After then President Obama had clearly aligned himself with the Palestinians over Israel, but nevertheless still claimed to be a friend of Israel's, I wrote this: "No, if you were a true friend of Israel's Mr. Obama you would stop enabling the Palestinians' sense of victimhood and entitlement. You would tell them that there will never be a right of return for millions of descendants of the original refugees. You will tell them that Jerusalem will forever remain the undivided capital of Israel - and you will move the U.S. embassy there to prove that point. And you will tell them - no force them - to lay down their arms and recognize Israel as the sole Jewish state in the world. But...maybe you and I define friendship differently." (From the 6/7/15 post "Obama on Israel, Part II.) Now, President Trump, the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House, has done what I asked of Obama, and more.
The Trump peace plan envisions Israel keeping virtually all of Jerusalem as its capital. It gives no right of return to the descendants of Palestinian refugees. Israel gets to keep their "settlements" in the West Bank. Hamas and Islamic Jihad would have to disarm. And, to meet Israel's security concerns, Israel would retain control over the Jordan River Valley. And Israel must be recognized as the nation-state of the Jewish people. In exchange, the Palestinians get 70-80% of the West Bank, Gaza, and two additional areas of land out of Israel's Negev. If the Palestinians comply, they would receive $50 billion in economic aid.
Not surprisingly, the Palestinians immediately rejected the plan, as they have every other opportunity for peace. The mainstream media, and the Left generally, were highly critical of the plan. Notwithstanding their criticism, the New York Times editorial opined: "This could well be 'the last opportunity' for their own state that the Palestinians will ever have, as Mr. Trump warned, or at least the makings of the best deal they can expect." Bret Stephens, the anti-Trump but pro-Israel opinion writer at the New York Times, said: "The record of Arab-Israeli peace efforts can be summed up succinctly: Nearly every time the Arab side said no, it wound up with less." That, of course, is true. Had the Arabs accepted the UN partition plan of 1947, they would have had more territory than the Jews. However, they have chosen war after war after war.
The Arab League continues to be a huge disappointment, voting unanimously to reject the plan. Nothing has changed since the League met in Khartoum, Sudan following the 1967 Six Day War. Then, the League passed a resolution with "the three nos," - no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. If the Arab world will not join in pressuring the Palestinians to stop a hundred years of wars, then there is little hope that it will happen. In the meantime, the Palestinians continue to teach their school children to hate the Jews, and to encourage them to be martyrs. A Palestinian historian and archaeologist said this: "Jerusalem is the old walled city. The rest is not Jerusalem. We mean by Jerusalem - and I think everybody around the world means - the holy sites." Another Palestinian said: "Trump promised Jerusalem to the Jews. G-d promised it to us, and G-d is greater than Trump."
If control of Jerusalem is to be based on religious grounds, then bad news for the Arabs. G-d promised Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank territory) to the Jewish people long before there was an Al Aqsa Mosque or even Islam. When Jordan controlled the West Bank and Jerusalem between 1949 and 1967, Jewish holy sites were destroyed. Access to the Western Wall (the Kotel) was mostly denied. After Israel won the 1967 war and controlled Jerusalem, all religions have had access to their holy sites. Israel will never cede control of the Old City or Jerusalem, as it contains the holiest sites in Judaism.
Caroline Glick is an author and opinion writer, one of the best when it comes to analyzing events in the Middle East. She was an IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) captain and on Israel's negotiating team in 1995 for the Oslo Accords. Notwithstanding the Palestinians' agreement, Glick says: "Beginning with the PLO's failure to amend its covenant that called for Israel's destruction in nearly every paragraph; through their refusal to abide by the limits they had accepted on the number of weapons and security forces they were permitted to field in the areas under their security control; their continuous breaches of zoning and building laws and regulations; to their constant Nazi-like anti-Semitic propaganda and incitement and solicitation of terrorism against Israel - it was self-evident they were negotiating in bad faith. They didn't want peace with Israel. They were using the peace process to literally take Israel apart piece by piece."
Now along comes President Trump, who refuses to reward the Palestinians for their bad behavior, after having turned down offer after offer. Nevertheless, what the plan does offer the Palestinians is a state of their own. But the Palestinians have proven time after time that they have no interest in having their own state if it means that Israel will also continue to exist.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote an article that appeared in the weekly Jewish Journal of Los Angeles (January 24-30,2020 edition). Rabbi Boteach wrote something that I can definitely relate to: "...the more I stood up for Israel, especially through ads in the media, the more my liberal friends and admirers began to desert me." I, too, will continue to stand up for Israel, notwithstanding the hostility i get in return. As much as I would like for there to be true peace between the Jews and Arabs, I cannot ignore reality. And that reality tells me that the Arabs have chosen war over peace for 100 years. As that one Palestinian said, G-d is greater than Trump. I agree. As G-d promised all the land of Israel, including the West Bank, to the Jews, the Jews should keep it. Let the Palestinians lay down their arms, then maybe there will be something to talk about.
Sunday, February 2, 2020
The Democrats' Inability to Accept Defeat
It is really quite astonishing. To refer to Democrats as "sore losers" seems so inadequate. After all, they have never accepted the results of the 2016 election. That is why we have had the "resistance," attempted non-violent coup, the Mueller investigation and the sham impeachment proceedings. Just over one week ago, lead House Manager Adam Schiff said this: "The President's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff claimed for two years that he had hard evidence of Russian collusion. When Mueller disagreed, Schiff neither apologized nor came forward with his evidence. It appears that he believes the Russians will seek to interfere with the next election in order to re-elect Trump, which makes no sense as the Democrats overall are much weaker on foreign policy. So, what would Schiff do? Cancel the election? Simply declare the winner of the Democratic nomination to be president?
House Manager Jerry Nadler called Trump a "dictator." If Trump is a dictator, he is doing a pretty poor job of being one. The first thing a dictator does is shut down the press. Has Trump verbally attacked the "fake news" media? Sure. But I cannot think of another president in my lifetime who has been as vilified by the press as Trump. Are reporters being arrested and jailed? Is there press censorship? If Trump wants some lessons in mistreating the press he should speak with Obama. Obama and his aids repeatedly referred to Fox News as not being a legitimate news organization. Obama excluded Fox from certain press briefings. (Trump only kicked out Jim Acosta, not all of CNN.) Obama had federal investigators spy on reporters, and even their families. Think New York Times reporter James Risen, and Fox News reporter James Rosen, who was labeled a "criminal co-conspirator" for getting information from a state department contractor. Then there was the attack on AP (Associated Press) reporters whose phone records were obtained by the Feds. I won't even get into the use of the IRS to investigate and harass Tea Party members and other conservatives. Who acted as a dictator?
Nadler was not the only Democrat to claim that "the articles (of impeachment) are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence amassed by the House." So overwhelming that the Democrats insisted that they needed more witnesses to make their case? As it became clear that the Democrats were not going to get those additional witnesses (the Senate voted on Friday 51-49 against the calling of more witnesses), here is what some of them had to say. Senator Kamala Harris: "There will be no true acquittal if there is no fair trial." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: "The president's acquittal will be meaningless, because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink." That's a lot of permanent. (Although, I recall when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's single season home run record, there was indeed an asterisk next to his record, because when Maris played the season had 162 games and when the Babe played the season was only 154 games. Eventually, however, the Commissioner of baseball ordered the asterisk removed. I am not sure what record book the Trump asterisk will be in.)
Here is what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "He (Trump) will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial, and you don't have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documentation and that." Of course there were witnesses and there was documentation. The House Managers presented their evidence (the witnesses and documentation obtained in the House Committee hearings) to the Senate. What these Democrats are really saying is that they want "additional" witnesses. There is no requirement that there be additional witnesses. I have submitted cases for decision without the calling of live witnesses. Nothing unusual about that. If I felt that the record was adequately developed through reports and depositions, then I did not always feel the need for live testimony.
But we know what is really going on with these Democrats. As noted above, they cannot stand to lose. They lost in 2016 because Trump won in the Electoral College. Therefore, many Dems wanted to eliminate the Electoral College. Trump got to appoint two justices to the Supreme Court. Therefore, many Dems wanted to "pack the Court" by adding to the number of justices; which they may still do if they win the House and the Senate and the Presidency. It's simple, if the Dems lose it means they need to change the rules so that they never lose. Who is the threat to democracy? More than that even, they no longer believe that Americans should be able to decide who wins elections. After all, there are many of us who "cling to our guns and religion." Many of us are "deplorable." And if you did not see the clip of Don Lemon of CNN, along with his guests Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali, brutally mocking Trump supporters, you should Google it. We are the "credulous boomer rubes." We cannot figure out "all those lines on the map."
The Democrats' ultimate goal was to remove Trump from office. After all, if Pence became President he would be a far less formidable candidate, not having the force of personality that Trump has. The Democrats are not blind to the size of the crowds that Trump is able to capture at his rallies. The Democrats understand that Trump's base has stayed with him. Attempting to remove Trump from office through a completely one-sided politically motivated impeachment does not offend the Democrats in the least. I have said it many times in past blog posts: the Democrats operate under the premise that the ends justify the means. They truly believe that they are the ones who deserve to rule over us. Therefore, any means to accomplish that goal are justified. Impeach the President. Eliminate the Electoral College. Pack the Supreme Court. So far, it has not worked. A president with a lesser strength of character would have crumbled under the constant attacks.
But the Dems are not done. Whether or not they pass new articles of impeachment in the House is an open question. If it does not happen before the election, I am confident that there will be tremendous pressure to do so in Trump's second term, should he win re-election. At a minimum, we will hear non-stop about a "cover-up." Somehow, the Senate relying on the "overwhelming" amount of evidence produced by the House, but still voting not to convict, will be deemed a "cover-up." And that tells us something else about the Dems - do not dare to disagree with them. If you do, they will not merely mock you and call you names, and accuse you of bad behavior such as a cover-up. They will seek to destroy you. (See multiple prior blog posts for examples. Think Chick fil-A, which the Dems are still trying to put out of business because the owner dared to say he believed in marriage being between a man and a woman.)
House Manager Jerry Nadler called Trump a "dictator." If Trump is a dictator, he is doing a pretty poor job of being one. The first thing a dictator does is shut down the press. Has Trump verbally attacked the "fake news" media? Sure. But I cannot think of another president in my lifetime who has been as vilified by the press as Trump. Are reporters being arrested and jailed? Is there press censorship? If Trump wants some lessons in mistreating the press he should speak with Obama. Obama and his aids repeatedly referred to Fox News as not being a legitimate news organization. Obama excluded Fox from certain press briefings. (Trump only kicked out Jim Acosta, not all of CNN.) Obama had federal investigators spy on reporters, and even their families. Think New York Times reporter James Risen, and Fox News reporter James Rosen, who was labeled a "criminal co-conspirator" for getting information from a state department contractor. Then there was the attack on AP (Associated Press) reporters whose phone records were obtained by the Feds. I won't even get into the use of the IRS to investigate and harass Tea Party members and other conservatives. Who acted as a dictator?
Nadler was not the only Democrat to claim that "the articles (of impeachment) are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence amassed by the House." So overwhelming that the Democrats insisted that they needed more witnesses to make their case? As it became clear that the Democrats were not going to get those additional witnesses (the Senate voted on Friday 51-49 against the calling of more witnesses), here is what some of them had to say. Senator Kamala Harris: "There will be no true acquittal if there is no fair trial." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: "The president's acquittal will be meaningless, because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink." That's a lot of permanent. (Although, I recall when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's single season home run record, there was indeed an asterisk next to his record, because when Maris played the season had 162 games and when the Babe played the season was only 154 games. Eventually, however, the Commissioner of baseball ordered the asterisk removed. I am not sure what record book the Trump asterisk will be in.)
Here is what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "He (Trump) will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial, and you don't have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documentation and that." Of course there were witnesses and there was documentation. The House Managers presented their evidence (the witnesses and documentation obtained in the House Committee hearings) to the Senate. What these Democrats are really saying is that they want "additional" witnesses. There is no requirement that there be additional witnesses. I have submitted cases for decision without the calling of live witnesses. Nothing unusual about that. If I felt that the record was adequately developed through reports and depositions, then I did not always feel the need for live testimony.
But we know what is really going on with these Democrats. As noted above, they cannot stand to lose. They lost in 2016 because Trump won in the Electoral College. Therefore, many Dems wanted to eliminate the Electoral College. Trump got to appoint two justices to the Supreme Court. Therefore, many Dems wanted to "pack the Court" by adding to the number of justices; which they may still do if they win the House and the Senate and the Presidency. It's simple, if the Dems lose it means they need to change the rules so that they never lose. Who is the threat to democracy? More than that even, they no longer believe that Americans should be able to decide who wins elections. After all, there are many of us who "cling to our guns and religion." Many of us are "deplorable." And if you did not see the clip of Don Lemon of CNN, along with his guests Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali, brutally mocking Trump supporters, you should Google it. We are the "credulous boomer rubes." We cannot figure out "all those lines on the map."
The Democrats' ultimate goal was to remove Trump from office. After all, if Pence became President he would be a far less formidable candidate, not having the force of personality that Trump has. The Democrats are not blind to the size of the crowds that Trump is able to capture at his rallies. The Democrats understand that Trump's base has stayed with him. Attempting to remove Trump from office through a completely one-sided politically motivated impeachment does not offend the Democrats in the least. I have said it many times in past blog posts: the Democrats operate under the premise that the ends justify the means. They truly believe that they are the ones who deserve to rule over us. Therefore, any means to accomplish that goal are justified. Impeach the President. Eliminate the Electoral College. Pack the Supreme Court. So far, it has not worked. A president with a lesser strength of character would have crumbled under the constant attacks.
But the Dems are not done. Whether or not they pass new articles of impeachment in the House is an open question. If it does not happen before the election, I am confident that there will be tremendous pressure to do so in Trump's second term, should he win re-election. At a minimum, we will hear non-stop about a "cover-up." Somehow, the Senate relying on the "overwhelming" amount of evidence produced by the House, but still voting not to convict, will be deemed a "cover-up." And that tells us something else about the Dems - do not dare to disagree with them. If you do, they will not merely mock you and call you names, and accuse you of bad behavior such as a cover-up. They will seek to destroy you. (See multiple prior blog posts for examples. Think Chick fil-A, which the Dems are still trying to put out of business because the owner dared to say he believed in marriage being between a man and a woman.)
Monday, January 20, 2020
Appeasement At All Costs?
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)