Let's be honest. California Governor Gavin Newsom never really cared much about the law. After all, when he was Mayor of San Francisco, he ordered the city to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, even though state law at the time declared marriage to be between a man and a woman. Newsom's disregard for the law ended when the state Supreme Court put an end to it. Therefore, I suppose we should not be surprised at Newsom's attempted end run around the US Constitution. Newsom signed into law a bill that prevented any presidential candidate from getting on the ballot in California's primary election (now in March, 2020) unless the candidate disclosed the last five years of their tax returns by November 26, 2019. Obviously, the super-majority Democrat legislature and Democrat Newsom were targeting President Trump, who has not released his tax returns.
The US Constitution sets out three requirements for eligibility to be president - a natural born citizen, 35 years of age and 14 years a resident in the United States. In vetoing similar legislation, prior Democrat Governor Jerry Brown opined that such a law may be unconstitutional. Then he added: "Second, it sets a 'slippery slope' precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?" To which I would add, the requirements would likely vary from state to state, with each state determining the requirements to be president. This law, intended to deny Trump access to California's delegates to the Republican Party convention, is clearly unconstitutional.
Yet, the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, wrote an Op-Ed in the 8/1/19 LA Times explaining why he thought the law was Constitutional. First, he discusses why the voting public might be interested in a candidate's tax returns. No doubt many would. But, as Jerry Brown explained, there are many things the public might want to know about a presidential candidate. Then, Chemerinsky acknowledges that most cases dealing with the issue have addressed access to the ballot for state and local elections. He then asserts that the "constitutional principles are the same" for the office of President. That is a rather odd conclusion. Clearly, states can set forth their own requirements for eligibility for state and local offices, assuming they do not discriminate on the basis of wealth or political party affiliation. Judicial Watch and several individuals have already filed suit to block this law. I am confident that this law will be struck down by the Courts.
It is also generally not a good idea to so obviously target a specific individual - Trump. When Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution limiting a President to two terms after FDR's election four times, they put a provision in the Amendment specifically excluding the person holding the office of President when the Article was proposed. That person was Harry Truman. California could have made their law effective after the 2020 election. But, as they were targeting Trump, that would not do. Whether or not Newsom seriously expects the law to survive a court challenge, it is clear that this is his announcement that he will be running for president in 2024.
California also has a bill proposing that a class in "ethnic studies" be required for high school graduation. The devil, as they say, is in the details; and in this case the details are made up of a bunch of left-wing propaganda. In their 8/4/19 editorial, even the LA Times recognized that the current draft proposal "is an impenetrable melange of academic jargon and politically correct pronouncements. It's hard to wade through all the references to hxrstory and womxn and misogynoir and cisheteropatriarchy." Whew! The Wall Street Journal had a 7/30/19 Op-Ed telling us that the course defines itself as "the interdisciplinary study of race, ethnicity, and indigeneity with an emphasis on experiences of people of color in the United States."
Most Jewish groups opposed the model curriculum as being anti-Jewish. After all, the course would include discussions of "Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, dehumanization, microaggression and the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement..." (As noted in the Jewish Journal of LA.) Curiously, there is no mention of anti-Semitism, nor, apparently of Judaism. One might think this odd as anti-Semitism is growing, and we are not terribly far removed from the shooting at the synagogue in Poway, California.
Capitalism is not looked on too fondly. Rather, capitalism fares no better than racism, white supremacy, patriarchy and ableism - all of which are described as a "form of power and oppression." Students would then be encouraged to be "agents of change, social justice organizers and advocates." So, first brainwash the students with leftist ideology, and then send them out into the world to become agents of "change."
After much protest by Jewish groups and others, the state Board of Education announced that they would "substantially redesign" the course program. But so what? I already know enough that I would never send my kids to public school today if they were young. After all, how does such a curriculum even get proposed? Instead of "Ethnic Studies," the redesigned class should be called "We Will teach You to Hate America, Hate Capitalism, Hate Jews and Israel, and Of Course, Hate White People."
Sunday, August 18, 2019
Trump and Netanyahu and Omar and Tlaib
It did not begin with Trump's Tweet: "It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds." It began earlier this month when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer accompanied 40 other Democratic members of Congress to Israel. These Congress members were able to meet with Netanyahu, opposition leader Benny Gantz, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. That trip was sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation, which is an affiliate of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), a pro-Israel lobbying group. As AIPAC seeks bipartisan support in Congress for Israel, and as they believe in a two-state solution, there was neither a desire nor attempt to prevent the Congress members from meeting with Palestinians. Nevertheless, left-wing groups pressured these Democrats not to go.
Notably absent from that trip were Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar. Rather, they planned their own trip to "Palestine." Not surprisingly, Israel was not on their itinerary. Their trip was sponsored by Miftah, a Palestinian NGO that not only supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel, but has also praised Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers that blow up innocent Jews. The two had not planned to meet with any Israeli leaders, not even Arab members of the Knesset, Israel's parliament. Omar disputes that, although their itinerary does not show any such meetings.
We know that Rashid, a Palestinian-American, does not believe that Israel has a right to exist, and certainly not as a Jewish state. She has frequently stated her desire to see a one-state solution, and in various ways has made it clear that the one state would be Palestine. In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Tlaib was given an opportunity to recognize Israel's right to exist. Tapper: "Do you think the Jewish people have the right to a state in the area where Israel exists now?" Tlaib: "Look, I truly believe the State of Israel exists, correct..." What? It is easy to say she believes Israel exists as it does exist. She did not acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist. She continued: "...but understand, does it (Israel) exist in the detriment of inequality for the Palestinian people." Hence, her belief in a one-state solution called Palestine.
Last month, Israeli Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, said the two extremist members of Congress would be allowed to go on their trip "out of respect for the US Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America." In 2017, Israel enacted a law that allows the government to deny entry to those who wish to harm the country, such as through boycotts. But no doubt that Trump's Tweet put Israeli PM Netanyahu in the awkward position of being in the middle of Trump and two members of the "Squad."
After Tlaib complained that this trip might be her last chance to see her 90 year-old grandmother, and after Tlaib agreed not to pursue BDS attacks on Israel while there, Israel relented. But shortly thereafter Tlaib decided against the trip, complaining of the "oppressive" conditions set out by Israel, and because it would "break my grandmother's heart." If I were a betting man, I would bet on Tlaib having been pressured by the Palestinians to not agree to Israel's terms. Israel's Interior Minister, Aryeh Deri, then said this: "I approved her request as a gesture of goodwill on a humanitarian basis, but it was just a provocative request, aimed at bashing the State of Israel. Apparently her hate for Israel overcomes her love for her grandmother." Which brings to mind a saying often attributed to Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister from March, 1969 to June, 1974. "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." Nothing much has changed in that regard since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, and even earlier.
There are at least two issues here. One, was it proper for the President of the United States to suggest to a foreign country that two duly elected members of Congress not be allowed entry? It always helps to imagine a slightly different scenario. Imagine that these two Congress members were anti-Semitic white nationalists who claimed Israel controlled the world. Or, what if the two Congress members were Jewish extremists who argued for the extermination of the Arabs. Sooner or later, you will find a scenario where an increasing number of people agree that the President was right to call for a ban on such people - members of Congress or not - visiting Israel.
Of course, the second issue is whether or not Israel should have caved (likely they did) to the President's Tweet. Certainly, Israel is not the first country to bar an elected official from entering. Just one example: Dutch Parliament member Geert Wilders was barred from entering the UK. Wilders has been outspoken in his concern over the "Islamization" of The Netherlands. But the British Home Office labeled Wilders an "undesirable person," adding "the Government opposes extremism in all its forms." Just one example of a democratic country denying entry to an elected official they deemed to be an extremist. Are Rashid and Omar extremists? No doubt. But Israel had to anticipate the significant blow back that they are now getting from the Democrats in Congress. All appropriation measures originate in the House. Israel is a recipient of US foreign aid. It is also true that Israel is a great ally to the US - technologically, in terms of providing intelligence on the Middle East and in other ways.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media has condemned Israel for their decision. I could make the argument either way, but my preference was that Israel allow the visit. Now, these two Israel-haters are likely to get increasing support within their party.
Notably absent from that trip were Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar. Rather, they planned their own trip to "Palestine." Not surprisingly, Israel was not on their itinerary. Their trip was sponsored by Miftah, a Palestinian NGO that not only supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel, but has also praised Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers that blow up innocent Jews. The two had not planned to meet with any Israeli leaders, not even Arab members of the Knesset, Israel's parliament. Omar disputes that, although their itinerary does not show any such meetings.
We know that Rashid, a Palestinian-American, does not believe that Israel has a right to exist, and certainly not as a Jewish state. She has frequently stated her desire to see a one-state solution, and in various ways has made it clear that the one state would be Palestine. In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Tlaib was given an opportunity to recognize Israel's right to exist. Tapper: "Do you think the Jewish people have the right to a state in the area where Israel exists now?" Tlaib: "Look, I truly believe the State of Israel exists, correct..." What? It is easy to say she believes Israel exists as it does exist. She did not acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist. She continued: "...but understand, does it (Israel) exist in the detriment of inequality for the Palestinian people." Hence, her belief in a one-state solution called Palestine.
Last month, Israeli Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, said the two extremist members of Congress would be allowed to go on their trip "out of respect for the US Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America." In 2017, Israel enacted a law that allows the government to deny entry to those who wish to harm the country, such as through boycotts. But no doubt that Trump's Tweet put Israeli PM Netanyahu in the awkward position of being in the middle of Trump and two members of the "Squad."
After Tlaib complained that this trip might be her last chance to see her 90 year-old grandmother, and after Tlaib agreed not to pursue BDS attacks on Israel while there, Israel relented. But shortly thereafter Tlaib decided against the trip, complaining of the "oppressive" conditions set out by Israel, and because it would "break my grandmother's heart." If I were a betting man, I would bet on Tlaib having been pressured by the Palestinians to not agree to Israel's terms. Israel's Interior Minister, Aryeh Deri, then said this: "I approved her request as a gesture of goodwill on a humanitarian basis, but it was just a provocative request, aimed at bashing the State of Israel. Apparently her hate for Israel overcomes her love for her grandmother." Which brings to mind a saying often attributed to Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister from March, 1969 to June, 1974. "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." Nothing much has changed in that regard since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, and even earlier.
There are at least two issues here. One, was it proper for the President of the United States to suggest to a foreign country that two duly elected members of Congress not be allowed entry? It always helps to imagine a slightly different scenario. Imagine that these two Congress members were anti-Semitic white nationalists who claimed Israel controlled the world. Or, what if the two Congress members were Jewish extremists who argued for the extermination of the Arabs. Sooner or later, you will find a scenario where an increasing number of people agree that the President was right to call for a ban on such people - members of Congress or not - visiting Israel.
Of course, the second issue is whether or not Israel should have caved (likely they did) to the President's Tweet. Certainly, Israel is not the first country to bar an elected official from entering. Just one example: Dutch Parliament member Geert Wilders was barred from entering the UK. Wilders has been outspoken in his concern over the "Islamization" of The Netherlands. But the British Home Office labeled Wilders an "undesirable person," adding "the Government opposes extremism in all its forms." Just one example of a democratic country denying entry to an elected official they deemed to be an extremist. Are Rashid and Omar extremists? No doubt. But Israel had to anticipate the significant blow back that they are now getting from the Democrats in Congress. All appropriation measures originate in the House. Israel is a recipient of US foreign aid. It is also true that Israel is a great ally to the US - technologically, in terms of providing intelligence on the Middle East and in other ways.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media has condemned Israel for their decision. I could make the argument either way, but my preference was that Israel allow the visit. Now, these two Israel-haters are likely to get increasing support within their party.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
Racism, Racism, Everywhere is Racism
(I need to preface this post by stating the obvious, lest I be accused of racism. Yes, racism exists. Yes, judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character is both wrong and morally repugnant. But what the Left has done with the terms "racist" and "racism" is comparable to what the boy who cried wolf did to the fear of wolves. Let's take a look.)
For many on the Left, if you simply voted for Donald Trump for president you are automatically a racist. That makes 63 million Americans racists. One actress, Ellen Pompeo, commented on the fact that Kamala Harris seemed to be focusing most of her attacks on Joe Biden. Pompeo commented on that with this: "Because she is overconfident and believes he is her only competitor." Perhaps one of my readers can educate me about why that is a racist comment. Yet, that is what many on social media claimed. Said one person: "Black women are allowed only a certain amount of confidence. Must always yield to whatever white man is around." Make a note to add "overconfident" to go along with the "N" word and other racial slurs.
Of course, President Trump is always accused of racism. The latest accusations were in connection with his feud with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD). Trump was unhappy with Cummings' treatment of the Homeland Security Secretary during the Secretary's Congressional testimony. Trump then accused Cummings, who is black, and a civil rights icon to many, of being a "brutal bully." He referred to Cummings' district as being a "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess"...and "far worse and more dangerous than the Southern border." For these comments, Trump was condemned, by many Democratic politicians and left-wing commentators, as being a racist.
But what about Bernie Sanders? During an earlier visit to Baltimore, Sanders made this remark: "Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you're in a wealthy nation. You would think that you were in a Third World country." Comparing parts of Baltimore to a Third World country was apparently not racist, allowing Bernie to criticize Trump for his alleged racism.
How about this? The former black Mayor of Baltimore, Catherine Pugh, while walking around one of Baltimore's blighted neighborhoods, was shocked by what she saw and smelled. "What the hell? We should just take all this shit down...whoa, you can smell the rats...whew, Jesus...oh my G-d, you can smell the dead animals." But not racist, because Trump did not say that. But imagine if he did.
Then we have this comment from 1998 by none other than Elijah Cummings: "This morning I left my community of Baltimore, a drug infested area where a lot of the drugs we're talking about today have already taken the lives of so many children..." But not racist, because Trump did not say it.
In a July 31 Op-Ed in The New York Times, Steve Phillips writes "Make Trump's Racism an Issue," referring to the 2020 election. Says Phillips: "In every presidential election for the past 50 years, a majority of white voters have voted against the Democrat, and the overwhelming majority of people of color have sided with the party's nominee." Assuming those numbers to be accurate, I am not surprised. Democrats have been using "identity politics" for quite some time; and have also promised "free" stuff to garner votes. Identity politics is aimed at minority groups. It tells those minority voters that they are all victims - often of white society. You want divisive? Then keep playing identity politics.
In Charles Blow's July 22 Op-Ed in The New York Times, "Denying Racism Supports It," he was surprised by the findings in a USA Today/Ipsos poll, published July 17. Apparently, "more than twice as many Americans believe that people who call others racist do so 'in bad faith,' compared with those who do not believe it." Blow concludes "this all contributes to whittling away at the reality of racism itself..." That is one way to look at it. Another way is that people are tired of hearing the boy cry wolf.
For many on the Left, if you simply voted for Donald Trump for president you are automatically a racist. That makes 63 million Americans racists. One actress, Ellen Pompeo, commented on the fact that Kamala Harris seemed to be focusing most of her attacks on Joe Biden. Pompeo commented on that with this: "Because she is overconfident and believes he is her only competitor." Perhaps one of my readers can educate me about why that is a racist comment. Yet, that is what many on social media claimed. Said one person: "Black women are allowed only a certain amount of confidence. Must always yield to whatever white man is around." Make a note to add "overconfident" to go along with the "N" word and other racial slurs.
Of course, President Trump is always accused of racism. The latest accusations were in connection with his feud with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD). Trump was unhappy with Cummings' treatment of the Homeland Security Secretary during the Secretary's Congressional testimony. Trump then accused Cummings, who is black, and a civil rights icon to many, of being a "brutal bully." He referred to Cummings' district as being a "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess"...and "far worse and more dangerous than the Southern border." For these comments, Trump was condemned, by many Democratic politicians and left-wing commentators, as being a racist.
But what about Bernie Sanders? During an earlier visit to Baltimore, Sanders made this remark: "Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you're in a wealthy nation. You would think that you were in a Third World country." Comparing parts of Baltimore to a Third World country was apparently not racist, allowing Bernie to criticize Trump for his alleged racism.
How about this? The former black Mayor of Baltimore, Catherine Pugh, while walking around one of Baltimore's blighted neighborhoods, was shocked by what she saw and smelled. "What the hell? We should just take all this shit down...whoa, you can smell the rats...whew, Jesus...oh my G-d, you can smell the dead animals." But not racist, because Trump did not say that. But imagine if he did.
Then we have this comment from 1998 by none other than Elijah Cummings: "This morning I left my community of Baltimore, a drug infested area where a lot of the drugs we're talking about today have already taken the lives of so many children..." But not racist, because Trump did not say it.
In a July 31 Op-Ed in The New York Times, Steve Phillips writes "Make Trump's Racism an Issue," referring to the 2020 election. Says Phillips: "In every presidential election for the past 50 years, a majority of white voters have voted against the Democrat, and the overwhelming majority of people of color have sided with the party's nominee." Assuming those numbers to be accurate, I am not surprised. Democrats have been using "identity politics" for quite some time; and have also promised "free" stuff to garner votes. Identity politics is aimed at minority groups. It tells those minority voters that they are all victims - often of white society. You want divisive? Then keep playing identity politics.
In Charles Blow's July 22 Op-Ed in The New York Times, "Denying Racism Supports It," he was surprised by the findings in a USA Today/Ipsos poll, published July 17. Apparently, "more than twice as many Americans believe that people who call others racist do so 'in bad faith,' compared with those who do not believe it." Blow concludes "this all contributes to whittling away at the reality of racism itself..." That is one way to look at it. Another way is that people are tired of hearing the boy cry wolf.
Monday, July 22, 2019
A Few Words From A Few People
The Los Angeles Times reprinted some letters to the editor that they printed shortly after the historic Moon landing of July 20, 1969. Said one: "It is inconceivable to me that persons on earth should go hungry, uneducated, die of cancer while technology has put a man on the moon." Fast forward to July, 2019, and we have this letter to the editor of the New York Times: "Through increased wildfires, storm damage, flooding, rising sea levels and a thousand other cuts, climate change is already costing us lives and conflict and billions of dollars. We need a moonshot, all right - a moonshot effort to stop and reverse climate change. We cannot afford both." In fairness, allow me to acknowledge my own bias - I have always been interested in the space program and astronomy. Nevertheless, there will always be those on the left who cannot enjoy life because...(fill in the blank of some problems or difficulties somewhere). As noted in the July 4th post, some people were unable to celebrate our nation's birthday because of issues with the border. I prefer the "can do" attitude to the "I can't be excited about anything when suffering exists anywhere." I am not heartless, but I am neither morose nor pessimistic about our capabilities.
Here is another one that I simply cannot understand. One letter writer to the LA Times was a self-described daughter of Holocaust survivors, her father and grandfather both having escaped Nazi Germany. Which makes it all the more inconceivable that she would write: "It may seem hyperbolic to liken our president to Adolf Hitler, though his playbook looks very much the same." Really? The writer was upset by President Trump's comments about "The Squad." (See the last post.) But a Holocaust survivor's daughter draws a comparison between Trump and Hitler? Is she racing to leave this country, fearful for her life? I am curious, did this Jewish letter writer get equally offended by the frequent anti-Semitic comments by Ilhan Omar? I would bet not.
Recall that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi of singling out the newly elected women of color. Before Trump opened his mouth and united the Democrats, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd expressed her displeasure with the Democratic infighting. (See her July 14 column "Scaling Wokeback Mountain.") Dowd: "The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom." That is just precious. I guess Dowd is unaware that what she described is exactly how the left thinks about and treats all conservatives.
In the July 19th LA Times was a page 2 article by columnist Caroline Engelmayer, attempting to explain why Trump verbally attacked Ilhan Omar. Her article is a perfect example of what Trump calls the "fake news." Engelmayer discusses the various anti-Semitic remarks by Omar, then saying she always apologized, except after the last comment alleging Israel's supporters only have allegiance to a foreign country. Why would Engelmayer believe a single apology was sincere when Omar continued making one anti-Semitic comment after the next? Then, Engelmayer claims that after Omar's "allegiance to a foreign country" claim, the "House passed a resolution condemning anti-Semitism." No, that is a lie, or at best a half-truth. As discussed in the last post, the House refused to pass any resolution condemning Omar. The House refused to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Rather, the resolution that passed condemned all bigotry, such as Islamophobia, even though the original motivating factor and purpose was to condemn Omar and her anti-Semitism.
Not surprisingly, the left was unhappy with Trump's July 4th celebration observing our country's birthday. After all, there were two stationary tanks there, along with some flyovers. You would think that no other president ever displayed any military hardware. It is pure nonsense. And, G-d forbid, Trump claimed "we all were made by the same almighty G-d." According to one letter writer to the LA Times, "that pious take ignored how 'G-d' has numerous disparate definitions, and how more than 30 million Americans hold nontheistic beliefs." So what? As one Op-Ed in the July 8 USA Today noted: "Mentioning G-d annoys the left." To which I might add: what doesn't? I am sure, however, that this letter writer always complained when Obama mentioned G-d.
In the 7/21 edition of the LA Times is a page 3 article discussing how Benjamin Netanyahu has now become the longest serving Prime Minister in the history of modern Israel. Early in the article they acknowledge that Netanyahu "has ruled Israel for a full decade of economic and diplomatic achievements." As the paper views Netanyahu as "a hard-line rightest and close ally of President Trump," most of the article is, obviously, not flattering. Then, they quote a left-wing writer for the left-wing Israeli paper Ha'aretz. The Times quotes Anshel Pfeffer: "His (referring to Netanyahu) legacy is longevity, and precious little else." What? Why would the Times put that quote in the article after they acknowledged Netanyahu's economic and diplomatic achievements? Further, it is patently false, another example of "fake news" from the mainstream media. Under Netanyahu, Israel has become an economic and technological powerhouse. Diplomatically, he has improved relations with the Sunni Arab nations. And he has been a leading statesman on the world stage. But...he is a "close ally of President Trump."
Here is another one that I simply cannot understand. One letter writer to the LA Times was a self-described daughter of Holocaust survivors, her father and grandfather both having escaped Nazi Germany. Which makes it all the more inconceivable that she would write: "It may seem hyperbolic to liken our president to Adolf Hitler, though his playbook looks very much the same." Really? The writer was upset by President Trump's comments about "The Squad." (See the last post.) But a Holocaust survivor's daughter draws a comparison between Trump and Hitler? Is she racing to leave this country, fearful for her life? I am curious, did this Jewish letter writer get equally offended by the frequent anti-Semitic comments by Ilhan Omar? I would bet not.
Recall that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi of singling out the newly elected women of color. Before Trump opened his mouth and united the Democrats, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd expressed her displeasure with the Democratic infighting. (See her July 14 column "Scaling Wokeback Mountain.") Dowd: "The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom." That is just precious. I guess Dowd is unaware that what she described is exactly how the left thinks about and treats all conservatives.
In the July 19th LA Times was a page 2 article by columnist Caroline Engelmayer, attempting to explain why Trump verbally attacked Ilhan Omar. Her article is a perfect example of what Trump calls the "fake news." Engelmayer discusses the various anti-Semitic remarks by Omar, then saying she always apologized, except after the last comment alleging Israel's supporters only have allegiance to a foreign country. Why would Engelmayer believe a single apology was sincere when Omar continued making one anti-Semitic comment after the next? Then, Engelmayer claims that after Omar's "allegiance to a foreign country" claim, the "House passed a resolution condemning anti-Semitism." No, that is a lie, or at best a half-truth. As discussed in the last post, the House refused to pass any resolution condemning Omar. The House refused to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Rather, the resolution that passed condemned all bigotry, such as Islamophobia, even though the original motivating factor and purpose was to condemn Omar and her anti-Semitism.
Not surprisingly, the left was unhappy with Trump's July 4th celebration observing our country's birthday. After all, there were two stationary tanks there, along with some flyovers. You would think that no other president ever displayed any military hardware. It is pure nonsense. And, G-d forbid, Trump claimed "we all were made by the same almighty G-d." According to one letter writer to the LA Times, "that pious take ignored how 'G-d' has numerous disparate definitions, and how more than 30 million Americans hold nontheistic beliefs." So what? As one Op-Ed in the July 8 USA Today noted: "Mentioning G-d annoys the left." To which I might add: what doesn't? I am sure, however, that this letter writer always complained when Obama mentioned G-d.
In the 7/21 edition of the LA Times is a page 3 article discussing how Benjamin Netanyahu has now become the longest serving Prime Minister in the history of modern Israel. Early in the article they acknowledge that Netanyahu "has ruled Israel for a full decade of economic and diplomatic achievements." As the paper views Netanyahu as "a hard-line rightest and close ally of President Trump," most of the article is, obviously, not flattering. Then, they quote a left-wing writer for the left-wing Israeli paper Ha'aretz. The Times quotes Anshel Pfeffer: "His (referring to Netanyahu) legacy is longevity, and precious little else." What? Why would the Times put that quote in the article after they acknowledged Netanyahu's economic and diplomatic achievements? Further, it is patently false, another example of "fake news" from the mainstream media. Under Netanyahu, Israel has become an economic and technological powerhouse. Diplomatically, he has improved relations with the Sunni Arab nations. And he has been a leading statesman on the world stage. But...he is a "close ally of President Trump."
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Trump Tells "The Squad" To Go Back From Whence They Came
Over the weekend, President Trump Tweeted "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infected places from which they come. Then come back and show us how it is done." Although not mentioning anyone by name, it was apparent that he was referring to the four radical leftists in the House - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley - a group known as the "squad." Prior to his Tweet, the Democrats were attacking each other. Kamala Harris attacked Biden for his fraternizing with segregationist Senators. AOC attacked Pelosi for singling out four women of color (the squad). Trump's Tweet resulted in uniting the divided Democrats in attacking Trump.
Today, the House passed a resolution condemning "President Donald Trump's racist comments..." I am not impressed. It was a strictly political move on the part of Speaker Pelosi. Recall that when Ilhan Omar made incredibly anti-Semitic comments earlier this year, Pelosi would not condemn her, Omar being a member of Pelosi's Democratic caucus. Even when Republicans agreed to remove specific mention of Omar from the resolution, but still condemning anti-Semitism, Pelosi would not allow it to come to a vote. It was only when the resolution that was intended to combat anti-Semitism was watered down to condemn all bigotry, including Islamophobia and white supremacy, that Pelosi allowed a vote on the measure. Afterwards, Omar was exhilirated in announcing the first ever anti-Islamophobia resolution passed by the House. As the Black Caucus opposed the resolution only condemning anti-Semitism, can we say the entire Black Caucus is anti-Semitic?
So, the anti-Semite Omar got to celebrate a victory instead of suffering a deserved defeat. Pelosi not only refused to condemn Omar, she defended her. "I don't think our colleague is anti-Semitic. I think she has a different experience in the use of words..." The extremely articulate Omar does not understand her words? The same Omar who said Israel has hypnotized the world; who said of supporters of Israel "it's all about the Benjamins." The same Omar who joked about people reacting badly to hearing "Al Qaeda" said, but not reacting badly when "America" is mentioned.
Another member of the squad, Ayanna Pressley, said this: "We don't need any more brown faces that don't want want to be a brown voice. We don't need black faces that don't want to be a black voice..." She continued to make the same point about Muslims and queers (her word). So, who's the racist? Blacks who do not think as she does are not needed? It is a point I have made many times before: left-wing women only support other left-wing women. It is a lie when they say they support all women. And left-wing blacks only support other left-wing blacks, and so on. These left-wing women in the squad would not support the election of, say, Nikki Haley as president. We even just saw it in the attack on Pelosi by AOC, claiming that Pelosi was singling out women of color.
Another anti-Semitic member of the squad, Rashida Tlaib, recently accused Israel of dehumanizing and racist policies. What will she say about the treatment of women, gays and Christians by Hamas? In March, 2016, Newsweek reported that Hamas executed one of their commanders for "moral turpitude," their euphemism for gay sex.
I get that Trump's comments were not well received, even by some on the right. Were the comments racist? He did say after they leave they should come back. But even senior Fox News political analyst Brit Hume attacked Trump's comments as "nativist, xenophobic, counterfactual and politically stupid." (As an aside, tell me when an MSNBC commentator ever praised Trump.) I do not know if Trump is racist or not. He is often attacked for being anti-Semitic, notwithstanding the great friendship he has shown to Israel. Personally, I do not believe Trump is racist or anti-Semitic. He is most likely the mirror image of Ayanna Pressley, having no use for people who disagree with him politically - just like Pressley.
Condemn Trump? Then condemn Pressley. And it is way past time to condemn the anti-Semitic Muslim members of the squad. Yesterday, the Attorney General of the United States, William Barr, gave a strong and passionate speech condemning anti-Semitism. Barr: "The most ancient and stubborn form of racism throughout Western history has been anti-Semitism." If and when Speaker Pelosi sees fit to condemn the anti-Semitic and racist members of her caucus, then you can talk to me about condemning Trump. Until then...
Today, the House passed a resolution condemning "President Donald Trump's racist comments..." I am not impressed. It was a strictly political move on the part of Speaker Pelosi. Recall that when Ilhan Omar made incredibly anti-Semitic comments earlier this year, Pelosi would not condemn her, Omar being a member of Pelosi's Democratic caucus. Even when Republicans agreed to remove specific mention of Omar from the resolution, but still condemning anti-Semitism, Pelosi would not allow it to come to a vote. It was only when the resolution that was intended to combat anti-Semitism was watered down to condemn all bigotry, including Islamophobia and white supremacy, that Pelosi allowed a vote on the measure. Afterwards, Omar was exhilirated in announcing the first ever anti-Islamophobia resolution passed by the House. As the Black Caucus opposed the resolution only condemning anti-Semitism, can we say the entire Black Caucus is anti-Semitic?
So, the anti-Semite Omar got to celebrate a victory instead of suffering a deserved defeat. Pelosi not only refused to condemn Omar, she defended her. "I don't think our colleague is anti-Semitic. I think she has a different experience in the use of words..." The extremely articulate Omar does not understand her words? The same Omar who said Israel has hypnotized the world; who said of supporters of Israel "it's all about the Benjamins." The same Omar who joked about people reacting badly to hearing "Al Qaeda" said, but not reacting badly when "America" is mentioned.
Another member of the squad, Ayanna Pressley, said this: "We don't need any more brown faces that don't want want to be a brown voice. We don't need black faces that don't want to be a black voice..." She continued to make the same point about Muslims and queers (her word). So, who's the racist? Blacks who do not think as she does are not needed? It is a point I have made many times before: left-wing women only support other left-wing women. It is a lie when they say they support all women. And left-wing blacks only support other left-wing blacks, and so on. These left-wing women in the squad would not support the election of, say, Nikki Haley as president. We even just saw it in the attack on Pelosi by AOC, claiming that Pelosi was singling out women of color.
Another anti-Semitic member of the squad, Rashida Tlaib, recently accused Israel of dehumanizing and racist policies. What will she say about the treatment of women, gays and Christians by Hamas? In March, 2016, Newsweek reported that Hamas executed one of their commanders for "moral turpitude," their euphemism for gay sex.
I get that Trump's comments were not well received, even by some on the right. Were the comments racist? He did say after they leave they should come back. But even senior Fox News political analyst Brit Hume attacked Trump's comments as "nativist, xenophobic, counterfactual and politically stupid." (As an aside, tell me when an MSNBC commentator ever praised Trump.) I do not know if Trump is racist or not. He is often attacked for being anti-Semitic, notwithstanding the great friendship he has shown to Israel. Personally, I do not believe Trump is racist or anti-Semitic. He is most likely the mirror image of Ayanna Pressley, having no use for people who disagree with him politically - just like Pressley.
Condemn Trump? Then condemn Pressley. And it is way past time to condemn the anti-Semitic Muslim members of the squad. Yesterday, the Attorney General of the United States, William Barr, gave a strong and passionate speech condemning anti-Semitism. Barr: "The most ancient and stubborn form of racism throughout Western history has been anti-Semitism." If and when Speaker Pelosi sees fit to condemn the anti-Semitic and racist members of her caucus, then you can talk to me about condemning Trump. Until then...
Thursday, July 4, 2019
More of the Good, the Bad...and Utterly Ridiculous and Disgusting
Disgusting. Andy Ngo is an independent reporter. He is Asian, conservative and gay. He has often reported on the fascistic-type conduct of the ironically named group Antifa (short for Anti-fascist). Ngo was brutally attacked in Portland when demonstrators on the right were met by Antifa bullies. In an Op-Ed in the 7/3/19 Wall Street Journal, Ngo wrote: "Officers told me they would not approach the suspect, who was still in sight, because that might "incite" the crowd." So, let an innocent man be beaten severely such that he was hospitalized with a subarachnoid hemorrhage. Disgusting! What the hell do we need for police for? Civilians are capable of putting yellow tape around a crime scene. Those police officers should be fired or resign. The Mayor of Portland, Ted Wheeler, was equally disgusting: "I was appalled by what I saw in the video (of the attack), but I support the Portland Police Bureau's decision not to intervene." If he ordered the police to stand down, he should be prosecuted for violation of Mr. Ngo's civil rights.
Bad. Colin Kaepernick told Nike that their new sneakers were offensive to him; and if it offends Kaepernick it must be bad. The heel of the sneakers depicted the early "Betsy Ross" flag of 13 stars in a circle with the red and white stripes. You see, at the time of that flag, slavery still existed. The truth is that today's flag is also disturbing to Kaepernick and others on the Left. Recall Kaepernick's refusal to stand for the National Anthem with hand over heart while facing the flag. No symbol of America satisfies the Left because America does not satisfy the Left. Michael Eric Dyson, a guest commentator on MSNBC, came up with this gem: "Why don't we wear a swastika for July 4th? Because, I don't know, it makes a difference." Yes, America is the equivalent of Hitler's Germany. So Nike caved because the flag might "unintentionally offend" people, and we get moronic comments like Dyson's, but...oh, Obama had the same Betsy Ross flag displayed at his inauguration. Oops!
Good. One letter writer to the WSJ opined: "If I, as a candidate, offer a student $50 to vote for me, I am guilty of bribery and could go to jail. But if I offer a million students $50,000 in free tuition, I could be President." We are way past the days of "a chicken in every pot." Now, it is a race to see who can offer the most "free" stuff to the most people. Some have reasonably asked why, if they did not go to college, they should pay for those who did.
Bad. In their 6/16/19 editorial, "Americans Need More Neighbors," the paper extols the many virtues of city living - as they see it. Younger people seem to prefer it. People live close to their jobs, hence shorter commutes and less pollution from cars. Although, I would question that assumption, having sat in traffic for 35 minutes to go a distance of about 2 miles in a congested part of the city. The ideal for the Times is Minneapolis, which they say "is ending single-family zoning." The Times: "People should be free to live in a prairie-style house on a quarter-acre lot in the middle of Minneapolis, so long as they can afford the land and taxes. But zoning subsidizes that extravaganza by prohibiting better, more concentrated use of the land." Get that? A single family home is an "extravaganza," and there is "better" use of the land. As the Left obtains control over more municipalities, expect more control over our lives. At least they have done a great job dealing with the homeless.
Utterly ridiculous. I was advised (I am not on Facebook) that some believe they are just too unhappy and feeling too unsettled to celebrate the 4th because of what is happening at the border with the illegal immigrants (sorry, migrants). Well, that is certainly their loss. The world is often filled with much sadness at the same time that there is much goodness. Should we just walk around feeling morose all the time until everything is perfect; or, if you are religious, until the coming of the Mosiah? Not terribly surprising though, as the Left often has a negative and pessimistic view of America and the world. I would suggest to these unhappy people that they try watching the movie "Life is Beautiful," and, one of my favorites, "It's A Wonderful Life."
Good. There was an Op-Ed in the 6/21/19 WSJ by a Michael Blechman titled "Liberalism Isn't What It Used To Be." Blechman: "When I worked for the (Robert) Kennedy campaign, I identified as a Democrat and a liberal. The core beliefs that made me liberal in 1968 put me at odds with many of the things "progressives" stand for today, 51 years later." This Op-Ed brought to mind my 7/17/16 post called "Classical Liberalism," in which I discussed the difference between liberalism and leftism, which has taken over much of the Democrat Party. Blechman discusses the differences between his liberalism and today's progressives in the areas of race, due process, presumption of innocence, the right to counsel and free speech. I have had a difficult time trying to get today's Leftists understand that they are in no way liberal. Which, again, demonstrates another difference between liberals and Leftists - liberals would listen.
Bad. In yet another example of Leftism versus liberalism, the owner of the restaurant from which then White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was booted, was commenting on the recent experience of Eric Trump, who was spat on in a bar in Chicago. This idiot basically said that Trump officials "should consider dining at home" in order to avoid the wrath of some members of the public. Bad and disgusting. A normal person (including classical liberals) not totally consumed by their hatred of Trump and conservatives, would condemn the person spitting on Eric Trump. A normal person (including classical liberals) would welcome Eric Trump to eat in their establishment. But for Leftists, all the rules of common decency no longer apply. As Congresswoman Maxine Waters said: "...if you see somebody from that (Trump's) Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." Not welcome anywhere in the United States of America. I guess that is how Andy Ngo felt in Portland, with the Mayor and police seeming to believe he was not welcome there. Welcome to the Left's America.
Bad. Colin Kaepernick told Nike that their new sneakers were offensive to him; and if it offends Kaepernick it must be bad. The heel of the sneakers depicted the early "Betsy Ross" flag of 13 stars in a circle with the red and white stripes. You see, at the time of that flag, slavery still existed. The truth is that today's flag is also disturbing to Kaepernick and others on the Left. Recall Kaepernick's refusal to stand for the National Anthem with hand over heart while facing the flag. No symbol of America satisfies the Left because America does not satisfy the Left. Michael Eric Dyson, a guest commentator on MSNBC, came up with this gem: "Why don't we wear a swastika for July 4th? Because, I don't know, it makes a difference." Yes, America is the equivalent of Hitler's Germany. So Nike caved because the flag might "unintentionally offend" people, and we get moronic comments like Dyson's, but...oh, Obama had the same Betsy Ross flag displayed at his inauguration. Oops!
Good. One letter writer to the WSJ opined: "If I, as a candidate, offer a student $50 to vote for me, I am guilty of bribery and could go to jail. But if I offer a million students $50,000 in free tuition, I could be President." We are way past the days of "a chicken in every pot." Now, it is a race to see who can offer the most "free" stuff to the most people. Some have reasonably asked why, if they did not go to college, they should pay for those who did.
Bad. In their 6/16/19 editorial, "Americans Need More Neighbors," the paper extols the many virtues of city living - as they see it. Younger people seem to prefer it. People live close to their jobs, hence shorter commutes and less pollution from cars. Although, I would question that assumption, having sat in traffic for 35 minutes to go a distance of about 2 miles in a congested part of the city. The ideal for the Times is Minneapolis, which they say "is ending single-family zoning." The Times: "People should be free to live in a prairie-style house on a quarter-acre lot in the middle of Minneapolis, so long as they can afford the land and taxes. But zoning subsidizes that extravaganza by prohibiting better, more concentrated use of the land." Get that? A single family home is an "extravaganza," and there is "better" use of the land. As the Left obtains control over more municipalities, expect more control over our lives. At least they have done a great job dealing with the homeless.
Utterly ridiculous. I was advised (I am not on Facebook) that some believe they are just too unhappy and feeling too unsettled to celebrate the 4th because of what is happening at the border with the illegal immigrants (sorry, migrants). Well, that is certainly their loss. The world is often filled with much sadness at the same time that there is much goodness. Should we just walk around feeling morose all the time until everything is perfect; or, if you are religious, until the coming of the Mosiah? Not terribly surprising though, as the Left often has a negative and pessimistic view of America and the world. I would suggest to these unhappy people that they try watching the movie "Life is Beautiful," and, one of my favorites, "It's A Wonderful Life."
Good. There was an Op-Ed in the 6/21/19 WSJ by a Michael Blechman titled "Liberalism Isn't What It Used To Be." Blechman: "When I worked for the (Robert) Kennedy campaign, I identified as a Democrat and a liberal. The core beliefs that made me liberal in 1968 put me at odds with many of the things "progressives" stand for today, 51 years later." This Op-Ed brought to mind my 7/17/16 post called "Classical Liberalism," in which I discussed the difference between liberalism and leftism, which has taken over much of the Democrat Party. Blechman discusses the differences between his liberalism and today's progressives in the areas of race, due process, presumption of innocence, the right to counsel and free speech. I have had a difficult time trying to get today's Leftists understand that they are in no way liberal. Which, again, demonstrates another difference between liberals and Leftists - liberals would listen.
Bad. In yet another example of Leftism versus liberalism, the owner of the restaurant from which then White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was booted, was commenting on the recent experience of Eric Trump, who was spat on in a bar in Chicago. This idiot basically said that Trump officials "should consider dining at home" in order to avoid the wrath of some members of the public. Bad and disgusting. A normal person (including classical liberals) not totally consumed by their hatred of Trump and conservatives, would condemn the person spitting on Eric Trump. A normal person (including classical liberals) would welcome Eric Trump to eat in their establishment. But for Leftists, all the rules of common decency no longer apply. As Congresswoman Maxine Waters said: "...if you see somebody from that (Trump's) Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." Not welcome anywhere in the United States of America. I guess that is how Andy Ngo felt in Portland, with the Mayor and police seeming to believe he was not welcome there. Welcome to the Left's America.
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
The Good, the Bad and the ...Moronic
Good (accurate, anyway). Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich recently said this: "If you are a Democrat today and go to a normal Democratic meeting and start talking about how wonderful America is, how great the Founding Fathers were, how remarkable the Constitution is, you'd be booed off the stage." I have said it before, the Democratic Left no longer shares in the fundamental American values. Which is why Newt's comment is sadly true.
Bad. Out of the Rutgers, Newark, NJ campus comes this - an event called "Recognizing and Dismantling White Organizational Culture." The point is to discern "characteristics of white United States-ian culture in organizations...and learn antidotes to dismantling white organizational culture." United States-ian? If I had attended this 6/25 event, I would guess I would have heard all about the evils of white people, Judeo-Christian values, and fundamental American values.
Moronic. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referred to our southern border as follows: "The fact that concentration camps are now an institutionalized practice in the land of the free is extraordinarily disturbing." Any mistreatment of people, especially children, is disturbing. That does not make detention centers into "concentration camps."
Good (accurate again). Speaking of the border, the US Border Patrol Chief told us "migrants from 52 countries have illegally crossed the border this year..." That would include people from Romania, Vietnam, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, China, Bangladesh, Turkey and Egypt. What border crisis?
Bad (and moronic). ABC News Chief Political Analyst, Matthew Dowd, came out with this Tweet about Hillary's basket of deplorables: "With events over the last few years, and conduct and behavior we have seen, can someone explain to me how Hillary was wrong." Recall that 1/2 of Trump supporters were said to constitute the basket of deplorables. So Dowd thinks that over 30 million people have behaved badly these past few years because of Trump? If I said it once, I've said it a trillion times - don't exaggerate! Maybe a half a trillion. A billion?
Good. SCOTUS just ruled on the constitutionality of Section 2a of the Lanham Act, prohibiting trademarks that are "immoral, deceptive, or scandalous..." That hardly sounds like a tight standard that would pass constitutional muster. The result was a unanimous decision allowing a trademark for the FUCT clothing brand. Justice Samuel Alito: "Viewpoint discrimination is poison to a free society." I wish that Google understood that. I wish that college administrators understood that. I wish that the mainstream media understood that.
Bad. One online site that does not get it is Ravelry, which, according to Wikipedia has 8 million members. It is a knitting site, and they recently announced "we are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry. We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy." Sure, I get it. The irony that is. They are inclusive of all - except for the nearly 63 million people who voted for Trump.
Good (although you would not guess the source). Complaining about Bernie's $2.2 trillion plan to forgive all student debt, they said: "The most obvious thing to say is that proposals like these are arbitrary and inequitable. They make fools out of people who scrimped and saved, ate ramen noodles and slaved away at jobs, to keep their borrowing down. The repayment plans are also unfair to people who have already paid back their loans. They undermine the concept of debts as legal obligations." No, it was not one of the hosts or other commentators on Fox News. It was the mainstream and left-wing USA Today.
Good, then bad. The left-wing, Trumpophobic Maureen Dowd wrote her Sunday Op-Ed in the New York Times with the title "Blowhard on the Brink." You see, for all the talk about Trump starting a nuclear war with North Korea, or a major Middle East conflagration, Dowd started her essay with this: "As shocking as it is to write this sentence, it must be said: Donald Trump did something right." Trump backed away from bombing Iran. Of course, virtually every paragraph thereafter mocked Trump.
I think that Justice Alito's comment bears repeating: "Viewpoint discrimination is poison to a free society." See if you can convince your leftist friends and family members of that. See if they are willing to listen to another viewpoint.
Bad. Out of the Rutgers, Newark, NJ campus comes this - an event called "Recognizing and Dismantling White Organizational Culture." The point is to discern "characteristics of white United States-ian culture in organizations...and learn antidotes to dismantling white organizational culture." United States-ian? If I had attended this 6/25 event, I would guess I would have heard all about the evils of white people, Judeo-Christian values, and fundamental American values.
Moronic. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referred to our southern border as follows: "The fact that concentration camps are now an institutionalized practice in the land of the free is extraordinarily disturbing." Any mistreatment of people, especially children, is disturbing. That does not make detention centers into "concentration camps."
Good (accurate again). Speaking of the border, the US Border Patrol Chief told us "migrants from 52 countries have illegally crossed the border this year..." That would include people from Romania, Vietnam, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, China, Bangladesh, Turkey and Egypt. What border crisis?
Bad (and moronic). ABC News Chief Political Analyst, Matthew Dowd, came out with this Tweet about Hillary's basket of deplorables: "With events over the last few years, and conduct and behavior we have seen, can someone explain to me how Hillary was wrong." Recall that 1/2 of Trump supporters were said to constitute the basket of deplorables. So Dowd thinks that over 30 million people have behaved badly these past few years because of Trump? If I said it once, I've said it a trillion times - don't exaggerate! Maybe a half a trillion. A billion?
Good. SCOTUS just ruled on the constitutionality of Section 2a of the Lanham Act, prohibiting trademarks that are "immoral, deceptive, or scandalous..." That hardly sounds like a tight standard that would pass constitutional muster. The result was a unanimous decision allowing a trademark for the FUCT clothing brand. Justice Samuel Alito: "Viewpoint discrimination is poison to a free society." I wish that Google understood that. I wish that college administrators understood that. I wish that the mainstream media understood that.
Bad. One online site that does not get it is Ravelry, which, according to Wikipedia has 8 million members. It is a knitting site, and they recently announced "we are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry. We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy." Sure, I get it. The irony that is. They are inclusive of all - except for the nearly 63 million people who voted for Trump.
Good (although you would not guess the source). Complaining about Bernie's $2.2 trillion plan to forgive all student debt, they said: "The most obvious thing to say is that proposals like these are arbitrary and inequitable. They make fools out of people who scrimped and saved, ate ramen noodles and slaved away at jobs, to keep their borrowing down. The repayment plans are also unfair to people who have already paid back their loans. They undermine the concept of debts as legal obligations." No, it was not one of the hosts or other commentators on Fox News. It was the mainstream and left-wing USA Today.
Good, then bad. The left-wing, Trumpophobic Maureen Dowd wrote her Sunday Op-Ed in the New York Times with the title "Blowhard on the Brink." You see, for all the talk about Trump starting a nuclear war with North Korea, or a major Middle East conflagration, Dowd started her essay with this: "As shocking as it is to write this sentence, it must be said: Donald Trump did something right." Trump backed away from bombing Iran. Of course, virtually every paragraph thereafter mocked Trump.
I think that Justice Alito's comment bears repeating: "Viewpoint discrimination is poison to a free society." See if you can convince your leftist friends and family members of that. See if they are willing to listen to another viewpoint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)