the West Bank. I do not necessarily concur, but Bolton understands that there is no deal to made with the Arabs of Palestine. Bolton: "From the very creation of Israel as a state, it has been mistreated at the UN, the most flagrant example of the UN's capacity to distort reality." (Quote from Bolton's book, "Surrender Is Not An Option.") Bolton was also instrumental in getting a reversal of the UN's 1975 resolution declaring Zionism to be racism.
A final note. I care not at all about what relations Trump may have had with Stormy Daniels, just as I did not care about Bill Clinton's interactions with Monica Lewinsky. I am bewildered by those who equate a politician's sexual dalliances with the capability to govern. When we vote for President, it is not the same as naming a Pope or Chief Rabbi or the like. Would I prefer that every President be of fine moral character? Sure. But it is more important that they be a strong leader for the USA.
In the 3/28/18 LA Times, a front page headline tells us that "O.C.'s conservative side is alive and well." My first question is: why do liberals want to protect criminal aliens here illegally? The article tells us that the vote by the County supervisors "added a powerful voice to a growing backlash against California's pro-immigrant policies." My next question: why does the LA Times lie? I do not know conservatives who oppose legal immigration of non-criminals. But for the mainstream media, immigrant = illegal immigrant = criminal illegal alien, including those guilty of violent crimes. Yes, let's protect those people.
Meanwhile, retired Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times this week, opining that the original purpose of the Second Amendment is no longer defensible. Said the Justice: "Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states" was the original rationale. "Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century." We already have 4 Justices who would not interpret the Second Amendment to allow an individual to own a firearm. Hence, another example of the significance of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
In what comes as no surprise for those who follow the goings on of the United Nations, the UN Human Rights Council (ironically named) passed 5 resolutions last week against Israel. But, under President Trump and US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, the US voted against all 5 resolutions. Quite a change from the team of Obama, Kerry and Power. Australia was the only other country voting against all the resolutions.
In a recent telephone call to Vladimir Putin, President Trump congratulated Putin on his recent reelection. It is something that world leaders tend to do. Obama did the same thing with Putin. But the MSM (mainstream media) says things are different today, with the Russian collusion story and all. Therefore, they had yet another reason to criticize Trump. Personally, I would have preferred that Trump did not congratulate Putin on his farcical reelection. But, it hardly warranted the attention it received.
President Trump recently announced that he was replacing General McMaster as National Security Adviser with former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. The Left and the MSM are nearly apoplectic over the announcement. They cast Bolton as a warmonger. I have seen Bolton numerous times on TV. I have repeatedly heard Bolton discuss diplomacy and sanctions. Bolton: "If you want to punish a country for behavior you don't accept, you need punishing sanctions that are broad, not targeted,and they need to be enforced."
Bolton did oppose Bill Clinton's "Agreed Framework" with North Korea, which did prove to be a failure - given the North's continuing nuclear weapons program. Bolton also opposed Obama's nuke deal with Iran, fearing that the end result will be the same as with North Korea.
And, in what is today an affront to the Left and many Democrats, Bolton is a tremendous supporter of Israel. He does not believe in the two state solution; although he has discussed the possibility of a three state solution, with Egypt again taking control of Gaza and Jordan resuming control over the West Bank. I do not necessarily concur, but Bolton understands that there is no deal to made with the Arabs of Palestine. Bolton: "From the very creation of Israel as a state, it has been mistreated at the UN, the most flagrant example of the UN's capacity to distort reality." (Quote from Bolton's book, "Surrender Is Not An Option.") Bolton was also instrumental in getting a reversal of the UN's 1975 resolution declaring Zionism to be racism.
A final note. I care not at all about what relations Trump may have had with Stormy Daniels, just as I did not care about Bill Clinton's interactions with Monica Lewinsky. I am bewildered by those who equate a politician's sexual dalliances with the capability to govern. When we vote for President, it is not the same as naming a Pope or Chief Rabbi or the like. Would I prefer that every President be of fine moral character? Sure. But it is more important that they be a strong leader for the USA.
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Is Trump an Authoritarian?
As mentioned in the prior post, the 3/18/18 Book Review section of the New York Times has an analysis by Andrew Sullivan on two new books. The one authored by Cass Sunstein on impeachment is discussed in the prior post. This post discusses "Can It Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America," which was edited by Cass Sunstein. Sullivan/Sunstein (again, it is not clear who is speaking) do not expect Trump to become an outright dictator. No, the suggestion is that he would be an authoritarian in the manner of Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
That is curious. Back in Obama's first term, in January, 2012, Obama gave an interview to Fareed Zakaria of Time magazine. When asked about close relationships he has developed with other world leaders he names, among others, Recep Erdogan. One may recall that Obama liked the "authoritarian" Erdogan a whole lot more than he liked the democratic Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. Of the ways Trump might be helped in exerting this authoritarian control are "ever more extreme talk radio and what is essentially a state propaganda channel, Fox News."
Once again, you have to admire the artful characterization of conservative media; all the while ignoring how virtually the entire mainstream media, with the New York Times leading the way, was in the tank for Obama. Or, to put it the way Sullivan/Sunstein might, the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media, including CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC and ABC all acted as propaganda arms for the Obama Administration. It is also essential that the point be made that this Sullivan/Sunstein article views conservative news outlets as being bad. The Left has no tolerance for opposing viewpoints.
Yes, Trump calls the mainstream media the "fake news." But many of their articles are fake in the sense of pushing the Left-wing agenda ahead of honest reporting. But recall that it was Obama who, along with his top aids, repeated the same line about Fox not being a real news organization. It was as if Obama had declared war on Fox News. Why? Because Fox would not adhere to the Obama/Democrats party line. And talk radio? Obama also expressed his dissatisfaction with Rush Limbaugh setting the tone for conservatives. When Obama went after the media, that was acceptable. Only when Trump attacks the media does it become a sign of authoritarianism.
The article then discusses the "wreckage" caused by Trump in his first year. They say that Trump has gone after the FBI, the CIA, the media, judges, and so on. In case you were wondering - no, Trump has not done one single positive thing; at least, the article did not suggest that he did. Why shouldn't Trump attack the bias of the FBI? Think Comey, Strzok, Page and McCabe. The CIA past and present is always nonpartisan, right? It is hard to believe that any CIA Director would ever make this comment about the President of the United States: "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history." Actually, former CIA Director under Obama, John Brennan, just made those remarks.
Frankly, I don't give a damn if Brennan feels that way about Trump. However, I care a great deal when we have high government officials, past or present, publicly making such distasteful and repulsive comments that add nothing to the civil discourse of real issues.
The article concludes with the assertion that the American people "voted for the kind of monarchy the American republic was designed, above all else, to resist..." And I thought it was Obama who told us that "we're not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we're providing Americans the kind of help they need. I've got a pen and I've got a phone." Yes, no point in waiting for the elected representatives of the American people to actually pass bills. Who's the monarch?
That is curious. Back in Obama's first term, in January, 2012, Obama gave an interview to Fareed Zakaria of Time magazine. When asked about close relationships he has developed with other world leaders he names, among others, Recep Erdogan. One may recall that Obama liked the "authoritarian" Erdogan a whole lot more than he liked the democratic Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. Of the ways Trump might be helped in exerting this authoritarian control are "ever more extreme talk radio and what is essentially a state propaganda channel, Fox News."
Once again, you have to admire the artful characterization of conservative media; all the while ignoring how virtually the entire mainstream media, with the New York Times leading the way, was in the tank for Obama. Or, to put it the way Sullivan/Sunstein might, the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media, including CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC and ABC all acted as propaganda arms for the Obama Administration. It is also essential that the point be made that this Sullivan/Sunstein article views conservative news outlets as being bad. The Left has no tolerance for opposing viewpoints.
Yes, Trump calls the mainstream media the "fake news." But many of their articles are fake in the sense of pushing the Left-wing agenda ahead of honest reporting. But recall that it was Obama who, along with his top aids, repeated the same line about Fox not being a real news organization. It was as if Obama had declared war on Fox News. Why? Because Fox would not adhere to the Obama/Democrats party line. And talk radio? Obama also expressed his dissatisfaction with Rush Limbaugh setting the tone for conservatives. When Obama went after the media, that was acceptable. Only when Trump attacks the media does it become a sign of authoritarianism.
The article then discusses the "wreckage" caused by Trump in his first year. They say that Trump has gone after the FBI, the CIA, the media, judges, and so on. In case you were wondering - no, Trump has not done one single positive thing; at least, the article did not suggest that he did. Why shouldn't Trump attack the bias of the FBI? Think Comey, Strzok, Page and McCabe. The CIA past and present is always nonpartisan, right? It is hard to believe that any CIA Director would ever make this comment about the President of the United States: "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history." Actually, former CIA Director under Obama, John Brennan, just made those remarks.
Frankly, I don't give a damn if Brennan feels that way about Trump. However, I care a great deal when we have high government officials, past or present, publicly making such distasteful and repulsive comments that add nothing to the civil discourse of real issues.
The article concludes with the assertion that the American people "voted for the kind of monarchy the American republic was designed, above all else, to resist..." And I thought it was Obama who told us that "we're not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we're providing Americans the kind of help they need. I've got a pen and I've got a phone." Yes, no point in waiting for the elected representatives of the American people to actually pass bills. Who's the monarch?
Russia, Trump and Impeachment
Starting on the first page - in large print - of the Book Review section in today's New York Times, is an analysis by liberal commentator Andrew Sullivan of two books. One, written by former Obama aid and confidante Cass Sunstein, is entitled "Impeachment, A Citizen's Guide," and is the subject of this post. The other, edited by Sunstein, is entitled "Can It Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America," and is the subject of the next post. Sullivan starts his piece discussing the four times impeachment proceedings were begun, along with a general review of when impeachment might be proper.
After analyzing some of what Sunstein, and apparently Sullivan, believe to be potentially impeachable offenses by Trump, Sullivan/Sunstein (it is difficult to ascertain who is speaking) conclude that those offenses may not be sufficient for impeachment. Then, we have this question: "What about passively cooperating with a foreign power to subvert an American election and then, after clear proof of such interference, refusing to counter that foreign power"s intent to disrupt the next election too?" You have to admire the phrasing of the question; analogous to a lawyer asking a defendant: "So, when did you stop beating your wife?"
Then, we are told there would be a difference between being a passive beneficiary of a foreign power's meddling, versus "but if he is actively neglecting a defense of this country's electoral integrity because he believes the Kremlin helped him win an election in the past, and will almost certainly help him and his party in the near future, then impeachment is a no-brainer." Notice the deft switching from "a foreign power" to "the Kremlin." Notice, too, that we are now told the Kremlin will be helping the entire Republican party. So, should we conclude that a vote for a Republican is a vote for Putin?
Wait a second! Obama was the one who drew a red line for Syria's (a client state of Russia) use of chemical weapons - and then did nothing when Syria crossed that line. It was Obama who mocked Romney in one of the 2012 debates when Romney asserted - correctly - that Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat to the USA. It was Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who famously had the 'reset" button with Russia. It was Obama who was caught on an open mike telling Medvedev to advise Putin that he, Obama, would have more flexibility (especially with regards to the placement of defensive missiles in Eastern Europe) after he won reelection. And it was Obama who watched - but did nothing - as Russia invaded and took over the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
You have to give the Left credit. After all, notwithstanding all of the above, and notwithstanding Obama's awareness of Russian meddling years before the 2016 election, Russia was simply a non-issue for them. Here's Obama on 10/18/16, a mere 3 weeks before the Presidential election: "There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections. In part because they're so decentralized, and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that they're instances in which that will happen this time. And so, I'd advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes." Here is a question that the mainstream media has no interest in asking: How come Russia was a non-issue for them and the Democrats when they thought Clinton would win the election, but then immediately became a huge issue after Trump won?
The hypocrisy by the Democrat politicians is no surprise. The willingness of the mainstream media to go along with the narrative about Trump and Russia is also not shocking. However, the willingness by my friends on the Left to simply ignore the actual facts involving Obama and Russia is, well, quite dismaying.
After analyzing some of what Sunstein, and apparently Sullivan, believe to be potentially impeachable offenses by Trump, Sullivan/Sunstein (it is difficult to ascertain who is speaking) conclude that those offenses may not be sufficient for impeachment. Then, we have this question: "What about passively cooperating with a foreign power to subvert an American election and then, after clear proof of such interference, refusing to counter that foreign power"s intent to disrupt the next election too?" You have to admire the phrasing of the question; analogous to a lawyer asking a defendant: "So, when did you stop beating your wife?"
Then, we are told there would be a difference between being a passive beneficiary of a foreign power's meddling, versus "but if he is actively neglecting a defense of this country's electoral integrity because he believes the Kremlin helped him win an election in the past, and will almost certainly help him and his party in the near future, then impeachment is a no-brainer." Notice the deft switching from "a foreign power" to "the Kremlin." Notice, too, that we are now told the Kremlin will be helping the entire Republican party. So, should we conclude that a vote for a Republican is a vote for Putin?
Wait a second! Obama was the one who drew a red line for Syria's (a client state of Russia) use of chemical weapons - and then did nothing when Syria crossed that line. It was Obama who mocked Romney in one of the 2012 debates when Romney asserted - correctly - that Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat to the USA. It was Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who famously had the 'reset" button with Russia. It was Obama who was caught on an open mike telling Medvedev to advise Putin that he, Obama, would have more flexibility (especially with regards to the placement of defensive missiles in Eastern Europe) after he won reelection. And it was Obama who watched - but did nothing - as Russia invaded and took over the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
You have to give the Left credit. After all, notwithstanding all of the above, and notwithstanding Obama's awareness of Russian meddling years before the 2016 election, Russia was simply a non-issue for them. Here's Obama on 10/18/16, a mere 3 weeks before the Presidential election: "There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections. In part because they're so decentralized, and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that they're instances in which that will happen this time. And so, I'd advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes." Here is a question that the mainstream media has no interest in asking: How come Russia was a non-issue for them and the Democrats when they thought Clinton would win the election, but then immediately became a huge issue after Trump won?
The hypocrisy by the Democrat politicians is no surprise. The willingness of the mainstream media to go along with the narrative about Trump and Russia is also not shocking. However, the willingness by my friends on the Left to simply ignore the actual facts involving Obama and Russia is, well, quite dismaying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)