After President Trump authorized the killing of the Iranian Quds Force General, Qasem Soleimani, the Dems and the mainstream media (MSM) could not think of a positive thing to say. Then again, in the last 3 years I am not sure I have seen a single positive article from the MSM, nor a positive word from the Democrats, about Trump. Let's start with the so-called premier paper in the country - the New York Times. Here was their 1/8/20 online headline: "Trump's Iran strategy: A Cease-Fire Wrapped in a Strategic Muddle." A strategic muddle? I think they mean the undoing of the Obama (and European) policy of appeasement. The appeasement policy of the Iran deal, providing a time frame for Iran to get nuclear weapons, and giving the leading state sponsor of terrorism $150,000,000,000. Please do not tell me it was Iran's money. That money was frozen for a reason, and by releasing that money Iran had a greater capability for weapons development and the spreading of more terrorism.
But, maybe the New York Times and others in the MSM and Democratic Party don't know about the Americans Soleimani killed in Iraq. Nor the death and destruction caused by Iran and Soleimani in Syria and Yemen. Nor the attack on the Saudi oil facilities. Nor the continued funding of Hezbollah and Hamas. And just maybe the attack on our embassy in Baghdad and the killing of an American was sufficient to convince this president that a man who is acknowledged to be the leading terrorist in the world deserved his fate. Strategy? Iran now knows, for perhaps the first time, that there are consequences to their actions.
Given our completely fractured political environment, it should surprise no one that the Dems could not see their way to support Trump. Nancy Pelosi felt that the killing of Soleimani was "disproportionate." Elizabeth Warren thought that Trump "escalated" things. And Joe Biden called the killing of Soleimani a "debacle," putting "the United States and Iran on a collision course." Of course, the Left always thinks Trump is going to cause the end of the world. Ilhan Omar opined that the economic sanctions Trump has put on Iran constitute "economic warfare;" which is rather ironic given her support for the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel. Not surprisingly, Democrat Omar thinks Israel is worse than Iran.
The USA Today was also typical of the MSM. In their 1/10/20 editorial, the paper advocates "an agreement to ease economic sanctions in return for Iran dismantling its nuclear program." In other words, appeasement. When has appeasement of a bad actor state ever been successful? In their 1/9/20 online headline, the USA Today told us: "Exclusive: Americans say Soleimani's killing made US less safe, Trump 'reckless' on Iran." Except, if you did not read down to the third paragraph, you would not know that 42% supported the killing versus 33% who were opposed (and 25% who did not know). I wonder if anyone at the paper pushed for an alternative headline, such as: "More people support Trump and the killing of Soleimani than are opposed." But why give Trump credit for anything?
After the Iranians shot down the Ukranian plane, many on the Left could not help but to blame Trump. Said one letter to the editor in the New York Times: "...we all know where the buck stops. It stops at the desk of Donald J. Trump, who is ultimately responsible for the deaths of 63 Canadians and the others aboard." There were 3 letters to the editor about the shooting down of the airplane, and all 3 blamed Trump. The killing of those people was a tragedy, and if done intentionally was murder. But Trump's fault? Why not Obama's? He ordered far more drone strike killings than Trump - hundreds, if not thousands. And what about the lives saved by the killing of Soleimani?
A former president explained: "...if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war." No, that was not Ronald Reagan's "peace through strength." That was George Washington in his 1793 State of the Union report. But, given the reaction of the Democrats, Kimberly Strassel, of the Wall Street Journal, made this observation: "voters are getting a Democratic primary field that is the weakest on foreign policy in decades." And, given the open borders policy of many of them, I would say the weakest overall at protecting America and Americans.
Monday, January 20, 2020
Monday, January 6, 2020
Blockheads! (I thought it sounded nicer than Morons.)
Eric Swalwell, Democratic Representative from California, and onetime presidential candidate, Tweeted this after the attack in Monsey: "Anti-Semitism is on the rise in America. And it's being stoked by @real Donald Trump who won't condemn it and Trump's lawyer, @Rudy Giuliani, who just this week said he's 'more Jewish than Soros.'" Trump actually did condemn the attack and anti-Semitism. Just to clarify, the theory is that Trump supports white supremacists, but a black man is the suspected perpetrator in Monsey. So, now the theory is that Trump is a black supremacist? Dem. Rep. Ilhan Omar (known to have said one anti-Semitic comment after the next) retweeted Swalwell's comment. Coming from someone who actually does stoke anti-Semitism, that is what Jews call chutzpah (unmitigated gall).
Here is another blockhead, Dem. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, after the Jersey City shooting at a kosher market: "This is heartbreaking. White supremacy kills." Except, in the Jersey City case, the two shooters were black. Last June, Dem. Mayor of New York City, Bill De Blasio, said this: "The ideological movement that is anti-Semitic is the right wing." Then, after the Jersey City murders by two blacks, blockhead De Blasio said: "The violence overwhelmingly is coming from right-wing forces, white supremacist forces, direct linear descents of Nazism and fascism and the Ku Klux Klan. That's the reality." The reality is also that in New York City in 2019, fully one-third of those arrested for anti-Semitic hate crimes were black. Maybe De Blasio should refrain from such comments, given that his wife and son are black.
Sadly, we heard from some Jewish blockheads as well. From "Jews for Racial and Economic Justice," we heard that "Anti-Semitism is on the rise. It is in the water. It is being fueled by a white nationalist administration." And this: "Our response to anti-Semitic violence must focus on building solidarity with other groups targeted by white supremacy, not increased policing." So, police are bad. And, do not name black anti-Semitism nor Islamic Jew hatred nor Leftist anti-Semitism. Let's just pretend that anti-Semitism only originates from the Right.
"Jewish Voice for Peace" expressed a similar sentiment. "We know we have to address rising white nationalist violence - against Jews, Muslims, Black people and all people of color - while not relying on the very forces detaining and locking up and killing our friends, family and neighbors." So, police are not just bad, they are killers. Again, one Left-wing group protects another. Left-wing Jews will not stand up for their fellow Jews by calling out black anti-Semitism. Nor will they call out Islamic anti-Semitism, nor Leftist anti-Semitism.
The "Jewish Democratic Council of America" made a similar comment. "...anyone serious about fighting anti-Semitism must also consider the cumulative impact of the most powerful US elected official repeating anti-Semitic stereotyping, amplifying anti-Semitic conspiracy theories," etc. etc. The New York Times somehow could not bring themselves to identify the Monsey attacker as black. This should be no surprise to anyone, as a number of years ago I commented in a blog post about the NY Times' "reporting" about riots occurring throughout European cities. The Times told us then that all the rioters were "immigrants." They neglected to say that in each instance they were Muslim immigrants.
In their 1/3/20 editorial, the New York Times wondered: "What could be going so wrong in lives of these young people that their minds are twisted toward such ugliness? To fight hate in the longer term, it's in the interest of all of us to find out." Not surprised that the Times is wondering, as they refuse to tell the truth. As long as the Left believes anti-semitism only emanates from the right-wing white supremacists, then anti-Semitism will continue to worsen.
Maybe I can help the New York Times and other leftists. Here are some anti-Semites that are not on the Right. Ilhan Omar. Rashida Tlaib. Louis Farrakhan, who called Jews "monkeys," among other names, and said Judaism was a "satanic religion." Al Sharpton. Rev. Wright. Maybe the NY Times is unaware that Obama hung out with Farrakhan, Sharpton and Wright. Does not matter. The Left can never say that members of one of their favored minorities are anti-Semitic, or hateful in any way.
Way back on 9/30/11, I wrote a blog post titled "Wilful Ignorance." That essay discusses how leftist Jews simply ignored Obama's anti-Semitic, anti-Israel comments and policies and would vote for him a second time. They did. Jews held Muslims in high regard, no matter how many Muslims had a low regard for Jews. And the NY Times had no problem calling for a Palestinian state, even after one Palestinian leader said no Jews and no gays would be allowed in the new state.
Michael Masters, national director of the Secure Community Network (comprised of various Jewish organizations), was in accord with my "Wilful Ignorance," saying "the greatest adversary we truly face is not an external threat, it's a sense of denial." And today, I would say it is even worse than that. I see fellow Jews who will suffer any time a black is attacked for being black, or a gay or any LGBTQ person is attacked because of their sexual orientation, or a Muslim attacked for being a Muslim. And that feeling of pain is certainly appropriate. But when a fellow Jew is attacked just for being Jewish? Nary a peep out of many left-wing Jews. Innocent Israelis suffer constant rocket and missile attacks. But leftist Jews will tell you about plastic straws, and second-hand smoke and the like. And about the suffering of Palestinians. And how they intend to vote for Bernie Sanders, the most anti-Israel Democratic candidate. Blockheads. It's nicer than morons.
Here is another blockhead, Dem. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, after the Jersey City shooting at a kosher market: "This is heartbreaking. White supremacy kills." Except, in the Jersey City case, the two shooters were black. Last June, Dem. Mayor of New York City, Bill De Blasio, said this: "The ideological movement that is anti-Semitic is the right wing." Then, after the Jersey City murders by two blacks, blockhead De Blasio said: "The violence overwhelmingly is coming from right-wing forces, white supremacist forces, direct linear descents of Nazism and fascism and the Ku Klux Klan. That's the reality." The reality is also that in New York City in 2019, fully one-third of those arrested for anti-Semitic hate crimes were black. Maybe De Blasio should refrain from such comments, given that his wife and son are black.
Sadly, we heard from some Jewish blockheads as well. From "Jews for Racial and Economic Justice," we heard that "Anti-Semitism is on the rise. It is in the water. It is being fueled by a white nationalist administration." And this: "Our response to anti-Semitic violence must focus on building solidarity with other groups targeted by white supremacy, not increased policing." So, police are bad. And, do not name black anti-Semitism nor Islamic Jew hatred nor Leftist anti-Semitism. Let's just pretend that anti-Semitism only originates from the Right.
"Jewish Voice for Peace" expressed a similar sentiment. "We know we have to address rising white nationalist violence - against Jews, Muslims, Black people and all people of color - while not relying on the very forces detaining and locking up and killing our friends, family and neighbors." So, police are not just bad, they are killers. Again, one Left-wing group protects another. Left-wing Jews will not stand up for their fellow Jews by calling out black anti-Semitism. Nor will they call out Islamic anti-Semitism, nor Leftist anti-Semitism.
The "Jewish Democratic Council of America" made a similar comment. "...anyone serious about fighting anti-Semitism must also consider the cumulative impact of the most powerful US elected official repeating anti-Semitic stereotyping, amplifying anti-Semitic conspiracy theories," etc. etc. The New York Times somehow could not bring themselves to identify the Monsey attacker as black. This should be no surprise to anyone, as a number of years ago I commented in a blog post about the NY Times' "reporting" about riots occurring throughout European cities. The Times told us then that all the rioters were "immigrants." They neglected to say that in each instance they were Muslim immigrants.
In their 1/3/20 editorial, the New York Times wondered: "What could be going so wrong in lives of these young people that their minds are twisted toward such ugliness? To fight hate in the longer term, it's in the interest of all of us to find out." Not surprised that the Times is wondering, as they refuse to tell the truth. As long as the Left believes anti-semitism only emanates from the right-wing white supremacists, then anti-Semitism will continue to worsen.
Maybe I can help the New York Times and other leftists. Here are some anti-Semites that are not on the Right. Ilhan Omar. Rashida Tlaib. Louis Farrakhan, who called Jews "monkeys," among other names, and said Judaism was a "satanic religion." Al Sharpton. Rev. Wright. Maybe the NY Times is unaware that Obama hung out with Farrakhan, Sharpton and Wright. Does not matter. The Left can never say that members of one of their favored minorities are anti-Semitic, or hateful in any way.
Way back on 9/30/11, I wrote a blog post titled "Wilful Ignorance." That essay discusses how leftist Jews simply ignored Obama's anti-Semitic, anti-Israel comments and policies and would vote for him a second time. They did. Jews held Muslims in high regard, no matter how many Muslims had a low regard for Jews. And the NY Times had no problem calling for a Palestinian state, even after one Palestinian leader said no Jews and no gays would be allowed in the new state.
Michael Masters, national director of the Secure Community Network (comprised of various Jewish organizations), was in accord with my "Wilful Ignorance," saying "the greatest adversary we truly face is not an external threat, it's a sense of denial." And today, I would say it is even worse than that. I see fellow Jews who will suffer any time a black is attacked for being black, or a gay or any LGBTQ person is attacked because of their sexual orientation, or a Muslim attacked for being a Muslim. And that feeling of pain is certainly appropriate. But when a fellow Jew is attacked just for being Jewish? Nary a peep out of many left-wing Jews. Innocent Israelis suffer constant rocket and missile attacks. But leftist Jews will tell you about plastic straws, and second-hand smoke and the like. And about the suffering of Palestinians. And how they intend to vote for Bernie Sanders, the most anti-Israel Democratic candidate. Blockheads. It's nicer than morons.
Sunday, December 29, 2019
Enough Is Enough!
The latest attack on Jews occurred last night in Monsey, New York, a suburb north of New York City. A black man wielding what has been described alternatively as a machete or a large knife, entered the home of a Rabbi celebrating Chanukah with dozens of guests. He stabbed five people, with at least one in critical condition. This was the second attack on Jews in the small city of Monsey within the last month. It was earlier this month that a man and a woman, both black, set out to attack Jews at a kosher market in Jersey City, NJ. In that attack, three people in the store, along with one police officer, were murdered.
Meanwhile, in New York City, attacks on Jews have not only been increasing, but in the past week they have occurred on a daily basis. ABC reported that anti-Semitic hate crimes against Jews in New York City increased 53% this year over last year. And the FBI reported that in 2018, Jews were the victims of religious hate crimes in the USA approximately 60% of the time. Yet Jews only make up about 2% of the US population.
So enough is enough! It is time for everyone to stand up against anti-Semitism. But it is especially time for all Jews, regardless of political affiliation, to stand up against anti-Semitism, regardless of the source. We know that anti-Semitism can come from anywhere - white supremacist/neo-Nazis, Islamists, the Left and increasingly blacks. But the mainstream media and others on the left have a difficult time when the perpetrators fall within one of the Left's favored groups. Here is just one perfect example. When a kosher market was attacked in Paris in 2015, President Barack Obama would not name either the victims or the perpetrators. He refused to say that Jews were the victims, as Jews are not a favored minority of the Left. And he refused to say that the attacker was Muslim, as Muslims are a favored minority. Instead, Obama said the attack was when someone "randomly shot a bunch of folks in a deli." No Jew should accept that type of denial any longer. The shooter targeted Jews in a kosher deli, there was nothing random about it. And the shooter was a Muslim. Period.
If you are Jewish, the Left does not like you. Bernie Sanders, for example, has the anti-Semite, Linda Sarsour, as one of his advisers. Sanders wants to divert the aid given by the US to Israel to the Palestinians. Yes, Sanders is Jewish; but his socialism/progressivism/Leftism has replaced Judaism as his religion of choice. Recall the Chicago Dyke March in 2017 when Jewish women with a rainbow flag with a Jewish Star of David on it were uninvited to the march. For the Left, Jewish=Israel=Zionism=racism. These days, some on the Left actually refer to Jews as white supremacists and Nazis.
Caroline Glick recently opined that the anti-Semitism emanating from the Left, blacks and Muslims is more dangerous to Jews in America than the Jew hatred of the white supremacists/neo-Nazis. No doubt the latter group has overall been more violent. But as Glick observes, the white supremacists/neo-Nazis have no home in any major party, as they are roundly condemned by all sides. (Please don't tell me about Charlottesville, when Trump said that there were good people on both sides regarding the issue of Confederate statues. If Trump is a neo-Nazi, he is doing a damn poor job of showing it. Aside from his own daughter and grandkids being Jewish, he has been the most pro-Israel President in US history. And, unlike Sanders, he has cut aid to the Palestinians until they agree to stop killing Jews. Not to mention that he moved the American embassy to Israel's actual capital city, Jerusalem. He has recognized Israeli sovereignty over the strategic Golan Heights. And he has made sure that his Ambassador to the UN has protected Israel from one anti-Israel, anti-Semitic resolution after the next.)
Whereas the white supremacists/neo-Nazis are marginalized, Glick tells us that the "progressive, Islamist and black anti-Semites are deeply embedded in the political left. Over the past 15 years, they have become powerful actors in the Democratic party capable of bending the party to their will." And, she says, these anti-Semitic groups all cover for one another. (See the third and fourth paragraphs of this post. And recall when Nancy Pelosi refused to criticize Ilhan Omar for one anti-Semitic comment after the next, defending and excusing her in each instance.) I am a realist. I do not expect left-wing Jews to suddenly vote for Trump or any Republican. But is it asking too much of my fellow Jews to not support candidates who are anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. Need I remind you that Israel has been a safe haven for Jews from around the world.
Recently, President Trump signed an Executive Order that would apply the protections of the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to Jewish college students. The left-wing media and leftist Jews complained, alleging that such an order would stifle debate about the BDS movement. Aside from the fact that the First Amendment protects such speech, these leftists express precious little concern for the regular and ongoing harassment of Jewish college students. Recall, Jews are not a protected group for the Left. The reason for the order was to encourage college administrators to do a much better job of protecting Jewish students. Sadly, the Jewish Left has such a visceral hatred of Trump, that they are unable to acknowledge the good he has done for the Jewish people.
I understand the aversion that people have to Trump's at times crude comments. I really do get it. If you know me, you know it is not my style. What I do not understand is how those words "trump" his policies. Obama spoke nicely, yet during his entire term in office he maligned Israel and ultimately sold Israel out at the UN in December, 2016. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer someone on my side, who is on the side of the Jewish people, to someone who speaks well but will stab me in the back. As a very bright, religious man said to me: "The miracle is that Trump knows there are 2 Jewish communities, and he does not withhold his support for Jewish causes and Israel despite being attacked again and again and again by members of the Jewish people. He loves the more observant and traditional Jew, and he loves Israel." Amen to that.
Meanwhile, in New York City, attacks on Jews have not only been increasing, but in the past week they have occurred on a daily basis. ABC reported that anti-Semitic hate crimes against Jews in New York City increased 53% this year over last year. And the FBI reported that in 2018, Jews were the victims of religious hate crimes in the USA approximately 60% of the time. Yet Jews only make up about 2% of the US population.
So enough is enough! It is time for everyone to stand up against anti-Semitism. But it is especially time for all Jews, regardless of political affiliation, to stand up against anti-Semitism, regardless of the source. We know that anti-Semitism can come from anywhere - white supremacist/neo-Nazis, Islamists, the Left and increasingly blacks. But the mainstream media and others on the left have a difficult time when the perpetrators fall within one of the Left's favored groups. Here is just one perfect example. When a kosher market was attacked in Paris in 2015, President Barack Obama would not name either the victims or the perpetrators. He refused to say that Jews were the victims, as Jews are not a favored minority of the Left. And he refused to say that the attacker was Muslim, as Muslims are a favored minority. Instead, Obama said the attack was when someone "randomly shot a bunch of folks in a deli." No Jew should accept that type of denial any longer. The shooter targeted Jews in a kosher deli, there was nothing random about it. And the shooter was a Muslim. Period.
If you are Jewish, the Left does not like you. Bernie Sanders, for example, has the anti-Semite, Linda Sarsour, as one of his advisers. Sanders wants to divert the aid given by the US to Israel to the Palestinians. Yes, Sanders is Jewish; but his socialism/progressivism/Leftism has replaced Judaism as his religion of choice. Recall the Chicago Dyke March in 2017 when Jewish women with a rainbow flag with a Jewish Star of David on it were uninvited to the march. For the Left, Jewish=Israel=Zionism=racism. These days, some on the Left actually refer to Jews as white supremacists and Nazis.
Caroline Glick recently opined that the anti-Semitism emanating from the Left, blacks and Muslims is more dangerous to Jews in America than the Jew hatred of the white supremacists/neo-Nazis. No doubt the latter group has overall been more violent. But as Glick observes, the white supremacists/neo-Nazis have no home in any major party, as they are roundly condemned by all sides. (Please don't tell me about Charlottesville, when Trump said that there were good people on both sides regarding the issue of Confederate statues. If Trump is a neo-Nazi, he is doing a damn poor job of showing it. Aside from his own daughter and grandkids being Jewish, he has been the most pro-Israel President in US history. And, unlike Sanders, he has cut aid to the Palestinians until they agree to stop killing Jews. Not to mention that he moved the American embassy to Israel's actual capital city, Jerusalem. He has recognized Israeli sovereignty over the strategic Golan Heights. And he has made sure that his Ambassador to the UN has protected Israel from one anti-Israel, anti-Semitic resolution after the next.)
Whereas the white supremacists/neo-Nazis are marginalized, Glick tells us that the "progressive, Islamist and black anti-Semites are deeply embedded in the political left. Over the past 15 years, they have become powerful actors in the Democratic party capable of bending the party to their will." And, she says, these anti-Semitic groups all cover for one another. (See the third and fourth paragraphs of this post. And recall when Nancy Pelosi refused to criticize Ilhan Omar for one anti-Semitic comment after the next, defending and excusing her in each instance.) I am a realist. I do not expect left-wing Jews to suddenly vote for Trump or any Republican. But is it asking too much of my fellow Jews to not support candidates who are anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. Need I remind you that Israel has been a safe haven for Jews from around the world.
Recently, President Trump signed an Executive Order that would apply the protections of the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to Jewish college students. The left-wing media and leftist Jews complained, alleging that such an order would stifle debate about the BDS movement. Aside from the fact that the First Amendment protects such speech, these leftists express precious little concern for the regular and ongoing harassment of Jewish college students. Recall, Jews are not a protected group for the Left. The reason for the order was to encourage college administrators to do a much better job of protecting Jewish students. Sadly, the Jewish Left has such a visceral hatred of Trump, that they are unable to acknowledge the good he has done for the Jewish people.
I understand the aversion that people have to Trump's at times crude comments. I really do get it. If you know me, you know it is not my style. What I do not understand is how those words "trump" his policies. Obama spoke nicely, yet during his entire term in office he maligned Israel and ultimately sold Israel out at the UN in December, 2016. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer someone on my side, who is on the side of the Jewish people, to someone who speaks well but will stab me in the back. As a very bright, religious man said to me: "The miracle is that Trump knows there are 2 Jewish communities, and he does not withhold his support for Jewish causes and Israel despite being attacked again and again and again by members of the Jewish people. He loves the more observant and traditional Jew, and he loves Israel." Amen to that.
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Year End Reflections, Part III
I'll get to it. But first, I was struck by what I read in the 12/16/19 Jerusalem Post. Three headlines in particular caught my attention. 1. "Israel develops 'breakthrough' method to identify thyroid cancer." 2. "Israeli pancreatic cancer treatment could extend lives of 3/4 of patients." 3. "Israelis develop 'self-healing' cars powered by machine learning and AI." Not too bad for the tiny "start-up" nation of only 9 million people. So who supports cutting off aid to Israel besides the leftist democrats? If you do, or if you support the BDS movement, then perhaps you should have no right to benefit from Israeli technological innovations.
Okay, so the House voted to impeach President Trump. Is anybody really surprised? Does anybody really think this is about President Trump's telephone conversation with the Ukranian President? If so, perhaps you can explain this comment by Jerry Nadler immediately after Trump's victory in 2016: "We cannot wait four years to vote Mr. Trump out of office...so we must do everything we can to stop Trump and his extreme agenda now." The Dems hate Trump and always have. And they really hate the fact that he defeated Clinton in 2016. "Extreme agenda?" The best economy in decades. The best stock market. The lowest unemployment rate in decades. New trade deals. A return of manufacturing jobs. The most supportive of Israel of any President.
Even before the election, here is what Politico asked in April, 2016: "Could Trump be impeached shortly after he takes office?" Again, this blog saw what was happening less than two months into the Trump Presidency. See the 3/12/17 post "The Deposing of an American President." Even Pelosi admitted it. When asked if the impeachment hearing was not a little too quick, she replied that the investigation was going on for 2 1/2 years. That is well before the July, 2019 telephone call between Trump and Zelensky. And 19 minutes after Trump was sworn in, this was on the Washington Post site: "The campaign to Impeach President Trump has Begun."
Here's Jerry Nadler during the Clinton impeachment proceedings: "The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election...There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other." Oh. Then so much for today's impeachment vote. On the first Article, abuse of power, the vote was 230-197. On the second Article, obstruction of Congress, the vote was 229-198. The votes were entirely along party lines, except for the handful of Democrats who defected. Tulsi Gabbard voted "present" on both Articles. Jeff Van Drew (NJ) and Collin Peterson (Minn) were two Democrats who voted no on both Articles. And another Democrat, Jared Golden (Maine), voted no on obstruction. All the Republicans voted no.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also had a different attitude 20 years ago from what the Dems are saying now. Now, they claim that McConnell is not going to be an impartial juror in the Senate trial because he said he was going to consult with Trump, the defendant in the trial. But in 1999, Schumer seemed to agree with McConnell, saying this: In this process (the Clinton impeachment) "we'll be consulting the White House because it's the President who's the defendant and due process would guarantee him, or fairness certainly, would guarantee him certain rights."
Now, Schumer and the Dems say the Senate must have a full trial, with subpoenaing documents and calling witnesses. In 1999, Schumer said this: "It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses." The issue of witnesses also demonstrates the inappropriateness of the Second Article - Obstruction of Congress. The House acted as if once subpoenas are issued to the President, the President, representing the co-equal branch of the Executive, had no right to object, no right to seek the intervention of the Courts, which generally resolves conflicts between the other two branches.
But the House could not wait for a Court battle, which might not be resolved until the spring or summer. After 3 years of searching and running non-stop investigations of the President, and having found something that they thought would finally resonate with the American people (it did not), they needed to act quickly as the primaries were only a couple of months away. Therefore, they charged Trump with obstruction, for the simple act of seeking to have his day in Court. Imagine that. I'd say that the Democrats have abused their power with all this nonsense. But I'm looking forward to November, as it looks as if this totally political exercise has locked in a reelection victory for the President.
Okay, so the House voted to impeach President Trump. Is anybody really surprised? Does anybody really think this is about President Trump's telephone conversation with the Ukranian President? If so, perhaps you can explain this comment by Jerry Nadler immediately after Trump's victory in 2016: "We cannot wait four years to vote Mr. Trump out of office...so we must do everything we can to stop Trump and his extreme agenda now." The Dems hate Trump and always have. And they really hate the fact that he defeated Clinton in 2016. "Extreme agenda?" The best economy in decades. The best stock market. The lowest unemployment rate in decades. New trade deals. A return of manufacturing jobs. The most supportive of Israel of any President.
Even before the election, here is what Politico asked in April, 2016: "Could Trump be impeached shortly after he takes office?" Again, this blog saw what was happening less than two months into the Trump Presidency. See the 3/12/17 post "The Deposing of an American President." Even Pelosi admitted it. When asked if the impeachment hearing was not a little too quick, she replied that the investigation was going on for 2 1/2 years. That is well before the July, 2019 telephone call between Trump and Zelensky. And 19 minutes after Trump was sworn in, this was on the Washington Post site: "The campaign to Impeach President Trump has Begun."
Here's Jerry Nadler during the Clinton impeachment proceedings: "The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election...There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other." Oh. Then so much for today's impeachment vote. On the first Article, abuse of power, the vote was 230-197. On the second Article, obstruction of Congress, the vote was 229-198. The votes were entirely along party lines, except for the handful of Democrats who defected. Tulsi Gabbard voted "present" on both Articles. Jeff Van Drew (NJ) and Collin Peterson (Minn) were two Democrats who voted no on both Articles. And another Democrat, Jared Golden (Maine), voted no on obstruction. All the Republicans voted no.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also had a different attitude 20 years ago from what the Dems are saying now. Now, they claim that McConnell is not going to be an impartial juror in the Senate trial because he said he was going to consult with Trump, the defendant in the trial. But in 1999, Schumer seemed to agree with McConnell, saying this: In this process (the Clinton impeachment) "we'll be consulting the White House because it's the President who's the defendant and due process would guarantee him, or fairness certainly, would guarantee him certain rights."
Now, Schumer and the Dems say the Senate must have a full trial, with subpoenaing documents and calling witnesses. In 1999, Schumer said this: "It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses." The issue of witnesses also demonstrates the inappropriateness of the Second Article - Obstruction of Congress. The House acted as if once subpoenas are issued to the President, the President, representing the co-equal branch of the Executive, had no right to object, no right to seek the intervention of the Courts, which generally resolves conflicts between the other two branches.
But the House could not wait for a Court battle, which might not be resolved until the spring or summer. After 3 years of searching and running non-stop investigations of the President, and having found something that they thought would finally resonate with the American people (it did not), they needed to act quickly as the primaries were only a couple of months away. Therefore, they charged Trump with obstruction, for the simple act of seeking to have his day in Court. Imagine that. I'd say that the Democrats have abused their power with all this nonsense. But I'm looking forward to November, as it looks as if this totally political exercise has locked in a reelection victory for the President.
Sunday, December 8, 2019
Year End Reflections, Part II
The constitutional scholars testify about impeachment. One of the Democrats' witnesses, Noah Feldman, was ready to impeach President Trump only months into his presidency. Feldman was offended by Trump's use of the expression "fake news." He felt that it might "curtail press freedoms (and) frighten the press," resulting in the press "ceasing to be effective critics." Not only did that not happen, but the reverse happened. You could not find a positive article about Trump or his policies in almost any of the mainstream media.
Pamela Karlan, another of the Dems' constitutional scholars, could barely hide her total disdain for Trump. As early as 2017, she also, dare I say, hated Trump. On a trip into D.C., she mentioned (again, this was 2017) that she was walking to her hotel, and "I was walking past what used to be the old post office building and is now Trump Hotel. I had to cross the street, of course." Of course, otherwise she might catch the plague. Asked if she was staying there, she replied: "G-d no! Never!"
The fake news opines. In an online piece in the New York Times on 12/6/19, we are hit with this headline: "With Impeachment Unfolding Amid a Booming Economy, What Will Voters Prioritize?" We are told that America is in an 11 year expansion. Get that? They throw in all eight years of Obama. The same Obama who told us to get used to a 2% growth rate. The same Obama who told us that manufacturing jobs would never return, and mocked Trump for saying that he would bring those jobs back, as if he had a magic wand. Anyway, the article tells us that "employers have hired 2.2 million people over the past 12 months," and that unemployment "is at 3.5% - it's lowest in half a century." But, proving that they are, indeed, the fake news, the Times tells us: "those gains have often come in spite of Mr. Trump's policies, not because of them." That's right, NEVER EVER give Trump credit for anything good. Ever!
The economy could not possibly have responded to the lowering of taxes, the cutting of regulations or the new trade deals, all thanks to Trump. Trudeau mocked Trump at the recent European summit. Too bad Canada lost 71,000 jobs in November, while the US gained 266,000 jobs. So mock away. We also gained 54,000 of those manufacturing jobs Obama said would never come back. (This blog has discussed the issue of media bias going all the way back to 2011. For those interested, see the posts on "Media Bias, Parts I-IV," posted 12/17/11, 1/7/12, 1/21/12, and 2/3/13. The issue has come up in numerous other posts as well.)
The House passes an anti-Israel resolution. The vote was 226 to 188, almost entirely along party lines. Only 5 Republicans voted in favor, with 4 Democrats (the "Squad" members) voting against. The resolution says, among other things, "Whereas the United States has long sought a just and stable future for Palestinians, and an end to the occupation, including settlement activity and moves toward unilateral annexation in Palestinian territory..." First, this resolution was intended to counter the recent declaration of the Trump Administration, made by Secretary of State Pompeo, that the settlements are not per se in violation of international law. Second, the resolution picks up where Obama left off, using the Palestinian term "occupation." Third, again picking up where Obama left off, the resolution refers to "Palestinian territory," as if the boundaries of that area are somehow a foregone conclusion. Obama allowed the passage of a UN Security Council resolution his last month in office, which set forth the boundaries of a Palestinian state, with the area encompassing Gaza, the West Bank and "East" Jerusalem.
You see, the Dems have given up on a negotiated resolution between the two sides. Rather, they want to pressure who? Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East and possibly in the world. And the Democratic candidates for President? They appeared at the left-wing meeting of J-Street, which bills itself as pro-Israel, but is not. These candidates - Biden and Sanders and Warren and Buttigieg - did not appear at the more centrist AIPAC convention. Sanders: "What is going on in Gaza right now is absolutely inhumane, it is unacceptable, it is unsustainable." So, don't blame Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip. Don't blame Hamas, which spends millions to build and buy weaponry to use against Israel. No, blame Israel, and threaten to cut US funding to Israel. Let's not forget that soon after taking office in 2009, Obama said we needed to create "daylight" between the US and Israel. And the Democrats have sought to do just that ever since. (For a detailed discussion of the history and geography of Israel and the Middle East, see the 3/25/11 post, "Letter to a College Student.")
Schiff violates people's civil rights and the mainstream media yawns. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, obtained the phone records of Devin Nunes, ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, reporter John Solomon and others. Then Schiff put the information in his report to the Judiciary Committee. The content of the calls was not revealed; rather, it was the metadata - showing the phone numbers, the length of the calls and when the calls were made. It appears that this was a first, with one member of Congress (Democrat Schiff) spying on another member (Republican Nunes). As the 12/5/19 editorial in the Wall Street Journal said, "This is unprecedented and looks like an abuse of government surveillance authority for partisan gain." Partisan gain? That has a familiar ring to it. When do we get to see the call logs of Adam Schiff and his staff with the "whistle blower," so that we might see what coordination there was in setting up this whole Ukraine story.
Kimberly Strassel, in her 12/6/19 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, said this: "The media is treating this as a victory, when it is a disgraceful breach of ethical and legal propriety." The New York Times was, in fact, elated over the disclosure. In their 12/4/19 edition, on page A17, is this headline: "Phone Records Support Idea That Giuliani Ran Shadow Foreign Policy." As if no other president ever had unofficial advisers. As if no other president ever had a "kitchen cabinet." Nowhere in the article did I see that the reporters asked any legal scholars if the release of the names and phone metadata of those surveilled was appropriate under the law. But why would they. Why would Schiff abusing the powers of his office to go after his political opponents bother the mainstream media. If they do not want to be referred to as the "fake news," then maybe they should start acting as if they are not.
Pamela Karlan, another of the Dems' constitutional scholars, could barely hide her total disdain for Trump. As early as 2017, she also, dare I say, hated Trump. On a trip into D.C., she mentioned (again, this was 2017) that she was walking to her hotel, and "I was walking past what used to be the old post office building and is now Trump Hotel. I had to cross the street, of course." Of course, otherwise she might catch the plague. Asked if she was staying there, she replied: "G-d no! Never!"
The fake news opines. In an online piece in the New York Times on 12/6/19, we are hit with this headline: "With Impeachment Unfolding Amid a Booming Economy, What Will Voters Prioritize?" We are told that America is in an 11 year expansion. Get that? They throw in all eight years of Obama. The same Obama who told us to get used to a 2% growth rate. The same Obama who told us that manufacturing jobs would never return, and mocked Trump for saying that he would bring those jobs back, as if he had a magic wand. Anyway, the article tells us that "employers have hired 2.2 million people over the past 12 months," and that unemployment "is at 3.5% - it's lowest in half a century." But, proving that they are, indeed, the fake news, the Times tells us: "those gains have often come in spite of Mr. Trump's policies, not because of them." That's right, NEVER EVER give Trump credit for anything good. Ever!
The economy could not possibly have responded to the lowering of taxes, the cutting of regulations or the new trade deals, all thanks to Trump. Trudeau mocked Trump at the recent European summit. Too bad Canada lost 71,000 jobs in November, while the US gained 266,000 jobs. So mock away. We also gained 54,000 of those manufacturing jobs Obama said would never come back. (This blog has discussed the issue of media bias going all the way back to 2011. For those interested, see the posts on "Media Bias, Parts I-IV," posted 12/17/11, 1/7/12, 1/21/12, and 2/3/13. The issue has come up in numerous other posts as well.)
The House passes an anti-Israel resolution. The vote was 226 to 188, almost entirely along party lines. Only 5 Republicans voted in favor, with 4 Democrats (the "Squad" members) voting against. The resolution says, among other things, "Whereas the United States has long sought a just and stable future for Palestinians, and an end to the occupation, including settlement activity and moves toward unilateral annexation in Palestinian territory..." First, this resolution was intended to counter the recent declaration of the Trump Administration, made by Secretary of State Pompeo, that the settlements are not per se in violation of international law. Second, the resolution picks up where Obama left off, using the Palestinian term "occupation." Third, again picking up where Obama left off, the resolution refers to "Palestinian territory," as if the boundaries of that area are somehow a foregone conclusion. Obama allowed the passage of a UN Security Council resolution his last month in office, which set forth the boundaries of a Palestinian state, with the area encompassing Gaza, the West Bank and "East" Jerusalem.
You see, the Dems have given up on a negotiated resolution between the two sides. Rather, they want to pressure who? Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East and possibly in the world. And the Democratic candidates for President? They appeared at the left-wing meeting of J-Street, which bills itself as pro-Israel, but is not. These candidates - Biden and Sanders and Warren and Buttigieg - did not appear at the more centrist AIPAC convention. Sanders: "What is going on in Gaza right now is absolutely inhumane, it is unacceptable, it is unsustainable." So, don't blame Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip. Don't blame Hamas, which spends millions to build and buy weaponry to use against Israel. No, blame Israel, and threaten to cut US funding to Israel. Let's not forget that soon after taking office in 2009, Obama said we needed to create "daylight" between the US and Israel. And the Democrats have sought to do just that ever since. (For a detailed discussion of the history and geography of Israel and the Middle East, see the 3/25/11 post, "Letter to a College Student.")
Schiff violates people's civil rights and the mainstream media yawns. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, obtained the phone records of Devin Nunes, ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, reporter John Solomon and others. Then Schiff put the information in his report to the Judiciary Committee. The content of the calls was not revealed; rather, it was the metadata - showing the phone numbers, the length of the calls and when the calls were made. It appears that this was a first, with one member of Congress (Democrat Schiff) spying on another member (Republican Nunes). As the 12/5/19 editorial in the Wall Street Journal said, "This is unprecedented and looks like an abuse of government surveillance authority for partisan gain." Partisan gain? That has a familiar ring to it. When do we get to see the call logs of Adam Schiff and his staff with the "whistle blower," so that we might see what coordination there was in setting up this whole Ukraine story.
Kimberly Strassel, in her 12/6/19 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, said this: "The media is treating this as a victory, when it is a disgraceful breach of ethical and legal propriety." The New York Times was, in fact, elated over the disclosure. In their 12/4/19 edition, on page A17, is this headline: "Phone Records Support Idea That Giuliani Ran Shadow Foreign Policy." As if no other president ever had unofficial advisers. As if no other president ever had a "kitchen cabinet." Nowhere in the article did I see that the reporters asked any legal scholars if the release of the names and phone metadata of those surveilled was appropriate under the law. But why would they. Why would Schiff abusing the powers of his office to go after his political opponents bother the mainstream media. If they do not want to be referred to as the "fake news," then maybe they should start acting as if they are not.
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Year End Reflections, Part I
Impeachment. It was nice having a week break from impeachment talk, at least from the House of Representatives, which was on its Thanksgiving recess. The mainstream media took no such break, as on any given day in any given paper, one could find about 5 anti-Trump, pro-impeachment articles. So allow me to present some opposing views. Former diplomat Dave Seminara had an Op-Ed in the 11/22/19 Wall Street Journal. Commenting on the criticism of Trump for going outside state department channels and using Rudy Giuliani to promote the Trump agenda, Seminara reminds us that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchanged over 150 emails about Libya with Sidney Blumenthal, who was not in the government, and not one email exchange with our Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. Seminara emphasizes how the various diplomats who testified had no real "insight into the president's decision-making," which is "not uncommon for officers of their rank."
Seminara went on to discuss how the diplomats spoke of the importance of fighting corruption in Ukraine, yet could not bring themselves to truly criticize Joe Biden. With Biden's son, Hunter, being paid $50,000 per month by the Ukranian energy company Burisma, which was under investigation for corruption, then VP Biden was put in charge of White House policy on Ukraine. Seminara explained that the diplomats who testified should have "at least argue(d) that Joe Biden should have recused himself from Ukraine policy, but they didn't seize" (the opportunity). Their failure to do so supported my argument in the last post that these diplomats had an anti-Trump bias. Finally, Seminara told us that the diplomats saying they worked under both Democratic and Republican presidents was not terribly meaningful, as "it's currently true of every career diplomat with three years on the job."
The truth about the Democrats' and media's view of Trump. In her 11/26/19 Op-Ed in the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg undoubtedly speaks for millions when she dismisses the legitimacy of the Trump presidency, based upon two "big lies." "The first big lie is that "the people" elected Trump, and that the constitutional provision of impeachment would invalidate their choice. In fact, Trump is president only because a constitutional provision invalidated the choice of the American people." Here is a little history lesson for Ms. Goldberg - the US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. "The people" do indeed elect the president, but they do so through the electoral college, which is part of our Constitution. That is the way it has been done for 230 years. Goldberg: "The second big lie is that Russia didn't help elect Trump, and that the president has been absolved of collusion." Of course, she presents no hard evidence of how the Russians helped Trump win. But that is not the point. The point is the Dems and the media have never and will never accept Trump as President, which is why we have been hearing about impeachment for the last three years and counting, and why we will continue to hear about it for four more years.
Israel. President Trump has been the most pro-Israel president in our history. On 11/18/19, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said this: "the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law." Pompeo also added that the ultimate status of the West Bank will have to be decided by the two sides. That comment is generally left out of the criticisms flowing from left-wing groups. Demonstrating how Trump and Pompeo let reality dictate their beliefs, Pompeo also said: "...calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law hasn't worked. It hasn't advanced the cause of peace." No surprise, but the EU and many Dems opposed Pompeo's assertion. Elizabeth Warren would reverse that policy if elected. Trump moved the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel's capital. Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Trump withheld aid from the Palestinian Authority because of their funding of terrorists. I suspect most (all?) of the current Democratic candidates for president would reverse most (all?) of Trump's pro-Israel policies. In fact, 107 Democratic members of the House (that is 46%, nearly half, of the 233 House Democrats) sent a letter to Pompeo asking him to reverse this latest policy pronouncement.
US organizations were split in their support for Pompeo's declaration. Caroline Glick reports that the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) was, as expected, strongly supportive. As was the Orthodox Union. So was Christians United for Israel (CUFI). But the Union of Reform Judaism, and, of course, J Street (which deceptively bills itself as pro-Israel) were opposed. Sadly, the Jewish Federations of North America had no comment. Most disappointing to this writer was the reaction of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is the largest pro-Israel Jewish lobbying group in Washington, and has many Democrats among its leaders. AIPAC: "AIPAC does not take a position on settlements..." As Glick argues, every anti-Semitic, anti-Israel group uses the alleged "illegality" of the settlements to support the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement, and their anti-Israel attitudes. As Herb Keinon opined in his 11/24/19 piece in The Jerusalem Post: "The Democrats are lowering the standard for what is considered pro-Israel, while the Republicans are raising it."
Pompeo's declaration was a direct repudiation of Obama's policy. Recall that at the end of his term in December, 2016, President Obama refused to have our UN Ambassador veto a Security Council resolution that said: "...the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law..." (For a complete discussion and understanding of the significance of that UN resolution, see the 12/24/16 post "The United States Abandons Israel at the United Nations.") In brief, Obama supported a resolution essentially establishing a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders - borders which have no legal significance, and ceded control of "East" Jerusalem, the location of the most holy sites in Judaism, to the Palestinians. Contrary to the assertions in that UN resolution, no Palestinian state has ever existed on that land.
Both major parties in Israel were highly supportive and appreciative of Pompeo's statement, reflecting the Trump Administration's ongoing support for Israel. I would like to be able to say that Jews on both sides of the political divide in the US are also supportive, but that is not the case. I would not be surprised to see the same 70%-80% of American Jews vote for the Democratic candidate next year, even if that candidate pledges to undo each and every one of Trump's pro-Israel policies. Given the growing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attitudes and actions in the US and throughout the world, it is difficult to understand.
Seminara went on to discuss how the diplomats spoke of the importance of fighting corruption in Ukraine, yet could not bring themselves to truly criticize Joe Biden. With Biden's son, Hunter, being paid $50,000 per month by the Ukranian energy company Burisma, which was under investigation for corruption, then VP Biden was put in charge of White House policy on Ukraine. Seminara explained that the diplomats who testified should have "at least argue(d) that Joe Biden should have recused himself from Ukraine policy, but they didn't seize" (the opportunity). Their failure to do so supported my argument in the last post that these diplomats had an anti-Trump bias. Finally, Seminara told us that the diplomats saying they worked under both Democratic and Republican presidents was not terribly meaningful, as "it's currently true of every career diplomat with three years on the job."
The truth about the Democrats' and media's view of Trump. In her 11/26/19 Op-Ed in the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg undoubtedly speaks for millions when she dismisses the legitimacy of the Trump presidency, based upon two "big lies." "The first big lie is that "the people" elected Trump, and that the constitutional provision of impeachment would invalidate their choice. In fact, Trump is president only because a constitutional provision invalidated the choice of the American people." Here is a little history lesson for Ms. Goldberg - the US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. "The people" do indeed elect the president, but they do so through the electoral college, which is part of our Constitution. That is the way it has been done for 230 years. Goldberg: "The second big lie is that Russia didn't help elect Trump, and that the president has been absolved of collusion." Of course, she presents no hard evidence of how the Russians helped Trump win. But that is not the point. The point is the Dems and the media have never and will never accept Trump as President, which is why we have been hearing about impeachment for the last three years and counting, and why we will continue to hear about it for four more years.
Israel. President Trump has been the most pro-Israel president in our history. On 11/18/19, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said this: "the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law." Pompeo also added that the ultimate status of the West Bank will have to be decided by the two sides. That comment is generally left out of the criticisms flowing from left-wing groups. Demonstrating how Trump and Pompeo let reality dictate their beliefs, Pompeo also said: "...calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law hasn't worked. It hasn't advanced the cause of peace." No surprise, but the EU and many Dems opposed Pompeo's assertion. Elizabeth Warren would reverse that policy if elected. Trump moved the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel's capital. Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Trump withheld aid from the Palestinian Authority because of their funding of terrorists. I suspect most (all?) of the current Democratic candidates for president would reverse most (all?) of Trump's pro-Israel policies. In fact, 107 Democratic members of the House (that is 46%, nearly half, of the 233 House Democrats) sent a letter to Pompeo asking him to reverse this latest policy pronouncement.
US organizations were split in their support for Pompeo's declaration. Caroline Glick reports that the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) was, as expected, strongly supportive. As was the Orthodox Union. So was Christians United for Israel (CUFI). But the Union of Reform Judaism, and, of course, J Street (which deceptively bills itself as pro-Israel) were opposed. Sadly, the Jewish Federations of North America had no comment. Most disappointing to this writer was the reaction of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is the largest pro-Israel Jewish lobbying group in Washington, and has many Democrats among its leaders. AIPAC: "AIPAC does not take a position on settlements..." As Glick argues, every anti-Semitic, anti-Israel group uses the alleged "illegality" of the settlements to support the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement, and their anti-Israel attitudes. As Herb Keinon opined in his 11/24/19 piece in The Jerusalem Post: "The Democrats are lowering the standard for what is considered pro-Israel, while the Republicans are raising it."
Pompeo's declaration was a direct repudiation of Obama's policy. Recall that at the end of his term in December, 2016, President Obama refused to have our UN Ambassador veto a Security Council resolution that said: "...the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law..." (For a complete discussion and understanding of the significance of that UN resolution, see the 12/24/16 post "The United States Abandons Israel at the United Nations.") In brief, Obama supported a resolution essentially establishing a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders - borders which have no legal significance, and ceded control of "East" Jerusalem, the location of the most holy sites in Judaism, to the Palestinians. Contrary to the assertions in that UN resolution, no Palestinian state has ever existed on that land.
Both major parties in Israel were highly supportive and appreciative of Pompeo's statement, reflecting the Trump Administration's ongoing support for Israel. I would like to be able to say that Jews on both sides of the political divide in the US are also supportive, but that is not the case. I would not be surprised to see the same 70%-80% of American Jews vote for the Democratic candidate next year, even if that candidate pledges to undo each and every one of Trump's pro-Israel policies. Given the growing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attitudes and actions in the US and throughout the world, it is difficult to understand.
Sunday, November 17, 2019
Impeachment!
We have finally arrived at the Democrat's long sought after goal of impeaching President Trump. This goal began with his 2016 election, with talk of impeachment beginning even before Trump won the election. We have a so-called "whistle blower" represented by attorney Mark Zaid. Mr. Zaid, in turn, Tweeted this on 1/30/17, a mere 10 days after Trump was sworn in: "# coup has started. First of many steps. # rebellion. # impeachment will follow ultimately. # lawyers." In 7/17 Zaid said this: "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @real Donald Trump not finishing out his full term as president." I am confident that it was strictly coincidental that Zaid ended up representing this "whistle blower," and that CNN has had almost non-stop anti-Trump coverage. Sure I am.
The Democrats and the mainstream media so hated Trump, that this blog had already devoted a full post to the subject less than two months into the Trump Presidency. In the 3/12/17 post, "The Deposing of an American President," we saw Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, discussing what sounded like the need for violent demonstrations in the street. We saw a former DOD employee discussing the possible need for a military coup! Most of the dislike for Trump so early in his term had to do with the fact that the Dems/media could not accept that he defeated Hillary. After all, she was a shoo-in. The only issue for them was Trump himself. They did not like him, his personality, his ego, his name calling and so on.
To illustrate the point, I had an interesting discussion with someone who told me that Trump was an egotist and a narcissist. I agreed; and then I asked if he felt the same way about Obama. He did not. I pointed out that I was struck by how often Obama said "I" (as in "I did" or "I instructed") during one of his speeches. I decided to compare it with one of Bush's speeches. Throughout Bush's speech were many "we's" and "they's (as in "we decided" or "they/the army/the troops" were able to...). I pointed out to this individual that he never noticed it because Obama seemed "nicer" to him, and he liked Obama. As such, he was less critical of Obama's words and deeds. One could easily conclude from the way Obama spoke (with all his "I's") that he personally killed Osama bin Ladin. But, as we know, perception is reality for some.
How interesting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, in charge of these proceedings. I assume she was not overly impressed with the Mueller hearings (a dud for the Democrats) run by Jerry Nadler, chair of the Judiciary Committee. And, unlike the Nixon and Clinton proceedings, the minority party (Republicans) may only call witnesses with Schiff's approval. I trust we will not be able to hear from Hunter Biden or Joe Biden. The measure authorizing the impeachment proceeding was only brought to a vote after the House investigation had begun. It resulted in a strictly partisan measure, with no Republicans voting in favor, with two Democrats even opposing the measure. Schiff is the one who told us that there is "plenty of evidence of collusion" before Mueller determined that there was not.
Did you notice that the Democrats switched their talking points from "quid pro quo" to "bribery?" The poll numbers were not moving sufficiently in favor of impeachment for "quid pro quo." So they held a focus group of voters and found that "bribery" was far more likely to get people's attentions. What was the "quid pro quo?" That Trump held back aid from our "vital ally," Ukraine, until the Ukranian president would publicly agree to look into Ukranian influence in the 2016 election, which would include the role of the Bidens. The charge is that Trump used his office for personal political interests, seeking to hurt Democratic front runner Joe Biden. A couple of things. I believe a number of presidents have been accused of using the power of their office for political gain, such as when a president is alleged to have started a military operation to either bolster sagging poll numbers or to distract from domestic problems or scandals.
Another thing I noticed is that Ukraine almost overnight became a vital ally to the US. Did that happen when the two witnesses testified on Wednesday? The testimony was given by two State Department employees - George Kent (Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs) and William Taylor (the US charge d'affaires in Ukraine). On Friday, former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified. I was able to catch some of their testimony. I was struck by the fact that much of the discussion seemed to be about policy. Ukraine is apparently a vital ally, presumably in the battle against Russia; and contending with a hostile Russia is the basis for much of our foreign policy.
Just today, on Face the Nation, Speaker Pelosi claimed that Trump's foreign policy is geared towards helping Russia. Clearly, she has not given up on "Russian collusion." So, why did Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, present the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, with a red "reset" button, meant to symbolize Obama's effort to reset relations with Russia. And, let's not forget to mention Obama's message to Putin that he would have more flexibility after his re-election. Putin rightly took it as a sign of weakness by Obama, and seized the Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine as well. Did Obama send offensive weapons to Ukraine to help fight the Russians? No, Trump did that. Obama did not want to offend the Russians. And Obama followed the lead of France and Germany, who opposed supplying arms to the Ukranians.
Here are a few things we are being asked to believe. Chairman Schiff does not know the identity of the "whistle blower," who met with members of Schiff's staff, assuming he did not meet directly with Schiff. My guess is he did, but if he did not, Schiff's staff kept the name a secret - even from their boss. The State Department employees have no bias and are career civil servants just doing their jobs. Would that be like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were just FBI employees doing their job with no bias against Trump? (Recall their text messages calling Trump "awful" and a "disaster" - and those were the nicer messages. Other messages concerned what these FBI employees would need to do in the unlikely event Trump won the election.) Like Andrew McCabe and James Comey were just doing their jobs? The Hill reported in October, 2016, that $1,959,467 was donated by the end of September, 2016, to the two campaigns by federal employees across 14 different departments. Nearly 95% of those donations went to Hillary Clinton. And for the State Department employees? Over 99% of the donations went to Clinton. Can you say "deep state?"
We are also asked to believe that Obama denying necessary military aid to Ukraine in order to fight the Russians was no big deal. But Trump holding up such aid for a short period of time is a catastrophe, jeopardizing our national security, and a sign that Trump works for the Russians. And, we are not allowed to know about any Ukranian efforts to affect the 2016 election on behalf of Clinton, because that might suggest Trump had a legitimate reason to ask the Ukranians to look into the 2016 election and any "collusion" with the Obama/Biden/Clinton team.
Lastly, we are asked to believe that this impeachment hearing is all about protecting the Constitution. See the 10/6/19 post regarding that nonsense. No, Democrat Congressman Al Green told us what this is really all about. Green said he was "concerned if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." Because the Democrats do not respect the process. They could not believe the American people elected Donald Trump to be President. And they cannot take the chance that the people (aka the "deplorables") will re-elect him. I still see articles suggesting that if Trump loses in 2020 he will not accept the results and will have to be forcefully removed from the White House. Who cannot accept what?
The Democrats and the mainstream media so hated Trump, that this blog had already devoted a full post to the subject less than two months into the Trump Presidency. In the 3/12/17 post, "The Deposing of an American President," we saw Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, discussing what sounded like the need for violent demonstrations in the street. We saw a former DOD employee discussing the possible need for a military coup! Most of the dislike for Trump so early in his term had to do with the fact that the Dems/media could not accept that he defeated Hillary. After all, she was a shoo-in. The only issue for them was Trump himself. They did not like him, his personality, his ego, his name calling and so on.
To illustrate the point, I had an interesting discussion with someone who told me that Trump was an egotist and a narcissist. I agreed; and then I asked if he felt the same way about Obama. He did not. I pointed out that I was struck by how often Obama said "I" (as in "I did" or "I instructed") during one of his speeches. I decided to compare it with one of Bush's speeches. Throughout Bush's speech were many "we's" and "they's (as in "we decided" or "they/the army/the troops" were able to...). I pointed out to this individual that he never noticed it because Obama seemed "nicer" to him, and he liked Obama. As such, he was less critical of Obama's words and deeds. One could easily conclude from the way Obama spoke (with all his "I's") that he personally killed Osama bin Ladin. But, as we know, perception is reality for some.
How interesting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, in charge of these proceedings. I assume she was not overly impressed with the Mueller hearings (a dud for the Democrats) run by Jerry Nadler, chair of the Judiciary Committee. And, unlike the Nixon and Clinton proceedings, the minority party (Republicans) may only call witnesses with Schiff's approval. I trust we will not be able to hear from Hunter Biden or Joe Biden. The measure authorizing the impeachment proceeding was only brought to a vote after the House investigation had begun. It resulted in a strictly partisan measure, with no Republicans voting in favor, with two Democrats even opposing the measure. Schiff is the one who told us that there is "plenty of evidence of collusion" before Mueller determined that there was not.
Did you notice that the Democrats switched their talking points from "quid pro quo" to "bribery?" The poll numbers were not moving sufficiently in favor of impeachment for "quid pro quo." So they held a focus group of voters and found that "bribery" was far more likely to get people's attentions. What was the "quid pro quo?" That Trump held back aid from our "vital ally," Ukraine, until the Ukranian president would publicly agree to look into Ukranian influence in the 2016 election, which would include the role of the Bidens. The charge is that Trump used his office for personal political interests, seeking to hurt Democratic front runner Joe Biden. A couple of things. I believe a number of presidents have been accused of using the power of their office for political gain, such as when a president is alleged to have started a military operation to either bolster sagging poll numbers or to distract from domestic problems or scandals.
Another thing I noticed is that Ukraine almost overnight became a vital ally to the US. Did that happen when the two witnesses testified on Wednesday? The testimony was given by two State Department employees - George Kent (Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs) and William Taylor (the US charge d'affaires in Ukraine). On Friday, former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified. I was able to catch some of their testimony. I was struck by the fact that much of the discussion seemed to be about policy. Ukraine is apparently a vital ally, presumably in the battle against Russia; and contending with a hostile Russia is the basis for much of our foreign policy.
Just today, on Face the Nation, Speaker Pelosi claimed that Trump's foreign policy is geared towards helping Russia. Clearly, she has not given up on "Russian collusion." So, why did Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, present the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, with a red "reset" button, meant to symbolize Obama's effort to reset relations with Russia. And, let's not forget to mention Obama's message to Putin that he would have more flexibility after his re-election. Putin rightly took it as a sign of weakness by Obama, and seized the Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine as well. Did Obama send offensive weapons to Ukraine to help fight the Russians? No, Trump did that. Obama did not want to offend the Russians. And Obama followed the lead of France and Germany, who opposed supplying arms to the Ukranians.
Here are a few things we are being asked to believe. Chairman Schiff does not know the identity of the "whistle blower," who met with members of Schiff's staff, assuming he did not meet directly with Schiff. My guess is he did, but if he did not, Schiff's staff kept the name a secret - even from their boss. The State Department employees have no bias and are career civil servants just doing their jobs. Would that be like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were just FBI employees doing their job with no bias against Trump? (Recall their text messages calling Trump "awful" and a "disaster" - and those were the nicer messages. Other messages concerned what these FBI employees would need to do in the unlikely event Trump won the election.) Like Andrew McCabe and James Comey were just doing their jobs? The Hill reported in October, 2016, that $1,959,467 was donated by the end of September, 2016, to the two campaigns by federal employees across 14 different departments. Nearly 95% of those donations went to Hillary Clinton. And for the State Department employees? Over 99% of the donations went to Clinton. Can you say "deep state?"
We are also asked to believe that Obama denying necessary military aid to Ukraine in order to fight the Russians was no big deal. But Trump holding up such aid for a short period of time is a catastrophe, jeopardizing our national security, and a sign that Trump works for the Russians. And, we are not allowed to know about any Ukranian efforts to affect the 2016 election on behalf of Clinton, because that might suggest Trump had a legitimate reason to ask the Ukranians to look into the 2016 election and any "collusion" with the Obama/Biden/Clinton team.
Lastly, we are asked to believe that this impeachment hearing is all about protecting the Constitution. See the 10/6/19 post regarding that nonsense. No, Democrat Congressman Al Green told us what this is really all about. Green said he was "concerned if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." Because the Democrats do not respect the process. They could not believe the American people elected Donald Trump to be President. And they cannot take the chance that the people (aka the "deplorables") will re-elect him. I still see articles suggesting that if Trump loses in 2020 he will not accept the results and will have to be forcefully removed from the White House. Who cannot accept what?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)