I was quite amused when reading Michelle Goldberg's Op-Ed in today's New York Times. Her piece, "Entertainment for the Resistance," discusses how difficult it is to find "pop storytelling" that helps people deal with their sense of despair under Trump. Having watched a number of mainstream TV shows I disagree with her premise. There are quite a few shows constantly attacking Trump. However, the one show that Goldberg lauds is "The Good Fight," which is a spinoff of "The Good Wife," and is only available on CBS All Access. Goldberg: "'The Good Fight' (is) the only TV show that reflects what life under Trump feels like for many of us who abhor him." After all, Trump does not speak nicely, as did Obama. He is coarse, and they are easily offended. Trump cozies up to dictators. He does not follow the law. He does not support our allies. He attacks the press. But, Obama...oh, if they could just get Obama back for a third term and more.
In 2009 Obama gave his much vaunted speech to the Muslim world from Cairo. He invited the terrorist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, a real slap in the face to our ally Mubarek. He referred to Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank, insulting our ally Israel. He referred to "Palestine" as if it was a country, another slap to Israel. In 2009 Obama and his top people attacked the media - Fox - by saying it was not a real news organization, because it has a "perspective." So, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times and rest of the mainstream media do not have a perspective? Please. This blog has numerous posts on the bias in the mainstream media. But Trump took away Jim Acosta's White House press pass (not CNN's, just Acosta's) and that was the end of Western Civilization.
Obama stood by our allies? England may be our greatest ally. Yet, when the Falklands issue flared up again in 2010, Obama said his administration would remain neutral between England and Argentina - unlike Reagan who gave full support to Thatcher and the Brits in 1982. But Trump cozies up to dictators. Not Obama - who sent $150 billion to the Ayatollahs. Not Obama, who demanded nothing of Hamas or Hezbollah, and had nothing to say when Abbas said that not a single Jew may live in a future state of Palestine. In 2010 Obama had a nice photo-op with Hugo Chavez. And he told Medvedev to tell Putin that he would have more "flexibility" after his reelection. Nice. Then again, Obama mocked Romney in their 2012 debate when Romney called Russia the greatest geopolitical threat to the US. Obama: "Not Al Qaeda?...The Cold War's been over for 20 years." Russian collusion?
Domestically, Obama was an extremely divisive President. Black vs. White. The millionaires and billionaires vs. everyone else. Obama supported the violent and disorderly Occupy Wall Street movement, while mocking the peaceful and very orderly Tea Party. He told entrepreneurs that their success was unrelated to their own hard work: "if you've got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen." And: "I actually believe in redistribution (of wealth)."
But we know that Obama always followed the law and the Constitution. Except, Obama told Congress that if they failed to do what he wanted, that he had a pen and a phone, and would take action accordingly. So much for separation of powers. Speaking of which, after the passage of the ACA, Obama decided that certain provisions needed to be tweaked. Therefore he took it upon himself to decide which provisions of the law his Administration would enforce, and which they would ignore. When asked why he simply did not ask the then Republican Speaker of the House to draft some fixes (clean-up legislation), he replied "in a a normal political environment..." he would have done that. Where is that exception to the separation of powers in the Constitution that says "a president may disregard any law passed by Congress when he deems the political environment to not be normal?" Didn't Reagan deal with Tip O'Neill and Clinton work with Newt Gingrich? Obama had no such propensity.
Obama was certainly no John Kennedy, inspiring people by asking what they could do for their country. Rather, Obama complained that the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, only said what government could not do to people - it "doesn't say what the Federal government must do on your behalf."
Obama stood by our allies? After a Muslim terrorist shot up a kosher market in Paris, 44 world leaders marched with 1.5 million French citizens to show support for France, and the Jewish community, which was the target of the attack. But not Obama. And we must never forget Obama's final "screw you" to Israel and the Jewish people in his last full month in office, December, 2016. Obama allowed passage, without a US veto, of a UN Security Council resolution declaring the existence of a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders, which had the effect of turning over the Old City of Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, to the Arabs. And the resolution encouraged the BDS movement against Israel.
My leftist friends can bemoan the Trump Administration all you want. You tell me that I should be ashamed of having voted for Trump, when I never heard one peep out of you about the outrageous comments and actions of Obama. You abhor Trump. My conservative friends and I abhorred Obama. You want me to renounce Trump, and say I will not vote for him again. Too bad, you never renounced Obama. I, for one, will vote for Trump again.
Sunday, May 5, 2019
Wednesday, May 1, 2019
An Afterword to the Last Post, and a Call to Action
Following the last post, the mainstream media is now acknowledging the rise in anti-Semitism in the US and in Europe. In the April 30, 2019 Los Angeles Times, their lead editorial states: "It is becoming dismayingly clear that anti-Semitism is on the rise both here and in Europe." They go on to cite statistics - 74% increase in incidents in France, a 60% increase in violent attacks in Germany, and the US saw the third highest incidence of anti-Semitic events in 2018. The 5/1/19 New York Times lead editorial was "A Rising Tide of Anti-Semitism." This editorial followed the paper's international edition publishing the anti-Semitic cartoon discussed in the last post, which they now referred to as "an appalling political cartoon."
The Times then goes on to, laughably, claim that "we have been and remain stalwart supporters of Israel..." They must be the only ones to believe that, assuming that they actually do believe it. Clearly, Israelis do not have the same perception. Said Ron Dermer, Israel's Ambassador to the US: "We have also seen one of the world's most prestigious newspapers become a cesspool of hostility towards Israel that goes well beyond any legitimate criticism of a fellow, imperfect democracy." The hostility towards Israel is not only seen in the Times' editorials, but also in their news pages, and in the guest columnists they invite to contribute to their Op-Ed pages.
Rob Eshman is the former editor of the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles. As he is a man of the Left, I rarely agreed with anything that he wrote in his weekly column. In a 5/1/19 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed titled "Attacks can't crush American Jewish Life," Eshman says "we have good reason not to fear." Eshman: "A small cohort of largely white Americans is striking out against a society they perceive as increasingly ethnically and religiously diverse." I agree - there are white nationalists and white neo-Nazis. But, given his leftist view of the world, he does not bother to discuss the anti-Semitism from the Left, especially on college campuses throughout the country, and in the mainstream media disguising itself as criticism of Israel. And, also no surprise, Eshman ignores the anti-Semitic comments from two Muslim congresswomen, and the violent attacks on European Jews by Muslims. But Eshman is correct when he says Jews in this country have the support of the political establishment (mostly) and the vast majority of a supportive, accepting America."
This blog discusses serious issues. But in this post I am requesting a call to action - not just by my Jewish readers, but by my Christian readers who are all strong supporters of Israel and friends of mine. For Jews, every one of us should attend services on this Shabbat. We cannot, we must not, be intimidated by Jew-hatred. For all of us - Jews and Christians alike - do not be silent if you hear an anti-Semitic comment. Write a letter to the editor of your paper if they print anti-Semitic editorials or Op-Eds. And keep in mind that while many editorials and Op-Eds claim to be only against Israel's policies, they are in fact anti-Semitic in their singling out Israel and holding Israel to standards to which no other country is expected to adhere. And, for the first time I am asking that you donate to one of the two main Israel advocacy groups - the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) or the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). I can tell you that many non-Jews already contribute to AIPAC.
I wish to end this short post with a quote from Yisroel Goldstein's, the Poway Rabbi, Op-Ed in the 4/30/19 New York Times. In speaking to his congregants outside the Temple after the shooting, he quoted a passage from the Passover Seder: "In every generation they rise against us to destroy us; and the Holy One, blessed be he, saves us from their hand." The Rabbi continued: "And I remember shouting: 'Am Yisrael Chai! The people of Israel live!' I have said those lines hundreds of times in my life. But I have never felt the truth of them more than I did then (when facing the Jew-hating shooter)."
So let us all say "Am Yisrael Chai." The people of Israel live. The Jewish people live. And may G-d bless every one of us.
The Times then goes on to, laughably, claim that "we have been and remain stalwart supporters of Israel..." They must be the only ones to believe that, assuming that they actually do believe it. Clearly, Israelis do not have the same perception. Said Ron Dermer, Israel's Ambassador to the US: "We have also seen one of the world's most prestigious newspapers become a cesspool of hostility towards Israel that goes well beyond any legitimate criticism of a fellow, imperfect democracy." The hostility towards Israel is not only seen in the Times' editorials, but also in their news pages, and in the guest columnists they invite to contribute to their Op-Ed pages.
Rob Eshman is the former editor of the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles. As he is a man of the Left, I rarely agreed with anything that he wrote in his weekly column. In a 5/1/19 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed titled "Attacks can't crush American Jewish Life," Eshman says "we have good reason not to fear." Eshman: "A small cohort of largely white Americans is striking out against a society they perceive as increasingly ethnically and religiously diverse." I agree - there are white nationalists and white neo-Nazis. But, given his leftist view of the world, he does not bother to discuss the anti-Semitism from the Left, especially on college campuses throughout the country, and in the mainstream media disguising itself as criticism of Israel. And, also no surprise, Eshman ignores the anti-Semitic comments from two Muslim congresswomen, and the violent attacks on European Jews by Muslims. But Eshman is correct when he says Jews in this country have the support of the political establishment (mostly) and the vast majority of a supportive, accepting America."
This blog discusses serious issues. But in this post I am requesting a call to action - not just by my Jewish readers, but by my Christian readers who are all strong supporters of Israel and friends of mine. For Jews, every one of us should attend services on this Shabbat. We cannot, we must not, be intimidated by Jew-hatred. For all of us - Jews and Christians alike - do not be silent if you hear an anti-Semitic comment. Write a letter to the editor of your paper if they print anti-Semitic editorials or Op-Eds. And keep in mind that while many editorials and Op-Eds claim to be only against Israel's policies, they are in fact anti-Semitic in their singling out Israel and holding Israel to standards to which no other country is expected to adhere. And, for the first time I am asking that you donate to one of the two main Israel advocacy groups - the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) or the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). I can tell you that many non-Jews already contribute to AIPAC.
I wish to end this short post with a quote from Yisroel Goldstein's, the Poway Rabbi, Op-Ed in the 4/30/19 New York Times. In speaking to his congregants outside the Temple after the shooting, he quoted a passage from the Passover Seder: "In every generation they rise against us to destroy us; and the Holy One, blessed be he, saves us from their hand." The Rabbi continued: "And I remember shouting: 'Am Yisrael Chai! The people of Israel live!' I have said those lines hundreds of times in my life. But I have never felt the truth of them more than I did then (when facing the Jew-hating shooter)."
So let us all say "Am Yisrael Chai." The people of Israel live. The Jewish people live. And may G-d bless every one of us.
Saturday, April 27, 2019
Never Again?
On Saturday, April 27, 2019, the Jewish Sabbath and the last day of Passover, a murdering bastard walked into the Chabad House in Poway, California and started shooting. One woman was killed and three others were injured. The shooting occurred exactly six months after the mass murder at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. The shooter was a 19 year old white male and an apparent adherent to white supremacy. In a manifesto that is believed to be the shooter's, he bemoaned what he alleged to be Jewish control over the economy, Jews killing Christ, and other assorted alleged sins. Here is what this hate-filled man wrote: "Every Jew young and old has contributed to these (alleged sins). For these crimes they deserve nothing but hell. I will send them there." (This blog will not name such evil people, and the expletives I may use in private to describe the shooter would not be appropriately stated here.)
We are not born with hatred towards a particular group of people. It has to be learned. And it has to be spoken and written and taught in order to pass it on to others. As stated in this blog previously, religious hate crimes overwhelmingly target Jews. Yes, Jew-hatred comes from neo-Nazis and white supremacists. It is also seen across the country at numerous colleges and universities - by left-wing student groups, Islamic groups and many left-wing college professors. And, as noted in the last post, we hear the Jew-hatred from members of the United States Congress. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has repeatedly made anti-Semitic comments, from accusing Jews of dual loyalty, to the use of Jewish money in politics, to saying "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel."
Then, we had the prominent US Senators who are running for president come to Omar's defense, such as Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. And we had the Speaker of the House excusing Omar's anti-Semitic comments with "I think she has a different experience in the use of words." What an odd comment given the articulateness with which Omar speaks. Then we have the mainstream media. The self-described "paper of record," The New York Times, just printed an incredibly anti-Semitic cartoon in their international edition. The cartoon showed a dog with the face of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with the Jewish Star of David hanging from its neck, with the dog/Netanyahu pulling on a leash held by a blind President Trump, who is wearing a yarmulke (a Jewish skullcap). The New York Times, the premier paper in the country, depicted the Israeli leader as a dog. What's the difference between that and Arabs depicting Jews as pigs and monkeys, or Nazis describing Jews as rats and animals?
The New York Times issued this "apology": "The image was offensive and it was an error of judgment to publish it." Really? An error of judgment? How many anti-Semites at the paper approved the publication of that cartoon? I have said it before, it matters not to me if the anti-Semitism comes from the left, the right or from Islamists. And given that the anti-Semites share a hatred of Jews, it was not really surprising when the likes of David Duke praised Ilhan Omar with this: "By defiance to Z.O.G. (what Duke calls the "Zionist Occupation Government") Ilhan Omar is NOW the most important member of the US Congress."
The fight against anti-Semitism and Jew-hatred should not be political. But it is. Recall that after another one of Omar's anti-Semitic comments, the House was unable to pass a simple resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Instead, given the push back by the Democrat's "progressive" caucus, the resolution had to condemn all bigotry. Recall the early 2018 Pew Research Center poll finding that Republican support for Israel was at 79%, while Democratic support was at 27%. Then, you have accusations by Minnesota Congresswoman Betty McCollum referring to Israel's "apartheid-like policies." And we have an increasing number of the "progressives" in the Democratic party calling for an end to aid to Israel.
Perhaps Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, said it best: "The words, the demonstrators, and the cartoons turn into shootings against worshipers in synagogue." Never again?
We are not born with hatred towards a particular group of people. It has to be learned. And it has to be spoken and written and taught in order to pass it on to others. As stated in this blog previously, religious hate crimes overwhelmingly target Jews. Yes, Jew-hatred comes from neo-Nazis and white supremacists. It is also seen across the country at numerous colleges and universities - by left-wing student groups, Islamic groups and many left-wing college professors. And, as noted in the last post, we hear the Jew-hatred from members of the United States Congress. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has repeatedly made anti-Semitic comments, from accusing Jews of dual loyalty, to the use of Jewish money in politics, to saying "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel."
Then, we had the prominent US Senators who are running for president come to Omar's defense, such as Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. And we had the Speaker of the House excusing Omar's anti-Semitic comments with "I think she has a different experience in the use of words." What an odd comment given the articulateness with which Omar speaks. Then we have the mainstream media. The self-described "paper of record," The New York Times, just printed an incredibly anti-Semitic cartoon in their international edition. The cartoon showed a dog with the face of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with the Jewish Star of David hanging from its neck, with the dog/Netanyahu pulling on a leash held by a blind President Trump, who is wearing a yarmulke (a Jewish skullcap). The New York Times, the premier paper in the country, depicted the Israeli leader as a dog. What's the difference between that and Arabs depicting Jews as pigs and monkeys, or Nazis describing Jews as rats and animals?
The New York Times issued this "apology": "The image was offensive and it was an error of judgment to publish it." Really? An error of judgment? How many anti-Semites at the paper approved the publication of that cartoon? I have said it before, it matters not to me if the anti-Semitism comes from the left, the right or from Islamists. And given that the anti-Semites share a hatred of Jews, it was not really surprising when the likes of David Duke praised Ilhan Omar with this: "By defiance to Z.O.G. (what Duke calls the "Zionist Occupation Government") Ilhan Omar is NOW the most important member of the US Congress."
The fight against anti-Semitism and Jew-hatred should not be political. But it is. Recall that after another one of Omar's anti-Semitic comments, the House was unable to pass a simple resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Instead, given the push back by the Democrat's "progressive" caucus, the resolution had to condemn all bigotry. Recall the early 2018 Pew Research Center poll finding that Republican support for Israel was at 79%, while Democratic support was at 27%. Then, you have accusations by Minnesota Congresswoman Betty McCollum referring to Israel's "apartheid-like policies." And we have an increasing number of the "progressives" in the Democratic party calling for an end to aid to Israel.
Perhaps Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, said it best: "The words, the demonstrators, and the cartoons turn into shootings against worshipers in synagogue." Never again?
Sunday, April 21, 2019
The Normalization of Anti-Semitism
It is a fair statement to acknowledge that anti-Semitism is worse today than at any time since World War II. We see it throughout Europe, from the Left, from Muslims and from the Right. We see it in the head of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn. We saw it with Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" (2006). and we saw it in Professors Walt and Mearsheimer's book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" (2007). We see it in college campuses across the USA, not just in an increasing number of Jew-hating groups, but also in college professors and even administrators. Pro-Israel speakers are either shouted down or denied an opportunity to speak. Pro-Israel students fear for their safety. There is a growing movement of BDS across academia. And we saw the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic attitudes in our last President. When prominent members of society justify their anti-Semitic attitudes, we see the beginning of the normalization of anti-Semitism.
This blog has discussed anti-Semitism a number of times over the years. So, why now again? Following Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's latest controversial remark, this time concerning 9/11, when she said "some people did something," President Trump did a tweet following the lead of the New York Post. It showed the burning Twin Towers in New York City as the "something" that people did. 9/11 was an attack on all of America, not specifically on Jews. Yet, many in the Arab and Muslim world believed it was perpetrated by the Jews/Israel, and that no Jews were killed because they were warned in advance not to go to work that day. (I attended all of public school with a Jewish man who was murdered in the Towers on 9/11.)
Many Democrats and others on the Left were disturbed by Trump's tweet, seeing it as somehow suggesting Omar supports terrorism, and also seeing the tweet as a threat to Omar's safety. Does Omar support terrorists? In 2016, when she was still a member of the Minnesota Legislature, she wrote a letter to the Judge who would decide the fate of nine men accused of planning to join ISIS. She asked the Judge for a "restorative approach" to sentencing, rather than a potential 30-40 year sentence. She added this: "The desire to commit violence is not inherent to people - it is the consequences of systematic alienation; people seek violent solutions when the process established for enacting change is inaccessible to them."
One can argue over the appropriateness of lengthy prison sentences. But Omar's comments about "alienation" and inaccessibility to enacting change, sounds disturbingly similar to her quote about 9/11: "CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us (all of us Muslims presumably) were starting to lose access to our civil liberties." In any event, following Trump's tweet, the defenders of Omar were quick to express their displeasure with the attacks on her. The same thing happened when Omar accused Jews of having "dual loyalty," among other anti-Semitic assertions. Recall House Speaker Pelosi coming to her defense and saying "I don't think our colleague is anti-Semitic...I think she has a different experience in the use of words." If a man said that he would be accused of being a condescending sexist. Another Representative excused Omar's anti-Semitism by saying she "comes from a different culture."
Except Omar is nearly 40 years old and has been in the USA since she was 12. As Christine Rosen points out in the April, 2019 issue of Commentary Magazine, if Omar truly cannot understand the import of her words, why did Pelosi see fit to put her on the all-important House Foreign Affairs Committee? Following Trump's tweet, the defenders of Omar resorted to what the Left always relies on - accusations of racism, sexism and Islamophobia. Here is Jamelle Bouie in the 4/17/19 New York Times: "...if Omar is a target, it has little to do with what she said and everything to do with who she is: a black Muslim woman - and an immigrant." So, Omar's anti-Semitic comments, and her anti-American comments do not warrant any criticism? We have similar comments in defense of Omar from H.A. Hellyer, described by the New York Times as a "nonresident expert on Islam and the Middle East at the Atlantic Council": "One needn't agree with Congresswoman Omar to recognize that she is being targeted primarily as a black, Muslim, hijab-wearing woman."
And in a front page news story in the 4/16/19 New York Times ("Trump Rekindles Campaign Threat Of Islamic Peril"), the paper tells us that "...Democrats across the philosophical spectrum...expressed alarm at the way Ms. Omar was singled out." And they quote Democratic Congressman Bennie Thompson: "Since Ilhan came to national attention and throughout her tenure in Congress she has been a target of these right-wing extremists; that's why we're standing up for her." Good for you, Congressman, for standing up for an anti-Semitic, anti-American member of Congress. I, for one, will not stand up for her and her hateful comments. Let us keep in mind that when Omar made her comments regarding 9/11, she was speaking at a meeting of CAIR, which in 2007 was named as an "unindicted co-conspirator and/or joint venturer" in support of Hamas.
According to Christine Rosen's article, another new female Muslim member of Congress also has issues with Jews. According to Rosen, "...Rashida Tlaib was recently found to have been following an Instagram account that depicted Jews as rats and vampires and compared Israel to Nazi Germany." Where is the outcry? In one of this blog's much earlier posts (from 9/30/11) I asked the question "Wilful Ignorance?" Were my fellow Jews wilfully ignorant of the growing anti-Semitism within the Democratic Party and the Left? When Obama allowed a completely one-sided anti-Israel resolution to pass the UN Security Council without a veto in his last full month in office in December, 2016, it did nothing to reduce many of my fellow Jews love and affection for him. Here we are, nearly eight years later, with anti-Semitism far more widespread, and many of my fellow Jews remain either oblivious or unconcerned with this growing threat - they remain wilfully ignorant.
This blog has discussed anti-Semitism a number of times over the years. So, why now again? Following Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's latest controversial remark, this time concerning 9/11, when she said "some people did something," President Trump did a tweet following the lead of the New York Post. It showed the burning Twin Towers in New York City as the "something" that people did. 9/11 was an attack on all of America, not specifically on Jews. Yet, many in the Arab and Muslim world believed it was perpetrated by the Jews/Israel, and that no Jews were killed because they were warned in advance not to go to work that day. (I attended all of public school with a Jewish man who was murdered in the Towers on 9/11.)
Many Democrats and others on the Left were disturbed by Trump's tweet, seeing it as somehow suggesting Omar supports terrorism, and also seeing the tweet as a threat to Omar's safety. Does Omar support terrorists? In 2016, when she was still a member of the Minnesota Legislature, she wrote a letter to the Judge who would decide the fate of nine men accused of planning to join ISIS. She asked the Judge for a "restorative approach" to sentencing, rather than a potential 30-40 year sentence. She added this: "The desire to commit violence is not inherent to people - it is the consequences of systematic alienation; people seek violent solutions when the process established for enacting change is inaccessible to them."
One can argue over the appropriateness of lengthy prison sentences. But Omar's comments about "alienation" and inaccessibility to enacting change, sounds disturbingly similar to her quote about 9/11: "CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us (all of us Muslims presumably) were starting to lose access to our civil liberties." In any event, following Trump's tweet, the defenders of Omar were quick to express their displeasure with the attacks on her. The same thing happened when Omar accused Jews of having "dual loyalty," among other anti-Semitic assertions. Recall House Speaker Pelosi coming to her defense and saying "I don't think our colleague is anti-Semitic...I think she has a different experience in the use of words." If a man said that he would be accused of being a condescending sexist. Another Representative excused Omar's anti-Semitism by saying she "comes from a different culture."
Except Omar is nearly 40 years old and has been in the USA since she was 12. As Christine Rosen points out in the April, 2019 issue of Commentary Magazine, if Omar truly cannot understand the import of her words, why did Pelosi see fit to put her on the all-important House Foreign Affairs Committee? Following Trump's tweet, the defenders of Omar resorted to what the Left always relies on - accusations of racism, sexism and Islamophobia. Here is Jamelle Bouie in the 4/17/19 New York Times: "...if Omar is a target, it has little to do with what she said and everything to do with who she is: a black Muslim woman - and an immigrant." So, Omar's anti-Semitic comments, and her anti-American comments do not warrant any criticism? We have similar comments in defense of Omar from H.A. Hellyer, described by the New York Times as a "nonresident expert on Islam and the Middle East at the Atlantic Council": "One needn't agree with Congresswoman Omar to recognize that she is being targeted primarily as a black, Muslim, hijab-wearing woman."
And in a front page news story in the 4/16/19 New York Times ("Trump Rekindles Campaign Threat Of Islamic Peril"), the paper tells us that "...Democrats across the philosophical spectrum...expressed alarm at the way Ms. Omar was singled out." And they quote Democratic Congressman Bennie Thompson: "Since Ilhan came to national attention and throughout her tenure in Congress she has been a target of these right-wing extremists; that's why we're standing up for her." Good for you, Congressman, for standing up for an anti-Semitic, anti-American member of Congress. I, for one, will not stand up for her and her hateful comments. Let us keep in mind that when Omar made her comments regarding 9/11, she was speaking at a meeting of CAIR, which in 2007 was named as an "unindicted co-conspirator and/or joint venturer" in support of Hamas.
According to Christine Rosen's article, another new female Muslim member of Congress also has issues with Jews. According to Rosen, "...Rashida Tlaib was recently found to have been following an Instagram account that depicted Jews as rats and vampires and compared Israel to Nazi Germany." Where is the outcry? In one of this blog's much earlier posts (from 9/30/11) I asked the question "Wilful Ignorance?" Were my fellow Jews wilfully ignorant of the growing anti-Semitism within the Democratic Party and the Left? When Obama allowed a completely one-sided anti-Israel resolution to pass the UN Security Council without a veto in his last full month in office in December, 2016, it did nothing to reduce many of my fellow Jews love and affection for him. Here we are, nearly eight years later, with anti-Semitism far more widespread, and many of my fellow Jews remain either oblivious or unconcerned with this growing threat - they remain wilfully ignorant.
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Lies, Propaganda and Hate
Hate. There appears to be no limit to the hate directed by those on the Left towards Trump, anyone who has worked for him, and anyone who supported him or voted for him. I have discussed my own personal dealings with hate from the Left in some prior posts. The Left detests conservatives with a level of venom not seen since...? They allow for no disagreement with them and their policies.
Debra Messing is unhappy with the decision of the US Army to set aside 976 million dollars for some border walls in New Mexico and Arizona. As is typical of the Left, her argument consists of name calling, saying the Army is "disgusting and irresponsible." But she's just an actress, or so some will assert. The Boston Globe had an Op-Ed by a Luke O'Neil. He wrote of Kirstjen Nielsen, former DHS Secretary, let's "keep (her) unemployed and eating Grubhub over her kitchen sink," after accusing her of "ethnic cleansing." He also wrote that, as a former waiter, "one of my biggest regrets of my life is not pissing in Bill Kristol's salmon." That was even too much for the Globe as that sentence was later deleted. Clearly, the Left has no limit on their malicious hatred for those with whom they disagree.
Then, being the clever fellow that he is, O'Neil gives his permission to tell off Trump officials by telling them "where to go, what they can do with themselves when they arrive there, but, you know, said in a more specific and traditional Boston colloquialism." But, some will say, that's just one Op-Ed writer in one paper. So, let's turn to the self-described "paper of record," The New York Times. Michelle Goldberg is a regular opinion writer for the premier paper in the country - impossible to just to write her off with some excuse or another. Goldberg, in referring to Kirstjen Nielsen, wrote in her 4/9/19 column: "...she (Nielsen) should be a pariah for going as far as she did." A pariah - an outcast, a persona non grata, an undesirable.
Goldberg then cites with favor a petition by the Left-wing group Restore Public Trust. The petition seeks to have corporate America "blacklist" senior people in the Trump Administration for separating children at the border. They want companies to know that there is a "significant reputational risk for those involved" in hiring former Trump Administration officials. Goldberg: "How much of a risk will depend on decent Trump-hating Americans." There you have it. A regular columnist in the "paper of record" tells us that decent Americans hate Trump. The logical inference, of course, is that if you do not hate Trump you are indecent. Everyone needs to understand that Michelle Goldberg and The New York Times just told every conservative, every Trump voter, that they are worthless scum.
Propaganda. I can pick out the lies and the often subtle propaganda in any day's mainstream paper. Just pick the paper. Here's the March 18, 2019 Los Angeles Times lead story on the top right of the front page: "PUSH TO DEFEND TRUMP AFTER ATTACK," referring to the New Zealand mosque shooting. The subheadline reads: "Top aide denies the president is a white supremacist, despite praise from suspect in New Zealand killings." What? Some evil shooter, filled with hate, made a positive comment about Trump, and now Trump has to defend himself? When a Bernie supporter shot Congressman Steve Scalise and other Republicans at a baseball practice, was Sanders asked by the media to apologize? Was Sanders asked to deny his association with someone who worked for his campaign? Of course not! My friends on the Left do not even notice this subtle propaganda - linking Trump to the New Zealand shooter based on nothing other than their hatred of Trump.
Lies. And propaganda. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar was at it again. Speaking to CAIR, Omar said this: "Here's the truth. For far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen and, frankly, I'm tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it...CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties." Hogwash! The truth is that Jews are still overwhelmingly the target of most religious hate crimes. And what has Omar done? She has stoked hatred of Jews and Israel with her non-stop anti-Semitic comments. "Some people did something" to describe the murder of nearly 3000 people on 9/11? Disgusting! Those on the Left who came to her defense argued that "some people" was meant to distinguish the terrorists from most law-abiding Muslims. So what was "did something" distinguishing between - the murder of 3000 people and a walk in the park? What nonsense!
Here is what Omar is doing. She is stirring up hatred of Jews and Israel, while riling up the Muslim population in an effort to get them to resent the United States - the country which gave her and her family asylum. Make no mistake, Omar knows exactly what she is doing. But those on the Left are easily misled by the occasional nice words she says. The Democratic leaders are either blind to it, or willfully ignore the evil that Omar spouts. Pelosi, Warren and Sanders have all come to her defense. The Democrats have such hatred for Trump that they cannot see the true divisiveness of Ilhan Omar; only Trump is divisive in their eyes. Sanders, a Jew, said this: "Ilhan Omar is a leader with strength and courage." The Democratic party has clearly lost its way.
Debra Messing is unhappy with the decision of the US Army to set aside 976 million dollars for some border walls in New Mexico and Arizona. As is typical of the Left, her argument consists of name calling, saying the Army is "disgusting and irresponsible." But she's just an actress, or so some will assert. The Boston Globe had an Op-Ed by a Luke O'Neil. He wrote of Kirstjen Nielsen, former DHS Secretary, let's "keep (her) unemployed and eating Grubhub over her kitchen sink," after accusing her of "ethnic cleansing." He also wrote that, as a former waiter, "one of my biggest regrets of my life is not pissing in Bill Kristol's salmon." That was even too much for the Globe as that sentence was later deleted. Clearly, the Left has no limit on their malicious hatred for those with whom they disagree.
Then, being the clever fellow that he is, O'Neil gives his permission to tell off Trump officials by telling them "where to go, what they can do with themselves when they arrive there, but, you know, said in a more specific and traditional Boston colloquialism." But, some will say, that's just one Op-Ed writer in one paper. So, let's turn to the self-described "paper of record," The New York Times. Michelle Goldberg is a regular opinion writer for the premier paper in the country - impossible to just to write her off with some excuse or another. Goldberg, in referring to Kirstjen Nielsen, wrote in her 4/9/19 column: "...she (Nielsen) should be a pariah for going as far as she did." A pariah - an outcast, a persona non grata, an undesirable.
Goldberg then cites with favor a petition by the Left-wing group Restore Public Trust. The petition seeks to have corporate America "blacklist" senior people in the Trump Administration for separating children at the border. They want companies to know that there is a "significant reputational risk for those involved" in hiring former Trump Administration officials. Goldberg: "How much of a risk will depend on decent Trump-hating Americans." There you have it. A regular columnist in the "paper of record" tells us that decent Americans hate Trump. The logical inference, of course, is that if you do not hate Trump you are indecent. Everyone needs to understand that Michelle Goldberg and The New York Times just told every conservative, every Trump voter, that they are worthless scum.
Propaganda. I can pick out the lies and the often subtle propaganda in any day's mainstream paper. Just pick the paper. Here's the March 18, 2019 Los Angeles Times lead story on the top right of the front page: "PUSH TO DEFEND TRUMP AFTER ATTACK," referring to the New Zealand mosque shooting. The subheadline reads: "Top aide denies the president is a white supremacist, despite praise from suspect in New Zealand killings." What? Some evil shooter, filled with hate, made a positive comment about Trump, and now Trump has to defend himself? When a Bernie supporter shot Congressman Steve Scalise and other Republicans at a baseball practice, was Sanders asked by the media to apologize? Was Sanders asked to deny his association with someone who worked for his campaign? Of course not! My friends on the Left do not even notice this subtle propaganda - linking Trump to the New Zealand shooter based on nothing other than their hatred of Trump.
Lies. And propaganda. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar was at it again. Speaking to CAIR, Omar said this: "Here's the truth. For far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen and, frankly, I'm tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it...CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties." Hogwash! The truth is that Jews are still overwhelmingly the target of most religious hate crimes. And what has Omar done? She has stoked hatred of Jews and Israel with her non-stop anti-Semitic comments. "Some people did something" to describe the murder of nearly 3000 people on 9/11? Disgusting! Those on the Left who came to her defense argued that "some people" was meant to distinguish the terrorists from most law-abiding Muslims. So what was "did something" distinguishing between - the murder of 3000 people and a walk in the park? What nonsense!
Here is what Omar is doing. She is stirring up hatred of Jews and Israel, while riling up the Muslim population in an effort to get them to resent the United States - the country which gave her and her family asylum. Make no mistake, Omar knows exactly what she is doing. But those on the Left are easily misled by the occasional nice words she says. The Democratic leaders are either blind to it, or willfully ignore the evil that Omar spouts. Pelosi, Warren and Sanders have all come to her defense. The Democrats have such hatred for Trump that they cannot see the true divisiveness of Ilhan Omar; only Trump is divisive in their eyes. Sanders, a Jew, said this: "Ilhan Omar is a leader with strength and courage." The Democratic party has clearly lost its way.
Sunday, April 7, 2019
The Left Has No Principles
What I mean by that title is that the Left is purely agenda driven, with no underlying principles that motivate them. Last Spring, Rider University in New Jersey had the students vote on a new eatery for the campus. Chick-fil-A won. But come the fall, the school administration vetoed the students' decision and called for a new vote - this time without Chick-fil-A being one of the permissible choices. The reason? The company's perceived "opposition to the LGBTQ+ community." There was no claim of discrimination in hiring or service. While Rider is a private institution, it does receive public funding.
Recently, the San Antonio City Council voted to bar Chick-fil-A from the City's International airport. Said one council member: "San Antonio is a city full of compassion. We do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior." What behavior? This movement against Chick-fil-A began when the owner expressed his personal belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. The company has also donated money to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which also defines marriage as one man and one woman.
The Buffalo Niagara International Airport will also not be hosting a Chick-fil-A. It seems that the company that provides the concession stands at the airport rejected Chick-fil-A's presence after a State Assembly Member said that the company's mere existence at the airport would "help spread hate and discrimination," and opposed the company making money which would be used to "fund continued divisive anti-LGBTQ rhetoric."
In my 8/2/12 post ("Why I Am No Longer a Democrat") I discussed how the Democratic Mayor's of Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and Washington, D.C. all opposed the presence of new Chick-fil-A outlets. In my 5/8/16 post ("The Undoing of America") I discussed the similar anti-Chick-fil-A sentiment expressed by the New York City Mayor.
According to one site, Chick-fil-A has over 2200 restaurants and has over 23,000 employees. The founder of the company decided that the stores would be closed on Sundays in order to allow himself and his employees to "set aside one day to rest and worship if they choose." Thankfully, the Attorney General of Texas will be investigating whether the decision by San Antonio "violated Chick-fil-A's religious liberty." And, I would add, the owner's First Amendment speech rights. The AG is also asking the Feds to investigate. Good for him!
Frankly, I am outraged by the decisions of the Rider administrators and these airports. I am outraged by these big city mayors. And I am outraged that even public officials do not see the damage they are doing to our freedoms. No, the Left will tell you that Trump is destroying our democracy. But the Left does not see it. They do not see the underlying principle of protecting the First Amendment rights of speech and the free exercise of religion. Rather, because their agenda is "gay rights" that takes precedence over fundamental principles. I have no problem with supporting the LGBTQ community. I do have a problem when that support supersedes basic rights. Let's be honest - gay marriage is here, it is legal, and it is not going away. But, apparently, the First Amendment is going away.
But now that I know that it is permissible to have a political litmus test for the right to do business, I propose that all conservatives unite for the following. When we walk into a restaurant that has CNN or MSNBC on their TVs, we should insist that they switch to Fox News. If they refuse, we should explain that we are leaving and will not return until they either put on Fox an equal amount of time or just put on sports and no news stations. Better yet, we should ask any and all small business owners if they voted for Clinton or Trump; and research big businesses to see if they donate politically, and if so, do they at least give equal sums to conservative and Republican groups as they do to Left and Democratic groups.
The Chick-fil-A saga is not the only example of the Left's lack of principles. There are many such examples. We regularly see conservative speakers denied a forum on college campuses because the First Amendment does not protect speech at the universities. It's not part of the Left's agenda. Similarly, we hear from conservatives in Hollywood that they are afraid to be public about their beliefs in the same way that the Leftists are able to. Conservatives fear being blacklisted for their beliefs. Imagine that - the Hollywood crowd which experienced the wrath of Joseph McCarthy - now uses the same tactics against the conservatives in their midst. Of course, if those Leftists in Hollywood had any principles, they would know better.
Welcome to the Left's America.
Recently, the San Antonio City Council voted to bar Chick-fil-A from the City's International airport. Said one council member: "San Antonio is a city full of compassion. We do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior." What behavior? This movement against Chick-fil-A began when the owner expressed his personal belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. The company has also donated money to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which also defines marriage as one man and one woman.
The Buffalo Niagara International Airport will also not be hosting a Chick-fil-A. It seems that the company that provides the concession stands at the airport rejected Chick-fil-A's presence after a State Assembly Member said that the company's mere existence at the airport would "help spread hate and discrimination," and opposed the company making money which would be used to "fund continued divisive anti-LGBTQ rhetoric."
In my 8/2/12 post ("Why I Am No Longer a Democrat") I discussed how the Democratic Mayor's of Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and Washington, D.C. all opposed the presence of new Chick-fil-A outlets. In my 5/8/16 post ("The Undoing of America") I discussed the similar anti-Chick-fil-A sentiment expressed by the New York City Mayor.
According to one site, Chick-fil-A has over 2200 restaurants and has over 23,000 employees. The founder of the company decided that the stores would be closed on Sundays in order to allow himself and his employees to "set aside one day to rest and worship if they choose." Thankfully, the Attorney General of Texas will be investigating whether the decision by San Antonio "violated Chick-fil-A's religious liberty." And, I would add, the owner's First Amendment speech rights. The AG is also asking the Feds to investigate. Good for him!
Frankly, I am outraged by the decisions of the Rider administrators and these airports. I am outraged by these big city mayors. And I am outraged that even public officials do not see the damage they are doing to our freedoms. No, the Left will tell you that Trump is destroying our democracy. But the Left does not see it. They do not see the underlying principle of protecting the First Amendment rights of speech and the free exercise of religion. Rather, because their agenda is "gay rights" that takes precedence over fundamental principles. I have no problem with supporting the LGBTQ community. I do have a problem when that support supersedes basic rights. Let's be honest - gay marriage is here, it is legal, and it is not going away. But, apparently, the First Amendment is going away.
But now that I know that it is permissible to have a political litmus test for the right to do business, I propose that all conservatives unite for the following. When we walk into a restaurant that has CNN or MSNBC on their TVs, we should insist that they switch to Fox News. If they refuse, we should explain that we are leaving and will not return until they either put on Fox an equal amount of time or just put on sports and no news stations. Better yet, we should ask any and all small business owners if they voted for Clinton or Trump; and research big businesses to see if they donate politically, and if so, do they at least give equal sums to conservative and Republican groups as they do to Left and Democratic groups.
The Chick-fil-A saga is not the only example of the Left's lack of principles. There are many such examples. We regularly see conservative speakers denied a forum on college campuses because the First Amendment does not protect speech at the universities. It's not part of the Left's agenda. Similarly, we hear from conservatives in Hollywood that they are afraid to be public about their beliefs in the same way that the Leftists are able to. Conservatives fear being blacklisted for their beliefs. Imagine that - the Hollywood crowd which experienced the wrath of Joseph McCarthy - now uses the same tactics against the conservatives in their midst. Of course, if those Leftists in Hollywood had any principles, they would know better.
Welcome to the Left's America.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
Who Are the Liars Now?
Russian collusion. In light of the findings of the Mueller report, those liars would be so many elected Democratic officials, along with their buddies in the mainstream media (MSM) who repeatedly asserted as fact that there was clear evidence of collusion with Russia. According to Attorney General Barr's summary of the Mueller report, "the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA (a Russian organization by the name of the Internet Research Agency) in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities."
As for the computer hacking of the DNC and Clinton computers, "the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."
Obstruction of justice. Oddly, Mueller refused to make a decision on this. Alan Dershowitz opined that it was a cop-out, that Mueller's job was to either say there is a basis for indictment or there is not. My thinking is, if Mueller thought there was evidence of obstruction he would have said so. Then, he could have left it to the AG to decide if a sitting President may be indicted. In any event, both the AG Barr and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, in consultation with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel, concluded "that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense." That should prevent any US Attorney from pursuing such charges, as their boss just said there is no basis for it.
The 3/24/19 New York Times front page headline, anticipating a report favorable to Trump, reads: "With Mueller's Report In, Interest Turns to New York." Whose interest? The MSM's continued hope that something - anything - can be pinned on Donald Trump. Maybe he cheated on a test in Middle School. The MSM will be salivating the next two years over the various additional investigations - state, federal and congressional. Why would anyone believe their prognostications now, after two years of lies.
The Los Angeles Times got their editorial up online rather quickly. Not surprisingly, they disagreed with Barr and Rosenstein saying there was insufficient evidence to prove obstruction of justice. However, with Mueller deferring on the issue, it was left to Barr. When Comey cleared Clinton, saying no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against her, he had no authority to do so. That was, in fact, up to the AG at the time, Loretta Lynch. But that was okay. The real point of the editorial, however, was this last sentence: "There is a long list of reasons why we think Trump is unfit for the presidency and dangerous for the country. The only thing we learned from Barr's summary is that colluding with Russia is no longer on it." The only thing? That was supposed to be the whole thing! Nice pivoting.
The MSM has actually not learned anything. They told us Hillary was a shoo-in to defeat Trump in 2016. But Trump did win. Can't be - must have been the Russians. So we heard non-stop about Russian collusion from the MSM for the last two years. Except, now we know there was no Russian collusion. No, the MSM has learned nothing. What we, the people, have learned from them is that they hate Trump, they hate his family, they hate anyone who works for Trump or voted for him, and they will never accept that Trump won in 2016. Instead, they will continue to feed us lies for the next two years, so brace yourselves.
As for the computer hacking of the DNC and Clinton computers, "the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."
Obstruction of justice. Oddly, Mueller refused to make a decision on this. Alan Dershowitz opined that it was a cop-out, that Mueller's job was to either say there is a basis for indictment or there is not. My thinking is, if Mueller thought there was evidence of obstruction he would have said so. Then, he could have left it to the AG to decide if a sitting President may be indicted. In any event, both the AG Barr and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, in consultation with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel, concluded "that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense." That should prevent any US Attorney from pursuing such charges, as their boss just said there is no basis for it.
The 3/24/19 New York Times front page headline, anticipating a report favorable to Trump, reads: "With Mueller's Report In, Interest Turns to New York." Whose interest? The MSM's continued hope that something - anything - can be pinned on Donald Trump. Maybe he cheated on a test in Middle School. The MSM will be salivating the next two years over the various additional investigations - state, federal and congressional. Why would anyone believe their prognostications now, after two years of lies.
The Los Angeles Times got their editorial up online rather quickly. Not surprisingly, they disagreed with Barr and Rosenstein saying there was insufficient evidence to prove obstruction of justice. However, with Mueller deferring on the issue, it was left to Barr. When Comey cleared Clinton, saying no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against her, he had no authority to do so. That was, in fact, up to the AG at the time, Loretta Lynch. But that was okay. The real point of the editorial, however, was this last sentence: "There is a long list of reasons why we think Trump is unfit for the presidency and dangerous for the country. The only thing we learned from Barr's summary is that colluding with Russia is no longer on it." The only thing? That was supposed to be the whole thing! Nice pivoting.
The MSM has actually not learned anything. They told us Hillary was a shoo-in to defeat Trump in 2016. But Trump did win. Can't be - must have been the Russians. So we heard non-stop about Russian collusion from the MSM for the last two years. Except, now we know there was no Russian collusion. No, the MSM has learned nothing. What we, the people, have learned from them is that they hate Trump, they hate his family, they hate anyone who works for Trump or voted for him, and they will never accept that Trump won in 2016. Instead, they will continue to feed us lies for the next two years, so brace yourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)