Last Monday, Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, revealed his true attitude about the Jewish people. Referring to the Holocaust, Abbas said this: "So the Jewish question that was widespread throughout Europe was not against their religion, but against their social function, which relates to usury and banking and such." Abbas has been a Holocaust denier for most of his life. The fact that he relies on antisemitic tropes should come as no surprise.
Even the left-wing NY Times announced that Mr. Abbas had to go. Their concern, however, remains the establishment of a Palestinian state. The Times: "Arab nations, once the Palestinians' patrons, have lost interest and have turned their attention to fighting wars in Yemen and Syria and checking Iran's regional influence." Well, excuse my saying so, but - Duh! Iran is directly, and through their involvement in Syria and Yemen, a threat to the Sunni Arab countries. As long as the Arab countries leave Israel alone, they know that Israel is no threat to them. The Times: "Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia faulted Palestinian leaders for complaining and rejecting past Israeli peace offers." (Quotes from the 5/3/18 editorial in the NY Times.) But the Times can be expected to continue to fault the "hardline" (their term) Netanyahu government for the lack of peace.
Today, Israeli papers are reporting that Iran is threatening to attack military bases in Israel. In the past month, Israel has attacked Iranian bases in Syria, with those attacks resulting in over 30 Iranians being killed. Israeli PM Netanyahu: "We are determined to block the Iranian entrenchment (in Syria), even at the cost of confrontation." How could it be otherwise? Iran has repeatedly vowed to wipe Israel off the map. How could Israel tolerate the existence of Iranian bases in Syria - right at their border? Should Israel risk that all the advanced weaponry possessed by Iran might be moved a few miles from their border? Should Israel risk Iran deciding to mass hundreds of thousands of troops on the tiny country's border?
Yet, as mentioned in my 4/19/18 post, there are Jewish groups and Jewish individuals who do not support Israel. One of those groups, not mentioned in the earlier post, is Jewish Voice for Peace. As with many other anti-Israel groups, the JVP supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. Writing in The Jerusalem Post, Isi Leibler was harsh, yet accurate, in his assessment: "Twenty years ago, it would have been inconceivable to have any other then delusional Jewish fringe groups attacking Israel. Today, especially on campuses, it requires courage to even stand up against these perverted anti-Israel Jew." As I said, harsh.
But consider this comment from a friend and reader who is a registered Independent, and far more middle of the road than this writer: "Very difficult to deal with group-think. Imagine, it's controversial and unacceptable for Jews to speak up for Israel. Unthinkable for most of our lives. The pressure to conform and assimilate has always been strong throughout history...be glad that tens of millions of Americans are more pro-Israel than large swaths of American Jews. Very weird concept. Hard to accept and imagine even 20 years ago. But the Left is very dominant, especially among American Jews...and the Left doesn't care about Jews or Israel...and the Left wants the US to be in line with the EU, and we see what that means...huge number of American Jews want to conform and be accepted as good progressives, and Israel and Judaism just don't fit in." Something for left-wing Jews to think about.
Sunday, May 6, 2018
More on the Culture Wars
Students at George Washington University are petitioning to change the school mascot from "Colonials" to some other name, such as "Hippos" or "Riverhorses." Don't ask. Obviously, it was Washington who led the Colonies (hence "Colonials") in the American Revolution. No matter. The students claim that the name is "extremely offensive" and "glorifies the act of systemic oppression." I think that it is only a matter of time before the name of the school is changed; after all, Washington was a slave owner. After that, do we take down the Washington Monument?
A lawmaker in Minnesota has a bill that would require all Minnesota schools to post the national motto "In God We Trust." In 2011, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution, 396-9, in which "Congress reaffirms 'In God We Trust' as the official motto of the United States and supports and encourages the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions." We know that all references to God have been pretty much been removed from the public square. However, the motto remains on our coins and currency, notwithstanding lawsuits by atheists seeking its removal.
A week ago I had the opportunity to have lunch at home and turned on MSNBC. I do like to hear what the other side has to say from time to time. The first 13 minutes at the top of the hour focused on Stormy Daniels. Not North and South Korea. Not the possible impending war between Israel and Iran over Iran's bases in Syria. Not the caravan at California's border. No - it was all Stormy Daniels. The next story (I failed to time how long it went on for) was all about gossip about Trump from inside the White House. Negative gossip, of course. Can you say "fake news?"
I care no more about Stormy Daniels than I did about Monica Lewinsky. However, I do question what her motivation is, and whether she desires to be the one to bring down a sitting President, aside from possible financial incentives.
There was a disturbing story in the USA Today about the recent NRA convention in Dallas. Not surprisingly, there was a protest being held a few blocks away. A father of one of the students killed at the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School spoke at the protest. The USA Today reported that some pro-gun rights people heckled that father. If so, that is highly inappropriate. The man lost his daughter. Unless he actively engaged the pro-gun people, they should have had sufficient respect for his suffering to have left him alone. Disappointing.
And finally, the Boy Scouts of America is dropping "Boy" from its name. As membership has decreased, also affecting the bottom line, the Boy Scouts has been accepting girls. Needless to say, the Girl Scouts are not too pleased with that development. The Cub Scouts have no need for a name change. But in the 11-17 age group the new name will be Scouts USA. Here's my beef - if boys no longer have the option to be in all boys group, that would be disappointing. And, of course, girls should have the option of being in an all girls group. And I am concerned about possible pressure to join a mixed boy/girl group. Of course, I understand that the Left increasingly sees no difference between the two sexes.
A lawmaker in Minnesota has a bill that would require all Minnesota schools to post the national motto "In God We Trust." In 2011, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution, 396-9, in which "Congress reaffirms 'In God We Trust' as the official motto of the United States and supports and encourages the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions." We know that all references to God have been pretty much been removed from the public square. However, the motto remains on our coins and currency, notwithstanding lawsuits by atheists seeking its removal.
A week ago I had the opportunity to have lunch at home and turned on MSNBC. I do like to hear what the other side has to say from time to time. The first 13 minutes at the top of the hour focused on Stormy Daniels. Not North and South Korea. Not the possible impending war between Israel and Iran over Iran's bases in Syria. Not the caravan at California's border. No - it was all Stormy Daniels. The next story (I failed to time how long it went on for) was all about gossip about Trump from inside the White House. Negative gossip, of course. Can you say "fake news?"
I care no more about Stormy Daniels than I did about Monica Lewinsky. However, I do question what her motivation is, and whether she desires to be the one to bring down a sitting President, aside from possible financial incentives.
There was a disturbing story in the USA Today about the recent NRA convention in Dallas. Not surprisingly, there was a protest being held a few blocks away. A father of one of the students killed at the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School spoke at the protest. The USA Today reported that some pro-gun rights people heckled that father. If so, that is highly inappropriate. The man lost his daughter. Unless he actively engaged the pro-gun people, they should have had sufficient respect for his suffering to have left him alone. Disappointing.
And finally, the Boy Scouts of America is dropping "Boy" from its name. As membership has decreased, also affecting the bottom line, the Boy Scouts has been accepting girls. Needless to say, the Girl Scouts are not too pleased with that development. The Cub Scouts have no need for a name change. But in the 11-17 age group the new name will be Scouts USA. Here's my beef - if boys no longer have the option to be in all boys group, that would be disappointing. And, of course, girls should have the option of being in an all girls group. And I am concerned about possible pressure to join a mixed boy/girl group. Of course, I understand that the Left increasingly sees no difference between the two sexes.
Abusive Government Power
Alfie Evans was a 23 month old child when the UK government's national health plan ordered his breathing tubes removed. The young parents did not want that, and were desperate for anything that might save their son's life. Eventually, the Pope was able to get the Italian government to agree to take Alfie and treat him. After the tubes were removed, Alfie did continue to breathe on his own for a while. But the government and the Courts would not let Alfie leave the country for Italy.
Imagine if Alfie were a healthy child and he and his parents were leaving the UK on vacation to Italy. No problem. So, maybe someone can defend the idea of an otherwise "free" society deciding what treatment a child can get, and even whether they should have a chance at life-saving treatment. Maybe someone can explain why a "free" society would act like the former USSR and not let their citizens leave. The fact that Alfie did not survive, and likely could not be saved, is irrelevant. You see, the UK had already decided that Alfie's life was no longer worth the ongoing expense. But then they went a step further and decided that no one else could spend money trying to save Alfie either.
You have to ask why the government was so invested in their national health plan that they deemed it preferable to allowing Alfie to die, rather than release him to Italy. I wonder if all those supporting Obamacare would still mock Sarah Palin when she talked about "death panels." Palin: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of healthcare. Such a system is downright evil." Amen to that. The decision by the UK's national healthcare plan was downright evil.
Back in the USA, a couple days ago, US District Court Judge T.S. Ellis told the prosecution team of Robert Mueller to turn over to him an unredacted copy of the "scope" memo which set forth the parameters of Mueller's investigation. Congress has already been stonewalled by the DOJ and Rosenstein in their efforts to get the full memo. The Mueller team claimed that some of his powers are secret because they involve ongoing investigations and national security. Secret prosecutions? Again, I have to ask if we are back in the USSR.
The issue arose when Paul Manafort's defense attorneys claimed that Mueller was acting outside the scope of his authority to investigate Russian collusion in the 2016 election. The Judge noted that the alleged crimes by Manafort "manifestly don't have have anything to do with the campaign or with Russian collusion." Judge Ellis: "You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud. You really care about getting information that Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump." The Judge noted that the Michael Cohen case was turned over to the US Attorney's office in Manhattan, and questioned why the Manafort case should be handled any differently.
Then the Judge made this extremely important observation: "What we don't want in this country is we don't want anyone with unfettered power." Yet unfettered power is what Mueller and his team seem to believe they have.
Michael Caputo was a former aid to the Trump campaign. Between the investigation and various lawsuits, he has incurred legal fees of $125,000. He has had to sell his house, all because he worked for Trump. Caputo did agree to speak with Mueller's team, and spent three hours doing so. Caputo: "I think they want to destroy the President. They want to destroy his family. They want to destroy his businesses. They want to destroy his friends - so that no billionaire, in let's say 15 years, wakes up and tells his wife 'you know what, the country's broken and only I can fix it.' His wife will say 'are you crazy? Did you see what happened to Donald Trump and everybody around him.'"
Do I think the Left cares about this "unfettered" government power? Not at all. First, for the Left the ends justify the means; and the end here is to get Trump no matter the cost. They hate him. Leftists that I talk to tell me that they hate Trump. Second, and more disturbing, is the fact that the Left craves ever increasing government power over our lives. They were in favor of the government taking over their healthcare. And now Democrats seem to favor socialism over capitalism - government mandated regulation of the economy over the free market. Free speech? Not if they disagree or find it offensive. Many would now have the government regulate our speech. Government mandated maximum wage, not just minimum wage. Government confiscation of guns.
Many on the Left would no doubt say that they don't support socialism, or government control over all wages, or government determining the parameters of speech, and so on. But then ask who they will vote for, and it will be the Democrats every time. The party that seeks ever increasing government power - unfettered power - over more and more aspects of our lives.
Imagine if Alfie were a healthy child and he and his parents were leaving the UK on vacation to Italy. No problem. So, maybe someone can defend the idea of an otherwise "free" society deciding what treatment a child can get, and even whether they should have a chance at life-saving treatment. Maybe someone can explain why a "free" society would act like the former USSR and not let their citizens leave. The fact that Alfie did not survive, and likely could not be saved, is irrelevant. You see, the UK had already decided that Alfie's life was no longer worth the ongoing expense. But then they went a step further and decided that no one else could spend money trying to save Alfie either.
You have to ask why the government was so invested in their national health plan that they deemed it preferable to allowing Alfie to die, rather than release him to Italy. I wonder if all those supporting Obamacare would still mock Sarah Palin when she talked about "death panels." Palin: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of healthcare. Such a system is downright evil." Amen to that. The decision by the UK's national healthcare plan was downright evil.
Back in the USA, a couple days ago, US District Court Judge T.S. Ellis told the prosecution team of Robert Mueller to turn over to him an unredacted copy of the "scope" memo which set forth the parameters of Mueller's investigation. Congress has already been stonewalled by the DOJ and Rosenstein in their efforts to get the full memo. The Mueller team claimed that some of his powers are secret because they involve ongoing investigations and national security. Secret prosecutions? Again, I have to ask if we are back in the USSR.
The issue arose when Paul Manafort's defense attorneys claimed that Mueller was acting outside the scope of his authority to investigate Russian collusion in the 2016 election. The Judge noted that the alleged crimes by Manafort "manifestly don't have have anything to do with the campaign or with Russian collusion." Judge Ellis: "You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud. You really care about getting information that Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump." The Judge noted that the Michael Cohen case was turned over to the US Attorney's office in Manhattan, and questioned why the Manafort case should be handled any differently.
Then the Judge made this extremely important observation: "What we don't want in this country is we don't want anyone with unfettered power." Yet unfettered power is what Mueller and his team seem to believe they have.
Michael Caputo was a former aid to the Trump campaign. Between the investigation and various lawsuits, he has incurred legal fees of $125,000. He has had to sell his house, all because he worked for Trump. Caputo did agree to speak with Mueller's team, and spent three hours doing so. Caputo: "I think they want to destroy the President. They want to destroy his family. They want to destroy his businesses. They want to destroy his friends - so that no billionaire, in let's say 15 years, wakes up and tells his wife 'you know what, the country's broken and only I can fix it.' His wife will say 'are you crazy? Did you see what happened to Donald Trump and everybody around him.'"
Do I think the Left cares about this "unfettered" government power? Not at all. First, for the Left the ends justify the means; and the end here is to get Trump no matter the cost. They hate him. Leftists that I talk to tell me that they hate Trump. Second, and more disturbing, is the fact that the Left craves ever increasing government power over our lives. They were in favor of the government taking over their healthcare. And now Democrats seem to favor socialism over capitalism - government mandated regulation of the economy over the free market. Free speech? Not if they disagree or find it offensive. Many would now have the government regulate our speech. Government mandated maximum wage, not just minimum wage. Government confiscation of guns.
Many on the Left would no doubt say that they don't support socialism, or government control over all wages, or government determining the parameters of speech, and so on. But then ask who they will vote for, and it will be the Democrats every time. The party that seeks ever increasing government power - unfettered power - over more and more aspects of our lives.
Sunday, April 29, 2018
The Political Wars
While Obama took the Democrat Party further Leftward, Bernie Sanders succeeded in moving many party members towards Socialism. His latest proposal is not only to guarantee $15.00 an hour to everyone who works, and not only to guarantee healthcare for everyone, but to also provide a job for every American "who wants or needs one." The jobs will be in things like infrastructure, care giving, the environment and education. All worthy objectives, no doubt. But, does somebody have to pay for all this guaranteed stuff?
NJ Senator Cory Booker, a Democrat and likely presidential candidate in 2020, is proposing a "Federal Jobs Guarantee Development Act." Under his proposal, 15 areas in the country will be selected by the Department of Labor as a sort of test run. The jobs will guarantee payment of at least $15.00 per hour. Booker: "Creating an employment guarantee would give all Americans a shot at a day's work and, by introducing competition into the labor market, raise wages and improve benefits for all workers." Introducing competition? How is that? I can work for a private employer who will have certain expectations regarding my job performance, and may pay under $15.00 per hour, or I can get a guaranteed government job? If I cannot lose that government job, and I get $15.00 an hour even if I flake off...hmmm. I wonder which one many people at the lower end of the wage scale will choose.
My favorite line from one of the Left-wing progressives comes from Ro Khanna, a Congressman from California. Khanna: "The progressive wing of the party should not be afraid to lay out their vision of where do they want to take the country and what would an ideal society look like." An "ideal society." The very thought scares me - as it should all of us. How many times in history did some group or individual announce their "ideal society?" The Communists thought they had it, although a 100 million deaths later suggests most would not now consider it to have been ideal.
From a progressive Democrat entrepreneur comes the idea of guaranteeing a basic universal income - $1000.00 per month for every citizen between 18 and 64 years old. What's a couple trillion dollars a year between friends, anyway? Of course, a number of these progressives still want to see reparations paid, presumably to blacks. Would that be all blacks? Would it be to blacks who were slaves, as those people have long since passed on. Or to millions of the original slaves' descendants. If we are giving away trillions already, why not? But don't forget Native Americans.
Everyone needs to get on board with the proposal by the Democracy Alliance: "It's 2022 and we are celebrating policy victories across the nation: Medicare for All, Free College, and next on the agenda is Reparations." I think these people are leaving out "free" food and "free" housing. Oh yeah, "free" clothing too, please.
And to make sure that everyone is included and that absolutely no one is left out, we need to overhaul ICE. Brian Fallon, a Democratic consultant and former Clinton spokesperson, said this: "ICE operates as an unaccountable deportation force. Democrats running in 2020 should campaign on ending the agency in its current form." By all means, let's do away with ICE so we can make sure anyone in the world who wants all this free stuff can come and get it. I assume all those on board with these endless expenditures do not have any children who will be stuck with this monumental debt.
NJ Senator Cory Booker, a Democrat and likely presidential candidate in 2020, is proposing a "Federal Jobs Guarantee Development Act." Under his proposal, 15 areas in the country will be selected by the Department of Labor as a sort of test run. The jobs will guarantee payment of at least $15.00 per hour. Booker: "Creating an employment guarantee would give all Americans a shot at a day's work and, by introducing competition into the labor market, raise wages and improve benefits for all workers." Introducing competition? How is that? I can work for a private employer who will have certain expectations regarding my job performance, and may pay under $15.00 per hour, or I can get a guaranteed government job? If I cannot lose that government job, and I get $15.00 an hour even if I flake off...hmmm. I wonder which one many people at the lower end of the wage scale will choose.
My favorite line from one of the Left-wing progressives comes from Ro Khanna, a Congressman from California. Khanna: "The progressive wing of the party should not be afraid to lay out their vision of where do they want to take the country and what would an ideal society look like." An "ideal society." The very thought scares me - as it should all of us. How many times in history did some group or individual announce their "ideal society?" The Communists thought they had it, although a 100 million deaths later suggests most would not now consider it to have been ideal.
From a progressive Democrat entrepreneur comes the idea of guaranteeing a basic universal income - $1000.00 per month for every citizen between 18 and 64 years old. What's a couple trillion dollars a year between friends, anyway? Of course, a number of these progressives still want to see reparations paid, presumably to blacks. Would that be all blacks? Would it be to blacks who were slaves, as those people have long since passed on. Or to millions of the original slaves' descendants. If we are giving away trillions already, why not? But don't forget Native Americans.
Everyone needs to get on board with the proposal by the Democracy Alliance: "It's 2022 and we are celebrating policy victories across the nation: Medicare for All, Free College, and next on the agenda is Reparations." I think these people are leaving out "free" food and "free" housing. Oh yeah, "free" clothing too, please.
And to make sure that everyone is included and that absolutely no one is left out, we need to overhaul ICE. Brian Fallon, a Democratic consultant and former Clinton spokesperson, said this: "ICE operates as an unaccountable deportation force. Democrats running in 2020 should campaign on ending the agency in its current form." By all means, let's do away with ICE so we can make sure anyone in the world who wants all this free stuff can come and get it. I assume all those on board with these endless expenditures do not have any children who will be stuck with this monumental debt.
The Culture Wars
Writing in the New Yorker Magazine, a Dan Piepenbring wrote an article entitled "Chick fil-A's creepy infiltration of New York City." Piepenbring: "Chick fil-A's arrival in New York City feels like an infiltration in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism." And, we are told that the company headquarters is "adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple's feet." The horrors! I would be willing to bet that Mr. Piepenbring would never dare to express that Islam had a "creepy infiltration of New York City." No, the Left's attack on Christianity continues.
At he University of Southern California, one wall has a mural with these words: "Dismantle Whiteness and Misogyny on this campus." I will leave that one alone.
Penn State decided to eliminate their homecoming King and Queen. Instead, two students "regardless of their gender, gender identity, and/or gender expression" will be picked to be the "Guide State Forward Award" winners. Someone needs to tell the Royals in the U.K. about this. They still have a Queen, and in the not too distant future will have a King. The Queen is Elizabeth, a woman. The King will likely be William, a man. I know, the Left does not think there are men and women. An article in the USA Today discusses a study in which LGBT parents are coming up with parental names other than Mommy and Daddy. As the article states, the rationale is "undoing gender." Ironic that the Left says the Right ignores science. Are there not scientifically demonstrable differences between a "man" and a "woman"?
Fox reported on a new, yet to be distributed AP US History textbook entitled "By the People - A History of the United States." Here is a quote from the book: "Clinton supporters feared that the election had been determined by people who were afraid of a rapidly developing ethnic diversity of the country, discomfort with their candidate's gender, and nostalgia for an earlier time in the nation's history." Ethnic diversity is hardly the problem. Sure, there is tiny fringe group that hates anybody not like them.
However, the real problem is that the Democrats are mostly unaware that their party no longer consists of classical liberals. They are Leftists; and most could not tell you the difference. As for Clinton's gender, I heard the same nonsense about Obama not being able to win in 2008 because he was a black man. The Left, believing the worst of the American people - that they were racists - asserted that a black could never win. I would tell them that such a position was ridiculous. How about Clinton simply not being the right woman, and folding at the end of the campaign. That was the problem. If there was nostalgia, it was for a time when people had jobs - jobs which were lost under the Democratic Administration of Barack Obama.
Most of us have heard about the two black men arrested at a Philadelphia area Starbucks. Apparently, they were denied access to the restroom because they had not yet made a purchase. They indicated they were waiting for third man to arrive. The police were called and the men were arrested. A number of establishments have a similar policy about using a restroom prior to any purchase. I probably would have bought my coffee and then gone to the restroom. Nevertheless, the arrest of these two men seemed extreme, and if they refused to make a purchase even after the police arrived, the police could have simply asked them to leave. I am not aware if the police did so.
As a result of this incident, and apparent threats of a nationwide boycott, Starbucks will be closing all 8000 of its US stores on the afternoon of May 29 for the purpose of providing "racial-bias training." Participating in the training will be former AG Eric Holder, who referred to Americans as "essentially a nation of cowards" when it comes to matters of race. I have been in countless Starbucks in various locations. I have never witnessed any of the employees behave in anything but a polite manner. But when the Left threatens, the business world cowers. When the Left threatened Chick-fil-A with boycotts after the owner said he believed in the traditional definition of marriage, many Americans rallied around the company, helping sales soar.
To recap, in the culture wars we see an attack on Christianity, an attack on "whiteness," an attack on gender and science, the usual suggestion (a la Clinton) that the country is filled with racists and sexists, and the threat of Left-wing boycotts. Almost makes me nostalgic for a different time.
At he University of Southern California, one wall has a mural with these words: "Dismantle Whiteness and Misogyny on this campus." I will leave that one alone.
Penn State decided to eliminate their homecoming King and Queen. Instead, two students "regardless of their gender, gender identity, and/or gender expression" will be picked to be the "Guide State Forward Award" winners. Someone needs to tell the Royals in the U.K. about this. They still have a Queen, and in the not too distant future will have a King. The Queen is Elizabeth, a woman. The King will likely be William, a man. I know, the Left does not think there are men and women. An article in the USA Today discusses a study in which LGBT parents are coming up with parental names other than Mommy and Daddy. As the article states, the rationale is "undoing gender." Ironic that the Left says the Right ignores science. Are there not scientifically demonstrable differences between a "man" and a "woman"?
Fox reported on a new, yet to be distributed AP US History textbook entitled "By the People - A History of the United States." Here is a quote from the book: "Clinton supporters feared that the election had been determined by people who were afraid of a rapidly developing ethnic diversity of the country, discomfort with their candidate's gender, and nostalgia for an earlier time in the nation's history." Ethnic diversity is hardly the problem. Sure, there is tiny fringe group that hates anybody not like them.
However, the real problem is that the Democrats are mostly unaware that their party no longer consists of classical liberals. They are Leftists; and most could not tell you the difference. As for Clinton's gender, I heard the same nonsense about Obama not being able to win in 2008 because he was a black man. The Left, believing the worst of the American people - that they were racists - asserted that a black could never win. I would tell them that such a position was ridiculous. How about Clinton simply not being the right woman, and folding at the end of the campaign. That was the problem. If there was nostalgia, it was for a time when people had jobs - jobs which were lost under the Democratic Administration of Barack Obama.
Most of us have heard about the two black men arrested at a Philadelphia area Starbucks. Apparently, they were denied access to the restroom because they had not yet made a purchase. They indicated they were waiting for third man to arrive. The police were called and the men were arrested. A number of establishments have a similar policy about using a restroom prior to any purchase. I probably would have bought my coffee and then gone to the restroom. Nevertheless, the arrest of these two men seemed extreme, and if they refused to make a purchase even after the police arrived, the police could have simply asked them to leave. I am not aware if the police did so.
As a result of this incident, and apparent threats of a nationwide boycott, Starbucks will be closing all 8000 of its US stores on the afternoon of May 29 for the purpose of providing "racial-bias training." Participating in the training will be former AG Eric Holder, who referred to Americans as "essentially a nation of cowards" when it comes to matters of race. I have been in countless Starbucks in various locations. I have never witnessed any of the employees behave in anything but a polite manner. But when the Left threatens, the business world cowers. When the Left threatened Chick-fil-A with boycotts after the owner said he believed in the traditional definition of marriage, many Americans rallied around the company, helping sales soar.
To recap, in the culture wars we see an attack on Christianity, an attack on "whiteness," an attack on gender and science, the usual suggestion (a la Clinton) that the country is filled with racists and sexists, and the threat of Left-wing boycotts. Almost makes me nostalgic for a different time.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
As Israel Turns 70 Who Will Defend Her?
Wednesday night into Thursday, Israelis and Jews in the Diaspora (the land outside of Israel) who support Israel, celebrated the miracle of Israel and its 70th birthday. Seventy years ago, and six months after the UN voted for partition of the British Mandate, David Ben-Gurion announced the establishment of the State of Israel in Eretz-Israel (the land of Israel). Ben Gurion: "We appeal to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream - the redemption of Israel."
At the time, Jews in the Diaspora did rally round the new Jewish state. As Howard Sachar wrote: "...by the end of the war (WWII), the revelations of the death camps and the plight of the Jewish displaced persons effectively transformed Zionism into the single most urgent force within the American-Jewish community." (Quote from "A History of the Jews in the Modern World.") As an aside, the Jews of Palestine fought alongside the Allies in WWII, whereas the Arabs of Palestine, under the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, sided with Hitler and the Axis Powers. Today, we have any number of Left-wing Jewish anti-Israel groups, such as J Street, The New Israel Fund, and IfNotNow. These groups, along with individual Left-wing Jews, opposed President Trump recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and his commitment to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. For these Jews, every other country can declare their capital city, but not Israel.
In speaking with one of those Left-wing Jews who opposed the recognition of Jerusalem, I was told that it would result in hundreds being killed. Why, I do not know. Actually, slowly but surely other countries are deciding to also move their embassies to Jerusalem. Even worse, I was informed by that same individual that, as the United States has nuclear weapons, and as France and the U.K. also have nuclear weapons, why shouldn't Iran also be allowed to have nuclear weapons. There is no possible reply that would get through to someone with that mindset. Clearly, Iran being a leading state sponsor of terror was not an issue for this individual. Iran repeatedly threatening to wipe Israel, the sole Jewish country in the world, off the map, did not resonate with this Jewish, Left-wing individual. So, I doubt it would make any difference to this individual that in February, Israel shot down an armed Iranian drone over Israeli territory, the drone having been launched from an Iranian base in Syria. Such an attempted attack is, of course, an act of war. Said a former head of the Mossad: "We are on a collision course with the Iranians..."
The mainstream media, such as the New York Times, is not supportive of the Jewish state. In their 4/12/18 editorial, "A Violent Response to Nonviolent Protests," the paper was highly critical of Israel for using, at times, deadly force to defend its border with Gaza. The Times: "...in general, the protests have been peaceful." In that case, "in general" the response by the Israeli Defense Forces has also been peaceful. Of course, the burning of hundreds of tires in order to create a smokescreen that would allow the Arabs to tear down the border fence and sneak into Israel would not warrant any mention. The Times tells us that since these Friday protests began at the border, "Israeli forces have killed at least 29 Palestinians and wounded more than 1000." It's always a numbers game for the Times, which seems disappointed that not enough Jews have been killed, as the Times told us: "There have been no known Israeli casualties."
The editorial also tells us that the Arab protesters are only "demanding to return to lands their families lost in the 1948 war that accompanied Israel's founding." What actually accompanied Israel's founding was an attempt by five surrounding Arab countries to destroy Israel after Ben-Gurion issued Israel's declaration of independence. The Arab world announced before the UN partition vote their complete opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state. Notwithstanding Arab hostility, Ben-Gurion said this in the declaration of independence: "We appeal - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions." As the Times well knows, these Arabs are not seeking a return of the relatively small number of still surviving dispossessed Arabs from 1948, but millions of their descendants. That would effectively end Israel as the sole Jewish state, and create the 23rd Arab state.
As a reminder, Palestine, never a country, was the Jewish homeland. The Arabs of Palestine continue to refer to the establishment of the State of Israel as the "Nakba," or catastrophe. With that in mind, the New York Times was only too happy to print an Op-Ed by Ayman Odeh, the head of the Joint List, the leading Arab political party in Israel. Mr. Odeh is a member of the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament. His Op-Ed focuses on what happened to his family and other Arabs during Israel's war for independence. All the blame, of course, lies with Israel, as Mr. Odeh ignores the historical facts surrounding Israel having to fight a war for independence. He ignores that there were three different causes for Arabs being displaced from their homes: the surrounding Arab countries told them to get out and that they would be able to return after Israel was destroyed, some left of their own accord in order to not be caught up in the war, and yes, some were displaced by the Jews. And, he gives little attention to the fact that he, and other Arabs, serve in the Israeli legislature.
Seventy years ago, the European Jews displaced by WWII and the Holocaust resettled in other countries, including in Israel. Seventy years ago, the hundreds of thousands of Jews displaced from their historical homes in the surrounding Arab countries resettled elsewhere, including in Israel. But for seventy years the Arabs of Palestine have been used as props by the Arab world, in part to distract from their own internal problems. Hamas, the rulers of Gaza, uses their own people as props, telling them that they will get all the land of Israel. So, instead of building their own modern society, Hamas uses tens of millions of dollars to build rockets to send into Israel, and uses building materials to build underground tunnels so they can sneak into Israel and kill Jews. Just recently, Israel located and destroyed what may have been the longest of such tunnels.
Seventy years ago, no one would have predicted that Israel would survive its war for independence against the much larger Arab armies. It was a true miracle, as the new country of Israel was not defeated. Seventy years later, the Israelis have created a modern society, with a dynamic economy. They are leaders in science, medicine and technology. Is Israel a perfect society? Perfection does not occur in this world. The aforementioned individual with whom I was speaking expressed that Israel would be overrun demographically by the Arab population, advising me that Jews constituted only 65% of the population of Israel. I corrected him by stating that Jews were at least 75% of the population. Then, I am sure that I caused him to be completely dumbfounded by my further comment regarding the demographics. If it actually came down to Israel being a majority Jewish country versus a true democracy, I said that I come down on the side of Israel remaining a Jewish country. Who will defend Israel? I will. Am Yisrael Chai! The nation of Israel lives! The Jewish people live!
At the time, Jews in the Diaspora did rally round the new Jewish state. As Howard Sachar wrote: "...by the end of the war (WWII), the revelations of the death camps and the plight of the Jewish displaced persons effectively transformed Zionism into the single most urgent force within the American-Jewish community." (Quote from "A History of the Jews in the Modern World.") As an aside, the Jews of Palestine fought alongside the Allies in WWII, whereas the Arabs of Palestine, under the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, sided with Hitler and the Axis Powers. Today, we have any number of Left-wing Jewish anti-Israel groups, such as J Street, The New Israel Fund, and IfNotNow. These groups, along with individual Left-wing Jews, opposed President Trump recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and his commitment to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. For these Jews, every other country can declare their capital city, but not Israel.
In speaking with one of those Left-wing Jews who opposed the recognition of Jerusalem, I was told that it would result in hundreds being killed. Why, I do not know. Actually, slowly but surely other countries are deciding to also move their embassies to Jerusalem. Even worse, I was informed by that same individual that, as the United States has nuclear weapons, and as France and the U.K. also have nuclear weapons, why shouldn't Iran also be allowed to have nuclear weapons. There is no possible reply that would get through to someone with that mindset. Clearly, Iran being a leading state sponsor of terror was not an issue for this individual. Iran repeatedly threatening to wipe Israel, the sole Jewish country in the world, off the map, did not resonate with this Jewish, Left-wing individual. So, I doubt it would make any difference to this individual that in February, Israel shot down an armed Iranian drone over Israeli territory, the drone having been launched from an Iranian base in Syria. Such an attempted attack is, of course, an act of war. Said a former head of the Mossad: "We are on a collision course with the Iranians..."
The mainstream media, such as the New York Times, is not supportive of the Jewish state. In their 4/12/18 editorial, "A Violent Response to Nonviolent Protests," the paper was highly critical of Israel for using, at times, deadly force to defend its border with Gaza. The Times: "...in general, the protests have been peaceful." In that case, "in general" the response by the Israeli Defense Forces has also been peaceful. Of course, the burning of hundreds of tires in order to create a smokescreen that would allow the Arabs to tear down the border fence and sneak into Israel would not warrant any mention. The Times tells us that since these Friday protests began at the border, "Israeli forces have killed at least 29 Palestinians and wounded more than 1000." It's always a numbers game for the Times, which seems disappointed that not enough Jews have been killed, as the Times told us: "There have been no known Israeli casualties."
The editorial also tells us that the Arab protesters are only "demanding to return to lands their families lost in the 1948 war that accompanied Israel's founding." What actually accompanied Israel's founding was an attempt by five surrounding Arab countries to destroy Israel after Ben-Gurion issued Israel's declaration of independence. The Arab world announced before the UN partition vote their complete opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state. Notwithstanding Arab hostility, Ben-Gurion said this in the declaration of independence: "We appeal - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions." As the Times well knows, these Arabs are not seeking a return of the relatively small number of still surviving dispossessed Arabs from 1948, but millions of their descendants. That would effectively end Israel as the sole Jewish state, and create the 23rd Arab state.
As a reminder, Palestine, never a country, was the Jewish homeland. The Arabs of Palestine continue to refer to the establishment of the State of Israel as the "Nakba," or catastrophe. With that in mind, the New York Times was only too happy to print an Op-Ed by Ayman Odeh, the head of the Joint List, the leading Arab political party in Israel. Mr. Odeh is a member of the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament. His Op-Ed focuses on what happened to his family and other Arabs during Israel's war for independence. All the blame, of course, lies with Israel, as Mr. Odeh ignores the historical facts surrounding Israel having to fight a war for independence. He ignores that there were three different causes for Arabs being displaced from their homes: the surrounding Arab countries told them to get out and that they would be able to return after Israel was destroyed, some left of their own accord in order to not be caught up in the war, and yes, some were displaced by the Jews. And, he gives little attention to the fact that he, and other Arabs, serve in the Israeli legislature.
Seventy years ago, the European Jews displaced by WWII and the Holocaust resettled in other countries, including in Israel. Seventy years ago, the hundreds of thousands of Jews displaced from their historical homes in the surrounding Arab countries resettled elsewhere, including in Israel. But for seventy years the Arabs of Palestine have been used as props by the Arab world, in part to distract from their own internal problems. Hamas, the rulers of Gaza, uses their own people as props, telling them that they will get all the land of Israel. So, instead of building their own modern society, Hamas uses tens of millions of dollars to build rockets to send into Israel, and uses building materials to build underground tunnels so they can sneak into Israel and kill Jews. Just recently, Israel located and destroyed what may have been the longest of such tunnels.
Seventy years ago, no one would have predicted that Israel would survive its war for independence against the much larger Arab armies. It was a true miracle, as the new country of Israel was not defeated. Seventy years later, the Israelis have created a modern society, with a dynamic economy. They are leaders in science, medicine and technology. Is Israel a perfect society? Perfection does not occur in this world. The aforementioned individual with whom I was speaking expressed that Israel would be overrun demographically by the Arab population, advising me that Jews constituted only 65% of the population of Israel. I corrected him by stating that Jews were at least 75% of the population. Then, I am sure that I caused him to be completely dumbfounded by my further comment regarding the demographics. If it actually came down to Israel being a majority Jewish country versus a true democracy, I said that I come down on the side of Israel remaining a Jewish country. Who will defend Israel? I will. Am Yisrael Chai! The nation of Israel lives! The Jewish people live!
Monday, April 9, 2018
Who Are The Real Threats To Our Democracy?
The Friday New York Times editorial, "Mr. Trump's War on the Truth," ties in with their Sunday hit piece on President Trump by former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright. That piece starts on the first page of the Sunday Review section of the paper, and is entitled "Fascism on the March." The premise of these articles is that Trump is a threat to democracy. Let's see where the threats lie.
In their editorial, the Times claims that Trump has been attacking the Washington Post because they have been "holding his administration to account." Maybe. Trump does fight back. But how is this any different from Obama going after Fox News, the one TV outlet that sought to hold the Obama administration to account. The Times: "Such attacks on the integrity of news organizations confuse the public about what's true. Many Republican voters have long been skeptical of the mainstream news media, but their trust in it has fallen sharply since 2016, according to the Pew Research Center." Well, to use the modern day vernacular, duh!
This blog has been skeptical of the mainstream media (MSM) since well before 2016, and numerous prior posts, in whole or in part, have discussed the topic of media bias. One of my favorite examples of news bias in the MSM involves the very same New York Times. In a 5/27/13 lengthy article regarding riots in Stockholm, Sweden, the Times made reference to the fact that young immigrants had also been rioting in other cities in Europe, such as in London, Paris and Malmo. Curiously, nowhere over this two page article did the Times tell us that the rioting young immigrants were, in each instance, Muslims. Does the Times have a war on truth? Do the Times editors really believe that their news pages are not biased? The Times editorial goes on to insinuate that Trump is responsible for attacks on the press in countries around the world.
Albright's article then picks up on this ridiculous thesis. Among the numerous allegations she makes against Trump is this: Trump "has led America into isolated positions on trade, climate change and Middle East peace." The underlying assumption in her comment is that the USA should follow the world's lead or the UN's lead - and not the other way around. Besides, why should other countries get to take advantage of the USA in trade? Why should the USA/taxpayers participate in a climate deal that will cost the USA billions of dollars for the purpose of "redistributing" money to poorer countries. As for the Middle East, Trump decided he would not appease terrorists, including Palestinian terrorists. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, noting that peace will never be possible if the truth cannot be told.
Albright claimed that Trump has failed to stand up for the values of a free society. But it was Trump who spoke to many leaders of Muslim countries telling them there was a "crisis of Islamic extremism." After telling these leaders to drive the extremists out of their places of worship and communities, Trump said "we are here to offer a partnership - based on shared interests and values - to pursue a better future for us all." Albright claims that Trump "exacerbate(s) religious, social and racial divisions." And I thought it was Obama who attacked white police officers every time a black suspect was involved with police. Obama is the one who had the race-baiter Al Sharpton to the White House on numerous occasions. It was Obama who preached class socioeconomic class warfare against the 1%. And it was Obama who mocked those whom he said "cling to their guns and religion."
Albright makes various other easily rebuttable allegations against Trump intended to prove his support for fascism. It's nonsense. But let's see from where some actual threats to democracy emanate. Diamond and Silk are two black women who are ardent supporters of President Trump. They have 1.2 million followers on Facebook. The Gateway Pundit reports that Facebook is interfering with their posts. Diamond and Silk claim that Facebook's explanation was short, with no real explanation whatsoever: "The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community." What? Their pro-Trump You Tube videos are unsafe? To whom? This is utter nonsense that, not surprisingly, is intended to shut down conservative voices. There's a danger to democracy. As I recall, it was Obama who used the IRS to target conservative 501(c)(3) organizations. Democracy at work?
The Daily Caller reports that Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, described as "great" an article by Peter Leyden and Ruy Texeira, discussing the current political divide. The authors wrote this: "In this current period of American politics, at this juncture in our history, there's no way that a bipartisan path provides the way forward...the way forward is on the path California blazed about 15 years ago." You see, the authors describe the US as being in a new civil war, and believe ending the Republican party for a couple generations would be a good idea. Might Dorsey's left-wing attitudes affect Twitter policy?
I'm curious. How many of you support one-party rule? You know, like in Russia? Like the Democrats put in place in California. Soon, California will have a primary election for the office of governor, among other positions. In California's primary system, the top two vote getters move on to the ballot in the general election in November. In California, the top two tend to both be Democrats. It's quite a clever way to eliminate the Republican party. And the head of Twitter likes the California model, the one party rule model, a la Russia, as long as that one party is the Democrat party. Democracy? Or fascism?
Want to assure an end to democracy? Then teach kids that the Constitution is outdated. That speech should not be protected if it is "hurtful" or "offensive" or "non-inclusive." A Gallup/James L. Knight Foundation poll found that while 70% of college students prefer an open learning environment even if "offensive" speech is protected, 29% favor a "positive environment" that would prohibit certain speech. But when it comes to the issues of "diversity and inclusion," speech loses, with 53% siding with diversity and only 46% willing to defend speech. There's the future of your democracy. But the mainstream media will daily tell their readers that the true threat is Donald Trump. It's the Big Lie - say it loud enough and frequently enough, and people will believe it. Too bad the MSM has come to believe that their role in society is to perpetuate the Big Lie.
In their editorial, the Times claims that Trump has been attacking the Washington Post because they have been "holding his administration to account." Maybe. Trump does fight back. But how is this any different from Obama going after Fox News, the one TV outlet that sought to hold the Obama administration to account. The Times: "Such attacks on the integrity of news organizations confuse the public about what's true. Many Republican voters have long been skeptical of the mainstream news media, but their trust in it has fallen sharply since 2016, according to the Pew Research Center." Well, to use the modern day vernacular, duh!
This blog has been skeptical of the mainstream media (MSM) since well before 2016, and numerous prior posts, in whole or in part, have discussed the topic of media bias. One of my favorite examples of news bias in the MSM involves the very same New York Times. In a 5/27/13 lengthy article regarding riots in Stockholm, Sweden, the Times made reference to the fact that young immigrants had also been rioting in other cities in Europe, such as in London, Paris and Malmo. Curiously, nowhere over this two page article did the Times tell us that the rioting young immigrants were, in each instance, Muslims. Does the Times have a war on truth? Do the Times editors really believe that their news pages are not biased? The Times editorial goes on to insinuate that Trump is responsible for attacks on the press in countries around the world.
Albright's article then picks up on this ridiculous thesis. Among the numerous allegations she makes against Trump is this: Trump "has led America into isolated positions on trade, climate change and Middle East peace." The underlying assumption in her comment is that the USA should follow the world's lead or the UN's lead - and not the other way around. Besides, why should other countries get to take advantage of the USA in trade? Why should the USA/taxpayers participate in a climate deal that will cost the USA billions of dollars for the purpose of "redistributing" money to poorer countries. As for the Middle East, Trump decided he would not appease terrorists, including Palestinian terrorists. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, noting that peace will never be possible if the truth cannot be told.
Albright claimed that Trump has failed to stand up for the values of a free society. But it was Trump who spoke to many leaders of Muslim countries telling them there was a "crisis of Islamic extremism." After telling these leaders to drive the extremists out of their places of worship and communities, Trump said "we are here to offer a partnership - based on shared interests and values - to pursue a better future for us all." Albright claims that Trump "exacerbate(s) religious, social and racial divisions." And I thought it was Obama who attacked white police officers every time a black suspect was involved with police. Obama is the one who had the race-baiter Al Sharpton to the White House on numerous occasions. It was Obama who preached class socioeconomic class warfare against the 1%. And it was Obama who mocked those whom he said "cling to their guns and religion."
Albright makes various other easily rebuttable allegations against Trump intended to prove his support for fascism. It's nonsense. But let's see from where some actual threats to democracy emanate. Diamond and Silk are two black women who are ardent supporters of President Trump. They have 1.2 million followers on Facebook. The Gateway Pundit reports that Facebook is interfering with their posts. Diamond and Silk claim that Facebook's explanation was short, with no real explanation whatsoever: "The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community." What? Their pro-Trump You Tube videos are unsafe? To whom? This is utter nonsense that, not surprisingly, is intended to shut down conservative voices. There's a danger to democracy. As I recall, it was Obama who used the IRS to target conservative 501(c)(3) organizations. Democracy at work?
The Daily Caller reports that Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, described as "great" an article by Peter Leyden and Ruy Texeira, discussing the current political divide. The authors wrote this: "In this current period of American politics, at this juncture in our history, there's no way that a bipartisan path provides the way forward...the way forward is on the path California blazed about 15 years ago." You see, the authors describe the US as being in a new civil war, and believe ending the Republican party for a couple generations would be a good idea. Might Dorsey's left-wing attitudes affect Twitter policy?
I'm curious. How many of you support one-party rule? You know, like in Russia? Like the Democrats put in place in California. Soon, California will have a primary election for the office of governor, among other positions. In California's primary system, the top two vote getters move on to the ballot in the general election in November. In California, the top two tend to both be Democrats. It's quite a clever way to eliminate the Republican party. And the head of Twitter likes the California model, the one party rule model, a la Russia, as long as that one party is the Democrat party. Democracy? Or fascism?
Want to assure an end to democracy? Then teach kids that the Constitution is outdated. That speech should not be protected if it is "hurtful" or "offensive" or "non-inclusive." A Gallup/James L. Knight Foundation poll found that while 70% of college students prefer an open learning environment even if "offensive" speech is protected, 29% favor a "positive environment" that would prohibit certain speech. But when it comes to the issues of "diversity and inclusion," speech loses, with 53% siding with diversity and only 46% willing to defend speech. There's the future of your democracy. But the mainstream media will daily tell their readers that the true threat is Donald Trump. It's the Big Lie - say it loud enough and frequently enough, and people will believe it. Too bad the MSM has come to believe that their role in society is to perpetuate the Big Lie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)