Good (accurate, anyway). Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich recently said this: "If you are a Democrat today and go to a normal Democratic meeting and start talking about how wonderful America is, how great the Founding Fathers were, how remarkable the Constitution is, you'd be booed off the stage." I have said it before, the Democratic Left no longer shares in the fundamental American values. Which is why Newt's comment is sadly true.
Bad. Out of the Rutgers, Newark, NJ campus comes this - an event called "Recognizing and Dismantling White Organizational Culture." The point is to discern "characteristics of white United States-ian culture in organizations...and learn antidotes to dismantling white organizational culture." United States-ian? If I had attended this 6/25 event, I would guess I would have heard all about the evils of white people, Judeo-Christian values, and fundamental American values.
Moronic. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referred to our southern border as follows: "The fact that concentration camps are now an institutionalized practice in the land of the free is extraordinarily disturbing." Any mistreatment of people, especially children, is disturbing. That does not make detention centers into "concentration camps."
Good (accurate again). Speaking of the border, the US Border Patrol Chief told us "migrants from 52 countries have illegally crossed the border this year..." That would include people from Romania, Vietnam, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, China, Bangladesh, Turkey and Egypt. What border crisis?
Bad (and moronic). ABC News Chief Political Analyst, Matthew Dowd, came out with this Tweet about Hillary's basket of deplorables: "With events over the last few years, and conduct and behavior we have seen, can someone explain to me how Hillary was wrong." Recall that 1/2 of Trump supporters were said to constitute the basket of deplorables. So Dowd thinks that over 30 million people have behaved badly these past few years because of Trump? If I said it once, I've said it a trillion times - don't exaggerate! Maybe a half a trillion. A billion?
Good. SCOTUS just ruled on the constitutionality of Section 2a of the Lanham Act, prohibiting trademarks that are "immoral, deceptive, or scandalous..." That hardly sounds like a tight standard that would pass constitutional muster. The result was a unanimous decision allowing a trademark for the FUCT clothing brand. Justice Samuel Alito: "Viewpoint discrimination is poison to a free society." I wish that Google understood that. I wish that college administrators understood that. I wish that the mainstream media understood that.
Bad. One online site that does not get it is Ravelry, which, according to Wikipedia has 8 million members. It is a knitting site, and they recently announced "we are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry. We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy." Sure, I get it. The irony that is. They are inclusive of all - except for the nearly 63 million people who voted for Trump.
Good (although you would not guess the source). Complaining about Bernie's $2.2 trillion plan to forgive all student debt, they said: "The most obvious thing to say is that proposals like these are arbitrary and inequitable. They make fools out of people who scrimped and saved, ate ramen noodles and slaved away at jobs, to keep their borrowing down. The repayment plans are also unfair to people who have already paid back their loans. They undermine the concept of debts as legal obligations." No, it was not one of the hosts or other commentators on Fox News. It was the mainstream and left-wing USA Today.
Good, then bad. The left-wing, Trumpophobic Maureen Dowd wrote her Sunday Op-Ed in the New York Times with the title "Blowhard on the Brink." You see, for all the talk about Trump starting a nuclear war with North Korea, or a major Middle East conflagration, Dowd started her essay with this: "As shocking as it is to write this sentence, it must be said: Donald Trump did something right." Trump backed away from bombing Iran. Of course, virtually every paragraph thereafter mocked Trump.
I think that Justice Alito's comment bears repeating: "Viewpoint discrimination is poison to a free society." See if you can convince your leftist friends and family members of that. See if they are willing to listen to another viewpoint.
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
Sunday, June 16, 2019
Some Ideas From the Left
Medicare for all. Sounds good. But is it? According to an Op-Ed by Robert Pozen in the 5/2/19 Wall Street Journal, the proposal would provide for a bureaucratic board to set an "annual budget" for medical providers. As this eliminates the "fee for service" model, the providers either take a chance on not making any money, or end up rationing the care provided. Additionally, providers will not be permitted to offer their services through insurance. Why eliminate private insurance held by well over 100 million Americans? Might it be because the Left desires control over our lives - which is their true agenda.
Speaking of control. Recall that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as part of her Green New Deal, was going to eliminate air travel. The 6/9/19 New York Times travel section had a piece titled "Travel's Climate Problem." The question presented was whether travel can be moral and ethical in the era of climate change. After all, we only have 12 years left. Not surprisingly, the article prompted comments by the fanatics who read the New York Times. Here's one: "Travel may be a difficult sacrifice, but it is a habit that must be broken. One family's vacation is costing another coastal family their home. There is no world where that can be justified."
As California goes, so goes the nation? I certainly hope not. At the recent California State Democratic Party Convention, there were a total of six anti-Israel resolutions proposed by the rank and file. Two resolutions called for the return of the Golan Heights to Syria; the same territory over which President Trump just recognized Israeli sovereignty. One of the resolutions called for a Palestinian "right of return" to Israel. What that really means is that millions of the descendants of those displaced in the war of 1948-49 be allowed to enter Israel; they are not talking about the few thousands that still survive from that time. It would mean the end of Israel as the Jewish state. Another proposed resolution required elected officials to visit "Palestine" for the same length of time they visit Israel. I get it. Maybe we should require elected officials to visit North Korea as much as they visit South Korea.
Another resolution referred to the "colonization" by settler's of West Bank land. Finally, one resolution would require the Democratic Party to oppose "all efforts to stigmatize and suppress support for Palestinian human rights by falsely conflating it with anti-Semitism." In other words, the anti-Israel BDS crowd wants protection from being labeled anti-Semites - even though many are. However, the "Resolutions Committee" overruled the proponents of these resolutions and substantially watered them down. That action was reminiscent of the 2012 Democratic National Convention when the rank and file voted G-d out of their platform, and also voted out Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Then Convention Chair Anthony Villaraigosa declared after 3 successive votes that the delegates voted back into the platform G-d and Jerusalem. Only anyone who was able to see and hear the proceedings realized that Villaraigosa simply lied about the outcome of the votes. But that is where the Democratic Party rank and file are with regard to Israel and G-d.
This one is courtesy of the UK. Apparently, they have a regulatory agency for advertising with far greater power than any such US agency has. The "Advertising Standards Agency" has the authority to determine if ads have "gender stereotypes" that are "harmful" or suggest certain activities are associated with one gender. First, I would like to thank our Founders for the First Amendment - perhaps our greatest guarantor of freedom. Second, just how easily do people give up their freedoms? Imagine the government getting to preview what comes out of Madison Avenue? We certainly would not have had The Marlboro Man, among many other ads.
And from the Jewish Left...Aaron David Miller has been involved in Middle East affairs for the State Department in both Republican and Democratic administrations. In the 6/10/19 Los Angeles Times was an Op-Ed penned by Miller titled "Trump's bromance with Netanyahu." The gist of the article is that Miller is not happy with the "bromance," resulting in Trump acting quite favorably on behalf of Israel. Miller: "He (Trump) visited Israel (and Saudi Arabia) on his first foray out of the country after his inauguration. He is the first sitting U.S. president to pray at the Western Wall, the first to even enter Jerusalem's Old City, underlining Israel's claims to that disputed territory...(Trump) undid 70 years of U.S. policy, formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel."
Miller continued: "(Trump) also recognized Israeli sovereignty over another piece of disputed territory, the Golan Heights...he formally designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, another jab at Israel's foremost enemy." Let's not forget Trump also backed out of the horrendous nuclear deal with Iran. And Trump cut money from the Palestinian Authority because they were using that money to reward terrorists who murdered Jews. Those of us who are conservative appreciate all that Trump has done for Israel - those like Miller not so much. He was not praising the President for all his pro-Israel policies. So sad that the Jewish Left will not stand with Israel - and Trump - on these issues.
But every once in a while they get it right. While many on the Right will likely disagree with me on this, I found myself agreeing with the 6/14/19 New York Times Editorial titled "Politics and Fetal Tissue Research." According to the Times, "The Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that it will seriously restrict federal funding for fetal tissue research, ending all such work at the National Institute of Health, canceling a multimillion-dollar contract at the University of California, San Francisco - where scientists were using fetal tissue to study H.I.V...." Obviously, no one should be allowed to profit from the sale of fetal tissue. To allow profiting would encourage women to get pregnant and have abortions as a source of income; and no pregnant woman should be offered an incentive to abort her baby. On the other hand, just as a woman is allowed to donate her own body parts to another person or to medical research upon death, I see no reason why she should not be allowed to donate fetal tissue for scientific research, given that such research may prove invaluable in helping to cure a number of diseases. But if a woman chooses to have a funeral for her unborn baby, without any tissue being donated, she must be allowed to do that as well. Safeguards need to be in place to ensure that the process is voluntary, and that no money or anything of valued is provided in exchange for the fetal tissue.
Although, I will go to sleep wondering how it was that I agreed with The New York Times.
Speaking of control. Recall that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as part of her Green New Deal, was going to eliminate air travel. The 6/9/19 New York Times travel section had a piece titled "Travel's Climate Problem." The question presented was whether travel can be moral and ethical in the era of climate change. After all, we only have 12 years left. Not surprisingly, the article prompted comments by the fanatics who read the New York Times. Here's one: "Travel may be a difficult sacrifice, but it is a habit that must be broken. One family's vacation is costing another coastal family their home. There is no world where that can be justified."
As California goes, so goes the nation? I certainly hope not. At the recent California State Democratic Party Convention, there were a total of six anti-Israel resolutions proposed by the rank and file. Two resolutions called for the return of the Golan Heights to Syria; the same territory over which President Trump just recognized Israeli sovereignty. One of the resolutions called for a Palestinian "right of return" to Israel. What that really means is that millions of the descendants of those displaced in the war of 1948-49 be allowed to enter Israel; they are not talking about the few thousands that still survive from that time. It would mean the end of Israel as the Jewish state. Another proposed resolution required elected officials to visit "Palestine" for the same length of time they visit Israel. I get it. Maybe we should require elected officials to visit North Korea as much as they visit South Korea.
Another resolution referred to the "colonization" by settler's of West Bank land. Finally, one resolution would require the Democratic Party to oppose "all efforts to stigmatize and suppress support for Palestinian human rights by falsely conflating it with anti-Semitism." In other words, the anti-Israel BDS crowd wants protection from being labeled anti-Semites - even though many are. However, the "Resolutions Committee" overruled the proponents of these resolutions and substantially watered them down. That action was reminiscent of the 2012 Democratic National Convention when the rank and file voted G-d out of their platform, and also voted out Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Then Convention Chair Anthony Villaraigosa declared after 3 successive votes that the delegates voted back into the platform G-d and Jerusalem. Only anyone who was able to see and hear the proceedings realized that Villaraigosa simply lied about the outcome of the votes. But that is where the Democratic Party rank and file are with regard to Israel and G-d.
This one is courtesy of the UK. Apparently, they have a regulatory agency for advertising with far greater power than any such US agency has. The "Advertising Standards Agency" has the authority to determine if ads have "gender stereotypes" that are "harmful" or suggest certain activities are associated with one gender. First, I would like to thank our Founders for the First Amendment - perhaps our greatest guarantor of freedom. Second, just how easily do people give up their freedoms? Imagine the government getting to preview what comes out of Madison Avenue? We certainly would not have had The Marlboro Man, among many other ads.
And from the Jewish Left...Aaron David Miller has been involved in Middle East affairs for the State Department in both Republican and Democratic administrations. In the 6/10/19 Los Angeles Times was an Op-Ed penned by Miller titled "Trump's bromance with Netanyahu." The gist of the article is that Miller is not happy with the "bromance," resulting in Trump acting quite favorably on behalf of Israel. Miller: "He (Trump) visited Israel (and Saudi Arabia) on his first foray out of the country after his inauguration. He is the first sitting U.S. president to pray at the Western Wall, the first to even enter Jerusalem's Old City, underlining Israel's claims to that disputed territory...(Trump) undid 70 years of U.S. policy, formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel."
Miller continued: "(Trump) also recognized Israeli sovereignty over another piece of disputed territory, the Golan Heights...he formally designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, another jab at Israel's foremost enemy." Let's not forget Trump also backed out of the horrendous nuclear deal with Iran. And Trump cut money from the Palestinian Authority because they were using that money to reward terrorists who murdered Jews. Those of us who are conservative appreciate all that Trump has done for Israel - those like Miller not so much. He was not praising the President for all his pro-Israel policies. So sad that the Jewish Left will not stand with Israel - and Trump - on these issues.
But every once in a while they get it right. While many on the Right will likely disagree with me on this, I found myself agreeing with the 6/14/19 New York Times Editorial titled "Politics and Fetal Tissue Research." According to the Times, "The Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that it will seriously restrict federal funding for fetal tissue research, ending all such work at the National Institute of Health, canceling a multimillion-dollar contract at the University of California, San Francisco - where scientists were using fetal tissue to study H.I.V...." Obviously, no one should be allowed to profit from the sale of fetal tissue. To allow profiting would encourage women to get pregnant and have abortions as a source of income; and no pregnant woman should be offered an incentive to abort her baby. On the other hand, just as a woman is allowed to donate her own body parts to another person or to medical research upon death, I see no reason why she should not be allowed to donate fetal tissue for scientific research, given that such research may prove invaluable in helping to cure a number of diseases. But if a woman chooses to have a funeral for her unborn baby, without any tissue being donated, she must be allowed to do that as well. Safeguards need to be in place to ensure that the process is voluntary, and that no money or anything of valued is provided in exchange for the fetal tissue.
Although, I will go to sleep wondering how it was that I agreed with The New York Times.
Sunday, June 2, 2019
"If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that..."
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...
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)