In my last post I asserted that the last acceptable prejudice was anti-conservatism. I claimed that "many on the Left act as if they have an absolute right to be rude to conservatives, to mock us, to insult us, to ignore us, and to simply stop being friends with us." The examples abound on a non-stop basis. Here are a few recent ones.
A Tweet from Stephen King: "A train load of Republicans on their way to a pricey retreat hit a garbage truck. My friend Russ calls that Karma." Yes, let's make fun of injuries, death and destruction. Jonathan Tasini, a regular commentator on CNN, Tweeted this: "Wow, btwn train full of Goopers hitting truck and this (Trey Gowdy announcing his retirement from Congress), G-d is working hard today to clean up the stink. Thank her..." The "stink," aka Republicans.
Jimmy Kimmel: "It just so happens that almost every talk show host is a liberal and that's because it requires a level of intelligence." While some claimed it was a joke, the point is that he said it knowing it would get a huge laugh, and it did. Because, after all, conservatives are dimwits. Although I would not mind seeing a debate between Mr. Kimmel and one of those dimwit radio talk show hosts, such as Dennis Prager, Larry Elder or Michael Medved.
One reader emailed me after reading the last post to tell me he had been hiking when he ran into another person on the trail. It was an isolated area and apparently the two of them were the only hikers in the area. As they crossed paths they stopped and chatted for a while. When he returned to his car there was a note from the unknown hiker on his windshield: "Nice to talk. Here is my personal info. Maybe we can get together. If you voted for Trump, though, the offer is definitely retracted."
In case anyone claims these stories are simply anecdotal, and not reflective of the mainstream Left, think again. The premier left-wing newspaper is the New York Times. Following President Trump's State of the Union speech, the Times' lead editorial of 1/31/18, said this: "...underneath distracting surface spectacles like his trolling on Twitter, he is delivering the most ruthless, conventionally conservative domestic policy in memory." So, for the NY Times, "conventional conservatism" is "ruthless." Got it. The Times editorial continued: "Nowhere is this more evident than in the way he is packing the courts - including the Supreme Court - with far-right justices." Hmmm...a conservative President appointing conservative judges. Didn't left-wing Obama appoint far-left justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan? Conservative Presidents don't have the right to appoint conservative justices because...why? Oh, that's right, conservatives are ruthless.
Lastly, we have MSNBC's Joy Reid's Tweet after Trump's State of the Union speech: "Church..family..police...military...the national anthem...Trump trying to call on all the tropes of 1950's-era nationalism. The goal of this speech appears to be to force the normalization of Trump on the terms of the bygone era his supporters are nostalgic for." I hope that Joy Reid and others on the Left continue with their out-of-touch elitism. What people like her do not realize is that it is not only conservatives who respect their church and family, the police and military and yes, the national anthem. After seeing a reduction in both attendance and TV viewership following the kneeling during the national anthem at NFL games, it was hardly a surprise that the league went out of its way to showcase numerous military veterans during the Super Bowl.
To sum up, conservatives are garbage, stink, are dimwits, Trump voters and ruthless. On other the hand, we value church (synagogue for some of us), family, the police, the military and the national anthem. I can deal with the demonization and demagoguery. After all, we are sustained by our faith, families, and basic American institutions. Not too shabby.
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
The Last Acceptable Prejudice
We know that it is unacceptable to be biased against or prejudiced against or discriminate against blacks, women, Hispanics, any member of the LGBTQ community, Muslims, and so on. Right? Wrong! It is perfectly permissible to mistreat any member of those groups if they are conservatives. In fact, prejudice against conservatives occurs on a daily basis. If you doubt the claim of such bias being acceptable against even members of the favored "victim" classes, consider the following. Pro-life women were discouraged or banned from participating in some of the women's marches. The same for pro-Israel women. Some in the Hollywood crowd had no problem with recently body shaming Sarah Sanders, President Trump's Press Secretary. After all, she is a conservative.
You see, marches such as the women's marches should really be referred to as the progressive/leftist women's marches. Are you a conservative black? Uncle Tom! This prejudice against conservatives is pervasive throughout our society. In fact, many on the Left act as if they have an absolute right to be rude to conservatives, to mock us, to insult us, to ignore us, and to simply stop being friends with us. The mainstream media's editorials mock conservatives all the time. It is nearly impossible to find a network TV show that does not attack or mock conservatives in at least one scene. College campuses? Do I really need to list all the times professors have insulted Republicans and conservatives. Let's not forget Hillary's "basket of deplorables." Democrats are the party of "tolerance?" Please.
On a more personal level, see my summer of 2016 post "A Personal Tale of Intolerance," wherein I describe being verbally assaulted and in fear of being struck by someone who was angry beyond words that I would be voting for Trump. I have had people tell me to my face that they "hate" Republicans, knowing that I am one. I have been mocked, otherwise treated rudely, and lost friends simply because my political beliefs are "unacceptable." Being a conservative makes me a lesser human being in the eyes of the Left. I am a "deplorable."
The Left has so incorporated this disparagement of conservatives into their worldview, that they believe it is, or should be, legal to discriminate against conservatives. Don't believe that either? Recall the various big city mayors across the country, all Democrats, telling Chick fil-A that they were not welcome to do business in their cities, after the owner of the company said he believed in the traditional definition of marriage. These mayors did not believe that the owner had First Amendment rights; they did not believe that he had a right to conduct business. Why? Because he expressed a conservative viewpoint. You want to live in a society where you must pass a political litmus test to get into a college, or get a job, or run a business? What happens when they ask if you are pro-Israel, or Jewish, and if you are, you are rejected. Some of us remember being down that road before.
In California, we already have legal discrimination against Republicans. In the primary elections, all candidates of both parties (multiple parties in California) are listed on a single ballot. The top two vote getters make the general election ballot. In California, the top two are Democrats. Therefore, we have no Republicans holding statewide office. We have an overwhelming Democrat legislature. One party rule. That is what the Left is aiming for on a national level. Welcome back to the USSR.
I have a confession to make. (No, I'm not a Christian.) I made the mistake of thinking that if I engaged with people on the Left, but did so in the manner of the "Happy Warrior," Hubert Humphrey, that I would be well received. I did my best to be polite, not be "in your face," and to stick to facts and logic. I was wrong. I forgot a truism that I have often stated. That is, many on the Left have so internalized their Leftist worldview that it has become a part of their self-identity. Therefore, if you criticize Obama, for example, it is as if you are personally attacking them. No matter how nice you are, they will get mad at you, because it is as if you are attacking them. You may as well be screaming at them. My bad. I forgot.
Therefore, I have decided that I will no longer engage with those on the Left about politics. I'll stick to "my own kind." Is that better for society if we cannot respectfully engage with one another? If the Left stays in their Left-wing bubble, and the Right stays in theirs? Some will say yes, there was less division in society when people discussed neither politics nor religion with one another. Others will say it is not better, that the inability to cross the political divide is a sign that it is the beginning of the end of this great country. That we will ultimately split into two countries. How do you see it?
You see, marches such as the women's marches should really be referred to as the progressive/leftist women's marches. Are you a conservative black? Uncle Tom! This prejudice against conservatives is pervasive throughout our society. In fact, many on the Left act as if they have an absolute right to be rude to conservatives, to mock us, to insult us, to ignore us, and to simply stop being friends with us. The mainstream media's editorials mock conservatives all the time. It is nearly impossible to find a network TV show that does not attack or mock conservatives in at least one scene. College campuses? Do I really need to list all the times professors have insulted Republicans and conservatives. Let's not forget Hillary's "basket of deplorables." Democrats are the party of "tolerance?" Please.
On a more personal level, see my summer of 2016 post "A Personal Tale of Intolerance," wherein I describe being verbally assaulted and in fear of being struck by someone who was angry beyond words that I would be voting for Trump. I have had people tell me to my face that they "hate" Republicans, knowing that I am one. I have been mocked, otherwise treated rudely, and lost friends simply because my political beliefs are "unacceptable." Being a conservative makes me a lesser human being in the eyes of the Left. I am a "deplorable."
The Left has so incorporated this disparagement of conservatives into their worldview, that they believe it is, or should be, legal to discriminate against conservatives. Don't believe that either? Recall the various big city mayors across the country, all Democrats, telling Chick fil-A that they were not welcome to do business in their cities, after the owner of the company said he believed in the traditional definition of marriage. These mayors did not believe that the owner had First Amendment rights; they did not believe that he had a right to conduct business. Why? Because he expressed a conservative viewpoint. You want to live in a society where you must pass a political litmus test to get into a college, or get a job, or run a business? What happens when they ask if you are pro-Israel, or Jewish, and if you are, you are rejected. Some of us remember being down that road before.
In California, we already have legal discrimination against Republicans. In the primary elections, all candidates of both parties (multiple parties in California) are listed on a single ballot. The top two vote getters make the general election ballot. In California, the top two are Democrats. Therefore, we have no Republicans holding statewide office. We have an overwhelming Democrat legislature. One party rule. That is what the Left is aiming for on a national level. Welcome back to the USSR.
I have a confession to make. (No, I'm not a Christian.) I made the mistake of thinking that if I engaged with people on the Left, but did so in the manner of the "Happy Warrior," Hubert Humphrey, that I would be well received. I did my best to be polite, not be "in your face," and to stick to facts and logic. I was wrong. I forgot a truism that I have often stated. That is, many on the Left have so internalized their Leftist worldview that it has become a part of their self-identity. Therefore, if you criticize Obama, for example, it is as if you are personally attacking them. No matter how nice you are, they will get mad at you, because it is as if you are attacking them. You may as well be screaming at them. My bad. I forgot.
Therefore, I have decided that I will no longer engage with those on the Left about politics. I'll stick to "my own kind." Is that better for society if we cannot respectfully engage with one another? If the Left stays in their Left-wing bubble, and the Right stays in theirs? Some will say yes, there was less division in society when people discussed neither politics nor religion with one another. Others will say it is not better, that the inability to cross the political divide is a sign that it is the beginning of the end of this great country. That we will ultimately split into two countries. How do you see it?
Monday, January 22, 2018
The LA Times Looks Back on Trump's First Year
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.
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)