More Comments On Zohran Mamdani, Often Described As The Likely Next Mayor Of NYC

(Note.  On July 4, I wrote 2 posts about Mamdani - about his politics and about his antisemitism.  What follows are some additional comments, including what appears to be an ever growing anti-Israel, antisemitic Democratic Party.)   

Recall that the mainstream media was all in for Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump.  The same for Kamala Harris.  To the point of making up lies and reporting half-truths.  Now, let's take a look at two recent articles about Mamdani - one in the 7/25 leftwing New York Times, and the other in the conservative New York Post.  In the NY Times piece, we are told that "Mamdani Faces Barrage of Attacks From Republican New Yorkers."  Of course, if the Democrats still supported America and opposed antisemitism, they would be attacking Mamdani also.

The first paragraph of that article tells us that Mamdani is "visiting family in Uganda."  How nice.  If you were wondering what prompted the visit at this time, you would not get that from the Times article.  In contrast, here is what we find out from the NY Post:  "Socialist NYC mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani celebrated his recent nuptials with a lavish, three-day affair at his family's ritzy, secluded Ugandan compound - complete with masked security guards and a cellphone jamming system."

The Post describes his mother as a "wealthy filmmaker."  We already know that his father is an anti-Israel professor at Columbia University in NYC.  The property owned by the parents is said to be in a wealthy area in Uganda, home to billionaires and millionaires.  And while much of the country was apparently mourning the death of a Supreme Court Judge, Mamdani and his family were engaged in their lavish celebration.  

Wait a second.  Why didn't the NY Times report all this when they said Mamdani was on vacation?  Could it be because it showed what a hypocrite he is?  Like many "leaders" of that party.  A self-described socialist, who proposes policies that sound communist, who is against billionaires, and asserts that he is a man of the people - somehow has no problem sharing in the benefits of his family's extreme wealth.  Rules for thee but not for me?

Michelle Goldberg is an Op-Ed writer for the NY Times.  Last month, one of her articles ran with this title:  "Plenty of Jews Love Zohran Mamdani."  Plenty?  She referenced a poll that said Mamdani had 20% Jewish support.  Is that "plenty?"  You can get 10% of people to agree to almost anything.  

Goldberg:  "I thought it was a terrible mistake for Mamdani to try to justify the phrase "globalize the intifada" on a podcast this month.  He's right, of course, that the literal meaning of intifada is not necessarily violent - it translates to uprising or rebellion - but context matters."  Does "uprising" sound peaceful to her?  What context does she give?  The murder of the two young Israeli Embassy workers in D.C. and the attack on the people in Colorado demonstrating for the release of the hostages held by Hamas. 

The context?  The context is that there were two violent "intifadas" against the Jewish people in Israel, as discussed in the Part II post about Mamdani written on July 4.   Over 1000 Jews - civilians - were murdered during these "uprisings."  Why didn't Goldberg mention that?  Because that is how "intifada" translates in the real world.  And "globalize the intifada" surely means killing Jews wherever on the globe you may find them.  And, as discussed in my blog posts, it's already been happening with increasing frequency - here in the U.S. and around the world.  

What is wrong with Goldberg?  Why is she willing to support someone who has repeatedly refused to renounce the phrase "globalize the intifada?"  I won't repeat everything in my July 4 posts about Mamdani.  But, recall that he also won't condemn Hamas for the murder of some 1200 Israelis on October 7, 2023.  But what's the most important?  Mamdani is "young and energetic and comfortable speaking extemporaneously."  And, "in a cynical and despairing time, he gave people hope."  Other than hope for "free" handouts, what else did he give people?  Get over yourself, Goldberg.  Over half the country does not feel your cynicism and despair.    

So what does Mamdani's predicted victory mean for the future of the Democratic Party and the country?  Yes, two prominent Democrats have, to their credit, spoken out against Mamdani.  Josh Shapiro, the Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, and Rahm Emanuel, former Chicago Mayor and Obama White House Chief of Staff.  Why aren't all, or at least the vast majority, of all elected officials from both parties, condemning Mamdani?  Could it be because, as mentioned in my other July 4 post ("Im Sick Of It!  Really Sick Of It!") nearly 70% of Democrats now have a negative view of Israel?  So what's next for these Democrats?  The U.S. should start supporting the terrorist group Hamas (and Iran and the rest of their proxies)?  Another Israel hater, Ocasio-Cortez, is said to be a realistic candidate for the Democratic Party's 2028 presidential nominee.  G-d help America if that should ever happen.          

Friday Was A Good Day (A Personal Post)

Part I.  My wife and I have been going to the same dermatologist for a number of years.  First, when she worked in another doctor's office.  Later, we went with her when she opened her own practice.  She was always thorough, always nice, always explained everything.  So, my wife and I were quite upset when we learned that she would be off work for a period of months, having been diagnosed with cancer.  What type?  We did not know.  In the meantime, there were other doctors in the office to see patients.

Another one of my doctor's offices is just down the hall from Dr. K's.  Periodically, I would stop in Dr. K's office (when leaving the other doctor) and ask the staff at the front desk how she was doing.  I always asked that they let her know we were wishing her all the best.  When I arrived at my appointment on Friday, I again asked how Dr. K was doing, and said to please give her my best.  While I was sitting in the waiting room, one of the staff said they had a surprise for me.  Out came Dr. K behind her.

As I stood up, Dr. K walked over and gave me a big hug, and was obviously appreciative of our constant good wishes.  I told her that, upon hearing she had some type of cancer, I said to my wife:  "No!  Dr. K is too young, too nice and too pretty for this."  (I know.  In today's world it is impermissible to comment on a woman's appearance.  Too bad.)  Anyway, Dr. K told me how she been diagnosed with lymphoma.  She had noticed swelling of her lymph nodes.  And then got testing.  She had to undergo a grueling six months of chemotherapy.  Dr. K is tall and thin, with flowing red hair.  But she looked a little gaunt after her chemo.  And I suspect her hair had fallen out, as she now had short red hair. 

The conversation continued for a while.  She said she was not yet back to work, even though she had stopped in the office.  I let her know that she had been in my prayers for those in need of healing.  It was just just so good, so inspiring, to see her up and about again.  As the conversation was ending, I said to her that she was still too young, too nice and too pretty to be going through this.  She seemed to be moved by my words.  I hope I remembered to also again wish her a full recovery.  As I left her office, I thought to myself:  "this is a good day.  In fact, this made my day."  

Part II.  Since we moved two years ago, I haven't been going to the small Chabad House that I used to go to for Friday night services.  Nevertheless, I am still on their email list.  So I received an email telling me that Friday night was going to be a special service, and dinner afterward, in honor of one of the congregants who had been such an important part of the community, but who now was moving with his wife to another state.  I confirmed that my wife and I would be there.

In the email announcement, they asked if anyone wanted to write a personal note about this wonderful man who was leaving.  They would compile all the notes and give them to him, so he could know and remember how important he was to the local Chabad community.  Of course, I felt I had to write something.  So, I explained that I had never gone to Chabad for Friday night services, until I started going to this particular Chabad House.  I had gone to High Holiday services at another Chabad for years, but this Chabad where I went on Friday nights was a much smaller, more intimate setting.  And, having been raised in a mostly secular family, I felt like a fish out of water.

I was always greeted warmly in the front lobby by the Rabbi and the "social secretary."  But once inside in the men's section (Chabad is an orthodox group, and the men and women sit separately during services), I really did not know anyone, except for one friend who often went also; but I liked sitting in the front and he liked the back.  But this nice Israeli man always made me feel so welcome.  Not that the others were not nice.  But this man was special.  

On a typical Friday night, there would ususally be between 20 and 40 people showing up for services.  What a pleasant surprise to see that 100+ people showed up to wish this nice man and his wife the best, as one speaker said, "for the next chapter of their lives."  He did not tell me the reason for his moving.  I'm not sure he told anyone.  He only said "Lech Lecha."  In the Torah, G-d tells Abram (later Abraham) to leave his homeland and go a place "that I will show you."  That land, Canaan, later becomes the land of Israel.  

Lech lecha can also be a spiritual journey.  And this very nice man, who I came to consider a friend, is a deeply religious man.  In my email to him, I wished him all the best, and that G-d bless him with good health and a long life.  It was just so good to see such a warm outpouring of support from the Jewish community (of all ages, and undoubtedly all levels of observance and all sides of the political spectrum) for this very nice man.  So I say to my friend:  Be'ezrat Hashem!  (Akin to G-dspeed.)

Two good things in one day.  Friday was indeed a very good day.

"It's Personal." Is it though?

Sad to say, but a family member (more than one actually, but this post concerns one) is still not over the results of the 2024 election.  Meaning, not over Trump.  I have tried over the years to maintain relations with my nieces and nephews (except for one with whom I have had no relationship, perhaps unrelated to this topic) by periodically texting and talking.  Either just to say "hi, how are you," or to wish a happy birthday, or whatever the case may be.

Recently, to one such relative, my texts were going unanswered.  So I asked what the problem was.  The reply was rather shocking - I was asked if I am still MAGA, and a true Trump supporter.  Am I MAGA?  I've voted for Trump three times, yet I've never thought of myself as MAGA.  My self-identity is not tied to any particular politician or party.  I have my beliefs, mostly conservative, and that's that.  If I voted for Trump three times (again, I did) but also have criticized him, am I MAGA anyway?

Am I a true Trump supporter?  I do support Trump.  But, again, I've also criticized Trump.  So, have I been kicked out of the true Trump supporters club?  I just don't think of myself in those terms.  But these comments made me remember one time when I was in court when Obama was President.  I was complaining to another attorney that, contrary to Obama's promises about the ACA/Obamacare, we did not get to keep our insurance policy, and just staying with the same company with a different policy would cost us an additional $2400 a month.  I then added "Obama lied."  

The reaction was quite visceral.  It was as if I had accused that attorney of lying to me, rather than saying Obama lied.  He yelled:  "Don't say that about my President."  He was really saying "Don't say that about me."  But why?  Why is it personal to some people when their side is criticized, or disagreed with?  Why do people react like this?  I've had people say horrible things about Trump, to me.  I may not like it (I usually don't). but it's about Trump.  Trump is not me.  

Here is my analysis.  Some people have so internalized their worldview/weltanschauung that any criticism of their side is taken as a personal affront to them.  Their self identity is wrapped up in their worldview.  The two are inseparable.  Which would account for this family member telling me that it's not just a difference of opinion, it's personal.  Which also explains why it is impossible to have an intellectual discussion of issues with someone like that, because if you disagree with them, you are attacking them, and then it's all emotions.  It's personal.  A very bright friend from college noticed this, and said to me some 54 years ago, that if you challenge some people's worldview, their fundamental assumptions about the world, you may very well get a violent reaction.  

This exchange with this family member also brought to mind a quote from my post "Classical Liberalism," coincidentally posted exactly nine years ago today, on July 17, 2016.  In that post, I discuss the classical liberal treatise written by John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty."  With regards to speech, Mill wrote this:  "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

Unfortunately, so many of today's Democrats are no longer classical liberals.  They are Leftists, and we know that Leftists can brook no dissent.    

I'm Sick Of It! Really Sick Of It!

I am sick of much of the world blaming the Jews for everything.  It's bad enough that rightwing conservatives like Tucker Carlson blame Israel for controlling US foreign policy.  But then we have this Zohran Mamdani blaming Israel for being attacked on October 7, 2023.  Let's not blame Hamas (Mamdani refused to do so) - let's always blame the Jews.  The nationwide anti-Israel and pro-Hamas demonstrations started almost immediately after October 7.  Was that just coincidental?  Of course not.  These are coordinated efforts to end support for Israel among the US population and our elected officials.

And, it's working.  In a Pew Research Center poll conducted from March 24 to March 30, 2025, of 3,605 US adults, the numbers are disturbing.  Comparing views of Israel this year with 2022, 53% of US adults have a negative view of Israel, compared to 42% in 2022.  Of course, among Democrats and those leaning Democrat, the negative view of Israel has increased from 53% in 2022 to 69% in 2025.  That's a whopping 70% of Democrats.  

The numbers are better for Republicans and those leaning Republican, with negative views of Israel increasing from 27% in 2022 to 37% in 2025.  But it is an upward trend among all groups.  The religious breakdown?  Thankfully, 73% of Jews have a favorable view of Israel, 27% do not.  A good number, but one that should approach 100% favorability.  I was surprised by the Catholic numbers - 53% favorable but 45% unfavorable.  Protestants had similar numbers, with 57% favorable and 40% unfavorable.  Not surprisingly, white evangelical Protestants had 72% favorable and 26% unfavorable.

Most disturbing to me were the percentages of Muslims with an unfavorable view of Israel - 81%, with only 19% favorable.  Early on in the blog, and over a period of years, I did a multi-part post called "Are We At War With Islam?"  In Part VI of that post (written on 6/20/16) I pointed out that Sharia Law was inconsistent with Western values of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and the basic value of freedom of the individual.  Does every Muslim believe in Sharia Law?  Obviously not.  Yet far too many are unwilling to blame Hamas and the radical Islamists (Hezbollah, the Houthis and the puppet masters in Iran, the Ayatollahs) for much of anything.  

I don't get it.  My view of the world is that bad guys, obvious bad guys, are, well, bad guys.  Putting gays to death.  Bad guys.  Israel has a large gay pride parade every year.  They don't put gays to death.  Israel allows everyone to practice their religion.  No one gets put to death for renouncing Judaism, as can happen in Islam.  And what is with this concept of "honor killings?"  Don't even get me started.

Are Jews also responsible for the way Muslim countries have treated Christians?  There were an estimated 1.5 million Christians in Iraq before 2003.  Now, about 150,000 to 250,000.  Given the rise of ISIS, and the violence and persecution, many fled.  Same thing with Lebanon.  When Christians controlled the country, Beirut was a center of tourism and culture and international finance.  But with the Lebanese civil war, and the rise of Hezbollah, well, you know the rest.  No one is flocking to Beirut, a city that was once called the Riviera of the Middle East.  

What about Gaza?  Same thing.  Christians fled after Hamas took over in 2007.  But what about Israel causing Palestinians to be displaced in 1948?  Some were undoubtedly displaced.  Others left voluntarily.  And still others left because the surrounding Arab countries assured them they would wipe Israel off the map, after which they could return.  But the Christian population is alive and well in Israel.  And about 800,000 Jews were displaced from the countries surrounding Israel, during and after Israel's war for independence (1948-1949).  

 Here's an important question.  How many Christians who were persecuted, who had to flee countries taken over by Muslims, who had lived in those countries for generations and then had to give up their land and possessions - how many of them went on killing rampages like Hamas and other radical Islamist groups have done?  The answer is they didn't.  When Christians and Jews were displaced from Arab countries, they moved on to make lives for themselves wherever they ended up.  They started families.  They started businesses.  They made the best of their situation. 

I have repeatedly said in the blog that I do not believe every Muslim hates the Jews.  But look at these poll numbers.  81% have an unfavorable view of Israel.  Why don't they condemn Hamas?  Why does Mamdani refuse to condemn Hamas?  With the billions of dollars in aid that they have received, Hamas has chosen to build hundreds of miles of underground tunnels so that they can sneak into Israel and kill Jews.  They have purchased material to make rockets and missiles to fire into Israel.  

Gaza is on the Mediterranean Sea.  Hamas could have built a modern society for their people, and attracted tourism and industry.  Time after time after time they chose not to do so.  Because 77 years after the reestablishment of the State of Israel, they would rather kill Jews than move on.  They have shown that they don't give a damn about the people of Gaza, knowing full well that their constant wars with Israel will result in death and destruction in Gaza.  Every other "refugee" group in the world (and there have been many throughut history) has moved on.  Instead of blaming Hamas for not moving on, for not accepting reality, the world blames Israel.  AND I'M SICK OF IT!     

Might Zohran Mamdani Be Elected Mayor Of Our Country's Largest City? (Part II, Is Mamdani An Antisemite And Jew Hater?)

Mamdani's Assembly District covers Astoria, Queens, and surrounding areas.  Astoria has about 20,000 Jewish residents.  In an article in the Forward, a leftwing Jewish newspaper, one local business owner who is Jewish, described Mamdani as "a pretty upstanding, decent guy, trying to do the right thing."  Really?  How is that so given this man's next comment, pointing out that Mamdani refused to condemn Hamas by name after the attack on October 7.  This Jewish business owner said he was "disappointed" by that failure of Mamdani.  Disappointed?  That's it?  Only disappointed that Mamdani would not call out the group that committed the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust.  I'm a lot more than just "disappointed."

This same individual also hoped Mamdani would have have responded differently when he refused to denounce the phrase "globalize the intifada."  You would have hoped for a different reply?  That's it?  In an interview with NBC News, Mamdani was given 3 opportunities to denounce the phrase.  He refused to do so.  His excuse was he did not want to police language.  (If someone called for killing Muslims you can be sure Mamdani would be policing that language.)  As a reminder, the Arabs committed two intifadas against Israel.  The first was from December, 1987 through September, 1993.  The second was from September, 2000 through February, 2005.

Maybe the second intifada is more fresh in everyone's mind.  It started after Bill Clinton had Yassir Arafat, head of the PLO, and Ehud Barak, then Israeli P.M., to the White House.  Even though Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state on almost the entirety of the West Bank, Arafat walked out on the President of the United States and returned to Ramallah, and started the second intifada.  Intifada is interpreted to mean "uprising."  And what was the nature of this uprising.  Arafat sent so-called "suicide bombers" (more accurately "homicide bombers") to blow up Israelis.  Where?  On buses, in cafes, at malls, and even at a Passover Seder.  You know, civilians.  Men, women and children. 

One might think that the world got the message, that the Palestinians did not want a state of their own as long as Israel still exists.  They said it enough times.  Arafat proved it.  With the second intifada 600-700 Israeli civilians were killed.  Murdered.  The only difference between that and the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, is that Hamas was able to kill more civilians.  I want to know why this Jewish business owner was not outraged by Mamdani's refusal to criticize Hamas by name for the October 7 attack.  In fact, I want to know why this man was not furious over Mamdani refusing to criticize the phrase "globalize the intifada."  

Anyone who uses that phrase is calling for Jews worldwide to be assaulted and killed.  Why isn't the rise in antisemitism and outright Jew hatred enough to infuriate this Jewish business owner?  How dare you call Mamdani a "pretty upstanding, decent guy!"  My problem with anyone on the Left, especially Jews on the Left, is that you will come to the defense of every other minority group in the world (black, gays, trans, etc.) but you will not defend your own people.  I've seen it time and again.  

What does Mamdani think of Israel?  Not much.  After October 7, Mamdani said this:  "The path toward a just and lasting peace can only begin by ending the occupation and dismantling apartheid."  In other words, blame the Jews for October 7.  It's always blame the Jews.  The occupation?  Israel vacated Gaza in 2005.  Apartheid?  If Israel is an apartheid state, how does he explain that Arabs in Israel are doctors and lawyers and judges and members of the Knesset (the Parliament).  Recall that Mamdani co-founded his college's chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). What did SJP have to say about October 7?  They called it a "historic win for the Palestinian resistance."   

This "pretty upstanding, decent guy" also supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel.  He participated in the pro-Hamas demonstrations.  And he will not say that Israel has a right to exist as the one Jewish state in the world.  But, clearly not all Jewish people have lost their sanity.  Not all have given up on defending their own people.  One Jewish woman quoted in that Forward article opined this way:  "I certainly don't think that somebody who has a hard time condemning terrorism against Jews should be mayor of any city in our country."  Amen to that!     

If Mamdani wins, will more Jews leave NYC?  As of May, 2024, the UJA-Fedeeration of New York, found that the number of Jewish people living in NYC is approximately 960,000, with another 412,000  in three nearby suburban counties.  Those numbers are down, and would likely go lower with a Mamdani victory.  Would businesses and business owners leave?  Would millionaires and billionaires leave?  Mamdani has said he does not believe there should be billionaires.  If wealthy people leave, who is going to pay for all the "free" stuff?  

Might Zohran Mamdani Be Elected Mayor Of Our Country's Largest City? (Part I, Mamdani's Background And Politics)

Mr. Mamdani is now the Democratic Candidate for Mayor of New York City.  With NYC's "ranked voting," Mamdani ended up with 56% of the vote compared to Andrew Cuomo's 44%.  The lesser candidates who received votes, end up being dropped under the ranked voting system.  So what do we do know about Mamdani?  He attended a private school and then the Bronx High School of Science.  Then he went to Bowdoin College in Maine.  Bowdoin is a small liberal arts college.  Also private.  He was unsuccessful in his efforts to become a rapper.  Mamdani was elected to the New York State Assembly in 2020, and continues to hold that office.

He was born in Uganda, and became a naturalized citizen in 2018.  He is a Shia Muslim, and is married.  Mamdani's father is a professor at Columbia University.  His father has a "decolonial"/"post-colonial" view of the world.  At Bowdoin, Zohran Mamdani co-founded the school's chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, an organization that many believe has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  What about Mamdani's politics?

He is an avowed member of the Democratic Socialists of America, although his stated policies would arguably support communism.  He has called for seizing the means of production, defunding the police, abolishing the prison system, banning all guns, free childcare for all, free buses for all and city run grocery stores.  I love "free" stuff.  It just means nobody has to pay for it, right?  No, it means somebody else pays for it.  

When Rudy Guiliani was Mayor of NYC, his policies made the city safe again after Mayor Dinkins.  Not by defunding the police, but by having the police show no tolerance even for so-called minor offenses.  It was the "broken windows" theory of policing, and it worked.  But Mamdani has a different take on the police, as reflected in this 2020 Tweet:  "We don't need an investigation to know that the NYPD is racist, anti-queer and a major threat to public safety."    

I wonder how city run grocery stores would operate.  I remember seeing pictures of government run grocery stores in the Soviet Union.  Many shelves were empty.  Is Mamdani perhaps thinking of expanded food banks, run not by private charities but by the government?  I don't know.  But, it appears that the food would be "free."  

What about this organization, the Democratic Socialists of America.  As their name suggests, they are not particularly fond of capitalism.  Capitalism - a system that has created more wealth for more people than any other system.  Is capitalism perfect?  Of course not.  But, the problem with many on the Left is this - if something is not perfect we need to get rid of it.  Of course, government run organizations work better.  What government run system would that be?  Don't tell me the military.  Because the military is more akin to an authoritarian system, which it has to be in order to function.  But who wants that for the civil society?  

Some other Democrats consider themselves to be democratic socialists, although I do not know if they are official members.  Nevertheless, the DSA has endorsed them - Senator Bernie Sanders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Representative Rashida Tlaib.  Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez went on a nationwide campaign against Trump, drawing sizeable crowds.  So, is this the direction of the Democratic party?  Continue to move far left even after the country showed it was more center oriented in the last election.  The Democrtic National Committee did make David Hogg the vice-chair.  He is not exactly a centrist Democrat.

Iranian Nukes, Revisited, Part III

Breaking News!  The U.S. has attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites.  President Trump to address the nation at 10pm Eastern time tonight.

Those opposed to U.S. action have neglected some important facts.  One is that Iran has repeatedly referred to the United States as the "Great Satan."  Israel is the "Little Satan."  Also, Iran has been seeking ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles).  They don't need ICBMs to reach Israel.  They do to reach the U.S.

A friend and colleague who writes his own blog, opposed U.S. involvement.  I replied to him as follows:  "First, I'll remind you that every president this century has said that it's unacceptable for Iran to get a nuclear weapon.  Second, Iran, both directly and indirectly through its proxies, have taken Americans hostage, have killed Americans, and have attacked American bases.  Third, Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror.  Imagine if they had nuclear weapons what actions  they would feel free to take beyond what they've already done...

Fourth, Israel is our best ally in the Middle East.  We share the same democratic values.  Israeli intelligence has proven to be a tremendous asset to the United States...what message are we sending to the world if we refuse to come to the aid of one of our closest allies in the world?  China and Russia will surely get the message.  Russia will have no incentive to stop the war in Ukraine.  China will think they will have free rein with regards to Taiwan...imagine what (our Sunni Arab allies) would think - if the U.S. won't even support Israel, there's no chance they would come to our defense.  They would have to consider closer ties to Russia and China."  

I then told my friend about 2 opposing views of war and peace.  Jimmy Carter:  "'War may sometimes be a necessary evil.  But no matter how necessary it is always an evil, never a good.'  How very wrong...Contrast that with Teddy Roosevelt:  'Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy.'"

Today, President Trump did what every other president this century only gave lip service to.  When Trump said Iran must not get a nuclear weapon, he actually meant it.  Six of the 30,000 pound bunker busting bombs were dropped on Iran's hardened nuclear sites (Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan), and 30 tomahawk missiles were also deployed.  No one should be surprised.  Trump refused to sign the proposed G-7 statement calling for Israel and Iran to de-escalate.  That would have allowed the Iranian nuclear program to get multiple nuclear bombs. 

So, I say G-d bless President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu.  Those two leaders are the only true leaders in the Western world.  They understand "peace through Strength."  As for those MAGA isolationists, who claim U.S. involvement would fracture MAGA (such as Marjorie Taylor Greene), Trump posted on June 16:  "AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that IRAN CANNOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.  MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN."