The December 8, 2018 Los Angeles Times reported that the faculty of Pitzer College voted to suspend a study abroad program at the University of Haifa in Israel. Pitzer is a small liberal arts college in Southern California, and is highly regarded academically. The motion to suspend the study abroad in Israel program was brought by Professor Daniel Segal, who is Jewish. Segal claims he brought the motion to counter Israel's restriction on academic exchanges, with the Times citing a 2017 law which the paper says "bar(s) entry (to Israel) to those who support boycotts, divestment or sanctions against the Jewish state." Segal was also disturbed by restrictions to Israel based on "ancestry..." Jews do have a right of return, with some exceptions. Why just Jews? From a religious viewpoint, the land of Israel was promised to the Jews by G-d. From a historical viewpoint, no other people have been as persecuted throughout history as much as the Jews. From a legal viewpoint, the UN, having been granted control of the British Mandate in Palestine, voted to partition the land into a Jewish state (which became Israel) and an Arab state, which the Arabs declined.
Earlier this year, on 3/25/18, Pitzer issued a press release announcing "Pitzer College Professor Daniel A. Segal has been accepted to participate in the Palestinian American Research Center (PARC) US Faculty Development Seminar on Palestine this summer." The press release tells us that there will be "visits to Palestinian universities, research institutes and cultural institution(s) as well as roundtable discussions, tours of historic cities and meetings with Palestinian colleagues."
We further learn from the press release that seminar participants will "deepen their knowledge of their fields of interest in Palestine and build relationships with Palestinian colleagues and institutions." The good news is, from a historic point of view, the Palestinians have nothing in their past or present that would disqualify them from interaction with American academics - or that would deter Professor Segal.
June 5, 1968. Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan assassinates US Senator and Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. Sirhan specifically chose the date of June 5, 1968 as it was the one year anniversary of the start of the Six Day War, in which Israel miraculously defeated the Arab armies massed at their borders. Sirhan: "My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel..."
September 5, 1972. At the Munich Olympic Games, Black September, a front for the Palestinian Fatah group, took 11 Israeli athletes hostage. In the ensuing rescue operation, 9 athletes were killed, including American-Israeli David Berger.
May, 1974. Palestinians took 115 people, mostly teenagers, hostage in the town of Ma'alot. Utimately, 25 people were killed; 22 were teenagers. 68 were injured. Prior to what became known as the "Ma'alot Massacre," the terrorists murdered a young couple and their 4 year old boy in their home. The 5 year old daughter was injured.
October 7, 1985. The Palestine Liberation Front hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro. During the hijacking, the Palestinians brutally murdered American Leon Klinghoffer. Disabled and in a wheelchair, Klinghoffer's body was then thrown overboard.
2000-2005. The Second Intifada. These numerous terrorist attacks on civilians began after Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat walked out on President Bill Clinton, Clinton having brokered a deal in a meeting in DC with Arafat and then Israeli leader Ehud Barak. Arafat chose to return to Ramallah and begin the Second Intifada rather than make peace. Palestinian terrorists blew up innocent Jews of all ages on buses, in cafes, shopping malls, and, of course, at what came to be known as the Passover Massacre. During the 3/27/02 attack on Jews at a Passover Seder, 30 people were killed and 140 were injured.
More recently, of course, were all the stabbings of Jews; and the multiple attacks from Gaza, with Palestinians firing their rockets and missiles at civilian targets. At least 54 Americans have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists. Needless to say, the above list constitutes a small portion of all the terrorist attacks carried out by Palestinians against innocent Israeli Jews. The good news is that there is nothing the Palestinians have done that disturbs Professor Segal enough to consider a boycott of Palestinian universities. PA leader Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly said that not a single Jew may live in a future Palestinian state. Apparently, that also is not a problem for Professor Segal. The problem for Professor Segal? His fellow Jews and the State of Israel. Then again, Israel denying entry to a few people who want to stir up anti-Israel sentiment and even anti-Israel activity within the country is worse than the countless murders carried out by Palestinian terrorists. Right?
Monday, December 10, 2018
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Immigration, the Caravan and the Media
We conservatives know very well that the mainstream media cannot be trusted to tell the truth, but can be trusted to slant the news and headlines to fit their left-wing agenda. On the first page of the 11/27/18 Ventura County Star was this headline: "Trump calls immigrants 'criminals.'" Of course, not everyone reads the articles - as the media knows - but for those who did, they were told that Trump called SOME immigrants criminals. Quite a difference.
For those of us who saw the scenes on TV of some of these nice immigrants rushing the border and throwing rocks and other items at the border police, that sure looked like criminal activity. Said the 11/26/18 front page story in the LA Times: "Trump's administration and those who support his hard-line stance on illegal immigration immediately seized on the dramatic images from the scene." Wait, Trump has a "hard-line" stance on ILLEGAL immigration? Trump did say he wants people to come here legally. What is the Times' stance on illegal immigration? Oh, that's right, the left does not believe any "immigration" is illegal.
In contrast to the Trump supporters, the Times tells us "...the images of the U.S. government using tear gas on a group of migrants that included children disturbed others..." What disturbed me was mothers and fathers who, having declined the asylum offered by Mexico, were willing to put their children at risk by rushing the US border. Then, the Times quotes Cristobal J. Alex, president of the Latino Victory Fund: "What we saw at the San Ysidro border crossing should horrify the whole country; it was simply inhumane." I am sure Mr. Alex was quoted by the Times during the Obama Administration, which used tear gas at the border 1.3 times per month during the years 2012 through 2016.
The 11/13/18 editorial in the New York Times was titled "Mr. Trump's Imaginary Immigrant Crisis." Imaginary? The violent scenes at the border looked quite real to me. The Times: "The United States has clear laws governing the the asylum process and well-funded agencies to enforce those laws." To quote the Church Lady: "Well, isn't that special?" If there is no immigrant crisis, and we have laws and agencies to take care of it, then why do we have millions and millions of people here illegally?
Clearly, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 did not solve the immigration problem. Given that relations between the Democrats and Republicans are worse today than they were in the 1980's, it is difficult to imagine any real solution coming anytime soon. Which, perhaps helps account for the popularity of Trump's border wall. In the meantime, no one should count on the mainstream media to fairly report on the immigration issue.
For those of us who saw the scenes on TV of some of these nice immigrants rushing the border and throwing rocks and other items at the border police, that sure looked like criminal activity. Said the 11/26/18 front page story in the LA Times: "Trump's administration and those who support his hard-line stance on illegal immigration immediately seized on the dramatic images from the scene." Wait, Trump has a "hard-line" stance on ILLEGAL immigration? Trump did say he wants people to come here legally. What is the Times' stance on illegal immigration? Oh, that's right, the left does not believe any "immigration" is illegal.
In contrast to the Trump supporters, the Times tells us "...the images of the U.S. government using tear gas on a group of migrants that included children disturbed others..." What disturbed me was mothers and fathers who, having declined the asylum offered by Mexico, were willing to put their children at risk by rushing the US border. Then, the Times quotes Cristobal J. Alex, president of the Latino Victory Fund: "What we saw at the San Ysidro border crossing should horrify the whole country; it was simply inhumane." I am sure Mr. Alex was quoted by the Times during the Obama Administration, which used tear gas at the border 1.3 times per month during the years 2012 through 2016.
The 11/13/18 editorial in the New York Times was titled "Mr. Trump's Imaginary Immigrant Crisis." Imaginary? The violent scenes at the border looked quite real to me. The Times: "The United States has clear laws governing the the asylum process and well-funded agencies to enforce those laws." To quote the Church Lady: "Well, isn't that special?" If there is no immigrant crisis, and we have laws and agencies to take care of it, then why do we have millions and millions of people here illegally?
Clearly, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 did not solve the immigration problem. Given that relations between the Democrats and Republicans are worse today than they were in the 1980's, it is difficult to imagine any real solution coming anytime soon. Which, perhaps helps account for the popularity of Trump's border wall. In the meantime, no one should count on the mainstream media to fairly report on the immigration issue.
Israel and the Jews - Then and Now
Just a few days ago, 11/29, was the 71st anniversary of the UN General Assembly vote to partition the British Mandate in Palestine into two states - a Jewish one and an Arab one. The Jews formed a state which they called Israel. The Arabs chose not to create their own state, rather, they chose war in an effort to destroy the newly created Jewish state. It was in 1897 that Theodore Herzl called for the First Zionist Congress, which was held in Basel, Switzerland. Herzl is generally regarded as the founder of the modern Zionist movement.
Fast forward 71 years from that UN resolution and on 11/30/18, the UN General Assembly voted 156 to 8 (with 12 abstentions) for a resolution which, among other things, referred to the Temple Mount (Judaism's holiest site) by its Muslim name al-Haram al-Sharif. There was no connection made to Judaism or the Jewish people. The US, Canada and Australia voted against the resolution. However, the EU supported it. In a less than stern admonition, the EU advised that it "could stop doing so (supporting such resolutions) unless more inclusive language was used to reference holy sites in Jerusalem." So, the wimpy EU MIGHT not support such resolutions in the future unless they use nicer, more inclusive language.
Seventy-three years ago the Second World War ended, bringing an end to the Holocaust carried out by Germany against the Jewish people. Now, seventy-three years later, the Jerusalem Post has reported that Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has been pressuring the Central and Eastern European countries to not follow the US's lead and move their embassies in Israel to Jerusalem. Supposedly, Germany is concerned that the moving of embassies will interfere with the Iran nuclear deal, which they strongly support. Then again, it might be an indirect slap in the face to President Trump.
Or, maybe Germany was just continuing its anti-Israel policies. In 2015 it failed to "block the marking of Israeli goods from disputed territories." In other words, Germany supported the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel.
This week Jewish people around the world are celebrating the holiday of Chanukah. Antiochus IV was a Greek-Syrian King of the Seleucid Empire. Antiochus sought to prevent the Jewish people from practicing their religion. There was a group of "Hellenized Jews" who were assimilated and really did not practice Judaism. However, the observant Jews would not comply with the ban on the practice of Judaism. In 167 B.C.E. Antiochus sent his forces in to enforce the ban, and thousands of Jews were killed. The observant Jews who fought back were known as the Maccabees, and were led by Mattathias and his five sons, and ultimately succeeded in routing the forces of Antiochus.
Under the control of the Syrians, the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem had been desecrated. When the Jews again took control of the Temple they determined that it would take eight days to restore the oil used in Jewish rituals. However, they only found enough uncontaminated oil to last for one day. Miraculously, the oil lasted eight days. Jews light candles in the menorah during Chanukah, one on the first night, two on the second and so on up to eight on the last and eighth night of the holiday. Eight candles to mark the eight days that the oil in the Temple in Jerusalem lasted.
But that was then. Today, we have a revisionist theory of Chanukah. This was expressed by author Michael David Lukas in the Op-Ed pages of the 12/2/18 Sunday edition of the New York Times. This theory of Chanukah says that there was a civil war between the Maccabees and the Hellenized Jews, with Antiochus, incredibly, getting no mention in the Lukas article. Rather, Lukas tells us the religious fundamentalist Maccabees defeated the "city-dwelling assimilationists who ate pork, didn't circumcise their male children and made the occasional sacrificial offering to pagan gods." In other words, the Hellenized Jews did not practice Judaism. After all, the primary prayer for Jews, recited morning and evening, is the Shema: "Hear O Israel, G-d is our Lord, G-d is one." The belief in a monotheistic G-d was brought to the world by the Jews. It is hardly consistent with making sacrificial offerings to pagan gods.
For revisionists such as Lukas, it makes perfect sense. He is a self-described Bernie supporter who says he is an assimilated Jew and a product of intermarriage. Lukas continues that he eats pork, and that he and his wife agonized over the decision to circumcise their son. He grew up in Berkeley, now lives in Oakland, and said he practices Reconstructionist Judaism. Lukas asks: "Why should I light candles and sing songs to celebrate a group of violent fundamentalists (the Maccabees)?"
Shame on Germany. Shame on the EU. Shame on the UN. As for the revisionist Jews, who do not seem to be able to see the good in Israel or Judaism, well...you decide.
Fast forward 71 years from that UN resolution and on 11/30/18, the UN General Assembly voted 156 to 8 (with 12 abstentions) for a resolution which, among other things, referred to the Temple Mount (Judaism's holiest site) by its Muslim name al-Haram al-Sharif. There was no connection made to Judaism or the Jewish people. The US, Canada and Australia voted against the resolution. However, the EU supported it. In a less than stern admonition, the EU advised that it "could stop doing so (supporting such resolutions) unless more inclusive language was used to reference holy sites in Jerusalem." So, the wimpy EU MIGHT not support such resolutions in the future unless they use nicer, more inclusive language.
Seventy-three years ago the Second World War ended, bringing an end to the Holocaust carried out by Germany against the Jewish people. Now, seventy-three years later, the Jerusalem Post has reported that Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has been pressuring the Central and Eastern European countries to not follow the US's lead and move their embassies in Israel to Jerusalem. Supposedly, Germany is concerned that the moving of embassies will interfere with the Iran nuclear deal, which they strongly support. Then again, it might be an indirect slap in the face to President Trump.
Or, maybe Germany was just continuing its anti-Israel policies. In 2015 it failed to "block the marking of Israeli goods from disputed territories." In other words, Germany supported the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel.
This week Jewish people around the world are celebrating the holiday of Chanukah. Antiochus IV was a Greek-Syrian King of the Seleucid Empire. Antiochus sought to prevent the Jewish people from practicing their religion. There was a group of "Hellenized Jews" who were assimilated and really did not practice Judaism. However, the observant Jews would not comply with the ban on the practice of Judaism. In 167 B.C.E. Antiochus sent his forces in to enforce the ban, and thousands of Jews were killed. The observant Jews who fought back were known as the Maccabees, and were led by Mattathias and his five sons, and ultimately succeeded in routing the forces of Antiochus.
Under the control of the Syrians, the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem had been desecrated. When the Jews again took control of the Temple they determined that it would take eight days to restore the oil used in Jewish rituals. However, they only found enough uncontaminated oil to last for one day. Miraculously, the oil lasted eight days. Jews light candles in the menorah during Chanukah, one on the first night, two on the second and so on up to eight on the last and eighth night of the holiday. Eight candles to mark the eight days that the oil in the Temple in Jerusalem lasted.
But that was then. Today, we have a revisionist theory of Chanukah. This was expressed by author Michael David Lukas in the Op-Ed pages of the 12/2/18 Sunday edition of the New York Times. This theory of Chanukah says that there was a civil war between the Maccabees and the Hellenized Jews, with Antiochus, incredibly, getting no mention in the Lukas article. Rather, Lukas tells us the religious fundamentalist Maccabees defeated the "city-dwelling assimilationists who ate pork, didn't circumcise their male children and made the occasional sacrificial offering to pagan gods." In other words, the Hellenized Jews did not practice Judaism. After all, the primary prayer for Jews, recited morning and evening, is the Shema: "Hear O Israel, G-d is our Lord, G-d is one." The belief in a monotheistic G-d was brought to the world by the Jews. It is hardly consistent with making sacrificial offerings to pagan gods.
For revisionists such as Lukas, it makes perfect sense. He is a self-described Bernie supporter who says he is an assimilated Jew and a product of intermarriage. Lukas continues that he eats pork, and that he and his wife agonized over the decision to circumcise their son. He grew up in Berkeley, now lives in Oakland, and said he practices Reconstructionist Judaism. Lukas asks: "Why should I light candles and sing songs to celebrate a group of violent fundamentalists (the Maccabees)?"
Shame on Germany. Shame on the EU. Shame on the UN. As for the revisionist Jews, who do not seem to be able to see the good in Israel or Judaism, well...you decide.
Saturday, November 17, 2018
A Look at the Midterms and CNN's Jim Acosta
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media was so overjoyed at the prospect of a "blue wave" that they could barely contain themselves. After all, Trump just had to be stopped because of his "gross incompetence" and "troubling executive overreach" and his tolerance, even encouragement, of "corrupt behavior." So said the November 6 editorial of the USA Today, which was typical of other papers. "Gross incompetence?" Would that be having as much as a 4% growth rate in a single quarter? I recall Obama mocking the idea of being able to turn around his 2% growth rate, being the only President to never have an annual growth rate of 3% or more. Does the USA Today want to return to that "gross incompetence"?
After the election, this opinion by the LA Times was typical of the mainstream media. "...the results in the House of Representatives are a dramatic and deserved rebuke for the president," which "clearly constitutes a repudiation of Trump's reckless policies, his violation of political and ethical norms and his repeated falsehoods." It is true that the Democrats may have gained as many as 40 House seats.
But if you were expecting the media to give you any context, current or historical, well, c'mon now. As for current context, at least 38 Republicans decided not to seek reelection this year. That is the greatest number of Republicans retiring from the House since 1930. It is much more difficult for a party to hold onto a seat without the incumbent running again. Historically, even with 40 seats lost, that is less than Clinton's 54 lost seats in his first midterms, and far less than Obama's 63 lost seats in his first midterms. So, was the election a clear repudiation of President Trump? No doubt there was some element of rejection of Trump; but when looked at in context not really a "clear repudiation."
Who gets the money in politics? That would be the Democrats. According to the 11/9/18 Wall Street Journal, the "Democratic House candidates this cycle raised $951 million as of Oct. 17, the most recent reporting cutoff, according to figures from OpenSecrets.org" They tell us that is nearly 50% more than House Republicans raised. Billionaire Democrats? Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and Tom Steyer. Another Democratic billionaire, J.B. Pritzker, became governor of Illinois.
I know. I'm supposed to be excited (my daughters told me) about the record number of women who will be entering Congress in January. At least 123 women. But I'm not there. I guess I should have been excited when we elected our first black president, but it was Obama - a leftist. Former Congressman Allen West or Senator Tim Scott or even Larry Elder, would be a different story. You see, I am just not interested in identity politics.
Here are four newly elected women - Ilhan Omar (Minnesota), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York), Ayanna Presley (Massachusetts), and Rashida Tlaib (Michigan). At least 3 are anti-Israel, with one having mixed reviews. Perhaps my Democratic Jewish friends can explain to me why I should be happy about the election of these women, when I consider myself a pro-Israel Zionist. Ilhan Omar said she "believes in and supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement..."against Israel. She has said "Israel has hypnotized the world," and has done "evil things." Rashida Tlaib has said she favors a "one state" solution in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I suspect she hopes that the one state would be a Palestinian/Muslim state - making the 58th Muslim country and eliminating the world's one Jewish country.
Did you watch the White House press conference involving the exchange between President Trump and CNN "reporter" Jim Acosta. Acosta was quite rude and argumentative. It is expected that the White House press corps will ask questions. Instead, Acosta wanted to argue with the President by telling him the caravan was not an invasion, but just a group of migrants on their way to our border. Trump disagreed, and said he wanted people to come here legally, and through a certain process.
Acosta then wanted to move on to the Russia investigation, but the President told him "that's enough" several times. Acosta refused to yield the microphone. I missed the part where people who hold themselves out as reporters are supposed to make the news about themselves. Walter Cronkite was a newsman for many decades. Yet, it was not until he retired that we found out that he was a liberal Democrat. He did his job in a professional manner. Acosta has no clue, however. I agree with Trump's assessment, telling Acosta "you are a rude terrible person."
After Acosta had his hard pass to the White House taken from, he and CNN filed suit. Incredibly, a Judge ordered his pass be reinstated. Why any individual should have a right to access to the White House I will never understand. CNN certainly has other members of the White House press corps. If I was advising Trump, I would tell him to never call on Acosta again. And if the rest of the White House press corps refused to ask questions until Acosta was called on, I would walk out. There is no Constitutional requirement that the President hold a press conference.
After the election, this opinion by the LA Times was typical of the mainstream media. "...the results in the House of Representatives are a dramatic and deserved rebuke for the president," which "clearly constitutes a repudiation of Trump's reckless policies, his violation of political and ethical norms and his repeated falsehoods." It is true that the Democrats may have gained as many as 40 House seats.
But if you were expecting the media to give you any context, current or historical, well, c'mon now. As for current context, at least 38 Republicans decided not to seek reelection this year. That is the greatest number of Republicans retiring from the House since 1930. It is much more difficult for a party to hold onto a seat without the incumbent running again. Historically, even with 40 seats lost, that is less than Clinton's 54 lost seats in his first midterms, and far less than Obama's 63 lost seats in his first midterms. So, was the election a clear repudiation of President Trump? No doubt there was some element of rejection of Trump; but when looked at in context not really a "clear repudiation."
Who gets the money in politics? That would be the Democrats. According to the 11/9/18 Wall Street Journal, the "Democratic House candidates this cycle raised $951 million as of Oct. 17, the most recent reporting cutoff, according to figures from OpenSecrets.org" They tell us that is nearly 50% more than House Republicans raised. Billionaire Democrats? Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and Tom Steyer. Another Democratic billionaire, J.B. Pritzker, became governor of Illinois.
I know. I'm supposed to be excited (my daughters told me) about the record number of women who will be entering Congress in January. At least 123 women. But I'm not there. I guess I should have been excited when we elected our first black president, but it was Obama - a leftist. Former Congressman Allen West or Senator Tim Scott or even Larry Elder, would be a different story. You see, I am just not interested in identity politics.
Here are four newly elected women - Ilhan Omar (Minnesota), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York), Ayanna Presley (Massachusetts), and Rashida Tlaib (Michigan). At least 3 are anti-Israel, with one having mixed reviews. Perhaps my Democratic Jewish friends can explain to me why I should be happy about the election of these women, when I consider myself a pro-Israel Zionist. Ilhan Omar said she "believes in and supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement..."against Israel. She has said "Israel has hypnotized the world," and has done "evil things." Rashida Tlaib has said she favors a "one state" solution in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I suspect she hopes that the one state would be a Palestinian/Muslim state - making the 58th Muslim country and eliminating the world's one Jewish country.
Did you watch the White House press conference involving the exchange between President Trump and CNN "reporter" Jim Acosta. Acosta was quite rude and argumentative. It is expected that the White House press corps will ask questions. Instead, Acosta wanted to argue with the President by telling him the caravan was not an invasion, but just a group of migrants on their way to our border. Trump disagreed, and said he wanted people to come here legally, and through a certain process.
Acosta then wanted to move on to the Russia investigation, but the President told him "that's enough" several times. Acosta refused to yield the microphone. I missed the part where people who hold themselves out as reporters are supposed to make the news about themselves. Walter Cronkite was a newsman for many decades. Yet, it was not until he retired that we found out that he was a liberal Democrat. He did his job in a professional manner. Acosta has no clue, however. I agree with Trump's assessment, telling Acosta "you are a rude terrible person."
After Acosta had his hard pass to the White House taken from, he and CNN filed suit. Incredibly, a Judge ordered his pass be reinstated. Why any individual should have a right to access to the White House I will never understand. CNN certainly has other members of the White House press corps. If I was advising Trump, I would tell him to never call on Acosta again. And if the rest of the White House press corps refused to ask questions until Acosta was called on, I would walk out. There is no Constitutional requirement that the President hold a press conference.
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Some Comments on the Events of the Last Two Months
Yesterday, an evil anti-Semitic, likely white nationalist, went into a Pittsburgh synagogue during a Shabbat service and opened fire on innocent unarmed people. Tell me how this is any different from the Nazis having Jews line up and then simply shooting them dead. Evil exists in the world, and it will not go away with wishful thinking. Therefore, all such soft targets as houses of worship need to defend themselves. It may be a sad state of affairs, but when in history has evil not existed. Think Cain and Abel.
This horrific shooting follows by days the capture of another evil man who sent packages filled with bombs to various Democratic officials and left-wing individuals. I tuned in to MSNBC only to see the moderator attempt to have every person on a panel blame President Trump for all the bomb packages, and even for the killing of the Saudi journalist Khashoggi. I blame the individual perpetrators. The mainstream media would never consider that Hillary's comment about not being civil to Republicans, or Holder's comment about "kicking them" when they're down, as possibly inciting people to violence. Or maybe being angered by a Robert De Niro feeling free to say to a national TV audience during the Tony Awards: "Fuck Trump." And then virtually the entire audience stands and applauds De Niro. The media believes that only Trump's comments may have negative consequences. I have said it before - being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry.
I also tuned in to CNN. On the bottom of the screen was this "headline" or news ticker: "Manhunt for serial bomber going after Trump's targets." The clear implication is that Trump set the targets for the bomber, and the bomber complied. This is odious. They did not even say "Trump's critics." No, they wanted the viewer to associate Trump with the bomber. Is it any wonder that Trump calls them "fake news?" This blog has for years written posts on the bias of the mainstream media, beginning well before Trump entered the presidential race. (One need only scroll back to find those earlier posts.)
Much was made of Hillary's call for incivility when she said: "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about." However, I find the second part of her comment far more telling: "a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about." Hillary essentially opined what this blog has previously discussed - the Democrats no longer share in the basic American values, and therefore she was able to say that Republicans want to destroy what she stands for. (See the 2016 posts on why I would not vote for Hillary to see what she and the Democrats stand for.) Just one current example - immigration. The Democrats want to eliminate ICE, and some want open borders. They support the "caravan" of thousands people coming from Central America into the USA, with no concern for US laws or US sovereignty.
The Kavanaugh hearings were a disgrace. CA Senator Dianne Feinstein knew well before the hearings commenced about the allegations made by Christine Ford. She did not bother to tell Chairman Grassley. Instead, the Dems attempted to prevent the hearing from going forward, constantly interrupting the Chairman's opening comments. The Dems goal of convincing some Republicans to vote against moving Kavanaugh's nomination forward failed. He was clearly exceedingly well-qualified. It was only after the hearing closed that Feinstein came forward with Professor Ford. It was hardly coincidental that Ford's attorneys were Democratic activists who worked for free and whose names were provided to Ford by none other than Senator Feinstein. Ford claimed she did not want to travel to DC (fear of flying, even though she flew all over for work and leisure) and did not want to testify publicly. Grassley says he made three separate offers to Ford and her legal team to have her testify in her home state of California. Ford denied knowing of any such offers. Was she lying, or did her attorneys not tell her, preferring to have a political circus on national TV? I know where my money would go.
Whenever the Dems do not get their way, it's time to change the Constitution. With the Citizens United case, the Dems wanted to change the First Amendment in order to limit political speech. With Trump's victory in 2016, the Dems wanted to eliminate the Electoral College. With Kavanaugh's confirmation by the full Senate, the Dems want to change the make-up of the Senate. Their argument - why should low population states get 2 senators when much more populated states also only get 2 senators? Good luck with that. As David Rivkin and Lee Casey wrote in the 10/16/18 Wall Street Journal, the "Connecticut Compromise" allowed more populated states greater representation in the House, and gave smaller States equal representation in the Senate. It had nothing to do with racism as alleged by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Any change to equal representation of the States in the Senate would require agreement by all 50 states. As the WSJ writers point out, Article V provides: "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
The mid-term election is only days away. The Democrats are fielding a number of anti-Israel candidates, reflecting the pro-Palestinian bias of rank and file Democrats. As reported by Gil Troy in the 11/1/18 Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, Rashida Tlaib (Michigan) says she will oppose aid to Israel. Scott Wallace (Pennsylvania) supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. (As an aside, BDS suppotters never express concern about countries such as Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia, for example. That tells me these people are fundamentally anti-Semitic.) Then we have Ilhan Omar (Minnesota) calling Israel an "apartheid" state. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York), admitting she is no expert on geopolitical events, referred to Israel's "occupation" of Palestine (as did Obama), and seemed to blame only Israel for deaths at the Gaza border. Then we have Leslie Cockburn (Virginia) who wrote a book claiming "that the Israeli-American connection is somewhere behind just about everything that ails us," according to a review in the liberal New York Times.
One thing should be clear to everyone. Anti-Semitism, at times disguised as "anti-Israel," is alive and well. It comes from the extreme right, and, unfortunately, it now comes from mainstream Democrats (see above paragraph). It comes from too many Muslims. I know - anti-Semitism is the oldest form of hatred based on "the other." But it is increasingly happening in what has been the safest country in history for the Jews. It is time for all Jews to stand for Israel and for Judaism. I hope that Jews in the above-referenced states do not vote for these anti-Israel candidates just because there is a "D" after their name.
Finally, I see no indication that Trump, the Democrats, or the mainstream media will stop their inflammatory speech. Therefore, it is up to each and every one of us to set the example. We need to do better.
This horrific shooting follows by days the capture of another evil man who sent packages filled with bombs to various Democratic officials and left-wing individuals. I tuned in to MSNBC only to see the moderator attempt to have every person on a panel blame President Trump for all the bomb packages, and even for the killing of the Saudi journalist Khashoggi. I blame the individual perpetrators. The mainstream media would never consider that Hillary's comment about not being civil to Republicans, or Holder's comment about "kicking them" when they're down, as possibly inciting people to violence. Or maybe being angered by a Robert De Niro feeling free to say to a national TV audience during the Tony Awards: "Fuck Trump." And then virtually the entire audience stands and applauds De Niro. The media believes that only Trump's comments may have negative consequences. I have said it before - being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry.
I also tuned in to CNN. On the bottom of the screen was this "headline" or news ticker: "Manhunt for serial bomber going after Trump's targets." The clear implication is that Trump set the targets for the bomber, and the bomber complied. This is odious. They did not even say "Trump's critics." No, they wanted the viewer to associate Trump with the bomber. Is it any wonder that Trump calls them "fake news?" This blog has for years written posts on the bias of the mainstream media, beginning well before Trump entered the presidential race. (One need only scroll back to find those earlier posts.)
Much was made of Hillary's call for incivility when she said: "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about." However, I find the second part of her comment far more telling: "a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about." Hillary essentially opined what this blog has previously discussed - the Democrats no longer share in the basic American values, and therefore she was able to say that Republicans want to destroy what she stands for. (See the 2016 posts on why I would not vote for Hillary to see what she and the Democrats stand for.) Just one current example - immigration. The Democrats want to eliminate ICE, and some want open borders. They support the "caravan" of thousands people coming from Central America into the USA, with no concern for US laws or US sovereignty.
The Kavanaugh hearings were a disgrace. CA Senator Dianne Feinstein knew well before the hearings commenced about the allegations made by Christine Ford. She did not bother to tell Chairman Grassley. Instead, the Dems attempted to prevent the hearing from going forward, constantly interrupting the Chairman's opening comments. The Dems goal of convincing some Republicans to vote against moving Kavanaugh's nomination forward failed. He was clearly exceedingly well-qualified. It was only after the hearing closed that Feinstein came forward with Professor Ford. It was hardly coincidental that Ford's attorneys were Democratic activists who worked for free and whose names were provided to Ford by none other than Senator Feinstein. Ford claimed she did not want to travel to DC (fear of flying, even though she flew all over for work and leisure) and did not want to testify publicly. Grassley says he made three separate offers to Ford and her legal team to have her testify in her home state of California. Ford denied knowing of any such offers. Was she lying, or did her attorneys not tell her, preferring to have a political circus on national TV? I know where my money would go.
Whenever the Dems do not get their way, it's time to change the Constitution. With the Citizens United case, the Dems wanted to change the First Amendment in order to limit political speech. With Trump's victory in 2016, the Dems wanted to eliminate the Electoral College. With Kavanaugh's confirmation by the full Senate, the Dems want to change the make-up of the Senate. Their argument - why should low population states get 2 senators when much more populated states also only get 2 senators? Good luck with that. As David Rivkin and Lee Casey wrote in the 10/16/18 Wall Street Journal, the "Connecticut Compromise" allowed more populated states greater representation in the House, and gave smaller States equal representation in the Senate. It had nothing to do with racism as alleged by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Any change to equal representation of the States in the Senate would require agreement by all 50 states. As the WSJ writers point out, Article V provides: "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
The mid-term election is only days away. The Democrats are fielding a number of anti-Israel candidates, reflecting the pro-Palestinian bias of rank and file Democrats. As reported by Gil Troy in the 11/1/18 Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, Rashida Tlaib (Michigan) says she will oppose aid to Israel. Scott Wallace (Pennsylvania) supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. (As an aside, BDS suppotters never express concern about countries such as Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia, for example. That tells me these people are fundamentally anti-Semitic.) Then we have Ilhan Omar (Minnesota) calling Israel an "apartheid" state. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York), admitting she is no expert on geopolitical events, referred to Israel's "occupation" of Palestine (as did Obama), and seemed to blame only Israel for deaths at the Gaza border. Then we have Leslie Cockburn (Virginia) who wrote a book claiming "that the Israeli-American connection is somewhere behind just about everything that ails us," according to a review in the liberal New York Times.
One thing should be clear to everyone. Anti-Semitism, at times disguised as "anti-Israel," is alive and well. It comes from the extreme right, and, unfortunately, it now comes from mainstream Democrats (see above paragraph). It comes from too many Muslims. I know - anti-Semitism is the oldest form of hatred based on "the other." But it is increasingly happening in what has been the safest country in history for the Jews. It is time for all Jews to stand for Israel and for Judaism. I hope that Jews in the above-referenced states do not vote for these anti-Israel candidates just because there is a "D" after their name.
Finally, I see no indication that Trump, the Democrats, or the mainstream media will stop their inflammatory speech. Therefore, it is up to each and every one of us to set the example. We need to do better.
Saturday, September 1, 2018
'And a Man Hears What He Wants to Hear and Disregards the Rest..."*
(* With apologies to Paul Simon.) There is no nice way to say this. The media pushes propaganda - left-wing propaganda - and my leftist friends devour it. Here is just one example. In the race for the governorship of Florida, Rep. Ron DeSantis (R) will be running against Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum (D). Gillum is a leftist, and is supported by Bernie Sanders.
Following the recent primary election, DeSantis was on the Laura Ingraham show on Fox. DeSantis: "I'm trying to make Florida even better; he (Gillum) wants to make Florida Venezuela." But, according to the Los Angeles Times (8/30/18 edition), "DeSantis warned Floridians not to 'monkey this up' by choosing Gillum, drawing protest from Democrats who accused him of using a racially charged phrase." Said the head of Florida's Democratic Party: "It's disgusting that Ron DeSantis is launching his general election campaign with racist dog whistles."
The Huffington Post had this online headline: "Ron DeSantis Tells Florida Not to 'Monkey This Up' By Electing Andrew Gillum." The left-wing site Vox ran with this online headline: "Ron DeSantis says Andrew Gillum winning Florida would 'monkey this up.'" Never one to be outdone, CNN's online headline read: "Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up.'" CNN wanted to be sure that their readers knew Mr. Gillum is a black man, in case they were unaware of that fact.
Except, for those who may be interested, this is the full comment by DeSantis: "The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state." Maybe there was more to the entire interview, but I do not see anything here about Mr. Gillum being black. But why should that matter to a media that wants to paint every Republican as being a racist (and sexist and islamophobic and homophobic and so on).
When my brother and I were kids, and we were fighting or just fooling around or just making too much noise for our Dad, he would tell us to "stop monkeying around." My father, a white man, made the comment to his two white sons. It was an expression. There was also a Yiddish expression used by our parents if we were acting up too much - they called us vilde chaya (wild animals).
The media is only too happy to depict all Republicans as being racist. And for my friends on the left who already believe it, this kind of distorted story serves only to confirm their beliefs.
Following the recent primary election, DeSantis was on the Laura Ingraham show on Fox. DeSantis: "I'm trying to make Florida even better; he (Gillum) wants to make Florida Venezuela." But, according to the Los Angeles Times (8/30/18 edition), "DeSantis warned Floridians not to 'monkey this up' by choosing Gillum, drawing protest from Democrats who accused him of using a racially charged phrase." Said the head of Florida's Democratic Party: "It's disgusting that Ron DeSantis is launching his general election campaign with racist dog whistles."
The Huffington Post had this online headline: "Ron DeSantis Tells Florida Not to 'Monkey This Up' By Electing Andrew Gillum." The left-wing site Vox ran with this online headline: "Ron DeSantis says Andrew Gillum winning Florida would 'monkey this up.'" Never one to be outdone, CNN's online headline read: "Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up.'" CNN wanted to be sure that their readers knew Mr. Gillum is a black man, in case they were unaware of that fact.
Except, for those who may be interested, this is the full comment by DeSantis: "The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state." Maybe there was more to the entire interview, but I do not see anything here about Mr. Gillum being black. But why should that matter to a media that wants to paint every Republican as being a racist (and sexist and islamophobic and homophobic and so on).
When my brother and I were kids, and we were fighting or just fooling around or just making too much noise for our Dad, he would tell us to "stop monkeying around." My father, a white man, made the comment to his two white sons. It was an expression. There was also a Yiddish expression used by our parents if we were acting up too much - they called us vilde chaya (wild animals).
The media is only too happy to depict all Republicans as being racist. And for my friends on the left who already believe it, this kind of distorted story serves only to confirm their beliefs.
Sunday, August 26, 2018
Socialism?
On the first page of the "Sunday Review" (opinion) section of the New York Times is an Op-Ed by author and professor of political science at Brooklyn College and the City University of New York, Corey Robin. The article is titled: "The New Socialists," and speaks quite favorably of socialism over capitalism. Professor Robin touts the young Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, who are openly socialist, and following in the footsteps of Bernie Sanders. He also seems to relish in what he calls the "skyrocketing" growth in membership of the Democratic Socialists of America, especially among the young.
The reader is told about the horrors of capitalism. "Under capitalism, we're forced to enter the market just to live." And: "Under capitalism, we're forced to submit to the boss." Of course, people might try becoming their own boss. Or, they could hope that someone just mails them a check every week. Although that really never worked for me. Or, one can play the lotto, if you don't mind really poor odds.
We are also told that "the socialist argument against capitalism, isn't that it makes us poor. It's that it makes us unfree." Old style Democrats, such as Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are not like today's socialist Democrats. "Today's young candidates of the left tell a story of personal struggle that meshes with their political vision." Interesting how the left, a la Karl Marx, equates all of life's struggles with economics. Thank you Karl Marx. Some of us have had life-long physical struggles; others, emotional struggles, family struggles, even struggles with friends. Of course, the left would find some convoluted way to connect it all to economics.
Then, we see what is perhaps the most telling comment in the article: "It's not enough to criticize Donald Trump or the Republicans; the Democrats are also complicit in the rot of American life." "The rot of American life." Wow. I am aware of various studies that do not rank the USA among the top ten countries in the world in either freedom or income; although we generally come in just over or under number 20. Those rankings get us in or near the top 10% of countries in the world. If life in the US is "rot," then what does that say about the other 90%? How comforting to know that professors such as Professor Robin get to fill young people's heads with loathing for America.
Then, the professor explains the difference between just liberals and socialists. "With their talk of Medicare for all or increasing the minimum wage, these socialist candidates sound like New Deal or Great Society liberals. There's not much discussion, yet, of classic socialist tenets like worker control or collective ownership of the means of production." (As usual, the socialists are really talking about communism, with government/worker control.) You see, "the socialist...believes that making things free makes people free." Hmmm. But who makes all the free stuff? And what motivates them to put in the hours to make free stuff?
Finally, we are told that socialists "are already debating the next steps: state ownership of certain industries, worker councils and economic cooperatives, (and) sovereign wealth funds." I am curious as to how this state ownership comes about. Do they steal companies from their rightful owners? If so, I guess that's not "freedom" for everybody. Does the government start new businesses, and undercut private businesses, putting thousands, if not millions, of people out of work? If you want to know what supermarket shelves look like in socialist countries, take a look at pictures from the Soviet Union, or more recently, Venezuela. And read the stories about how women in Venezuela have taken to prostitution in order to feed their families.
As for the so-called "socialist" countries of Scandinavia and Europe, the reality is that they are market based economies with high taxes, which allows them, in turn, to provide some of the "free" stuff that socialists think their worker collectives will provide. Actual socialist/communist countries fail - always. Which is why those that have tried it ultimately revert to capitalism - the greatest system ever devised for the creation of wealth.
The reader is told about the horrors of capitalism. "Under capitalism, we're forced to enter the market just to live." And: "Under capitalism, we're forced to submit to the boss." Of course, people might try becoming their own boss. Or, they could hope that someone just mails them a check every week. Although that really never worked for me. Or, one can play the lotto, if you don't mind really poor odds.
We are also told that "the socialist argument against capitalism, isn't that it makes us poor. It's that it makes us unfree." Old style Democrats, such as Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are not like today's socialist Democrats. "Today's young candidates of the left tell a story of personal struggle that meshes with their political vision." Interesting how the left, a la Karl Marx, equates all of life's struggles with economics. Thank you Karl Marx. Some of us have had life-long physical struggles; others, emotional struggles, family struggles, even struggles with friends. Of course, the left would find some convoluted way to connect it all to economics.
Then, we see what is perhaps the most telling comment in the article: "It's not enough to criticize Donald Trump or the Republicans; the Democrats are also complicit in the rot of American life." "The rot of American life." Wow. I am aware of various studies that do not rank the USA among the top ten countries in the world in either freedom or income; although we generally come in just over or under number 20. Those rankings get us in or near the top 10% of countries in the world. If life in the US is "rot," then what does that say about the other 90%? How comforting to know that professors such as Professor Robin get to fill young people's heads with loathing for America.
Then, the professor explains the difference between just liberals and socialists. "With their talk of Medicare for all or increasing the minimum wage, these socialist candidates sound like New Deal or Great Society liberals. There's not much discussion, yet, of classic socialist tenets like worker control or collective ownership of the means of production." (As usual, the socialists are really talking about communism, with government/worker control.) You see, "the socialist...believes that making things free makes people free." Hmmm. But who makes all the free stuff? And what motivates them to put in the hours to make free stuff?
Finally, we are told that socialists "are already debating the next steps: state ownership of certain industries, worker councils and economic cooperatives, (and) sovereign wealth funds." I am curious as to how this state ownership comes about. Do they steal companies from their rightful owners? If so, I guess that's not "freedom" for everybody. Does the government start new businesses, and undercut private businesses, putting thousands, if not millions, of people out of work? If you want to know what supermarket shelves look like in socialist countries, take a look at pictures from the Soviet Union, or more recently, Venezuela. And read the stories about how women in Venezuela have taken to prostitution in order to feed their families.
As for the so-called "socialist" countries of Scandinavia and Europe, the reality is that they are market based economies with high taxes, which allows them, in turn, to provide some of the "free" stuff that socialists think their worker collectives will provide. Actual socialist/communist countries fail - always. Which is why those that have tried it ultimately revert to capitalism - the greatest system ever devised for the creation of wealth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)