With the recent testimony of Michael Cohen, it became apparent that the Dems did not have the Russian collusion story that they were seeking. After all, Cohen said he had no hard evidence of collusion. Cohen was supposed to have been in Prague to further the conspiracy with Russia, except that he testified that he has never been in the Czech Republic. And, he could not even support the allegation that Trump told him to lie to Congress i.e. obstruction; saying that Trump never told him to lie to Congress, it was just the way he interpreted what Trump said.
But none of that matters to Rep. Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler decided he needs to delve into every corner of Trump's life, and 81 other people and entities that have had contact with Trump. As one commentator noted, Nadler's approach is reminiscent of Stalin's secret police chief: "show me the man and I'll show you the crime." To put it another way, one of the Watergate attorneys said if the government wants to get someone, they'll get them. I do not care which side of the fence you are on, if you agree with Nadler then shame on you. And if you do agree, then I propose we open up a special prosecutor on each and every member of Congress. Once we start looking into their closets I would bet we can get rid of at least half of them.
Nadler justifies his "inquisition" by claiming that President Trump makes "near-daily attacks on our basic legal, ethical, and constitutional rules and norms." After all, one reporter from the Washington Post said "the administration's war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I've seen since the Nixon administration." And a reporter from the New York Times called the administration "the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation." And, the San Diego Union Tribune called the administration "the least transparent and the most antagonistic toward the media since the Nixon administration." They also said the administration "prosecuted three times as many cases targeting whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous administrations combined."
Did you guess it? The truth is none of the above comments were made about the Trump administration - they were all said about the Obama administration. Not only did he attack the press, as indicated above, he went all-out against Fox News. And the Constitution? Obama was not much for the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Recall that he said he had a pen and he had a phone, and if Congress would not act he would. Recall his executive order regarding the "Dreamers," DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). Except, the Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws on immigration, not the President.
You may recall that immediately after the passage of the Affordable Care Act many employers were concerned about being able to comply. I am sure it was entirely coincidental that of the over 2000 waivers granted, about 20% were in the district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Talk about corruption. And the State of Nevada, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's home state, got a waiver. For the entire state. Aside from the obvious corruption, favoring the two people who helped push the ACA through Congress, the granting of those waivers by the Obama Administration was illegal. The ACA was law. Obama had no authority to grant waivers for a year. When there is a problem with a statute, it is up to the legislative body that passed the law to pass what is called "clean up legislation" to fix those problems. The executive has no such authority. But that did not stop Obama.
Let us not forget that it was the Obama administration that illegally used the IRS to target conservative groups and individuals. If you do not recall this, or if you do not believe me, just look at the 10/27/17 post by Peter Overby on NPR, a liberal site. The article notes that the IRS "expresses its sincere apology" for the mistreatment of conservative groups. The article also references a substantial settlement between the IRS and numerous conservative groups.
Again, there was no prosecution of Hillary Clinton, who, as Secretary of State, set up a private email server for her official business. The deletion of 33,000 of her emails was never prosecuted for obstruction of justice. Now that the Dems are the "law and order" party, perhaps they can explain why they have no interest in the daily violation of our immigration laws at our southern border.
If you still believe the claptrap claim by Nadler used to justify all of his unwarranted scrutiny into every aspect of Trump's life, then I am sorry to say - but you care more about "getting Trump" than the future success and survival of our country. And, I would suggest that you might want to pray that the government does not come looking for you. Because this is an investigation in search of a crime.
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Some Preliminary Thoughts on Michael Cohen's Congressional Testimony
Former Trump lawyer, and self-described "fixer," Michael Cohen testified before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday. I think most of us would agree that the vast majority of Congressional hearings amount to nothing more than political theater, regardless of which party is in charge. With that in mind, it was impossible to not notice Lanny Davis sitting right behind Cohen. Davis, of course, is long time Clinton confidant and democratic operative. What a coincidence. And, we learned from Cohen's testimony that Davis is representing Cohen for free; although he hopes to be able to pay him someday.
Davis recently wrote a book: "The Unmaking of the President 2016: How FBI Director James Comey Cost Hillary Clinton the Election." Davis has not hidden his dislike for Trump. It must be especially upsetting that Trump defeated Davis' good friend, Hillary Clinton. Which brings us to ask - why would an attorney have his client testify when such testimony might put that client in further legal jeopardy? There is the possibility that Cohen was hoping for a further reduction in his sentence. But, with Davis as his attorney, we can not rule out Davis wanting Cohen to testify in order to "get" Trump, the man who not only defeated his close friend but made calls to "lock her up." (I was opposed to those comments by Trump.)
Cohen's closing remarks did much to reveal his true motivation in testifying - get Trump. Recall that these investigations were all about "Russian collusion." Except that Cohen testified that there was no collusion. Cohen's closing remarks were essentially a series of Democrat talking points, and just made up stuff. For example: "...given my experience in working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, that there will never be a peaceful transition of power and this is why I agreed to appear before you today." Interesting, but Cohen has absolutely no evidence to support his outrageous suggestion. But if the goal is to "get Trump" it does not matter.
Talking point: "You don't use the power of the bully pulpit to destroy the credibility of those who speak out against you." It was unclear if Cohen was referring to the mainstream media or individuals. If the reference was to the mainstream media, many of us would say good for Trump. Why should he have to take the non-stop attacks, some merited but many not. Why should Trump have to tolerate lies by the media without defending himself? Do we want a wimpy President? Talking point: "You don't separate families from one another, or demonize those looking to America for a better life, you don't vilify people based on the g-d they pray to." So, Cohen now opposes Trump's immigration policies, and categorizes Trump's motivations as being mean-spirited. Many of us saw the first president in over 30 years being willing to take on the immigration issue, an issue that has been of no concern to either party. Millions of Americans agree with Trump on immigration. And what does an immigration talking point have to do with Russian collusion? Oh, that's right - get Trump.
Another Democrat talking point: "...you don't cuddle up to our adversaries at the expense of our allies." I think Cohen is confusing Trump with Obama. From day one Obama cuddled up to dictators and terrorist groups in the Middle East at the expense of our democratic ally Israel. Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood (while outlawed by Egypt) to his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo. He sided with Palestinian terrorists over Israel. Talking point: "...you don't shut down the government just before Christmas and New Year's just to appease your base. This behavior is churlish, it denigrates the office of the President, and it's simply un-American and it's not you." Many people disagreed with the shutting down of the government; and its connection to Russian collusion is...?
At one point Cohen was annoyed that the Republicans on the committee were only interested in painting him to be a liar (in fairness he is an admitted liar) rather than asking what he knows about Trump. Had I been on that committee I would have addressed his annoyance this way: "As an attorney, I was taught that a client's communications are both privileged and confidential; that the holder of the privilege is the client, in your case that would be President Trump. I really do not care if the Mueller team or the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York do not respect the attorney-client privilege, but I do. And, contrary to my Democratic colleagues on this committee, I am not about to ask you questions that will encourage and enable you to break that revered privilege. But that's just me, Mr. Cohen. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way."
Davis recently wrote a book: "The Unmaking of the President 2016: How FBI Director James Comey Cost Hillary Clinton the Election." Davis has not hidden his dislike for Trump. It must be especially upsetting that Trump defeated Davis' good friend, Hillary Clinton. Which brings us to ask - why would an attorney have his client testify when such testimony might put that client in further legal jeopardy? There is the possibility that Cohen was hoping for a further reduction in his sentence. But, with Davis as his attorney, we can not rule out Davis wanting Cohen to testify in order to "get" Trump, the man who not only defeated his close friend but made calls to "lock her up." (I was opposed to those comments by Trump.)
Cohen's closing remarks did much to reveal his true motivation in testifying - get Trump. Recall that these investigations were all about "Russian collusion." Except that Cohen testified that there was no collusion. Cohen's closing remarks were essentially a series of Democrat talking points, and just made up stuff. For example: "...given my experience in working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, that there will never be a peaceful transition of power and this is why I agreed to appear before you today." Interesting, but Cohen has absolutely no evidence to support his outrageous suggestion. But if the goal is to "get Trump" it does not matter.
Talking point: "You don't use the power of the bully pulpit to destroy the credibility of those who speak out against you." It was unclear if Cohen was referring to the mainstream media or individuals. If the reference was to the mainstream media, many of us would say good for Trump. Why should he have to take the non-stop attacks, some merited but many not. Why should Trump have to tolerate lies by the media without defending himself? Do we want a wimpy President? Talking point: "You don't separate families from one another, or demonize those looking to America for a better life, you don't vilify people based on the g-d they pray to." So, Cohen now opposes Trump's immigration policies, and categorizes Trump's motivations as being mean-spirited. Many of us saw the first president in over 30 years being willing to take on the immigration issue, an issue that has been of no concern to either party. Millions of Americans agree with Trump on immigration. And what does an immigration talking point have to do with Russian collusion? Oh, that's right - get Trump.
Another Democrat talking point: "...you don't cuddle up to our adversaries at the expense of our allies." I think Cohen is confusing Trump with Obama. From day one Obama cuddled up to dictators and terrorist groups in the Middle East at the expense of our democratic ally Israel. Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood (while outlawed by Egypt) to his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo. He sided with Palestinian terrorists over Israel. Talking point: "...you don't shut down the government just before Christmas and New Year's just to appease your base. This behavior is churlish, it denigrates the office of the President, and it's simply un-American and it's not you." Many people disagreed with the shutting down of the government; and its connection to Russian collusion is...?
At one point Cohen was annoyed that the Republicans on the committee were only interested in painting him to be a liar (in fairness he is an admitted liar) rather than asking what he knows about Trump. Had I been on that committee I would have addressed his annoyance this way: "As an attorney, I was taught that a client's communications are both privileged and confidential; that the holder of the privilege is the client, in your case that would be President Trump. I really do not care if the Mueller team or the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York do not respect the attorney-client privilege, but I do. And, contrary to my Democratic colleagues on this committee, I am not about to ask you questions that will encourage and enable you to break that revered privilege. But that's just me, Mr. Cohen. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way."
Monday, February 18, 2019
More Reflections on the News
Former FBI Acting Director, Andrew McCabe, is on tour and on TV pushing his new book. Recall that we learned it was back in August, 2016, that a meeting was held in McCabe's office with McCabe, FBI counter intelligence chief Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page. Recall that Page said to Strzok, also her lover, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office - that there's no way he (Trump) gets elected - but I'm afraid we can't take the risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're forty..." Trump is "not ever going to become president, right?" Strzok: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it." Fast forward to May, 2017, after Trump in fact won and did become President. McCabe then authorizes an independent counsel to supposedly investigate Russian collusion in the 2016 election, although the true purpose seems to have been to investigate Trump and anyone associated with him.
Recently, McCabe said this: "Rod (Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General) raised the issue (of the 25th Amendment) and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort." According to McCabe, Rosenstein opined: "I never get searched when I go into the White House. I could easily wear a recording device. They wouldn't know it was there." Imagine, that two of the highest ranking people in our justice system were discussing the deposing of the President of the United States. I do no care if you dislike Trump. I do not care if you hate Trump. This should outrage everyone. Apparently, there was no discussion of the legal niceties of things like probable cause and the obtaining of a search warrant. And let's not forget the true purpose of the 25th Amendment. It allows the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet to declare that the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."
"Unable to discharge" does not mean we don't like Trump, or we don't like his policies, or we don't like his demeanor. And it assuredly is not a substitute for the impeachment process, which does deal with misconduct by the President. If the FBI thought Russia was trying to gain undue influence over the Trump campaign, why not warn Trump? Maybe for the same reason Hillary got away with having a private email server as Secretary of State without being charged for violation of government secrecy laws, and with deleting 33,000 emails and not being charged with obstruction of justice, and for using Bleach Bit to destroy her hard drives. The DC crowd would do anything to help Clinton beat Trump, and charging Clinton just would not do. Just to make sure the fix was in, husband Bill "coincidentally" met with then Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix. Following that meeting, Lynch said she would abide by Comey's decision (which was not his to make), and Comey dutifully announced that there would be no prosecution of Hillary. (For more on this topic see the 3/12/17 post: "The Deposing of an American President." That's right, the desire to "get" Trump has been going on since he took office.)
In yet a further attack on Trump from a man who greatly dislikes him, comes the story of Jussie Smollett. After accusing two white men, wearing MAGA hats, and saying this is MAGA country, Smollett said they made racial slurs and threatened him with a rope around his neck, Chicago PD is now saying that it did not happen. But it made great fodder for the mainstream media, which already hates Trump. After all, Trump is always accused of setting the tone, of being a racist. One of the commentators on CNN concluded this: "He said his attackers hurled racial and homophobic slurs at him. And this is America in 2019." Is it though? Or is it typical of the Left's view that nothing has changed in race relations in America in the last 100 years?
But maybe not everyone has progressed. A friend and reader, and an alum of Dickinson College in Pennsylvania, forwarded to me a piece in the student paper. Said the writer: "I am so g-ddamned tired of listening to white boys. I cannot describe to you how frustrating it is to be forced to listen to a white boy explain his take on the Black experience in the Obama era...In what world would your understanding of my life carry more weight than my understanding? Unfortunately, it is this world, where white men debate the pain of other people for fun and then take away their rights." Where does a young black woman learn this kind of hatred? In the college/university system, where the overwhelming number of professors are left-wing.
And this from another student paper in another esteemed university, Washington University in St. Louis: "It's OK that conservatives don't feel welcome...we shouldn't...pretend, out of politeness, that there's anything valuable in the Republican policy agenda." After all, this student opines: conservative ideas don't "deserve equal consideration to that afforded liberal and left ideas." Imagine growing up in a society where everyone tells you that the world is flat - your public schools, the TV shows and movies you watch, the newspapers or online media that you read and your college professors. Then, along comes someone who tells you the world is round. How could that notion possibly "deserve equal consideration" to everything that you have ever heard, read or been told?
Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar made the news yet again with another antisemitic remark concerning Jewish money in politics buying support for Israel. Specifically, she had in mind AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). While AIPAC does lobby to support the continuing good relationship between the US and Israel, it does not donate to political campaigns. After being forced by the House leadership to apologize, Omar's non-apology was followed by this: "I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether its AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry." Well, Congresswoman Omar must not be opposed to all PACs; after all she received nearly $60,000 in PAC money, including $5000 from CAIR - the Council on American-Islamic Relations. And Omar is to be the keynote speaker at Islamic Relief USA on 2/23/19. That is a group with one official having "advocated for violence against Jews." (Per the Jerusalem Post) So, of course, I believe her apology for her umpteenth anti-Semitic comment was sincere.
Recently, McCabe said this: "Rod (Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General) raised the issue (of the 25th Amendment) and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort." According to McCabe, Rosenstein opined: "I never get searched when I go into the White House. I could easily wear a recording device. They wouldn't know it was there." Imagine, that two of the highest ranking people in our justice system were discussing the deposing of the President of the United States. I do no care if you dislike Trump. I do not care if you hate Trump. This should outrage everyone. Apparently, there was no discussion of the legal niceties of things like probable cause and the obtaining of a search warrant. And let's not forget the true purpose of the 25th Amendment. It allows the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet to declare that the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."
"Unable to discharge" does not mean we don't like Trump, or we don't like his policies, or we don't like his demeanor. And it assuredly is not a substitute for the impeachment process, which does deal with misconduct by the President. If the FBI thought Russia was trying to gain undue influence over the Trump campaign, why not warn Trump? Maybe for the same reason Hillary got away with having a private email server as Secretary of State without being charged for violation of government secrecy laws, and with deleting 33,000 emails and not being charged with obstruction of justice, and for using Bleach Bit to destroy her hard drives. The DC crowd would do anything to help Clinton beat Trump, and charging Clinton just would not do. Just to make sure the fix was in, husband Bill "coincidentally" met with then Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix. Following that meeting, Lynch said she would abide by Comey's decision (which was not his to make), and Comey dutifully announced that there would be no prosecution of Hillary. (For more on this topic see the 3/12/17 post: "The Deposing of an American President." That's right, the desire to "get" Trump has been going on since he took office.)
In yet a further attack on Trump from a man who greatly dislikes him, comes the story of Jussie Smollett. After accusing two white men, wearing MAGA hats, and saying this is MAGA country, Smollett said they made racial slurs and threatened him with a rope around his neck, Chicago PD is now saying that it did not happen. But it made great fodder for the mainstream media, which already hates Trump. After all, Trump is always accused of setting the tone, of being a racist. One of the commentators on CNN concluded this: "He said his attackers hurled racial and homophobic slurs at him. And this is America in 2019." Is it though? Or is it typical of the Left's view that nothing has changed in race relations in America in the last 100 years?
But maybe not everyone has progressed. A friend and reader, and an alum of Dickinson College in Pennsylvania, forwarded to me a piece in the student paper. Said the writer: "I am so g-ddamned tired of listening to white boys. I cannot describe to you how frustrating it is to be forced to listen to a white boy explain his take on the Black experience in the Obama era...In what world would your understanding of my life carry more weight than my understanding? Unfortunately, it is this world, where white men debate the pain of other people for fun and then take away their rights." Where does a young black woman learn this kind of hatred? In the college/university system, where the overwhelming number of professors are left-wing.
And this from another student paper in another esteemed university, Washington University in St. Louis: "It's OK that conservatives don't feel welcome...we shouldn't...pretend, out of politeness, that there's anything valuable in the Republican policy agenda." After all, this student opines: conservative ideas don't "deserve equal consideration to that afforded liberal and left ideas." Imagine growing up in a society where everyone tells you that the world is flat - your public schools, the TV shows and movies you watch, the newspapers or online media that you read and your college professors. Then, along comes someone who tells you the world is round. How could that notion possibly "deserve equal consideration" to everything that you have ever heard, read or been told?
Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar made the news yet again with another antisemitic remark concerning Jewish money in politics buying support for Israel. Specifically, she had in mind AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). While AIPAC does lobby to support the continuing good relationship between the US and Israel, it does not donate to political campaigns. After being forced by the House leadership to apologize, Omar's non-apology was followed by this: "I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether its AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry." Well, Congresswoman Omar must not be opposed to all PACs; after all she received nearly $60,000 in PAC money, including $5000 from CAIR - the Council on American-Islamic Relations. And Omar is to be the keynote speaker at Islamic Relief USA on 2/23/19. That is a group with one official having "advocated for violence against Jews." (Per the Jerusalem Post) So, of course, I believe her apology for her umpteenth anti-Semitic comment was sincere.
Sunday, February 10, 2019
The March Towards Socialism
(Note: For newer readers, and for those who - shockingly - do not read every post, this post follows on the August 26, 2018 post titled "Socialism?")
Yesterday, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren formally announced her candidacy for the office of President of the United States. Her speech could just as easily have been given by openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. And, reminiscent of Obama's desire to bring "fundamental change" to our country, Warren said: "Our fight is for big structural change." I am always surprised at how people cheer for fundamentally or structurally changing the wealthiest, freest country in history. As Warren told us, just tinkering with fixes is not enough. No, we need a complete overhaul of this great country.
Following up on the need for structural change, Warren told us that "over the years America's middle class has been deliberately hollowed out and families of color have been systematically discriminated against and denied their chance to build some security." Why would the wealthy seek to "deliberately hollow out" the middle class - the backbone of the country, the people who buy the goods and services - produced by the wealthy? Recall that Henry Ford knew he had to pay his employees enough so that they would be able to purchase his cars. And while there certainly was a history of systematic discrimination against blacks, Warren, like others on the Left, talks as if nothing has changed. After all, the key to getting their votes is to ensure that blacks always feel they are victims.
Warren told us that our country is based on "a rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else." Warren then told the cheering crowd how, from her humble beginnings as the daughter of a janitor, and then going to a local community college, she was able to become a teacher, a law school professor, a United States Senator and now a candidate for President of the United States. In watching her and her supporters, it seemed that none of them appreciated the irony in the contrast between a "rigged system," and anyone, notwithstanding their humble background, being able to achieve great success if they work hard enough.
Warren told us that she wants to put workers in corporate boardrooms. And, noting that the US is the wealthiest country, says: "I am tired of hearing that we can't afford to make real investments in child care, college and Medicare for all." On the one hand, one could argue that this is nothing more than the longstanding "guns or butter" argument in politics. On the other hand, it appears that people such as Warren, and others on the Left, have no clue as to how and why the United States became the wealthiest country in history. Hint - it was not because of socialism.
Warren, along with other likely Democratic candidates for President such as Cory Booker (NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Kamala Harris (CA) and Bernie Sanders (VT) all support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal." There are various Green New Deals that one can find online. The one proposed by the Green Party is essentially a call for communism. It would create a federal employment program, creating 25 million federally funded jobs. It would create publicly owned, non-profit banks at all levels of government. Obama had, before his candidacy, complained that the Bill of Rights only protected people from government action, it did not say what government must do for people. The Green Party's plan rectifies that by calling for a right to: a living wage, quality health care with single payer Medicare for all, free schooling from pre-school through college, the forgiving of college student loans, decent affordable housing with a halt to all foreclosures and evictions, accessible and affordable utilities and "fair" taxation. Quite a change from JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
Ocasio-Cortez's plan, introduced in the House and Senate, is actually a non-binding resolution providing that the Federal Government has a "duty" to create a Green New Deal (GND). The GND includes "a 10-year commitment to convert '100 percent of the power demand in the United States' to 'clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources,' to upgrade 'all existing buildings' to meet energy efficiency requirements, and to expand high speed rail so broadly that most air travel would be rendered obsolete." (As reported on page 1 of the 2/8/10 New York Times.) Air travel become obsolete?
In case you are wondering how the Left proposes to pay for all their new ideas, there is a plan for that. Sort of. The Federal Reserve can extend credit, as can new public banks. "Extend credit" sounds like forcing people into debt, poverty and bankruptcy in order to pay for everything. I recall an interview given by Ocasio-Cortez a while ago wherein she explained how she would pay for her Medicare for all plan: "You just pay for it." Yet another example of how the Left is clueless about wealth creation or monetary policy. They certainly do understand fiscal policy - tax and spend, tax and spend, and tax and spend some more.
Of course, Senator Warren has her own plan - a new "wealth tax." Households with a net worth of $50 million would pay a 2% "tax" on their wealth, with those having $1 billion or more paying 3%. The truth is this is not a "tax" at all. It is government confiscation of people's money. There is no economic activity or transaction involved, which might justify a tax. It is merely having accumulated "too much" in the eyes of the Left. It is one of the reasons that this blog opposed Obamacare - it placed a "tax" on inactivity - a failure to buy health insurance. This idea of taking away people's wealth reminds me of a scene (often discussed by a friend) in the movie Dr. Zhivago. After Dr. Zhivago goes off to treat the revolutionary Bolsheviks in their fight against the Czar's army, he returns home to find that his large family home is no longer his. Rather, with Lenin in power, the home has been converted to multiple dwellings for "the people," with the Party now owning the property.
Of course, no left-wing plan is complete without acknowledging the oppressed, victim class. Ocasio-Cortez's plan refers to the need to "stop, prevent and repair the historic oppression of"...fill in the blank. "Indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low income workers, women, elderly, unhoused, people with disabilities and youth." Pandering to identity politics is a tactic that the Left sees as the path towards electoral success - never mind that it divides people into groups, rather than unifying us all as Americans.
Yesterday, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren formally announced her candidacy for the office of President of the United States. Her speech could just as easily have been given by openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. And, reminiscent of Obama's desire to bring "fundamental change" to our country, Warren said: "Our fight is for big structural change." I am always surprised at how people cheer for fundamentally or structurally changing the wealthiest, freest country in history. As Warren told us, just tinkering with fixes is not enough. No, we need a complete overhaul of this great country.
Following up on the need for structural change, Warren told us that "over the years America's middle class has been deliberately hollowed out and families of color have been systematically discriminated against and denied their chance to build some security." Why would the wealthy seek to "deliberately hollow out" the middle class - the backbone of the country, the people who buy the goods and services - produced by the wealthy? Recall that Henry Ford knew he had to pay his employees enough so that they would be able to purchase his cars. And while there certainly was a history of systematic discrimination against blacks, Warren, like others on the Left, talks as if nothing has changed. After all, the key to getting their votes is to ensure that blacks always feel they are victims.
Warren told us that our country is based on "a rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else." Warren then told the cheering crowd how, from her humble beginnings as the daughter of a janitor, and then going to a local community college, she was able to become a teacher, a law school professor, a United States Senator and now a candidate for President of the United States. In watching her and her supporters, it seemed that none of them appreciated the irony in the contrast between a "rigged system," and anyone, notwithstanding their humble background, being able to achieve great success if they work hard enough.
Warren told us that she wants to put workers in corporate boardrooms. And, noting that the US is the wealthiest country, says: "I am tired of hearing that we can't afford to make real investments in child care, college and Medicare for all." On the one hand, one could argue that this is nothing more than the longstanding "guns or butter" argument in politics. On the other hand, it appears that people such as Warren, and others on the Left, have no clue as to how and why the United States became the wealthiest country in history. Hint - it was not because of socialism.
Warren, along with other likely Democratic candidates for President such as Cory Booker (NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Kamala Harris (CA) and Bernie Sanders (VT) all support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal." There are various Green New Deals that one can find online. The one proposed by the Green Party is essentially a call for communism. It would create a federal employment program, creating 25 million federally funded jobs. It would create publicly owned, non-profit banks at all levels of government. Obama had, before his candidacy, complained that the Bill of Rights only protected people from government action, it did not say what government must do for people. The Green Party's plan rectifies that by calling for a right to: a living wage, quality health care with single payer Medicare for all, free schooling from pre-school through college, the forgiving of college student loans, decent affordable housing with a halt to all foreclosures and evictions, accessible and affordable utilities and "fair" taxation. Quite a change from JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
Ocasio-Cortez's plan, introduced in the House and Senate, is actually a non-binding resolution providing that the Federal Government has a "duty" to create a Green New Deal (GND). The GND includes "a 10-year commitment to convert '100 percent of the power demand in the United States' to 'clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources,' to upgrade 'all existing buildings' to meet energy efficiency requirements, and to expand high speed rail so broadly that most air travel would be rendered obsolete." (As reported on page 1 of the 2/8/10 New York Times.) Air travel become obsolete?
In case you are wondering how the Left proposes to pay for all their new ideas, there is a plan for that. Sort of. The Federal Reserve can extend credit, as can new public banks. "Extend credit" sounds like forcing people into debt, poverty and bankruptcy in order to pay for everything. I recall an interview given by Ocasio-Cortez a while ago wherein she explained how she would pay for her Medicare for all plan: "You just pay for it." Yet another example of how the Left is clueless about wealth creation or monetary policy. They certainly do understand fiscal policy - tax and spend, tax and spend, and tax and spend some more.
Of course, Senator Warren has her own plan - a new "wealth tax." Households with a net worth of $50 million would pay a 2% "tax" on their wealth, with those having $1 billion or more paying 3%. The truth is this is not a "tax" at all. It is government confiscation of people's money. There is no economic activity or transaction involved, which might justify a tax. It is merely having accumulated "too much" in the eyes of the Left. It is one of the reasons that this blog opposed Obamacare - it placed a "tax" on inactivity - a failure to buy health insurance. This idea of taking away people's wealth reminds me of a scene (often discussed by a friend) in the movie Dr. Zhivago. After Dr. Zhivago goes off to treat the revolutionary Bolsheviks in their fight against the Czar's army, he returns home to find that his large family home is no longer his. Rather, with Lenin in power, the home has been converted to multiple dwellings for "the people," with the Party now owning the property.
Of course, no left-wing plan is complete without acknowledging the oppressed, victim class. Ocasio-Cortez's plan refers to the need to "stop, prevent and repair the historic oppression of"...fill in the blank. "Indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low income workers, women, elderly, unhoused, people with disabilities and youth." Pandering to identity politics is a tactic that the Left sees as the path towards electoral success - never mind that it divides people into groups, rather than unifying us all as Americans.
Sunday, February 3, 2019
New Year Reflections, Part II
Claim: President Trump has alienated our allies and seeks to undermine NATO. Here's the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg: "President Trump has been very clear. He is committed to NATO...he has clearly stated that NATO allies need to invest more...and now we see the results..by the end of next year, NATO allies will add...100 billion extra US dollars toward defense. So we see some real money and some real results. And we see that the clear message from President Donald Trump is having an impact." Clearly a result that will not please Putin.
Trump has announced his intention to have the US withdraw from a Nuclear Arms Control Treaty dealing with intermediate range missiles. Russia has been in violation of the treaty for years. China has not been bound by the treaty. The result has been the US is needlessly falling behind the two major powers whose interests are opposed to ours. Said Nancy Pelosi: "Russia's brazen noncompliance with this treaty is deeply concerning, but discarding a key pillar of our nonproliferation security framework creates unacceptable risks." More evidence of Russian collusion by Trump? Hardly. But it is evidence of the dream world in which the left operates. Pelosi opines that the treaty is a key pillar of our security - notwithstanding Russia's "brazen noncompliance." Pelosi wants the US to comply with a treaty that de facto does not even exist anymore.
In South Carolina, a man called the police after someone broke into his home and assaulted him. The perpetrator did not get away with any of the man's possessions or valuables. The police did, however. You see, the police found, and confiscated, one ounce of marijuana in his home, along with $1800 in cash. They charged the man with intent to distribute. The charges were dropped, but the police kept the money anyway under civil forfeiture laws; with many police departments using forfeiture as a fund raising mechanism for their departments. The man could not pay his rent, and the reporting on it said he was forced out. These civil forfeiture laws have no place in the United States of America.
One of the top Democrats negotiating with the Republicans over immigration, has declared that there will be no border wall. Of course, Speaker Pelosi has frequently said that, even declaring a wall to be "immoral." But this Democrat has indicated that they may agree to "some sort of enhanced barrier." I do not know what that might be. The current chief of the US Border Patrol said: "We certainly do need a wall. Talk to any border agent and they will tell you that." But don't just take his word for it. Here's Obama's chief of the Border Patrol: walls "absolutely work."
I'm a little confused about Virginia Governor Northam's comments about a photo in his 1984 medical school yearbook. The photo shows one person in blackface standing next to someone wearing a KKK hood. The Governor first admitted he was in the photo, but the next day denied that he was in the photo. Here's my question - what was such a photo doing in any yearbook in the year 1984?
The lead editorial in the 2/3/19 Los Angeles Times is titled "Trump's border 'emergency.'" The Times is concerned about Trump acting to build a border wall without Congressional authorization. I get it - separation of powers, three branches of government. But you may recall this from Obama: "We're not just going to be waiting for legislation...I've got a pen and I've got a phone...and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions." And this from Obama: "We can't wait for Congress to do its job, so where they won't act, I will."
One letter writer to the USA Today does not want to see another millionaire (I think he meant billionaire) in the White House. "It does not work, they do not understand or care about middle America." Really? After Trump cut taxes and regulations, we have seen record low unemployment numbers for many groups. We saw Trump renegotiating NAFTA in order to help keep jobs here. We see Trump pushing for better border security, which keeps people from coming here illegally and taking jobs from Americans. But the writer just repeats the left-wing mantra that Trump is an uncaring billionaire, who just cars about his wealthy friends.
The 2/3/19 New York Times had a lengthy article on page 6 titled "As Attacks by Jewish Settlers Surge, Israel Stays Silent." The article talks about increasing attacks by Jews against Palestinians in the West Bank. After noting recent Palestinian attacks on Jews, the Times does reference an "expert" saying "violence is endemic around settlements deep in the West Bank, and Jewish attacks often follow Palestinian ones." The gist of the article is that Israel is not being aggressive enough in prosecuting criminal attacks on Palestinians, hypothesizing that Netanyahu does not wish to upset the right wing with an election coming up soon. Let me be clear - attacks by either side on unarmed civilians are unacceptable, and should be punished accordingly. However, not surprisingly to this writer, the Times neglects to say what the Palestinians do about their criminals (terrorists) who kill innocent Jews. They reward them. They are idolized, with schools and parks named after Palestinians who kill Jews. The PA provides financial support to the families of those who are killed in the process of attacking Jews. It would have been nice if the Times had provided that balance to their story.
Finally, we now hear from the left that the MAGA hats are threatening. One guest on CNN said the hats are "just as maddening and frustrating and triggering for me to look at it as a KKK hood." Alyssa Milano also referred to the MAGA hats as the new white hood. To say that the left makes outrageous comparisons about what "offends" them is an understatement. The implication is that if you "support" Trump then you are a racist. If this sounds familiar, just think of Hillary's "basket of deplorables." The left's argument does not change.
Trump has announced his intention to have the US withdraw from a Nuclear Arms Control Treaty dealing with intermediate range missiles. Russia has been in violation of the treaty for years. China has not been bound by the treaty. The result has been the US is needlessly falling behind the two major powers whose interests are opposed to ours. Said Nancy Pelosi: "Russia's brazen noncompliance with this treaty is deeply concerning, but discarding a key pillar of our nonproliferation security framework creates unacceptable risks." More evidence of Russian collusion by Trump? Hardly. But it is evidence of the dream world in which the left operates. Pelosi opines that the treaty is a key pillar of our security - notwithstanding Russia's "brazen noncompliance." Pelosi wants the US to comply with a treaty that de facto does not even exist anymore.
In South Carolina, a man called the police after someone broke into his home and assaulted him. The perpetrator did not get away with any of the man's possessions or valuables. The police did, however. You see, the police found, and confiscated, one ounce of marijuana in his home, along with $1800 in cash. They charged the man with intent to distribute. The charges were dropped, but the police kept the money anyway under civil forfeiture laws; with many police departments using forfeiture as a fund raising mechanism for their departments. The man could not pay his rent, and the reporting on it said he was forced out. These civil forfeiture laws have no place in the United States of America.
One of the top Democrats negotiating with the Republicans over immigration, has declared that there will be no border wall. Of course, Speaker Pelosi has frequently said that, even declaring a wall to be "immoral." But this Democrat has indicated that they may agree to "some sort of enhanced barrier." I do not know what that might be. The current chief of the US Border Patrol said: "We certainly do need a wall. Talk to any border agent and they will tell you that." But don't just take his word for it. Here's Obama's chief of the Border Patrol: walls "absolutely work."
I'm a little confused about Virginia Governor Northam's comments about a photo in his 1984 medical school yearbook. The photo shows one person in blackface standing next to someone wearing a KKK hood. The Governor first admitted he was in the photo, but the next day denied that he was in the photo. Here's my question - what was such a photo doing in any yearbook in the year 1984?
The lead editorial in the 2/3/19 Los Angeles Times is titled "Trump's border 'emergency.'" The Times is concerned about Trump acting to build a border wall without Congressional authorization. I get it - separation of powers, three branches of government. But you may recall this from Obama: "We're not just going to be waiting for legislation...I've got a pen and I've got a phone...and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions." And this from Obama: "We can't wait for Congress to do its job, so where they won't act, I will."
One letter writer to the USA Today does not want to see another millionaire (I think he meant billionaire) in the White House. "It does not work, they do not understand or care about middle America." Really? After Trump cut taxes and regulations, we have seen record low unemployment numbers for many groups. We saw Trump renegotiating NAFTA in order to help keep jobs here. We see Trump pushing for better border security, which keeps people from coming here illegally and taking jobs from Americans. But the writer just repeats the left-wing mantra that Trump is an uncaring billionaire, who just cars about his wealthy friends.
The 2/3/19 New York Times had a lengthy article on page 6 titled "As Attacks by Jewish Settlers Surge, Israel Stays Silent." The article talks about increasing attacks by Jews against Palestinians in the West Bank. After noting recent Palestinian attacks on Jews, the Times does reference an "expert" saying "violence is endemic around settlements deep in the West Bank, and Jewish attacks often follow Palestinian ones." The gist of the article is that Israel is not being aggressive enough in prosecuting criminal attacks on Palestinians, hypothesizing that Netanyahu does not wish to upset the right wing with an election coming up soon. Let me be clear - attacks by either side on unarmed civilians are unacceptable, and should be punished accordingly. However, not surprisingly to this writer, the Times neglects to say what the Palestinians do about their criminals (terrorists) who kill innocent Jews. They reward them. They are idolized, with schools and parks named after Palestinians who kill Jews. The PA provides financial support to the families of those who are killed in the process of attacking Jews. It would have been nice if the Times had provided that balance to their story.
Finally, we now hear from the left that the MAGA hats are threatening. One guest on CNN said the hats are "just as maddening and frustrating and triggering for me to look at it as a KKK hood." Alyssa Milano also referred to the MAGA hats as the new white hood. To say that the left makes outrageous comparisons about what "offends" them is an understatement. The implication is that if you "support" Trump then you are a racist. If this sounds familiar, just think of Hillary's "basket of deplorables." The left's argument does not change.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
As the Attacks on Israel Accelerate, Where Do You Stand?
I understand that Israel is not the biggest issue for most Americans. I do not understand how Israel is not any issue for many American Jews. It bears repeating that 71 years ago Jews around the world celebrated the emergence of the new State of Israel. No one needed to explain to them the importance of having a Jewish homeland. Following the Holocaust, Jews could no longer live under the assumption that "it can't happen here." Not after it happened in the modern, industrialized country of Germany, with other European countries aligned with them. But here we are a single lifetime later and much has changed.
In a 1/19/19 Op-Ed in the New York Times, Michelle Alexander asserts that it's "Time to Break the Silence on Palestine." She claims that elected officials, many civil rights activists and many students fear expressing support for Palestinian rights, with fear of being labeled "anti-Semitic." This allegation is pure nonsense. The 11/28/18 Washington Examiner reported that "over 1,500 faculty at more than 250 U.S. universities have publicly supported the boycott of Israeli academics and institutions." On many major university campuses there is a yearly "Israel Apartheid Week," with a symbolic wall displayed with anti-Israel literature handed out. What is true is the increasing anti-Semitism on many college campuses across the country. What is true is that many Jewish students are fearful of openly supporting Israel. It has gotten so bad that the Algemeiner, an online Jewish paper, listed "The 40 Worst Colleges for Jewish Students, 2017." These are major colleges and universities on the list.
Alexander lauds the election of two new members of Congress, both Democrats (Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib), openly supporting the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. Tlaib has called Israel a "racist" country, not worthy of receiving US aid. Tlaib wants to see a one-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, expecting the Palestinians to be in the majority. That amounts to a call for the end of the one Jewish state in the world. Nancy Pelosi has deemed it appropriate to put Omar on the very important House Foreign Affairs Committee. Omar: "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." As the left takes increasing control of the Democratic Party, we will see how long it takes for Israel to be considered unacceptable as an ally. Tlaib has hosted an anti-Israel activist who has praised Hezbollah and said "Israel does not have a right to exist." If you are waiting to hear any condemnation of these members of the House from the Democratic leadership - don't. However, House Republicans joined in the condemnation of Rep. Steve King for speaking well of white supremacy; and House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy stripped King from his senior committee assignments. But these leftists are now an essential part of the Democratic party.
Which brings us to the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic leaders of the Women's March. Linda Sarsour has said that "a Zionist cannot call herself a feminist." On PBS' "Firing Line," Tamika Mallory was asked if Israel has a right to exist. She refused to answer, saying that "people" have a right to exist. While claiming that Palestinians are native to the land of Israel, she would not acknowledge that Jews were. No acknowledgement of King David or King Solomon or the First Temple or the Second Temple. Sarsour has referred to Louis Farrakhan as the GOAT - Greatest of All Time. Farrakhan is likely the most outspoken anti-Semite in the country. Mallory and Carmen Perez allege that Jews have a "collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people."
Less than 74 years after the end of the Holocaust, how are the Jews in Europe faring today? The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights polled 16,500 Jews in 12 European countries. The Jews in those countries constitute 90% of the Jews in the European Union (as reported in the 12/12/18 Wall Street Journal article by David Schwammenthal). 85% reported that anti-Semitism is a problem in their country. A third, 34%, actually avoid going to Jewish events or Jewish locations, presumably out of fear. As the Muslim population in Europe has increased, and as the left has increasingly aligned themselves with the Muslims, hatred of Israel is often expressed as an attack on all Jews. 51% of those polled said they frequently or always hear that "Israelis behave like Nazis" towards the Palestinians. And a third said they hear frequently or all the time that "The world would be a better place without Israel."
In the UK, Jeremy Corbyn is the head of Labour, one of the two largest political parties. Currently, the head of the conservative Tory party, Theresa May, is the Prime Minister. Should Corbyn become Prime Minister, he has promised to recognize "Palestine" his first day in office. Corbyn welcomed members of Hamas and Hezbollah to the Parliament as "friends." He was seen laying a wreath at a memorial ceremony for the members of Black September, the group responsible for the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Muslims far outnumber Jews in the UK, with the 2011 census showing 261,282 Jews and 2,660,116 Muslims. It is a story that is being repeated throughout Europe. And it's coming to the United States. Pew estimated there were 3.45 million Muslims in the US in 2017, with a record number being admitted in 2016 under Obama. Am I anti-Muslim? Not if they believe in "live and let live." Not if they believe in government under the Constitution and not Sharia law. And not if they believe that Israel has a right to exist.
But I'm not the problem. The Palestinian Authority wants the UN General Assembly to reinstate a 1975 resolution (later repealed in 1991) stating that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." There is a fifth grade textbook used in Palestinian schools as of 2017, that discusses the importance of heroes. As noted in an article in the Jerusalem Post, the heroes mentioned were not artists or athletes, not scientists or doctors; no, they were combatants, including the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, responsible for killing 25 adult Israelis and 12 children, in an attack on a bus. The book tells Palestinian students that people like her are the martyrs, the heroes - "Bravo to the heroes, scorn to the cowards." At least 5 schools were named after Mughrabi, as the PA continues to support the families of those "martyrs" who kill Jews.
In the 1/6/19 New York Times was another Op-Ed about Israel: "American Jews and Israeli Jews Break Up." The article, by a Jonathan Weisman, tells us that, while 75% of American Jews voted for Democrats in the recent midterm elections, 69% of Israelis have a positive view of the US under Trump. Weisman tells us that "...for most American Jews, it is now accepted as a tenet of their religion: building a better, more equal, more tolerant world now, where they live." Weisman concludes: "Now many American Jews, would say, Israel is Israel's problem. We have our own." As I said, what a difference a single lifetime can make. As previously noted in this blog last year, were it not for Republican support for Israel, the US attitude towards Israel might resemble that of many European countries. But the January, 2018 Pew poll showed overwhelming support for Israel by Republicans - with 79% favoring Israel over the Palestinians. Not so for the Democrats, who showed 27% support for Israel over the Palestinians, with Independents coming in at 42% for Israel. The numbers are far worse in the UK.
Back to Ms. Alexander's Op-Ed. What was so blatantly missing from her blame Israel hit piece, was any discussion of the Palestinians' responsibility for their situation. There was no mention of the various wars launched against Israel in an effort to wipe the country off the map. No mention of the multiple opportunities the Palestinians had to have a state of their own, dating all the way back to the 1947 UN partition plan. There was no mention of Ehud Barak offering a state to Yasser Arafat in 2000, when they met at Bill Clinton's White House. Arafat walked out without making any counter proposals; rather, he returned to Ramallah to start the Second Intifada, when Palestinians wearing "suicide/homicide" vests blew up Jews on buses, in cafes, at malls, and even at a Passover Seder. Ms. Alexander made no mention of the state offered to PA President Mahmoud Abbas by then Israeli PM Ehud Olmert in 2008. Another rejected offer with no counter proposal. There was no mention of over one million Arabs living in Israel, with Abbas saying that not a single Jew may live in any future Palestinian state. And there was no mention of the endless terrorist attacks on Jews, and the teaching of Palestinian children that killing Jews is heroic.
So, where do I stand? If I truly had a reason to believe that giving the Palestinians a state would mean peace and the saving of lives, I would be in favor. But that would mean no more wars, no more terrorist attacks, no more trying to demonize Israel around the world. I have no reason to believe that would happen. I have every reason to believe that, as the Palestinians claim, they will not stop until they have all the land from the (Jordanian) river to the (Mediterranean) sea.
In a 1/19/19 Op-Ed in the New York Times, Michelle Alexander asserts that it's "Time to Break the Silence on Palestine." She claims that elected officials, many civil rights activists and many students fear expressing support for Palestinian rights, with fear of being labeled "anti-Semitic." This allegation is pure nonsense. The 11/28/18 Washington Examiner reported that "over 1,500 faculty at more than 250 U.S. universities have publicly supported the boycott of Israeli academics and institutions." On many major university campuses there is a yearly "Israel Apartheid Week," with a symbolic wall displayed with anti-Israel literature handed out. What is true is the increasing anti-Semitism on many college campuses across the country. What is true is that many Jewish students are fearful of openly supporting Israel. It has gotten so bad that the Algemeiner, an online Jewish paper, listed "The 40 Worst Colleges for Jewish Students, 2017." These are major colleges and universities on the list.
Alexander lauds the election of two new members of Congress, both Democrats (Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib), openly supporting the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. Tlaib has called Israel a "racist" country, not worthy of receiving US aid. Tlaib wants to see a one-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, expecting the Palestinians to be in the majority. That amounts to a call for the end of the one Jewish state in the world. Nancy Pelosi has deemed it appropriate to put Omar on the very important House Foreign Affairs Committee. Omar: "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." As the left takes increasing control of the Democratic Party, we will see how long it takes for Israel to be considered unacceptable as an ally. Tlaib has hosted an anti-Israel activist who has praised Hezbollah and said "Israel does not have a right to exist." If you are waiting to hear any condemnation of these members of the House from the Democratic leadership - don't. However, House Republicans joined in the condemnation of Rep. Steve King for speaking well of white supremacy; and House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy stripped King from his senior committee assignments. But these leftists are now an essential part of the Democratic party.
Which brings us to the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic leaders of the Women's March. Linda Sarsour has said that "a Zionist cannot call herself a feminist." On PBS' "Firing Line," Tamika Mallory was asked if Israel has a right to exist. She refused to answer, saying that "people" have a right to exist. While claiming that Palestinians are native to the land of Israel, she would not acknowledge that Jews were. No acknowledgement of King David or King Solomon or the First Temple or the Second Temple. Sarsour has referred to Louis Farrakhan as the GOAT - Greatest of All Time. Farrakhan is likely the most outspoken anti-Semite in the country. Mallory and Carmen Perez allege that Jews have a "collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people."
Less than 74 years after the end of the Holocaust, how are the Jews in Europe faring today? The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights polled 16,500 Jews in 12 European countries. The Jews in those countries constitute 90% of the Jews in the European Union (as reported in the 12/12/18 Wall Street Journal article by David Schwammenthal). 85% reported that anti-Semitism is a problem in their country. A third, 34%, actually avoid going to Jewish events or Jewish locations, presumably out of fear. As the Muslim population in Europe has increased, and as the left has increasingly aligned themselves with the Muslims, hatred of Israel is often expressed as an attack on all Jews. 51% of those polled said they frequently or always hear that "Israelis behave like Nazis" towards the Palestinians. And a third said they hear frequently or all the time that "The world would be a better place without Israel."
In the UK, Jeremy Corbyn is the head of Labour, one of the two largest political parties. Currently, the head of the conservative Tory party, Theresa May, is the Prime Minister. Should Corbyn become Prime Minister, he has promised to recognize "Palestine" his first day in office. Corbyn welcomed members of Hamas and Hezbollah to the Parliament as "friends." He was seen laying a wreath at a memorial ceremony for the members of Black September, the group responsible for the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Muslims far outnumber Jews in the UK, with the 2011 census showing 261,282 Jews and 2,660,116 Muslims. It is a story that is being repeated throughout Europe. And it's coming to the United States. Pew estimated there were 3.45 million Muslims in the US in 2017, with a record number being admitted in 2016 under Obama. Am I anti-Muslim? Not if they believe in "live and let live." Not if they believe in government under the Constitution and not Sharia law. And not if they believe that Israel has a right to exist.
But I'm not the problem. The Palestinian Authority wants the UN General Assembly to reinstate a 1975 resolution (later repealed in 1991) stating that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." There is a fifth grade textbook used in Palestinian schools as of 2017, that discusses the importance of heroes. As noted in an article in the Jerusalem Post, the heroes mentioned were not artists or athletes, not scientists or doctors; no, they were combatants, including the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, responsible for killing 25 adult Israelis and 12 children, in an attack on a bus. The book tells Palestinian students that people like her are the martyrs, the heroes - "Bravo to the heroes, scorn to the cowards." At least 5 schools were named after Mughrabi, as the PA continues to support the families of those "martyrs" who kill Jews.
In the 1/6/19 New York Times was another Op-Ed about Israel: "American Jews and Israeli Jews Break Up." The article, by a Jonathan Weisman, tells us that, while 75% of American Jews voted for Democrats in the recent midterm elections, 69% of Israelis have a positive view of the US under Trump. Weisman tells us that "...for most American Jews, it is now accepted as a tenet of their religion: building a better, more equal, more tolerant world now, where they live." Weisman concludes: "Now many American Jews, would say, Israel is Israel's problem. We have our own." As I said, what a difference a single lifetime can make. As previously noted in this blog last year, were it not for Republican support for Israel, the US attitude towards Israel might resemble that of many European countries. But the January, 2018 Pew poll showed overwhelming support for Israel by Republicans - with 79% favoring Israel over the Palestinians. Not so for the Democrats, who showed 27% support for Israel over the Palestinians, with Independents coming in at 42% for Israel. The numbers are far worse in the UK.
Back to Ms. Alexander's Op-Ed. What was so blatantly missing from her blame Israel hit piece, was any discussion of the Palestinians' responsibility for their situation. There was no mention of the various wars launched against Israel in an effort to wipe the country off the map. No mention of the multiple opportunities the Palestinians had to have a state of their own, dating all the way back to the 1947 UN partition plan. There was no mention of Ehud Barak offering a state to Yasser Arafat in 2000, when they met at Bill Clinton's White House. Arafat walked out without making any counter proposals; rather, he returned to Ramallah to start the Second Intifada, when Palestinians wearing "suicide/homicide" vests blew up Jews on buses, in cafes, at malls, and even at a Passover Seder. Ms. Alexander made no mention of the state offered to PA President Mahmoud Abbas by then Israeli PM Ehud Olmert in 2008. Another rejected offer with no counter proposal. There was no mention of over one million Arabs living in Israel, with Abbas saying that not a single Jew may live in any future Palestinian state. And there was no mention of the endless terrorist attacks on Jews, and the teaching of Palestinian children that killing Jews is heroic.
So, where do I stand? If I truly had a reason to believe that giving the Palestinians a state would mean peace and the saving of lives, I would be in favor. But that would mean no more wars, no more terrorist attacks, no more trying to demonize Israel around the world. I have no reason to believe that would happen. I have every reason to believe that, as the Palestinians claim, they will not stop until they have all the land from the (Jordanian) river to the (Mediterranean) sea.
Sunday, January 6, 2019
New Year Reflections, Part I
In the last post I mentioned an individual who wanted to see President Trump impeached and indicted and spend the rest of his life in prison because of "the insanity he has wreaked upon our nation." Would that include the incredible job growth of adding 312,000 jobs in December, which virtually doubled expectations. With the cuts in taxes and regulations, and renegotiated trade deals, our economy is doing exceedingly well. CNBC reported that the "manufacturing industry posts the biggest annual job gain in 20 years." Is that part of the "insanity wreaked upon our nation?" Remember when Obama mocked Trump's claim that he would bring back manufacturing jobs, asking if Trump had a magic wand? The magic wand is a man who knows business versus a community organizer who never ran or understood any business.
Nancy Pelosi refuses to fund a border wall, claiming that "a wall is an immorality, it's not who we are as a nation." But she did vote for a fence in 2006, so I guess a fence is not an immorality. Are all walls immoral? How about walls around prisons? If any members of Congress have walls around their property or live in gated communities, should all such walls and barriers come down? The Israelis built a wall/barrier between themselves and the Palestinians. The result has been their wall has saved Israeli lives. So while Israeli leaders are protecting their citizens, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are protecting illegal aliens.
Pelosi did tell the USA Today that Trump was "being a fear monger." Pelosi: "He (Trump) talked about terrorists coming in over that particular border, which wasn't so. He talked about people bringing in diseases and all the rest of that, which wasn't so." And this: "He's using scare tactics that are not evidence-based, and it's wrong." You have to love the mainstream media. Each and every word out of Trump's mouth is vetted, but Pelosi can spew whatever nonsense she wants without a single challenge. No diseases brought in? In June, 2017, for just one example, the CDC reported that the rate of TB in Mexico was five (5) times greater than the US rate. But Pelosi somehow knows that not a single one of the thousands, no, millions who have entered illegally have carried any TB or other diseases. And the media does not think to ask how she knows the unknowable. It used to be knowable, because people were required to have medical exams either here at an immigration center or in other countries before being allowed to enter the US.
As for bad guys coming into the country, the Deputy White House press secretary reported in July, 2018, that in the fiscal year 2017 48,000 criminal aliens were arrested for assault, 12,000 for sexual offenses, and 2000 for homicides. Anybody really willing to bet their safety that terrorists are not coming in illegally as well as all the criminals? Maybe Pelosi can tell the family members of Newman, California police Corporal Ronil Singh, 33 years old with a wife and 5 month old son, why his life was less important than that of the illegal alien accused of murdering him. Singh, who was a native of Fiji, dedicated his life to helping people. His accused murderer had apparently been arrested twice, but given the State's sanctuary law ICE was never notified of his presence here, allowing him to then allegedly murder Cpl Singh. I wonder if anyone in the media might yet have any questions for Pelosi.
California, in addition to being a sanctuary state, passed some rather interesting legislation. As of the end of this year, publicly traded companies must have at least one woman on its Board of Directors; and must have two by 2021. Other than Hawaii, California likely has the highest percentage of Asians - about 15% of the population. So, shouldn't every Board with at least 8 members be required to have one Asian on the Board? This is not only more identity politics, but government mandated quotas based on identity. Every Jew should be very wary of that, assuming they are familiar with the way quotas were historically used to deny entry to Jews to colleges and universities, for instance.
California is also requiring public utilities to develop plans for renewable energy. 60% of the state's electricity is to be from wind, solar, and other renewable/clean energy by 2030, with 100% required by 2045. Don't get me wrong - I am certainly not opposed to clean energy. But one friend regularly emails me articles about the number of flying species killed by these windmills. Not to mention just how unsightly these windmills are. I would ask if the California legislature considered the economic consequences of this law, but let's not be silly.
Nancy Pelosi refuses to fund a border wall, claiming that "a wall is an immorality, it's not who we are as a nation." But she did vote for a fence in 2006, so I guess a fence is not an immorality. Are all walls immoral? How about walls around prisons? If any members of Congress have walls around their property or live in gated communities, should all such walls and barriers come down? The Israelis built a wall/barrier between themselves and the Palestinians. The result has been their wall has saved Israeli lives. So while Israeli leaders are protecting their citizens, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are protecting illegal aliens.
Pelosi did tell the USA Today that Trump was "being a fear monger." Pelosi: "He (Trump) talked about terrorists coming in over that particular border, which wasn't so. He talked about people bringing in diseases and all the rest of that, which wasn't so." And this: "He's using scare tactics that are not evidence-based, and it's wrong." You have to love the mainstream media. Each and every word out of Trump's mouth is vetted, but Pelosi can spew whatever nonsense she wants without a single challenge. No diseases brought in? In June, 2017, for just one example, the CDC reported that the rate of TB in Mexico was five (5) times greater than the US rate. But Pelosi somehow knows that not a single one of the thousands, no, millions who have entered illegally have carried any TB or other diseases. And the media does not think to ask how she knows the unknowable. It used to be knowable, because people were required to have medical exams either here at an immigration center or in other countries before being allowed to enter the US.
As for bad guys coming into the country, the Deputy White House press secretary reported in July, 2018, that in the fiscal year 2017 48,000 criminal aliens were arrested for assault, 12,000 for sexual offenses, and 2000 for homicides. Anybody really willing to bet their safety that terrorists are not coming in illegally as well as all the criminals? Maybe Pelosi can tell the family members of Newman, California police Corporal Ronil Singh, 33 years old with a wife and 5 month old son, why his life was less important than that of the illegal alien accused of murdering him. Singh, who was a native of Fiji, dedicated his life to helping people. His accused murderer had apparently been arrested twice, but given the State's sanctuary law ICE was never notified of his presence here, allowing him to then allegedly murder Cpl Singh. I wonder if anyone in the media might yet have any questions for Pelosi.
California, in addition to being a sanctuary state, passed some rather interesting legislation. As of the end of this year, publicly traded companies must have at least one woman on its Board of Directors; and must have two by 2021. Other than Hawaii, California likely has the highest percentage of Asians - about 15% of the population. So, shouldn't every Board with at least 8 members be required to have one Asian on the Board? This is not only more identity politics, but government mandated quotas based on identity. Every Jew should be very wary of that, assuming they are familiar with the way quotas were historically used to deny entry to Jews to colleges and universities, for instance.
California is also requiring public utilities to develop plans for renewable energy. 60% of the state's electricity is to be from wind, solar, and other renewable/clean energy by 2030, with 100% required by 2045. Don't get me wrong - I am certainly not opposed to clean energy. But one friend regularly emails me articles about the number of flying species killed by these windmills. Not to mention just how unsightly these windmills are. I would ask if the California legislature considered the economic consequences of this law, but let's not be silly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)