I have never been a conspiracy theorist. But what is being done to undermine, and even bring down, a sitting American President, should be frightening to everyone. It did not start with the women's march on January 21, the day after Trump's inauguration; although the posters being carried reflected many marchers really had no interest in seeing what policies Trump would put in place. It was not just the constant media attacks on virtually every Trump associate and adviser: from Steve Bannon (calling him an anti-Semite with no proof of same) to Stephen Miller to Michael Flynn to Kellyanne Conway (how horrible that she sat on the couch in the Oval Office with her legs folded back under her - but not horrible when Obama put his feet on the Resolute Desk on multiple occasions) to Jeff Sessions, and on and on. This is more than the left-wing hypocrisy, which I have demonstrated in many of my recent posts. What we are witnessing, less than two months into his Presidency, is an attempt to get Trump removed from office. It is unprecedented.
When the Watergate scandal was initially being investigated by the Washington Post about 45 years ago, most of the stories were buried somewhere deep in the paper. Now, notwithstanding no conclusive evidence of any wrongdoing or criminal activity by Trump or his people, the stories (allegations) are readily splashed across the front pages of most major newspapers. Why? Question: what motivated the Obama Administration, only days before Obama left office, to allow the sharing of raw intelligence data gathered by the NSA with all the other (16) intelligence agencies. The greater the access to that data, the greater the likelihood of leaks. And, not surprisingly, leaks there have been: from our President's telephone conversations with the Mexican President and the Australian Prime Minister, to the illegal release of Michael Flynn's name, while Flynn had a telephone conversation with the Russian Ambassador. The surveillance of foreign government officials on US soil is no surprise. However, the names of Americans involved in such conversations are to be redacted - it is illegal to release American's names.
On January 20, the day of Trump's inauguration, the front page of the New York Times had this headline: "Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry Of Trump Aides." What an interesting headline. The article found no evidence of wrongdoing; and the Times subsequently deleted "wiretapped" from the headline. But, why was this a front page story? If there was no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, and no actual wiretapping of Trump aides, what point was the Times trying to make here? Or, was it just part of a concerted effort to bring an abrupt end to the Trump Presidency? Was it just coincidental that the day after Trump's well received speech to Congress that the Washington Post prints the story about Jeff Sessions communications with the Russian Ambassador?
During Sessions' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Al Franken tells Sessions that CNN just published a report that "Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump," and that "there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government." Franken: "If it's true it's obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?" So, in that context, relating to the campaign, Senator Sessions answers as follows: "I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communication with the Russians." It turns out that Mr. Sessions, as a Senator, did have two conversations with the Russian Ambassador. One, at the Republican convention, where they had a brief conversation. The other was in Sessions' Senate office, with two of his aides present - hardly the place to have a surreptitious meeting; and nothing like the basements of parking structures where Woodward and Bernstein would meet with "deep throat" during their investigation of the Watergate scandal. Nevertheless, it clearly would have been preferable if Sessions had simply said "as a Senator, I speak with many foreign officials, and as a Senator I did speak twice with the Russian Ambassador."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: "Because the Department of Justice should be above reproach, for the good of the country, Attorney General Sessions should resign." It's a shame that Schumer did not feel that way when Obama was President and Loretta Lynch was the Attorney General. When asked about Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton, while her department had Hillary Clinton under investigation, Schumer opined: "She (Lynch) has said nothing was discussed related to the investigation. So you have two choices - to say this didn't matter, or she's lying. I think it didn't matter. I don't think she's lying." Of course, lying is not the issue now. No, it's "above reproach." Two AGs, two standards. And yet another attempt to have another Trump appointee removed from his post.
The 3/3/17 USA Today printed an opinion piece by Jason Sattler, described as a member of the paper's Board of Contributors. The headline was: "Democrats, Time to Talk Impeachment." I have already seen Democratic Congressmen on TV, calling for Trump's impeachment. One member of the Democratic National Committee (Gilda Cobb-Hunter) apparently said this: "You have someone (Trump) trying to erase your (Obama's) legacy. You have to do all that you can to make sure that doesn't happen." "...do all that you can..." Is it just a coincidence that the Obamas are leasing a house in Washington, D.C., in addition to the home they purchased in Rancho Mirage, California? Is it just a coincidence that "Obama for America" is now "Organizing for America?" Did anyone really believe that Obama would not interfere with Trump, the way Bush refused to criticize or speak out against Obama?
But Obama is not alone. His last Attorney General, the aforementioned Loretta Lynch, recently made a video. Here is what she said: "I know that this is a time of great fear and uncertainty for so many people. I know it's a time of concern for people, who see our rights being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back. I know that this is difficult, but I remind you that this has never been easy. We have always had to work to move this country forward to achieve the great ideals of our Founding Fathers. It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They've marched, they've bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again."
What is she talking about? It was Obama who spied on reporter James Rosen and his family. It was Obama who spied on the AP. It was Obama who used the IRS to target conservative individuals and groups. And it was Lynch who threatened to prosecute otherwise protected speech - if directed against Islam or Muslims. Does it not sound like Lynch is now calling for violence in the streets? Because of what? What has Trump done that would warrant this type of reaction?
Another former official in the Obama Administration, Rosa Brooks, who worked at the D.O.D., just recently wrote a piece for Foreign Policy magazine. Brooks: "Donald Trump's first week as President has made it all too clear: yes, he is as crazy as everyone feared." After Trump was President for only one week she was prepared to ask: "Are we truly stuck with Donald Trump?" Then, she gave the options. One, wait for the 2020 elections. Two, impeachment. Three, invoke the 25th Amendment. That Amendment allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to declare the President unfit for office, with the result being that the VP becomes Acting President. And the last option given by Brooks: "The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders." A military coup. Like Lynch, Brooks is also an attorney, and is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
No, I do not need to be a conspiracy theorist at all to see that something very serious is happening. The constant barrage of news stories filled with innuendo and allegations, but little hard facts. The premature calls for Trump's impeachment - by the media and Democratic officials. And the call for what seems like rioting in the streets and a military coup by two lawyers who worked for Obama. Does Trump, at times, say some crazy things? Yes, but not as crazy as what appears to be a call for a civil war in this country.
Sunday, March 12, 2017
Saturday, March 4, 2017
A "Renewal of the American Spirit"
That is what President Trump called for in his speech to a Joint Session of Congress on 2/28/17. The speech was positive and uplifting, and for the first time in eight years I felt like I was listening to a President who truly loves this country. The speech focused primarily on domestic policy issues.
Trump started with a condemnation of "hate and evil in all its forms." Some Democrats did not see fit to applaud or stand up for that sentiment. He spoke of having an aggressive strategy to dismantle the cartels and criminal gangs in this country. I have no idea why that would not be a non-partisan issue. He talked about defending the country from "radical Islamic terrorism," three words that never left the mouth of Barack Obama during his eight years in office.
Whereas Obama spoke of wanting to "degrade and defeat" ISIS, Trump wants the DOD to develop a plan to "demolish and destroy" ISIS. He reaffirmed our support for NATO, as well for the "unbreakable bond" that exists between the United States and Israel. Trump said that he was forming an alliance with Canada to help women entrepreneurs "gain access to the "networks, markets and capital" needed to start a business.
He asked Congress to develop legislation that would fund school choice, specifically mentioning millions of African-American and Latino children. Such a proposal is not supported by the Democrats, because much of their support comes from the teachers' unions, who oppose such proposals. While this writer supports teachers, I do not feel the same about teachers' unions. Many Democrats failed to stand for much of the above proposals, which can only be a result of their ongoing attempt to undermine the Trump Presidency and effectuate a coup. (See the next post.)
More controversial was the expected proposal to repeal and replace the ACA/Obamacare. Some argue that the Republicans should simply allow Obamacare to fail on its own. However, the Republicans made a promise to the people who elected them, and now they need to follow through on that promise. Of course, Trump also talked about improving the economy and bringing back jobs and businesses. More controversial from conservatives' point of view is his plan to invest one trillion dollars on infrastructure. Also, Trump wants to rebuild our military, starting with 54 billion dollars in additional defense spending.
In one of the most moving movements of any Presidential address, Trump introduced Carryn Owens, widow of Navy Seal William "Ryan" Owens, who was killed in a recent operation in Yemen. I understand that there are people who believe that no President should bring any individual to their speeches to Congress, allowing them to tell that person's story, and in the process getting sympathy and support for the President's proposed policies. However, this brave woman was there, and it was understandably a difficult moment for her. The sacrifice made by her, her family and, of course, her husband in the service to this country was deserving of complete and total respect.
That some Democrats were unwilling to stand and show respect and support for this woman was unimaginable. That some commentators later mocked her for being "used" by Trump...well, there is something very wrong with people like that. This blog is an intellectual discussion of issues, without the use of four-letter words or name calling. (I have, rarely, said "moron.") But the people who disrespected Carryn Owens and her husband's service to our country are, simply, disgusting human beings.
Needless to say, the mainstream media was not impressed. Many did give Trump credit for having a more uplifting speech than his inaugural speech. Otherwise, total criticism. The New York Times editorial about the speech was entitled "The Missing Commander in Chief." In case you thought they would give credit to Trump for wanting to help minority children, for wanting to help women entrepreneurs and for wanting to make our country safer, well, you were dreaming. The NY Times complained that Trump did not sufficiently discuss the threat from ISIS - apparently they need more details about "demolish and destroy," but were perfectly fine with Obama's plan to "degrade and defeat." They wanted Trump to talk about Russia and China and Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria.
Let's be perfectly clear. If Trump had focused on foreign policy, the NY Times would have complained that he ignored all the social and domestic issues affecting our country. And is it not ironic that the Times is focused on foreign policy now that Obama is out of office. Obama, who told the Russians he would have more "flexibility" after his reelection, after which Putin took over the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Obama, whose Secretary of State had her ridiculous "reset" button with Russia. Obama, who drew a red line in the sand with Syria, then denied he ever did so. Obama, who prematurely withdrew American forces from Iraq, allowing for the rise of ISIS. Obama, who sold out our main Middle East ally, Israel, at the United Nations. Obama was one Commander in Chief that the country will not miss.
The Los Angeles Times had a different, albeit still critical, take on the speech. For them, Trump shifted from domestic needs to a focus on growing the military. In other words, these two news outlets looked for something they could criticize, while seeing nothing they could praise, in Trump's speech. There was one thing upon which these two papers could agree: Trump "has no clue" as to the nation's best interests (LA Times), and is "clueless" as to America's role in the world (NY Times). Actually, it was Obama who developed the "lead from behind" strategy, not believing in America's leadership role in the world. It was Trump who said "our allies will find that America is once again ready to lead." But maybe these newspapers forget. More likely, they are lacking in intellectual honesty, with their emphasis being on their left-wing agenda, not a fair and truthful analysis.
Trump started with a condemnation of "hate and evil in all its forms." Some Democrats did not see fit to applaud or stand up for that sentiment. He spoke of having an aggressive strategy to dismantle the cartels and criminal gangs in this country. I have no idea why that would not be a non-partisan issue. He talked about defending the country from "radical Islamic terrorism," three words that never left the mouth of Barack Obama during his eight years in office.
Whereas Obama spoke of wanting to "degrade and defeat" ISIS, Trump wants the DOD to develop a plan to "demolish and destroy" ISIS. He reaffirmed our support for NATO, as well for the "unbreakable bond" that exists between the United States and Israel. Trump said that he was forming an alliance with Canada to help women entrepreneurs "gain access to the "networks, markets and capital" needed to start a business.
He asked Congress to develop legislation that would fund school choice, specifically mentioning millions of African-American and Latino children. Such a proposal is not supported by the Democrats, because much of their support comes from the teachers' unions, who oppose such proposals. While this writer supports teachers, I do not feel the same about teachers' unions. Many Democrats failed to stand for much of the above proposals, which can only be a result of their ongoing attempt to undermine the Trump Presidency and effectuate a coup. (See the next post.)
More controversial was the expected proposal to repeal and replace the ACA/Obamacare. Some argue that the Republicans should simply allow Obamacare to fail on its own. However, the Republicans made a promise to the people who elected them, and now they need to follow through on that promise. Of course, Trump also talked about improving the economy and bringing back jobs and businesses. More controversial from conservatives' point of view is his plan to invest one trillion dollars on infrastructure. Also, Trump wants to rebuild our military, starting with 54 billion dollars in additional defense spending.
In one of the most moving movements of any Presidential address, Trump introduced Carryn Owens, widow of Navy Seal William "Ryan" Owens, who was killed in a recent operation in Yemen. I understand that there are people who believe that no President should bring any individual to their speeches to Congress, allowing them to tell that person's story, and in the process getting sympathy and support for the President's proposed policies. However, this brave woman was there, and it was understandably a difficult moment for her. The sacrifice made by her, her family and, of course, her husband in the service to this country was deserving of complete and total respect.
That some Democrats were unwilling to stand and show respect and support for this woman was unimaginable. That some commentators later mocked her for being "used" by Trump...well, there is something very wrong with people like that. This blog is an intellectual discussion of issues, without the use of four-letter words or name calling. (I have, rarely, said "moron.") But the people who disrespected Carryn Owens and her husband's service to our country are, simply, disgusting human beings.
Needless to say, the mainstream media was not impressed. Many did give Trump credit for having a more uplifting speech than his inaugural speech. Otherwise, total criticism. The New York Times editorial about the speech was entitled "The Missing Commander in Chief." In case you thought they would give credit to Trump for wanting to help minority children, for wanting to help women entrepreneurs and for wanting to make our country safer, well, you were dreaming. The NY Times complained that Trump did not sufficiently discuss the threat from ISIS - apparently they need more details about "demolish and destroy," but were perfectly fine with Obama's plan to "degrade and defeat." They wanted Trump to talk about Russia and China and Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria.
Let's be perfectly clear. If Trump had focused on foreign policy, the NY Times would have complained that he ignored all the social and domestic issues affecting our country. And is it not ironic that the Times is focused on foreign policy now that Obama is out of office. Obama, who told the Russians he would have more "flexibility" after his reelection, after which Putin took over the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Obama, whose Secretary of State had her ridiculous "reset" button with Russia. Obama, who drew a red line in the sand with Syria, then denied he ever did so. Obama, who prematurely withdrew American forces from Iraq, allowing for the rise of ISIS. Obama, who sold out our main Middle East ally, Israel, at the United Nations. Obama was one Commander in Chief that the country will not miss.
The Los Angeles Times had a different, albeit still critical, take on the speech. For them, Trump shifted from domestic needs to a focus on growing the military. In other words, these two news outlets looked for something they could criticize, while seeing nothing they could praise, in Trump's speech. There was one thing upon which these two papers could agree: Trump "has no clue" as to the nation's best interests (LA Times), and is "clueless" as to America's role in the world (NY Times). Actually, it was Obama who developed the "lead from behind" strategy, not believing in America's leadership role in the world. It was Trump who said "our allies will find that America is once again ready to lead." But maybe these newspapers forget. More likely, they are lacking in intellectual honesty, with their emphasis being on their left-wing agenda, not a fair and truthful analysis.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Trump and the Press
The latest controversy involving President Trump concerns his comments about "fake news" being the enemy of the people. Is the left overreacting yet again, or do we have a serious issue? In blog posts last month and this month, I have shown the overreaction, and/or application of the double standard, to all things Trump - his "dark" inaugural speech, his "un-American" immigration policy, and his "illegitimate" ability to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, having "stolen" that seat from Obama.
Let's start with this - most (all?) Presidents have had issues the press. And for those who may not recall it, the Obama Administration attacked Fox News from the very beginning of Obama's term in office. Obama sent his top advisers to the Sunday talk shows in an effort to delegitimize Fox News. Obama's Communications Director, Anita Dunn, said Fox was an "arm of the Republican Party," and not a legitimate news organization. Top political adviser, David Axelrod, said Fox was "not really a news station," telling George Stephanopolous of ABC that "other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way."
Then, we had Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, assert that Fox "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." Emanuel added: "more importantly is not to have the CNNs and others in the world basically be led by Fox." Obama's Executive Pay Czar (yes, there was such a position), Ken Feinberg, gave interviews to the White House "pool" news organizations - but would not invite Fox. Anita Dunn, again: "We're going to treat them (Fox) the way we would an opponent...As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."
Obama: "I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my Administration." And on the White House web site at the time: "For even more Fox lies, check out the latest 'Truth-O-Meter' feature from Politifact..." The Obama Administration was sufficiently successful in its attacks on Fox, that this writer would frequently see bumper stickers with these words: "Ban Fox News." So, let's be honest. That was the goal of Obama - if he could not ban Fox, he could, at times, have his Administration exclude them, and seek to convince the American people that Fox was an enemy of his Administration.
The questions we ought to be asking need to consider this - Obama had virtually the entire mainstream media behind him, all the major newspapers, the network television stations, cable stations CNN and MSNBC. So why did he care about one station that did not support him? Was he that thin-skinned that he could not tolerate any criticism? Was it a dictatorial urge to shut down the one station that opposed him? Now, compare that to what Trump is facing - he has one station (Fox) that only partly supports him. It is clear that not all Fox hosts and commentators support Trump. But all the mainstream media outlets (the newspapers, the network television stations, the other cable stations) that supported Obama, now take daily aim at Trump and his Administration and policies.
The above does not suggest that Trump should get a free pass on everything he says about the media. Trump: "They (the media) shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody's name. Let their name be put out there." Totally wrong! Anonymous and unnamed sources often provide valuable background to a story. Hopefully, today's media will not go forward with major news stories absent verification from a second or even third source (something we saw Woodward and Bernstein having to do in "All The President's Men"). But any suggestion that the media should somehow be regulated to require all sources be named would be a direct violation of the First Amendment, and any effort to impose such a rule must be vigorously fought.
Trump: "Fake news media knowingly doesn't tell the truth. A great danger to our country." This blog has made a similar point. I have commented that the "Fourth Estate," which holds a special, Constitutionally protected status, becomes a danger to our democracy when it consistently sides with one party, while consistently attacking and demonizing the other side. But when each new batch of journalists come from the same left-wing academic institutions, how much hope is there that we can expect them to hold both sides accountable when they abuse their power and positions? Obama and his people saw one news organization, Fox News, as an arm of the Republican Party. Those of us who are conservative view most of the mainstream media as an arm of the Democratic Party. And much of the American public agrees.
Trump also called "fake news" an "enemy" of the people. Would I have counseled that he use such language? No. Do I wish Trump was more circumspect and less careless in his use of language? Obviously. (See the first paragraph of the last post for confirmation of that.) But a large part of Trump's appeal is his willingness to fight back. He is not going to just sit there and take it when the mainstream media either lies, or applies the double standard against his policies - after previously praising the same or similar policies coming from Democrats. To borrow from Anita Dunn's comment, and replacing "Trump" for "Obama": "As they are undertaking a war against Donald Trump and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." Fake news?
Let's start with this - most (all?) Presidents have had issues the press. And for those who may not recall it, the Obama Administration attacked Fox News from the very beginning of Obama's term in office. Obama sent his top advisers to the Sunday talk shows in an effort to delegitimize Fox News. Obama's Communications Director, Anita Dunn, said Fox was an "arm of the Republican Party," and not a legitimate news organization. Top political adviser, David Axelrod, said Fox was "not really a news station," telling George Stephanopolous of ABC that "other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way."
Then, we had Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, assert that Fox "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." Emanuel added: "more importantly is not to have the CNNs and others in the world basically be led by Fox." Obama's Executive Pay Czar (yes, there was such a position), Ken Feinberg, gave interviews to the White House "pool" news organizations - but would not invite Fox. Anita Dunn, again: "We're going to treat them (Fox) the way we would an opponent...As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."
Obama: "I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my Administration." And on the White House web site at the time: "For even more Fox lies, check out the latest 'Truth-O-Meter' feature from Politifact..." The Obama Administration was sufficiently successful in its attacks on Fox, that this writer would frequently see bumper stickers with these words: "Ban Fox News." So, let's be honest. That was the goal of Obama - if he could not ban Fox, he could, at times, have his Administration exclude them, and seek to convince the American people that Fox was an enemy of his Administration.
The questions we ought to be asking need to consider this - Obama had virtually the entire mainstream media behind him, all the major newspapers, the network television stations, cable stations CNN and MSNBC. So why did he care about one station that did not support him? Was he that thin-skinned that he could not tolerate any criticism? Was it a dictatorial urge to shut down the one station that opposed him? Now, compare that to what Trump is facing - he has one station (Fox) that only partly supports him. It is clear that not all Fox hosts and commentators support Trump. But all the mainstream media outlets (the newspapers, the network television stations, the other cable stations) that supported Obama, now take daily aim at Trump and his Administration and policies.
The above does not suggest that Trump should get a free pass on everything he says about the media. Trump: "They (the media) shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody's name. Let their name be put out there." Totally wrong! Anonymous and unnamed sources often provide valuable background to a story. Hopefully, today's media will not go forward with major news stories absent verification from a second or even third source (something we saw Woodward and Bernstein having to do in "All The President's Men"). But any suggestion that the media should somehow be regulated to require all sources be named would be a direct violation of the First Amendment, and any effort to impose such a rule must be vigorously fought.
Trump: "Fake news media knowingly doesn't tell the truth. A great danger to our country." This blog has made a similar point. I have commented that the "Fourth Estate," which holds a special, Constitutionally protected status, becomes a danger to our democracy when it consistently sides with one party, while consistently attacking and demonizing the other side. But when each new batch of journalists come from the same left-wing academic institutions, how much hope is there that we can expect them to hold both sides accountable when they abuse their power and positions? Obama and his people saw one news organization, Fox News, as an arm of the Republican Party. Those of us who are conservative view most of the mainstream media as an arm of the Democratic Party. And much of the American public agrees.
Trump also called "fake news" an "enemy" of the people. Would I have counseled that he use such language? No. Do I wish Trump was more circumspect and less careless in his use of language? Obviously. (See the first paragraph of the last post for confirmation of that.) But a large part of Trump's appeal is his willingness to fight back. He is not going to just sit there and take it when the mainstream media either lies, or applies the double standard against his policies - after previously praising the same or similar policies coming from Democrats. To borrow from Anita Dunn's comment, and replacing "Trump" for "Obama": "As they are undertaking a war against Donald Trump and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." Fake news?
Sunday, February 19, 2017
So, What About Trump?
My readers expect me to be honest, so allow me to do so. Trump's verbal style is not my style. I was never fond of the name calling during the campaign - from Little Marco to Lyin' Ted to Low Energy Jeb and even Crooked Hillary. It is just not my approach. I watched his recent press conference. I did not care for his interrupting of reporters before they could get their entire question out. And, as much as I did not like Obama making so much about himself (for example, when it sounded like he personally killed bin Laden), Trump is even worse. He is thin-skinned, and, yes, at times adolescent in his comments. And, at times he says things that are simply not so.
Having said all that, let me be very clear - I still support Trump. Why? Because I remain opposed to the left-wing agenda. Remember how the Democrats and the media complained that the Republicans would not work with Obama? What we are seeing is far worse with regards to the reaction to Trump. The constant demonstrations, the mainstream media's constant negative editorials, the histrionic and hyperbolic commentaries by the left-wing talking heads. And I do not believe for even one second that the multiple demonstrations are all spontaneous. Many are clearly organized by well-funded left wing groups and individuals.
Dan Rather, who resigned CBS news after his own scandal/controversy, said: "Watergate is the biggest political scandal of my lifetime, until maybe now (referring to now former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's contact with the Russian ambassador before Trump and Flynn were in office). It was the closest we came to a debilitating Constitutional crisis, until maybe now." Chuck Todd, of NBC and MSNBC, said we are in "day one of what is arguably the biggest Presidential scandal involving a foreign government since Iran-Contra." Here's what one Democratic Representative, Seth Moulton, had to say: "If members of the Administration are essentially conspiring with Russia, either with the campaign earlier, or now in the Administration itself, that's the definition of treason." Others have already called for Trump's impeachment. I have seen allegations that Trump is insane; as well as multiple predictions that his presidency will end shortly. Imagine all that happening within a month of Obama's presidency.
One CNN reporter, talking to Wolf Blitzer of the same station, complained that in the three press conferences given by Trump prior to the most recent one, that the reporters Trump called on have come from conservative media outlets. "I think, Wolf, there's no other way to describe it but the fix is in." How incredibly disingenuous. The fix was in for the entire eight years of the Obama Administration. The mainstream media had a love affair with Obama. Remember Chris Matthews having a "thrill going up his leg" upon hearing Obama speak? You would not know Obama had one single controversy or scandal from reading the mainstream media. This guy wants to talk about the fix being in? It was then CNN reporter Donna Brazile who fed Hillary Clinton debate questions and topics ahead of the actual debate. The lack of intellectual honesty from the mainstream media is so obvious to most, it easily explains the public's overwhelming distrust of them.
Trump says things that are not so - but so did Obama. Regular readers of this blog may recall lie after lie from the lips of Obama, lies that have been discussed and documented in this blog over the past eight years. Regular readers of this blog will recall how thin-skinned Obama was at times when he was under attack. But for the left, it would not matter if the President was Trump, Pence or Cruz. The attacks on any Republican carrying out the same policies as Trump would be the same. The reason is simple - we are in a mostly non-violent civil war in this country. One side supports traditional American values, supports the Constitution, and supports our allies, such as Israel. The other side does not - they do not support free speech, the right to gun ownership, the right to do business - in fact, they do not support the capitalist system at all. And they certainly do not support allies such as Israel.
While I may not like Trump's style at times, I generally do support his policies. I see the critics of his style as complaining more about form over substance. So, let's take a look at some of the substance in Trump's first month. In a 1/23/17 Presidential Memorandum, he ordered a hiring freeze on all federal civilian employees in the executive branch. He properly allowed department heads to make exemptions in the case of national security and public safety. And he ordered the OMB to develop a long term plan to shrink the size of the federal workforce. During the height of the recent recession under the Obama Administration, the Feds were hiring at a rapid rate, and often into high paying jobs of $100,000 or more. It made no sense, and I did discuss it in an earlier post.
In another Presidential Memorandum he ordered that the Departments of State, Defense, Treasury, Homeland Security and Energy, along with the DNI (Director of National Intelligence) and the CIA Director come up with a comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS. Not "degrade and defeat" a la Obama; just defeat. He has authorized the Secretaries of State, Interior and the Army to proceed with the Keystone Pipeline. In yet another Memorandum, he expressed his desire "to pursue peace through strength," following in the footsteps of Presidents Washington and Reagan. The Memorandum states: "It shall be the policy of the United States to rebuild the U.S. Armed Forces." Trump has strongly supported our ally Israel, signaling that the constant pressure on Israel imposed by Obama will be ended. He will not try to impose upon Israel a two-state solution, which would establish a terrorist state on Israel's border, and shrink Israel down to a size that becomes militarily indefensible.
Trump's appointees are almost all solid people. See last weekend's post on Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court. For a further example, General Mattis as Secretary of Defense, clearly knows what's what. Here are some quotes from Mattis: "Iran is the biggest destabilizing force in the Middle East and its policies are contrary to our interests." After commenting that the past three presidents have tried to enter into some type of partnership with Russia, Mattis said this: "...we must finally recognize Putin wants to be our enemy." Of course, Obama and Hillary mostly got a pass over Hillary's "reset button" with Russia, and Obama telling Medvedev to let Putin know that he (Obama) would have more flexibility after his reelection. No allegations there of conspiring with Russia were made against Obama or Hillary, no claims of treason.
The desire by the left to harm individuals and businesses that have publicly supported Trump is a further sign of our current civil war. This follows on the threats received by entertainers who announced they would perform at the Trump inauguration. Those are things we did not see advocated during Obama's term of office. It is simply astounding that the left believes that only they have the right to govern. They believe that only they have the right to determine social and cultural mores. I, for one, have no intention of bowing to the onslaught of coercion, intimidation and harassment from the left.
Having said all that, let me be very clear - I still support Trump. Why? Because I remain opposed to the left-wing agenda. Remember how the Democrats and the media complained that the Republicans would not work with Obama? What we are seeing is far worse with regards to the reaction to Trump. The constant demonstrations, the mainstream media's constant negative editorials, the histrionic and hyperbolic commentaries by the left-wing talking heads. And I do not believe for even one second that the multiple demonstrations are all spontaneous. Many are clearly organized by well-funded left wing groups and individuals.
Dan Rather, who resigned CBS news after his own scandal/controversy, said: "Watergate is the biggest political scandal of my lifetime, until maybe now (referring to now former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's contact with the Russian ambassador before Trump and Flynn were in office). It was the closest we came to a debilitating Constitutional crisis, until maybe now." Chuck Todd, of NBC and MSNBC, said we are in "day one of what is arguably the biggest Presidential scandal involving a foreign government since Iran-Contra." Here's what one Democratic Representative, Seth Moulton, had to say: "If members of the Administration are essentially conspiring with Russia, either with the campaign earlier, or now in the Administration itself, that's the definition of treason." Others have already called for Trump's impeachment. I have seen allegations that Trump is insane; as well as multiple predictions that his presidency will end shortly. Imagine all that happening within a month of Obama's presidency.
One CNN reporter, talking to Wolf Blitzer of the same station, complained that in the three press conferences given by Trump prior to the most recent one, that the reporters Trump called on have come from conservative media outlets. "I think, Wolf, there's no other way to describe it but the fix is in." How incredibly disingenuous. The fix was in for the entire eight years of the Obama Administration. The mainstream media had a love affair with Obama. Remember Chris Matthews having a "thrill going up his leg" upon hearing Obama speak? You would not know Obama had one single controversy or scandal from reading the mainstream media. This guy wants to talk about the fix being in? It was then CNN reporter Donna Brazile who fed Hillary Clinton debate questions and topics ahead of the actual debate. The lack of intellectual honesty from the mainstream media is so obvious to most, it easily explains the public's overwhelming distrust of them.
Trump says things that are not so - but so did Obama. Regular readers of this blog may recall lie after lie from the lips of Obama, lies that have been discussed and documented in this blog over the past eight years. Regular readers of this blog will recall how thin-skinned Obama was at times when he was under attack. But for the left, it would not matter if the President was Trump, Pence or Cruz. The attacks on any Republican carrying out the same policies as Trump would be the same. The reason is simple - we are in a mostly non-violent civil war in this country. One side supports traditional American values, supports the Constitution, and supports our allies, such as Israel. The other side does not - they do not support free speech, the right to gun ownership, the right to do business - in fact, they do not support the capitalist system at all. And they certainly do not support allies such as Israel.
While I may not like Trump's style at times, I generally do support his policies. I see the critics of his style as complaining more about form over substance. So, let's take a look at some of the substance in Trump's first month. In a 1/23/17 Presidential Memorandum, he ordered a hiring freeze on all federal civilian employees in the executive branch. He properly allowed department heads to make exemptions in the case of national security and public safety. And he ordered the OMB to develop a long term plan to shrink the size of the federal workforce. During the height of the recent recession under the Obama Administration, the Feds were hiring at a rapid rate, and often into high paying jobs of $100,000 or more. It made no sense, and I did discuss it in an earlier post.
In another Presidential Memorandum he ordered that the Departments of State, Defense, Treasury, Homeland Security and Energy, along with the DNI (Director of National Intelligence) and the CIA Director come up with a comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS. Not "degrade and defeat" a la Obama; just defeat. He has authorized the Secretaries of State, Interior and the Army to proceed with the Keystone Pipeline. In yet another Memorandum, he expressed his desire "to pursue peace through strength," following in the footsteps of Presidents Washington and Reagan. The Memorandum states: "It shall be the policy of the United States to rebuild the U.S. Armed Forces." Trump has strongly supported our ally Israel, signaling that the constant pressure on Israel imposed by Obama will be ended. He will not try to impose upon Israel a two-state solution, which would establish a terrorist state on Israel's border, and shrink Israel down to a size that becomes militarily indefensible.
Trump's appointees are almost all solid people. See last weekend's post on Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court. For a further example, General Mattis as Secretary of Defense, clearly knows what's what. Here are some quotes from Mattis: "Iran is the biggest destabilizing force in the Middle East and its policies are contrary to our interests." After commenting that the past three presidents have tried to enter into some type of partnership with Russia, Mattis said this: "...we must finally recognize Putin wants to be our enemy." Of course, Obama and Hillary mostly got a pass over Hillary's "reset button" with Russia, and Obama telling Medvedev to let Putin know that he (Obama) would have more flexibility after his reelection. No allegations there of conspiring with Russia were made against Obama or Hillary, no claims of treason.
The desire by the left to harm individuals and businesses that have publicly supported Trump is a further sign of our current civil war. This follows on the threats received by entertainers who announced they would perform at the Trump inauguration. Those are things we did not see advocated during Obama's term of office. It is simply astounding that the left believes that only they have the right to govern. They believe that only they have the right to determine social and cultural mores. I, for one, have no intention of bowing to the onslaught of coercion, intimidation and harassment from the left.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Quick Hits
Some things are simply too difficult to believe. Various sites online have reported the results of a CBS poll taken 2/1 and 2/2/17. When asked if Islam encourages an equal amount of violence as other religions, 66% of Democrats agreed! Only 14% saw Islam as encouraging more violence than other religions. On the other hand, 63% of Republicans saw Islam as encouraging more violence than other religions, with only 2% saying Islam is less violent, and 25% seeing an equal level of violence with other religions. I cannot think of a better example in support of my generalization that "liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, whereas conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs."
Speaking of hard to believe...Nancy Pelosi was at a townhall recently, when a woman told her about her son who had been tortured and murdered by an illegal alien. After saying that she prays for the woman, Pelosi said this: "But I do want to say to you that in our sanctuary cities our people are not disobeying the laws." I think I'll just leave it at that.
The latest Pew Research poll continues to reflect the ever-declining support for Israel in the Democratic Party. This is not surprising as the left has never supported Israel, and today's Democratic Party is a party of the left. The poll shows only 33% of Democrats are more sympathetic to Israel than they are to the Palestinians. The Republicans? 74% are more sympathetic to Israel. How my fellow Jews can continue to vote Democrat is a source of both bewilderment and dismay.
One letter writer to the LA Times, said that "...as a Jew I am embarrassed by the refusal of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to recognize the human rights of the Palestinians." I would love to ask this letter writer if he ever wrote a letter to the Times complaining about all the rockets launched from Gaza into Israel, or about the murder of innocent Jews at bus stops or in cafes, or if he ever complained about Palestinians naming schools and parks in honor of people who have killed many Jews. I am afraid, however, that his answer would leave me bewildered and dismayed - and quite angry.
I would also like to ask this Jew if he has the same concern about the Kurds. As Bret Stephens pointed out in his 1/10/17 column in the WSJ, "Kurdish national claims stretch for centuries, not decades," as with the Palestinians. Has the letter writer expressed his support for the Tibetans? Or for any of the other numerous groups who claim a right to their own state?
As Stephens so astutely points out: "In theory, Israel would be well-served living alongside a sovereign Palestinian state that lived in peace with its neighbors...But Israelis don't live in theory. They live in a world where mistakes are mortal. In 2000 and 2007 Israeli prime ministers made good-faith offers of Palestinian statehood. They were met on both occasions with rejection, then violence. In 2005 Israel vacated the Gaza Strip. It became an enclave of terror...The ideal of a Jewish and faultlessly democratic state is a noble one. Not at the risk of the existence of the state itself."
In a post-election editorial of 11/30/16, the WSJ presented some interesting data. Black and Hispanic caucuses are estimated to "make up an estimated 70 of the 194 Democrats seats next year," while "the centrist Blue Dog coalition has lost three-fourths of its members since 2010." So, the question is, are these minority caucus members taking the party in a further leftward direction? The Journal continued: "House Democrats are now largely a coastal party with nearly a third hailing from California, New York and Massachusetts. Since 2010 half of the Democrats from Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan have been wiped out." And while Hillary won the the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, the Journal says that "House Republicans won three million more votes than Democrats this year."
Here are some more numbers. In a 1/29/17 op-ed in the LA Times, Doyle McManus wrote this: "Two weeks ago (a Quinnipiac poll) found that 76% of Republicans approved of the job Trump was doing; now that number is 81%. Among Democrats, his rating sank from 10% to a barely measurable 4%." Anybody out there unclear as to just how divided this country is?
David Myers is a Professor of Jewish History at UCLA. He wrote an article that was published in the 12/23-29/16 Los Angeles Jewish Journal entitled "The Function of the University in the Age of Trump." (Professor Myers and this writer have exchanged emails in the past, although I cannot recall if I posted those exchanges.) As you can imagine from the title, the Professor is a man of the left. The Professor wrote: "University officials must articulate clearly that their institutions will not only remain sites of free and open discourse, but that all students, regardless of their origins and legal status, will be protected on campus."
That is quite an interesting concern of the Professor - "free and open discourse." Would that include a concern about all the conservative speakers who get invited to speak at college campuses, but then get uninvited at the first sign of protest from leftist students? Would that concern also include the various Israeli or pro-Israel speakers who get shouted down by students who belong to the Muslim Student Association or to Students for Justice in Palestine? Or, does the Professor believe that the university functioned just fine, but with Trump in office G-d knows what may happen. To put it another way, does he fret more about what might happen than about what actually has happened? This unreasonable fear of all things Trump is yet another reflection of the deep divide in our country.
Speaking of hard to believe...Nancy Pelosi was at a townhall recently, when a woman told her about her son who had been tortured and murdered by an illegal alien. After saying that she prays for the woman, Pelosi said this: "But I do want to say to you that in our sanctuary cities our people are not disobeying the laws." I think I'll just leave it at that.
The latest Pew Research poll continues to reflect the ever-declining support for Israel in the Democratic Party. This is not surprising as the left has never supported Israel, and today's Democratic Party is a party of the left. The poll shows only 33% of Democrats are more sympathetic to Israel than they are to the Palestinians. The Republicans? 74% are more sympathetic to Israel. How my fellow Jews can continue to vote Democrat is a source of both bewilderment and dismay.
One letter writer to the LA Times, said that "...as a Jew I am embarrassed by the refusal of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to recognize the human rights of the Palestinians." I would love to ask this letter writer if he ever wrote a letter to the Times complaining about all the rockets launched from Gaza into Israel, or about the murder of innocent Jews at bus stops or in cafes, or if he ever complained about Palestinians naming schools and parks in honor of people who have killed many Jews. I am afraid, however, that his answer would leave me bewildered and dismayed - and quite angry.
I would also like to ask this Jew if he has the same concern about the Kurds. As Bret Stephens pointed out in his 1/10/17 column in the WSJ, "Kurdish national claims stretch for centuries, not decades," as with the Palestinians. Has the letter writer expressed his support for the Tibetans? Or for any of the other numerous groups who claim a right to their own state?
As Stephens so astutely points out: "In theory, Israel would be well-served living alongside a sovereign Palestinian state that lived in peace with its neighbors...But Israelis don't live in theory. They live in a world where mistakes are mortal. In 2000 and 2007 Israeli prime ministers made good-faith offers of Palestinian statehood. They were met on both occasions with rejection, then violence. In 2005 Israel vacated the Gaza Strip. It became an enclave of terror...The ideal of a Jewish and faultlessly democratic state is a noble one. Not at the risk of the existence of the state itself."
In a post-election editorial of 11/30/16, the WSJ presented some interesting data. Black and Hispanic caucuses are estimated to "make up an estimated 70 of the 194 Democrats seats next year," while "the centrist Blue Dog coalition has lost three-fourths of its members since 2010." So, the question is, are these minority caucus members taking the party in a further leftward direction? The Journal continued: "House Democrats are now largely a coastal party with nearly a third hailing from California, New York and Massachusetts. Since 2010 half of the Democrats from Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan have been wiped out." And while Hillary won the the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, the Journal says that "House Republicans won three million more votes than Democrats this year."
Here are some more numbers. In a 1/29/17 op-ed in the LA Times, Doyle McManus wrote this: "Two weeks ago (a Quinnipiac poll) found that 76% of Republicans approved of the job Trump was doing; now that number is 81%. Among Democrats, his rating sank from 10% to a barely measurable 4%." Anybody out there unclear as to just how divided this country is?
David Myers is a Professor of Jewish History at UCLA. He wrote an article that was published in the 12/23-29/16 Los Angeles Jewish Journal entitled "The Function of the University in the Age of Trump." (Professor Myers and this writer have exchanged emails in the past, although I cannot recall if I posted those exchanges.) As you can imagine from the title, the Professor is a man of the left. The Professor wrote: "University officials must articulate clearly that their institutions will not only remain sites of free and open discourse, but that all students, regardless of their origins and legal status, will be protected on campus."
That is quite an interesting concern of the Professor - "free and open discourse." Would that include a concern about all the conservative speakers who get invited to speak at college campuses, but then get uninvited at the first sign of protest from leftist students? Would that concern also include the various Israeli or pro-Israel speakers who get shouted down by students who belong to the Muslim Student Association or to Students for Justice in Palestine? Or, does the Professor believe that the university functioned just fine, but with Trump in office G-d knows what may happen. To put it another way, does he fret more about what might happen than about what actually has happened? This unreasonable fear of all things Trump is yet another reflection of the deep divide in our country.
Neil Gorsuch For the Supreme Court; and Free Speech is Front and Center
Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court. First, let's dispense with the nonsense that the open seat is owed to the Democrats, in light of the Republicans refusal to hold hearings on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. Here is what Chuck Schumer said in 2007: "We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances..." After all, the election season was heating up, Bush had already appointed Roberts and Alito, so why give him another pick? In 1992, Joe Biden was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and felt that Bush the first "should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed." Biden added that his committee would perhaps "not schedule confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over." (Quotes from the 2/2/17 Wall Street Journal editorial.)
Here is Judge Gorsuch's basic approach to judging: "I respect, too, the fact that in our legal order it is for Congress and not the Courts to write new laws. It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people's representatives. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge." Exactly, because such a judge would be deciding cases on his or her political agenda, rather than applying the Constitution and the law to the facts of the case. A judge who either upholds or strikes down a particular law based not on the law's Constitutionality, but on their personal views, is simply acting as a super-legislator.
But a super-legislature is what Democrats expect the courts to be. After describing the Gorsuch nomination as a "very hostile appointment," House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, said this: "If you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take medicine or in any other way interact with the Courts this is a very bad decision." She went on to describe Gorsuch as "well outside the mainstream of American legal thought." I would advise Ms. Pelosi that it is up to Congress to make laws regarding clean air, clean water, and safe food and medicines. It is definitely not the job of the courts. What Pelosi and people like her really want in a Supreme Court Justice is a guarantee that they will uphold every left-wing piece of legislation passed by Congress and every left-wing rule made by the Administrative state - the Constitution be damned.
Free speech again is front and center. With regards to the violent protests at UC Berkeley, forcing the cancellation of a speech by Milo Yiannopoulus, I was very pleased to see the Los Angeles Times come down on the right side of the issue. As the Times said in their 2/3/17 editorial, the prevention of Yiannopoulos "from speaking to a willing audience of campus Republicans should make supporters of free speech shiver." Added the times: "This is just the latest variation on the age old argument of the censor that 'error has no rights,' or, put another way, that one only has a right to free speech if one is speaking the 'truth.' It's an insidious notion that needs to be opposed in every generation." This blog has criticized the Times in the past, but now I wish to give credit where credit is due. Although, the LA Times has been accused of refusing to print letters to the editor in rebuttal to climate change - so I am not sure how that comports with their editorial.
Elizabeth Warren was prevented from continuing her Senate floor speech against Jeff Sessions when Mitch McConnell raised Senate Rule XIX. That rule prohibits Senators from "besmirching the character and motives of their colleagues." (From the 2/9/17 WSJ editorial.) Sessions, nominated for Attorney General, was a Senator at the time of the debate over his qualifications. Clearly, the House and the Senate have the right to make their own rules. Warren had been reading from a letter about Sessions written by Coretta Scott King, the late widow of Martin Luther King. On the one hand, the free speech advocate in me says she should have been allowed to continue her speech from the Senate floor. (She did continue it on Facebook and in various media outlets, getting far more attention than a Senate speech would ordinarily get.) On the other hand, the Hubert Humphrey approach to politics in me (Humphrey was known as the Happy Warrior, remaining friendly with his political adversaries) sides with the WSJ comment that "the Senate is an institution that used to run on civility and comity." So, should the Senate enforce their rule on civility, or should it be allowed to reflect the ever-growing hostility between liberals and conservatives, a hostility that plays out daily in our personal lives, on social media and in society as a whole?
A 2/12/17 editorial in the New York Times rightfully raises concerns about some proposed laws in various states which, if enacted, might have a chilling effect on speech. However, their editorial, "Peaceful Protests Are Not a Crime," fails to discuss the issue of exactly when a protest crosses the line from "peaceful" to something else. We can all agree that what we saw recently at UC Berkely, with the setting of fires and smashing of store windows and an ATM, cannot in any way be considered "peaceful." But I am not sure the NY Times sees a problem with demonstrators blocking roads and highways, without a permit. Do non-protesters lose their right to get to work on time, or wherever they may be going, because of protesters? Do emergency vehicles - fire, ambulance and police - not have a right to take care of the people who need them? And what about people waiting for that ambulance or fire engine or police car? Do protesters have a right to shout down members of Congress at a Townhall meeting, preventing the Congress member from speaking? Why does their right to protest exceed the right of the people's representative to speak to his constituents? Does the NY Times support the "heckler's veto?"
Here is Judge Gorsuch's basic approach to judging: "I respect, too, the fact that in our legal order it is for Congress and not the Courts to write new laws. It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people's representatives. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge." Exactly, because such a judge would be deciding cases on his or her political agenda, rather than applying the Constitution and the law to the facts of the case. A judge who either upholds or strikes down a particular law based not on the law's Constitutionality, but on their personal views, is simply acting as a super-legislator.
But a super-legislature is what Democrats expect the courts to be. After describing the Gorsuch nomination as a "very hostile appointment," House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, said this: "If you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take medicine or in any other way interact with the Courts this is a very bad decision." She went on to describe Gorsuch as "well outside the mainstream of American legal thought." I would advise Ms. Pelosi that it is up to Congress to make laws regarding clean air, clean water, and safe food and medicines. It is definitely not the job of the courts. What Pelosi and people like her really want in a Supreme Court Justice is a guarantee that they will uphold every left-wing piece of legislation passed by Congress and every left-wing rule made by the Administrative state - the Constitution be damned.
Free speech again is front and center. With regards to the violent protests at UC Berkeley, forcing the cancellation of a speech by Milo Yiannopoulus, I was very pleased to see the Los Angeles Times come down on the right side of the issue. As the Times said in their 2/3/17 editorial, the prevention of Yiannopoulos "from speaking to a willing audience of campus Republicans should make supporters of free speech shiver." Added the times: "This is just the latest variation on the age old argument of the censor that 'error has no rights,' or, put another way, that one only has a right to free speech if one is speaking the 'truth.' It's an insidious notion that needs to be opposed in every generation." This blog has criticized the Times in the past, but now I wish to give credit where credit is due. Although, the LA Times has been accused of refusing to print letters to the editor in rebuttal to climate change - so I am not sure how that comports with their editorial.
Elizabeth Warren was prevented from continuing her Senate floor speech against Jeff Sessions when Mitch McConnell raised Senate Rule XIX. That rule prohibits Senators from "besmirching the character and motives of their colleagues." (From the 2/9/17 WSJ editorial.) Sessions, nominated for Attorney General, was a Senator at the time of the debate over his qualifications. Clearly, the House and the Senate have the right to make their own rules. Warren had been reading from a letter about Sessions written by Coretta Scott King, the late widow of Martin Luther King. On the one hand, the free speech advocate in me says she should have been allowed to continue her speech from the Senate floor. (She did continue it on Facebook and in various media outlets, getting far more attention than a Senate speech would ordinarily get.) On the other hand, the Hubert Humphrey approach to politics in me (Humphrey was known as the Happy Warrior, remaining friendly with his political adversaries) sides with the WSJ comment that "the Senate is an institution that used to run on civility and comity." So, should the Senate enforce their rule on civility, or should it be allowed to reflect the ever-growing hostility between liberals and conservatives, a hostility that plays out daily in our personal lives, on social media and in society as a whole?
A 2/12/17 editorial in the New York Times rightfully raises concerns about some proposed laws in various states which, if enacted, might have a chilling effect on speech. However, their editorial, "Peaceful Protests Are Not a Crime," fails to discuss the issue of exactly when a protest crosses the line from "peaceful" to something else. We can all agree that what we saw recently at UC Berkely, with the setting of fires and smashing of store windows and an ATM, cannot in any way be considered "peaceful." But I am not sure the NY Times sees a problem with demonstrators blocking roads and highways, without a permit. Do non-protesters lose their right to get to work on time, or wherever they may be going, because of protesters? Do emergency vehicles - fire, ambulance and police - not have a right to take care of the people who need them? And what about people waiting for that ambulance or fire engine or police car? Do protesters have a right to shout down members of Congress at a Townhall meeting, preventing the Congress member from speaking? Why does their right to protest exceed the right of the people's representative to speak to his constituents? Does the NY Times support the "heckler's veto?"
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Hollywood Propaganda
In the television show "Homeland," Mandy Patinkin plays Saul Berenson, the head of CIA operations in Europe. In the January 29, 2017 episode, "The Covenant," Berenson goes to visit his sister, who lives in a Jewish, West Bank community. (Berenson and his sister are Jews.) The sister had moved with her now deceased husband from Indiana to Israel. She complained to her brother Saul that he should have tried to be more understanding of her husband.
Saul: "There's no bending with a fanatic." Sister: "Moshe (the husband) made me proud to be a Jew." Saul: "He turned you against your family. He brought you to live in a place that's not yours. Where you don't belong." Sister: "Please, Saul, let's not do this." Saul: "Haven't you driven enough people from their homes already? Bulldozed their villages. Seized their property under laws they had no part in making."
Sister: "This land was promised to Avraham (Abraham)." Saul: "Promised? A covenant with G-d made thousands of years ago. Doesn't that strike you as a form of insanity?" Sister: "You don't understand Saul. You never have. I love the life that G-d has given me." Saul: "How can you love making enemies? How can you love knowing that your very presence here makes peace less possible?" Sister: "I have a family, a community, a life filled with faith and purpose. Saul, what do you have?"
So there you have it. In a rather short scene, we get to hear that Israel has no right to any land in the West Bank, that Jews are the reason there is no peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and, of course, no belief in the Jews' biblical/historical ties to the land. All the left-wing positions regarding that part of the Middle East.
In yet another scene in the same episode, we see Saul interrogating a money man for the Iranian government. He claims to have used much of the millions to which he had access as a down payment for the purchase of the latest Russian anti-ballistic missile system. He then added this: "Something you should know. Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon. Never did...Three decades of sanctions are killing us. We had to find a way to get them lifted. So we started spinning centrifuges. That got some attention. So we start some more - even more attention. In the end, all we had to do was negotiate away a program we never wanted in the first place."
While Saul does not seem to believe the man, the point was made. The Iranians really do not want nukes. So, I guess there is little point in enacting further sanctions; and certainly no point in ever using military force. You got that, Trump? Don't create another Iraq. At least, that's the message.
I get the fact that this is TV. It's fictional. But here, the subject matter addressed some major real world issues of our time. So, I think it is fair to ask - how many people are sucked into this left-wing propaganda, as if it is the truth? At the end of each day my wife and I usually watch a one hour drama. There are many instances where I will pause a show and point out yet another, often subtle, gratuitous left-wing talking point. These shows often act as vehicles for allowing the expression of left-wing views. The same biases can be seen on a daily basis in the mainstream media; and can be heard regularly from left-wing professors at our colleges and universities. No one should underestimate the power of propaganda. No one should underestimate the left's ability to sway people's views by repeating the same thing over and over - especially given their ability to communicate those views in so many different forums.
Saul: "There's no bending with a fanatic." Sister: "Moshe (the husband) made me proud to be a Jew." Saul: "He turned you against your family. He brought you to live in a place that's not yours. Where you don't belong." Sister: "Please, Saul, let's not do this." Saul: "Haven't you driven enough people from their homes already? Bulldozed their villages. Seized their property under laws they had no part in making."
Sister: "This land was promised to Avraham (Abraham)." Saul: "Promised? A covenant with G-d made thousands of years ago. Doesn't that strike you as a form of insanity?" Sister: "You don't understand Saul. You never have. I love the life that G-d has given me." Saul: "How can you love making enemies? How can you love knowing that your very presence here makes peace less possible?" Sister: "I have a family, a community, a life filled with faith and purpose. Saul, what do you have?"
So there you have it. In a rather short scene, we get to hear that Israel has no right to any land in the West Bank, that Jews are the reason there is no peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and, of course, no belief in the Jews' biblical/historical ties to the land. All the left-wing positions regarding that part of the Middle East.
In yet another scene in the same episode, we see Saul interrogating a money man for the Iranian government. He claims to have used much of the millions to which he had access as a down payment for the purchase of the latest Russian anti-ballistic missile system. He then added this: "Something you should know. Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon. Never did...Three decades of sanctions are killing us. We had to find a way to get them lifted. So we started spinning centrifuges. That got some attention. So we start some more - even more attention. In the end, all we had to do was negotiate away a program we never wanted in the first place."
While Saul does not seem to believe the man, the point was made. The Iranians really do not want nukes. So, I guess there is little point in enacting further sanctions; and certainly no point in ever using military force. You got that, Trump? Don't create another Iraq. At least, that's the message.
I get the fact that this is TV. It's fictional. But here, the subject matter addressed some major real world issues of our time. So, I think it is fair to ask - how many people are sucked into this left-wing propaganda, as if it is the truth? At the end of each day my wife and I usually watch a one hour drama. There are many instances where I will pause a show and point out yet another, often subtle, gratuitous left-wing talking point. These shows often act as vehicles for allowing the expression of left-wing views. The same biases can be seen on a daily basis in the mainstream media; and can be heard regularly from left-wing professors at our colleges and universities. No one should underestimate the power of propaganda. No one should underestimate the left's ability to sway people's views by repeating the same thing over and over - especially given their ability to communicate those views in so many different forums.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)