The Allegations. In an FBI investigation named "Operation Varsity Blues," a number of wealthy people - including a couple of Hollywood stars - are accused of using illegal means to get their children into elite colleges and universities. These parents are accused of paying money to an "admissions assistance counselor," who would then help parents get extra time for their kids to take the college entrance exams (SAT and ACT) by faking a disability. The "counselor" would also bribe test monitors to alter test scores; and at times use a "ringer" to sit in and take the test for some students. Other students were provided with phony athletic histories, allowing them to be admitted - through bribery of certain coaches - as student athletes, even though they were not athletes and did not play any sport once admitted to the college.
In a 3/14/19 editorial, the Wall Street Journal opined: "The days when college admissions was largely a merit-based system disappeared long ago. Now merit merely gets your foot inside an admissions labyrinth with passages marked race, gender, geography, legacy, athletics, sexual identity, trustee relationships, social-justice work and so forth." I recall well my kids having to write essays that would help differentiate themselves from the other high G.P.A. and high SAT score applicants. Often, it was clear that the admissions offices were looking for a disability, or having overcome some other diversity in life, or demonstrating one's social-justice activism.
I also recall well having numerous discussions with other parents whose children were applying to college at the same times as our children. The stress that these parents were feeling about their kids getting into a top university was palpable, and without a doubt that stress was imparted to their children. I was disturbed by the idea that admission to a top school was somehow essential to one's future well-being. In speaking with other parents, I would concede that a diploma from one of the top ten (or twenty) schools would open certain doors after graduation. But then I would ask: "But what about the other 99.5% of students who do not get into an elite college. Do you really believe that all those students will lead miserable lives? Will they not go on to have families of their own, financial success or happiness?" I found the emphasis on "elite schools" to reflect a misplaced value.
One letter writer to the New York Times, describing herself as a high school senior, wrote: "...I've witnessed and experienced how stress surrounding grades, standardized test scores and extracurriculars consumes high school students. The pressure to be admitted to a "good" college is almost inescapable...Parents and adults need to tell high school students that attending an elite college doesn't matter - and mean it." Exactly. Added another letter writer: "Five years after you graduate, nobody much cares where you went anyway. The world is grading you on other qualities." Agree again.
The punishment. I have not joined many others in criticizing or mocking the Hollywood parents for their supposed hypocrisy and gaming of the system. In fact, I questioned the very high bond being given to at least a couple of the parents involved - one million dollars. We are not talking about international arms dealers or drug smugglers or human traffickers. And while mail fraud charges can result in a sentence of up to 20 years in federal prison, I do not believe the charges against these parents, if convicted, warrant anywhere near that. (It is unknown if some parents will also be charged with tax evasion for deducting the amount of bribes they paid as a "charitable donation.") I also strongly disagree with the 3/13/19 Los Angeles Times editorial expressing this opinion: "Any students currently in college as a result of outright bribery should have their admission revoked. Whether or not they consciously participated, their presence at college is based on fraud - and the seats they're filling could be taken by other students with legitimate credentials." If the students knowingly participated in the fraud I agree. But if some students had no idea what their parents were doing, then I would not disrupt the lives of those students. Pull them out of college, perhaps in their junior or senior year? I have never been a fan of punishing the innocent.
The lawsuits. I guess it was inevitable. Two Stanford University students have filed a class action lawsuit, claiming they would have applied to Yale or USC if they had knowledge of the system being manipulated, and also claiming that the value of their degree from Stanford has been cheapened as a result of the scandal. If you got into Stanford - stop whining. Who believes prospective employers are no longer going to hire graduates from Stanford, Yale, Georgetown, USC, UCLA, Wake Forest, the University of San Diego or the University of Texas at Austin because of the scandal? Then we have the woman who filed a $500 billion (yes, half a trillion dollars) class action lawsuit because her child did not get accepted by certain colleges with a 4.2 G.P.A. What is the goal? You want to make your child feel bad about the school that they did attend?
I am not excusing cheating and bribery. And, ultimately, it looks like the number of people charged could be in the hundreds. But with so many opportunities to attend so many colleges and universities (estimated at 5,300 in the USA) I think a little perspective on this would be in order. I would also like to see the values placed where they should be - raising young people to be good adults, and good citizens, and with the knowledge and belief that a fulfilling life does not depend on having a degree from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford or the like.
Sunday, March 17, 2019
Sunday, March 10, 2019
The Incredibly Anti-Semitic Democrats
Honestly, I take no satisfaction with having to discuss anti-Semitism in one of the country's two major parties. However, my concern lies not just with the two new Muslim women members of Congress, although they are bad enough. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has quite a history of making anti-Semitic comments. "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." She has also suggested that support for Israel is "all about the Benjamins." And, she has accused Jews of having dual loyalty: "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country." Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) has similar beliefs; referring to those fellow members of Congress who support Israel as forgetting "what country they represent."
Not surprisingly, these two women support the Palestinians, but do not believe they suffer from any dual loyalties. The US supports Israel because of -among other reasons - shared values, mutual assistance in the development of missile defense and other technologies, and shared intelligence - with the Mossad being one of the world's premier intelligence agencies. The Democrats in the House attempted to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism following another of Omar's anti-Semitic comments. Even with the insistence on adding condemnation to "unfounded, vicious attacks on and threats to Muslim American Members of Congress," to a resolution that was supposed to resist anti-Semitism, the measure could not pass. The resolution did not even name Omar for making repeated anti-Semitic comments, let alone seek any censure or punishment of her. Ultimately, a resolution did pass condemning every conceivable form of bigotry that the drafters were able to imagine. That resolution did condemn anti-Semitism, as well as white supremacy, white nationalism, neo-Nazis, the KKK, anti-Catholic bigotry and anti-Muslim bigotry.
The new resolution easily passed with 407 aye votes. However, twenty-three Republican members of the House voted against the resolution, expressing their anger that a resolution originally prompted by anti-Semitic comments by one of their members was so watered down that the original message was lost. Worse yet was the support given to Omar by her fellow Democrats following her anti-Semitic tirade. Hakeem Jeffries, chair of the House Democratic Caucaus, said: "Let me just generally say - there's not a rise of anti-Semitism in the House of Representatives." Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader, opined "I don't think she's anti-Semitic." And Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed this nonsense: "I don't think our colleague is anti-Semitic. I think she has a different experience in the use of words, doesn't understand that some of them are fraught with meaning that she didn't realize." I wonder what part of "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel," Pelosi thinks Omar did not understand. Excusing anti-Semitism only encourages more of it. Shame on these three leaders of the Democratic Party.
Three Democratic Senators running for President, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, all attempted to justify Omar's anti-Semitism. They all suggested that criticism of Israel does not equate to anti-Semitism. So what? Omar's remarks were indeed anti-Semitic. And Kamala Harris further added: "...like some of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus I am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk." The original resolution did not name Omar but did focus on anti-Semitism - and the Black Caucus opposed it.
A group called 'The Progressive Change Campaign Committee' is raising money for Democrats who support Omar, and will seek to defeat Democrats who criticize her. It is bad enough for Democratic leaders to make excuses for anti-Semitism. Now we have a left-wing group that will seek to punish those who criticize the anti-Semite. The Intercept is a left-wing site. In defending Omar, the founder of the site said this: "she raised entirely legitimate concerns about US support for the murderous apartheid government of Israel and the subservience of US politicians to the agenda of a foreign power." These lies about Israel, and those who support her, are all too often seen and heard from the left. And the left is an increasingly influential part of the Democratic Party. Recall the Pew poll from early last year showing that 79% of Republicans support Israel over the Palestinians. The number was 27% for the Democrats. Why do I bring up those numbers? Because with such little support for Israel in the Democratic Party, there is very little downside to the type of comments being made by Omar and Tlaib - whether those comments are legitimate criticism of Israeli policies or clearly anti-Semitic. And let me add, much criticism of Israel is, in fact, anti-Semitic when it singles out Israel over countries with truly horrific records.
Case in point. The incongruously named UN Human Rights Council has a standing agenda item - Israel - because they view Israel as the worst country in the world. Recently, the inaptly named Council again condemned Israel for allegedly committing war crimes at the Gaza border. Since last March, when Hamas instituted their Great March of Return, 189 Palestinians have been killed at the border (according to the Council). Hamas has bused thousands of Palestinians to the Gazan border with Israel in an attempt to breach the border and invade Israel, and they have done it every Friday (the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath) since March, 2018. The Palestinians throw rocks, molotov cocktails and send incendiary devices/kites over the border, with the result being thousnds of acres of fields and forests being burned. Since Israel relinquished Gaza, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have launched 10,000 or more rockets into Israel, and have dug underground tunnels into Israel from Gaza for one purpose - to allow Hamas terrorists entry into Israel in order to kill Jews.
Jeremy Corbyn is the head of the Labour Party (equivalent to the Democratic Party in the US) in the UK. He may be their next Prime Minister. Based on the one-sided UNHRC report, Corbyn said: "The UK government must unequivocally condemn the killings and freeze arms sales to Israel." Not only would the above-referenced Congress members like to see aid to Israel cut, but I have no doubt that they could succeed in getting many in their party to go along. I am aware of the fact that an overwhelming number of Democrats, including Jewish Democrats, have a visceral hatred of Donald Trump. I wonder if they have the same feelings about the growing anti-Semitism in their party; because as the party continues its leftward march, the anti-Semitism within the party will continue to grow proportionately. At what point will liberal Jews say "no, I cannot vote for such a party."
Not surprisingly, these two women support the Palestinians, but do not believe they suffer from any dual loyalties. The US supports Israel because of -among other reasons - shared values, mutual assistance in the development of missile defense and other technologies, and shared intelligence - with the Mossad being one of the world's premier intelligence agencies. The Democrats in the House attempted to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism following another of Omar's anti-Semitic comments. Even with the insistence on adding condemnation to "unfounded, vicious attacks on and threats to Muslim American Members of Congress," to a resolution that was supposed to resist anti-Semitism, the measure could not pass. The resolution did not even name Omar for making repeated anti-Semitic comments, let alone seek any censure or punishment of her. Ultimately, a resolution did pass condemning every conceivable form of bigotry that the drafters were able to imagine. That resolution did condemn anti-Semitism, as well as white supremacy, white nationalism, neo-Nazis, the KKK, anti-Catholic bigotry and anti-Muslim bigotry.
The new resolution easily passed with 407 aye votes. However, twenty-three Republican members of the House voted against the resolution, expressing their anger that a resolution originally prompted by anti-Semitic comments by one of their members was so watered down that the original message was lost. Worse yet was the support given to Omar by her fellow Democrats following her anti-Semitic tirade. Hakeem Jeffries, chair of the House Democratic Caucaus, said: "Let me just generally say - there's not a rise of anti-Semitism in the House of Representatives." Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader, opined "I don't think she's anti-Semitic." And Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed this nonsense: "I don't think our colleague is anti-Semitic. I think she has a different experience in the use of words, doesn't understand that some of them are fraught with meaning that she didn't realize." I wonder what part of "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel," Pelosi thinks Omar did not understand. Excusing anti-Semitism only encourages more of it. Shame on these three leaders of the Democratic Party.
Three Democratic Senators running for President, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, all attempted to justify Omar's anti-Semitism. They all suggested that criticism of Israel does not equate to anti-Semitism. So what? Omar's remarks were indeed anti-Semitic. And Kamala Harris further added: "...like some of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus I am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk." The original resolution did not name Omar but did focus on anti-Semitism - and the Black Caucus opposed it.
A group called 'The Progressive Change Campaign Committee' is raising money for Democrats who support Omar, and will seek to defeat Democrats who criticize her. It is bad enough for Democratic leaders to make excuses for anti-Semitism. Now we have a left-wing group that will seek to punish those who criticize the anti-Semite. The Intercept is a left-wing site. In defending Omar, the founder of the site said this: "she raised entirely legitimate concerns about US support for the murderous apartheid government of Israel and the subservience of US politicians to the agenda of a foreign power." These lies about Israel, and those who support her, are all too often seen and heard from the left. And the left is an increasingly influential part of the Democratic Party. Recall the Pew poll from early last year showing that 79% of Republicans support Israel over the Palestinians. The number was 27% for the Democrats. Why do I bring up those numbers? Because with such little support for Israel in the Democratic Party, there is very little downside to the type of comments being made by Omar and Tlaib - whether those comments are legitimate criticism of Israeli policies or clearly anti-Semitic. And let me add, much criticism of Israel is, in fact, anti-Semitic when it singles out Israel over countries with truly horrific records.
Case in point. The incongruously named UN Human Rights Council has a standing agenda item - Israel - because they view Israel as the worst country in the world. Recently, the inaptly named Council again condemned Israel for allegedly committing war crimes at the Gaza border. Since last March, when Hamas instituted their Great March of Return, 189 Palestinians have been killed at the border (according to the Council). Hamas has bused thousands of Palestinians to the Gazan border with Israel in an attempt to breach the border and invade Israel, and they have done it every Friday (the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath) since March, 2018. The Palestinians throw rocks, molotov cocktails and send incendiary devices/kites over the border, with the result being thousnds of acres of fields and forests being burned. Since Israel relinquished Gaza, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have launched 10,000 or more rockets into Israel, and have dug underground tunnels into Israel from Gaza for one purpose - to allow Hamas terrorists entry into Israel in order to kill Jews.
Jeremy Corbyn is the head of the Labour Party (equivalent to the Democratic Party in the US) in the UK. He may be their next Prime Minister. Based on the one-sided UNHRC report, Corbyn said: "The UK government must unequivocally condemn the killings and freeze arms sales to Israel." Not only would the above-referenced Congress members like to see aid to Israel cut, but I have no doubt that they could succeed in getting many in their party to go along. I am aware of the fact that an overwhelming number of Democrats, including Jewish Democrats, have a visceral hatred of Donald Trump. I wonder if they have the same feelings about the growing anti-Semitism in their party; because as the party continues its leftward march, the anti-Semitism within the party will continue to grow proportionately. At what point will liberal Jews say "no, I cannot vote for such a party."
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
The Incredibly Dangerous Democrats
With the recent testimony of Michael Cohen, it became apparent that the Dems did not have the Russian collusion story that they were seeking. After all, Cohen said he had no hard evidence of collusion. Cohen was supposed to have been in Prague to further the conspiracy with Russia, except that he testified that he has never been in the Czech Republic. And, he could not even support the allegation that Trump told him to lie to Congress i.e. obstruction; saying that Trump never told him to lie to Congress, it was just the way he interpreted what Trump said.
But none of that matters to Rep. Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler decided he needs to delve into every corner of Trump's life, and 81 other people and entities that have had contact with Trump. As one commentator noted, Nadler's approach is reminiscent of Stalin's secret police chief: "show me the man and I'll show you the crime." To put it another way, one of the Watergate attorneys said if the government wants to get someone, they'll get them. I do not care which side of the fence you are on, if you agree with Nadler then shame on you. And if you do agree, then I propose we open up a special prosecutor on each and every member of Congress. Once we start looking into their closets I would bet we can get rid of at least half of them.
Nadler justifies his "inquisition" by claiming that President Trump makes "near-daily attacks on our basic legal, ethical, and constitutional rules and norms." After all, one reporter from the Washington Post said "the administration's war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I've seen since the Nixon administration." And a reporter from the New York Times called the administration "the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation." And, the San Diego Union Tribune called the administration "the least transparent and the most antagonistic toward the media since the Nixon administration." They also said the administration "prosecuted three times as many cases targeting whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous administrations combined."
Did you guess it? The truth is none of the above comments were made about the Trump administration - they were all said about the Obama administration. Not only did he attack the press, as indicated above, he went all-out against Fox News. And the Constitution? Obama was not much for the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Recall that he said he had a pen and he had a phone, and if Congress would not act he would. Recall his executive order regarding the "Dreamers," DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). Except, the Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws on immigration, not the President.
You may recall that immediately after the passage of the Affordable Care Act many employers were concerned about being able to comply. I am sure it was entirely coincidental that of the over 2000 waivers granted, about 20% were in the district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Talk about corruption. And the State of Nevada, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's home state, got a waiver. For the entire state. Aside from the obvious corruption, favoring the two people who helped push the ACA through Congress, the granting of those waivers by the Obama Administration was illegal. The ACA was law. Obama had no authority to grant waivers for a year. When there is a problem with a statute, it is up to the legislative body that passed the law to pass what is called "clean up legislation" to fix those problems. The executive has no such authority. But that did not stop Obama.
Let us not forget that it was the Obama administration that illegally used the IRS to target conservative groups and individuals. If you do not recall this, or if you do not believe me, just look at the 10/27/17 post by Peter Overby on NPR, a liberal site. The article notes that the IRS "expresses its sincere apology" for the mistreatment of conservative groups. The article also references a substantial settlement between the IRS and numerous conservative groups.
Again, there was no prosecution of Hillary Clinton, who, as Secretary of State, set up a private email server for her official business. The deletion of 33,000 of her emails was never prosecuted for obstruction of justice. Now that the Dems are the "law and order" party, perhaps they can explain why they have no interest in the daily violation of our immigration laws at our southern border.
If you still believe the claptrap claim by Nadler used to justify all of his unwarranted scrutiny into every aspect of Trump's life, then I am sorry to say - but you care more about "getting Trump" than the future success and survival of our country. And, I would suggest that you might want to pray that the government does not come looking for you. Because this is an investigation in search of a crime.
But none of that matters to Rep. Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler decided he needs to delve into every corner of Trump's life, and 81 other people and entities that have had contact with Trump. As one commentator noted, Nadler's approach is reminiscent of Stalin's secret police chief: "show me the man and I'll show you the crime." To put it another way, one of the Watergate attorneys said if the government wants to get someone, they'll get them. I do not care which side of the fence you are on, if you agree with Nadler then shame on you. And if you do agree, then I propose we open up a special prosecutor on each and every member of Congress. Once we start looking into their closets I would bet we can get rid of at least half of them.
Nadler justifies his "inquisition" by claiming that President Trump makes "near-daily attacks on our basic legal, ethical, and constitutional rules and norms." After all, one reporter from the Washington Post said "the administration's war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I've seen since the Nixon administration." And a reporter from the New York Times called the administration "the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation." And, the San Diego Union Tribune called the administration "the least transparent and the most antagonistic toward the media since the Nixon administration." They also said the administration "prosecuted three times as many cases targeting whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous administrations combined."
Did you guess it? The truth is none of the above comments were made about the Trump administration - they were all said about the Obama administration. Not only did he attack the press, as indicated above, he went all-out against Fox News. And the Constitution? Obama was not much for the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Recall that he said he had a pen and he had a phone, and if Congress would not act he would. Recall his executive order regarding the "Dreamers," DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). Except, the Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws on immigration, not the President.
You may recall that immediately after the passage of the Affordable Care Act many employers were concerned about being able to comply. I am sure it was entirely coincidental that of the over 2000 waivers granted, about 20% were in the district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Talk about corruption. And the State of Nevada, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's home state, got a waiver. For the entire state. Aside from the obvious corruption, favoring the two people who helped push the ACA through Congress, the granting of those waivers by the Obama Administration was illegal. The ACA was law. Obama had no authority to grant waivers for a year. When there is a problem with a statute, it is up to the legislative body that passed the law to pass what is called "clean up legislation" to fix those problems. The executive has no such authority. But that did not stop Obama.
Let us not forget that it was the Obama administration that illegally used the IRS to target conservative groups and individuals. If you do not recall this, or if you do not believe me, just look at the 10/27/17 post by Peter Overby on NPR, a liberal site. The article notes that the IRS "expresses its sincere apology" for the mistreatment of conservative groups. The article also references a substantial settlement between the IRS and numerous conservative groups.
Again, there was no prosecution of Hillary Clinton, who, as Secretary of State, set up a private email server for her official business. The deletion of 33,000 of her emails was never prosecuted for obstruction of justice. Now that the Dems are the "law and order" party, perhaps they can explain why they have no interest in the daily violation of our immigration laws at our southern border.
If you still believe the claptrap claim by Nadler used to justify all of his unwarranted scrutiny into every aspect of Trump's life, then I am sorry to say - but you care more about "getting Trump" than the future success and survival of our country. And, I would suggest that you might want to pray that the government does not come looking for you. Because this is an investigation in search of a crime.
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Some Preliminary Thoughts on Michael Cohen's Congressional Testimony
Former Trump lawyer, and self-described "fixer," Michael Cohen testified before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday. I think most of us would agree that the vast majority of Congressional hearings amount to nothing more than political theater, regardless of which party is in charge. With that in mind, it was impossible to not notice Lanny Davis sitting right behind Cohen. Davis, of course, is long time Clinton confidant and democratic operative. What a coincidence. And, we learned from Cohen's testimony that Davis is representing Cohen for free; although he hopes to be able to pay him someday.
Davis recently wrote a book: "The Unmaking of the President 2016: How FBI Director James Comey Cost Hillary Clinton the Election." Davis has not hidden his dislike for Trump. It must be especially upsetting that Trump defeated Davis' good friend, Hillary Clinton. Which brings us to ask - why would an attorney have his client testify when such testimony might put that client in further legal jeopardy? There is the possibility that Cohen was hoping for a further reduction in his sentence. But, with Davis as his attorney, we can not rule out Davis wanting Cohen to testify in order to "get" Trump, the man who not only defeated his close friend but made calls to "lock her up." (I was opposed to those comments by Trump.)
Cohen's closing remarks did much to reveal his true motivation in testifying - get Trump. Recall that these investigations were all about "Russian collusion." Except that Cohen testified that there was no collusion. Cohen's closing remarks were essentially a series of Democrat talking points, and just made up stuff. For example: "...given my experience in working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, that there will never be a peaceful transition of power and this is why I agreed to appear before you today." Interesting, but Cohen has absolutely no evidence to support his outrageous suggestion. But if the goal is to "get Trump" it does not matter.
Talking point: "You don't use the power of the bully pulpit to destroy the credibility of those who speak out against you." It was unclear if Cohen was referring to the mainstream media or individuals. If the reference was to the mainstream media, many of us would say good for Trump. Why should he have to take the non-stop attacks, some merited but many not. Why should Trump have to tolerate lies by the media without defending himself? Do we want a wimpy President? Talking point: "You don't separate families from one another, or demonize those looking to America for a better life, you don't vilify people based on the g-d they pray to." So, Cohen now opposes Trump's immigration policies, and categorizes Trump's motivations as being mean-spirited. Many of us saw the first president in over 30 years being willing to take on the immigration issue, an issue that has been of no concern to either party. Millions of Americans agree with Trump on immigration. And what does an immigration talking point have to do with Russian collusion? Oh, that's right - get Trump.
Another Democrat talking point: "...you don't cuddle up to our adversaries at the expense of our allies." I think Cohen is confusing Trump with Obama. From day one Obama cuddled up to dictators and terrorist groups in the Middle East at the expense of our democratic ally Israel. Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood (while outlawed by Egypt) to his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo. He sided with Palestinian terrorists over Israel. Talking point: "...you don't shut down the government just before Christmas and New Year's just to appease your base. This behavior is churlish, it denigrates the office of the President, and it's simply un-American and it's not you." Many people disagreed with the shutting down of the government; and its connection to Russian collusion is...?
At one point Cohen was annoyed that the Republicans on the committee were only interested in painting him to be a liar (in fairness he is an admitted liar) rather than asking what he knows about Trump. Had I been on that committee I would have addressed his annoyance this way: "As an attorney, I was taught that a client's communications are both privileged and confidential; that the holder of the privilege is the client, in your case that would be President Trump. I really do not care if the Mueller team or the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York do not respect the attorney-client privilege, but I do. And, contrary to my Democratic colleagues on this committee, I am not about to ask you questions that will encourage and enable you to break that revered privilege. But that's just me, Mr. Cohen. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way."
Davis recently wrote a book: "The Unmaking of the President 2016: How FBI Director James Comey Cost Hillary Clinton the Election." Davis has not hidden his dislike for Trump. It must be especially upsetting that Trump defeated Davis' good friend, Hillary Clinton. Which brings us to ask - why would an attorney have his client testify when such testimony might put that client in further legal jeopardy? There is the possibility that Cohen was hoping for a further reduction in his sentence. But, with Davis as his attorney, we can not rule out Davis wanting Cohen to testify in order to "get" Trump, the man who not only defeated his close friend but made calls to "lock her up." (I was opposed to those comments by Trump.)
Cohen's closing remarks did much to reveal his true motivation in testifying - get Trump. Recall that these investigations were all about "Russian collusion." Except that Cohen testified that there was no collusion. Cohen's closing remarks were essentially a series of Democrat talking points, and just made up stuff. For example: "...given my experience in working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, that there will never be a peaceful transition of power and this is why I agreed to appear before you today." Interesting, but Cohen has absolutely no evidence to support his outrageous suggestion. But if the goal is to "get Trump" it does not matter.
Talking point: "You don't use the power of the bully pulpit to destroy the credibility of those who speak out against you." It was unclear if Cohen was referring to the mainstream media or individuals. If the reference was to the mainstream media, many of us would say good for Trump. Why should he have to take the non-stop attacks, some merited but many not. Why should Trump have to tolerate lies by the media without defending himself? Do we want a wimpy President? Talking point: "You don't separate families from one another, or demonize those looking to America for a better life, you don't vilify people based on the g-d they pray to." So, Cohen now opposes Trump's immigration policies, and categorizes Trump's motivations as being mean-spirited. Many of us saw the first president in over 30 years being willing to take on the immigration issue, an issue that has been of no concern to either party. Millions of Americans agree with Trump on immigration. And what does an immigration talking point have to do with Russian collusion? Oh, that's right - get Trump.
Another Democrat talking point: "...you don't cuddle up to our adversaries at the expense of our allies." I think Cohen is confusing Trump with Obama. From day one Obama cuddled up to dictators and terrorist groups in the Middle East at the expense of our democratic ally Israel. Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood (while outlawed by Egypt) to his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo. He sided with Palestinian terrorists over Israel. Talking point: "...you don't shut down the government just before Christmas and New Year's just to appease your base. This behavior is churlish, it denigrates the office of the President, and it's simply un-American and it's not you." Many people disagreed with the shutting down of the government; and its connection to Russian collusion is...?
At one point Cohen was annoyed that the Republicans on the committee were only interested in painting him to be a liar (in fairness he is an admitted liar) rather than asking what he knows about Trump. Had I been on that committee I would have addressed his annoyance this way: "As an attorney, I was taught that a client's communications are both privileged and confidential; that the holder of the privilege is the client, in your case that would be President Trump. I really do not care if the Mueller team or the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York do not respect the attorney-client privilege, but I do. And, contrary to my Democratic colleagues on this committee, I am not about to ask you questions that will encourage and enable you to break that revered privilege. But that's just me, Mr. Cohen. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way."
Monday, February 18, 2019
More Reflections on the News
Former FBI Acting Director, Andrew McCabe, is on tour and on TV pushing his new book. Recall that we learned it was back in August, 2016, that a meeting was held in McCabe's office with McCabe, FBI counter intelligence chief Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page. Recall that Page said to Strzok, also her lover, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office - that there's no way he (Trump) gets elected - but I'm afraid we can't take the risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're forty..." Trump is "not ever going to become president, right?" Strzok: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it." Fast forward to May, 2017, after Trump in fact won and did become President. McCabe then authorizes an independent counsel to supposedly investigate Russian collusion in the 2016 election, although the true purpose seems to have been to investigate Trump and anyone associated with him.
Recently, McCabe said this: "Rod (Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General) raised the issue (of the 25th Amendment) and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort." According to McCabe, Rosenstein opined: "I never get searched when I go into the White House. I could easily wear a recording device. They wouldn't know it was there." Imagine, that two of the highest ranking people in our justice system were discussing the deposing of the President of the United States. I do no care if you dislike Trump. I do not care if you hate Trump. This should outrage everyone. Apparently, there was no discussion of the legal niceties of things like probable cause and the obtaining of a search warrant. And let's not forget the true purpose of the 25th Amendment. It allows the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet to declare that the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."
"Unable to discharge" does not mean we don't like Trump, or we don't like his policies, or we don't like his demeanor. And it assuredly is not a substitute for the impeachment process, which does deal with misconduct by the President. If the FBI thought Russia was trying to gain undue influence over the Trump campaign, why not warn Trump? Maybe for the same reason Hillary got away with having a private email server as Secretary of State without being charged for violation of government secrecy laws, and with deleting 33,000 emails and not being charged with obstruction of justice, and for using Bleach Bit to destroy her hard drives. The DC crowd would do anything to help Clinton beat Trump, and charging Clinton just would not do. Just to make sure the fix was in, husband Bill "coincidentally" met with then Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix. Following that meeting, Lynch said she would abide by Comey's decision (which was not his to make), and Comey dutifully announced that there would be no prosecution of Hillary. (For more on this topic see the 3/12/17 post: "The Deposing of an American President." That's right, the desire to "get" Trump has been going on since he took office.)
In yet a further attack on Trump from a man who greatly dislikes him, comes the story of Jussie Smollett. After accusing two white men, wearing MAGA hats, and saying this is MAGA country, Smollett said they made racial slurs and threatened him with a rope around his neck, Chicago PD is now saying that it did not happen. But it made great fodder for the mainstream media, which already hates Trump. After all, Trump is always accused of setting the tone, of being a racist. One of the commentators on CNN concluded this: "He said his attackers hurled racial and homophobic slurs at him. And this is America in 2019." Is it though? Or is it typical of the Left's view that nothing has changed in race relations in America in the last 100 years?
But maybe not everyone has progressed. A friend and reader, and an alum of Dickinson College in Pennsylvania, forwarded to me a piece in the student paper. Said the writer: "I am so g-ddamned tired of listening to white boys. I cannot describe to you how frustrating it is to be forced to listen to a white boy explain his take on the Black experience in the Obama era...In what world would your understanding of my life carry more weight than my understanding? Unfortunately, it is this world, where white men debate the pain of other people for fun and then take away their rights." Where does a young black woman learn this kind of hatred? In the college/university system, where the overwhelming number of professors are left-wing.
And this from another student paper in another esteemed university, Washington University in St. Louis: "It's OK that conservatives don't feel welcome...we shouldn't...pretend, out of politeness, that there's anything valuable in the Republican policy agenda." After all, this student opines: conservative ideas don't "deserve equal consideration to that afforded liberal and left ideas." Imagine growing up in a society where everyone tells you that the world is flat - your public schools, the TV shows and movies you watch, the newspapers or online media that you read and your college professors. Then, along comes someone who tells you the world is round. How could that notion possibly "deserve equal consideration" to everything that you have ever heard, read or been told?
Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar made the news yet again with another antisemitic remark concerning Jewish money in politics buying support for Israel. Specifically, she had in mind AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). While AIPAC does lobby to support the continuing good relationship between the US and Israel, it does not donate to political campaigns. After being forced by the House leadership to apologize, Omar's non-apology was followed by this: "I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether its AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry." Well, Congresswoman Omar must not be opposed to all PACs; after all she received nearly $60,000 in PAC money, including $5000 from CAIR - the Council on American-Islamic Relations. And Omar is to be the keynote speaker at Islamic Relief USA on 2/23/19. That is a group with one official having "advocated for violence against Jews." (Per the Jerusalem Post) So, of course, I believe her apology for her umpteenth anti-Semitic comment was sincere.
Recently, McCabe said this: "Rod (Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General) raised the issue (of the 25th Amendment) and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort." According to McCabe, Rosenstein opined: "I never get searched when I go into the White House. I could easily wear a recording device. They wouldn't know it was there." Imagine, that two of the highest ranking people in our justice system were discussing the deposing of the President of the United States. I do no care if you dislike Trump. I do not care if you hate Trump. This should outrage everyone. Apparently, there was no discussion of the legal niceties of things like probable cause and the obtaining of a search warrant. And let's not forget the true purpose of the 25th Amendment. It allows the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet to declare that the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."
"Unable to discharge" does not mean we don't like Trump, or we don't like his policies, or we don't like his demeanor. And it assuredly is not a substitute for the impeachment process, which does deal with misconduct by the President. If the FBI thought Russia was trying to gain undue influence over the Trump campaign, why not warn Trump? Maybe for the same reason Hillary got away with having a private email server as Secretary of State without being charged for violation of government secrecy laws, and with deleting 33,000 emails and not being charged with obstruction of justice, and for using Bleach Bit to destroy her hard drives. The DC crowd would do anything to help Clinton beat Trump, and charging Clinton just would not do. Just to make sure the fix was in, husband Bill "coincidentally" met with then Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix. Following that meeting, Lynch said she would abide by Comey's decision (which was not his to make), and Comey dutifully announced that there would be no prosecution of Hillary. (For more on this topic see the 3/12/17 post: "The Deposing of an American President." That's right, the desire to "get" Trump has been going on since he took office.)
In yet a further attack on Trump from a man who greatly dislikes him, comes the story of Jussie Smollett. After accusing two white men, wearing MAGA hats, and saying this is MAGA country, Smollett said they made racial slurs and threatened him with a rope around his neck, Chicago PD is now saying that it did not happen. But it made great fodder for the mainstream media, which already hates Trump. After all, Trump is always accused of setting the tone, of being a racist. One of the commentators on CNN concluded this: "He said his attackers hurled racial and homophobic slurs at him. And this is America in 2019." Is it though? Or is it typical of the Left's view that nothing has changed in race relations in America in the last 100 years?
But maybe not everyone has progressed. A friend and reader, and an alum of Dickinson College in Pennsylvania, forwarded to me a piece in the student paper. Said the writer: "I am so g-ddamned tired of listening to white boys. I cannot describe to you how frustrating it is to be forced to listen to a white boy explain his take on the Black experience in the Obama era...In what world would your understanding of my life carry more weight than my understanding? Unfortunately, it is this world, where white men debate the pain of other people for fun and then take away their rights." Where does a young black woman learn this kind of hatred? In the college/university system, where the overwhelming number of professors are left-wing.
And this from another student paper in another esteemed university, Washington University in St. Louis: "It's OK that conservatives don't feel welcome...we shouldn't...pretend, out of politeness, that there's anything valuable in the Republican policy agenda." After all, this student opines: conservative ideas don't "deserve equal consideration to that afforded liberal and left ideas." Imagine growing up in a society where everyone tells you that the world is flat - your public schools, the TV shows and movies you watch, the newspapers or online media that you read and your college professors. Then, along comes someone who tells you the world is round. How could that notion possibly "deserve equal consideration" to everything that you have ever heard, read or been told?
Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar made the news yet again with another antisemitic remark concerning Jewish money in politics buying support for Israel. Specifically, she had in mind AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). While AIPAC does lobby to support the continuing good relationship between the US and Israel, it does not donate to political campaigns. After being forced by the House leadership to apologize, Omar's non-apology was followed by this: "I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether its AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry." Well, Congresswoman Omar must not be opposed to all PACs; after all she received nearly $60,000 in PAC money, including $5000 from CAIR - the Council on American-Islamic Relations. And Omar is to be the keynote speaker at Islamic Relief USA on 2/23/19. That is a group with one official having "advocated for violence against Jews." (Per the Jerusalem Post) So, of course, I believe her apology for her umpteenth anti-Semitic comment was sincere.
Sunday, February 10, 2019
The March Towards Socialism
(Note: For newer readers, and for those who - shockingly - do not read every post, this post follows on the August 26, 2018 post titled "Socialism?")
Yesterday, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren formally announced her candidacy for the office of President of the United States. Her speech could just as easily have been given by openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. And, reminiscent of Obama's desire to bring "fundamental change" to our country, Warren said: "Our fight is for big structural change." I am always surprised at how people cheer for fundamentally or structurally changing the wealthiest, freest country in history. As Warren told us, just tinkering with fixes is not enough. No, we need a complete overhaul of this great country.
Following up on the need for structural change, Warren told us that "over the years America's middle class has been deliberately hollowed out and families of color have been systematically discriminated against and denied their chance to build some security." Why would the wealthy seek to "deliberately hollow out" the middle class - the backbone of the country, the people who buy the goods and services - produced by the wealthy? Recall that Henry Ford knew he had to pay his employees enough so that they would be able to purchase his cars. And while there certainly was a history of systematic discrimination against blacks, Warren, like others on the Left, talks as if nothing has changed. After all, the key to getting their votes is to ensure that blacks always feel they are victims.
Warren told us that our country is based on "a rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else." Warren then told the cheering crowd how, from her humble beginnings as the daughter of a janitor, and then going to a local community college, she was able to become a teacher, a law school professor, a United States Senator and now a candidate for President of the United States. In watching her and her supporters, it seemed that none of them appreciated the irony in the contrast between a "rigged system," and anyone, notwithstanding their humble background, being able to achieve great success if they work hard enough.
Warren told us that she wants to put workers in corporate boardrooms. And, noting that the US is the wealthiest country, says: "I am tired of hearing that we can't afford to make real investments in child care, college and Medicare for all." On the one hand, one could argue that this is nothing more than the longstanding "guns or butter" argument in politics. On the other hand, it appears that people such as Warren, and others on the Left, have no clue as to how and why the United States became the wealthiest country in history. Hint - it was not because of socialism.
Warren, along with other likely Democratic candidates for President such as Cory Booker (NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Kamala Harris (CA) and Bernie Sanders (VT) all support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal." There are various Green New Deals that one can find online. The one proposed by the Green Party is essentially a call for communism. It would create a federal employment program, creating 25 million federally funded jobs. It would create publicly owned, non-profit banks at all levels of government. Obama had, before his candidacy, complained that the Bill of Rights only protected people from government action, it did not say what government must do for people. The Green Party's plan rectifies that by calling for a right to: a living wage, quality health care with single payer Medicare for all, free schooling from pre-school through college, the forgiving of college student loans, decent affordable housing with a halt to all foreclosures and evictions, accessible and affordable utilities and "fair" taxation. Quite a change from JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
Ocasio-Cortez's plan, introduced in the House and Senate, is actually a non-binding resolution providing that the Federal Government has a "duty" to create a Green New Deal (GND). The GND includes "a 10-year commitment to convert '100 percent of the power demand in the United States' to 'clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources,' to upgrade 'all existing buildings' to meet energy efficiency requirements, and to expand high speed rail so broadly that most air travel would be rendered obsolete." (As reported on page 1 of the 2/8/10 New York Times.) Air travel become obsolete?
In case you are wondering how the Left proposes to pay for all their new ideas, there is a plan for that. Sort of. The Federal Reserve can extend credit, as can new public banks. "Extend credit" sounds like forcing people into debt, poverty and bankruptcy in order to pay for everything. I recall an interview given by Ocasio-Cortez a while ago wherein she explained how she would pay for her Medicare for all plan: "You just pay for it." Yet another example of how the Left is clueless about wealth creation or monetary policy. They certainly do understand fiscal policy - tax and spend, tax and spend, and tax and spend some more.
Of course, Senator Warren has her own plan - a new "wealth tax." Households with a net worth of $50 million would pay a 2% "tax" on their wealth, with those having $1 billion or more paying 3%. The truth is this is not a "tax" at all. It is government confiscation of people's money. There is no economic activity or transaction involved, which might justify a tax. It is merely having accumulated "too much" in the eyes of the Left. It is one of the reasons that this blog opposed Obamacare - it placed a "tax" on inactivity - a failure to buy health insurance. This idea of taking away people's wealth reminds me of a scene (often discussed by a friend) in the movie Dr. Zhivago. After Dr. Zhivago goes off to treat the revolutionary Bolsheviks in their fight against the Czar's army, he returns home to find that his large family home is no longer his. Rather, with Lenin in power, the home has been converted to multiple dwellings for "the people," with the Party now owning the property.
Of course, no left-wing plan is complete without acknowledging the oppressed, victim class. Ocasio-Cortez's plan refers to the need to "stop, prevent and repair the historic oppression of"...fill in the blank. "Indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low income workers, women, elderly, unhoused, people with disabilities and youth." Pandering to identity politics is a tactic that the Left sees as the path towards electoral success - never mind that it divides people into groups, rather than unifying us all as Americans.
Yesterday, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren formally announced her candidacy for the office of President of the United States. Her speech could just as easily have been given by openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. And, reminiscent of Obama's desire to bring "fundamental change" to our country, Warren said: "Our fight is for big structural change." I am always surprised at how people cheer for fundamentally or structurally changing the wealthiest, freest country in history. As Warren told us, just tinkering with fixes is not enough. No, we need a complete overhaul of this great country.
Following up on the need for structural change, Warren told us that "over the years America's middle class has been deliberately hollowed out and families of color have been systematically discriminated against and denied their chance to build some security." Why would the wealthy seek to "deliberately hollow out" the middle class - the backbone of the country, the people who buy the goods and services - produced by the wealthy? Recall that Henry Ford knew he had to pay his employees enough so that they would be able to purchase his cars. And while there certainly was a history of systematic discrimination against blacks, Warren, like others on the Left, talks as if nothing has changed. After all, the key to getting their votes is to ensure that blacks always feel they are victims.
Warren told us that our country is based on "a rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else." Warren then told the cheering crowd how, from her humble beginnings as the daughter of a janitor, and then going to a local community college, she was able to become a teacher, a law school professor, a United States Senator and now a candidate for President of the United States. In watching her and her supporters, it seemed that none of them appreciated the irony in the contrast between a "rigged system," and anyone, notwithstanding their humble background, being able to achieve great success if they work hard enough.
Warren told us that she wants to put workers in corporate boardrooms. And, noting that the US is the wealthiest country, says: "I am tired of hearing that we can't afford to make real investments in child care, college and Medicare for all." On the one hand, one could argue that this is nothing more than the longstanding "guns or butter" argument in politics. On the other hand, it appears that people such as Warren, and others on the Left, have no clue as to how and why the United States became the wealthiest country in history. Hint - it was not because of socialism.
Warren, along with other likely Democratic candidates for President such as Cory Booker (NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Kamala Harris (CA) and Bernie Sanders (VT) all support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal." There are various Green New Deals that one can find online. The one proposed by the Green Party is essentially a call for communism. It would create a federal employment program, creating 25 million federally funded jobs. It would create publicly owned, non-profit banks at all levels of government. Obama had, before his candidacy, complained that the Bill of Rights only protected people from government action, it did not say what government must do for people. The Green Party's plan rectifies that by calling for a right to: a living wage, quality health care with single payer Medicare for all, free schooling from pre-school through college, the forgiving of college student loans, decent affordable housing with a halt to all foreclosures and evictions, accessible and affordable utilities and "fair" taxation. Quite a change from JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
Ocasio-Cortez's plan, introduced in the House and Senate, is actually a non-binding resolution providing that the Federal Government has a "duty" to create a Green New Deal (GND). The GND includes "a 10-year commitment to convert '100 percent of the power demand in the United States' to 'clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources,' to upgrade 'all existing buildings' to meet energy efficiency requirements, and to expand high speed rail so broadly that most air travel would be rendered obsolete." (As reported on page 1 of the 2/8/10 New York Times.) Air travel become obsolete?
In case you are wondering how the Left proposes to pay for all their new ideas, there is a plan for that. Sort of. The Federal Reserve can extend credit, as can new public banks. "Extend credit" sounds like forcing people into debt, poverty and bankruptcy in order to pay for everything. I recall an interview given by Ocasio-Cortez a while ago wherein she explained how she would pay for her Medicare for all plan: "You just pay for it." Yet another example of how the Left is clueless about wealth creation or monetary policy. They certainly do understand fiscal policy - tax and spend, tax and spend, and tax and spend some more.
Of course, Senator Warren has her own plan - a new "wealth tax." Households with a net worth of $50 million would pay a 2% "tax" on their wealth, with those having $1 billion or more paying 3%. The truth is this is not a "tax" at all. It is government confiscation of people's money. There is no economic activity or transaction involved, which might justify a tax. It is merely having accumulated "too much" in the eyes of the Left. It is one of the reasons that this blog opposed Obamacare - it placed a "tax" on inactivity - a failure to buy health insurance. This idea of taking away people's wealth reminds me of a scene (often discussed by a friend) in the movie Dr. Zhivago. After Dr. Zhivago goes off to treat the revolutionary Bolsheviks in their fight against the Czar's army, he returns home to find that his large family home is no longer his. Rather, with Lenin in power, the home has been converted to multiple dwellings for "the people," with the Party now owning the property.
Of course, no left-wing plan is complete without acknowledging the oppressed, victim class. Ocasio-Cortez's plan refers to the need to "stop, prevent and repair the historic oppression of"...fill in the blank. "Indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low income workers, women, elderly, unhoused, people with disabilities and youth." Pandering to identity politics is a tactic that the Left sees as the path towards electoral success - never mind that it divides people into groups, rather than unifying us all as Americans.
Sunday, February 3, 2019
New Year Reflections, Part II
Claim: President Trump has alienated our allies and seeks to undermine NATO. Here's the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg: "President Trump has been very clear. He is committed to NATO...he has clearly stated that NATO allies need to invest more...and now we see the results..by the end of next year, NATO allies will add...100 billion extra US dollars toward defense. So we see some real money and some real results. And we see that the clear message from President Donald Trump is having an impact." Clearly a result that will not please Putin.
Trump has announced his intention to have the US withdraw from a Nuclear Arms Control Treaty dealing with intermediate range missiles. Russia has been in violation of the treaty for years. China has not been bound by the treaty. The result has been the US is needlessly falling behind the two major powers whose interests are opposed to ours. Said Nancy Pelosi: "Russia's brazen noncompliance with this treaty is deeply concerning, but discarding a key pillar of our nonproliferation security framework creates unacceptable risks." More evidence of Russian collusion by Trump? Hardly. But it is evidence of the dream world in which the left operates. Pelosi opines that the treaty is a key pillar of our security - notwithstanding Russia's "brazen noncompliance." Pelosi wants the US to comply with a treaty that de facto does not even exist anymore.
In South Carolina, a man called the police after someone broke into his home and assaulted him. The perpetrator did not get away with any of the man's possessions or valuables. The police did, however. You see, the police found, and confiscated, one ounce of marijuana in his home, along with $1800 in cash. They charged the man with intent to distribute. The charges were dropped, but the police kept the money anyway under civil forfeiture laws; with many police departments using forfeiture as a fund raising mechanism for their departments. The man could not pay his rent, and the reporting on it said he was forced out. These civil forfeiture laws have no place in the United States of America.
One of the top Democrats negotiating with the Republicans over immigration, has declared that there will be no border wall. Of course, Speaker Pelosi has frequently said that, even declaring a wall to be "immoral." But this Democrat has indicated that they may agree to "some sort of enhanced barrier." I do not know what that might be. The current chief of the US Border Patrol said: "We certainly do need a wall. Talk to any border agent and they will tell you that." But don't just take his word for it. Here's Obama's chief of the Border Patrol: walls "absolutely work."
I'm a little confused about Virginia Governor Northam's comments about a photo in his 1984 medical school yearbook. The photo shows one person in blackface standing next to someone wearing a KKK hood. The Governor first admitted he was in the photo, but the next day denied that he was in the photo. Here's my question - what was such a photo doing in any yearbook in the year 1984?
The lead editorial in the 2/3/19 Los Angeles Times is titled "Trump's border 'emergency.'" The Times is concerned about Trump acting to build a border wall without Congressional authorization. I get it - separation of powers, three branches of government. But you may recall this from Obama: "We're not just going to be waiting for legislation...I've got a pen and I've got a phone...and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions." And this from Obama: "We can't wait for Congress to do its job, so where they won't act, I will."
One letter writer to the USA Today does not want to see another millionaire (I think he meant billionaire) in the White House. "It does not work, they do not understand or care about middle America." Really? After Trump cut taxes and regulations, we have seen record low unemployment numbers for many groups. We saw Trump renegotiating NAFTA in order to help keep jobs here. We see Trump pushing for better border security, which keeps people from coming here illegally and taking jobs from Americans. But the writer just repeats the left-wing mantra that Trump is an uncaring billionaire, who just cars about his wealthy friends.
The 2/3/19 New York Times had a lengthy article on page 6 titled "As Attacks by Jewish Settlers Surge, Israel Stays Silent." The article talks about increasing attacks by Jews against Palestinians in the West Bank. After noting recent Palestinian attacks on Jews, the Times does reference an "expert" saying "violence is endemic around settlements deep in the West Bank, and Jewish attacks often follow Palestinian ones." The gist of the article is that Israel is not being aggressive enough in prosecuting criminal attacks on Palestinians, hypothesizing that Netanyahu does not wish to upset the right wing with an election coming up soon. Let me be clear - attacks by either side on unarmed civilians are unacceptable, and should be punished accordingly. However, not surprisingly to this writer, the Times neglects to say what the Palestinians do about their criminals (terrorists) who kill innocent Jews. They reward them. They are idolized, with schools and parks named after Palestinians who kill Jews. The PA provides financial support to the families of those who are killed in the process of attacking Jews. It would have been nice if the Times had provided that balance to their story.
Finally, we now hear from the left that the MAGA hats are threatening. One guest on CNN said the hats are "just as maddening and frustrating and triggering for me to look at it as a KKK hood." Alyssa Milano also referred to the MAGA hats as the new white hood. To say that the left makes outrageous comparisons about what "offends" them is an understatement. The implication is that if you "support" Trump then you are a racist. If this sounds familiar, just think of Hillary's "basket of deplorables." The left's argument does not change.
Trump has announced his intention to have the US withdraw from a Nuclear Arms Control Treaty dealing with intermediate range missiles. Russia has been in violation of the treaty for years. China has not been bound by the treaty. The result has been the US is needlessly falling behind the two major powers whose interests are opposed to ours. Said Nancy Pelosi: "Russia's brazen noncompliance with this treaty is deeply concerning, but discarding a key pillar of our nonproliferation security framework creates unacceptable risks." More evidence of Russian collusion by Trump? Hardly. But it is evidence of the dream world in which the left operates. Pelosi opines that the treaty is a key pillar of our security - notwithstanding Russia's "brazen noncompliance." Pelosi wants the US to comply with a treaty that de facto does not even exist anymore.
In South Carolina, a man called the police after someone broke into his home and assaulted him. The perpetrator did not get away with any of the man's possessions or valuables. The police did, however. You see, the police found, and confiscated, one ounce of marijuana in his home, along with $1800 in cash. They charged the man with intent to distribute. The charges were dropped, but the police kept the money anyway under civil forfeiture laws; with many police departments using forfeiture as a fund raising mechanism for their departments. The man could not pay his rent, and the reporting on it said he was forced out. These civil forfeiture laws have no place in the United States of America.
One of the top Democrats negotiating with the Republicans over immigration, has declared that there will be no border wall. Of course, Speaker Pelosi has frequently said that, even declaring a wall to be "immoral." But this Democrat has indicated that they may agree to "some sort of enhanced barrier." I do not know what that might be. The current chief of the US Border Patrol said: "We certainly do need a wall. Talk to any border agent and they will tell you that." But don't just take his word for it. Here's Obama's chief of the Border Patrol: walls "absolutely work."
I'm a little confused about Virginia Governor Northam's comments about a photo in his 1984 medical school yearbook. The photo shows one person in blackface standing next to someone wearing a KKK hood. The Governor first admitted he was in the photo, but the next day denied that he was in the photo. Here's my question - what was such a photo doing in any yearbook in the year 1984?
The lead editorial in the 2/3/19 Los Angeles Times is titled "Trump's border 'emergency.'" The Times is concerned about Trump acting to build a border wall without Congressional authorization. I get it - separation of powers, three branches of government. But you may recall this from Obama: "We're not just going to be waiting for legislation...I've got a pen and I've got a phone...and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions." And this from Obama: "We can't wait for Congress to do its job, so where they won't act, I will."
One letter writer to the USA Today does not want to see another millionaire (I think he meant billionaire) in the White House. "It does not work, they do not understand or care about middle America." Really? After Trump cut taxes and regulations, we have seen record low unemployment numbers for many groups. We saw Trump renegotiating NAFTA in order to help keep jobs here. We see Trump pushing for better border security, which keeps people from coming here illegally and taking jobs from Americans. But the writer just repeats the left-wing mantra that Trump is an uncaring billionaire, who just cars about his wealthy friends.
The 2/3/19 New York Times had a lengthy article on page 6 titled "As Attacks by Jewish Settlers Surge, Israel Stays Silent." The article talks about increasing attacks by Jews against Palestinians in the West Bank. After noting recent Palestinian attacks on Jews, the Times does reference an "expert" saying "violence is endemic around settlements deep in the West Bank, and Jewish attacks often follow Palestinian ones." The gist of the article is that Israel is not being aggressive enough in prosecuting criminal attacks on Palestinians, hypothesizing that Netanyahu does not wish to upset the right wing with an election coming up soon. Let me be clear - attacks by either side on unarmed civilians are unacceptable, and should be punished accordingly. However, not surprisingly to this writer, the Times neglects to say what the Palestinians do about their criminals (terrorists) who kill innocent Jews. They reward them. They are idolized, with schools and parks named after Palestinians who kill Jews. The PA provides financial support to the families of those who are killed in the process of attacking Jews. It would have been nice if the Times had provided that balance to their story.
Finally, we now hear from the left that the MAGA hats are threatening. One guest on CNN said the hats are "just as maddening and frustrating and triggering for me to look at it as a KKK hood." Alyssa Milano also referred to the MAGA hats as the new white hood. To say that the left makes outrageous comparisons about what "offends" them is an understatement. The implication is that if you "support" Trump then you are a racist. If this sounds familiar, just think of Hillary's "basket of deplorables." The left's argument does not change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)