The Democrats and Their Allies Chime In

Sure, President Biden said that Israel has the right to defend itself.  But if that is the best he can do, it is weak and disappointing.  It is merely stating the obvious - what country does not have the right to defend itself?  I would have liked to have heard harsh condemnations of Hamas.  I would have liked to have heard the threat of withholding aid from the Palestinians.

Here is Democrat Palestinian Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib:  "American taxpayer money is being used to commit human rights violations.  Congress must condition the aid we send to Israel, and end it altogether if those conditions are not followed."  Hamas sends thousands of rockets into Israeli cities.  They have even caused the deaths of Arab Israeli citizens.  But that is of no consequence to Tlaib.  Israel does its best to avoid human casualties.  But Hamas places its rockets in populated areas.  All wars have human casualties.  As a Jew, I do not celebrate the deaths of innocents - be they Palestinians or others.  I wish I could say the same for others.  

Here is Democrat Congresswoman Cori Bush:  "The fight for Black Lives and the fight for Palestinian liberation are interconnected.  We oppose our money going to fund militarized policing, occupation, and systems of violent oppression and trauma."  My guess is that she sees Israelis as white oppressors of brown Palestinians.  But we Jews are a people.  We are white, black, brown and even Asian.  

Here's one branch of Black Lives Matter:  "Black Lives Matter Paterson (NJ) condemns the ongoing violence against Palestinians in East Jerusalem by the state of Israel and stands in solidarity with those fighting occupation."  I doubt that BLM has any clue as to the history of the Middle East.  It is clear, however, that their condemnation of "violence" does not apply to the terrorist group Hamas.  One really needs to take a step back in order to realize that US Members of Congress support a terror group against our ally Israel.  

Here is Democrat Jewish Senator Bernie Sanders:  "The devastation in Gaza is unconscionable.  We must urge an immediate ceasefire."  And:  "My solution is to say to Israel:  'You get $3.8 billion every year.  If you want military aid, you're going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza."  And this gem:  "We must change course and adopt an evenhanded approach."  The people of Gaza voted in Hamas, a terrorist organization, as their government.  So Israel must change, but Hamas can continue to be a terrorist organization?  An evenhanded approach?  The fact that a US Senator can make such a preposterous comment is well beyond disturbing.  I can only imagine Sanders during WWII:  "I know that Germany is attacking our allies England and France, and has taken over parts of France, but the US should take an evenhanded approach to this war."  

Here is one CNN host to former Israeli Defense Minister Naftali Bennett:  "How can any strikes on Gaza, which is such a densely populated area, be targeted at military sites only?"  The question, of course, answers itself.  But Bennett had to explain it to this CNN host:  "Perhaps you suggest we just lay back, let them shoot rockets at us, not shoot back, because they are hiding the rockets behind women and children.  Would you do that?"  

Here is Democrat Congresswoman Ilhan Omar:  "Israeli air strikes killing civilians in Gaza is an act of terrorism.  Palestinians deserve protection.  Unlike Israel, missile defense programs, such as Iron Dome, don't exist to protect Palestinian civilians.  It's unconscionable to not condemn these attacks on the week of Eid."  What's unconscionable is the fact that Omar and others like her actually serve in the US Congress.  Omar is upset that the attacks are occurring during the week of Eid, but instead of blaming Hamas for launching rockets during that week, she blames Israel for fighting back and defending itself.  And, of course, the implication is that it is unfair for Israel to have the Iron Dome missile defense system when the Palestinians do not.

Comedian Trevor Noah has a similar idea of fairness.  "If you were in a fight where the other person cannot beat you, how hard should you retaliate when they try to hurt you?"  Noah is expressing one of the left's favored talking points - the issue of "proportionality."  Is Israel's response proportionate to the attack on Israel.  Without the Iron Dome system, the 3000+ rockets launched by Hamas into Israel would likely have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Israelis.  But it's always a numbers game for the left - enough Jews are not dying compared to the number of Palestinians dying.  Here is how you can have zero Palestinians dying - stop launching rockets into Israel.  Problem solved.  I wonder how people like Noah and Sanders would feel if a violent extremist group moved in next door to them and started firing bullets indiscriminately into their houses.  Would they call the police?  If so, would they ask the police not to use disproportionate force to stop the shooting, or would they insist on the police putting an immediate end to the threat by all means necessary?  Is Noah is fine with millions of Israelis having to live in bomb shelters and not being able to go about their normal lives?  

Here is Kamala Harris' niece, Meena Harris:  "One cannot advocate for racial equality, LGBT and women's rights, condemn corrupt and abusive regimes and other injustices yet choose to ignore the Palestinian oppression.  It does not add up.  You cannot pick and choose whose human rights matter more."  Really?  She clearly does.  Where does she think that the LGBT community has greater protection - Israel or Gaza?  There are gay pride parades in Israel.  Try being openly gay in Gaza.  And women?  It should be easy enough for Harris to research the multiple ways women are discriminated against in Gaza.  But that would not comport with her, and the left's, talking points.  Better to ignore the truth. 

In a March, 2021 Gallup poll, the results clearly show the differences between the two parties and their views on the Middle East.  An overwhelming 80% of Republicans say their sympathies lie more with Israel, with only 10% saying with the Palestinians.  For Democrats, less than a majority (43%) say their sympathies lie more with Israel, as compared to 38% who sympathize more with the Palestinians.  

There are other Democrats in Congress who have spoken out against Israel.. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has.  Jamaal Bowman has.  Others have more gently expressed their "concern" about Israel's actions.  Meanwhile, within Israel itself, there have been attacks by Arabs on Jews and Jewish property in certain cities, with the most reported being in the city of Lod.  It is bad enough for Israel to have to fight an external enemy, but for Israeli Arabs to attack fellow Israelis who are Jews?  Those Arab citizens who are attacking Jews in Israel are doing so in order to demonstrate their support for an enemy of the state.  I would give them a choice - move to Gaza or we will deport you to Gaza.

My support for Israel is not contingent on which party is running the government, or who sits in the Prime Minister's office.  I know that left-wing American Jews  view Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as simply being another Republican.  Well, guess what?  When Israel comes under attack like this, the people of Israel stand united, left and right.  American Jews should do the same.  Am Yisrael Chai!  The people of Israel live!  The Jewish nation lives!     

The Coronavirus 61 Weeks Later - Israel at War - Again

The lead headline in the May 11, 2021 New York Times was this:  "VIOLENCE ERUPTS BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS."  Coincidentally, I ran into Violence the other day at the local coffee shop.  Working up my courage, I went up to him and asked:  "Violence, how come you erupted again?"  He asked if I was from the press; I said that I was not but that I do write a blog.  He agreed to talk to me as long as I did not convey his comments to the press.  Violence:  "Look, I really did not want to erupt again.  But, and this is off the record, I was getting a lot of pressure from the Palestinians."  I asked what pressure.  Violence:  "C'mon, man.  You must know that under Trump, the Palestinians were ignored.  This was a way to reassert themselves back into the international dialogue."  How so, I asked?

Violence:  "Remember when Trump said he was going to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital city of Jerusalem?  Many people predicted that I would erupt then.  They were nuts.  You think I was going to erupt with a guy like Trump in the White House?"  Me:  "What changed?"  Violence:  "Trump lost.  Biden returned to Obama's policy of appeasing bad guys.  Biden reestablished relations with the Palestinians, and he reinstated aid to them.  And the Palestinians did not have to promise anything - not to stop killing Jews, and no need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state."  Me:  "And so?"  Violence:  "C'mon, man!  Trump helped establish normalized relations between Israel and 4 Arab states.  Unheard of.  Arab leaders were openly stating their frustration with the Palestinians refusal to make peace."

Me:  "I see.  So what is the goal of the Palestinians?"  Violence:  "It's already a done deal.  The Palestinians are now the front and center story in the Middle East.  They're relevant again.  And those 4 Arab countries that normalized relations with Israel?  They now had to openly condemn Israel.  Those 'Abraham Accords' are at risk of being pulled apart."  Me:  "What about the claim that this is about the houses in Sheikh Jarrah, and the clashes at the Al Aqsa Mosque?"  Violence:  "Seriously, man?  We both know that was all a pretext for my erupting now."  Me:  "Why won't you discuss this on the record?"  Violence:  "Listen, man.  The media, the UN, the Europeans, the Arabs, and even Democrats in your country are already blaming the Jews.  Sorry to tell you, but that will always be the easiest narrative.  I gotta run."  Me:  "One more thing.  What would happen if you told the truth?"  Violence:  "I'm Violence, man.  I always have to be seen as siding with the perceived underdog.  Besides, there is no upside to me going against the tide and siding with the Jews.  Later, dude."   

That was quite an illuminating conversation that I had with Violence.  But what about the Arabs being evicted from their homes in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah?  Turns out that  Jews owned those properties since 1875.  But during Israel's war of independence beginning in 1948, Jordan succeeded in capturing the half of Jerusalem later known as East Jerusalem.  The Jews were evicted from their homes, because Jews were not permitted to remain in the territory captured by Jordan; ethnic cleansing of Jews always being permissible.  Jordan then transferred title to some of those properties to Arabs,  Others remained under Jewish ownership.  Then Israel retook the area in the 1967 Six Day War.  As to those properties that remained under Jewish ownership, litigation has been ongoing in Israeli courts for years.  Some of the Arabs living in those homes have been treated as tenants.  The courts were reluctant to evict them as long as they paid rent.  But they refuse to pay rent.  And some are mere squatters, with no rights at all.  In the areas of the West Bank controlled by the Palestinian Authority, it is illegal for Arab owners to sell their property to Jews.  The punishment for doing can be extreme.  Just don't expect any condemnation of that policy from the mainstream media, the left, the UN or the Europeans.

But what about the clashes between Israeli police and Arabs at the Al Aqsa Mosque.  The Mosque sits on the site of what the Arabs refer to as the Noble Sanctuary, often described as the third holiest place in Islam.  For Jews, it is The Temple Mount, the site of  Abraham's binding of Issac, and the site where the two Great Temples stood.  It is the holiest place in Judaism.  For reasons hard to comprehend for this writer, and after recapturing Jerusalem in the 1967 war, the Israelis turned over control of the Temple Mount to the Waqf, which is under Jordanian authority.  However, Israel annexed the eastern area of Jerusalem after the 1967 war, and is therefore responsible for security in all of Jerusalem.  I think the question to ask about the clashes between Arab worshippers and Israeli police on the Mount, is why were the Arabs stockpiling large rocks in their holy mosque?  Why were those rocks thrown at Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall below?  Here is another question:  why are Jews forbidden from praying on the Mount?

The reaction in the mainstream media was predictable.  Nicholas Kristof, one of the chief columnists at the New York Times, made this less than astute observation:  "It's also true that Hamas not only attacks Israeli civilians but also oppresses its own people.  But as American taxpayers, we don't have much influence over Hamas, while we do have influence over Israel and we provide several billion dollars a year in military assistance to a rich country and thus subsidize bombings of Palestinians."  Let me start with this.  Israel is our greatest ally in the Middle East, perhaps in the world.  Hamas has been designated a terrorist organization by our State Department.  So according to Kristof, let's punish our ally Israel in order to reward terrorists?   And what does he mean we have no influence over Hamas?  Of course we do, if we choose to exercise it.  Trump knew how to, Biden has no clue.  Unless, you disagree with Violence, and believe it is all coincidental that Violence did not erupt during Trump's term in office, but has erupted mere months into Biden's term?  

Here is Tracy Wilkinson's analysis in the Los Angeles Times.  (As an aside, Wilkinson was single-handedly responsible for my dropping my subscription to the LA Times with her constant anti-Israel reporting during an earlier war between Israel and the Palestinians.)  Wilkinson:  "Trump gave cart blanche to the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its right-wing nationalist supporters while sidelining and punishing the Palestinians."  As with so many on the left, Wilkinson does not see a difference between Hamas and Israel.  And she clearly does not understand how the withholding of aid can be just as influential as the providing of aid.  Kristof suggested that US aid to Israel could be better spent on providing Covid-19 vaccinations around the world or pre-K at home.  (I will not debate here whether or not the US should ever provide foreign aid.  That is a topic for another time.)

While Iran supplies rockets to Hamas, the US has assisted Israel with financing its Iron Dome missile defense system.  The system was developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries.  As reported by the WSJ, "In 2020 the American firm Raytheon announced partnership with Rafael to build Iron Dome in the U.S."  The US relationship with Israel is far from being one way.  The US benefits greatly from Israeli technology and intelligence.  As I recall, during one of our past wars in the Middle East, a US general praised Israeli intelligence as being worth five CIAs.    

In case readers have any doubt about where much of the mainstream media stands, the New York Times is always pleased to make it clear.  You see, it is not sufficient for Israel to be declared the guilty party in the current war with Hamas.  No, Israel should not even exist.  So says Peter Beinart in a May 13,2021 Op-Ed in the Times.  Beinart is a Jew, and apparently has a great deal of guilt over the fact that Israel exists.  I will not address his points here.  (If somebody wishes to debate those, let me know.)  But, his approach sounds no different than that of the Palestinians: "From the river to the sea, all of Palestine will be free."  From the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea will be Palestine.  Israel will be gone.  Exactly what Hamas and Fatah call for in their charters - the destruction of Israel.  So if you want to know what this current war, and all the wars, have been about, that's it.  The Palestinians desire to wipe Israel off the map.  As Violence told us, there is always a pretext for the fighting, but the pretext is not the truth.      

A Few Words About the Blog And Me

I started the blog in 2009, after initially sending emails to 5 to 10 people I knew.  I was inspired by my dislike for Obama and his policies.  My daughters said that I should have a blog, and they set it up for me and named it the Truth-Uncensored.  

The blog has a conservative outlook because I am a conservative.  There are plenty of left-wing sites out there (most of the mainstream media) if you want to get that viewpoint.  I read left-wing papers.  I also have the CNN app on my phone.  And Fox, the Wall Street Journal, the USA Today, NBC and various Jewish sites.  Yet I know many on the left will not go near the conservative sites.  They will mock Fox News, never having watched it.  They are happy being spoon fed left-wing propaganda by the mainstream media, social media, Hollywood TV and movies, and academia.

I am not "woke," and have no plans to be.  I do not care for political correctness.  Wokeness and political correctness are poor substitutes for reason and analysis.  But the racist liberals had no problem calling Senator Tim Scott an "Uncle Tim," because he dared to deviate from the accepted ideology of the left.  How dare a black man do such a thing.  How dare he say that the United States is not racist.  I wonder if they have any clue just how racist that idea is - the idea that one's skin color must dictate their view of the world.

I do not support Black Lives Matter.  I do support black lives, and those of all races.  But the BLM movement is anti-police.  I am not.  They are anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.  Unlike most on the left, I a a strong supporter of Israel.  I believe in treating people as individuals, not as members of a larger group based on their race or ethnic background or religion.  

Biden is a liar.  He lied about seeking "unity."  That was the theme of his inaugural address.  Yet, he has shown no signs of seeking unity, having signed far more executive orders than any of his recent predecessors.  And he has pushed far more "progressive" legislation.  Biden also lied about the Georgia election law, encouraging Major League Baseball to move their All Star game out of Atlanta.  He continued to lie about it even after the Washington Post (a left-wing paper) gave him the maximum 4 pinocchios for his lie.   

Biden is ineffectual in dealing with the immigration crisis at the southern border.  He essentially invited all these people to come.  He seems to not care about the human trafficking or drug smuggling.  As with the rest of the progressive left, more immigrants is assumed to mean more Democratic voters.  A Fox News poll of 4/18-4/21/21 of registered voters, found that most of the people polled blamed Biden for the increase in migrants at the border.  38% said it was completely his fault, and 18% said it was mostly his fault.  That's 56% compared to 36% who said it was only a little his fault (21%) or not at all his fault (15%).  

And I'm mad at Biden for continuing to talk about "systemic racism."  As I mentioned in another post today, it discourages young people.  Here's the proof.  I saw an ad on TV.  A little white boy was sitting and playing with toys, and the caption read: "When I grow up...I'll job hop...to avoid toxic workplaces."  The little black girl was also sitting and playing with toys, with this caption: "When I grow up...I will face discrimination for my differences...unless you champion equality."  Anyone who frightens young people like that is sick.  

And I firmly believe that Trump's (and the Republicans') approach to expanding opportunity, which resulted in historic low unemployment rates across all races, is far healthier for society than the government giving people numerous handouts.  

As readers know, some very long term friends have abandoned me, simply because I disagree with them politically.  I have never done that to anybody.  But I found that most on the left refuse to engage in a political discussion.  Even if they start the conversation, they will end it when they are challenged by me.  These are often bright people with no interest in hearing an opposing viewpoint.  Go figure.

So I will continue to do what I do.  But once again, as I have done in the past, I am happy to present another side.  I have done that with my give and take with various professors and others.  And I published an exchange with a Public Editor of the New York Times.  (The Times eliminated that position a number of years ago.  Too much criticism of the paper is my guess.)  And I once offered someone to write his own post, although the offer was declined.       

The Coronavirus 59 Weeks Later - The Aftermath of the George Floyd/Derek Chauvin Verdict

Derek Chauvin was found to be guilty on all counts for the death of George Floyd.  Prior to the verdict, President Biden proved that he is a race baiter with his comment that he was "praying" for the "right verdict."  Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters also spoke before the verdict, saying that if Chauvin was acquitted, people would need to "get more confrontational."  The Judge in the Chauvin case called such comments "abhorrent."  There is always the concern that such comments might dissuade the jury from even considering a finding of "not guilty," fearing widespread violence otherwise.  But Biden and Waters, like Obama before them, can get away with such comments, because they are Democrats.  

So, do we need to defund the police?  According to a Fox News poll, conducted from April 18 - 21, 62% oppose a reduction in police funding, with only 33% supporting it.  But, some cities have already reduced police funding.  Here is how well defunding is working in some cities.  According to Fox, year to date, Chicago has seen a 33% increase in homicides and 39% increase in shootings.  New York City, an 8% increase in homicides and 64% increase in shootings.  (Although the NYPD reports that March, 2020 vs March, 2021, there was a 36% increase in the murder rate.)  Los Angeles had a 186% increase in murders, and an 80% increase in shootings.  Portland had a 733% increase in murders and a 103% increase in shootings. 

Meanwhile, the US House of Representatives passed the "George Floyd Justice in Policing Act" by a vote of 220 to 212, with two Democrats voting with all the Republicans against the measure.  The bill bans no knock warrants in drug cases.  I understand - we don't want mistakes made resulting in innocent people being killed.  But it also bans chokeholds.  My friend, a retired police officer, has said that chokeholds can temporarily incapacitate a person resisting arrest, allowing the police to handcuff that person and place them in custody, without the risk of serious injury to either the police or the person being arrested.  During their training they practiced chokeholds on each other, without incident.  

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act also puts an end to "qualified immunity."  Because of qualified immunity, police officers do not have to worry about paying for their own attorneys every time a citizen may decide to sue them and the city in which they work.  They need not worry that their personal assets are on the line.  My friend, the retired cop, tells me that an increasing number of street cops are already showing up at crime scenes after the fact.  They put up the yellow tape and wait for the detectives to arrive.  If we take away their qualified immunity why would they ever want to engage any suspect?  Would you risk all of your family's assets every single day in a job where split second life and death decisions may have to be made?  

Not surprisingly, cops are quitting.  Why would they risk their lives, liberty and pensions and family just for doing their jobs?  No, I am not defending bad cops or bad behavior.  But in 2020 560 police officers retired from the Chicago PD, an increase of 15% from 2019.  2600 left the NYPD, an increase of 75% from 2019.  And, between retirements and leaves of absence, the Minneapolis PD has lost 20% of their force. 

No one was celebrating the recent death of 16 year old Ma'khia Bryant in Columbus, Ohio.  As police arrived, they saw Bryant holding a knife and appearing to be ready to stab another young woman.  One of the officers shot Bryant, who died from her wounds.  Both Bryant and the other woman are black.  But some commentators, while understandably upset by the death of a such a young person, made ridiculous recommendations.  Joy Behar suggested firing a warning shot in the air.  Very dangerous - because what goes up also comes down.  She suggested using a taser, but tasers do not always work.  And she suggested shooting the person in the leg.  But police are trained to not fire their weapons unless there is a threat of death or serious injury to themselves or others.  And given such a threat, they are taught to fire at center mass, which has the greatest likelihood of hitting the intended target (and not an innocent bystander), and stopping an imminent attack on life.  

But the left, along with the left-wing mainstream media, constantly tells us that police are targeting black people.  Some have called it an "epidemic."  As Jason Riley recently noted in his 4/28/21 column in the WSJ:  "According to a Washington Post database, police shot and killed 999 people in 2019, including 424 whites and 252 blacks.  Twelve of the black victims were unarmed, versus 26 of the white victims.  In a country where annual arrests number more than 10 million, if those black death totals constitute an "epidemic" of police use of lethal force against blacks, then the word has lost all meaning." 

No one is happy that nearly 1000 people were shot and killed by the police in 2019.  We would all prefer to live in a society where no one breaks the law and certainly where no one commits violent crimes.  But there are bad guys out there, and some are very bad guys.  The left and the mainstream media do a great disservice when they scare every black person into resisting lawful police commands, because they are afraid of the police.  And I will continue to ask - can anyone name a single one of the 50 white people shot and killed by the police in the first quarter of this year?  If not, do you understand the role the media plays in only reporting police shootings that involve black victims, and painting a picture of a police war on blacks?            

The Coronavirus 59 Weeks Later - Biden Addresses A Joint Session Of Congress

President Biden spoke to a joint session of Congress this past Wednesday (the first speech to Congress by a new President not being considered a "State of the Union" address).  He told us that he took office with 3 crises hanging over the country - the worst pandemic in a century, the worst economy since the Great Depression, and the "worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War."  Let's start with that last assertion.  Yes, it appeared that hundreds stormed the Capitol on January 6.  Yes, there was extensive property damage.  Yes, a Capitol police officer died and over a hundred people were injured.  And some were armed with pepper spray, stun guns and bats, but few if any had guns.  So, to my thinking, 9/11 was a far greater attack on our democracy and way of life than was January 6 (which I already condemned in a prior post).  

Biden took credit for creating 1.3 million new jobs in his first 100 days.  And for providing for 220 million Covid shots.  Remember in his augural address Biden emphasized "unity?"  He mentioned "unity" numerous times.  If he meant it, he would have thanked President Trump for Operation Warp Speed, resulting in the development of vaccines in record time.  The economy was already beginning to expand last year as the country started to reopen.  The Wall Street Journal reported that GDP grew 33.4% in the third quarter, but contracted to 4.3% in the fourth quarter with the new lockdowns.  The economy was already growing, with that growth accelerated by increasing numbers of people now being vaccinated. 

Taken together, Biden's proposals for the expansion of government are estimated to have a cost of 6 trillion dollars.  Yes, the government can print more money; but at what point do we see inflation eating away at the value of the dollar?  And how will future generations ever be able to repay that debt?  And to what end?  Clearly, with the expansion of government benefits to the middle class, the Democrats hope to buy millions of votes for the foreseeable future.  The Wall Street Journal asked this question:  "Haven't we tried this before?"  They remind us that Head Start had already provided pre-school and child care.  They tell us we had Women, Infants and Children programs, food stamps, welfare, childcare subsidies, and public housing.  The Journal:  "Why did the trillions of dollars spent on those programs fail?  And if they didn't work, why do we need more?"  

As a conservative, I want to see everyone in the country succeed.  So, if there is one thing I can see as a worthwhile expenditure, it is community college for all.  I am not sure why it needs to free for everyone, even for those who can afford to pay.  But community colleges can provide the needed education and job skills to enable people to succeed.  Providing unlimited benefits to people discourages work; and, quoting the Journal, "work...is the real path to independence and self-respect."  

Biden's worst moments were when he was discussing race.  "We have all seen the knee on the neck of Black America."  What we saw was the knee of one white man on one black man.  Biden went on to assert that "systemic racism...plagues American life in many other ways."  No, I am not claiming that there is no racism anymore.  But I'll say it again - stop telling young people that the system is stacked against them.  That is an evil message.  Tell people that if they get an education and work hard they can succeed - because it is true.  But if the country can be defined by racism, I do wonder why so many brown and black people keep pouring in from all over the world.      

Senator Tim Scott gave the Republican rebuttal to Biden's speech.  For daring to say that "America is not a racist country," he was called an "Uncle Tim."  A sellout to his race (Scott is black).  But we know that the most biased, most intolerant people are on the left.  At least one left-wing commentator mocked the Republicans putting up a "token" black for the rebuttal, noting that Scott is the only black Republican Senator.  But let's hear it for the Democrats because they have two black Senators.  

Senator Scott said it best:  "Just before Covid, we had the most inclusive economy in my lifetime.  The lowest unemployment ever recorded for African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans.  The lowest for women in nearly 70 years.  Wages were growing faster for the bottom 25% than the top 25%.  That happened because Republicans focused on expanding opportunity for all Americans."  Expanding opportunity vs expanding dependency on government.  Which one do you think is better?         

      

The Coronavirus 57 Weeks Later - There Is No Crisis At The Border, But There Is At The Supreme Court

President Biden has established a 36 member commission, dominated by people on the left, to "study" the role of the Supreme Court.  The commission will look into "the Court's role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court;  and the Court's case selection, rules and practices."  The President has given the commission six months to issue their report.  Why the need for a such a commission now?  Because President Trump was able to fill 3 vacancies on the Court.  But the Democrats in Congress are not waiting for the commission's report.  Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass) and Representative Mondaire Jones (D-NY) already have a bill that will add 4 justices to the Court; which if passed and signed into law, conveniently allows Biden to appoint 4 new justices.

Markey and Jones had an Op-Ed up on CNN online, explaining the need for this court-packing.  First, they start their article justifying the need for their proposed legislation.  "For decades, the GOP has trafficked in dog-whistle, white grievance politics to hold onto power without popular support for it policies."  Clear tactic - attack the GOP, and lie.  It is a lie to say that Republican policies have no popular support; just as it would be a lie to say that some Democrat policies do not have popular support.  Although, I fail to see the relevance of "popular support" in judicial decision making.  It is the legislative branch that considers popular support.  

Second, the need to explain the imminent danger if they don't act.  "This Supreme Court has the ability to repeal our reproductive and marriage rights.  To institute racist immigration policies that dehumanize those searching for a new life in the United States.  To ensure that Black and Brown and disenfranchised voters never get the opportunity to make their voices heard at the ballot box."  There is so much wrong here that it would take an entire blog post to adequately comment.  Suffice it to say that the same charge was made about the Court overturning Roe v. Wade.  Hasn't happened.  But the goal is to scare enough people to make them support this court-packing scheme.  And, of course, to scare the sitting justices into thinking twice about voting down the left-wing agenda.  Some say that Chief Justice Roberts has already voted with that threat in mind.

Third, change definitions, something at which the left excels.  Court packing was always understood as adding justices to the Court, as FDR proposed in 1937.  Although he failed, the threat alone was enough to make the Court start upholding some of FDR's New Deal legislation.  Markey and Jones:  "Expanding to 13 justices would undo the Republican court packing of the last five years."  Court packing of the last five years?  Trump filled 3 vacancies on the Court.  That is not court packing.  I am well aware of the failure of the Senate to act on Obama's nominee Merrick Garland.  (See the 9/21/20 post for a further discussion on that.)  But the Democrats are saying all of Trump's appointees constitute court packing.  A big lie.

Fourth, the truth slips out.  Markey and Jones:  "It (the proposed legislation) would restore our right to choose the world we want to live in..."  There it is:  "our right."  The Democrats believe they have the right to control all aspects of society in order to create the world that they want.  

Before she died, liberal member Ruth Bader Ginsburg opined that the current 9 members of the Court is a good number.  The Court has had 9 members since 1869.  Stephen Breyer, another liberal member of the Court, has also opposed the idea; and has expressed his concern that the Court would be viewed as being guided by politics rather than by legal principal.  Who else opposed court packing?  Joe Biden, as a US Senator.  As the Constitution does not designate the size of the Court, Biden acknowledged that FDR had the right to propose legislation expanding the Court.  But then Biden said this:  "But it was a bonehead idea.  It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make...it put in question...the most significant body, in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America."  

It is clear that Biden's position has shifted or else he would not have appointed the commission.  As to the justices length of service, that cannot be changed by simple legislation.  Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution provides:  "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior."  That means that federal judges at all levels serve for life, unless they are impeached and convicted.  Or resign.  Therefore, a Constitutional amendment would be required to limit the terms of the justices.  But changing the size of the Court is definitely within the power of Congress. 

As I frequently say, let's look at the big picture.  Currently, the Democrats control the White House.  They control the Senate.  They control the House of Representatives.  And their allies (fellow left-wing Democrats) dominate the mainstream media, social media, academia and Hollywood.  But all that power is not enough.  They must control the Supreme Court as well.  They can not tolerate that conservatives dominate any institution in the country.  It is no wonder that also on their agenda is ending the filibuster, packing the Senate (with D.C. and Puerto Rico added as new states), and taking full control of all elections nationwide.  Maybe you think permanent one party rule is a good idea.  I do not.  A quote from John Dalberg-Acton best sums up the concern:  "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."    

The Coronavirus 55 Weeks Later - How Do You View The World?

Among my conservative friends, we have discussed on numerous occasions how our liberal friends and family seem unable to "connect the dots."  When we bring up some issue, we are told it is not that important, or it's just an isolated incident, and, of course, what about Trump and the Republicans.  Recently, a lifelong friend in New Jersey and I were exchanging political texts.  He has a self-described "center right" political viewpoint, although I tell him he is liberal.  This is what he thought of my telling him that he is unable to connect the dots:  "Poor, poor Pinhead.  He sees snakes under every rock, hears ghosts in every breeze, evil and danger lurking everywhere...provided of course that Democrats are (the) source.  Trump and the Republicans?  He sees no danger, only their wonderful 'values.'"  (As an aside, I take no offense from his comment.  It's a New Jersey thing.  Often, the language is far harsher.)

So who's right?  Am I not to make any connection between the Democratic push to defund the police with the rising crime rates across the country?  Should I not make any connection between the Democrats' open border policy, with the increase in human smuggling, and the huge surge in minors crossing our borders?  Should I not be concerned about the Democrats' belief that people should primarily be identified by the color of their skin, creating far more division than the hated President Trump did.  What about the Democrats push to take over all state election laws, in an effort to permanently ensure Democratic electoral victories?  Why do Democrats support socialism over capitalism, with their determination to spend unlimited amounts of money, and provide guaranteed incomes to people?  And, of course, we have the Democrats appeasement of terrorists, such as with Iran and the Palestinians.  Then, we have the "cancel culture," one of the biggest evils perpetrated by the Democratic left.  With Democratic policies, danger is always lurking.   

So how are the Democrats policies doing?  It was reported that the Los Angeles County District Attorney has decided to downsize his office's hardcore gang unit.  Why not?  Murders are up 28% in Los Angeles.  Violent crime overall is up 93% when compared with the same period in 2020.  Are other big cities run by Democrats doing well?  New York City's murder rate is up 12% and its violent crime rate is up 42%.  In Atlanta violent crime is up 43% and in Philadelphia it is up 49%.  In Minneapolis the murder rate is up 46%.  

Speaking of legal issues, remember when crossing the border illegally used to actually be illegal?  The Democrats tell us that no one is an "illegal."  We are all people.  That seems to mean that borders are illegal.  Having a sovereign country is just wrong.  Let the whole world in and let the whole world vote.  We were told that Trump had "kids in cages."  Now, we're told that the surge in kids coming is either a natural occurrence during wintertime (a Biden lie) or Trump's fault.  As of February 21, 2021, 9,457 unaccompanied minors were encountered at the border.  That was up 61% from January, 2021, and up 171% from February, 2020.  Biden invited people to come here illegally - and they came.  And they are continuing to come - in droves.  Only recently were United States Senators permitted access to border facilities.  One Senator said that a facility built for 80 people had 709 people.  And he said this:  "literally wall to wall in every one of the little plexiglass cells that they have, and people flooding out into the hallway."  This, in the era of Covid.

And, in the interest of fairness, allow me to point out that the evil way of viewing people through a racial lens, has even infected some Republicans.  Phil Scott is the Governor of Vermont.  And a Republican; although I will point out that the New England Republicans often lean quite left.  In any event, the Governor issued this declaration:  "If you or anyone in your household identifies as Black, Indigenous, or a person of color (BIPOC), including anyone with Abenaki or other First Nations heritage, all household members who are 16 years or older can sign up to get a vaccine."  That is racist, and undoubtedly unconstitutional.  It is extremely divisive.  And evil.  But this Governor has apparently accepted the left-wing concept of "equity"over "equality."  

What about Georgia's new election law?  If you only read, or listen to, the mainstream media, then you know only the lies told by Biden.  Biden said the law is "sick," and "un-American."  And he said the law is "Jim Crow on steroids."  All lies.  Here's Kamala Harris:  "It's all voter suppression by any other name."  Another liar.  How about the lie that voting is going to end at 5pm when people are just getting off of work?  Anyone in line by 7pm gets to vote.  The law actually provides an extra Saturday for voting, between 9am and 5pm, although the local county may extend the voting that day from 7am to 7pm.  But voters in line are not allowed to be given water or food?  Outrageous!  No, just another lie.  Georgia law already prohibited electioneering within a certain distance of the polling location.  This law makes sure that politically affiliated groups will not be showing up with free handouts to voters.  There is nothing to prevent people from bringing their own water bottles, or from having election officials provide a self-service dispenser.  

After Biden said he would support Major League Baseball moving their All Star game this year from Atlanta to another location because of Georgia's voting law, the MLB complied.  Much of Big Business fell in line.  (Does anyone still believe the lie that business is conservative.  Big Businesses are often run by cowards, afraid to stand up to the left-wing mob.)  Delta Airlines CEO said the law "is unacceptable and does not match Delta's values."  Of course, having flights to China is no problem for Delta, given China's stellar human rights record.  Other companies criticizing Georgia include Coca-Cola, American Express and Cisco.  Here's Cisco's CEO:  "Governments should be working to make it easier to vote, not harder."  But that's what Georgia did, while still trying to have some semblance of voter integrity.  

So Georgia has the same voting hours on election day as many other states.  And some blue states (New Jersey, Connecticut and Delaware - Biden's state) do not even allow early in-person voting as does Georgia.  Georgia allows no-excuse required for getting a mail-in ballot.  New York State does not.  Are they going to stop playing games in Yankee Stadium?  Growing up in New Jersey I became a New York Yankees fan.  And I have remained so - until now.  Unless Major League Baseball reverses course, I am done with them.  There is only so much abuse that I can tolerate from the left-wing tyrannical mob.  

But we are still left the question - why are Biden and Harris and other Democrats lying in order to make such a big issue of the Georgia voting law?  A couple of reasons.  Lying about the law in a Republican state gives the Democrats and the mainstream media yet another opportunity to claim how terrible the Republican Party is - racist, white-supremacist, supporters of voter suppression, and all the other "deplorable" characteristics one can apply to them.  But there is another reason.  And that is HR1, which passed in the House along a party line vote (one Democrat voted no) of 220 to 210.  Now, the bill is labeled SB1 in the Senate.  The filibuster may block the Democrats ability to get it passed in the Senate.  But, if they call the Republicans racists and white supremacists who want to suppress minority voting rights, then they can argue that all Democrats need to stand strong and united in order to abolish the filibuster and pass this bill. 

What about HR1 and SB1?  It makes federal law supersede state election laws.  Elections have historically been run by the states.  Why the need to change now?  Voter suppression!  Really?  Following an election in which more people voted than ever before?  Biden was the first candidate to get over 80 million votes (81,281,502).  Trump got 74,222,593 votes, more than any prior Republican candidate.  Exactly whose votes were being suppressed?  So why is this federal takeover of every state's election laws needed?  First, the Democrats always believe that the federal government should control all laws, and all aspects of our society.  The idea that the USA is a republic of 50 sovereign states does not sit well with them.  More importantly, HR1 and SB1 will mandate permanent mail-in ballots, lessen voter integrity, and indirectly have the effect of having people here illegally be able to vote, and have 16 year olds be able to vote.  

I'll end on this note.  We had another attack at the Capitol, with one police officer being killed by the driver, who intentionally ran into him and one other officer.  MSNBC originally reported that the driver was a "white male."  And why not?  The same was done with regards to the recent shooter in Boulder, Colorado.  Here was Kamala Harris' niece after the Boulder shooting:  "Violent white men are the greatest terrorist threat to our country."  Others gave similar statements.  Except the shooter in Boulder was from Syria.  And the driver killing the police officer at the Capitol was black, and an adherent of the Nation of Islam, led by anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.  But the left-wing narrative is that white men are bad.  But just imagine if a prominent white man said this:  "Violent Black men are the greatest criminal threat to our country."  That person would not get a pass from the mainstream media and the Democrats.