Hate. There appears to be no limit to the hate directed by those on the Left towards Trump, anyone who has worked for him, and anyone who supported him or voted for him. I have discussed my own personal dealings with hate from the Left in some prior posts. The Left detests conservatives with a level of venom not seen since...? They allow for no disagreement with them and their policies.
Debra Messing is unhappy with the decision of the US Army to set aside 976 million dollars for some border walls in New Mexico and Arizona. As is typical of the Left, her argument consists of name calling, saying the Army is "disgusting and irresponsible." But she's just an actress, or so some will assert. The Boston Globe had an Op-Ed by a Luke O'Neil. He wrote of Kirstjen Nielsen, former DHS Secretary, let's "keep (her) unemployed and eating Grubhub over her kitchen sink," after accusing her of "ethnic cleansing." He also wrote that, as a former waiter, "one of my biggest regrets of my life is not pissing in Bill Kristol's salmon." That was even too much for the Globe as that sentence was later deleted. Clearly, the Left has no limit on their malicious hatred for those with whom they disagree.
Then, being the clever fellow that he is, O'Neil gives his permission to tell off Trump officials by telling them "where to go, what they can do with themselves when they arrive there, but, you know, said in a more specific and traditional Boston colloquialism." But, some will say, that's just one Op-Ed writer in one paper. So, let's turn to the self-described "paper of record," The New York Times. Michelle Goldberg is a regular opinion writer for the premier paper in the country - impossible to just to write her off with some excuse or another. Goldberg, in referring to Kirstjen Nielsen, wrote in her 4/9/19 column: "...she (Nielsen) should be a pariah for going as far as she did." A pariah - an outcast, a persona non grata, an undesirable.
Goldberg then cites with favor a petition by the Left-wing group Restore Public Trust. The petition seeks to have corporate America "blacklist" senior people in the Trump Administration for separating children at the border. They want companies to know that there is a "significant reputational risk for those involved" in hiring former Trump Administration officials. Goldberg: "How much of a risk will depend on decent Trump-hating Americans." There you have it. A regular columnist in the "paper of record" tells us that decent Americans hate Trump. The logical inference, of course, is that if you do not hate Trump you are indecent. Everyone needs to understand that Michelle Goldberg and The New York Times just told every conservative, every Trump voter, that they are worthless scum.
Propaganda. I can pick out the lies and the often subtle propaganda in any day's mainstream paper. Just pick the paper. Here's the March 18, 2019 Los Angeles Times lead story on the top right of the front page: "PUSH TO DEFEND TRUMP AFTER ATTACK," referring to the New Zealand mosque shooting. The subheadline reads: "Top aide denies the president is a white supremacist, despite praise from suspect in New Zealand killings." What? Some evil shooter, filled with hate, made a positive comment about Trump, and now Trump has to defend himself? When a Bernie supporter shot Congressman Steve Scalise and other Republicans at a baseball practice, was Sanders asked by the media to apologize? Was Sanders asked to deny his association with someone who worked for his campaign? Of course not! My friends on the Left do not even notice this subtle propaganda - linking Trump to the New Zealand shooter based on nothing other than their hatred of Trump.
Lies. And propaganda. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar was at it again. Speaking to CAIR, Omar said this: "Here's the truth. For far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen and, frankly, I'm tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it...CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties." Hogwash! The truth is that Jews are still overwhelmingly the target of most religious hate crimes. And what has Omar done? She has stoked hatred of Jews and Israel with her non-stop anti-Semitic comments. "Some people did something" to describe the murder of nearly 3000 people on 9/11? Disgusting! Those on the Left who came to her defense argued that "some people" was meant to distinguish the terrorists from most law-abiding Muslims. So what was "did something" distinguishing between - the murder of 3000 people and a walk in the park? What nonsense!
Here is what Omar is doing. She is stirring up hatred of Jews and Israel, while riling up the Muslim population in an effort to get them to resent the United States - the country which gave her and her family asylum. Make no mistake, Omar knows exactly what she is doing. But those on the Left are easily misled by the occasional nice words she says. The Democratic leaders are either blind to it, or willfully ignore the evil that Omar spouts. Pelosi, Warren and Sanders have all come to her defense. The Democrats have such hatred for Trump that they cannot see the true divisiveness of Ilhan Omar; only Trump is divisive in their eyes. Sanders, a Jew, said this: "Ilhan Omar is a leader with strength and courage." The Democratic party has clearly lost its way.
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Sunday, April 7, 2019
The Left Has No Principles
What I mean by that title is that the Left is purely agenda driven, with no underlying principles that motivate them. Last Spring, Rider University in New Jersey had the students vote on a new eatery for the campus. Chick-fil-A won. But come the fall, the school administration vetoed the students' decision and called for a new vote - this time without Chick-fil-A being one of the permissible choices. The reason? The company's perceived "opposition to the LGBTQ+ community." There was no claim of discrimination in hiring or service. While Rider is a private institution, it does receive public funding.
Recently, the San Antonio City Council voted to bar Chick-fil-A from the City's International airport. Said one council member: "San Antonio is a city full of compassion. We do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior." What behavior? This movement against Chick-fil-A began when the owner expressed his personal belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. The company has also donated money to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which also defines marriage as one man and one woman.
The Buffalo Niagara International Airport will also not be hosting a Chick-fil-A. It seems that the company that provides the concession stands at the airport rejected Chick-fil-A's presence after a State Assembly Member said that the company's mere existence at the airport would "help spread hate and discrimination," and opposed the company making money which would be used to "fund continued divisive anti-LGBTQ rhetoric."
In my 8/2/12 post ("Why I Am No Longer a Democrat") I discussed how the Democratic Mayor's of Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and Washington, D.C. all opposed the presence of new Chick-fil-A outlets. In my 5/8/16 post ("The Undoing of America") I discussed the similar anti-Chick-fil-A sentiment expressed by the New York City Mayor.
According to one site, Chick-fil-A has over 2200 restaurants and has over 23,000 employees. The founder of the company decided that the stores would be closed on Sundays in order to allow himself and his employees to "set aside one day to rest and worship if they choose." Thankfully, the Attorney General of Texas will be investigating whether the decision by San Antonio "violated Chick-fil-A's religious liberty." And, I would add, the owner's First Amendment speech rights. The AG is also asking the Feds to investigate. Good for him!
Frankly, I am outraged by the decisions of the Rider administrators and these airports. I am outraged by these big city mayors. And I am outraged that even public officials do not see the damage they are doing to our freedoms. No, the Left will tell you that Trump is destroying our democracy. But the Left does not see it. They do not see the underlying principle of protecting the First Amendment rights of speech and the free exercise of religion. Rather, because their agenda is "gay rights" that takes precedence over fundamental principles. I have no problem with supporting the LGBTQ community. I do have a problem when that support supersedes basic rights. Let's be honest - gay marriage is here, it is legal, and it is not going away. But, apparently, the First Amendment is going away.
But now that I know that it is permissible to have a political litmus test for the right to do business, I propose that all conservatives unite for the following. When we walk into a restaurant that has CNN or MSNBC on their TVs, we should insist that they switch to Fox News. If they refuse, we should explain that we are leaving and will not return until they either put on Fox an equal amount of time or just put on sports and no news stations. Better yet, we should ask any and all small business owners if they voted for Clinton or Trump; and research big businesses to see if they donate politically, and if so, do they at least give equal sums to conservative and Republican groups as they do to Left and Democratic groups.
The Chick-fil-A saga is not the only example of the Left's lack of principles. There are many such examples. We regularly see conservative speakers denied a forum on college campuses because the First Amendment does not protect speech at the universities. It's not part of the Left's agenda. Similarly, we hear from conservatives in Hollywood that they are afraid to be public about their beliefs in the same way that the Leftists are able to. Conservatives fear being blacklisted for their beliefs. Imagine that - the Hollywood crowd which experienced the wrath of Joseph McCarthy - now uses the same tactics against the conservatives in their midst. Of course, if those Leftists in Hollywood had any principles, they would know better.
Welcome to the Left's America.
Recently, the San Antonio City Council voted to bar Chick-fil-A from the City's International airport. Said one council member: "San Antonio is a city full of compassion. We do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior." What behavior? This movement against Chick-fil-A began when the owner expressed his personal belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. The company has also donated money to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which also defines marriage as one man and one woman.
The Buffalo Niagara International Airport will also not be hosting a Chick-fil-A. It seems that the company that provides the concession stands at the airport rejected Chick-fil-A's presence after a State Assembly Member said that the company's mere existence at the airport would "help spread hate and discrimination," and opposed the company making money which would be used to "fund continued divisive anti-LGBTQ rhetoric."
In my 8/2/12 post ("Why I Am No Longer a Democrat") I discussed how the Democratic Mayor's of Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and Washington, D.C. all opposed the presence of new Chick-fil-A outlets. In my 5/8/16 post ("The Undoing of America") I discussed the similar anti-Chick-fil-A sentiment expressed by the New York City Mayor.
According to one site, Chick-fil-A has over 2200 restaurants and has over 23,000 employees. The founder of the company decided that the stores would be closed on Sundays in order to allow himself and his employees to "set aside one day to rest and worship if they choose." Thankfully, the Attorney General of Texas will be investigating whether the decision by San Antonio "violated Chick-fil-A's religious liberty." And, I would add, the owner's First Amendment speech rights. The AG is also asking the Feds to investigate. Good for him!
Frankly, I am outraged by the decisions of the Rider administrators and these airports. I am outraged by these big city mayors. And I am outraged that even public officials do not see the damage they are doing to our freedoms. No, the Left will tell you that Trump is destroying our democracy. But the Left does not see it. They do not see the underlying principle of protecting the First Amendment rights of speech and the free exercise of religion. Rather, because their agenda is "gay rights" that takes precedence over fundamental principles. I have no problem with supporting the LGBTQ community. I do have a problem when that support supersedes basic rights. Let's be honest - gay marriage is here, it is legal, and it is not going away. But, apparently, the First Amendment is going away.
But now that I know that it is permissible to have a political litmus test for the right to do business, I propose that all conservatives unite for the following. When we walk into a restaurant that has CNN or MSNBC on their TVs, we should insist that they switch to Fox News. If they refuse, we should explain that we are leaving and will not return until they either put on Fox an equal amount of time or just put on sports and no news stations. Better yet, we should ask any and all small business owners if they voted for Clinton or Trump; and research big businesses to see if they donate politically, and if so, do they at least give equal sums to conservative and Republican groups as they do to Left and Democratic groups.
The Chick-fil-A saga is not the only example of the Left's lack of principles. There are many such examples. We regularly see conservative speakers denied a forum on college campuses because the First Amendment does not protect speech at the universities. It's not part of the Left's agenda. Similarly, we hear from conservatives in Hollywood that they are afraid to be public about their beliefs in the same way that the Leftists are able to. Conservatives fear being blacklisted for their beliefs. Imagine that - the Hollywood crowd which experienced the wrath of Joseph McCarthy - now uses the same tactics against the conservatives in their midst. Of course, if those Leftists in Hollywood had any principles, they would know better.
Welcome to the Left's America.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
Who Are the Liars Now?
Russian collusion. In light of the findings of the Mueller report, those liars would be so many elected Democratic officials, along with their buddies in the mainstream media (MSM) who repeatedly asserted as fact that there was clear evidence of collusion with Russia. According to Attorney General Barr's summary of the Mueller report, "the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA (a Russian organization by the name of the Internet Research Agency) in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities."
As for the computer hacking of the DNC and Clinton computers, "the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."
Obstruction of justice. Oddly, Mueller refused to make a decision on this. Alan Dershowitz opined that it was a cop-out, that Mueller's job was to either say there is a basis for indictment or there is not. My thinking is, if Mueller thought there was evidence of obstruction he would have said so. Then, he could have left it to the AG to decide if a sitting President may be indicted. In any event, both the AG Barr and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, in consultation with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel, concluded "that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense." That should prevent any US Attorney from pursuing such charges, as their boss just said there is no basis for it.
The 3/24/19 New York Times front page headline, anticipating a report favorable to Trump, reads: "With Mueller's Report In, Interest Turns to New York." Whose interest? The MSM's continued hope that something - anything - can be pinned on Donald Trump. Maybe he cheated on a test in Middle School. The MSM will be salivating the next two years over the various additional investigations - state, federal and congressional. Why would anyone believe their prognostications now, after two years of lies.
The Los Angeles Times got their editorial up online rather quickly. Not surprisingly, they disagreed with Barr and Rosenstein saying there was insufficient evidence to prove obstruction of justice. However, with Mueller deferring on the issue, it was left to Barr. When Comey cleared Clinton, saying no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against her, he had no authority to do so. That was, in fact, up to the AG at the time, Loretta Lynch. But that was okay. The real point of the editorial, however, was this last sentence: "There is a long list of reasons why we think Trump is unfit for the presidency and dangerous for the country. The only thing we learned from Barr's summary is that colluding with Russia is no longer on it." The only thing? That was supposed to be the whole thing! Nice pivoting.
The MSM has actually not learned anything. They told us Hillary was a shoo-in to defeat Trump in 2016. But Trump did win. Can't be - must have been the Russians. So we heard non-stop about Russian collusion from the MSM for the last two years. Except, now we know there was no Russian collusion. No, the MSM has learned nothing. What we, the people, have learned from them is that they hate Trump, they hate his family, they hate anyone who works for Trump or voted for him, and they will never accept that Trump won in 2016. Instead, they will continue to feed us lies for the next two years, so brace yourselves.
As for the computer hacking of the DNC and Clinton computers, "the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."
Obstruction of justice. Oddly, Mueller refused to make a decision on this. Alan Dershowitz opined that it was a cop-out, that Mueller's job was to either say there is a basis for indictment or there is not. My thinking is, if Mueller thought there was evidence of obstruction he would have said so. Then, he could have left it to the AG to decide if a sitting President may be indicted. In any event, both the AG Barr and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, in consultation with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel, concluded "that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense." That should prevent any US Attorney from pursuing such charges, as their boss just said there is no basis for it.
The 3/24/19 New York Times front page headline, anticipating a report favorable to Trump, reads: "With Mueller's Report In, Interest Turns to New York." Whose interest? The MSM's continued hope that something - anything - can be pinned on Donald Trump. Maybe he cheated on a test in Middle School. The MSM will be salivating the next two years over the various additional investigations - state, federal and congressional. Why would anyone believe their prognostications now, after two years of lies.
The Los Angeles Times got their editorial up online rather quickly. Not surprisingly, they disagreed with Barr and Rosenstein saying there was insufficient evidence to prove obstruction of justice. However, with Mueller deferring on the issue, it was left to Barr. When Comey cleared Clinton, saying no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against her, he had no authority to do so. That was, in fact, up to the AG at the time, Loretta Lynch. But that was okay. The real point of the editorial, however, was this last sentence: "There is a long list of reasons why we think Trump is unfit for the presidency and dangerous for the country. The only thing we learned from Barr's summary is that colluding with Russia is no longer on it." The only thing? That was supposed to be the whole thing! Nice pivoting.
The MSM has actually not learned anything. They told us Hillary was a shoo-in to defeat Trump in 2016. But Trump did win. Can't be - must have been the Russians. So we heard non-stop about Russian collusion from the MSM for the last two years. Except, now we know there was no Russian collusion. No, the MSM has learned nothing. What we, the people, have learned from them is that they hate Trump, they hate his family, they hate anyone who works for Trump or voted for him, and they will never accept that Trump won in 2016. Instead, they will continue to feed us lies for the next two years, so brace yourselves.
Sunday, March 17, 2019
The College Admissions Scandal
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.
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 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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)