In one of their 01/21/18 editorials, the LA Times discusses "Year One of the Trump era." They begin with this assertion: (Trump) "is temperamentally and intellectually unfit to serve as president of the United States." Temperamentally, Trump is, among other things, a brash New Yorker. It is rather clear that he does not care about political correctness. And, he has no hesitation in fighting back against an extremely hostile mainstream media and extremely hostile Left. Would I, at times, prefer that he be more circumspect in his speech? I have said so on various occasions. Intellectually unfit? That is elitist nonsense. Jimmy Carter is said to have been one of brightest Presidents - and not a very good one. Trump managed to defeat 16 Republican challengers in the primaries. Not because he is stupid; rather, he was able to read the American people and what their concerns were.
Still, the Times says they will take a look at what Trump has actually done. They start with this: "In brief, it's bad." So, let's see. The Times: "Despite some early drama over NATO's budget, Trump has followed a fairly traditional policy of supporting the postwar alliance." So, not bad then? "...Trump signed legislation imposing sanctions on Russia." Also not bad. Trump "approved selling lethal weapons to help Ukraine fend off pro-Russia separatists." Still not bad.
The Times says Trump "no doubt deserves some of the credit for routing Islamic State from strongholds in Iraq and Syria," although they claim he was building on Obama's policies. Even if true, Trump let the military loose so they could win. In any event, still not bad. The Times gives Obama credit for the booming economy (unemployment down, stocks up, wages up), but begrudgingly adds "those trends have continued on his (Trump's) watch, boosted by his business friendly agenda." So, still not bad. They do say there is "wide income inequality," but that was true under Obama already.
Then this: "Trump has been successful in quietly reshaping the judiciary...most (of his judicial appointments) have been the sort of well-credentialed conservative jurists that any GOP president would be likely to appoint." While Leftists would not be happy with conservative jurists, those appointments would hardly qualify as Trump doing something "bad." In fact, by now I am sure most of you are wondering where all the bad stuff is; and in light of all the good things noted above, I think that we can say that the Times should have said Trump's first year was "good," or, at worst, "mixed" (like most Presidents). Were the Times editorial writers being disingenuous in saying Trump's first year was "bad," or, are they "intellectually unfit" for the writing of logical editorials? But let us move on.
Let's get right to some of the things done by Trump and his Administration that the Times believes are, in fact, bad. "Attorney General Jeff Sessions (ended) federal oversight of troubled police departments." Are there bad cops? Sure, as in any other profession or endeavor. But Sessions and Trump have declared war on criminal gangs, such as MS-13. Personally, I prefer a war on gangs over a war on cops. But that's just me. Sessions endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which allows the government to seize someone's property even when not charged with a crime. On this, the Times is correct. While asset forfeiture has been used to deprive criminal gangs of drugs and money, it has also been used against individuals never convicted of any crime. It is improper and unjust in a free society.
The Times complains about Trump "appointing foxes to oversee such henhouses as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau." This complaint is akin to the comment about Trump's judicial appointees. The Times may not like the appointments, but conservatives do. A difference in political ideology does not make these appointments "bad." The Times is unhappy with what they call Trump's "opposition to immigration." That is just a blatant lie often stated by those on the Left. Trump opposes "illegal" immigration as do most conservatives; but the Left makes no distinction between "legal" and "illegal."
Then the Times claims that Trump ended DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program put into place by Obama. This assertion is only partly true. When Obama issued his executive order putting DACA in place, he essentially acknowledged that he did not have the legal authority to do so. Trump, Obama's intellectual inferior to the Times, saw the inappropriateness of a President trying to make laws that is entirely within the purview of the Congress. In ordering the end of DACA, Trump said he wanted to encourage Congress to actually carry out their responsibilities and finally deal with the issue of immigration, and would defer enforcement of his order until at least the end of March in order to give Congress time to act. It seems that the intellectually inferior Trump understands the responsibilities of the three different branches of government better than do Obama and the LA Times.
The Times: Trump "has been less than supportive of the United Nations, withdrawing the U.S. from UNESCO and cutting aid to the agency that works with Palestinian refugees..." Now, the best that I can say about the Times is they have entered the arena of lunacy. The Palestinian relief agency, UNRWA, should not even exist 70 years after it was established. Every descendant of every refugee, or others who entered Gaza and the West Bank, are treated as "refugees" - and apparently will be in perpetuity. It is nonsense. Worse, UNRWA works hand in glove with Hamas, whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel. UNESCO is the UN agency that declared the holiest Jewish sites to be Palestinian. I thank G-d for Trump (and Nikki Haley) acknowledging the truth about these UN agencies.
The Times: Trump's "decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital seems certain to damage the prospects for peace in the region." Trump's intellect clearly outshines the "intellects" who wrote this editorial. The Times editorial writers actually believe that the continued appeasement of the Palestinians will achieve peace, as if that approach of the last 70 years has worked so well. The appeasement has only encouraged the Palestinians to engage in war after war, terrorist attack after terrorist attack, and missile attack after missile attack. For years I have argued that we need a President who will tell the truth to the Palestinians, because as long as the Palestinians only hear fairy tales and lies there will be no movement towards peace. Trump is the President we have needed because Trump is the President to tell the truth about Israel and the Palestinians.
The Times' editorial did discuss some other issues. However, I think it is fairly clear at this point that the Times has no support for their proposition that Trump's first year, in brief, has been "bad." Nor is there support for their allegation of Trump's intellectual unsuitability for the office of President. I would, however, like to see more honest, logical and well reasoned editorials by the Times - assuming they are intellectually up to the task.
Monday, January 22, 2018
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
New Year Reflections, Part III (The Political Circus)
Today, I had the opportunity to watch some of the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on immigration. Testifying was Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. It was quite the spectacle. Some questions were about immigration, some about cyber security. Then, it was Senator Patrick Leahy's (Dem-Vt) turn. Leahy decide that the most important issue of the day facing the USA was whether Trump really referred to certain countries as "shitholes." As Nielsen was present during the meeting in question, he wanted her answer. She testified that she did not hear Trump use that word, but that he was passionate about his point of view.
Leahy said this: "Now last week in the oval office, President Trump reportedly said the most vulgar and racist things I've ever heard a President of either party utter. In fact, I've never heard any President, Republican or Democrat, utter anything even similar." And I am shocked, shocked, that there's gambling going on. Rather an odd comment for a nearly 77 year old Senator. Democratic President Lyndon Johnson frequently used the "N" word when referring to blacks. Republican President Richard Nixon called Mexicans "dishonest," said blacks lived "like a bunch of dogs," and that San Francisco was full of "fags." Italians didn't "have their heads screwed on right." The Irish? "Virtually every Irish I've known gets mean when he drinks." As for my people: "The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality." In other words, Nixon did not like anyone.
Although Senator Leahy claims that he never heard the vulgar language from these other Presidents, I wonder if he ever heard of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I do not know what language Roosevelt used, but I do know that he ordered the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II - something not done to German or Italian Americans. How would the good Senator Leahy compare that to Trump's alleged description of third world countries? Speaking of which, Senator Lindsay Graham, also shocked by Trump's alleged comment, once referred to Mexico and other Latin American countries as "hellholes."
Additionally, Democrats cannot fathom Trump's apparent hostility to immigration. Trump: "All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large number of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our Administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens."
And this from Trump: "We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it." Okay, the above two quotes are actual quotes - but not from Trump. Bill Clinton made both of the above comments. And former Democratic Senator Harry Reid introduced a bill in 1993 to revoke so-called birthright citizenship. His concern was that there was an "incentive for pregnant alien women to enter the United States illegally, often at risk to mother and child, for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for the child and accompanying federal financial benefits. And: "unless changes are made, our dinner table eventually will collapse, and no one will have security and opportunity."
I suppose we may claim that Leahy and others like him are hypocrites. We might claim that Leahy's assertions that he has never heard such bad words from other Presidents is simply not believable. Or, we can rely on that old standby: how can you tell that a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
Leahy said this: "Now last week in the oval office, President Trump reportedly said the most vulgar and racist things I've ever heard a President of either party utter. In fact, I've never heard any President, Republican or Democrat, utter anything even similar." And I am shocked, shocked, that there's gambling going on. Rather an odd comment for a nearly 77 year old Senator. Democratic President Lyndon Johnson frequently used the "N" word when referring to blacks. Republican President Richard Nixon called Mexicans "dishonest," said blacks lived "like a bunch of dogs," and that San Francisco was full of "fags." Italians didn't "have their heads screwed on right." The Irish? "Virtually every Irish I've known gets mean when he drinks." As for my people: "The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality." In other words, Nixon did not like anyone.
Although Senator Leahy claims that he never heard the vulgar language from these other Presidents, I wonder if he ever heard of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I do not know what language Roosevelt used, but I do know that he ordered the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II - something not done to German or Italian Americans. How would the good Senator Leahy compare that to Trump's alleged description of third world countries? Speaking of which, Senator Lindsay Graham, also shocked by Trump's alleged comment, once referred to Mexico and other Latin American countries as "hellholes."
Additionally, Democrats cannot fathom Trump's apparent hostility to immigration. Trump: "All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large number of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our Administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens."
And this from Trump: "We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it." Okay, the above two quotes are actual quotes - but not from Trump. Bill Clinton made both of the above comments. And former Democratic Senator Harry Reid introduced a bill in 1993 to revoke so-called birthright citizenship. His concern was that there was an "incentive for pregnant alien women to enter the United States illegally, often at risk to mother and child, for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for the child and accompanying federal financial benefits. And: "unless changes are made, our dinner table eventually will collapse, and no one will have security and opportunity."
I suppose we may claim that Leahy and others like him are hypocrites. We might claim that Leahy's assertions that he has never heard such bad words from other Presidents is simply not believable. Or, we can rely on that old standby: how can you tell that a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
Monday, January 15, 2018
New Year Reflections, Part II (Race in America - A Tale of Two Perspectives)
Perhaps it's a result of age difference. Perhaps its a consequence of political differences. But two articles in major papers this Martin Luther KIng, Jr. weekend could not have more diametrically opposing viewpoints. One, by Ibram X. Kendi, a 35 year old professor at American University, has a theme of how racist America is and has always been, and that whites of all political persuasions, left and right, are in denial of their racism. (Op-Ed in the Sunday, January 14, 2018 New York Times) The other, by Shelby Steele, a 72 year old senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, has as its theme that blacks in America no longer suffer from the oppression of racism, because that oppression is over with.
(Op-Ed in the 1/13-14 weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal) Both men are black.
Kendi: "Begin with the eight presidents who held slaves while in the oval office. Then consider how Abraham Lincoln urged black people to leave the United States." "Thomas Jefferson was not a founding father of equality. He was a founding father of the heartbeat of denial that lives through both Mr. Trump's denials and the assertion that his racial views are abnormal for America and its presidents."
Steele refers to "a simple truth that is both obvious and unutterable: The oppression of black people is over with. This is politically incorrect news, but it is true nonetheless." After acknowledging that there is still racism - "racism is endemic to the human condition" - Steele states that racism is now "recognized as a scourge, as the crowning immorality of our age and our history." Steele says that blacks then were "confronted with a new problem: the shock of freedom." Steele: "Freedom holds us accountable no matter the disadvantages we inherit from the past."
After discussing how Nixon developed a new strategy to get support from voters who would not have to admit to their racism, Kendi says: "A new vocabulary emerged, allowing users to evade admissions of racism. It still holds fast after all these years. The vocabulary list includes these: law and order. War on drugs. Model minority. Reverse discrimination. Race-neutral. Welfare queen. Handout. Tough on crime. Personal responsibility. Black-on-black crime. Achievement gap. No excuses. Race card. Colorblind. Post-racial. Illegal immigrant. Obamacare. War on Cops. Blue Lives Matter. All Lives Matter. Entitlements. Voter fraud. Economic anxiety. The denials using these phrases come from both conservatives and white liberals."
Steele: "For any formerly oppressed group, there will be an expectation that the past will somehow be an excuse for difficulties in the present." "We end up giving victimization the charisma of black authenticity. Suffering, poverty and underdevelopment are the things that make you 'truly black.' Success and achievement throw your authenticity into question." "The near-hysteria around the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and others is also a hunger for the excuse of racial victimization, a determination to keep it alive."
Steele: "And you would feel this abstract, fabricated oppression as if it were your personal truth, the truth around which your character is formed. Watching the antics of Black Lives Matter is like watching people literally aspiring to black victimization, longing for it as for a consummation." Kendi: "Only racists say they are not racist. Only the racist lives by the heartbeat of denial."
The Truth-Uncensored: I chose to allow these two black scholars to present their viewpoints without any intervening commentary by me. Ultimately, the reader will decide which one makes the most sense, and states the most truth. From my viewpoint, I go by how I lived my own life. Looking forward, not backward. Doing the best that you can given whatever your circumstances may be. Telling young people that they can achieve whatever they want if they work hard enough. Substantial gains and changes have occurred in American society over the last nearly 70 years. By focusing on those positive changes, instead of the negative history, we give an uplifting message. That does not mean we forget the past. No, we learn from it and go forward - with an attitude of optimism, not victimization. And, we judge others as my mother taught me, and as Martin Luther King told all of us, by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Kendi: "Begin with the eight presidents who held slaves while in the oval office. Then consider how Abraham Lincoln urged black people to leave the United States." "Thomas Jefferson was not a founding father of equality. He was a founding father of the heartbeat of denial that lives through both Mr. Trump's denials and the assertion that his racial views are abnormal for America and its presidents."
Steele refers to "a simple truth that is both obvious and unutterable: The oppression of black people is over with. This is politically incorrect news, but it is true nonetheless." After acknowledging that there is still racism - "racism is endemic to the human condition" - Steele states that racism is now "recognized as a scourge, as the crowning immorality of our age and our history." Steele says that blacks then were "confronted with a new problem: the shock of freedom." Steele: "Freedom holds us accountable no matter the disadvantages we inherit from the past."
After discussing how Nixon developed a new strategy to get support from voters who would not have to admit to their racism, Kendi says: "A new vocabulary emerged, allowing users to evade admissions of racism. It still holds fast after all these years. The vocabulary list includes these: law and order. War on drugs. Model minority. Reverse discrimination. Race-neutral. Welfare queen. Handout. Tough on crime. Personal responsibility. Black-on-black crime. Achievement gap. No excuses. Race card. Colorblind. Post-racial. Illegal immigrant. Obamacare. War on Cops. Blue Lives Matter. All Lives Matter. Entitlements. Voter fraud. Economic anxiety. The denials using these phrases come from both conservatives and white liberals."
Steele: "For any formerly oppressed group, there will be an expectation that the past will somehow be an excuse for difficulties in the present." "We end up giving victimization the charisma of black authenticity. Suffering, poverty and underdevelopment are the things that make you 'truly black.' Success and achievement throw your authenticity into question." "The near-hysteria around the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and others is also a hunger for the excuse of racial victimization, a determination to keep it alive."
Steele: "And you would feel this abstract, fabricated oppression as if it were your personal truth, the truth around which your character is formed. Watching the antics of Black Lives Matter is like watching people literally aspiring to black victimization, longing for it as for a consummation." Kendi: "Only racists say they are not racist. Only the racist lives by the heartbeat of denial."
The Truth-Uncensored: I chose to allow these two black scholars to present their viewpoints without any intervening commentary by me. Ultimately, the reader will decide which one makes the most sense, and states the most truth. From my viewpoint, I go by how I lived my own life. Looking forward, not backward. Doing the best that you can given whatever your circumstances may be. Telling young people that they can achieve whatever they want if they work hard enough. Substantial gains and changes have occurred in American society over the last nearly 70 years. By focusing on those positive changes, instead of the negative history, we give an uplifting message. That does not mean we forget the past. No, we learn from it and go forward - with an attitude of optimism, not victimization. And, we judge others as my mother taught me, and as Martin Luther King told all of us, by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Monday, January 8, 2018
New Year Reflections, Part I (Fire and Fury - Inside the Trump White House)
The Left is as excited as they have ever been since President Trump's inauguration. Michael Wolff's new book "Fire and Fury - Inside the Trump White House," has the Left all abuzz. After all, it is one bad comment about Trump after the next. Of course, there is the usual complaint about Trump - he spends most of his time playing golf.
Then, there is the usual complaint that his "favorite setting" when he's "alone on Twitter, talking directly to the American people without intrusions by aggressive reporters asking insinuating questions that sometimes confuse him." And this: "He has to demonstrate he has all his marbles."
Here are a few of my favorites. "The most obvious expression of Trump's choice of ignorance is that, at the age of 71, he knows nothing about policy or history." And, when asked "Do you think the President of the United States is dumb?" one commentator said "the short answer is yes." And this good one: "If Trump isn't exactly the moron he sounds, his synaptic misfirings offer a plausible proxy for the idiocy of his presidency."
But, really, can anyone think of any Republican president that has not been called either stupid, a moron, or inarticulate simpleton. In fact, the comment about golf in the first paragraph was made about Eisenhower. The comments in the second paragraph were actually made about Reagan, I simply changed TV camera to Twitter. The third paragraph is all about George W. Bush, with the only change being from Bush's age of 57 at the time to Trump's age of 71. Remember how everyone said Jimmy Carter was "brilliant?" And recall what a failed presidency he presided over?
In the introduction to Mr. Wolff's book we learn that "many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are badly untrue. Those conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book. Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I Have, through a consistency in accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."
Does the fact that the author has essentially told us to doubt the veracity of the book make any difference to the Left? Of course not. In speaking with one person on the Left, I said "let's assume everything in the book is absolutely true." Then I listed a number of Trump's achievements to see if they made any difference in his opinion - destruction of the ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria, recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the Dow Jones above 25000, economic growth at a level not seen in eight years under Obama, a war on criminal gangs such as MS-13 instead of a war on cops as we saw under Obama, and so on. It made no difference to him; and I was told I watch too much Fox. But we already know that for the Left, for the mainstream media, it is far easier to name call, to demagogue, than to engage in debate.
I say let the Left continue to have their child-like temper tantrums and demagoguery, while Trump continues to accomplish one policy objective after the next. That is really all he can do. And if the people decide to reverse course in November, and opt for an ever increasing socialist/nanny state impinging on their liberty - then shame on them.
Then, there is the usual complaint that his "favorite setting" when he's "alone on Twitter, talking directly to the American people without intrusions by aggressive reporters asking insinuating questions that sometimes confuse him." And this: "He has to demonstrate he has all his marbles."
Here are a few of my favorites. "The most obvious expression of Trump's choice of ignorance is that, at the age of 71, he knows nothing about policy or history." And, when asked "Do you think the President of the United States is dumb?" one commentator said "the short answer is yes." And this good one: "If Trump isn't exactly the moron he sounds, his synaptic misfirings offer a plausible proxy for the idiocy of his presidency."
But, really, can anyone think of any Republican president that has not been called either stupid, a moron, or inarticulate simpleton. In fact, the comment about golf in the first paragraph was made about Eisenhower. The comments in the second paragraph were actually made about Reagan, I simply changed TV camera to Twitter. The third paragraph is all about George W. Bush, with the only change being from Bush's age of 57 at the time to Trump's age of 71. Remember how everyone said Jimmy Carter was "brilliant?" And recall what a failed presidency he presided over?
In the introduction to Mr. Wolff's book we learn that "many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are badly untrue. Those conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book. Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I Have, through a consistency in accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."
Does the fact that the author has essentially told us to doubt the veracity of the book make any difference to the Left? Of course not. In speaking with one person on the Left, I said "let's assume everything in the book is absolutely true." Then I listed a number of Trump's achievements to see if they made any difference in his opinion - destruction of the ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria, recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the Dow Jones above 25000, economic growth at a level not seen in eight years under Obama, a war on criminal gangs such as MS-13 instead of a war on cops as we saw under Obama, and so on. It made no difference to him; and I was told I watch too much Fox. But we already know that for the Left, for the mainstream media, it is far easier to name call, to demagogue, than to engage in debate.
I say let the Left continue to have their child-like temper tantrums and demagoguery, while Trump continues to accomplish one policy objective after the next. That is really all he can do. And if the people decide to reverse course in November, and opt for an ever increasing socialist/nanny state impinging on their liberty - then shame on them.
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Year End Reflections, Part VI (Trump's First Year - Foreign Policy)
As far as I can tell, none of the terrible consequences - both foreign and domestic - feared and predicted by the Left, that were to have flowed from a Trump Presidency, have come to fruition. Nevertheless, the mainstream media still views the Trump Presidency as a disaster. The 12/26/17 LA Times main front page headline read: "Foreign leaders say U.S. losing stature." The 12/29/17 NY Times front page headline read: "Insurgent President Alters, Unpredictably, America's Global Role." So, let's take a look.
Not surprisingly, one of the liberal media's main concerns was Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital city, especially after the UN General Assembly voted to demand that the United States rescind its decision recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The vote was 128 to 9, with 35 abstentions. And, our Western European "allies" in the UK, France and Germany voted with the likes of China, Russia and the 57 nation Islamic block. Unlike Obama, willing to defer on US sovereignty to international organizations, Trump is not. Why should the UN get to decide where the USA puts its embassy? This is the same UN that once declared "Zionism" to be racism; a decision only reversed later on through the efforts of the US.
Our UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, said this after the vote: "We will remember (this vote) when we are called upon to once again make the world's largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit." Thereafter, the US announced a $285 million cut in our contribution to the UN. Said one commentator in the Wall Street Journal: "Diplomacy based on denying reality isn't helpful." In true conservative fashion, Trump acknowledged the reality of Jerusalem as Israel's historic and religious capital. The Leftist media and Europeans would prefer to continue the appeasement of the Palestinians, as if that appeasement has actually moved the parties closer towards peace.
Both the LA and NY Times suggested that Trump's Jerusalem decision was nothing more than a pandering to his base. The NY Times: "...evangelicals and some hard-line, pro-Israel American Jews exulted..." Actually, unlike his predecessors, Trump actually kept his campaign promise. By doing so, he also fulfilled a 1995 Congressional measure passed overwhelmingly by the House (374 to 37) and the Senate (93 to 5) calling for the relocation of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The NY Times: "The president takes credit for eradicating the caliphate built by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq,, though he mainly accelerated a battle plan developed by President Barack Obama." What utter nonsense! Trump "takes credit for...?" No, Trump deserves the credit for eradicating ISIS from the territory they had held in Iraq and Syria. He followed Obama's plan? Then how come in 8 years Obama could not succeed against ISIS? No, Trump made a campaign pledge to destroy ISIS in their strongholds. Another campaign promise kept.
The LA Times quotes with favor one Iranian commentator as follows: "Now Russia is celebrating its victory in Syria, and America is watching as an onlooker." Very confusing. The left-wing media cannot seem to decide if the US should withdraw from Middle East entanglements or get more involved. Wasn't it Obama who said that Syrian use of chemical weapons would be a red line, which, if the Syrians crossed, would not be tolerated? Well, they crossed it - and Obama did nothing. Trump, on the other hand, had 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles sent into Syria. Not a devastating blow, but a clear message that there are consequences.
Meanwhile, the NY Times frets over the reactions of the Europeans to Trump. They quote Angela Merkel: "We Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands. The times in which we can fully count on others - they are somewhat over." Is there a reason they are not able to take care of themselves? Britain and France are nuclear powers. Germany is an economic powerhouse. And, succeeding where his predecessors have failed, thanks to Trump the Europeans are starting to increase their monetary contributions to NATO.
As for North Korea, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson wrote in an Op-Ed in the 12/28/17 New York Times, Trump "abandoned the failed policy of strategic patience." Says Tillerson: "This year, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted three of the strongest sanctions resolutions in history...Our peaceful pressure campaign has cut off roughly 90 percent of North Korea's export revenue, much of which is used to fund illegal weapons development." As for Trump's name calling exchanges with Kim Jong-un - I've said before I've never been fond of the name calling. But who knows? Maybe the Korean dictator fears a tough talker such as Trump; and fear can often change minds.
Of course, while there are many other topics that could be discussed under the "foreign policy" umbrella, I cannot end this post without a discussion of Russia. Trump's recently released national security strategy paper "accused the Russians of using 'subversion' as a tactic and said that countering both rival (Russia and China) powers was necessary" (from the LA Times). But, the Times then asserts "Trump's refusal to overtly criticize Russia, some diplomats say, has emboldened Putin in his military actions in Ukraine." I'm trying to not laugh too hard. It was Obama and Hillary who had the "reset" with Russia. It was Obama who mocked Romney for calling Russia the greatest geopolitical threat to the US. It was Obama who told Medvedev to tell Putin that he (Obama) would have more "flexibility" after his reelection.
Obama stood by and did nothing when Russia invaded Ukraine. Did Obama's criticizing of Russia deter Putin? Of course not. Yet, the LA Times seems to believe that some harsh words from Trump would produce a different result. Russia supports Syria's Assad. Obama did not nothing to Russia's client state after they used chemical weapons. Trump sent in cruise missiles. Which one was more likely to upset Russia? Trump has now announced the US will send Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine, to aid in their fight against Russian backed forces. Anyone think that such action enamors the US in Putin's eyes?
Overall, Trump has had a successful foreign policy first year. But notice how the mainstream media spins their front page "news" stories in order to reflect negatively on Trump. At what point does left-wing spin become "fake" news?
Not surprisingly, one of the liberal media's main concerns was Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital city, especially after the UN General Assembly voted to demand that the United States rescind its decision recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The vote was 128 to 9, with 35 abstentions. And, our Western European "allies" in the UK, France and Germany voted with the likes of China, Russia and the 57 nation Islamic block. Unlike Obama, willing to defer on US sovereignty to international organizations, Trump is not. Why should the UN get to decide where the USA puts its embassy? This is the same UN that once declared "Zionism" to be racism; a decision only reversed later on through the efforts of the US.
Our UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, said this after the vote: "We will remember (this vote) when we are called upon to once again make the world's largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit." Thereafter, the US announced a $285 million cut in our contribution to the UN. Said one commentator in the Wall Street Journal: "Diplomacy based on denying reality isn't helpful." In true conservative fashion, Trump acknowledged the reality of Jerusalem as Israel's historic and religious capital. The Leftist media and Europeans would prefer to continue the appeasement of the Palestinians, as if that appeasement has actually moved the parties closer towards peace.
Both the LA and NY Times suggested that Trump's Jerusalem decision was nothing more than a pandering to his base. The NY Times: "...evangelicals and some hard-line, pro-Israel American Jews exulted..." Actually, unlike his predecessors, Trump actually kept his campaign promise. By doing so, he also fulfilled a 1995 Congressional measure passed overwhelmingly by the House (374 to 37) and the Senate (93 to 5) calling for the relocation of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The NY Times: "The president takes credit for eradicating the caliphate built by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq,, though he mainly accelerated a battle plan developed by President Barack Obama." What utter nonsense! Trump "takes credit for...?" No, Trump deserves the credit for eradicating ISIS from the territory they had held in Iraq and Syria. He followed Obama's plan? Then how come in 8 years Obama could not succeed against ISIS? No, Trump made a campaign pledge to destroy ISIS in their strongholds. Another campaign promise kept.
The LA Times quotes with favor one Iranian commentator as follows: "Now Russia is celebrating its victory in Syria, and America is watching as an onlooker." Very confusing. The left-wing media cannot seem to decide if the US should withdraw from Middle East entanglements or get more involved. Wasn't it Obama who said that Syrian use of chemical weapons would be a red line, which, if the Syrians crossed, would not be tolerated? Well, they crossed it - and Obama did nothing. Trump, on the other hand, had 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles sent into Syria. Not a devastating blow, but a clear message that there are consequences.
Meanwhile, the NY Times frets over the reactions of the Europeans to Trump. They quote Angela Merkel: "We Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands. The times in which we can fully count on others - they are somewhat over." Is there a reason they are not able to take care of themselves? Britain and France are nuclear powers. Germany is an economic powerhouse. And, succeeding where his predecessors have failed, thanks to Trump the Europeans are starting to increase their monetary contributions to NATO.
As for North Korea, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson wrote in an Op-Ed in the 12/28/17 New York Times, Trump "abandoned the failed policy of strategic patience." Says Tillerson: "This year, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted three of the strongest sanctions resolutions in history...Our peaceful pressure campaign has cut off roughly 90 percent of North Korea's export revenue, much of which is used to fund illegal weapons development." As for Trump's name calling exchanges with Kim Jong-un - I've said before I've never been fond of the name calling. But who knows? Maybe the Korean dictator fears a tough talker such as Trump; and fear can often change minds.
Of course, while there are many other topics that could be discussed under the "foreign policy" umbrella, I cannot end this post without a discussion of Russia. Trump's recently released national security strategy paper "accused the Russians of using 'subversion' as a tactic and said that countering both rival (Russia and China) powers was necessary" (from the LA Times). But, the Times then asserts "Trump's refusal to overtly criticize Russia, some diplomats say, has emboldened Putin in his military actions in Ukraine." I'm trying to not laugh too hard. It was Obama and Hillary who had the "reset" with Russia. It was Obama who mocked Romney for calling Russia the greatest geopolitical threat to the US. It was Obama who told Medvedev to tell Putin that he (Obama) would have more "flexibility" after his reelection.
Obama stood by and did nothing when Russia invaded Ukraine. Did Obama's criticizing of Russia deter Putin? Of course not. Yet, the LA Times seems to believe that some harsh words from Trump would produce a different result. Russia supports Syria's Assad. Obama did not nothing to Russia's client state after they used chemical weapons. Trump sent in cruise missiles. Which one was more likely to upset Russia? Trump has now announced the US will send Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine, to aid in their fight against Russian backed forces. Anyone think that such action enamors the US in Putin's eyes?
Overall, Trump has had a successful foreign policy first year. But notice how the mainstream media spins their front page "news" stories in order to reflect negatively on Trump. At what point does left-wing spin become "fake" news?
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Year End Reflections, Part V (John Kerry vs Nikki Haley - No Contest)
In December of last year, the United States - by abstaining - allowed the passage of UN Security Resolution 2334. As was typical of the Obama-Kerry team, the resolution criticized Israel for building in Jerusalem, blamed Israel for the lack of a peace agreement, and, as usual tried to appease the Palestinians by giving them everything they want - and still expecting the Palestinians to come to the bargaining table.
Now, a year later later, Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the UN, said this: "Given the chance to vote again on Resolution 2334, I can say with complete confidence that the US would vote no, and we would exercise our veto power." The other day, the UN Security Council voted 14-1 on an Egyptian sponsored resolution declaring that the US should annul its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. As the one "no" vote was cast by Nikki Haley on behalf of the US, and as the US is one of the five permanent members with veto power, the resolution did not pass. Haley: the US "will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy."
Kerry, last December: "Now you may have heard that some criticize this resolution for calling East Jerusalem occupied territory. But to be clear, there was absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution (2334) on that issue." Except, that was not true, as previous policy was that the final status of Jerusalem was to be negotiated between the parties. No excuse making by Haley, however, as she asserted that the US had the "courage and honesty to recognize a fundamental reality: Jerusalem has been the political, cultural and spiritual homeland of the Jewish people for thousands of years; they have had no other capital city."
Last December, Kerry gave a 70 minute speech defending the contents of resolution 2334. The resolution included a provision claiming that Israeli "settlements" were "a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace." Here is what Haley just said about which party constitutes the biggest obstacle to peace: by "misplacing the blame for the failure of the peace efforts squarely on Israeli settlements, the resolution gave a pass to Palestinian leaders who for many years rejected one peace proposal after another."
Haley, with no hand wringing, and no doubt about what was right and what side the United States should take, then tweeted this: "At the UN we're always asked to do more and give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American ppl, about where to locate our embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us. On Thursday, there'll be a vote (this time in the General Assembly where the US has no veto power) criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names."
No apologies. No appeasement. No agonizing over using US power and influence. Does it make sense to keep providing foreign aid to countries who then poke us in the eye and vote against US interests at the UN? My take? G-d bless Nikki Haley and G-d bless Donald Trump for appointing her to be UN Ambassador.
Postscript: We can reasonably predict how the Western European, anti-Israel, Palestinian-appeasing countries will vote. For example, and representative of the Western European leaders, French President Emmanuel Macron referred to Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital "regrettable." But it is worth noting the words of Czech President Milos Zeman: "The European Union, cowards, are doing all they can so a pro-Palestinian terrorist movement can have supremacy over a pro-Israeli movement."
Now, a year later later, Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the UN, said this: "Given the chance to vote again on Resolution 2334, I can say with complete confidence that the US would vote no, and we would exercise our veto power." The other day, the UN Security Council voted 14-1 on an Egyptian sponsored resolution declaring that the US should annul its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. As the one "no" vote was cast by Nikki Haley on behalf of the US, and as the US is one of the five permanent members with veto power, the resolution did not pass. Haley: the US "will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy."
Kerry, last December: "Now you may have heard that some criticize this resolution for calling East Jerusalem occupied territory. But to be clear, there was absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution (2334) on that issue." Except, that was not true, as previous policy was that the final status of Jerusalem was to be negotiated between the parties. No excuse making by Haley, however, as she asserted that the US had the "courage and honesty to recognize a fundamental reality: Jerusalem has been the political, cultural and spiritual homeland of the Jewish people for thousands of years; they have had no other capital city."
Last December, Kerry gave a 70 minute speech defending the contents of resolution 2334. The resolution included a provision claiming that Israeli "settlements" were "a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace." Here is what Haley just said about which party constitutes the biggest obstacle to peace: by "misplacing the blame for the failure of the peace efforts squarely on Israeli settlements, the resolution gave a pass to Palestinian leaders who for many years rejected one peace proposal after another."
Haley, with no hand wringing, and no doubt about what was right and what side the United States should take, then tweeted this: "At the UN we're always asked to do more and give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American ppl, about where to locate our embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us. On Thursday, there'll be a vote (this time in the General Assembly where the US has no veto power) criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names."
No apologies. No appeasement. No agonizing over using US power and influence. Does it make sense to keep providing foreign aid to countries who then poke us in the eye and vote against US interests at the UN? My take? G-d bless Nikki Haley and G-d bless Donald Trump for appointing her to be UN Ambassador.
Postscript: We can reasonably predict how the Western European, anti-Israel, Palestinian-appeasing countries will vote. For example, and representative of the Western European leaders, French President Emmanuel Macron referred to Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital "regrettable." But it is worth noting the words of Czech President Milos Zeman: "The European Union, cowards, are doing all they can so a pro-Palestinian terrorist movement can have supremacy over a pro-Israeli movement."
Sunday, December 17, 2017
Year End Reflections, Part IV (Do You Still Believe the Mainstream Media?)
Following President Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the New York Times ran a story entitled: "Jerusalem, Explained: Why Trump's Decision Matters and What's Next." The article by Max Fisher ran in the 12/10/17 edition. Fisher: "Evangelical Christians have been joined by a subset of American Jews and others on the political right in arguing that the United States should overtly back Israel in the conflict." I guess, if we ignore the May, 2016 Pew poll showing that Americans back Israel over the Palestinians by 54% to 19%.
And why wouldn't Americans back Israel, given the shared Judeo values as well as the shared values of democracy and liberty. Fisher says that the pro-Israel position "hardened during the second intifada, a period of vicious Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the early 2000s." The truth is that it was a period of vicious terrorist attacks started by Yasser Arafat after he rejected an Israeli offer of a Palestinian state and walked out on then President Bill Clinton. By "vicious conflict" he means Arabs blowing up Jews on buses, in cafes and even at a Passover Seder.
Fisher suggests that Trump backed full Israeli control over all of Jerusalem, ignoring Trump's comments that the final decision on the borders of Jerusalem are to be decided by the parties.
In an Op-Ed in the 12/7/17 LA Times, UCLA Professor Saree Makdisi writes of "Trump's Mideast disaster." Admittedly, an Op-Ed piece is not a news story. However, mainstream papers such as the NY Times and LA Times excel at letting left-wing writers use the papers' opinion pages to express ideas which these papers support. The beauty of it is it allows the papers to say that they are simply giving voice to "other" opinions - which the papers just happen to share. Makdisi: "For Trump to endorse Israel's claim to the entire city, then, is to endorse illegality." Allow me to reiterate: Trump endorsed Jerusalem as Israel's capital, clearly stating that the final boundaries are up to the parties.
These papers obviously know that Israel's government offices are in the Western part of Jerusalem, and that any US Embassy will also be in the Western part of Jerusalem. Why, then, do they permit their writers to state "facts" that simply are not true? That would be because they want Trump to look bad, and they want Israel to look bad. The left-wing crowd is anti-Trump and anti-Israel. After accusing Trump of supporting white supremacy and being Islamophobic, the Professor concludes with what I imagine is her real wish for Israel. Accusing Israel of apartheid, she says this: "...what looks like a victory for Israeli apartheid now may well turn out to be a turning point on the road to its eventual demise."
In the 12/15/17 edition of the NY Times, the paper had a chart, or diagram if you will, on page 12 above the fold, with the title "What Is the 'Russia Story?'" Above that are these words: "Confused by all the news about Russia and the 2016 presidential election? We are here to help." Well, isn't that special? Is the Times there to help with the major scandal of the century (see the prior post) and give us a diagram of all the players involved in the cover-up of the Clinton email scandal, the Trump dossier and fabricated Russian collusion story, and the effort by high government officials to prevent Trump from getting elected, and to resort to other tactics to get him removed from office should he win? Just asking.
However, the winner for the most overt bias against, and hatred of, Trump will have to be the USA Today. Their 12/13/17 editorial discusses Trump's dust-up with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. After calling for Trump to resign, Trump responded in his usual attack mode. He said that Gillibrand previously came to his office (before he was President) "begging" for campaign contributions, and "would do anything for them." Now, maybe I'm naive, but I did not attach any sexual innuendo to that comment. To me, it's a politician making promises - and saying anything - in order to get a campaign contribution. Nothing more. But for the USA Today, and others on the Left, Trump was essentially calling Gillibrand a "whore" (per their editorial).
Of course, by interpreting the remark the way the USA Today does, it fits in with the overall attack on Trump based on allegations of sexual harassment and other improprieties. After all, and as noted in the prior post, the Russian story is not going anywhere, so another plan is needed to help remove Trump from office. And then, the USA Today goes where no other mainstream paper has gone before (sorry, I loved Star Trek): "A president who would all but call Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., a whore is not fit to clean the toilets in the planned Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush."
Of course I would trust any "news" story they might now print about Trump. Their total hatred and loathing of Trump could not possibly bleed over into their news pages. Right?
And why wouldn't Americans back Israel, given the shared Judeo values as well as the shared values of democracy and liberty. Fisher says that the pro-Israel position "hardened during the second intifada, a period of vicious Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the early 2000s." The truth is that it was a period of vicious terrorist attacks started by Yasser Arafat after he rejected an Israeli offer of a Palestinian state and walked out on then President Bill Clinton. By "vicious conflict" he means Arabs blowing up Jews on buses, in cafes and even at a Passover Seder.
Fisher suggests that Trump backed full Israeli control over all of Jerusalem, ignoring Trump's comments that the final decision on the borders of Jerusalem are to be decided by the parties.
In an Op-Ed in the 12/7/17 LA Times, UCLA Professor Saree Makdisi writes of "Trump's Mideast disaster." Admittedly, an Op-Ed piece is not a news story. However, mainstream papers such as the NY Times and LA Times excel at letting left-wing writers use the papers' opinion pages to express ideas which these papers support. The beauty of it is it allows the papers to say that they are simply giving voice to "other" opinions - which the papers just happen to share. Makdisi: "For Trump to endorse Israel's claim to the entire city, then, is to endorse illegality." Allow me to reiterate: Trump endorsed Jerusalem as Israel's capital, clearly stating that the final boundaries are up to the parties.
These papers obviously know that Israel's government offices are in the Western part of Jerusalem, and that any US Embassy will also be in the Western part of Jerusalem. Why, then, do they permit their writers to state "facts" that simply are not true? That would be because they want Trump to look bad, and they want Israel to look bad. The left-wing crowd is anti-Trump and anti-Israel. After accusing Trump of supporting white supremacy and being Islamophobic, the Professor concludes with what I imagine is her real wish for Israel. Accusing Israel of apartheid, she says this: "...what looks like a victory for Israeli apartheid now may well turn out to be a turning point on the road to its eventual demise."
In the 12/15/17 edition of the NY Times, the paper had a chart, or diagram if you will, on page 12 above the fold, with the title "What Is the 'Russia Story?'" Above that are these words: "Confused by all the news about Russia and the 2016 presidential election? We are here to help." Well, isn't that special? Is the Times there to help with the major scandal of the century (see the prior post) and give us a diagram of all the players involved in the cover-up of the Clinton email scandal, the Trump dossier and fabricated Russian collusion story, and the effort by high government officials to prevent Trump from getting elected, and to resort to other tactics to get him removed from office should he win? Just asking.
However, the winner for the most overt bias against, and hatred of, Trump will have to be the USA Today. Their 12/13/17 editorial discusses Trump's dust-up with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. After calling for Trump to resign, Trump responded in his usual attack mode. He said that Gillibrand previously came to his office (before he was President) "begging" for campaign contributions, and "would do anything for them." Now, maybe I'm naive, but I did not attach any sexual innuendo to that comment. To me, it's a politician making promises - and saying anything - in order to get a campaign contribution. Nothing more. But for the USA Today, and others on the Left, Trump was essentially calling Gillibrand a "whore" (per their editorial).
Of course, by interpreting the remark the way the USA Today does, it fits in with the overall attack on Trump based on allegations of sexual harassment and other improprieties. After all, and as noted in the prior post, the Russian story is not going anywhere, so another plan is needed to help remove Trump from office. And then, the USA Today goes where no other mainstream paper has gone before (sorry, I loved Star Trek): "A president who would all but call Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., a whore is not fit to clean the toilets in the planned Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush."
Of course I would trust any "news" story they might now print about Trump. Their total hatred and loathing of Trump could not possibly bleed over into their news pages. Right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)