The Los Angeles Times reprinted some letters to the editor that they printed shortly after the historic Moon landing of July 20, 1969. Said one: "It is inconceivable to me that persons on earth should go hungry, uneducated, die of cancer while technology has put a man on the moon." Fast forward to July, 2019, and we have this letter to the editor of the New York Times: "Through increased wildfires, storm damage, flooding, rising sea levels and a thousand other cuts, climate change is already costing us lives and conflict and billions of dollars. We need a moonshot, all right - a moonshot effort to stop and reverse climate change. We cannot afford both." In fairness, allow me to acknowledge my own bias - I have always been interested in the space program and astronomy. Nevertheless, there will always be those on the left who cannot enjoy life because...(fill in the blank of some problems or difficulties somewhere). As noted in the July 4th post, some people were unable to celebrate our nation's birthday because of issues with the border. I prefer the "can do" attitude to the "I can't be excited about anything when suffering exists anywhere." I am not heartless, but I am neither morose nor pessimistic about our capabilities.
Here is another one that I simply cannot understand. One letter writer to the LA Times was a self-described daughter of Holocaust survivors, her father and grandfather both having escaped Nazi Germany. Which makes it all the more inconceivable that she would write: "It may seem hyperbolic to liken our president to Adolf Hitler, though his playbook looks very much the same." Really? The writer was upset by President Trump's comments about "The Squad." (See the last post.) But a Holocaust survivor's daughter draws a comparison between Trump and Hitler? Is she racing to leave this country, fearful for her life? I am curious, did this Jewish letter writer get equally offended by the frequent anti-Semitic comments by Ilhan Omar? I would bet not.
Recall that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi of singling out the newly elected women of color. Before Trump opened his mouth and united the Democrats, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd expressed her displeasure with the Democratic infighting. (See her July 14 column "Scaling Wokeback Mountain.") Dowd: "The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom." That is just precious. I guess Dowd is unaware that what she described is exactly how the left thinks about and treats all conservatives.
In the July 19th LA Times was a page 2 article by columnist Caroline Engelmayer, attempting to explain why Trump verbally attacked Ilhan Omar. Her article is a perfect example of what Trump calls the "fake news." Engelmayer discusses the various anti-Semitic remarks by Omar, then saying she always apologized, except after the last comment alleging Israel's supporters only have allegiance to a foreign country. Why would Engelmayer believe a single apology was sincere when Omar continued making one anti-Semitic comment after the next? Then, Engelmayer claims that after Omar's "allegiance to a foreign country" claim, the "House passed a resolution condemning anti-Semitism." No, that is a lie, or at best a half-truth. As discussed in the last post, the House refused to pass any resolution condemning Omar. The House refused to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Rather, the resolution that passed condemned all bigotry, such as Islamophobia, even though the original motivating factor and purpose was to condemn Omar and her anti-Semitism.
Not surprisingly, the left was unhappy with Trump's July 4th celebration observing our country's birthday. After all, there were two stationary tanks there, along with some flyovers. You would think that no other president ever displayed any military hardware. It is pure nonsense. And, G-d forbid, Trump claimed "we all were made by the same almighty G-d." According to one letter writer to the LA Times, "that pious take ignored how 'G-d' has numerous disparate definitions, and how more than 30 million Americans hold nontheistic beliefs." So what? As one Op-Ed in the July 8 USA Today noted: "Mentioning G-d annoys the left." To which I might add: what doesn't? I am sure, however, that this letter writer always complained when Obama mentioned G-d.
In the 7/21 edition of the LA Times is a page 3 article discussing how Benjamin Netanyahu has now become the longest serving Prime Minister in the history of modern Israel. Early in the article they acknowledge that Netanyahu "has ruled Israel for a full decade of economic and diplomatic achievements." As the paper views Netanyahu as "a hard-line rightest and close ally of President Trump," most of the article is, obviously, not flattering. Then, they quote a left-wing writer for the left-wing Israeli paper Ha'aretz. The Times quotes Anshel Pfeffer: "His (referring to Netanyahu) legacy is longevity, and precious little else." What? Why would the Times put that quote in the article after they acknowledged Netanyahu's economic and diplomatic achievements? Further, it is patently false, another example of "fake news" from the mainstream media. Under Netanyahu, Israel has become an economic and technological powerhouse. Diplomatically, he has improved relations with the Sunni Arab nations. And he has been a leading statesman on the world stage. But...he is a "close ally of President Trump."
Monday, July 22, 2019
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Trump Tells "The Squad" To Go Back From Whence They Came
Over the weekend, President Trump Tweeted "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infected places from which they come. Then come back and show us how it is done." Although not mentioning anyone by name, it was apparent that he was referring to the four radical leftists in the House - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley - a group known as the "squad." Prior to his Tweet, the Democrats were attacking each other. Kamala Harris attacked Biden for his fraternizing with segregationist Senators. AOC attacked Pelosi for singling out four women of color (the squad). Trump's Tweet resulted in uniting the divided Democrats in attacking Trump.
Today, the House passed a resolution condemning "President Donald Trump's racist comments..." I am not impressed. It was a strictly political move on the part of Speaker Pelosi. Recall that when Ilhan Omar made incredibly anti-Semitic comments earlier this year, Pelosi would not condemn her, Omar being a member of Pelosi's Democratic caucus. Even when Republicans agreed to remove specific mention of Omar from the resolution, but still condemning anti-Semitism, Pelosi would not allow it to come to a vote. It was only when the resolution that was intended to combat anti-Semitism was watered down to condemn all bigotry, including Islamophobia and white supremacy, that Pelosi allowed a vote on the measure. Afterwards, Omar was exhilirated in announcing the first ever anti-Islamophobia resolution passed by the House. As the Black Caucus opposed the resolution only condemning anti-Semitism, can we say the entire Black Caucus is anti-Semitic?
So, the anti-Semite Omar got to celebrate a victory instead of suffering a deserved defeat. Pelosi not only refused to condemn Omar, she defended her. "I don't think our colleague is anti-Semitic. I think she has a different experience in the use of words..." The extremely articulate Omar does not understand her words? The same Omar who said Israel has hypnotized the world; who said of supporters of Israel "it's all about the Benjamins." The same Omar who joked about people reacting badly to hearing "Al Qaeda" said, but not reacting badly when "America" is mentioned.
Another member of the squad, Ayanna Pressley, said this: "We don't need any more brown faces that don't want want to be a brown voice. We don't need black faces that don't want to be a black voice..." She continued to make the same point about Muslims and queers (her word). So, who's the racist? Blacks who do not think as she does are not needed? It is a point I have made many times before: left-wing women only support other left-wing women. It is a lie when they say they support all women. And left-wing blacks only support other left-wing blacks, and so on. These left-wing women in the squad would not support the election of, say, Nikki Haley as president. We even just saw it in the attack on Pelosi by AOC, claiming that Pelosi was singling out women of color.
Another anti-Semitic member of the squad, Rashida Tlaib, recently accused Israel of dehumanizing and racist policies. What will she say about the treatment of women, gays and Christians by Hamas? In March, 2016, Newsweek reported that Hamas executed one of their commanders for "moral turpitude," their euphemism for gay sex.
I get that Trump's comments were not well received, even by some on the right. Were the comments racist? He did say after they leave they should come back. But even senior Fox News political analyst Brit Hume attacked Trump's comments as "nativist, xenophobic, counterfactual and politically stupid." (As an aside, tell me when an MSNBC commentator ever praised Trump.) I do not know if Trump is racist or not. He is often attacked for being anti-Semitic, notwithstanding the great friendship he has shown to Israel. Personally, I do not believe Trump is racist or anti-Semitic. He is most likely the mirror image of Ayanna Pressley, having no use for people who disagree with him politically - just like Pressley.
Condemn Trump? Then condemn Pressley. And it is way past time to condemn the anti-Semitic Muslim members of the squad. Yesterday, the Attorney General of the United States, William Barr, gave a strong and passionate speech condemning anti-Semitism. Barr: "The most ancient and stubborn form of racism throughout Western history has been anti-Semitism." If and when Speaker Pelosi sees fit to condemn the anti-Semitic and racist members of her caucus, then you can talk to me about condemning Trump. Until then...
Today, the House passed a resolution condemning "President Donald Trump's racist comments..." I am not impressed. It was a strictly political move on the part of Speaker Pelosi. Recall that when Ilhan Omar made incredibly anti-Semitic comments earlier this year, Pelosi would not condemn her, Omar being a member of Pelosi's Democratic caucus. Even when Republicans agreed to remove specific mention of Omar from the resolution, but still condemning anti-Semitism, Pelosi would not allow it to come to a vote. It was only when the resolution that was intended to combat anti-Semitism was watered down to condemn all bigotry, including Islamophobia and white supremacy, that Pelosi allowed a vote on the measure. Afterwards, Omar was exhilirated in announcing the first ever anti-Islamophobia resolution passed by the House. As the Black Caucus opposed the resolution only condemning anti-Semitism, can we say the entire Black Caucus is anti-Semitic?
So, the anti-Semite Omar got to celebrate a victory instead of suffering a deserved defeat. Pelosi not only refused to condemn Omar, she defended her. "I don't think our colleague is anti-Semitic. I think she has a different experience in the use of words..." The extremely articulate Omar does not understand her words? The same Omar who said Israel has hypnotized the world; who said of supporters of Israel "it's all about the Benjamins." The same Omar who joked about people reacting badly to hearing "Al Qaeda" said, but not reacting badly when "America" is mentioned.
Another member of the squad, Ayanna Pressley, said this: "We don't need any more brown faces that don't want want to be a brown voice. We don't need black faces that don't want to be a black voice..." She continued to make the same point about Muslims and queers (her word). So, who's the racist? Blacks who do not think as she does are not needed? It is a point I have made many times before: left-wing women only support other left-wing women. It is a lie when they say they support all women. And left-wing blacks only support other left-wing blacks, and so on. These left-wing women in the squad would not support the election of, say, Nikki Haley as president. We even just saw it in the attack on Pelosi by AOC, claiming that Pelosi was singling out women of color.
Another anti-Semitic member of the squad, Rashida Tlaib, recently accused Israel of dehumanizing and racist policies. What will she say about the treatment of women, gays and Christians by Hamas? In March, 2016, Newsweek reported that Hamas executed one of their commanders for "moral turpitude," their euphemism for gay sex.
I get that Trump's comments were not well received, even by some on the right. Were the comments racist? He did say after they leave they should come back. But even senior Fox News political analyst Brit Hume attacked Trump's comments as "nativist, xenophobic, counterfactual and politically stupid." (As an aside, tell me when an MSNBC commentator ever praised Trump.) I do not know if Trump is racist or not. He is often attacked for being anti-Semitic, notwithstanding the great friendship he has shown to Israel. Personally, I do not believe Trump is racist or anti-Semitic. He is most likely the mirror image of Ayanna Pressley, having no use for people who disagree with him politically - just like Pressley.
Condemn Trump? Then condemn Pressley. And it is way past time to condemn the anti-Semitic Muslim members of the squad. Yesterday, the Attorney General of the United States, William Barr, gave a strong and passionate speech condemning anti-Semitism. Barr: "The most ancient and stubborn form of racism throughout Western history has been anti-Semitism." If and when Speaker Pelosi sees fit to condemn the anti-Semitic and racist members of her caucus, then you can talk to me about condemning Trump. Until then...
Thursday, July 4, 2019
More of the Good, the Bad...and Utterly Ridiculous and Disgusting
Disgusting. Andy Ngo is an independent reporter. He is Asian, conservative and gay. He has often reported on the fascistic-type conduct of the ironically named group Antifa (short for Anti-fascist). Ngo was brutally attacked in Portland when demonstrators on the right were met by Antifa bullies. In an Op-Ed in the 7/3/19 Wall Street Journal, Ngo wrote: "Officers told me they would not approach the suspect, who was still in sight, because that might "incite" the crowd." So, let an innocent man be beaten severely such that he was hospitalized with a subarachnoid hemorrhage. Disgusting! What the hell do we need for police for? Civilians are capable of putting yellow tape around a crime scene. Those police officers should be fired or resign. The Mayor of Portland, Ted Wheeler, was equally disgusting: "I was appalled by what I saw in the video (of the attack), but I support the Portland Police Bureau's decision not to intervene." If he ordered the police to stand down, he should be prosecuted for violation of Mr. Ngo's civil rights.
Bad. Colin Kaepernick told Nike that their new sneakers were offensive to him; and if it offends Kaepernick it must be bad. The heel of the sneakers depicted the early "Betsy Ross" flag of 13 stars in a circle with the red and white stripes. You see, at the time of that flag, slavery still existed. The truth is that today's flag is also disturbing to Kaepernick and others on the Left. Recall Kaepernick's refusal to stand for the National Anthem with hand over heart while facing the flag. No symbol of America satisfies the Left because America does not satisfy the Left. Michael Eric Dyson, a guest commentator on MSNBC, came up with this gem: "Why don't we wear a swastika for July 4th? Because, I don't know, it makes a difference." Yes, America is the equivalent of Hitler's Germany. So Nike caved because the flag might "unintentionally offend" people, and we get moronic comments like Dyson's, but...oh, Obama had the same Betsy Ross flag displayed at his inauguration. Oops!
Good. One letter writer to the WSJ opined: "If I, as a candidate, offer a student $50 to vote for me, I am guilty of bribery and could go to jail. But if I offer a million students $50,000 in free tuition, I could be President." We are way past the days of "a chicken in every pot." Now, it is a race to see who can offer the most "free" stuff to the most people. Some have reasonably asked why, if they did not go to college, they should pay for those who did.
Bad. In their 6/16/19 editorial, "Americans Need More Neighbors," the paper extols the many virtues of city living - as they see it. Younger people seem to prefer it. People live close to their jobs, hence shorter commutes and less pollution from cars. Although, I would question that assumption, having sat in traffic for 35 minutes to go a distance of about 2 miles in a congested part of the city. The ideal for the Times is Minneapolis, which they say "is ending single-family zoning." The Times: "People should be free to live in a prairie-style house on a quarter-acre lot in the middle of Minneapolis, so long as they can afford the land and taxes. But zoning subsidizes that extravaganza by prohibiting better, more concentrated use of the land." Get that? A single family home is an "extravaganza," and there is "better" use of the land. As the Left obtains control over more municipalities, expect more control over our lives. At least they have done a great job dealing with the homeless.
Utterly ridiculous. I was advised (I am not on Facebook) that some believe they are just too unhappy and feeling too unsettled to celebrate the 4th because of what is happening at the border with the illegal immigrants (sorry, migrants). Well, that is certainly their loss. The world is often filled with much sadness at the same time that there is much goodness. Should we just walk around feeling morose all the time until everything is perfect; or, if you are religious, until the coming of the Mosiah? Not terribly surprising though, as the Left often has a negative and pessimistic view of America and the world. I would suggest to these unhappy people that they try watching the movie "Life is Beautiful," and, one of my favorites, "It's A Wonderful Life."
Good. There was an Op-Ed in the 6/21/19 WSJ by a Michael Blechman titled "Liberalism Isn't What It Used To Be." Blechman: "When I worked for the (Robert) Kennedy campaign, I identified as a Democrat and a liberal. The core beliefs that made me liberal in 1968 put me at odds with many of the things "progressives" stand for today, 51 years later." This Op-Ed brought to mind my 7/17/16 post called "Classical Liberalism," in which I discussed the difference between liberalism and leftism, which has taken over much of the Democrat Party. Blechman discusses the differences between his liberalism and today's progressives in the areas of race, due process, presumption of innocence, the right to counsel and free speech. I have had a difficult time trying to get today's Leftists understand that they are in no way liberal. Which, again, demonstrates another difference between liberals and Leftists - liberals would listen.
Bad. In yet another example of Leftism versus liberalism, the owner of the restaurant from which then White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was booted, was commenting on the recent experience of Eric Trump, who was spat on in a bar in Chicago. This idiot basically said that Trump officials "should consider dining at home" in order to avoid the wrath of some members of the public. Bad and disgusting. A normal person (including classical liberals) not totally consumed by their hatred of Trump and conservatives, would condemn the person spitting on Eric Trump. A normal person (including classical liberals) would welcome Eric Trump to eat in their establishment. But for Leftists, all the rules of common decency no longer apply. As Congresswoman Maxine Waters said: "...if you see somebody from that (Trump's) Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." Not welcome anywhere in the United States of America. I guess that is how Andy Ngo felt in Portland, with the Mayor and police seeming to believe he was not welcome there. Welcome to the Left's America.
Bad. Colin Kaepernick told Nike that their new sneakers were offensive to him; and if it offends Kaepernick it must be bad. The heel of the sneakers depicted the early "Betsy Ross" flag of 13 stars in a circle with the red and white stripes. You see, at the time of that flag, slavery still existed. The truth is that today's flag is also disturbing to Kaepernick and others on the Left. Recall Kaepernick's refusal to stand for the National Anthem with hand over heart while facing the flag. No symbol of America satisfies the Left because America does not satisfy the Left. Michael Eric Dyson, a guest commentator on MSNBC, came up with this gem: "Why don't we wear a swastika for July 4th? Because, I don't know, it makes a difference." Yes, America is the equivalent of Hitler's Germany. So Nike caved because the flag might "unintentionally offend" people, and we get moronic comments like Dyson's, but...oh, Obama had the same Betsy Ross flag displayed at his inauguration. Oops!
Good. One letter writer to the WSJ opined: "If I, as a candidate, offer a student $50 to vote for me, I am guilty of bribery and could go to jail. But if I offer a million students $50,000 in free tuition, I could be President." We are way past the days of "a chicken in every pot." Now, it is a race to see who can offer the most "free" stuff to the most people. Some have reasonably asked why, if they did not go to college, they should pay for those who did.
Bad. In their 6/16/19 editorial, "Americans Need More Neighbors," the paper extols the many virtues of city living - as they see it. Younger people seem to prefer it. People live close to their jobs, hence shorter commutes and less pollution from cars. Although, I would question that assumption, having sat in traffic for 35 minutes to go a distance of about 2 miles in a congested part of the city. The ideal for the Times is Minneapolis, which they say "is ending single-family zoning." The Times: "People should be free to live in a prairie-style house on a quarter-acre lot in the middle of Minneapolis, so long as they can afford the land and taxes. But zoning subsidizes that extravaganza by prohibiting better, more concentrated use of the land." Get that? A single family home is an "extravaganza," and there is "better" use of the land. As the Left obtains control over more municipalities, expect more control over our lives. At least they have done a great job dealing with the homeless.
Utterly ridiculous. I was advised (I am not on Facebook) that some believe they are just too unhappy and feeling too unsettled to celebrate the 4th because of what is happening at the border with the illegal immigrants (sorry, migrants). Well, that is certainly their loss. The world is often filled with much sadness at the same time that there is much goodness. Should we just walk around feeling morose all the time until everything is perfect; or, if you are religious, until the coming of the Mosiah? Not terribly surprising though, as the Left often has a negative and pessimistic view of America and the world. I would suggest to these unhappy people that they try watching the movie "Life is Beautiful," and, one of my favorites, "It's A Wonderful Life."
Good. There was an Op-Ed in the 6/21/19 WSJ by a Michael Blechman titled "Liberalism Isn't What It Used To Be." Blechman: "When I worked for the (Robert) Kennedy campaign, I identified as a Democrat and a liberal. The core beliefs that made me liberal in 1968 put me at odds with many of the things "progressives" stand for today, 51 years later." This Op-Ed brought to mind my 7/17/16 post called "Classical Liberalism," in which I discussed the difference between liberalism and leftism, which has taken over much of the Democrat Party. Blechman discusses the differences between his liberalism and today's progressives in the areas of race, due process, presumption of innocence, the right to counsel and free speech. I have had a difficult time trying to get today's Leftists understand that they are in no way liberal. Which, again, demonstrates another difference between liberals and Leftists - liberals would listen.
Bad. In yet another example of Leftism versus liberalism, the owner of the restaurant from which then White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was booted, was commenting on the recent experience of Eric Trump, who was spat on in a bar in Chicago. This idiot basically said that Trump officials "should consider dining at home" in order to avoid the wrath of some members of the public. Bad and disgusting. A normal person (including classical liberals) not totally consumed by their hatred of Trump and conservatives, would condemn the person spitting on Eric Trump. A normal person (including classical liberals) would welcome Eric Trump to eat in their establishment. But for Leftists, all the rules of common decency no longer apply. As Congresswoman Maxine Waters said: "...if you see somebody from that (Trump's) Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." Not welcome anywhere in the United States of America. I guess that is how Andy Ngo felt in Portland, with the Mayor and police seeming to believe he was not welcome there. Welcome to the Left's America.
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
The Good, the Bad and the ...Moronic
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)