It is easy to forget that we are in a presidential election year, given the way the news about the coronavirus virus appears to be crowding out other news stories. It was not that long ago that the prognosticators were saying that Joe Biden was done, and Sanders would be the Democratic Party nominee. Then Super Tuesday happened. Now, the pressure is on Sanders to drop out. That seems unfair as it takes 1991 delegates to win the nomination, and Biden leads Sanders 890 to 736. That does not seem like an insurmountable lead. Sanders, in fact, announced he would not drop out. Then he added a new member to his campaign - one Phillip Agnew. Mr. Agnew has called Zionism (the national movement for a Jewish homeland) "a racist, exploitative, and exclusionary ideology." Agnew also said that Obama, when he defended Jews right to a homeland, was supporting "ethnic cleansing, slavery, genocide, exploitation, and appropriation." Sanders has aligned himself with more anti-Semites than any major presidential candidate has in modern times. Imagine if he staffed his campaign with racists, sexists, islamophobes, or anti-LGBTQ people. He would face daily attacks by the mainstream media and other Democrats.
Recently, Brian Williams of MSNBC, had Mara Gay, a member of the New York Times editorial board, as a guest. Gay commented on Twitter post she saw. The post said: "Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. The US population is 327 million. He could have given each American $1 million and still have money left over. I feel like a $1 million check would be life-changing for people. Yet he wasted it all on ads and STILL LOST." Gay: "It's an incredible way of putting it. It's true. It's disturbing." It is disturbing - that these two opinion makers are unable to do simple math. $500 million divided by 327 million people comes to $1.53 per person. Not what I would call "life-changing." But when your agenda drives your discussion, then there is no need for thinking. What these two should have concluded was that the Democrats' claim that big money wins elections is a lie. It did not work for Tom Steyer and it did not work for Mike Bloomberg - two billionaires. They both lacked the personal connection to people. And the right message.
Speaking of Joe Biden (see top paragraph) he said this while campaigning before the South Carolina primary: "My name's Joe Biden. I'm a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate. Look me over. If you like what you see, help out. If not, vote for the other Biden." I do not say that to make fun of Biden. I point it out because it may be a gross understatement to say that he has merely lost a step. Plus, as William McGurn pointed out in a 3/3/20 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, Biden, under pressure from the left-wing of the party, has apologized for his prior policy positions, including a crime bill he sponsored, his votes to ban federal funding for abortions, and even for referring to Mike Pence as a "decent guy." Biden stands for one thing only - he is not Donald Trump. That seems to be enough for many in the Democratic Party.
Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, was recently speaking at a pro-abortion rally in front of the US Supreme Court, while the Court was hearing arguments on an abortion related case. Schumer furiously yelled this: "I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price...You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions." It was outrageous for Schumer to threaten Supreme Court Justices, by name no less. Schumer is said to be a "moderate," compared, say, with Maxine Waters. But in 2018 Waters said this: "...and if you see anybody from that Cabinet (Trump's) 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..." These two politicians reflect the overall attitude of the Democratic Party - if they disagree with you, they have the right to harass you, to assault you, and for some, to batter you.
The Chief Justice, John Roberts, was so off-put by Schumer's comments that he issued a rebuke to Schumer. Rare for a Chief Justice to do. Roberts: "Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter." But some on the Left felt that Schumer's attack on the Court was justified because, you know, the Court now has a conservative majority. For example, one executive V.P. at People For the American Way noted that "he (Schumer) is acutely aware that Trump and the far right are packing the courts with extreme ideologues..." "Packing the court" now means appointing conservatives to the Left, turning its historical meaning (see below) on its head.
This attack on the Supreme Court by Democrats is not new. It's been happening ever since a conservative majority sits on the Court for the first time in decades. That's right - once the Court was majority conservative, it was time to attack, and to propose "reforms." Five Senators previously threatened the Court in an amicus (friend of the Court) brief: "The Supreme Court is not well. Perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'" That "restructuring" has included calls by Democrats to "pack" the Court (add to the number of justices on the Court after the next Democrat is elected President in order to allow the appointment of more left-wing justices), term limits for the justices (in order to get the conservatives off the bench), and limiting the jurisdiction of the Court. (Article 3 of the Constitution does not state how many justices must be on the Court. It does say what cases over which the Court has exclusive (original) jurisdiction, and where it may have appellate jurisdiction.)
After Elizabeth Warren dropped out of the presidential race, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said this: "If Hillary Clinton can't win when she gets the nomination and you (Warren) can't get the nomination and neither can Kamala Harris, and neither can Amy Klobuchar, and neither can Kirsten Gillibrand...is it just that it can't be any woman ever?" I'm sure that's it. The country did not know Klobuchar or Gillibrand, and really did not know Harris (who stood for ?). As for Warren, she was popular, but many or her ideas overlapped with Sanders', who already had that left-wing base in his corner.
Finally, in a demonstration of left-wing hypocrisy, we have Human Rights Watch (HRW), an NGO. The Jerusalem Post reported that their executive Director, Ken Roth, "accepted a major donation (said to be $470,000) from a Saudi real estate tycoon by promising not to support advocacy of the LGBT community in the Middle East and North Africa." So, when Iran executed by hanging a man charged with violation of that country's anti-gay laws, HRW said...nothing. But, you can count on HRW to continue their ongoing criticisms of Israel. The Saudis are well known to use their money to buy influence; and use their money in the US to fund numerous mosques, and worse, to help fund major US universities. Not that the money would influence left-wing professors at all.
Sunday, March 15, 2020
The Coronavirus
My initial reaction to the news about this virus was that it was an overblown story. I was quite annoyed with the mainstream media reporting every new case and every death. The result seemed to be nothing other than mass hysteria. After all, imagine if they reported every case of the flu every year, and every one of the estimated yearly 20,000 to 60,000 deaths. Or, if they reported every injury from every auto accident, along with the 30,000 to 40,000 deaths per year. I still think it's too much reporting. As of this post, the number of US cases is over 3000, and the number of deaths is 61. The CDC estimates 9.3 million to 45 million cases of the flu per year.
Notwithstanding my personal reaction, it appears that China was able to significantly reduce the number of cases by restricting movement. Shortly thereafter, but apparently not soon enough, Italian leaders essentially shut down the country. Since then, Spain, France and Israel have shuttered much of their countries. No restaurants, cafes, bars, gyms, theaters, museums. In the US, major sporting events have been cancelled - the NBA and NHL suspending play, MLB delaying the start of the baseball season, and the NCAA cancelling March Madness. Large events are being cancelled. Some states and communities are limiting gatherings to 250 or 500 people. In Israel, the limit is 10 people, the minimum number required for a "minyan" (quorum), the number of people required to engage in certain prayers. Many school districts have closed, as have a large number of colleges and universities.
I do not recall anything like this in my lifetime. As someone in the high risk group, I certainly do not want to catch this virus, nor would I want to spread it to others. They tell us that this virus is far more easily transmitted to others than the flu. Hence, the need for "social distancing." Since Friday, and notwithstanding my initial refusal to go along with the conventional wisdom, we have been practicing social distancing. We have not left the house over the weekend, with the exception of doing some grocery shopping.
Many of the experts also tell us that, aside from being spread more easily than the flu, the mortality rate is higher. I have seen numbers saying 3.4% higher to 10% higher. I am not buying that. Not yet anyway. After all, we are told that for most people who get the coronavirus, they are likely to get a mild to moderate case. If that is correct, then thousands (millions?) will never see a doctor or ER, and will simply self-medicate until they feel better. Those people will never enter the system as part of the reported or known cases. Therefore, if we do not know the total number of cases, we cannot possibly calculate the percentage of fatalities. What we can say is that the elderly, and those with underlying health problems or immune problems, are most at risk.
The economic consequences of society's reaction to this virus have the potential to be devastating. It is estimated that the NCAA alone is losing one billion dollars from the cancellation of the college basketball playoffs (March Madness). The NBA anticipates similar losses. Then we have the vendors who operate at these sports arenas and stadiums, and their suppliers, and all the restaurants and bars in the vicinity of where the now cancelled sporting events would have taken place. Then, you have the businesses shutting down completely for the time being, with others telling their employees to work remotely from home where feasible. Major stores (Walmart and Ralph's, for example) have reduced the number of hours they are open to the public.
The politics. Frankly, I am somewhat reluctant to get into the politics surrounding this virus. Not because Trump was not at his best in his initial speech to the country. That was clear. He has done better since. Some of the attacks on the President by the Democrats and the mainstream media are completely unwarranted. As with natural disasters, there will be a need for financial aid to states and businesses. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said this: "If you're providing liquidity to good businesses that just need liquidity for 3 to 6 months, that's not a bailout." That may be semantics. However, contrary to what one might expect from my conservative outlook, I see this as a time when we need to join together. That has been one of my concerns with this virus. After 9/11, the country was united. After the Northridge earthquake, Southern Californians helped one another.
This crisis seemed different. People seemed to be more selfish, what with the hoarding of toilet paper and water. Then there was the young guy who purchased 17,000 bottles of hand sanitizer, thinking he would cash in by selling them at a huge mark-up. I understand that Amazon and others prevented him from doing so. As a firm believer in capitalism, I admire his entrepreneurial spirit. I do not admire his timing, nor his desire to take advantage of a crisis situation. The same for people who are hoarding face masks, which affects the ability of doctors, nurses and hospital staff (those who need them the most) to get those masks. This morning, as I was thinking about what might be done to help people, rather than take advantage of people, I emailed one of my Rabbis at Chabad. I suggested that it would be nice for younger, healthy people to volunteer to do the grocery shopping for the elderly, sick and disabled, given the long lines at many markets and Costco and other places. He replied that he was in the process of sending out an email to the Chabad community announcing just that. I was also pleasantly surprised to learn that our son and his new bride, and our daughter, had announced on Facebook that they were ready to help pick up food and medications for those who could not or should not leave their homes. That is the spirit that I hope we will see more of - Americans reaching out to help their fellow Americans.
Notwithstanding my personal reaction, it appears that China was able to significantly reduce the number of cases by restricting movement. Shortly thereafter, but apparently not soon enough, Italian leaders essentially shut down the country. Since then, Spain, France and Israel have shuttered much of their countries. No restaurants, cafes, bars, gyms, theaters, museums. In the US, major sporting events have been cancelled - the NBA and NHL suspending play, MLB delaying the start of the baseball season, and the NCAA cancelling March Madness. Large events are being cancelled. Some states and communities are limiting gatherings to 250 or 500 people. In Israel, the limit is 10 people, the minimum number required for a "minyan" (quorum), the number of people required to engage in certain prayers. Many school districts have closed, as have a large number of colleges and universities.
I do not recall anything like this in my lifetime. As someone in the high risk group, I certainly do not want to catch this virus, nor would I want to spread it to others. They tell us that this virus is far more easily transmitted to others than the flu. Hence, the need for "social distancing." Since Friday, and notwithstanding my initial refusal to go along with the conventional wisdom, we have been practicing social distancing. We have not left the house over the weekend, with the exception of doing some grocery shopping.
Many of the experts also tell us that, aside from being spread more easily than the flu, the mortality rate is higher. I have seen numbers saying 3.4% higher to 10% higher. I am not buying that. Not yet anyway. After all, we are told that for most people who get the coronavirus, they are likely to get a mild to moderate case. If that is correct, then thousands (millions?) will never see a doctor or ER, and will simply self-medicate until they feel better. Those people will never enter the system as part of the reported or known cases. Therefore, if we do not know the total number of cases, we cannot possibly calculate the percentage of fatalities. What we can say is that the elderly, and those with underlying health problems or immune problems, are most at risk.
The economic consequences of society's reaction to this virus have the potential to be devastating. It is estimated that the NCAA alone is losing one billion dollars from the cancellation of the college basketball playoffs (March Madness). The NBA anticipates similar losses. Then we have the vendors who operate at these sports arenas and stadiums, and their suppliers, and all the restaurants and bars in the vicinity of where the now cancelled sporting events would have taken place. Then, you have the businesses shutting down completely for the time being, with others telling their employees to work remotely from home where feasible. Major stores (Walmart and Ralph's, for example) have reduced the number of hours they are open to the public.
The politics. Frankly, I am somewhat reluctant to get into the politics surrounding this virus. Not because Trump was not at his best in his initial speech to the country. That was clear. He has done better since. Some of the attacks on the President by the Democrats and the mainstream media are completely unwarranted. As with natural disasters, there will be a need for financial aid to states and businesses. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said this: "If you're providing liquidity to good businesses that just need liquidity for 3 to 6 months, that's not a bailout." That may be semantics. However, contrary to what one might expect from my conservative outlook, I see this as a time when we need to join together. That has been one of my concerns with this virus. After 9/11, the country was united. After the Northridge earthquake, Southern Californians helped one another.
This crisis seemed different. People seemed to be more selfish, what with the hoarding of toilet paper and water. Then there was the young guy who purchased 17,000 bottles of hand sanitizer, thinking he would cash in by selling them at a huge mark-up. I understand that Amazon and others prevented him from doing so. As a firm believer in capitalism, I admire his entrepreneurial spirit. I do not admire his timing, nor his desire to take advantage of a crisis situation. The same for people who are hoarding face masks, which affects the ability of doctors, nurses and hospital staff (those who need them the most) to get those masks. This morning, as I was thinking about what might be done to help people, rather than take advantage of people, I emailed one of my Rabbis at Chabad. I suggested that it would be nice for younger, healthy people to volunteer to do the grocery shopping for the elderly, sick and disabled, given the long lines at many markets and Costco and other places. He replied that he was in the process of sending out an email to the Chabad community announcing just that. I was also pleasantly surprised to learn that our son and his new bride, and our daughter, had announced on Facebook that they were ready to help pick up food and medications for those who could not or should not leave their homes. That is the spirit that I hope we will see more of - Americans reaching out to help their fellow Americans.
Saturday, February 29, 2020
The Great Divide
This past week I was having lunch one day with three fellow Jews. One asked why I thought there was an increase in anti-Semitism. My reply was not well received. I spoke about the growth of the Left, and how Leftists had come to increasingly dominate the Democratic Party. I mentioned how the Left despises Israel, and how that hatred of Israel spills over into a hatred of Jews in general, especially if those Jews show even the slightest support for the Jewish nation. I pointed out that it was Leftists who shouted down pro-Israel speakers on college campuses across the country. I discussed that an anti-Semite such as Ilhan Omar was able to make one anti-Semitic comment after the next, while the Speaker of the House not only refused to condemn her, but actually excused her comments and defended her. Of course, I acknowledged the anti-Semitic, white supremacist, Neo-Nazis as also being a serious problem. Unlike the Left, however, the Neo-Nazis have no home in any mainstream political party. "Too political" an explanation I was told.
I was frustrated. Not because they disagreed with me - that I am used to. It was as if they simply were not comprehending what I was saying. An Op-Ed in the 2/25/20 Wall Street Journal referred to an Axios poll from 2018. "61% of Democrats thought of Republicans as racist, bigoted or sexist. About half of Republicans described Democrats as ignorant or spiteful." (Charles Lipson's Op-Ed.) I prefer "uninformed" to "ignorant." My explanation was too political? The greatest perpetrators of anti-Semitism in history were the National Socialists in Germany - a POLITICAL party also known as the Nazis.
Which brings me to this current election season. Notwithstanding Joe Biden's victory today in South Carolina, Bernie Sanders has a strong possibility of becoming the Democratic nominee for President. Sanders spent his honeymoon in the USSR! "No one who shares Middle America's core values of freedom, democracy and entrepreneurship would choose to honeymoon in the Soviet Union." (Joseph Sternberg in an Op-Ed in the 2/28/20 WSJ.) But that was not all. No, Sanders saw fit to praise the Soviet subway system, and praised worker programs and youth programs. The Soviets killed tens of millions of their own people. They had the gulags. They had the KGB to make sure no one dared attempt to speak freely. They had breadlines and empty store shelves. But Sanders saw fit to talk about their subway system. Sanders is what the Soviets would call a "useful idiot."
Sanders also has been speaking admirably of Castro and Cuba, as well as other Communist regimes. "You know, when Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program? Is that a bad thing?" No, it's great. It allowed him to make sure the people could read only what he wanted them to read - only his Communist propaganda. The killings, imprisonment of political dissidents, government control of the press, nationalization of private businesses, "appropriation" (stealing) of private property - not really worth mentioning. After all, Castro had a literacy program.
Being a Leftist first, and a Jew somewhere way down the line, Sanders is an anti-Semite, and has affiliated his campaign with a number of anti-Semites. (Accused anti-Semites include Linda Sarsour, who acts as a surrogate for Sanders, Matthew Duss, who is his foreign policy adviser and Faiz Shakir - his campaign manager. Google them.) At one of the recent debates, Sanders referred to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a "reactionary racist." While he always managed to find nice words for murdering Communist regimes, not so for Israel or Netanyahu. Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East. Netanyahu was instrumental early on in shifting the Israeli economy from socialism to a free market economy. The result has been an explosion of free enterprise and high-tech, unsurpassed by almost any other country in the world. Equally bad, not a single one of the other Democratic candidates on stage pushed back against the false description of Netanyahu.
The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington. In the past, leaders of both parties attended and spoke at AIPAC's annual convention. Sanders: "I remain concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights. For that reason I will not attend their conference." Honeymooning in a country that murdered millions was okay, but speaking at AIPAC, which advocates for a two-state solution in the Middle East is unacceptable. Elizabeth Warren also said she would not attend AIPAC, as did Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, along with former candidates Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Beto O'Rourke.
In my 7/17/16 post I discussed "Classical Liberalism." Leftists, which make up a growing portion of the Democratic Party, are not liberals. Many, no doubt, started out as classical liberals, but just went along when the party abandoned such liberal ideals as free speech, tolerance for opposing views and support for a free market economic system (capitalism). In the Sternberg Op-Ed he discussed why Jeremy Corbyn, the Labor Party leader in the UK, suffered such a dramatic defeat in their recent election. Corbyn and Sanders are alike in a number of ways. Support for a socialist program. Support for the Palestinians over Israel. Sternberg: "British voters concluded that the danger of a leader who didn't share their values was greater than the risk even of Brexit."
I have said it many times before. The reason for the great divide in this country is values. A Democratic Party that once shared in the American value system now has a Leftist vision for the country and the world. As Sternberg noted, Corbyn lost in a country that had suffered under socialist policies, and when they had enough of the poverty of socialism they voted in Margaret Thatcher. In the 1930's, some in the US had a flirtation with socialism and communism, but the American people have never had to live under such a regime. One hopes that they do not need to experience socialism to reject it. "Socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death." Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, political prisoner of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
I was frustrated. Not because they disagreed with me - that I am used to. It was as if they simply were not comprehending what I was saying. An Op-Ed in the 2/25/20 Wall Street Journal referred to an Axios poll from 2018. "61% of Democrats thought of Republicans as racist, bigoted or sexist. About half of Republicans described Democrats as ignorant or spiteful." (Charles Lipson's Op-Ed.) I prefer "uninformed" to "ignorant." My explanation was too political? The greatest perpetrators of anti-Semitism in history were the National Socialists in Germany - a POLITICAL party also known as the Nazis.
Which brings me to this current election season. Notwithstanding Joe Biden's victory today in South Carolina, Bernie Sanders has a strong possibility of becoming the Democratic nominee for President. Sanders spent his honeymoon in the USSR! "No one who shares Middle America's core values of freedom, democracy and entrepreneurship would choose to honeymoon in the Soviet Union." (Joseph Sternberg in an Op-Ed in the 2/28/20 WSJ.) But that was not all. No, Sanders saw fit to praise the Soviet subway system, and praised worker programs and youth programs. The Soviets killed tens of millions of their own people. They had the gulags. They had the KGB to make sure no one dared attempt to speak freely. They had breadlines and empty store shelves. But Sanders saw fit to talk about their subway system. Sanders is what the Soviets would call a "useful idiot."
Sanders also has been speaking admirably of Castro and Cuba, as well as other Communist regimes. "You know, when Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program? Is that a bad thing?" No, it's great. It allowed him to make sure the people could read only what he wanted them to read - only his Communist propaganda. The killings, imprisonment of political dissidents, government control of the press, nationalization of private businesses, "appropriation" (stealing) of private property - not really worth mentioning. After all, Castro had a literacy program.
Being a Leftist first, and a Jew somewhere way down the line, Sanders is an anti-Semite, and has affiliated his campaign with a number of anti-Semites. (Accused anti-Semites include Linda Sarsour, who acts as a surrogate for Sanders, Matthew Duss, who is his foreign policy adviser and Faiz Shakir - his campaign manager. Google them.) At one of the recent debates, Sanders referred to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a "reactionary racist." While he always managed to find nice words for murdering Communist regimes, not so for Israel or Netanyahu. Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East. Netanyahu was instrumental early on in shifting the Israeli economy from socialism to a free market economy. The result has been an explosion of free enterprise and high-tech, unsurpassed by almost any other country in the world. Equally bad, not a single one of the other Democratic candidates on stage pushed back against the false description of Netanyahu.
The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington. In the past, leaders of both parties attended and spoke at AIPAC's annual convention. Sanders: "I remain concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights. For that reason I will not attend their conference." Honeymooning in a country that murdered millions was okay, but speaking at AIPAC, which advocates for a two-state solution in the Middle East is unacceptable. Elizabeth Warren also said she would not attend AIPAC, as did Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, along with former candidates Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Beto O'Rourke.
In my 7/17/16 post I discussed "Classical Liberalism." Leftists, which make up a growing portion of the Democratic Party, are not liberals. Many, no doubt, started out as classical liberals, but just went along when the party abandoned such liberal ideals as free speech, tolerance for opposing views and support for a free market economic system (capitalism). In the Sternberg Op-Ed he discussed why Jeremy Corbyn, the Labor Party leader in the UK, suffered such a dramatic defeat in their recent election. Corbyn and Sanders are alike in a number of ways. Support for a socialist program. Support for the Palestinians over Israel. Sternberg: "British voters concluded that the danger of a leader who didn't share their values was greater than the risk even of Brexit."
I have said it many times before. The reason for the great divide in this country is values. A Democratic Party that once shared in the American value system now has a Leftist vision for the country and the world. As Sternberg noted, Corbyn lost in a country that had suffered under socialist policies, and when they had enough of the poverty of socialism they voted in Margaret Thatcher. In the 1930's, some in the US had a flirtation with socialism and communism, but the American people have never had to live under such a regime. One hopes that they do not need to experience socialism to reject it. "Socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death." Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, political prisoner of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Comments on the Events of the Last 3 Weeks
(Note: It's been 3 weeks since my last posts. But it has been an exciting time as our son got married. So much has transpired over the last 3 weeks that I will not be able to comment in detail on everything. So, in no particular order, let's take a brief look at a lot.)
President Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh. The mainstream media (MSM) and the Left were in a tizzy over the award to a conservative political commentator. One op-ed writer (Virginia Heffernan in the 2/7/20 LA Times) suggested that the highest civilian award should go only to humanitarians, scientists and heroes and the like. After all, President Obama gave the award to "world-historical figures such as civil rights supernova Rosa Parks and Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel." No mention was made in that op-ed of Obama also giving the award to strident left-wing commentators such as Barbra Streisand and Robert De Niro. But I long ago gave up on expecting consistency from the Left and the MSM. Hypocrisy, however, is another matter.
Speaking of hypocrisy, Harrison Ford was recently on Jimmy Kimmel's show. After referring to Trump as a "son of a bitch," he then complained that politics has gotten too divisive. Can you say two-faced?
Continuing on the hypocrisy theme, Trump has been viciously attacked for his recent pardons and commutations, with some asserting it is yet another example of what they claim is an assault on our democracy. Yet, Bill Clinton also pardoned white collar/political felons, including former U.S. Rep Dan Rostenkowski, former Arizona Governor Fife Symington III, and Whitewater figure Susan McDougal. While Clinton did catch some flak on a few of his pardons, it was not deemed to be the end of our democracy.
Just how divided are we as a country? When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up her copy of Trump's recent State of the Union address, it was a perfect metaphor for the severing of our society - Left from Right. Just to be clear, I saw Trump hand a copy of his speech to Pence and Pelosi. I saw Pelosi extend her hand to Trump as he was turning back around. If he saw her hand extended, he should have shook it. I am well aware of all the names Pelosi and other Dems have used to disparage the President. But if we are to last as a unified country, these behaviors need to stop - at least in public.
Speaking of divided, after the House voted along party lines to impeach Trump (although two Democrats voted against impeachment), the Senate then voted along party lines to acquit Trump (with only Mitt Romney voting to convict). Why Romney really voted that way only he knows. He claimed his conscience required it. But was it spite, for not getting appointed to Trump's cabinet? Pelosi had said she would not pursue impeachment without bipartisan support for it. However, it has become clear that she defers to the left-wing of her party.
Speaking of divisive still, it was sad, but not surprising, to hear this story. One of our out of town guests at the wedding (herself no Trump fan - she despises him) was asked by her cousin why she would travel to California to spend time with Republicans and Trump voters. After all, those Trump voters, the deplorables, are racists, sexists, homophobic, Islamophobic and generally evil and despicable people. The only question I have is how many people actually believe all that? Millions, no doubt. On the other hand, I have asked Bill Clinton voters if they supported sexual harassment, sexual abuse and even rape. After all, Bill Clinton was accused of all those things. The reply is often a blank stare, or a "that's not the same." Agreed, as rape is a serious, violent felony - being sexist or racist, etc. is not.
I have to be honest, I am getting increasingly annoyed - no, angry - at these intolerant Leftists. Some, like the aforementioned individual, verbally express their contempt for those who dare disagree with them. But there are increasing numbers who believe they have an absolute right to be violent to those evil Republicans/Trump supporters. It's not just Antifa members. Recently, a 27 year old man in Florida felt he was entitled to drive his car into a Republican voter registration booth. Said the perpetrator: "someone had to take a stand." Not as bad as the shooting of the House Republican's baseball game in 2017, nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise. It was during the last election cycle, on July 29, 2016, that I wrote "A Personal Tale of Left-Wing Intolerance," after being verbally accosted in Court. I wish I could say that things have gotten better, but clearly that is not the case.
President Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh. The mainstream media (MSM) and the Left were in a tizzy over the award to a conservative political commentator. One op-ed writer (Virginia Heffernan in the 2/7/20 LA Times) suggested that the highest civilian award should go only to humanitarians, scientists and heroes and the like. After all, President Obama gave the award to "world-historical figures such as civil rights supernova Rosa Parks and Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel." No mention was made in that op-ed of Obama also giving the award to strident left-wing commentators such as Barbra Streisand and Robert De Niro. But I long ago gave up on expecting consistency from the Left and the MSM. Hypocrisy, however, is another matter.
Speaking of hypocrisy, Harrison Ford was recently on Jimmy Kimmel's show. After referring to Trump as a "son of a bitch," he then complained that politics has gotten too divisive. Can you say two-faced?
Continuing on the hypocrisy theme, Trump has been viciously attacked for his recent pardons and commutations, with some asserting it is yet another example of what they claim is an assault on our democracy. Yet, Bill Clinton also pardoned white collar/political felons, including former U.S. Rep Dan Rostenkowski, former Arizona Governor Fife Symington III, and Whitewater figure Susan McDougal. While Clinton did catch some flak on a few of his pardons, it was not deemed to be the end of our democracy.
Just how divided are we as a country? When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up her copy of Trump's recent State of the Union address, it was a perfect metaphor for the severing of our society - Left from Right. Just to be clear, I saw Trump hand a copy of his speech to Pence and Pelosi. I saw Pelosi extend her hand to Trump as he was turning back around. If he saw her hand extended, he should have shook it. I am well aware of all the names Pelosi and other Dems have used to disparage the President. But if we are to last as a unified country, these behaviors need to stop - at least in public.
Speaking of divided, after the House voted along party lines to impeach Trump (although two Democrats voted against impeachment), the Senate then voted along party lines to acquit Trump (with only Mitt Romney voting to convict). Why Romney really voted that way only he knows. He claimed his conscience required it. But was it spite, for not getting appointed to Trump's cabinet? Pelosi had said she would not pursue impeachment without bipartisan support for it. However, it has become clear that she defers to the left-wing of her party.
Speaking of divisive still, it was sad, but not surprising, to hear this story. One of our out of town guests at the wedding (herself no Trump fan - she despises him) was asked by her cousin why she would travel to California to spend time with Republicans and Trump voters. After all, those Trump voters, the deplorables, are racists, sexists, homophobic, Islamophobic and generally evil and despicable people. The only question I have is how many people actually believe all that? Millions, no doubt. On the other hand, I have asked Bill Clinton voters if they supported sexual harassment, sexual abuse and even rape. After all, Bill Clinton was accused of all those things. The reply is often a blank stare, or a "that's not the same." Agreed, as rape is a serious, violent felony - being sexist or racist, etc. is not.
I have to be honest, I am getting increasingly annoyed - no, angry - at these intolerant Leftists. Some, like the aforementioned individual, verbally express their contempt for those who dare disagree with them. But there are increasing numbers who believe they have an absolute right to be violent to those evil Republicans/Trump supporters. It's not just Antifa members. Recently, a 27 year old man in Florida felt he was entitled to drive his car into a Republican voter registration booth. Said the perpetrator: "someone had to take a stand." Not as bad as the shooting of the House Republican's baseball game in 2017, nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise. It was during the last election cycle, on July 29, 2016, that I wrote "A Personal Tale of Left-Wing Intolerance," after being verbally accosted in Court. I wish I could say that things have gotten better, but clearly that is not the case.
Sunday, February 2, 2020
Trump's Middle East Peace Plan
After then President Obama had clearly aligned himself with the Palestinians over Israel, but nevertheless still claimed to be a friend of Israel's, I wrote this: "No, if you were a true friend of Israel's Mr. Obama you would stop enabling the Palestinians' sense of victimhood and entitlement. You would tell them that there will never be a right of return for millions of descendants of the original refugees. You will tell them that Jerusalem will forever remain the undivided capital of Israel - and you will move the U.S. embassy there to prove that point. And you will tell them - no force them - to lay down their arms and recognize Israel as the sole Jewish state in the world. But...maybe you and I define friendship differently." (From the 6/7/15 post "Obama on Israel, Part II.) Now, President Trump, the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House, has done what I asked of Obama, and more.
The Trump peace plan envisions Israel keeping virtually all of Jerusalem as its capital. It gives no right of return to the descendants of Palestinian refugees. Israel gets to keep their "settlements" in the West Bank. Hamas and Islamic Jihad would have to disarm. And, to meet Israel's security concerns, Israel would retain control over the Jordan River Valley. And Israel must be recognized as the nation-state of the Jewish people. In exchange, the Palestinians get 70-80% of the West Bank, Gaza, and two additional areas of land out of Israel's Negev. If the Palestinians comply, they would receive $50 billion in economic aid.
Not surprisingly, the Palestinians immediately rejected the plan, as they have every other opportunity for peace. The mainstream media, and the Left generally, were highly critical of the plan. Notwithstanding their criticism, the New York Times editorial opined: "This could well be 'the last opportunity' for their own state that the Palestinians will ever have, as Mr. Trump warned, or at least the makings of the best deal they can expect." Bret Stephens, the anti-Trump but pro-Israel opinion writer at the New York Times, said: "The record of Arab-Israeli peace efforts can be summed up succinctly: Nearly every time the Arab side said no, it wound up with less." That, of course, is true. Had the Arabs accepted the UN partition plan of 1947, they would have had more territory than the Jews. However, they have chosen war after war after war.
The Arab League continues to be a huge disappointment, voting unanimously to reject the plan. Nothing has changed since the League met in Khartoum, Sudan following the 1967 Six Day War. Then, the League passed a resolution with "the three nos," - no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. If the Arab world will not join in pressuring the Palestinians to stop a hundred years of wars, then there is little hope that it will happen. In the meantime, the Palestinians continue to teach their school children to hate the Jews, and to encourage them to be martyrs. A Palestinian historian and archaeologist said this: "Jerusalem is the old walled city. The rest is not Jerusalem. We mean by Jerusalem - and I think everybody around the world means - the holy sites." Another Palestinian said: "Trump promised Jerusalem to the Jews. G-d promised it to us, and G-d is greater than Trump."
If control of Jerusalem is to be based on religious grounds, then bad news for the Arabs. G-d promised Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank territory) to the Jewish people long before there was an Al Aqsa Mosque or even Islam. When Jordan controlled the West Bank and Jerusalem between 1949 and 1967, Jewish holy sites were destroyed. Access to the Western Wall (the Kotel) was mostly denied. After Israel won the 1967 war and controlled Jerusalem, all religions have had access to their holy sites. Israel will never cede control of the Old City or Jerusalem, as it contains the holiest sites in Judaism.
Caroline Glick is an author and opinion writer, one of the best when it comes to analyzing events in the Middle East. She was an IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) captain and on Israel's negotiating team in 1995 for the Oslo Accords. Notwithstanding the Palestinians' agreement, Glick says: "Beginning with the PLO's failure to amend its covenant that called for Israel's destruction in nearly every paragraph; through their refusal to abide by the limits they had accepted on the number of weapons and security forces they were permitted to field in the areas under their security control; their continuous breaches of zoning and building laws and regulations; to their constant Nazi-like anti-Semitic propaganda and incitement and solicitation of terrorism against Israel - it was self-evident they were negotiating in bad faith. They didn't want peace with Israel. They were using the peace process to literally take Israel apart piece by piece."
Now along comes President Trump, who refuses to reward the Palestinians for their bad behavior, after having turned down offer after offer. Nevertheless, what the plan does offer the Palestinians is a state of their own. But the Palestinians have proven time after time that they have no interest in having their own state if it means that Israel will also continue to exist.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote an article that appeared in the weekly Jewish Journal of Los Angeles (January 24-30,2020 edition). Rabbi Boteach wrote something that I can definitely relate to: "...the more I stood up for Israel, especially through ads in the media, the more my liberal friends and admirers began to desert me." I, too, will continue to stand up for Israel, notwithstanding the hostility i get in return. As much as I would like for there to be true peace between the Jews and Arabs, I cannot ignore reality. And that reality tells me that the Arabs have chosen war over peace for 100 years. As that one Palestinian said, G-d is greater than Trump. I agree. As G-d promised all the land of Israel, including the West Bank, to the Jews, the Jews should keep it. Let the Palestinians lay down their arms, then maybe there will be something to talk about.
The Trump peace plan envisions Israel keeping virtually all of Jerusalem as its capital. It gives no right of return to the descendants of Palestinian refugees. Israel gets to keep their "settlements" in the West Bank. Hamas and Islamic Jihad would have to disarm. And, to meet Israel's security concerns, Israel would retain control over the Jordan River Valley. And Israel must be recognized as the nation-state of the Jewish people. In exchange, the Palestinians get 70-80% of the West Bank, Gaza, and two additional areas of land out of Israel's Negev. If the Palestinians comply, they would receive $50 billion in economic aid.
Not surprisingly, the Palestinians immediately rejected the plan, as they have every other opportunity for peace. The mainstream media, and the Left generally, were highly critical of the plan. Notwithstanding their criticism, the New York Times editorial opined: "This could well be 'the last opportunity' for their own state that the Palestinians will ever have, as Mr. Trump warned, or at least the makings of the best deal they can expect." Bret Stephens, the anti-Trump but pro-Israel opinion writer at the New York Times, said: "The record of Arab-Israeli peace efforts can be summed up succinctly: Nearly every time the Arab side said no, it wound up with less." That, of course, is true. Had the Arabs accepted the UN partition plan of 1947, they would have had more territory than the Jews. However, they have chosen war after war after war.
The Arab League continues to be a huge disappointment, voting unanimously to reject the plan. Nothing has changed since the League met in Khartoum, Sudan following the 1967 Six Day War. Then, the League passed a resolution with "the three nos," - no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. If the Arab world will not join in pressuring the Palestinians to stop a hundred years of wars, then there is little hope that it will happen. In the meantime, the Palestinians continue to teach their school children to hate the Jews, and to encourage them to be martyrs. A Palestinian historian and archaeologist said this: "Jerusalem is the old walled city. The rest is not Jerusalem. We mean by Jerusalem - and I think everybody around the world means - the holy sites." Another Palestinian said: "Trump promised Jerusalem to the Jews. G-d promised it to us, and G-d is greater than Trump."
If control of Jerusalem is to be based on religious grounds, then bad news for the Arabs. G-d promised Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank territory) to the Jewish people long before there was an Al Aqsa Mosque or even Islam. When Jordan controlled the West Bank and Jerusalem between 1949 and 1967, Jewish holy sites were destroyed. Access to the Western Wall (the Kotel) was mostly denied. After Israel won the 1967 war and controlled Jerusalem, all religions have had access to their holy sites. Israel will never cede control of the Old City or Jerusalem, as it contains the holiest sites in Judaism.
Caroline Glick is an author and opinion writer, one of the best when it comes to analyzing events in the Middle East. She was an IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) captain and on Israel's negotiating team in 1995 for the Oslo Accords. Notwithstanding the Palestinians' agreement, Glick says: "Beginning with the PLO's failure to amend its covenant that called for Israel's destruction in nearly every paragraph; through their refusal to abide by the limits they had accepted on the number of weapons and security forces they were permitted to field in the areas under their security control; their continuous breaches of zoning and building laws and regulations; to their constant Nazi-like anti-Semitic propaganda and incitement and solicitation of terrorism against Israel - it was self-evident they were negotiating in bad faith. They didn't want peace with Israel. They were using the peace process to literally take Israel apart piece by piece."
Now along comes President Trump, who refuses to reward the Palestinians for their bad behavior, after having turned down offer after offer. Nevertheless, what the plan does offer the Palestinians is a state of their own. But the Palestinians have proven time after time that they have no interest in having their own state if it means that Israel will also continue to exist.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote an article that appeared in the weekly Jewish Journal of Los Angeles (January 24-30,2020 edition). Rabbi Boteach wrote something that I can definitely relate to: "...the more I stood up for Israel, especially through ads in the media, the more my liberal friends and admirers began to desert me." I, too, will continue to stand up for Israel, notwithstanding the hostility i get in return. As much as I would like for there to be true peace between the Jews and Arabs, I cannot ignore reality. And that reality tells me that the Arabs have chosen war over peace for 100 years. As that one Palestinian said, G-d is greater than Trump. I agree. As G-d promised all the land of Israel, including the West Bank, to the Jews, the Jews should keep it. Let the Palestinians lay down their arms, then maybe there will be something to talk about.
The Democrats' Inability to Accept Defeat
It is really quite astonishing. To refer to Democrats as "sore losers" seems so inadequate. After all, they have never accepted the results of the 2016 election. That is why we have had the "resistance," attempted non-violent coup, the Mueller investigation and the sham impeachment proceedings. Just over one week ago, lead House Manager Adam Schiff said this: "The President's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff claimed for two years that he had hard evidence of Russian collusion. When Mueller disagreed, Schiff neither apologized nor came forward with his evidence. It appears that he believes the Russians will seek to interfere with the next election in order to re-elect Trump, which makes no sense as the Democrats overall are much weaker on foreign policy. So, what would Schiff do? Cancel the election? Simply declare the winner of the Democratic nomination to be president?
House Manager Jerry Nadler called Trump a "dictator." If Trump is a dictator, he is doing a pretty poor job of being one. The first thing a dictator does is shut down the press. Has Trump verbally attacked the "fake news" media? Sure. But I cannot think of another president in my lifetime who has been as vilified by the press as Trump. Are reporters being arrested and jailed? Is there press censorship? If Trump wants some lessons in mistreating the press he should speak with Obama. Obama and his aids repeatedly referred to Fox News as not being a legitimate news organization. Obama excluded Fox from certain press briefings. (Trump only kicked out Jim Acosta, not all of CNN.) Obama had federal investigators spy on reporters, and even their families. Think New York Times reporter James Risen, and Fox News reporter James Rosen, who was labeled a "criminal co-conspirator" for getting information from a state department contractor. Then there was the attack on AP (Associated Press) reporters whose phone records were obtained by the Feds. I won't even get into the use of the IRS to investigate and harass Tea Party members and other conservatives. Who acted as a dictator?
Nadler was not the only Democrat to claim that "the articles (of impeachment) are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence amassed by the House." So overwhelming that the Democrats insisted that they needed more witnesses to make their case? As it became clear that the Democrats were not going to get those additional witnesses (the Senate voted on Friday 51-49 against the calling of more witnesses), here is what some of them had to say. Senator Kamala Harris: "There will be no true acquittal if there is no fair trial." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: "The president's acquittal will be meaningless, because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink." That's a lot of permanent. (Although, I recall when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's single season home run record, there was indeed an asterisk next to his record, because when Maris played the season had 162 games and when the Babe played the season was only 154 games. Eventually, however, the Commissioner of baseball ordered the asterisk removed. I am not sure what record book the Trump asterisk will be in.)
Here is what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "He (Trump) will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial, and you don't have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documentation and that." Of course there were witnesses and there was documentation. The House Managers presented their evidence (the witnesses and documentation obtained in the House Committee hearings) to the Senate. What these Democrats are really saying is that they want "additional" witnesses. There is no requirement that there be additional witnesses. I have submitted cases for decision without the calling of live witnesses. Nothing unusual about that. If I felt that the record was adequately developed through reports and depositions, then I did not always feel the need for live testimony.
But we know what is really going on with these Democrats. As noted above, they cannot stand to lose. They lost in 2016 because Trump won in the Electoral College. Therefore, many Dems wanted to eliminate the Electoral College. Trump got to appoint two justices to the Supreme Court. Therefore, many Dems wanted to "pack the Court" by adding to the number of justices; which they may still do if they win the House and the Senate and the Presidency. It's simple, if the Dems lose it means they need to change the rules so that they never lose. Who is the threat to democracy? More than that even, they no longer believe that Americans should be able to decide who wins elections. After all, there are many of us who "cling to our guns and religion." Many of us are "deplorable." And if you did not see the clip of Don Lemon of CNN, along with his guests Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali, brutally mocking Trump supporters, you should Google it. We are the "credulous boomer rubes." We cannot figure out "all those lines on the map."
The Democrats' ultimate goal was to remove Trump from office. After all, if Pence became President he would be a far less formidable candidate, not having the force of personality that Trump has. The Democrats are not blind to the size of the crowds that Trump is able to capture at his rallies. The Democrats understand that Trump's base has stayed with him. Attempting to remove Trump from office through a completely one-sided politically motivated impeachment does not offend the Democrats in the least. I have said it many times in past blog posts: the Democrats operate under the premise that the ends justify the means. They truly believe that they are the ones who deserve to rule over us. Therefore, any means to accomplish that goal are justified. Impeach the President. Eliminate the Electoral College. Pack the Supreme Court. So far, it has not worked. A president with a lesser strength of character would have crumbled under the constant attacks.
But the Dems are not done. Whether or not they pass new articles of impeachment in the House is an open question. If it does not happen before the election, I am confident that there will be tremendous pressure to do so in Trump's second term, should he win re-election. At a minimum, we will hear non-stop about a "cover-up." Somehow, the Senate relying on the "overwhelming" amount of evidence produced by the House, but still voting not to convict, will be deemed a "cover-up." And that tells us something else about the Dems - do not dare to disagree with them. If you do, they will not merely mock you and call you names, and accuse you of bad behavior such as a cover-up. They will seek to destroy you. (See multiple prior blog posts for examples. Think Chick fil-A, which the Dems are still trying to put out of business because the owner dared to say he believed in marriage being between a man and a woman.)
House Manager Jerry Nadler called Trump a "dictator." If Trump is a dictator, he is doing a pretty poor job of being one. The first thing a dictator does is shut down the press. Has Trump verbally attacked the "fake news" media? Sure. But I cannot think of another president in my lifetime who has been as vilified by the press as Trump. Are reporters being arrested and jailed? Is there press censorship? If Trump wants some lessons in mistreating the press he should speak with Obama. Obama and his aids repeatedly referred to Fox News as not being a legitimate news organization. Obama excluded Fox from certain press briefings. (Trump only kicked out Jim Acosta, not all of CNN.) Obama had federal investigators spy on reporters, and even their families. Think New York Times reporter James Risen, and Fox News reporter James Rosen, who was labeled a "criminal co-conspirator" for getting information from a state department contractor. Then there was the attack on AP (Associated Press) reporters whose phone records were obtained by the Feds. I won't even get into the use of the IRS to investigate and harass Tea Party members and other conservatives. Who acted as a dictator?
Nadler was not the only Democrat to claim that "the articles (of impeachment) are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence amassed by the House." So overwhelming that the Democrats insisted that they needed more witnesses to make their case? As it became clear that the Democrats were not going to get those additional witnesses (the Senate voted on Friday 51-49 against the calling of more witnesses), here is what some of them had to say. Senator Kamala Harris: "There will be no true acquittal if there is no fair trial." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: "The president's acquittal will be meaningless, because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink." That's a lot of permanent. (Although, I recall when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's single season home run record, there was indeed an asterisk next to his record, because when Maris played the season had 162 games and when the Babe played the season was only 154 games. Eventually, however, the Commissioner of baseball ordered the asterisk removed. I am not sure what record book the Trump asterisk will be in.)
Here is what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "He (Trump) will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial, and you don't have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documentation and that." Of course there were witnesses and there was documentation. The House Managers presented their evidence (the witnesses and documentation obtained in the House Committee hearings) to the Senate. What these Democrats are really saying is that they want "additional" witnesses. There is no requirement that there be additional witnesses. I have submitted cases for decision without the calling of live witnesses. Nothing unusual about that. If I felt that the record was adequately developed through reports and depositions, then I did not always feel the need for live testimony.
But we know what is really going on with these Democrats. As noted above, they cannot stand to lose. They lost in 2016 because Trump won in the Electoral College. Therefore, many Dems wanted to eliminate the Electoral College. Trump got to appoint two justices to the Supreme Court. Therefore, many Dems wanted to "pack the Court" by adding to the number of justices; which they may still do if they win the House and the Senate and the Presidency. It's simple, if the Dems lose it means they need to change the rules so that they never lose. Who is the threat to democracy? More than that even, they no longer believe that Americans should be able to decide who wins elections. After all, there are many of us who "cling to our guns and religion." Many of us are "deplorable." And if you did not see the clip of Don Lemon of CNN, along with his guests Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali, brutally mocking Trump supporters, you should Google it. We are the "credulous boomer rubes." We cannot figure out "all those lines on the map."
The Democrats' ultimate goal was to remove Trump from office. After all, if Pence became President he would be a far less formidable candidate, not having the force of personality that Trump has. The Democrats are not blind to the size of the crowds that Trump is able to capture at his rallies. The Democrats understand that Trump's base has stayed with him. Attempting to remove Trump from office through a completely one-sided politically motivated impeachment does not offend the Democrats in the least. I have said it many times in past blog posts: the Democrats operate under the premise that the ends justify the means. They truly believe that they are the ones who deserve to rule over us. Therefore, any means to accomplish that goal are justified. Impeach the President. Eliminate the Electoral College. Pack the Supreme Court. So far, it has not worked. A president with a lesser strength of character would have crumbled under the constant attacks.
But the Dems are not done. Whether or not they pass new articles of impeachment in the House is an open question. If it does not happen before the election, I am confident that there will be tremendous pressure to do so in Trump's second term, should he win re-election. At a minimum, we will hear non-stop about a "cover-up." Somehow, the Senate relying on the "overwhelming" amount of evidence produced by the House, but still voting not to convict, will be deemed a "cover-up." And that tells us something else about the Dems - do not dare to disagree with them. If you do, they will not merely mock you and call you names, and accuse you of bad behavior such as a cover-up. They will seek to destroy you. (See multiple prior blog posts for examples. Think Chick fil-A, which the Dems are still trying to put out of business because the owner dared to say he believed in marriage being between a man and a woman.)
Monday, January 20, 2020
Appeasement At All Costs?
After President Trump authorized the killing of the Iranian Quds Force General, Qasem Soleimani, the Dems and the mainstream media (MSM) could not think of a positive thing to say. Then again, in the last 3 years I am not sure I have seen a single positive article from the MSM, nor a positive word from the Democrats, about Trump. Let's start with the so-called premier paper in the country - the New York Times. Here was their 1/8/20 online headline: "Trump's Iran strategy: A Cease-Fire Wrapped in a Strategic Muddle." A strategic muddle? I think they mean the undoing of the Obama (and European) policy of appeasement. The appeasement policy of the Iran deal, providing a time frame for Iran to get nuclear weapons, and giving the leading state sponsor of terrorism $150,000,000,000. Please do not tell me it was Iran's money. That money was frozen for a reason, and by releasing that money Iran had a greater capability for weapons development and the spreading of more terrorism.
But, maybe the New York Times and others in the MSM and Democratic Party don't know about the Americans Soleimani killed in Iraq. Nor the death and destruction caused by Iran and Soleimani in Syria and Yemen. Nor the attack on the Saudi oil facilities. Nor the continued funding of Hezbollah and Hamas. And just maybe the attack on our embassy in Baghdad and the killing of an American was sufficient to convince this president that a man who is acknowledged to be the leading terrorist in the world deserved his fate. Strategy? Iran now knows, for perhaps the first time, that there are consequences to their actions.
Given our completely fractured political environment, it should surprise no one that the Dems could not see their way to support Trump. Nancy Pelosi felt that the killing of Soleimani was "disproportionate." Elizabeth Warren thought that Trump "escalated" things. And Joe Biden called the killing of Soleimani a "debacle," putting "the United States and Iran on a collision course." Of course, the Left always thinks Trump is going to cause the end of the world. Ilhan Omar opined that the economic sanctions Trump has put on Iran constitute "economic warfare;" which is rather ironic given her support for the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel. Not surprisingly, Democrat Omar thinks Israel is worse than Iran.
The USA Today was also typical of the MSM. In their 1/10/20 editorial, the paper advocates "an agreement to ease economic sanctions in return for Iran dismantling its nuclear program." In other words, appeasement. When has appeasement of a bad actor state ever been successful? In their 1/9/20 online headline, the USA Today told us: "Exclusive: Americans say Soleimani's killing made US less safe, Trump 'reckless' on Iran." Except, if you did not read down to the third paragraph, you would not know that 42% supported the killing versus 33% who were opposed (and 25% who did not know). I wonder if anyone at the paper pushed for an alternative headline, such as: "More people support Trump and the killing of Soleimani than are opposed." But why give Trump credit for anything?
After the Iranians shot down the Ukranian plane, many on the Left could not help but to blame Trump. Said one letter to the editor in the New York Times: "...we all know where the buck stops. It stops at the desk of Donald J. Trump, who is ultimately responsible for the deaths of 63 Canadians and the others aboard." There were 3 letters to the editor about the shooting down of the airplane, and all 3 blamed Trump. The killing of those people was a tragedy, and if done intentionally was murder. But Trump's fault? Why not Obama's? He ordered far more drone strike killings than Trump - hundreds, if not thousands. And what about the lives saved by the killing of Soleimani?
A former president explained: "...if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war." No, that was not Ronald Reagan's "peace through strength." That was George Washington in his 1793 State of the Union report. But, given the reaction of the Democrats, Kimberly Strassel, of the Wall Street Journal, made this observation: "voters are getting a Democratic primary field that is the weakest on foreign policy in decades." And, given the open borders policy of many of them, I would say the weakest overall at protecting America and Americans.
But, maybe the New York Times and others in the MSM and Democratic Party don't know about the Americans Soleimani killed in Iraq. Nor the death and destruction caused by Iran and Soleimani in Syria and Yemen. Nor the attack on the Saudi oil facilities. Nor the continued funding of Hezbollah and Hamas. And just maybe the attack on our embassy in Baghdad and the killing of an American was sufficient to convince this president that a man who is acknowledged to be the leading terrorist in the world deserved his fate. Strategy? Iran now knows, for perhaps the first time, that there are consequences to their actions.
Given our completely fractured political environment, it should surprise no one that the Dems could not see their way to support Trump. Nancy Pelosi felt that the killing of Soleimani was "disproportionate." Elizabeth Warren thought that Trump "escalated" things. And Joe Biden called the killing of Soleimani a "debacle," putting "the United States and Iran on a collision course." Of course, the Left always thinks Trump is going to cause the end of the world. Ilhan Omar opined that the economic sanctions Trump has put on Iran constitute "economic warfare;" which is rather ironic given her support for the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel. Not surprisingly, Democrat Omar thinks Israel is worse than Iran.
The USA Today was also typical of the MSM. In their 1/10/20 editorial, the paper advocates "an agreement to ease economic sanctions in return for Iran dismantling its nuclear program." In other words, appeasement. When has appeasement of a bad actor state ever been successful? In their 1/9/20 online headline, the USA Today told us: "Exclusive: Americans say Soleimani's killing made US less safe, Trump 'reckless' on Iran." Except, if you did not read down to the third paragraph, you would not know that 42% supported the killing versus 33% who were opposed (and 25% who did not know). I wonder if anyone at the paper pushed for an alternative headline, such as: "More people support Trump and the killing of Soleimani than are opposed." But why give Trump credit for anything?
After the Iranians shot down the Ukranian plane, many on the Left could not help but to blame Trump. Said one letter to the editor in the New York Times: "...we all know where the buck stops. It stops at the desk of Donald J. Trump, who is ultimately responsible for the deaths of 63 Canadians and the others aboard." There were 3 letters to the editor about the shooting down of the airplane, and all 3 blamed Trump. The killing of those people was a tragedy, and if done intentionally was murder. But Trump's fault? Why not Obama's? He ordered far more drone strike killings than Trump - hundreds, if not thousands. And what about the lives saved by the killing of Soleimani?
A former president explained: "...if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war." No, that was not Ronald Reagan's "peace through strength." That was George Washington in his 1793 State of the Union report. But, given the reaction of the Democrats, Kimberly Strassel, of the Wall Street Journal, made this observation: "voters are getting a Democratic primary field that is the weakest on foreign policy in decades." And, given the open borders policy of many of them, I would say the weakest overall at protecting America and Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)