As Americans, most of us have assumed that we are free to say whatever we want about whoever and whatever we want to speak about. We understand that there are exceptions for things like libel, slander and yelling fire in a theater. But the Left feels differently. It is not just that they oppose speech with which they disagree, or speech that they find "insulting" or "hateful;" they are now providing an intellectual basis for making legal changes to our First Amendment rights.
Former Labor Secretary and now Public Policy Professor at UC Berkeley, Robert Reich, said this: "Unfortunately, Berkeley and other universities have played into a narrative that the right would love to advance...The narrative assumes a cultural plot against the free expression of right-wing views in which academe, mainstream media - every facet of the establishment - is organized against them...That's a narrative Trump used to get into the White House." A "narrative?" Just a story?
As discussed in recent posts in this blog, conservative speakers Milo Yiannopoulos, Charles Murray, Heather MacDonald and now Ann Coulter have been prevented from speaking or been disinvited or forced to back out from speaking on college campuses. But those are simply the most recent examples. Here are some more: Karl Rove at U. Mass, Rand Paul at Howard, Ben Carson at Johns Hopkins, Ben Shapiro at Cal State L.A., Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali at Brandeis, and Jason Riley at Va. Tech. Then there is the objection to Israeli speakers: then Israeli Amb. to the US Michael Oren at UC Irvine, and Benjamin Netanyahu, now Israeli P.M., at Concordia Univ. in Montreal. All these speakers constitute nothing more than "a narrative (that) assumes a cultural plot against the free expression of right-wing views?" Let's get real!
NYU Professor Ulrich Baer had an op-ed in the 4/24/17 NY Times entitled "What Snowflakes Get Right About Free Speech." Baer: "During the 1980s and '90s, a shift occurred in American culture; personal experience and testimony, especially of suffering and oppression, began to challenge the primacy of argument. Freedom of expression became a flash point in this shift." How does this work? Those who were oppressed get to censor speech of the alleged oppressors? The descendants of those who were formerly oppressed get to censor the descendants of those claimed to be the oppressors? Who gets to decide who belongs in each group - and what words are permissible?
The new standard seems to be that we allow only that speech which enhances the "public good." Baer: "Some topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms." First, notice the elitist attitude that certain groups need some sort of government protection from speech, because they are not able to "debate...on the same terms." Second, who gets to decide what topics are off limits for public debate, and what enforcement mechanisms will be utilized? Once again, we can infer that the Left will look to the government to determine proper speech. Is that really the direction in which we should be going? How long before we end up with a complete suppression of speech, as we have seen in various Communist - and other dictatorial - countries.
Baer: For speech to be considered a "common, public good...requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing." Baer continued: "As a scholar of literature, history and politics, I am especially attuned to the next generation's demands to revise existing definitions of free speech to accommodate previously delegitimized experiences. Freedom of expression is not an unchanging absolute." Well, I am always glad to hear from scholars of this, that and the other thing. No, I am not against intellectual thought and analysis. But, intellectuals and scholars do not have such a great track record of defending liberty. They often supported the murderous Communist regime in Soviet Russia. They have supported Castro's Cuba. And they often support the terrorism-committing Palestinians in their efforts to wipe Israel off the map. So, spare me the intellectual gobbledygook. What we are really talking about is tyranny.
Baer finishes his piece with this: "We should thank the student protesters, the activists in Black Lives Matter and other "overly sensitive souls" for keeping watch over the soul of our republic." Yes, let's thank Black Lives Matter for things like "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon." I guess that highly offensive speech - calling cops pigs, and suggesting they be fried - coming from the Left is to be permitted. I guess we get to see that not all offensive speech is banned - depending on which side of the political divide is uttering it.
A former head of the DNC, Howard Dean, expressed that "hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment." He's wrong. One letter writer to the USA Today said this: "Just because you can say something doesn't mean it should be said, freedom or not." He's right, of course. However, he left out that it also does not mean that the government should be able to punish those who say things that, perhaps, are indeed best left unsaid. The letter writer suggests using good judgment and common sense, with which, again, I totally concur. But he ends his letter saying: "So you can take your ivory tower interpretation of what free speech means and park it down your apologist street." This writer's approach would mean that those who take offense would be able to bar speech of those whose speech offends them. That is exactly what we have now in academia. Why is the closure of debate a good thing? Why is the Left unable to rebut speech with which they disagree? Because they have been oppressed? History is replete with writings and speeches by those who have suffered true oppression - the oppressed have not been unable to speak. Now, with the internet and social media, there is virtually an unlimited ability to speak. It is both elitist and tyrannical to suggest that government needs to protect certain people from certain speech.
Given how so many people today take offense so easily, if we were to abide by this new theory of permissible speech, there would be precious little speech left. Sadly, the above-mentioned letter writer does not appreciate that in a free society we do have to tolerate speech that may be obnoxious to us. It is called liberty. But liberty is not a value for the Left. As this blog has previously pointed out, the fundamental American values always take a back seat to the Left's agenda-driven issues. As another letter writer to the USA Today so astutely pointed out, "Speech that is not offensive does not need protection. The First Amendment was created precisely to protect speech that some may find offensive..."
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Sunday, April 23, 2017
The Latest From Academia
Ann Coulter was invited by the Berkeley College Republicans to speak on their campus. As tends to happen with conservative speakers who are invited to speak at college campuses, the complaints from those needing safe spaces rolled in. Berkeley officials initially said the speech would have to be cancelled, citing safety and security concerns. After then reconsidering, it was apparently determined by UC Berkeley administrators that the speech should be given in the afternoon. Of course, most students would be in classes during the afternoon.
It was also claimed that the location of the speech would not be announced until close to the time of the event. Of course, that would mean few students would know where to go to hear the speech.
The administration claim about safety is disturbing on at least two fronts. First, notice how when liberal commentators are scheduled to speak at college campuses there never seems to be any worry about safety and security. The reason is simple - conservatives respect the First Amendment and the right to free speech, even when disagreeing with the speaker. Leftists, however, do not have the same respect for the First Amendment, and clearly do not believe in free speech. How else to explain the constant protests every time a conservative is scheduled to speak on campus?
Here are some examples. One protester was holding a sign "Out of Berkeley Nazi Scum." Who really acts as fascists - the intolerant leftists or the tolerant conservatives? One student expressed this sentiment: "I think sometimes the free speech amendment is used as a way to frame violent conversation as a matter of free speech." Violent conversation? I believe that would be any speech which this student finds offensive. What this student, and many like him, do not understand is that non-controversial speech does not need protection, as it tends to offend no one.
Another student felt that speakers coming to Berkeley needed to be held accountable to the school's "principles of community," and ought to "promote constructive dialogue rather than destructive dialogue." Constructive to who? Once again, we have a generation of students who have not been taught the importance of the First Amendment. Why? Because as has been discussed in this blog before, the Left does not share in the fundamental American values - such as free speech. For the Left, their agenda always takes precedence over other values. Which explains why they believe the content of the speech is all that matters - either they agree with it and then no problem, or they disagree and the speech should be barred.
As mentioned above, there is another problem with preventing speech based on a claim of safety and security concerns. It is the equivalent of allowing a heckler's veto. The answer is to increase security. The answer is not to stand down and allow protesters to interfere with lawful speech. The answer is to arrest and charge those who obstruct ingress and egress to where speeches are being given.
The bigger picture is that it is up to parents, and teachers and professors, to instill those fundamental American values, to instill a belief in the right to speak. Adults need to explain that one need not agree with speech to understand that it is entitled to protection none the less. But given that teachers and professors engage in their own misbehavior, all we have is hoping for the best. One high school teacher in West Virginia wore a jacket to school with these words on the back: "Tuck Frump." The letters f-u-c-k were all in white. Clearly, not a teacher who believes in the fundamental American values.
It was also claimed that the location of the speech would not be announced until close to the time of the event. Of course, that would mean few students would know where to go to hear the speech.
The administration claim about safety is disturbing on at least two fronts. First, notice how when liberal commentators are scheduled to speak at college campuses there never seems to be any worry about safety and security. The reason is simple - conservatives respect the First Amendment and the right to free speech, even when disagreeing with the speaker. Leftists, however, do not have the same respect for the First Amendment, and clearly do not believe in free speech. How else to explain the constant protests every time a conservative is scheduled to speak on campus?
Here are some examples. One protester was holding a sign "Out of Berkeley Nazi Scum." Who really acts as fascists - the intolerant leftists or the tolerant conservatives? One student expressed this sentiment: "I think sometimes the free speech amendment is used as a way to frame violent conversation as a matter of free speech." Violent conversation? I believe that would be any speech which this student finds offensive. What this student, and many like him, do not understand is that non-controversial speech does not need protection, as it tends to offend no one.
Another student felt that speakers coming to Berkeley needed to be held accountable to the school's "principles of community," and ought to "promote constructive dialogue rather than destructive dialogue." Constructive to who? Once again, we have a generation of students who have not been taught the importance of the First Amendment. Why? Because as has been discussed in this blog before, the Left does not share in the fundamental American values - such as free speech. For the Left, their agenda always takes precedence over other values. Which explains why they believe the content of the speech is all that matters - either they agree with it and then no problem, or they disagree and the speech should be barred.
As mentioned above, there is another problem with preventing speech based on a claim of safety and security concerns. It is the equivalent of allowing a heckler's veto. The answer is to increase security. The answer is not to stand down and allow protesters to interfere with lawful speech. The answer is to arrest and charge those who obstruct ingress and egress to where speeches are being given.
The bigger picture is that it is up to parents, and teachers and professors, to instill those fundamental American values, to instill a belief in the right to speak. Adults need to explain that one need not agree with speech to understand that it is entitled to protection none the less. But given that teachers and professors engage in their own misbehavior, all we have is hoping for the best. One high school teacher in West Virginia wore a jacket to school with these words on the back: "Tuck Frump." The letters f-u-c-k were all in white. Clearly, not a teacher who believes in the fundamental American values.
What a Difference!
Recall that under President Obama, he had his UN Ambassador, Samantha Power, abstain from the completely one-sided anti-Israel Security Council resolution in December, 2016. That resolution, essentially establishing a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders, said that the purpose was to reaffirm "that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity, and constitutes...a major obstacle to the achievement of the two state solution."
The same resolution also called for the boycott of Israeli goods originating in the West Bank. As for the UN, the inaptly named Human Rights Council passed 67 anti-Israel resolutions in a ten year period ending early 2016, but none against China, Russia or Saudi Arabia, to name a few.
Now, we have a new President in Trump, and a new UN Ambassador - Nikki Haley. Upon arriving at the UN Security Council, Haley got to see first hand that the Council's attention was not focused on Hezbollah or Iran and its exporting of terror to other countries in the Middle East and much of Latin America. Their focus was not on Syria and Assad. Haley: "instead, the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East."
Haley announced to the other members of the Council: "I'm here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this anymore...I'm here to underscore the ironclad support of the United States for Israel...I'm here to emphasize the United States is determined to stand up to the UN's anti-Israel bias." And finally, this: "The days of Israel-bashing are over."
What a difference a new President makes! What a difference a new UN Ambassador makes! But, for the anti-Israel Left, the change is not an improvement. For the anti-Israel Left, including leftist Jews, this new support for Israel is not well received. Just remember when you see the leftists out there demonstrating against Trump, this new pro-Israel attitude is one of the things that they are demonstrating against. And ask yourselves if you think that a President Hillary Clinton would have appointed a Nikki Haley to be UN Ambassador.
Recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke at the Organized Crime Council and Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force in D.C. Sessions: "Under President Trump, the Justice Department has zero tolerance for gang violence." Sessions went on to say that gangs "represent one of the gravest threats to American safety."
Sessions: "If you are a gang member, we will find you - we will devastate your networks. We will starve your revenue sources, deplete your ranks, and seize your profits. We will not concede a single block or street corner to your vicious attacks." What an impressive turnaround in approach from the prior AG.
An article in the 12/7/14 NY Post said this: "In the past five years, (Eric) Holder has more than doubled the number of police department probes compared with the previous five years, opening more than 20 investigations and pressuring 15 consent orders to stop "biased policing," and other alleged violations." You see, whereas Sessions has declared war on criminal gangs, Holder declared war on the police departments across the country.
Not surprisingly, under the various "consent" decrees, police enforcement decreased and crime increased. One example: Seattle. Following a "consent" decree to require training of police in "bias free" policing, crime went up. From 2012 to 2014 murders were up 21%, car theft 44%, and aggravated assault 14%.
So, remember, when you see people in the street demonstrating against Trump, they are protesting the new war on criminals. I remember these same people also protested against the police. So, no joy on the left with an Attorney General who actually wants to fight crime. But what a difference a new President makes! What a difference a new Attorney General makes!
Which side are you on? The police or the criminals? Israel or the Palestinians who want to destroy Israel? For me, it's two more reasons to support Trump.
The same resolution also called for the boycott of Israeli goods originating in the West Bank. As for the UN, the inaptly named Human Rights Council passed 67 anti-Israel resolutions in a ten year period ending early 2016, but none against China, Russia or Saudi Arabia, to name a few.
Now, we have a new President in Trump, and a new UN Ambassador - Nikki Haley. Upon arriving at the UN Security Council, Haley got to see first hand that the Council's attention was not focused on Hezbollah or Iran and its exporting of terror to other countries in the Middle East and much of Latin America. Their focus was not on Syria and Assad. Haley: "instead, the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East."
Haley announced to the other members of the Council: "I'm here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this anymore...I'm here to underscore the ironclad support of the United States for Israel...I'm here to emphasize the United States is determined to stand up to the UN's anti-Israel bias." And finally, this: "The days of Israel-bashing are over."
What a difference a new President makes! What a difference a new UN Ambassador makes! But, for the anti-Israel Left, the change is not an improvement. For the anti-Israel Left, including leftist Jews, this new support for Israel is not well received. Just remember when you see the leftists out there demonstrating against Trump, this new pro-Israel attitude is one of the things that they are demonstrating against. And ask yourselves if you think that a President Hillary Clinton would have appointed a Nikki Haley to be UN Ambassador.
Recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke at the Organized Crime Council and Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force in D.C. Sessions: "Under President Trump, the Justice Department has zero tolerance for gang violence." Sessions went on to say that gangs "represent one of the gravest threats to American safety."
Sessions: "If you are a gang member, we will find you - we will devastate your networks. We will starve your revenue sources, deplete your ranks, and seize your profits. We will not concede a single block or street corner to your vicious attacks." What an impressive turnaround in approach from the prior AG.
An article in the 12/7/14 NY Post said this: "In the past five years, (Eric) Holder has more than doubled the number of police department probes compared with the previous five years, opening more than 20 investigations and pressuring 15 consent orders to stop "biased policing," and other alleged violations." You see, whereas Sessions has declared war on criminal gangs, Holder declared war on the police departments across the country.
Not surprisingly, under the various "consent" decrees, police enforcement decreased and crime increased. One example: Seattle. Following a "consent" decree to require training of police in "bias free" policing, crime went up. From 2012 to 2014 murders were up 21%, car theft 44%, and aggravated assault 14%.
So, remember, when you see people in the street demonstrating against Trump, they are protesting the new war on criminals. I remember these same people also protested against the police. So, no joy on the left with an Attorney General who actually wants to fight crime. But what a difference a new President makes! What a difference a new Attorney General makes!
Which side are you on? The police or the criminals? Israel or the Palestinians who want to destroy Israel? For me, it's two more reasons to support Trump.
Saturday, April 15, 2017
Is Your Child or Grandchild a Budding Fascist?
It is fairly well known that, today, colleges and universities are among the least free places in our country. Left-wing professors teach left-wing ideology, and even express their hatred for any group with whom they disagree - conservatives, Republicans, supporters of Israel, supporters of the police, and so on. The result is a "no tolerance" policy at these schools, meaning no tolerance for contrary viewpoints.
One professor at Fresno State University, Lars Maischak, had this to say on Twitter: "To save American democracy, Trump must hang...the sooner and the higher, the better." Here is some more by this professor: "You fascist Trump-voting white trash scum can wallow in your filthy hell-holes of flyover states. Enjoy." And this: "Justice = the execution of two Republicans for each deported immigrant." He says his quotes should not be taken literally. Really? Trump must hang? Republicans should be executed? Who's the fascist here? This is sick; and worse yet - he is paid by the taxpayers of California.
Heather MacDonald is a Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a contributing editor to the City Journal. She was scheduled to speak at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California. The college is a small (1347 undergraduates) liberal arts school. Approximately 250 protesters blocked the entrance to where MacDonald was scheduled to speak on the campus. Ms. MacDonald wrote a book entitled "The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe." Not only did these protesters not want to hear Ms. MacDonald speak (which is their right), they did not believe anyone else should be able to hear her (not their right). She said people were chanting "black lives matter," and she was called a "white supremacist." She also heard this chant: "(Expletive) the police, KKK."
The President of the college defended the lack of police action this way: "Based on the judgment of the Claremont Police Department, we jointly concluded that any forced interventions or arrests would have created unsafe conditions for students, faculty, staff, and guests." This is liberal mentality at its worst, yet we have seen it time and again. When those in authority refuse to act against misbehavior, it sends a signal (in this case, to students everywhere) that others can also get away with inappropriate and even violent behavior. The same lack of police action was seen when Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley. There, protesters smashed store windows and an ATM, and set a small fire. This inaction by college administrators and campus police, although on a smaller scale, is no different than Obama's inaction against tyrants during his eight years as President. Obama's failure to take action against Syria for using chemical weapons, after drawing a red line, only encouraged Assad to believe that he could get away with using chemical weapons again. And he did. College students get the same message - nothing will happen to them, even with violent protests.
Middlebury College is a small school (2526 undergraduates) in Vermont. Charles Murray, a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was scheduled to speak at Middlebury. He was being hosted by Professor Allison Stanger. In yet another example left-wing intolerance/fascism, Mr. Murray was prevented from speaking as planned - by a mob of screaming students. He and Professor Stanger were to have had what was to be a public discussion; instead the discussion had to be moved to a different location and then broadcast online. Afterwards, Murray and Stanger left to go to dinner together, along with the college's VP for Communications. According to Murray: "protesters surrounded the car, banging on the sides and the windows and rocking the car, climbing onto the hood."
Professor Stanger got it partly right. Clearly, she believes in the right of free speech - for the speaker and for those who wish to hear. However, like many on the left she does not understand the concept of having consequences for one's actions. Stanger: "We have got to do better by those who feel and are marginalized...especially when our current President is blind to the evils he has unleashed." However the students "feel" does not excuse their misconduct. I am reminded of a scene from an old Woody Allen movie. In a flashback to his childhood, his mother is seen complaining to his father that their black maid is stealing from them. The father replies, more or less to this effect: "She's entitled to steal from us, she's black."
It is what the left does - they make victims of the perpetrators. This same mentality explains how after 9/11 the media - the left-wing media - made Muslims, the perpetrators of 9/11, out to be the victims. And they have done so ever since. Obama looked at the bad actors in the world as being victims of US power, so he did nothing. So they obliged by carrying out more bad acts. College and University administrators have decided to do nothing in the face of illegal conduct by their students. Predictably, we can expect such bad behavior to continue and even increase.
One professor at Fresno State University, Lars Maischak, had this to say on Twitter: "To save American democracy, Trump must hang...the sooner and the higher, the better." Here is some more by this professor: "You fascist Trump-voting white trash scum can wallow in your filthy hell-holes of flyover states. Enjoy." And this: "Justice = the execution of two Republicans for each deported immigrant." He says his quotes should not be taken literally. Really? Trump must hang? Republicans should be executed? Who's the fascist here? This is sick; and worse yet - he is paid by the taxpayers of California.
Heather MacDonald is a Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a contributing editor to the City Journal. She was scheduled to speak at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California. The college is a small (1347 undergraduates) liberal arts school. Approximately 250 protesters blocked the entrance to where MacDonald was scheduled to speak on the campus. Ms. MacDonald wrote a book entitled "The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe." Not only did these protesters not want to hear Ms. MacDonald speak (which is their right), they did not believe anyone else should be able to hear her (not their right). She said people were chanting "black lives matter," and she was called a "white supremacist." She also heard this chant: "(Expletive) the police, KKK."
The President of the college defended the lack of police action this way: "Based on the judgment of the Claremont Police Department, we jointly concluded that any forced interventions or arrests would have created unsafe conditions for students, faculty, staff, and guests." This is liberal mentality at its worst, yet we have seen it time and again. When those in authority refuse to act against misbehavior, it sends a signal (in this case, to students everywhere) that others can also get away with inappropriate and even violent behavior. The same lack of police action was seen when Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley. There, protesters smashed store windows and an ATM, and set a small fire. This inaction by college administrators and campus police, although on a smaller scale, is no different than Obama's inaction against tyrants during his eight years as President. Obama's failure to take action against Syria for using chemical weapons, after drawing a red line, only encouraged Assad to believe that he could get away with using chemical weapons again. And he did. College students get the same message - nothing will happen to them, even with violent protests.
Middlebury College is a small school (2526 undergraduates) in Vermont. Charles Murray, a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was scheduled to speak at Middlebury. He was being hosted by Professor Allison Stanger. In yet another example left-wing intolerance/fascism, Mr. Murray was prevented from speaking as planned - by a mob of screaming students. He and Professor Stanger were to have had what was to be a public discussion; instead the discussion had to be moved to a different location and then broadcast online. Afterwards, Murray and Stanger left to go to dinner together, along with the college's VP for Communications. According to Murray: "protesters surrounded the car, banging on the sides and the windows and rocking the car, climbing onto the hood."
Professor Stanger got it partly right. Clearly, she believes in the right of free speech - for the speaker and for those who wish to hear. However, like many on the left she does not understand the concept of having consequences for one's actions. Stanger: "We have got to do better by those who feel and are marginalized...especially when our current President is blind to the evils he has unleashed." However the students "feel" does not excuse their misconduct. I am reminded of a scene from an old Woody Allen movie. In a flashback to his childhood, his mother is seen complaining to his father that their black maid is stealing from them. The father replies, more or less to this effect: "She's entitled to steal from us, she's black."
It is what the left does - they make victims of the perpetrators. This same mentality explains how after 9/11 the media - the left-wing media - made Muslims, the perpetrators of 9/11, out to be the victims. And they have done so ever since. Obama looked at the bad actors in the world as being victims of US power, so he did nothing. So they obliged by carrying out more bad acts. College and University administrators have decided to do nothing in the face of illegal conduct by their students. Predictably, we can expect such bad behavior to continue and even increase.
Sunday, April 9, 2017
The LA Times vs. Trump
This past week, the Los Angeles Times ran daily and lengthy editorials outlining their numerous problems with President Trump. The April 4 editorial was entitled "Why the president lies." The Times claims that Trump has an "apparent disregard for fact so profound as to suggest that he may not see much practical distinction between lies, if he believes they serve him, and the truth." Regular readers of this blog may recall the countless times I have discussed how for the left (people like Obama, Reid and Pelosi) the truth is not a value. Rather, their approach to politics is that the ends justify the means. If lying works, they lie. Of course, when Obama, Reid and Pelosi were in charge, the Times was completely unaware of the concept that for some the ends justify the means. Now that Trump, a Republican, is in charge, they've awakened to the idea that politicians may lie.
My favorite example of the Dems using the approach of the ends justify the means is a quote from Harry Reid. When Romney was running against Obama, then Senate Majority leader Reid spoke on the Senate floor and accused Romney of not paying any federal income tax. It was a total lie, of course. A number of years later, a reporter asked Reid if he wanted to apologize for that comment about Romney. In reply, Reid said this: "Well, he (Romney) didn't win, did he?" A perfect example of Reid demonstrating no moral qualms about the lie, because maybe that lie helped reelect Obama. The ends justify the means.
Another lie, given little attention by the mainstream media, was the claim that a movie/video trailer was responsible for the assault on our consulate in Benghazi. Obama and Clinton told that lie. It was only a couple of months before the 2012 election, and the spin from Obama was that bin Laden was dead, and terrorism was defeated. So, it was felt that the true story would conflict with that spin. And let's not forget that paragon of honesty, Susan Rice, who went on five Sunday talk shows to repeat the lie about the movie trailer. (Which, although unrelated, certainly makes me want to believe everything she now says about the unmasking and leaking of names of Trump campaign officials.)
The April 5 editorial was entitled "His Authoritarian Vision." The Times is shocked by the fact that Trump has called for "agency budgets to be chopped by up to 30%." Imagine, a President who does not want to see the federal bureaucracy, along with the federal debt, continue to grow exponentially. And, shockingly, Trump has "appointed a string of Cabinet secretaries who were hostile to much of their agencies' missions and the laws they're responsible for enforcing." Would that be like Obama failing to enforce the immigration laws he was responsible for enforcing? Or, ignoring those parts of the Affordable Care Act that he decided should not be enforced before his campaign for reelection, lest it negatively affect the vote for him.
The April 6 editorial was entitled "The War on Journalism." The Times takes great offense at Trump referring to "fake news," and referring to journalists as the "enemies of the people." Calling journalists the "enemies of the people" is not something he should have said. Yes, reporters are almost always going to be biased against Republicans. And when Trump calls out specific instances of bias, I have no problem with it. But the words of Trump apparently upset the Times far more than the actions of Obama. The Times apparently realized how it would look if they completely ignored the ways Obama mistreated the press, and therefore noted: "President Obama's press operation tried to exclude Fox News reporters from interviews, blocked many officials from talking to journalists and, most troubling, prosecuted more national security whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous presidents combined."
Let's not forget the words of Obama and his top advisers early on, as they all appeared on mainstream and cable news channels, asserting that Fox News was not a real news organization. Or how Obama had Fox News reporter James Rosen surveilled - watching his comings and goings, and collecting his emails and phone records. Or how the Obama Administration seized telephone records of AP reporters and editors. No, for the Times it's all about some of the words Trump has said; words Trump says because he actually fights back, instead of taking the abuse - like this series by the Times.
My favorite example of the Dems using the approach of the ends justify the means is a quote from Harry Reid. When Romney was running against Obama, then Senate Majority leader Reid spoke on the Senate floor and accused Romney of not paying any federal income tax. It was a total lie, of course. A number of years later, a reporter asked Reid if he wanted to apologize for that comment about Romney. In reply, Reid said this: "Well, he (Romney) didn't win, did he?" A perfect example of Reid demonstrating no moral qualms about the lie, because maybe that lie helped reelect Obama. The ends justify the means.
Another lie, given little attention by the mainstream media, was the claim that a movie/video trailer was responsible for the assault on our consulate in Benghazi. Obama and Clinton told that lie. It was only a couple of months before the 2012 election, and the spin from Obama was that bin Laden was dead, and terrorism was defeated. So, it was felt that the true story would conflict with that spin. And let's not forget that paragon of honesty, Susan Rice, who went on five Sunday talk shows to repeat the lie about the movie trailer. (Which, although unrelated, certainly makes me want to believe everything she now says about the unmasking and leaking of names of Trump campaign officials.)
The April 5 editorial was entitled "His Authoritarian Vision." The Times is shocked by the fact that Trump has called for "agency budgets to be chopped by up to 30%." Imagine, a President who does not want to see the federal bureaucracy, along with the federal debt, continue to grow exponentially. And, shockingly, Trump has "appointed a string of Cabinet secretaries who were hostile to much of their agencies' missions and the laws they're responsible for enforcing." Would that be like Obama failing to enforce the immigration laws he was responsible for enforcing? Or, ignoring those parts of the Affordable Care Act that he decided should not be enforced before his campaign for reelection, lest it negatively affect the vote for him.
The April 6 editorial was entitled "The War on Journalism." The Times takes great offense at Trump referring to "fake news," and referring to journalists as the "enemies of the people." Calling journalists the "enemies of the people" is not something he should have said. Yes, reporters are almost always going to be biased against Republicans. And when Trump calls out specific instances of bias, I have no problem with it. But the words of Trump apparently upset the Times far more than the actions of Obama. The Times apparently realized how it would look if they completely ignored the ways Obama mistreated the press, and therefore noted: "President Obama's press operation tried to exclude Fox News reporters from interviews, blocked many officials from talking to journalists and, most troubling, prosecuted more national security whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous presidents combined."
Let's not forget the words of Obama and his top advisers early on, as they all appeared on mainstream and cable news channels, asserting that Fox News was not a real news organization. Or how Obama had Fox News reporter James Rosen surveilled - watching his comings and goings, and collecting his emails and phone records. Or how the Obama Administration seized telephone records of AP reporters and editors. No, for the Times it's all about some of the words Trump has said; words Trump says because he actually fights back, instead of taking the abuse - like this series by the Times.
The Californians
"The Californians" was a recurring segment on Saturday Night Live, depicting the shallowness of people in California. Of course, it was an exaggeration, and the real emphasis should have been on the left-wing kooky ideas generated by the state. With the state being overwhelmingly Democratic, not surprisingly, it has elected an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. What follows are some of the wacky proposals that may be enacted into law by the far left state.
While various cities within the state have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities, there is now a proposal to make the entire state a sanctuary state. SB 54 has already passed the state Senate by a vote of 27-12. A request by ICE to local or state law enforcement, asking that they detain people in custody, can be ignored. There are exceptions permitting local law enforcement to notify ICE before convicted or violent felons are released. According to Republican Jeff Stone, Republican State Senator, the bill does not require notification to ICE when human traffickers, child abusers or others about to be released - absent a court order. Said Stone: "How many more Kate Steinle's do we need?" Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal alien in 2015. California is estimated to have 25% of the country's illegal aliens. If the bill is enacted into law we can expect that percentage to grow.
Here's a good one. A bill was proposed in the State Assembly to deal with the issue of "fake news." The bill would make it unlawful to "knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following: (a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election, (b) Any candidate for election to public office." The measure is obviously unconstitutional. It does not apply to the print media, as apparently even the drafters must have suspected that the measure was of questionable constitutionality. They may have overlooked the fact that virtually all mainstream newspapers also operate online. But the real issue is this - just who gets to decide what is "false or deceptive" under the law? A government bureaucrat? Would they categorize any of the posts in this blog as being "false or deceptive?" Of course, there would be no chance that only right-wing sites would be targeted, right? Thankfully, this measure has apparently been tabled.
Perhaps my "favorite" of the many ridiculous proposals to come out of the California State Legislature is one reported in the March 16, 2017 Wall Street Journal. This proposal would exempt teachers in California from paying any state income tax, if they have been teaching for five years or more. The first problem with this proposal is the sheer arrogance of legislators not being the least bit embarrassed by the enormity of their corruption. This would be yet another example of the teachers' unions, contributing millions to Democratic coffers, then being rewarded by those same Democrats in Sacramento, with taxpayer money. Let's be honest, if one segment of society, teachers, pays zero income tax, everybody else will have to make up the difference.
Here's another problem. If teachers get this tax break, imagine what those who risk their lives for the public - the police, firefighters and corrections officers - will have to say. The argument is simple, if anyone deserves such relief from paying taxes, they do. The next argument will be from the rest of the state and local government employees. And why not? All the public employee unions overwhelmingly contribute to Democrats, barely at all to Republicans. So, why shouldn't the corrupt Democrats reward them as well? Does everybody understand why the ability of public employees to unionize and contribute to elected officials is contrary to the interests of the rest of the people in the state?
Lastly, there is a proposal by certain groups to have California secede from the United States. Maybe not such a bad idea. The Californians could go in their own crazy direction. The rest of the country would benefit greatly. The USA would have millions of fewer Democrats. California's 55 electoral college votes would disappear, instead of automatically going to any Democratic Presidential candidate. Those 55 electoral votes give Democrats 20% of the total needed to win, and the Democrats do not even need to campaign here. They only come to raise money. The only downside is for those of us who are conservative. Many of us would probably decide to leave and move to a different state. Still, it might be a small price to pay...
While various cities within the state have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities, there is now a proposal to make the entire state a sanctuary state. SB 54 has already passed the state Senate by a vote of 27-12. A request by ICE to local or state law enforcement, asking that they detain people in custody, can be ignored. There are exceptions permitting local law enforcement to notify ICE before convicted or violent felons are released. According to Republican Jeff Stone, Republican State Senator, the bill does not require notification to ICE when human traffickers, child abusers or others about to be released - absent a court order. Said Stone: "How many more Kate Steinle's do we need?" Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal alien in 2015. California is estimated to have 25% of the country's illegal aliens. If the bill is enacted into law we can expect that percentage to grow.
Here's a good one. A bill was proposed in the State Assembly to deal with the issue of "fake news." The bill would make it unlawful to "knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following: (a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election, (b) Any candidate for election to public office." The measure is obviously unconstitutional. It does not apply to the print media, as apparently even the drafters must have suspected that the measure was of questionable constitutionality. They may have overlooked the fact that virtually all mainstream newspapers also operate online. But the real issue is this - just who gets to decide what is "false or deceptive" under the law? A government bureaucrat? Would they categorize any of the posts in this blog as being "false or deceptive?" Of course, there would be no chance that only right-wing sites would be targeted, right? Thankfully, this measure has apparently been tabled.
Perhaps my "favorite" of the many ridiculous proposals to come out of the California State Legislature is one reported in the March 16, 2017 Wall Street Journal. This proposal would exempt teachers in California from paying any state income tax, if they have been teaching for five years or more. The first problem with this proposal is the sheer arrogance of legislators not being the least bit embarrassed by the enormity of their corruption. This would be yet another example of the teachers' unions, contributing millions to Democratic coffers, then being rewarded by those same Democrats in Sacramento, with taxpayer money. Let's be honest, if one segment of society, teachers, pays zero income tax, everybody else will have to make up the difference.
Here's another problem. If teachers get this tax break, imagine what those who risk their lives for the public - the police, firefighters and corrections officers - will have to say. The argument is simple, if anyone deserves such relief from paying taxes, they do. The next argument will be from the rest of the state and local government employees. And why not? All the public employee unions overwhelmingly contribute to Democrats, barely at all to Republicans. So, why shouldn't the corrupt Democrats reward them as well? Does everybody understand why the ability of public employees to unionize and contribute to elected officials is contrary to the interests of the rest of the people in the state?
Lastly, there is a proposal by certain groups to have California secede from the United States. Maybe not such a bad idea. The Californians could go in their own crazy direction. The rest of the country would benefit greatly. The USA would have millions of fewer Democrats. California's 55 electoral college votes would disappear, instead of automatically going to any Democratic Presidential candidate. Those 55 electoral votes give Democrats 20% of the total needed to win, and the Democrats do not even need to campaign here. They only come to raise money. The only downside is for those of us who are conservative. Many of us would probably decide to leave and move to a different state. Still, it might be a small price to pay...
Monday, March 27, 2017
Israel, Hamas, Trump, the Democrats, Anti-Semitism and the Jews
Today, Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, spoke at the annual AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) convention. Dermer: "For the first time in many years, perhaps even many decades, there is no daylight between our two governments." That was, perhaps, an oblique reference to President Obama's 2009 comment about relations between Israel and the U.S over the prior eight years: "When there is no daylight (between the U.S. and Israel), Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with Arab states." It was, of course, a total lie as Israel offered a state to the Palestinians in 2000 and 2008. But that was simply the beginning of Obama creating as much daylight as possible between the U.S. and Israel, including the enabling of Iran's nuclear weapons program, and ending with Obama's selling out of Israel at the U.N. in December, 2016.
In the March 20, 2017 Wall Street Journal, Andrew Stein and Douglas Schoen, jointly penned an opinion piece entitled "Democrats Turn Against Israel." As these two Democrats wrote: "The Democrats used to be the pro-Israel party." They continued: "President Obama created an atmosphere of outright hostility between the U.S. and Israel." They concluded by asserting that they, along with many other Jewish Democrats, "may decide that the time has come to find new political affiliations," if the Democrats do not reaffirm support for Israel. I don't see it.
The current Palestinian leader of Hamas in Gaza recently said this: "Hamas will continue in the path of Yassin (Hamas founder, killed in an Israeli airstrike) for the liberation of all of Palestine - we will not surrender even a morsel" of the land. By "Palestine," he means all of the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. They will never give up their terror attacks and wars against Israel as long as the Jews possess even one "morsel" of land.
Yet, 187 of the 193 voting Democrats in the House, with two non-voting Democrats and two Republicans, signed off on a letter to President Trump urging him to stand with the two-state solution. Twenty of the twenty-one Jewish members of the House signed the letter. What two-state solution do these people have in mind? There's Israel, Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in parts of the West Bank, along with Israel in parts of the West Bank. So, a three-state solution? And why continue to push a fantasy? Given the quote from the leader of Hamas in Gaza, can the idea of a two-state solution be characterized as anything but a fantasy?
Anti-Semitism continues to grow on college campuses here in the U.S., and throughout the Western world. When the student newspaper at McGill University in Montreal refused to print a pro-Israel article by visiting professor Gil Troy, he decided to post it online. The paper, according to the professor, has a policy of not publishing any article promoting a "Zionist worldview." As for the intolerance of the left to contrary views, Professor Troy said it best: "...you wrap your bigotry in a mantle of self-righteousness, mocking the progressive thought you claim to embrace." For the Left, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attitudes are central to their worldview - liberalism, tolerance to opposing views and open debate are not.
As for Zionism, Professor Troy again said it best: "Zionism has three fundamental propositions: that the Jews are a people; that the Jewish people have one historic homeland, the land of Israel; and that like all other peoples they have collective rights to establish - and now perfect - a country in that homeland." As much as I would like to believe that Stein and Schoen are right - that the Democrats leftward shift away from support for Israel will result in Jews abandoning that party - I just don't see it. I see Jews clinging to their leftist ideology, and showing total contempt for Donald Trump, even when he expresses his strong support for Israel.
After Obama lied about Israel sitting on the sidelines, after he enabled the Iranian nuclear program, and after he sold Israel out at the U.N. as a lame-duck President, I believe the same percentages of Jews who voted for Obama twice would vote for him a third time, if they could. Not only is the Democratic party not reaffirming their support for Israel, they nearly elected the radical leftist/socialist, Bernie Sanders, to head the Democratic ticket. They nearly elected the radical leftist and Muslim anti-Israel Congressman, Keith Ellison, to be the head of their party. He is now vice chair of the party. In no way do I view the party as moving back towards support of Israel. It is a party moving further and further to the left. As with the rest of the Left, it is leftism over Zionism, and leftism over Judaism. For the Democrats to again become the party that supports Israel, they would need to return to classical liberalism. The trend, however, as noted above, is in the opposite direction.
In the March 20, 2017 Wall Street Journal, Andrew Stein and Douglas Schoen, jointly penned an opinion piece entitled "Democrats Turn Against Israel." As these two Democrats wrote: "The Democrats used to be the pro-Israel party." They continued: "President Obama created an atmosphere of outright hostility between the U.S. and Israel." They concluded by asserting that they, along with many other Jewish Democrats, "may decide that the time has come to find new political affiliations," if the Democrats do not reaffirm support for Israel. I don't see it.
The current Palestinian leader of Hamas in Gaza recently said this: "Hamas will continue in the path of Yassin (Hamas founder, killed in an Israeli airstrike) for the liberation of all of Palestine - we will not surrender even a morsel" of the land. By "Palestine," he means all of the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. They will never give up their terror attacks and wars against Israel as long as the Jews possess even one "morsel" of land.
Yet, 187 of the 193 voting Democrats in the House, with two non-voting Democrats and two Republicans, signed off on a letter to President Trump urging him to stand with the two-state solution. Twenty of the twenty-one Jewish members of the House signed the letter. What two-state solution do these people have in mind? There's Israel, Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in parts of the West Bank, along with Israel in parts of the West Bank. So, a three-state solution? And why continue to push a fantasy? Given the quote from the leader of Hamas in Gaza, can the idea of a two-state solution be characterized as anything but a fantasy?
Anti-Semitism continues to grow on college campuses here in the U.S., and throughout the Western world. When the student newspaper at McGill University in Montreal refused to print a pro-Israel article by visiting professor Gil Troy, he decided to post it online. The paper, according to the professor, has a policy of not publishing any article promoting a "Zionist worldview." As for the intolerance of the left to contrary views, Professor Troy said it best: "...you wrap your bigotry in a mantle of self-righteousness, mocking the progressive thought you claim to embrace." For the Left, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attitudes are central to their worldview - liberalism, tolerance to opposing views and open debate are not.
As for Zionism, Professor Troy again said it best: "Zionism has three fundamental propositions: that the Jews are a people; that the Jewish people have one historic homeland, the land of Israel; and that like all other peoples they have collective rights to establish - and now perfect - a country in that homeland." As much as I would like to believe that Stein and Schoen are right - that the Democrats leftward shift away from support for Israel will result in Jews abandoning that party - I just don't see it. I see Jews clinging to their leftist ideology, and showing total contempt for Donald Trump, even when he expresses his strong support for Israel.
After Obama lied about Israel sitting on the sidelines, after he enabled the Iranian nuclear program, and after he sold Israel out at the U.N. as a lame-duck President, I believe the same percentages of Jews who voted for Obama twice would vote for him a third time, if they could. Not only is the Democratic party not reaffirming their support for Israel, they nearly elected the radical leftist/socialist, Bernie Sanders, to head the Democratic ticket. They nearly elected the radical leftist and Muslim anti-Israel Congressman, Keith Ellison, to be the head of their party. He is now vice chair of the party. In no way do I view the party as moving back towards support of Israel. It is a party moving further and further to the left. As with the rest of the Left, it is leftism over Zionism, and leftism over Judaism. For the Democrats to again become the party that supports Israel, they would need to return to classical liberalism. The trend, however, as noted above, is in the opposite direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)