(Note: In the July 9, 2018 Los Angeles Times was an Op-Ed by UCLA Law School Professor Jon D. Michaels. The writing below was my email to him commenting on his article. His article, "A case for bold dissent," anticipated Trump's not yet named nominee being approved by the Senate, and called for the four left-wing Justices to be more vigorous in their dissents (also anticipating more 5-4 decisions). Professor Michaels opined that President Trump's pick would be an "arch-conservative." For the Left, all conservatives are now either "arch-conservatives" or "radical conservatives" or "extremists." It is not necessary to have read the Op-Ed to follow this post.)
I do take issue with a couple of your points. To the Left, every conservative is an "arch conservative." After all, before knowing the pick you dubbed him/her to be an "arch conservative." Furthermore, even with five of these "arch conservatives" on the court, we both know that the overturning of Roe vs. Wade is not likely. Does C.J. Roberts really strike you as the type of Justice to overturn a 45 year old precedent?
(This paragraph was added by me the next morning as a P.S.) Yes, Janus overturned a 1977 precedent (Abood). However, I see a significant difference between not compelling support for speech with which one disagrees, versus taking away a right (abortion) that has existed for nearly half a century.
Of greater concern is that you seem to believe that the Constitution needs to change/be reinterpreted based upon demographic changes in society. Is that how it should work? The law varies based upon the ethnic, racial, religious or gender identity of the people involved? "Formal equality?" The "justice is blind" type of equality? Apparently, as you go on to express your concern about the "realities of structural poverty, racism, sexism and homophobia."
Assuming there is such a thing as "structural poverty," what do you expect the Courts to do? Wouldn't that be a legislative issue? It is disappointing that what the Left is unable to achieve through legislation they believe should be accomplished through the Courts.
I would surmise that you agree with President Obama's approach to the Bill of Rights - changing it from protecting the individual from abusive government power to mandating that the government provide ... (fill in the blanks).
Hillary Clinton, an attorney, said that "the Supreme Court should represent all of us." When did the Courts become a representative branch of the government? She also opined: "...the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of powerful corporations and the wealthy." Should we tar and feather the wealthy as well? And this from her: "...we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United..." Again, one's identity should predetermine the outcome of a case? Rather shocking, no? Why would we even need Courts?
As for Citizens United, a couple of quick points. Before the Citizens United decision, who was paying $35,000 to $40,000 per plate at Obama's (and other politicians) fundraisers? The average Joe? Hardly. Where was the concern about that money? Lastly, why the outcry about conservative money? Might it be because the Left has a virtual monopoly on political speech otherwise? Think the LA Times, the NY Times, The Washington Post, and most of the written mainstream papers. Think ABC, NBC and CBS. Think MSNBC, CNN. Then, we have Hollywood - TV shows, movies - one left-wing message after the next. Billionaires? Gates, Buffet and Zuckerberg are left-wing.
I am always amazed that so many on the Left are unhappy with the American system - providing more freedom than any other in history; and lifting more people out of poverty than any other. Yet, President Obama said we needed "fundamental change."
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
And Now, A Few Words From Our Founders
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (In Congress, July 4, 1776. The Declaration of Independence.) "All men are created equal." No King, no Lords that are somehow inherently better than anyone else. "Endowed by their Creator." Our Founders were God-fearing men. "Unalienable Rights...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Imagine how novel these ideas were in 1776. A document that put the individual as the center of society - not subservient to it.
When we turn to the Constitution, we are looking at the greatest governing document ever created by mere mortals. Our original governing documents, the Articles of Confederation, were deemed insufficient to keep our thirteen colonies/states united behind a centralized government. Hence, the Constitution. In an Op-Ed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Joseph Tartakovsky told us that since 1789, the year of enacting our Constitution, "the average life span of national constitutions world-wide has been 19 years" (citing research out of the University of Chicago).
Our Founders were some of the greatest political philosophers in history. Imagine creating a government strong enough to hold the states together, but limited enough in its powers to keep the well-being of the individual as the purpose for the government. Benjamin Franklin was the oldest, and by some measures the wisest, of all those who participated in the Constitutional Convention. Franklin: "...I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a blessing to the People if well administered..." But Franklin was also concerned about all societies devolving into despotism.
The House of Representatives in its entirety is elected every two years. As the "People's House," it is meant to reflect the current attitudes of the society. But to offset what might be dangerous trends we have the Senate, with Senators serving a term of six years, long enough to outlast some of those trends. To further assure that end, only 1/3 of the Senators are up for election every two years. While a President may veto Congressional legislation, that executive is not all-powerful, as the Congress may override any veto by a two-thirds vote.
When we look at Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution we see the enumerated powers given to Congress. Why delineate a specific number of powers? Because the Founders were very concerned about too powerful a central government. The President, a civilian, was made Commander-in-Chief of the military. The President has the power to appoint his principal officers in the executive department - but only with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. The President was to put in charge of foreign policy, having the power to enter into treaties with other nations - but, again, with approval of the Senate by "two-thirds of the Senators present." And the President is elected by an electoral college, to avoid giving the most populated states permanent control over the executive branch. Otherwise, the smaller states would have been reluctant to join this union.
While the Constitution did create a federal judiciary, it not specifically give the Courts the right to declare legislation or executive orders to be "unconstitutional." That power the Supreme Court took upon itself in its famous decision by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. Marshall: "The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States..." And: "The constitution is either superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it." But Article V sets forth the limited manner in which the Constitution may be amended.
Some of the Founders realized that, while the Constitution set forth the structure of the government, it neglected to ensure the rights of the individual to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Hence, the first 10 Amendments - our Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights makes us the freest people on the planet. The freest people in history. We have the right to speech, to practice our own religion, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to "not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
As the above-referenced Mr. Tartakovsky wrote: "It is not in having a constitution that our strength lies, but in cherishing it." Yet, many today, generally on the Left, have little appreciation for the Constitution. They would amend the First Amendment to deal with Citizens United, or to prohibit hurtful speech. They would eliminate the right to keep and bear arms. And they would have no respect for property rights, with this trend particularly present in millennials. In one poll, 44% of millennials preferred socialism, 7% supported communism, and 7% even supported fascism. Compared to the majority (51%) preferring socialism/communism, only 42% preferred capitalism.
Ben Franklin is alleged to have been asked, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, what type of government the Founders created. His reply: "A Republic, if you can keep it." Maybe we can all do our best to keep it. God bless America. And Happy Birthday!
When we turn to the Constitution, we are looking at the greatest governing document ever created by mere mortals. Our original governing documents, the Articles of Confederation, were deemed insufficient to keep our thirteen colonies/states united behind a centralized government. Hence, the Constitution. In an Op-Ed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Joseph Tartakovsky told us that since 1789, the year of enacting our Constitution, "the average life span of national constitutions world-wide has been 19 years" (citing research out of the University of Chicago).
Our Founders were some of the greatest political philosophers in history. Imagine creating a government strong enough to hold the states together, but limited enough in its powers to keep the well-being of the individual as the purpose for the government. Benjamin Franklin was the oldest, and by some measures the wisest, of all those who participated in the Constitutional Convention. Franklin: "...I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a blessing to the People if well administered..." But Franklin was also concerned about all societies devolving into despotism.
The House of Representatives in its entirety is elected every two years. As the "People's House," it is meant to reflect the current attitudes of the society. But to offset what might be dangerous trends we have the Senate, with Senators serving a term of six years, long enough to outlast some of those trends. To further assure that end, only 1/3 of the Senators are up for election every two years. While a President may veto Congressional legislation, that executive is not all-powerful, as the Congress may override any veto by a two-thirds vote.
When we look at Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution we see the enumerated powers given to Congress. Why delineate a specific number of powers? Because the Founders were very concerned about too powerful a central government. The President, a civilian, was made Commander-in-Chief of the military. The President has the power to appoint his principal officers in the executive department - but only with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. The President was to put in charge of foreign policy, having the power to enter into treaties with other nations - but, again, with approval of the Senate by "two-thirds of the Senators present." And the President is elected by an electoral college, to avoid giving the most populated states permanent control over the executive branch. Otherwise, the smaller states would have been reluctant to join this union.
While the Constitution did create a federal judiciary, it not specifically give the Courts the right to declare legislation or executive orders to be "unconstitutional." That power the Supreme Court took upon itself in its famous decision by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. Marshall: "The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States..." And: "The constitution is either superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it." But Article V sets forth the limited manner in which the Constitution may be amended.
Some of the Founders realized that, while the Constitution set forth the structure of the government, it neglected to ensure the rights of the individual to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Hence, the first 10 Amendments - our Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights makes us the freest people on the planet. The freest people in history. We have the right to speech, to practice our own religion, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to "not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
As the above-referenced Mr. Tartakovsky wrote: "It is not in having a constitution that our strength lies, but in cherishing it." Yet, many today, generally on the Left, have little appreciation for the Constitution. They would amend the First Amendment to deal with Citizens United, or to prohibit hurtful speech. They would eliminate the right to keep and bear arms. And they would have no respect for property rights, with this trend particularly present in millennials. In one poll, 44% of millennials preferred socialism, 7% supported communism, and 7% even supported fascism. Compared to the majority (51%) preferring socialism/communism, only 42% preferred capitalism.
Ben Franklin is alleged to have been asked, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, what type of government the Founders created. His reply: "A Republic, if you can keep it." Maybe we can all do our best to keep it. God bless America. And Happy Birthday!
Saturday, June 30, 2018
A View From the Left
In a major electoral upset in the primary election in New York's 14th district, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez upset 10 term Congressman Joe Crowley, a man who many expected might be the next Speaker of the House should the Dems take the House back. New York's 14th district, heavily Democratic, is made up of parts of the Bronx and Queens, with the primary winner being the likely winner in the general election. Ocasio-Cortez is an open socialist, and is allied with the Democratic Socialists of America, a group that supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel.
Following the recent violent efforts by Gazans to breach Israel's border, resulting in the deaths of at least 60 people - 50 of whom were Hamas members - Ocasio-Cortez called it a massacre. "This is a massacre. I hope my peers have the moral courage to call it such...Democrats can't be silent about this anymore." Yes, the Democrats need to rise up against Israel. And I have no reason to believe that the liberal/leftist Jews won't follow right along.
Ocasio-Cortez's platform includes abolishing ICE, universal Medicare, a jobs guarantee for all, free college, housing (presumably free) as a human right, and, of course, the impeachment of President Trump. I wonder if anyone has to pay for all this "free" stuff. Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Ilhan Omar is the likely successor to Rep. Keith Ellison (one of the two Muslim members of Congress), as Ellison is running for Attorney General of Minnesota. Omar has referred to Israel as an "apartheid" state. In case that does not make it sufficiently clear what he thinks of Israel, here is a now deleted Tweet of his: "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." Again, the outright hostility towards Israel will be no deterrent to left-wing Jews supporting these people and their party.
Proving that they will stop at nothing to defeat Trump, a group of states - blue states - have proposed legislation for their respective states that would bar anyone from being on the ballot for President unless they release their tax returns. Clearly, these measures are aimed at Trump, who has not released his tax returns. As the Constitution only requires that someone be a natural born citizen, be at least 35 years old, and been 14 years a resident within the United States, this underhanded effort to prevent Trump from being on the ballot will clearly fail on Constitutional grounds. Just another example of the Left's "the ends justify the means" approach to life.
With Justice Kennedy resigning from the Supreme Court, the Left has been apoplectic (a common emotion for the Left) over Trump having the opportunity to appoint another Justice. The Dems/Left (they are one and the same) say they are concerned about a shift in the ideological balance of the Court. Of course, that is a blatant lie. If President Trump were to appoint another Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Dems/Left would be in a state of jubilation. The LA Times basically said as much in their 6/28/18 editorial regarding Kennedy's replacement: "Since that person is unlikely to be a liberal - Trump's politics won't lead him to a new Ruth Bader Ginsburg or a Thurgood Marshall - let us make another suggestion." Clearly, there would be zero outcry were Trump to tilt the ideological direction of the Court to the left. The politicians and mainstream media are a group of hypocrites.
The New York Times was...well, the New York Times. Their 6/28/18 editorial, as might be expected, essentially told us that the sky is falling. "It is a dark moment in the history of the court and the nation, and it's about to get a lot darker." It does not get any clearer than that. Any conservative Republican President would appoint a conservative Justice. But the Dems/Left are now so extreme that any conservative appointment will be a "dark moment in the history of the...nation." Is it any wonder that they call us deplorables, haters, bigots and so on. They truly hate us. After all, conservatives make the country dark and getting darker.
Michelle Goldberg is a regular opinion writer for the New York Times. In her 6/26/18 Op-Ed in the Times, and after calling Trump a "racist," she said this: "I'm agnostic on the question of whether publicly rebuking Trump collaborators is tactically smart." Trump collaborators? That's what it is when you work in the White House now? You are a collaborator. As I said, they hate us. And they believe that we are evil. As for the way some Administration officials have been publicly mistreated, Ms. Goldberg tells us it was just "the sort of public opprobrium due members of any other white nationalist organization." That's how it works for the Left. There is no need to debate the issues when all they have to do (actually, all they have) is hatred and demagoguery.
The Los Angeles Times has the answer for dealing with those who cross our border illegally. Don't charge them with the crime of crossing illegally into the country. In fact, just don't detain them. Who says the Left does not want open borders?
So, there you have it. The Dems/Left are the party of open borders, hatred toward conservatives, "free" stuff for everybody, using whatever means necessary (harassment, unconstitutional laws, and so on) to accomplish their ends, and, of course, are virulently anti-Israel. My left-wing friends, even the Jewish ones, can hardly wait to vote for all that in November.
Following the recent violent efforts by Gazans to breach Israel's border, resulting in the deaths of at least 60 people - 50 of whom were Hamas members - Ocasio-Cortez called it a massacre. "This is a massacre. I hope my peers have the moral courage to call it such...Democrats can't be silent about this anymore." Yes, the Democrats need to rise up against Israel. And I have no reason to believe that the liberal/leftist Jews won't follow right along.
Ocasio-Cortez's platform includes abolishing ICE, universal Medicare, a jobs guarantee for all, free college, housing (presumably free) as a human right, and, of course, the impeachment of President Trump. I wonder if anyone has to pay for all this "free" stuff. Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Ilhan Omar is the likely successor to Rep. Keith Ellison (one of the two Muslim members of Congress), as Ellison is running for Attorney General of Minnesota. Omar has referred to Israel as an "apartheid" state. In case that does not make it sufficiently clear what he thinks of Israel, here is a now deleted Tweet of his: "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." Again, the outright hostility towards Israel will be no deterrent to left-wing Jews supporting these people and their party.
Proving that they will stop at nothing to defeat Trump, a group of states - blue states - have proposed legislation for their respective states that would bar anyone from being on the ballot for President unless they release their tax returns. Clearly, these measures are aimed at Trump, who has not released his tax returns. As the Constitution only requires that someone be a natural born citizen, be at least 35 years old, and been 14 years a resident within the United States, this underhanded effort to prevent Trump from being on the ballot will clearly fail on Constitutional grounds. Just another example of the Left's "the ends justify the means" approach to life.
With Justice Kennedy resigning from the Supreme Court, the Left has been apoplectic (a common emotion for the Left) over Trump having the opportunity to appoint another Justice. The Dems/Left (they are one and the same) say they are concerned about a shift in the ideological balance of the Court. Of course, that is a blatant lie. If President Trump were to appoint another Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Dems/Left would be in a state of jubilation. The LA Times basically said as much in their 6/28/18 editorial regarding Kennedy's replacement: "Since that person is unlikely to be a liberal - Trump's politics won't lead him to a new Ruth Bader Ginsburg or a Thurgood Marshall - let us make another suggestion." Clearly, there would be zero outcry were Trump to tilt the ideological direction of the Court to the left. The politicians and mainstream media are a group of hypocrites.
The New York Times was...well, the New York Times. Their 6/28/18 editorial, as might be expected, essentially told us that the sky is falling. "It is a dark moment in the history of the court and the nation, and it's about to get a lot darker." It does not get any clearer than that. Any conservative Republican President would appoint a conservative Justice. But the Dems/Left are now so extreme that any conservative appointment will be a "dark moment in the history of the...nation." Is it any wonder that they call us deplorables, haters, bigots and so on. They truly hate us. After all, conservatives make the country dark and getting darker.
Michelle Goldberg is a regular opinion writer for the New York Times. In her 6/26/18 Op-Ed in the Times, and after calling Trump a "racist," she said this: "I'm agnostic on the question of whether publicly rebuking Trump collaborators is tactically smart." Trump collaborators? That's what it is when you work in the White House now? You are a collaborator. As I said, they hate us. And they believe that we are evil. As for the way some Administration officials have been publicly mistreated, Ms. Goldberg tells us it was just "the sort of public opprobrium due members of any other white nationalist organization." That's how it works for the Left. There is no need to debate the issues when all they have to do (actually, all they have) is hatred and demagoguery.
The Los Angeles Times has the answer for dealing with those who cross our border illegally. Don't charge them with the crime of crossing illegally into the country. In fact, just don't detain them. Who says the Left does not want open borders?
So, there you have it. The Dems/Left are the party of open borders, hatred toward conservatives, "free" stuff for everybody, using whatever means necessary (harassment, unconstitutional laws, and so on) to accomplish their ends, and, of course, are virulently anti-Israel. My left-wing friends, even the Jewish ones, can hardly wait to vote for all that in November.
Monday, June 25, 2018
The Mob
No, this is not a post about the Italian Mafia. Although, there are definite similarities with the threats and intimidation. A friend who is a retired police officer likens them to a criminal gang. However, having grown up in New Jersey, I believe "The Mob" is a more accurate description. We are already well past De Niro's "Fuck Trump" on live TV at the Tony Awards. We are past Samantha Bee and the "C" word. We are well past Hillary's "basket of deplorables."
We are past the name calling and cursing. Now, we are at incitement. Peter Fonda expressed that he would like to see "Barron Trump ripped from his mother's arms and put in a cage with pedophiles." Maxine Waters, Dem. Rep. from California, said this at a weekend rally in Los Angeles: "If you see anybody from that (Trump's) Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." Not welcome anywhere? What does that mean? They need to leave the country? Maybe, they need to be dead?
Waters continued on MSNBC: "the people are going to turn on them, they're going to protest, they're going to absolutely harass them." Waters is not the only one to think this way. When DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielson was dining out last week, a Mob accosted her, yelling "shame," and "if kids don't eat in peace, you don't eat in peace." On Friday, the Mob was outside her home yelling "no justice, no sleep." And: "Secretary Nielson and everyone else who has carried out these brutal and cold-blooded orders (at the border), to rip apart families should never be allowed to eat and drink in public again."
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was asked to leave, with her family, from the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia, because the restaurant has "certain standards." Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi had to leave a movie theater after a Mob shouted at her about immigration and health care. And, in case you have any doubt about what the Mob thinks of you, here's MSNBC commentator Donny Deutsch: "We can no longer say Trump's the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you're the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you are ripping children from parents' arms." Don't we lock up bad guys? Is that what they want for 63 million Trump voters?
The Mob has been upset for quite some time, most often when they have been unable to get their policies enacted through the democratic process. Like all Mobs, they really do not believe in democracy. So, when democracy did not work for them, they litigated. They sued, and tried to shut down businesses that did not adhere to their agenda. Now, we are past that. Now, we are at outright harassment and intimidation. I am inclined to say that ultimately these tactics will result in violence. When you get in someone's face, sooner or later they will push back.
However, we are even past the possibility of violence. Recall last year a Trump hater shot up a Congressional Republican baseball practice, nearly fatally wounding Rep. Steve Scalise, and also wounding two Capitol Police officers and other staffers. Here are some comments from the shooter's Facebook page. "Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy." "It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co."
And let's not forget, like the other Mob, this Mob hates the police also. Obama and his AG Eric Holder, had a war on cops. (By way of comparison, Trump has a war on criminal gangs.) Wikileaks has published the names of over 9000 former and current employees of ICE. I cannot see any legitimate reason for doing so. Do they want harm to come to the people who protect us? Democratic Congress members now want to eliminate one entire police force - ICE. They want to eliminate the agency that protects our borders, our safety and our sovereignty. (As an aside, "sovereignty" is a word you will never hear from democrats nor read in the mainstream media. They do not believe in national sovereignty.) The measure to eliminate ICE either has been or will be introduced by Representatives Mark Pocan (D-WI), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA). So what if drugs, criminal gang members and terrorists get in to our country? It is the police who are the bad guys, as far as The Mob is concerned.
By now, I am sure you have figured out who The Mob is - it is the Democratic Party. They may not have hired hit men, but in every other way they resemble The Mob. The harassment. The intimidation. The threats. And the very real possibility of violence by both their actions and their war on police. I don't belong to The Mob. Do you?
We are past the name calling and cursing. Now, we are at incitement. Peter Fonda expressed that he would like to see "Barron Trump ripped from his mother's arms and put in a cage with pedophiles." Maxine Waters, Dem. Rep. from California, said this at a weekend rally in Los Angeles: "If you see anybody from that (Trump's) Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." Not welcome anywhere? What does that mean? They need to leave the country? Maybe, they need to be dead?
Waters continued on MSNBC: "the people are going to turn on them, they're going to protest, they're going to absolutely harass them." Waters is not the only one to think this way. When DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielson was dining out last week, a Mob accosted her, yelling "shame," and "if kids don't eat in peace, you don't eat in peace." On Friday, the Mob was outside her home yelling "no justice, no sleep." And: "Secretary Nielson and everyone else who has carried out these brutal and cold-blooded orders (at the border), to rip apart families should never be allowed to eat and drink in public again."
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was asked to leave, with her family, from the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia, because the restaurant has "certain standards." Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi had to leave a movie theater after a Mob shouted at her about immigration and health care. And, in case you have any doubt about what the Mob thinks of you, here's MSNBC commentator Donny Deutsch: "We can no longer say Trump's the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you're the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you are ripping children from parents' arms." Don't we lock up bad guys? Is that what they want for 63 million Trump voters?
The Mob has been upset for quite some time, most often when they have been unable to get their policies enacted through the democratic process. Like all Mobs, they really do not believe in democracy. So, when democracy did not work for them, they litigated. They sued, and tried to shut down businesses that did not adhere to their agenda. Now, we are past that. Now, we are at outright harassment and intimidation. I am inclined to say that ultimately these tactics will result in violence. When you get in someone's face, sooner or later they will push back.
However, we are even past the possibility of violence. Recall last year a Trump hater shot up a Congressional Republican baseball practice, nearly fatally wounding Rep. Steve Scalise, and also wounding two Capitol Police officers and other staffers. Here are some comments from the shooter's Facebook page. "Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy." "It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co."
And let's not forget, like the other Mob, this Mob hates the police also. Obama and his AG Eric Holder, had a war on cops. (By way of comparison, Trump has a war on criminal gangs.) Wikileaks has published the names of over 9000 former and current employees of ICE. I cannot see any legitimate reason for doing so. Do they want harm to come to the people who protect us? Democratic Congress members now want to eliminate one entire police force - ICE. They want to eliminate the agency that protects our borders, our safety and our sovereignty. (As an aside, "sovereignty" is a word you will never hear from democrats nor read in the mainstream media. They do not believe in national sovereignty.) The measure to eliminate ICE either has been or will be introduced by Representatives Mark Pocan (D-WI), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA). So what if drugs, criminal gang members and terrorists get in to our country? It is the police who are the bad guys, as far as The Mob is concerned.
By now, I am sure you have figured out who The Mob is - it is the Democratic Party. They may not have hired hit men, but in every other way they resemble The Mob. The harassment. The intimidation. The threats. And the very real possibility of violence by both their actions and their war on police. I don't belong to The Mob. Do you?
Sunday, June 17, 2018
North Korea
It would be nice if the mainstream media could make up their minds. First, Trump was going to get us into nuclear war with North Korea, calling Kim Jong Un "Little Rocket Man," and all. Then, it was how dare Trump sit down with Kim and give him credibility on the world stage. True, he did seem to be excessively effusive about Kim. But the media does not get Trump's approach. It's the old carrot and stick.
Former undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman had an Op-Ed in the 6/14/18 USA Today. Secretary Sherman was the lead negotiator on the Iran nuclear deal, and was previously involved with the prior North Korean nuclear deal. She described the Singapore summit as not "much more than bluster and balloons." Really, what did she expect from an initial sit down? Kim did declare a "firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." But, words are cheap, especially so from dictators. So, we won't know until we know.
Secretary Sherman: the "official statement (signed by Trump and Kim) was far weaker than at least three previous documents signed by North Korea in years past. Unlike the agreements negotiated in 1992, 1994 and 2005, Tuesday's joint statement includes no verification requirements or framework to guide upcoming negotiations." What? Is that for real? Just how tough were the three prior agreements if Kim now has an estimated 60 nuclear weapons and a robust ballistic missile program?
Secretary Sherman continued that Trump does not understand that "any potential agreement would be durable only if South Korea, Japan, China and Russia are on board." Well, unlike Obama's deal with Iran, Trump says he wants any deal approved by the US Senate. Just what the Constitution demands. Why didn't Obama, the Constitutional law professor, know that?
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says the sanctions will remain in place until there are results. Pompeo also expressed the Administration's expectations that results will be seen within 2 1/2 years - by the end of Trump's (first) term. And just how impressed should we be with the Iran deal Ms. Sherman negotiated. No inspections on military bases. Continued development of Iran's ballistic missile program. And, of course, no requirement that Iran cease its terror supporting activities throughout the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. But wait, I thought one of the criticisms of Trump was that he didn't insist on movement of the humanitarian issues in North Korea. Isn't stopping terrorist attacks a humanitarian issue? I guess not when the deal was Obama's.
I think that Caroline Glick had, perhaps, the best take on the Singapore summit. As with any such summit, there is no guarantee that the other side will agree to any deal. Glick: "Democratically elected leaders have a greater tendency than dictators to become convinced that their political survival is dependent on their ability to deliver the deal." And: "If a leader believes his future depends on getting a deal, the likelihood that he will accept a terrible deal skyrockets." Gee, that sounds an awful like Obama, who was willing to pass up on the missiles, support for terrorism, inspection on military bases, and a $150 billion present in order to get the deal that he believed would be his major foreign policy achievement.
But Trump is not Obama. Iran came to the table because Obama kept offering more and more to the Iranians. Sure, Trump is holding off on joint military exercises with South Korea; but those exercises can just as easily be reinstated. North Korea came to the table out of fear of Trump. That's a good thing. Because Kim undoubtedly understands that if he messes with Trump, he has no guarantee that he will remain in power. The Ayatollahs never feared that from Obama. A little fear goes a long way.
Former undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman had an Op-Ed in the 6/14/18 USA Today. Secretary Sherman was the lead negotiator on the Iran nuclear deal, and was previously involved with the prior North Korean nuclear deal. She described the Singapore summit as not "much more than bluster and balloons." Really, what did she expect from an initial sit down? Kim did declare a "firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." But, words are cheap, especially so from dictators. So, we won't know until we know.
Secretary Sherman: the "official statement (signed by Trump and Kim) was far weaker than at least three previous documents signed by North Korea in years past. Unlike the agreements negotiated in 1992, 1994 and 2005, Tuesday's joint statement includes no verification requirements or framework to guide upcoming negotiations." What? Is that for real? Just how tough were the three prior agreements if Kim now has an estimated 60 nuclear weapons and a robust ballistic missile program?
Secretary Sherman continued that Trump does not understand that "any potential agreement would be durable only if South Korea, Japan, China and Russia are on board." Well, unlike Obama's deal with Iran, Trump says he wants any deal approved by the US Senate. Just what the Constitution demands. Why didn't Obama, the Constitutional law professor, know that?
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says the sanctions will remain in place until there are results. Pompeo also expressed the Administration's expectations that results will be seen within 2 1/2 years - by the end of Trump's (first) term. And just how impressed should we be with the Iran deal Ms. Sherman negotiated. No inspections on military bases. Continued development of Iran's ballistic missile program. And, of course, no requirement that Iran cease its terror supporting activities throughout the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. But wait, I thought one of the criticisms of Trump was that he didn't insist on movement of the humanitarian issues in North Korea. Isn't stopping terrorist attacks a humanitarian issue? I guess not when the deal was Obama's.
I think that Caroline Glick had, perhaps, the best take on the Singapore summit. As with any such summit, there is no guarantee that the other side will agree to any deal. Glick: "Democratically elected leaders have a greater tendency than dictators to become convinced that their political survival is dependent on their ability to deliver the deal." And: "If a leader believes his future depends on getting a deal, the likelihood that he will accept a terrible deal skyrockets." Gee, that sounds an awful like Obama, who was willing to pass up on the missiles, support for terrorism, inspection on military bases, and a $150 billion present in order to get the deal that he believed would be his major foreign policy achievement.
But Trump is not Obama. Iran came to the table because Obama kept offering more and more to the Iranians. Sure, Trump is holding off on joint military exercises with South Korea; but those exercises can just as easily be reinstated. North Korea came to the table out of fear of Trump. That's a good thing. Because Kim undoubtedly understands that if he messes with Trump, he has no guarantee that he will remain in power. The Ayatollahs never feared that from Obama. A little fear goes a long way.
Saturday, June 16, 2018
Israel - at the U.N., in the L.A. Times, and in the Latest Poll of American Jews
I'll start with the most disappointing. The AJC (American Jewish Committee) recently released the results of a new poll comparing the attitudes of American Jews with Israeli Jews. While 77% of Israeli Jews either strongly approve or somewhat approve of President Trump's handling of US-Israeli relations, that number dwindles to 34% for American Jews. And while a significant 85% of Israeli Jews approve of the moving of the US embassy to Jerusalem, only 46% of American Jews approve. I'll let the numbers speak for themselves.
The June 10, 2018 Sunday edition of the Los Angeles Times had a front page story with this headline: "Lifelong Injury." The article discusses the thousands (per the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza) of Palestinians injured by Israeli bullets at the Gaza border with Israel. Never mind that Hamas has been sending tens of thousands of their people to mass at the Israeli border trying to breach the security barrier and/or throwing various weapons at Israeli troops. The article continues inside for 2 1/2 pages with plenty of pictures.
Here's a fun quote from the Times article: "...Israel accuses the militants of diverting funds for public services to military activities, an allegation Hamas denies." That's it, then? They just accept Hamas' denial? All of Hamas' rockets and missiles do not cost anything. All of the sophisticated tunnels built by Hamas, with tons of concrete and electrical wiring and ventilation cost nothing. Right.
The Times: "The (weekly border) protests, called to demand the lifting of the blockade and a right to return to ancestral homes in what is now Israel, were an exciting distraction from the grinding poverty." Maybe it would be better to not risk life and limb and do whatever may be possible to help your situation. Maybe show up at Hamas headquarters and protest their unwillingness to create a civil society to benefit their people. And let me ask the Times, assuming I lost my senses and decided I wanted to return to my ancestral home in Russia, would the Times care? I trust they do know about the Russian pogroms of the Jews.
This past Wednesday, the UN General Assembly passed yet another anti-Israel resolution. The resolution condemned Israel for what they said was "excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate" force against the Gazans during their mass efforts to breach the border with Israel. The resolution also called for "an international protection mechanism" for the Palestinians. My conclusions? The world only supports the Jews when they are being killed. If a General Assembly resolution had the same enforcement capabilities as a Security Council resolution, the world would be only too happy to send in troops to eliminate Israel.
The measure was propounded by Turkey and Algeria, and passed with 120 votes in favor, 8 opposed and 45 abstentions. Voting no were the US, Australia, Israel of course and some small Pacific Island nations. As the US has no veto power in the General Assembly, our Ambassador, Nikki Haley was unable to prevent passage of the measure. However, she did propose an amendment to the measure, specifically condemning Hamas for the firing of their rockets into Israel, the digging of the tunnels into Israel and the frequent border attacks.
That amendment actually passed by a vote of 62 in favor, 58 against and 42 abstentions. However, because of General Assembly rules, an amendment would have to pass with a 2/3 vote. The takeaway? I would have to give credit to President Trump and Ambassador Nikki Haley (along with Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon) for helping to slowly but surely change the anti-Israel sentiment at the UN.
The June 10, 2018 Sunday edition of the Los Angeles Times had a front page story with this headline: "Lifelong Injury." The article discusses the thousands (per the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza) of Palestinians injured by Israeli bullets at the Gaza border with Israel. Never mind that Hamas has been sending tens of thousands of their people to mass at the Israeli border trying to breach the security barrier and/or throwing various weapons at Israeli troops. The article continues inside for 2 1/2 pages with plenty of pictures.
Here's a fun quote from the Times article: "...Israel accuses the militants of diverting funds for public services to military activities, an allegation Hamas denies." That's it, then? They just accept Hamas' denial? All of Hamas' rockets and missiles do not cost anything. All of the sophisticated tunnels built by Hamas, with tons of concrete and electrical wiring and ventilation cost nothing. Right.
The Times: "The (weekly border) protests, called to demand the lifting of the blockade and a right to return to ancestral homes in what is now Israel, were an exciting distraction from the grinding poverty." Maybe it would be better to not risk life and limb and do whatever may be possible to help your situation. Maybe show up at Hamas headquarters and protest their unwillingness to create a civil society to benefit their people. And let me ask the Times, assuming I lost my senses and decided I wanted to return to my ancestral home in Russia, would the Times care? I trust they do know about the Russian pogroms of the Jews.
This past Wednesday, the UN General Assembly passed yet another anti-Israel resolution. The resolution condemned Israel for what they said was "excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate" force against the Gazans during their mass efforts to breach the border with Israel. The resolution also called for "an international protection mechanism" for the Palestinians. My conclusions? The world only supports the Jews when they are being killed. If a General Assembly resolution had the same enforcement capabilities as a Security Council resolution, the world would be only too happy to send in troops to eliminate Israel.
The measure was propounded by Turkey and Algeria, and passed with 120 votes in favor, 8 opposed and 45 abstentions. Voting no were the US, Australia, Israel of course and some small Pacific Island nations. As the US has no veto power in the General Assembly, our Ambassador, Nikki Haley was unable to prevent passage of the measure. However, she did propose an amendment to the measure, specifically condemning Hamas for the firing of their rockets into Israel, the digging of the tunnels into Israel and the frequent border attacks.
That amendment actually passed by a vote of 62 in favor, 58 against and 42 abstentions. However, because of General Assembly rules, an amendment would have to pass with a 2/3 vote. The takeaway? I would have to give credit to President Trump and Ambassador Nikki Haley (along with Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon) for helping to slowly but surely change the anti-Israel sentiment at the UN.
The Left's Non-Stop Hate
(Editor's note. This post contains language not used by this writer in the blog. However, as all the expletives come from the mouths of Leftists, I thought it was important to show the extent of their hatred.)
Last Sunday night the Tony Awards were telecast, and Robert De Niro was on stage introducing Bruce Springsteen. It was towards the end of the show, which I understand was relatively free of politics until that moment. De Niro walked up to the microphone and, and with arms raised and clenched fists, said: "First, I want to say fuck Trump. It's no longer down with Trump, it's fuck Trump." Nearly the entire audience stood and applauded. I can only imagine if during the Obama presidency, someone at one of these award shows got up and said the same thing about Obama. Would they have been beaten? I am sure they would have been roundly booed and forced off the stage. And that would have been the proper reaction to such a comment about a sitting President. But not for the lemmings in this audience.
Not to be outdone, the Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough, came out with this: "I know children are being ripped from their mother's arms even while they're being breast fed. I know children are being marched away to showers, marched away to showers. Being told they are - just like the Nazis - said that they were taking people to the showers and then they never came back." Disgusting. Not only does he diminish the horrors of the Holocaust with such a comment, but he alleges that American immigration policy is tantamount to genocide. Just sick.
Kathy Griffin (recall her holding up the fake, decapitated head of Trump) is not happy with her fellow comedian Kevin Hart. You see, as Hart is black, she just cannot understand why he won't discuss/mock Trump in his stand-up act. "I personally think it's a pussy move because he's a black man." So, Hart gets no respect because, even if he should agree with Griffin about Trump, he chooses not to use it in his act. How dare he!
During the last presidential election we were told how so many Trump supporters fit into a basket of deplorables. We have now learned from the just released DOJ's Inspector General's report what some in the FBI thought of Trump supporters. Said one agent: "Trump supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS (pieces of shit) that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing." Actually, some Obama supporters thought they would get lots of free stuff from him. And, under Trump, unemployment is significantly down - so, yes, people are getting jobs.
And this from another agent: "I would have brunch with Trump and a bunch of his supporters like the ones from Ohio that are retarded." I guess the elitists do not worry about being politically incorrect, at least as regards Trump supporters.
A final thought. Obviously, conservatives view the world differently from the way the Left does. But there is a further underlying difference. While conservatives disagree with the Left on virtually everything, we can understand the origin of their beliefs. Leftists, however, do not understand the origins of our beliefs. They do not understand how we could have voted for Trump and will do so again. After all, they cried when Trump won. Everything happening now is just so sad. And Trump's election will mean the end of America and even Western civilization. As the New York Times put it in one of their recent editorials: "Assuming that American democracy endures..." (under Trump). If I tried to explain to a Leftist that many conservatives felt the same way about the Obama Presidency, they would look at me in utter disbelief. As they cannot understand conservatives, the obvious conclusion - to them - is that we must be evil. Hence, the bitter hatred.
Last Sunday night the Tony Awards were telecast, and Robert De Niro was on stage introducing Bruce Springsteen. It was towards the end of the show, which I understand was relatively free of politics until that moment. De Niro walked up to the microphone and, and with arms raised and clenched fists, said: "First, I want to say fuck Trump. It's no longer down with Trump, it's fuck Trump." Nearly the entire audience stood and applauded. I can only imagine if during the Obama presidency, someone at one of these award shows got up and said the same thing about Obama. Would they have been beaten? I am sure they would have been roundly booed and forced off the stage. And that would have been the proper reaction to such a comment about a sitting President. But not for the lemmings in this audience.
Not to be outdone, the Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough, came out with this: "I know children are being ripped from their mother's arms even while they're being breast fed. I know children are being marched away to showers, marched away to showers. Being told they are - just like the Nazis - said that they were taking people to the showers and then they never came back." Disgusting. Not only does he diminish the horrors of the Holocaust with such a comment, but he alleges that American immigration policy is tantamount to genocide. Just sick.
Kathy Griffin (recall her holding up the fake, decapitated head of Trump) is not happy with her fellow comedian Kevin Hart. You see, as Hart is black, she just cannot understand why he won't discuss/mock Trump in his stand-up act. "I personally think it's a pussy move because he's a black man." So, Hart gets no respect because, even if he should agree with Griffin about Trump, he chooses not to use it in his act. How dare he!
During the last presidential election we were told how so many Trump supporters fit into a basket of deplorables. We have now learned from the just released DOJ's Inspector General's report what some in the FBI thought of Trump supporters. Said one agent: "Trump supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS (pieces of shit) that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing." Actually, some Obama supporters thought they would get lots of free stuff from him. And, under Trump, unemployment is significantly down - so, yes, people are getting jobs.
And this from another agent: "I would have brunch with Trump and a bunch of his supporters like the ones from Ohio that are retarded." I guess the elitists do not worry about being politically incorrect, at least as regards Trump supporters.
A final thought. Obviously, conservatives view the world differently from the way the Left does. But there is a further underlying difference. While conservatives disagree with the Left on virtually everything, we can understand the origin of their beliefs. Leftists, however, do not understand the origins of our beliefs. They do not understand how we could have voted for Trump and will do so again. After all, they cried when Trump won. Everything happening now is just so sad. And Trump's election will mean the end of America and even Western civilization. As the New York Times put it in one of their recent editorials: "Assuming that American democracy endures..." (under Trump). If I tried to explain to a Leftist that many conservatives felt the same way about the Obama Presidency, they would look at me in utter disbelief. As they cannot understand conservatives, the obvious conclusion - to them - is that we must be evil. Hence, the bitter hatred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)