So said Special Counsel Robert Mueller in a televised speech given on May 29. So wrong for a prosecutor to say. Let's try this: "If the truth-uncensored had confidence that Robert Mueller did not beat his wife, we would have said that." I've never heard him deny it - have you? Sure, his wife has not accused him of it, but many women fear coming forward. She has no obvious bruises on her, but many men know where to hit women so the bruises do not show. Calm down, everyone, I am not suggesting that Mr. Mueller has ever beaten his wife; nor am I making light of the serious crime of spousal abuse. But I am making a point. It is not the job of a prosecutor to declare someone to be "innocent." Their job is to prosecute or not. Mueller just turned our system on its head, suggesting that Trump is guilty until proven innocent.
In fact, the statement made by Mueller as set forth in the title of this post is inconsistent with a statement Mueller made later in his speech: "...we concluded that we would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the President committed a crime." I guess that means that Mueller could just as easily have said that "if we had confidence that the President clearly did commit a crime, we would have said that." Instead, Mueller chose to say the opposite. One might reasonably ask why he did that unless he had an agenda - to force Congress' hand to begin impeachment proceedings.
Many in Congress objected to Attorney General Barr saying there was no basis for prosecuting the President. As the Special Counsel deferred, that determination could only be made by Barr. Congress has no prosecutorial powers. Mueller had at least 18 prosecutors on his team, issued hundreds of search warrants, interviewed numerous people, and told us that "...no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter."
I have said it before, I oppose the idea of a "special counsel" as well as the former "independent counsel." They are outside our Constitutional system. They are beholden to no one. Of the 34 people charged, only Russians were charged with interfering in our elections - with no Americans charged in any conspiracy with the Russians. That investigation and prosecution could have easily been done by the Justice Department - by one of the 93 US Attorneys' offices. Mueller made it clear that Russian interference in our elections was and will continue to be a serious matter. So, one might ask what Congress has done about it, as they have known about the issue for some 3 years.
The better, though never entirely satisfactory approach to these kinds of issues, is the appointment of a bipartisan commission. We had that after the attacks of 9/11. Congress then enacted some of the reforms recommended by that commission. Writing in the Weekend Edition (June 1-2) of the Wall Street Journal, David Rivkin, Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley, opined: "America's experience with special prosecutors, independent counsels and special counsels has left a trail of partisan-fueled destruction. These investigations are inherently harmful to national unity and a stain on the constitutional fabric." After all, if Justice Department policy is that a sitting President may not be indicted as it would be a violation of the Constitution, then all other issues are easily dealt with by an independent commission and the Justice Department. Additionally, Congress may then take whatever action it deems necessary based upon the commission's findings.
Instead, we had Mueller's team of Democratic prosecutors laying out possible instances of obstruction of justice committed by the President. Of course it would be seen as partisan. And, what was the point of stating "possible" instances of obstruction against the President if no action was going to taken regardless. Apparently, the Mueller team was even looking at the firing of former FBI director James Comey as being a basis for obstruction. How is that? The President has the absolute constitutional right to fire people in the executive department. Aside from the numerous reasons why Comey never should have been FBI Director in the first place, do we now get to second guess every Presidential decision? What does that do the power of the presidency?
In an Op-Ed in the May 31 USA Today, Noah Bookbinder, who wants to see Trump impeached, asserts: "It doesn't matter that there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign of conspiring with the Russians." What is he talking about? This entire investigation began with the Steele dossier alleging an ongoing years long conspiracy between the Russians and Trump campaign officials. There is a world of difference between Russians attempting to interfere in our elections, and the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians to do so. It appears, however, that Mueller had no interest in delving into the origins of that dossier, nor the ongoing efforts of Administration officials (think Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Andrew McCabe) to undermine the Trump Presidency. Thankfully, AG Barr has decided that those issues do warrant further investigation.
Will the House go ahead and impeach President Trump? Who knows? We do know that many on the Left called for his impeachment from the day he took office. The Left's desire to impeach Trump is essentially based upon an intense dislike, nay hatred, of the man and his style. He offends their sensibilities. To undo the election results of a presidential election is no small matter. I'd like to be able to say that we have serious men and women in the House who understand the gravity of such a course of action. I'd like to be able to say that true statesmen, and not a bunch of political hacks, will make that determination. I'd also like to be able to say that I won the Lotto...
Sunday, June 2, 2019
Sunday, May 26, 2019
It's So Easy
Really, I continue to be surprised (I shouldn't be) by how easily people can be convinced of anything. I am not referring to those with little formal education, who often have more common sense than the highly educated. In court the other day I mentioned to another attorney that I had voted for Trump. Of course, he was shocked. I indicated how good Trump had been to Israel, and that his party (the Democrats) no longer supported Israel. Rather, it is the Republicans who overwhelmingly support the Jewish State. He disagreed. I suggested he look at the actual poll numbers. Poll after poll has shown declining support for Israel among rank and file Democrats. But he did not read it or hear it or see it in the mainstream media, therefore, I was wrong.
This brought to mind a story from my second blog post. Also in court, I was discussing the 8000 rockets that had been fired into Israel from Gaza as of that date. An attorney not involved in the conversation, but overhearing it, told me I was wrong. Not because he knew the correct number - he admitted he did not. No, he just could not believe it because the mainstream media had repeatedly told him that Israel was bad - an oppressor - and that the Palestinians were good - the victims.
Here is yet a third attorney. I asked if when reading the newspaper he reads it analytically, as if he was reading a case, or did he just read and absorb what the paper told him. He admitted that he just read and absorbed. Three attorneys who only know what the left-wing media tells them. And that's how easy it is to propagandize a population. I regularly speak with "educated" people who have never heard or read about some of the information/facts I provide to them. Which is fair, because not everyone follows politics in equal amounts. However, the information I provide usually does not penetrate because they already have the "truth" from the mainstream left-wing media.
Recently, virtually every left-wing talking head on the mainstream cable stations, and in the mainstream papers, referred to Trump's "manufactured crisis" at the border. But Fox, and some other media outlets, kept showing the numbers of those coming over the border, with the US having no place to put them. Ultimately, even Obama's DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson, said "we are truly in a crisis" at the border. Oops! Because the mainstream media said it, however, many people started to say it. And, of course, they believed it. The mainstream media told them it was so.
I have previously discussed how the Left changes words and definitions as an effective propaganda technique. Global warming became climate change. Gay marriage became marriage equality. Abortion became a woman's right to choose. It is important to identify the issue with a widely accepted value. "Equality." "Right." It can be very persuasive. The latest Democratic trick was to use a phrase with a negative connotation, and then associate it with Trump (the reverse of a positive association, but equally effective). Pelosi did this when she recently accused Trump of a "cover-up." "Cover-up" definitely has negative connotations; and for those old enough to remember, it was what got Richard Nixon to nearly be impeached. He resigned before it could happen. Hypocrisy does not matter - just say it with a straight face. So, deleting 18 1/2 minutes of tape was a cover-up, but Hillary deleting 33,000 emails was...no big deal.
Again, the sheer hypocrisy is never an issue. Trump is engaged in a cover-up for attempting to protect the prerogatives of the office of the President by fighting the relentless subpoenas. It was a cover-up when Trump would not release the entire Mueller report, but did release 99% of it. The Dems insisted on Trump releasing the entire report notwithstanding national security concerns. Now, Trump told AG Barr that he may release all the documents leading up the phony Russian collusion investigation. But now the Dems say "oh no, you can't do that, there are national security issues." Will the mainstream media accuse the Dems of a cover-up? Of course not, as they share the same outlook on virtually everything.
Recently, TV and movie personality Jeff Daniels opined that it would be the "end of democracy" if Trump won reelection. The media has been non-stop in their accusations of Trump destroying democracy. And, like all non-thinking people, Daniels believes it. When Obama used the IRS to target conservative groups and individuals, did Daniels say it was the end of democracy? When Obama targeted a Fox News reporter and his family, as well many reporters in the AP and even at the New York Times, did Daniels think it was the end of democracy? As Jennifer Granick (Director of Civil Liberties, Stanford Center for Internet and Society) wrote in the 3/20/14 issue of Forbes: "President Obama has been the most aggressive Administration in history, not only in going after whistleblowers, but also pursuing the reporters who write their stories."
Name calling is another effective technique in the use of propaganda. Disagree with the Left's agenda and you are a bigot, a racist, sexist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, and on and on. Hillary called them the "basket of deplorables." Again, attach words with negative connotations to those you wish to demonize. Works very well. How else to explain that so many Dems actually believe that anyone who voted for Trump has all the characteristics the Dems and the media ascribe to them - racist, sexist, etc.
Propaganda can be so effective that it is capable of getting people to say and do terrible things. If you have any doubt, just think of the Nazis' use of propaganda against the Jews. Recently, left-wing author Fran Lebowitz was on Bill Maher and said this about Trump: "Certainly, he deserves to be impeached. I mean, impeachment is just the beginning of what he deserves. Not even scratching the surface of what he deserves...we should turn him over to the Saudis, you know, his buddies. The same Saudis who got rid of that reporter (she means Khashoggi), you know. Maybe they can do the same to him." So Trump should be killed? For what exactly? His buddies, the Saudis? Curious, as it was Obama who bowed to the Saudi King.
Just how easy is it to propagandize people? So easy. In my July 2, 2017 post, I discussed how Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy examined the media's coverage of Trump's first 100 days in office. The Shorenstein Center is a think tank at liberal Harvard University, and reported on the overwhelming bias in the mainstream media against Trump. The only outlet that even-handedly reported the good and the bad about Trump was Fox - the media outlet that the Left loves to hate. But now, Mark Levin (in his new book "Unfreedom of the Press") cites a Gallup poll from October, 2018. The poll results: 76% of Democrats trust the media, only 21% of Republicans do. As Levin put it - nearly 80% of Dems trust the media, and nearly 80% of Republicans do not. So, notwithstanding Harvard's Shorenstein Center demonstrating the overwhelming bias of the mainstream media, the Dems buy it.
And that is how easy it is to propagandize tens of millions of people.
This brought to mind a story from my second blog post. Also in court, I was discussing the 8000 rockets that had been fired into Israel from Gaza as of that date. An attorney not involved in the conversation, but overhearing it, told me I was wrong. Not because he knew the correct number - he admitted he did not. No, he just could not believe it because the mainstream media had repeatedly told him that Israel was bad - an oppressor - and that the Palestinians were good - the victims.
Here is yet a third attorney. I asked if when reading the newspaper he reads it analytically, as if he was reading a case, or did he just read and absorb what the paper told him. He admitted that he just read and absorbed. Three attorneys who only know what the left-wing media tells them. And that's how easy it is to propagandize a population. I regularly speak with "educated" people who have never heard or read about some of the information/facts I provide to them. Which is fair, because not everyone follows politics in equal amounts. However, the information I provide usually does not penetrate because they already have the "truth" from the mainstream left-wing media.
Recently, virtually every left-wing talking head on the mainstream cable stations, and in the mainstream papers, referred to Trump's "manufactured crisis" at the border. But Fox, and some other media outlets, kept showing the numbers of those coming over the border, with the US having no place to put them. Ultimately, even Obama's DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson, said "we are truly in a crisis" at the border. Oops! Because the mainstream media said it, however, many people started to say it. And, of course, they believed it. The mainstream media told them it was so.
I have previously discussed how the Left changes words and definitions as an effective propaganda technique. Global warming became climate change. Gay marriage became marriage equality. Abortion became a woman's right to choose. It is important to identify the issue with a widely accepted value. "Equality." "Right." It can be very persuasive. The latest Democratic trick was to use a phrase with a negative connotation, and then associate it with Trump (the reverse of a positive association, but equally effective). Pelosi did this when she recently accused Trump of a "cover-up." "Cover-up" definitely has negative connotations; and for those old enough to remember, it was what got Richard Nixon to nearly be impeached. He resigned before it could happen. Hypocrisy does not matter - just say it with a straight face. So, deleting 18 1/2 minutes of tape was a cover-up, but Hillary deleting 33,000 emails was...no big deal.
Again, the sheer hypocrisy is never an issue. Trump is engaged in a cover-up for attempting to protect the prerogatives of the office of the President by fighting the relentless subpoenas. It was a cover-up when Trump would not release the entire Mueller report, but did release 99% of it. The Dems insisted on Trump releasing the entire report notwithstanding national security concerns. Now, Trump told AG Barr that he may release all the documents leading up the phony Russian collusion investigation. But now the Dems say "oh no, you can't do that, there are national security issues." Will the mainstream media accuse the Dems of a cover-up? Of course not, as they share the same outlook on virtually everything.
Recently, TV and movie personality Jeff Daniels opined that it would be the "end of democracy" if Trump won reelection. The media has been non-stop in their accusations of Trump destroying democracy. And, like all non-thinking people, Daniels believes it. When Obama used the IRS to target conservative groups and individuals, did Daniels say it was the end of democracy? When Obama targeted a Fox News reporter and his family, as well many reporters in the AP and even at the New York Times, did Daniels think it was the end of democracy? As Jennifer Granick (Director of Civil Liberties, Stanford Center for Internet and Society) wrote in the 3/20/14 issue of Forbes: "President Obama has been the most aggressive Administration in history, not only in going after whistleblowers, but also pursuing the reporters who write their stories."
Name calling is another effective technique in the use of propaganda. Disagree with the Left's agenda and you are a bigot, a racist, sexist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, and on and on. Hillary called them the "basket of deplorables." Again, attach words with negative connotations to those you wish to demonize. Works very well. How else to explain that so many Dems actually believe that anyone who voted for Trump has all the characteristics the Dems and the media ascribe to them - racist, sexist, etc.
Propaganda can be so effective that it is capable of getting people to say and do terrible things. If you have any doubt, just think of the Nazis' use of propaganda against the Jews. Recently, left-wing author Fran Lebowitz was on Bill Maher and said this about Trump: "Certainly, he deserves to be impeached. I mean, impeachment is just the beginning of what he deserves. Not even scratching the surface of what he deserves...we should turn him over to the Saudis, you know, his buddies. The same Saudis who got rid of that reporter (she means Khashoggi), you know. Maybe they can do the same to him." So Trump should be killed? For what exactly? His buddies, the Saudis? Curious, as it was Obama who bowed to the Saudi King.
Just how easy is it to propagandize people? So easy. In my July 2, 2017 post, I discussed how Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy examined the media's coverage of Trump's first 100 days in office. The Shorenstein Center is a think tank at liberal Harvard University, and reported on the overwhelming bias in the mainstream media against Trump. The only outlet that even-handedly reported the good and the bad about Trump was Fox - the media outlet that the Left loves to hate. But now, Mark Levin (in his new book "Unfreedom of the Press") cites a Gallup poll from October, 2018. The poll results: 76% of Democrats trust the media, only 21% of Republicans do. As Levin put it - nearly 80% of Dems trust the media, and nearly 80% of Republicans do not. So, notwithstanding Harvard's Shorenstein Center demonstrating the overwhelming bias of the mainstream media, the Dems buy it.
And that is how easy it is to propagandize tens of millions of people.
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Does Rashida Tlaib Get a "Calming Feeling" When Thinking About the Holocaust? Or, Is She Misunderstood?
"There's a kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors - Palestinians - who lost their land, and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence, in many ways, had been wiped out. I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post the Holocaust, post the tragedy and horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, right? And it was forced on them. And so, when I think about one-state, I think about the fact that, why couldn't we do it in a better way?" So said Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, a self-described Palestinian-American, Muslim.
The controversy that ensued was quick and partisan. President Trump and other Republicans immediately condemned Tlaib for her insensitive and anti-Semitic remarks. After all, how does "calming feeling" belong in the same sentence with "the Holocaust?" But Tlaib fought back, claiming that Republicans were twisting her words and taking them out of context. So, let us take the words in context. If she feels calm thinking about the Holocaust, that is just sick, whether or not you believe she is anti-Semitic. She says her people lost everything - their life, livelihood, land, and dignity. Does she have a calming feeling thinking about what happened to her people? How is that possible, especially since she says their circumstances were forced on them? Clearly, none of it makes any sense, unless...
Let's take a look at the accuracy of her historical comments. First, she refers to her ancestors - the "Palestinians" - of the 1940's. The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) first started using the term "Palestinian" to refer to themselves/Arabs after Israel won the 1967 war. Prior to that, the Arabs were called, well, Arabs. There were the Jews of Palestine and the Arabs of Palestine. Palestine was a geographic area covering a large swath of land in the Middle East. Tlaib then tells us that her people gave up much "in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews." But she tells us that her people were "forced" to do so. That must mean that she knows that the Arabs did not voluntarily try to create a safe haven for the Jews in the Middle East. In fact, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem sided with Hitler during the war, and desired to import Hitler's "final solution" to the Jews of the Middle East. In fact, the day after the State of Israel announced its independence, the Arab world attacked the new country. So much for wanting to provide a safe haven for the Jews.
Earlier this month, Tlaib read this headline in the New York Times: "Gaza Militants Fire 250 Rockets, and Israel Responds with Airstrikes." Tlaib was incensed, and tweeted this: "When will the world stop dehumanizing our Palestinian people who just want to be free? Headlines like this and framing it this way just feeds into the continued lack of responsibility on Israel who unjustly oppress and target Palestinian children and families. #Free Palestine." So, maybe we are supposed to believe that she gets a calming feeling that her people helped to launch a country that she believes oppresses her people and targets children? (She does not mention that hundreds of rockets were fired from Gaza into civilian areas of Israel; nor does she care that Israel only retaliated after the rockets were fired. Israel targets children and families? No - Hamas uses them as "human shields," knowing that the mainstream media in the US and Europe will always plaster pictures of injured/dead Palestinians across their front pages.) Palestinian people just want to be free? She really means the end of Israel as the sole Jewish state in the world, as she seeks a "one-state" solution, with her people in charge.
So, what should we believe calms Tlaib? The Holocaust? The losses suffered by her people? Or the establishment of a country that she says oppresses her people and targets children? None of it makes sense. But, if it is simply a pretext for "do(ing) it a better way" with the "one-state" solution that she favors, then maybe there is a modicum of logic. And what better way to get there than to tell a fictional story about Israel's mistreatment of the "Palestinians," after all that the "Palestinians" did for the Jews. Now, it's time for the "Palestinians" to be in charge.
Tlaib's ideological companion, Ilhan Omar, said this after the recent mini-war between Israel and Hamas: "How many more protesters must be shot, rockets must be fired, and little kids must be killed until the endless cycle of violence ends?" And: "The status quo of occupation and humanitarian crisis in Gaza is unsustainable." Protesters? Does Omar mean violent aggressors who attempt to breach the border with Israel, and who launch hundreds of projectiles into Israel, including burning kites? Why must rockets be fired? What occupation? Israel vacated Gaza in 2005. Humanitarian crisis? Not if Hamas had used the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid they received to actually build a civil society - rather than turn Gaza into a military depot.
Once again, the Democrat leadership made excuses for the comments made by another anti-Semitic congresswoman. Speaker Pelosi previously excused Omar's anti-Semitic comments by asserting that the articulate Omar had a different experience with the use of words. What nonsense. This time, Pelosi tweeted: "Republicans' desperate attempts to smear @Rep. Rashida and misrepresent her comments are outrageous." Nothing about the historical inaccuracies, let alone the use of the term "calming" with "the Holocaust." Pelosi went on to claim that Trump and the Republicans needed to apologize to Tlaib and the "American people" for their "gross misrepresentations." House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made similar comments.
It is bad enough that support for Israel has become politicized. Now, anti-Semitism is politicized. I have said it before. When the Democratic leadership excuses anti-Semitism, when there are no consequences for making anti-Semitic comments, it tends to normalize it. And once normalized, we can expect more of it.
The controversy that ensued was quick and partisan. President Trump and other Republicans immediately condemned Tlaib for her insensitive and anti-Semitic remarks. After all, how does "calming feeling" belong in the same sentence with "the Holocaust?" But Tlaib fought back, claiming that Republicans were twisting her words and taking them out of context. So, let us take the words in context. If she feels calm thinking about the Holocaust, that is just sick, whether or not you believe she is anti-Semitic. She says her people lost everything - their life, livelihood, land, and dignity. Does she have a calming feeling thinking about what happened to her people? How is that possible, especially since she says their circumstances were forced on them? Clearly, none of it makes any sense, unless...
Let's take a look at the accuracy of her historical comments. First, she refers to her ancestors - the "Palestinians" - of the 1940's. The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) first started using the term "Palestinian" to refer to themselves/Arabs after Israel won the 1967 war. Prior to that, the Arabs were called, well, Arabs. There were the Jews of Palestine and the Arabs of Palestine. Palestine was a geographic area covering a large swath of land in the Middle East. Tlaib then tells us that her people gave up much "in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews." But she tells us that her people were "forced" to do so. That must mean that she knows that the Arabs did not voluntarily try to create a safe haven for the Jews in the Middle East. In fact, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem sided with Hitler during the war, and desired to import Hitler's "final solution" to the Jews of the Middle East. In fact, the day after the State of Israel announced its independence, the Arab world attacked the new country. So much for wanting to provide a safe haven for the Jews.
Earlier this month, Tlaib read this headline in the New York Times: "Gaza Militants Fire 250 Rockets, and Israel Responds with Airstrikes." Tlaib was incensed, and tweeted this: "When will the world stop dehumanizing our Palestinian people who just want to be free? Headlines like this and framing it this way just feeds into the continued lack of responsibility on Israel who unjustly oppress and target Palestinian children and families. #Free Palestine." So, maybe we are supposed to believe that she gets a calming feeling that her people helped to launch a country that she believes oppresses her people and targets children? (She does not mention that hundreds of rockets were fired from Gaza into civilian areas of Israel; nor does she care that Israel only retaliated after the rockets were fired. Israel targets children and families? No - Hamas uses them as "human shields," knowing that the mainstream media in the US and Europe will always plaster pictures of injured/dead Palestinians across their front pages.) Palestinian people just want to be free? She really means the end of Israel as the sole Jewish state in the world, as she seeks a "one-state" solution, with her people in charge.
So, what should we believe calms Tlaib? The Holocaust? The losses suffered by her people? Or the establishment of a country that she says oppresses her people and targets children? None of it makes sense. But, if it is simply a pretext for "do(ing) it a better way" with the "one-state" solution that she favors, then maybe there is a modicum of logic. And what better way to get there than to tell a fictional story about Israel's mistreatment of the "Palestinians," after all that the "Palestinians" did for the Jews. Now, it's time for the "Palestinians" to be in charge.
Tlaib's ideological companion, Ilhan Omar, said this after the recent mini-war between Israel and Hamas: "How many more protesters must be shot, rockets must be fired, and little kids must be killed until the endless cycle of violence ends?" And: "The status quo of occupation and humanitarian crisis in Gaza is unsustainable." Protesters? Does Omar mean violent aggressors who attempt to breach the border with Israel, and who launch hundreds of projectiles into Israel, including burning kites? Why must rockets be fired? What occupation? Israel vacated Gaza in 2005. Humanitarian crisis? Not if Hamas had used the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid they received to actually build a civil society - rather than turn Gaza into a military depot.
Once again, the Democrat leadership made excuses for the comments made by another anti-Semitic congresswoman. Speaker Pelosi previously excused Omar's anti-Semitic comments by asserting that the articulate Omar had a different experience with the use of words. What nonsense. This time, Pelosi tweeted: "Republicans' desperate attempts to smear @Rep. Rashida and misrepresent her comments are outrageous." Nothing about the historical inaccuracies, let alone the use of the term "calming" with "the Holocaust." Pelosi went on to claim that Trump and the Republicans needed to apologize to Tlaib and the "American people" for their "gross misrepresentations." House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made similar comments.
It is bad enough that support for Israel has become politicized. Now, anti-Semitism is politicized. I have said it before. When the Democratic leadership excuses anti-Semitism, when there are no consequences for making anti-Semitic comments, it tends to normalize it. And once normalized, we can expect more of it.
Sunday, May 5, 2019
Oh, the Anguish and Despair
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)