The NFL just announced their new policy with regards to players kneeling during the national anthem. "All team and league personnel on the field shall stand and show respect for the flag and the anthem." In their 5/24/18 lead editorial, the Times asserts that "the league capitulated to a president who relishes demonizing black athletes." Wow - straight to the race card. I almost cannot remember when editorials in the MSM actually relied on facts and logic to bolster their editorial arguments - rather than relying on demagoguery and demonization and vilification.
The Times thought it would be amusing to see players stand with "holding black-gloved fists in the air," or "holding signs protesting police brutality." Hmmm. I never did understand the connection between protesting perceived "police brutality" and not standing for the anthem. It seems to me that the kneelers are saying they will not stand for the flag until the country is perfect in their eyes - which will never happen.
So, let's take a look at some of the assumptions made by the Times and the kneelers. According to the Sporting News (10/15/17), the TV audience for the NFL through the first five weeks of the 2017 season was 15.156 million, down 7.42% from 2016's first five weeks of 16.371 million, and down 18% from 2015's first five weeks of 18.438 million viewers. Recall that Colin Kaepernick started the kneeling during the preseason games of 2016.
A reasonable person might ask if the owners looked at the numbers and decided that, from a business perspective, something needed to be done to reverse the downward spiral. A reasonable person might also conclude that there could be multiple factors affecting audience viewership. Ah, but not the New York Times. For the New York Times, somehow, the entire story was about President Trump being a racist. What a bunch of... No, I won't go there. The last blog post was harsh enough, although some of those descriptive terms could easily apply to the editorial writers of the Times. Is there anything happening in the world which the Times sees as negative that they cannot attribute to Trump? I don't think so.
And what about this police brutality? Are blacks always unfairly singled out by the police? I have no doubt that it happens sometimes. But what to make of the crime statistics? NBC reported that from 1980 through 2008, blacks committed 52% of the homicides, even though they make up about 13% of the population.
According to one source (The Mercury News), the number of people killed by police remained almost the same from 2016 to 2017. The paper also reported a sharp decline in the number of unarmed blacks killed by police from 2015's 36 to 17 in 2016 and 19 in 2017. Of course, those numbers are the proverbially "drop in the bucket" compared to the nationwide killing of blacks by other blacks. In 2015 that number was 2380, according to the FBI's Uniformed Crime Statistics.
Conclusions? Always blame Trump. Cops are evil. Never allow facts or the truth to interfere with the agenda.
Thursday, May 24, 2018
The Democrat's and Mainstream Media's Inability to Tell the Truth
Recently, President Trump had a meeting with a group of California public officials who oppose the State's sanctuary law. The Sheriff of Fresno County told Trump: "There could be an MS-13 gang member I know about, if they don't reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about them." Trump, clearly speaking about MS-13 replied as follows: "We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in - and we're stopping a lot of them - but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people, these are animals, and we're taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that's never happened before."
(Note: In an earlier post I commented on how we went from Obama's and Holder's war on cops, to Trump's and Sessions' war on criminal gangs, including MS-13. And by the way, MS-13's motto is "mata, viola, controla" - kill, rape, control.)
I get that the Left, which includes most of the MSM, has a visceral hatred of Donald Trump. The following comments are not only a reflection of that hatred, but yet another example of how their issues always supersede the truth. As Dennis Prager has said, and as this blog has noted, truth is simply not an issue for the Left. Let's take a look at some Tweets and comments.
The New York Times: "Trump lashed out at undocumented immigrants during a White House meeting, calling those trying to breach the country's borders "animals." Lie!
CBS: Claims Trump used "harsh rhetoric to describe 'some undocumented immigrants' during a California sanctuary state round table. Lie!
ABC: "President Trump refers to some who cross the border illegally as 'animals,' not people. Lie by omission! "Some" who cross the border illegally? He was specifically replying to the Sheriff's comments about MS-13.
Andrea Mitchell of NBC: Claimed Trump called "people trying to get into the country 'animals' not people." Not all people - lie by omission!
John Harwood of CNBC: "However repugnant their actions, MS-13 gang members are human beings IMHO (in my humble opinion)." Now, perhaps certain religious tenets accept that we are all God's children and therefore...what,everyone should be treated the same? I don't know. But I have friend who is a retired cop who would love to have some of these people on the Left see the handiwork of MS-13, and then ask what they might call them.
The NY Daily News: "Trump hurls hate at immigrants: 'these aren't people - these are animals.'" Lie!
And the leading Democrats comments? Nancy Pelosi: "When the President of the United States says about undocumented immigrants, 'these aren't people, these are animals,' you have to wonder, does he not believe in the spark of divinity, the dignity and worth of every person?" I would be extremely reluctant to ask the House Minority Leader (and future Speaker if the Dems take back the House in November) what she would say about history's mass murderers - Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others? Would she be talking about their "spark of divinity?" Horrifying!
Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader: "When all of our great-great=grandparents came to America they weren't 'animals,' (which is irrelevant) and these people aren't either." Do you get the picture yet? The Democrats are so enamored of open borders that they really do not care at all about who might be coming into our country. Gang members? Terrorists? They have no concern for the safety and well-being of American citizens. So, one might ask, why do my friends on the Left keep voting these people into office? They've already told me that Israel is not the main issue - see the last post. Maybe unrestrained immigration is not an issue either.
I'll end with California's long-time Senator, Diane Feinstein: "Immigrant's are not 'animals.'" (Trump never said they were.) The president's statement was deeply offensive and racist. (Ah, the race card.) Immigrants are our family and friends and they make significant contributions to our country." (Yes they do, and what a nice deflection by the Senator.)
Some questions for my friends on the Left. Do you also side with criminal gangs? Do you even wonder why these leaders of the Democratic Party sided with the worst gang members over our President? When do you say "enough!"
(Note: In an earlier post I commented on how we went from Obama's and Holder's war on cops, to Trump's and Sessions' war on criminal gangs, including MS-13. And by the way, MS-13's motto is "mata, viola, controla" - kill, rape, control.)
I get that the Left, which includes most of the MSM, has a visceral hatred of Donald Trump. The following comments are not only a reflection of that hatred, but yet another example of how their issues always supersede the truth. As Dennis Prager has said, and as this blog has noted, truth is simply not an issue for the Left. Let's take a look at some Tweets and comments.
The New York Times: "Trump lashed out at undocumented immigrants during a White House meeting, calling those trying to breach the country's borders "animals." Lie!
CBS: Claims Trump used "harsh rhetoric to describe 'some undocumented immigrants' during a California sanctuary state round table. Lie!
ABC: "President Trump refers to some who cross the border illegally as 'animals,' not people. Lie by omission! "Some" who cross the border illegally? He was specifically replying to the Sheriff's comments about MS-13.
Andrea Mitchell of NBC: Claimed Trump called "people trying to get into the country 'animals' not people." Not all people - lie by omission!
John Harwood of CNBC: "However repugnant their actions, MS-13 gang members are human beings IMHO (in my humble opinion)." Now, perhaps certain religious tenets accept that we are all God's children and therefore...what,everyone should be treated the same? I don't know. But I have friend who is a retired cop who would love to have some of these people on the Left see the handiwork of MS-13, and then ask what they might call them.
The NY Daily News: "Trump hurls hate at immigrants: 'these aren't people - these are animals.'" Lie!
And the leading Democrats comments? Nancy Pelosi: "When the President of the United States says about undocumented immigrants, 'these aren't people, these are animals,' you have to wonder, does he not believe in the spark of divinity, the dignity and worth of every person?" I would be extremely reluctant to ask the House Minority Leader (and future Speaker if the Dems take back the House in November) what she would say about history's mass murderers - Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others? Would she be talking about their "spark of divinity?" Horrifying!
Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader: "When all of our great-great=grandparents came to America they weren't 'animals,' (which is irrelevant) and these people aren't either." Do you get the picture yet? The Democrats are so enamored of open borders that they really do not care at all about who might be coming into our country. Gang members? Terrorists? They have no concern for the safety and well-being of American citizens. So, one might ask, why do my friends on the Left keep voting these people into office? They've already told me that Israel is not the main issue - see the last post. Maybe unrestrained immigration is not an issue either.
I'll end with California's long-time Senator, Diane Feinstein: "Immigrant's are not 'animals.'" (Trump never said they were.) The president's statement was deeply offensive and racist. (Ah, the race card.) Immigrants are our family and friends and they make significant contributions to our country." (Yes they do, and what a nice deflection by the Senator.)
Some questions for my friends on the Left. Do you also side with criminal gangs? Do you even wonder why these leaders of the Democratic Party sided with the worst gang members over our President? When do you say "enough!"
Thursday, May 17, 2018
The Sickening, Disgusting and Repulsive Mainstream Media*
(*Editor's Note. Readers of this blog will immediately notice the unusually harsh language in the title of this post. It is not my typical style. However, given what I have read in the mainstream media (hereafter MSM) this week, the language is actually not harsh enough.)
This past Monday, the United States of America opened its new embassy in Jerusalem, Israel. Hamas, the terrorist group that runs Gaza, did not want Israel to be able to celebrate the occasion. Hamas directed people (yes, directed, by giving people the day off from work and providing the buses) by the tens of thousands to the Israeli border. If you believe these were "peaceful" demonstrators, you need to look at the pictures. Furthermore, had any of the people succeeded in breaching the border, their intent was to kill Israelis. With that in mind, the Israeli Defense Forces (hereafter IDF) had snipers trying to target only those who were imminent threats, most of whom were members of Hamas. Hamas has since admitted that 50 of the 62 people killed by the Israelis while defending their borders were, in fact, members of Hamas.
As a reminder, the Hamas Charter calls for the destruction of Israel. As a reminder, Israel vacated Gaza in 2005. As a reward, Israelis have suffered from over 10,000 rockets, mortars and missiles being fired from Gaza into nearby Israeli cities. Hamas uses the millions (billions?) of dollars in aid to build tunnels into Israel in order to be able to kill or kidnap Jews. They use the money to build or buy all their rockets and missiles. If there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, it is because Hamas does not give a damn about their people. They only care about destroying Israel. And they have no problem in sacrificing their own people in order to win the propaganda war. Make no mistake, the tens of thousands massed at Israel's border, and the suicidal actions by Gazans done at the behest of Hamas, was for propaganda purposes. Hamas knew full well that they could rely upon the Western MSM to tell their fabricated story. Let's take a look.
The May 15, 2015 headline in the New York Times, the leading MSM paper in the country, read as follows: "Israelis Kill Scores In Gaza." One could argue that it was factually correct. However, if the Times wanted to tell the truth with their headline it might have read as follows: "Tens of thousands of Gazans try to penetrate Israeli border," with the sub-headline reading "Hamas sends men, women and children to their death as Israel tries to defend its borders and avoid mass killing."
Did you catch the NY Daily News cover? It shows a picture of Ivanka Trump with her hand raised while pointing at the seal of the US on the embassy wall - only the seal was blocked by a picture of a wounded or dead Gazan being carried away. The headline on this front page was "Daddy's Little Ghoul." Underneath we are told: "55 slaughtered in Gaza, but Ivanka all smiles at Jerusalem embassy unveil." Slaughtered? If Israel had any interest in slaughtering people, they have ample firepower to do so, and undoubtedly could have killed half of the 40,000 Gazans massed at their border. But they didn't use machine guns. They didn't "slaughter" anyone. Snipers targeted individuals carrying weapons, and those trying to destroy the security fence. There were a lot of people smiling at the opening of the new embassy, so why did they single out Ivanka? Because her last name is Trump.
At the White House press briefing, Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah made it very clear what the White House position was: "The responsibility for these tragic deaths rests squarely with Hamas." (What a refreshing change from Obama.) But the press would have none of it. Q: "The death toll is over 50 in Gaza. Is the US calling on Israel to use restraint in dealing with these protests?" While Shah kept repeating that the responsibility lies with Hamas, I would have answered this way: "Listen, you idiot. These were not "protests." It was a Hamas sponsored effort to have tens of thousands of people flood into Israel and kill Jews. Restraint? You don't think Israel was exercising restraint when you had a violent clash and only .0015% of those people had fatal injuries? Did you graduate high school?"
Here's another gem. Q: "So there's no burden on Israel to do something to, sort of, rein it in?" My reply: "Sure, Israel could send fools like you into Gaza to ask the Hamas leaders 'pretty please don't try to destroy the security fence; please be a good neighbor.' Next." And here's my favorite question from the geniuses who make up the White House press pool: "So there's no responsibility beyond that on the Israeli authorities? Kill at will?" My reply: "I can't believe that I have to deal with such moral idiots as you. Let me repeat, in what universe does a .0015 percent fatality rate suggest to you that the IDF was 'killing at will?' Did you finish kindergarten?"
The lead editorial in the May 15, 2018 edition of the NY Times ran with this title: "Mr. Trump's Failure in Jerusalem." You see, the Times was upset that "President Trump delivered the embassy as a gift without concession or condition to the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, and as a blow to the Palestinians." A gift? Here's a question for the Israel-hating NY Times - can you name one other country in the world, just one, that is not allowed to declare its own capital city? Not only does the NY Times, along with much of the MSM, not view Israel as a friend and an ally, they actually side with the terrorist run Palestinians. Their editorial still thinks that Israel must "deal with refugees who fled or were driven away after Israeli statehood in 1948." None of the young violent demonstrators ever lived in the homes the Times says they were driven out of, and it's likely that none of their parents ever did either. But you know what? I challenge the editorial writers at the Times to take the lead and go back to whatever country you or your ancestors came from. And Hispanics will need to return to their homelands, because only the Native Americans get to stay.
It turns out that 4 senators, 10 congressmen and one governor - all Republicans - attended the embassy opening in Jerusalem. No Democrats. That seems rather odd as the "Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995," setting aside funds for moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, passed in the Senate by a vote of 93-5, and in the House by a vote of 374-37. So, the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted in favor. But times change. Citing a recent poll (previously referenced in this blog) from January, 2018, Ben Shapiro noted in his column in the current Jewish Journal of LA that while 79% of rank and file Republicans support Israel over the Palestinians, only 27% of Democrats do. Shapiro opined that the Democrats hatred of Trump (he is no fan either) was not the reason for their no-show. Rather, "Democrats didn't want to attend because they were afraid of their own base." Shapiro goes on to state that it doesn't matter that Israel is a democracy, it doesn't matter that Israel is the only LGBT friendly country in the region, and it doesn't matter that Israel is the only country in the area allowing full religious expression. What does matter is that as between Israel and the Palestinians, the Palestinians are perceived as "victims."
Shapiro: "Until Democrats throw aside victimhood ideology in favor of the morality that used to govern their party, (the split with Republicans over Israel) will continue to widen." I do not see that happening any time soon. "Victim mentality" permeates every aspect of the Democratic Party. Right and wrong have nothing to do with it. Democracy versus terrorism has nothing to do with it. It is said that when the then Soviet premier asked LBJ why the US supported Israel, a country of only 3 million people at the time, over the 80 million Arabs at the time, LBJ replied: "Because it is right."
A final thought. When liberal/left-wing Jews tell me that they support Israel but vote Democrat because "there are other issues besides Israel," they are wrong. Certainly there are other issues. But the hatred directed at Israel, and the support given to the terrorist Palestinians, tells us a lot about the moral compass of today's Democrats. It tells us that the party is simply not able to discern right from wrong. Trump may have his personal moral failings, as most of us do, but his policy is morally sound. Reflecting that policy, our UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, prevented the UN Security Council from opening an investigation into Israel's actions. Haley: "No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has. In fact, the records of several countries here today suggest they would be much less restrained." Isn't that the truth!
Haley: "The violence comes from those who reject the existence of the State of Israel in any location." Moral clarity. If your party has lost that, there are no other issues.
This past Monday, the United States of America opened its new embassy in Jerusalem, Israel. Hamas, the terrorist group that runs Gaza, did not want Israel to be able to celebrate the occasion. Hamas directed people (yes, directed, by giving people the day off from work and providing the buses) by the tens of thousands to the Israeli border. If you believe these were "peaceful" demonstrators, you need to look at the pictures. Furthermore, had any of the people succeeded in breaching the border, their intent was to kill Israelis. With that in mind, the Israeli Defense Forces (hereafter IDF) had snipers trying to target only those who were imminent threats, most of whom were members of Hamas. Hamas has since admitted that 50 of the 62 people killed by the Israelis while defending their borders were, in fact, members of Hamas.
As a reminder, the Hamas Charter calls for the destruction of Israel. As a reminder, Israel vacated Gaza in 2005. As a reward, Israelis have suffered from over 10,000 rockets, mortars and missiles being fired from Gaza into nearby Israeli cities. Hamas uses the millions (billions?) of dollars in aid to build tunnels into Israel in order to be able to kill or kidnap Jews. They use the money to build or buy all their rockets and missiles. If there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, it is because Hamas does not give a damn about their people. They only care about destroying Israel. And they have no problem in sacrificing their own people in order to win the propaganda war. Make no mistake, the tens of thousands massed at Israel's border, and the suicidal actions by Gazans done at the behest of Hamas, was for propaganda purposes. Hamas knew full well that they could rely upon the Western MSM to tell their fabricated story. Let's take a look.
The May 15, 2015 headline in the New York Times, the leading MSM paper in the country, read as follows: "Israelis Kill Scores In Gaza." One could argue that it was factually correct. However, if the Times wanted to tell the truth with their headline it might have read as follows: "Tens of thousands of Gazans try to penetrate Israeli border," with the sub-headline reading "Hamas sends men, women and children to their death as Israel tries to defend its borders and avoid mass killing."
Did you catch the NY Daily News cover? It shows a picture of Ivanka Trump with her hand raised while pointing at the seal of the US on the embassy wall - only the seal was blocked by a picture of a wounded or dead Gazan being carried away. The headline on this front page was "Daddy's Little Ghoul." Underneath we are told: "55 slaughtered in Gaza, but Ivanka all smiles at Jerusalem embassy unveil." Slaughtered? If Israel had any interest in slaughtering people, they have ample firepower to do so, and undoubtedly could have killed half of the 40,000 Gazans massed at their border. But they didn't use machine guns. They didn't "slaughter" anyone. Snipers targeted individuals carrying weapons, and those trying to destroy the security fence. There were a lot of people smiling at the opening of the new embassy, so why did they single out Ivanka? Because her last name is Trump.
At the White House press briefing, Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah made it very clear what the White House position was: "The responsibility for these tragic deaths rests squarely with Hamas." (What a refreshing change from Obama.) But the press would have none of it. Q: "The death toll is over 50 in Gaza. Is the US calling on Israel to use restraint in dealing with these protests?" While Shah kept repeating that the responsibility lies with Hamas, I would have answered this way: "Listen, you idiot. These were not "protests." It was a Hamas sponsored effort to have tens of thousands of people flood into Israel and kill Jews. Restraint? You don't think Israel was exercising restraint when you had a violent clash and only .0015% of those people had fatal injuries? Did you graduate high school?"
Here's another gem. Q: "So there's no burden on Israel to do something to, sort of, rein it in?" My reply: "Sure, Israel could send fools like you into Gaza to ask the Hamas leaders 'pretty please don't try to destroy the security fence; please be a good neighbor.' Next." And here's my favorite question from the geniuses who make up the White House press pool: "So there's no responsibility beyond that on the Israeli authorities? Kill at will?" My reply: "I can't believe that I have to deal with such moral idiots as you. Let me repeat, in what universe does a .0015 percent fatality rate suggest to you that the IDF was 'killing at will?' Did you finish kindergarten?"
The lead editorial in the May 15, 2018 edition of the NY Times ran with this title: "Mr. Trump's Failure in Jerusalem." You see, the Times was upset that "President Trump delivered the embassy as a gift without concession or condition to the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, and as a blow to the Palestinians." A gift? Here's a question for the Israel-hating NY Times - can you name one other country in the world, just one, that is not allowed to declare its own capital city? Not only does the NY Times, along with much of the MSM, not view Israel as a friend and an ally, they actually side with the terrorist run Palestinians. Their editorial still thinks that Israel must "deal with refugees who fled or were driven away after Israeli statehood in 1948." None of the young violent demonstrators ever lived in the homes the Times says they were driven out of, and it's likely that none of their parents ever did either. But you know what? I challenge the editorial writers at the Times to take the lead and go back to whatever country you or your ancestors came from. And Hispanics will need to return to their homelands, because only the Native Americans get to stay.
It turns out that 4 senators, 10 congressmen and one governor - all Republicans - attended the embassy opening in Jerusalem. No Democrats. That seems rather odd as the "Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995," setting aside funds for moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, passed in the Senate by a vote of 93-5, and in the House by a vote of 374-37. So, the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted in favor. But times change. Citing a recent poll (previously referenced in this blog) from January, 2018, Ben Shapiro noted in his column in the current Jewish Journal of LA that while 79% of rank and file Republicans support Israel over the Palestinians, only 27% of Democrats do. Shapiro opined that the Democrats hatred of Trump (he is no fan either) was not the reason for their no-show. Rather, "Democrats didn't want to attend because they were afraid of their own base." Shapiro goes on to state that it doesn't matter that Israel is a democracy, it doesn't matter that Israel is the only LGBT friendly country in the region, and it doesn't matter that Israel is the only country in the area allowing full religious expression. What does matter is that as between Israel and the Palestinians, the Palestinians are perceived as "victims."
Shapiro: "Until Democrats throw aside victimhood ideology in favor of the morality that used to govern their party, (the split with Republicans over Israel) will continue to widen." I do not see that happening any time soon. "Victim mentality" permeates every aspect of the Democratic Party. Right and wrong have nothing to do with it. Democracy versus terrorism has nothing to do with it. It is said that when the then Soviet premier asked LBJ why the US supported Israel, a country of only 3 million people at the time, over the 80 million Arabs at the time, LBJ replied: "Because it is right."
A final thought. When liberal/left-wing Jews tell me that they support Israel but vote Democrat because "there are other issues besides Israel," they are wrong. Certainly there are other issues. But the hatred directed at Israel, and the support given to the terrorist Palestinians, tells us a lot about the moral compass of today's Democrats. It tells us that the party is simply not able to discern right from wrong. Trump may have his personal moral failings, as most of us do, but his policy is morally sound. Reflecting that policy, our UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, prevented the UN Security Council from opening an investigation into Israel's actions. Haley: "No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has. In fact, the records of several countries here today suggest they would be much less restrained." Isn't that the truth!
Haley: "The violence comes from those who reject the existence of the State of Israel in any location." Moral clarity. If your party has lost that, there are no other issues.
Sunday, May 6, 2018
More on the Defense of Israel
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)