Afghanistan

 (Note:  I'm angry.  I understand that I am not alone in feeling angry.  And there is so much that has been written, and can be written, that this post may seem a bit disjointed.  My apologies if that is the case.  And, while the post may seem somewhat lengthy, there is so much more that  I wanted to say about this topic.)

President Biden wanted us out of Afghanistan.  Many Americans agreed.  I did not.  We had about 2500 non-combat troops left.  They advised the Afghan army, and I imagine that they gathered intelligence.  Not a single member of our military was killed in the last 18 months.  I do not believe that the service men and women who risked their lives (2,448 made the ultimate sacrifice, with over 66,000 Afghani military/police killed, and many wounded) did so in vain.  Our brave men and women kept this country safe for the last 20 years, with no major terrorist attack since 9/11/2001.

We could have stayed with that minimal force and kept stability in that country.  But Biden said that Trump made a deal with the Taliban and he was stuck with that.  One of many lies.  On Biden's first day in office he signed numerous executive orders overturning every Trump policy his people could not wait to reverse.  But not Afghanistan.  Right.  Biden originally set 9/11/2021 as the date for all US troops to be out of Afghanistan.  But his advisers reminded him that was the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks, and the optics would not be good.  They attacked us and killed 3000 Americans on 9/11/2001, and we're going to bail on 9/11/2021?  That would appear that we are giving the Taliban two victories on the same date.  So, the date was changed to August 31, 2021.

I understand the argument against our having stayed there for this long.  Nation building in Afghanistan was never likely to succeed.  But we are (were) still there, so the analysis should be made based on current circumstances, not what we should have done 10 or 15 or more years ago.  But Biden wanted out, and the consequences be damned.  Biden kept his own counsel.  His advisers' opinions were irrelevant to him.  After the last of our people are home, the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State and National Security Adviser should all have the decency to resign.  Yes, the Commander in Chief has the last word.  But if the CIC's decision is dangerous to national security, and you have not convinced your boss of that, then resign.  

Speaking of that, please do not email me about Trump and January 6.  Assuming Trump could even be held responsible for the 5-6 deaths that may be related to that day, the amount of blood on Biden's hands is far greater.  Yesterday, August 26, 2021, a suicide/homicide bomber killed at least 92 people, including 13 US troops.  The US had the Taliban providing security outside the Kabul airport.  The Taliban!  But, you say, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack.  That would be the same ISIS members which the Taliban just released from prisons which, until recently, were under US/Afghan government control.  Hundreds, if not thousands, of ISIS prisoners were released.  So, how is the Taliban, the group tasked with guarding the airport for the US, also not responsible?

Isn't it interesting that Osama bin Laden saw just how weak Joe Biden is.  In the computers taken from bin Laden's compound, was this memo:  "Obama is the head of infidelity, and killing him automatically will make Biden take over the presidency.  Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis."  A crisis?  No, many crises.  Let's see.  Afghanistan is again a safe haven for terrorists.  Our southern border crisis should make it easier for terrorists to come to the US.  We already know that people are coming in from countries all over the world.  And the nearly $5 trillion dollars in pending legislation should prevent us from keeping up militarily with the ever increasing threats from China, Iran and Russia, among others.  

Speaking of which, maybe someone can explain why we left billions of dollars worth of military hardware at Bagram Air Base.  While much of social media was saying that $80 billion of equipment was left behind, Politifact (which many claim to have a left-wing bias) claimed the assertion was false, and that maybe less than $10 billion in equipment was left behind.  Either way, I don't get it.  If we were unable to take it, then destroy it   Blow it up.  I wonder how much money the Taliban will be able to make by selling our military hardware to China or Russia or Iran?  And the buyer will then be able to reverse engineer our equipment so that they can mass produce their own.  Great.  

Biden said he did not want to turn over Afghanistan to yet a fifth president.  That is confusing.  Was he about to leave office, or does he not have well over 3 years left in his term?  No, he wanted out by the twentieth anniversary of 9/11.  I imagine he envisioned himself giving a speech on that day about what a great job he did in ending that war.  I wonder what he is going to say now.  Leon Panetta, Obama's Defense Secretary, said the war may be over for us, but it is not over for them.  The Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeda and others will continue to try to do us harm.  Panetta anticipated that sooner or later we will have to go back.  

I happened to watch Chris Wallace interview Secretary of State Anthony Blinken last Sunday on "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace."  Wallace may be on Fox, but he is a Democrat.  (As an aside, Fox has far more balance than the other two cable networks.)  I had seen Wallace be a tough interviewer with Republicans, but less so with Democrats.  But it was apparent that Wallace, like many Americans, was angry with the debacle that was unfolding in Afghanistan - even before the events of yesterday.  Biden had said that Al Qaeda was no longer a threat in Afghanistan.  False said Wallace.  A UN report said Al Qaeda was still operating in 15 of Afghanistan's 34 provinces.  Biden had said that none of our allies had criticized his handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Wrong again. said Wallace.  At one point Wallace asked Blinken:  "Mr. Secretary, does the President not know what's going on?"  I lost track of how many times Wallace suggested Biden was lying.

Armin Laschet, the head of the Christian Democratic Union in Germany, and a possible successor to Angela Merkel, called Biden's handling of the withdrawal "the biggest debacle that NATO has suffered since its founding, and we're standing before an epochal change."  French President Emmanuel Macron said that Europe would need to "reassess the reality of what NATO is in light of the commitment of the United States."  The head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Britain's House of Commons, called Biden's retreat "shameful."  

Which brings me back to Biden's 8/31 deadline.  Biden having announced the deadline, the Taliban then said that they would not agree to any extensions.  So Biden has a deadline, regardless of whether or not all Americans, and all Afghanis who assisted our troops, are safely out.  That is beyond incredible stupidity.  It is beyond infuriating.  It is a complete failure to exercise the primary responsibility of any American president - the responsibility to protect Americans.  It is, indeed, "shameful."  But for those of us paying attention, we know that Biden does not care about Americans.  If he did, he would protect our southern border.  He would not allow people who tested positive for Covid to freely enter the country and move anywhere within the country that they like.  And he would care about the illegal drugs, the criminals and likely terrorists, entering our country. 

But everything that was stable under President Trump had to be reversed.  His leftist run party told him that and he obeyed.  The deal that Trump made with the Taliban had a number of conditions.  Those conditions were never met.  Here is what I would have announced to the Taliban if I was the CIC (and assuming I was determined to exit Afghanistan):  "We will get out when we are good and ready to get out.  It will not be before every single American is safely evacuated.  It will not be before every Aghan is out that we want to get out.  And I will send in as many troops as are necessary to accomplish those goals.  If you interfere with our evacuation, if a single American is killed or even injured, you will regret it - now and for the foreseeable future."

It was not just democrat Chris Wallace who turned on Biden.  The Democratic leadership, of course, has not.  But some in the mainstream media seem to have awoken to the fact that they are journalists.  Here is the front page headline in the 8/18/21 USA Today:  "Who is responsible for this catastrophe?"  Here is a headline, albeit on page 7, of the 8/24/21 New York Times:  "Afghan Fiasco Shows Fault Lines in NATO."  Fiasco indeed.  

After yesterday's terrible attack on our troops and others, I watched Biden say "We will not forgive, we will not forget.  We will hunt you down and make you pay."  I did not see the kind of passion, of anger, that I would have liked to have seen from a CIC.  At this point I might be pushing for Biden's impeachment.  But, if successful (I know, impossible under Pelosi and Schumer) we would get Harris.  Possibly more unfit for the job than Biden.  And, with her displays of uncontrollable and inappropriate laughter, she clearly has some issues.  

As I am typing this, I received a news bulletin on my phone that the US has carried out an attack on ISIS in Afghanistan.  It is being described as an "unmanned airstrike."  Presumably a drone attack.  The report also indicates that one ISIS fighter was killed.  Good, but too little, too late.

Finally, I ask my friends on the left - where are all the women's marches to protest what will be happening to the women and girls in Afghanistan after we leave?  Where are all the demonstrations protesting the brutality of the Taliban and ISIS and Al Qaeda?  Why have so many Afghanis tried to leave their country for the USA?  Isn't the Taliban going to govern under Sharia law, and isn't Islam a religion of peace?  Isn't the USA an irredeemably racist country?  Why would darker skinned people want to come here?  

And, how many of you are happy to have Biden as President now, instead of the man who at times sent out some nasty tweets?  I asked a friend and Biden supporter just that.  He replied he would prefer to see Joe Manchin in the White House at this time.  He asked my preference.  I said for this moment I would like to see Trump back in the White House.  But if I could not get him, I would pick Joni Ernst or Nikki Haley.  (And, I would have no problem with others, such as Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.)   

The End Is Nigh, Per The UN's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change Report

I fully understand that we are not expected to challenge what we are told by politicians and the mainstream media.  After all, they know what is best.  Yes, I am aware of the fact that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that July was the hottest month on record, for the last 142 years for which records were maintained.  Yes, I know that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just issued a new report with a dire warning, telling us that it is a "code red for humanity."  

A USA Today editorial (reprinted in the 8/11/21 Ventura County Star) told us that global temperatures have risen nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 1 degree Celsius.  The editorial also told us that "heat deaths are far outpacing every other form of weather killer in a 30-year average."  Does this mean we are not supposed to ask if the number of deaths as a result of cold weather has gone down?  Should they be telling us if that is so?  Or, would any good news detract from the dire messaging?  

The editorial also tells us that "the clock is ticking for planet Earth."  That sounds scary.  But are we allowed to ask what it means?  Is it ticking because the Earth is going to explode?  If so, when?  If not, what are they telling us - other than trying to frighten us.  One climate scientist said "I don't see any area that is safe...nowhere to run, nowhere to hide."  That is definitely scary.  But, if I am allowed to inquire, is every square inch of land on Earth going to be equally affected by whatever is going to happen?   

The Wall Street Journal reported (in their 8/10/21 editorial) that someone at Reuters wrote:  "Further warming could mean that in some places, people could die just from going outside."  If I am allowed to ask, how much further warming?  Two degrees?  A tenth of one degree?  In what places will this happen?  Or, as the sentence says "could" happen, what is the likelihood of that occurring?  According to the same editorial, the IPCC report has "low confidence" that the Antarctic sea ice will melt.  As for the Arctic sea ice, the "Arctic is likely to be practically sea ice free in September at least once before 2050."  Is one time before 2050 catastrophic?    

John Kerry is President Biden's Special Presidential Envoy for Climate.  He must be special as he gets to fly around in a private jet.  One site told us that his jet emitted 138 metric tons of carbon between 1/10/21 and 8/6/21.  The average car emits 4.6 metric tons of carbon per year, according to the same article.  But, you say, Mr. Kerry has to fly all over the world as a Presidential Envoy.  That is likely true.  But does he have to fly to places within Massachusetts, or nearby states?  Are we to believe that none of his flights were for personal recreation, such as to Martha's Vineyard?  Or, because Mr. Kerry is "special," are we not supposed to question his travel?  He did tell us:  "Today's report from the @IPCC_CH shows that we cannot afford further delay."  I guess; as long as he can continue to fly on his private jet.  

Full admission - I am not a climate scientist.  I am not any type of scientist.  But, I am an attorney, and as such I know how to ask questions.  Do not misunderstand.  I believe that the Earth has been warming.  But, as one scientist said:  "often adaptation is ignored, although it can alleviate much or sometimes all of climate damages."  Even if you do not agree that humans have an ability to adapt, or to discover ways to deal with a warming planet, my question is this:  are scare tactics even helpful to the cause?  Or are some people turned off by those tactics, with others concluding "what's the point, it's too late to do anything."  

In an Op-Ed in the 8/10/21 Wall Street Journal, Gerard Baker made this astute observation:  "Journalism is no longer about trying to tell us what happened; it's about telling us what we must believe on pain of moral peril.  On every major topic - climate, Covid, race relations, electoral law - almost every story blares out at us with censorious didacticism, the journalist's smug disdain for the unbelievers pouring through the prose."  And Baker tells us this:  "In its heyday journalism demanded skepticism and curiosity...the modern journalist is different.  His primary ambition is to be part of the expert class, to identify as a member of the cultural elite..."

Whatever the topic, I have always encouraged people to read different sources.  That advice is usually ignored by liberals that I know.  And learn to question; don't just read and absorb.  I know any number of otherwise bright individuals, who simply accept without question what their party and the mainstream media tells them.    

 

The Return of the Coronavirus - How the Elitist Democrats Are Looking Out For You

With the increasing number of Covid cases from the Delta variant, Los Angeles County is poised to order proof of vaccination for entry into various establishments, such as restaurants, gyms, entertainment venues and retail outlets.  Some bars and restaurants are already requesting such verification.  Yesterday, LA County reported 4229 new cases with 21 new deaths.  The day prior it was 3819 new cases with 19 deaths.  New York City, with a population of a little more than one million less people than LA County, reported a daily average over the last week of 1424 confirmed new cases, and another 358 more "likely" new cases, and 6 deaths per day.  To be clear, I personally favor the vaccines.  I had two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and I am leaning towards getting a third dose.  Vaccinations have had an exemplary record of eradicating disease in our country.  However, I do not approve of the bullying by either side of the vaccination issue.  

The Democrat elites in Oregon are really looking out for their state's students.  Governor Kate Brown signed a bill that eliminated any requirement that high school students prove they are proficient in math, reading and writing.  Here's the Governor's deputy communications director, explaining how the lack of standards will benefit "Black, Latino, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color."  And this:  "Leaders from those communities have advocated time and again for equitable graduation standards."  Some leaders.  Lower or eliminate standards, rather than improve performance.  

It is insulting to all those student groups listed to suggest that they are incapable of ever achieving competency in math, reading and writing.  And it is racist.  I am amazed that anyone still believes that the do-gooder elitists in the Democrat Party actually care about people.  If they did care, they would see to it that high school students met the proficiency standards.  Otherwise, what will become of those students if they are unable to hold down a job in the real world?  I am reminded of the movie "Stand and Deliver," which told the story of Garfield High School's famous math teacher, Jaime Escalante.  Garfield High is in East LA, with many of the students being Hispanic (Latino, Latinx).  Yet, year after year, Escalante was able to get many of those students to pass the Advanced Placement Calculus exam.  His secret to success is no secret at all for right thinking people:  it's "a very time-honored tradition - hard work for teacher and student alike."  

Democrat elitist thinking does nothing but sow division within our country.  Sometimes, in the form of advocating for critical race theory.  Or, as CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told us:  "The rise in cases, vaccine hesitancy, and the increased risk of severe illness for pregnant people..."  Wait!  Pregnant people?  Are men now becoming pregnant?  According to the woke, Democratic left, yes they are.  You see, people who were born female, but identify as male, are still able to give birth (assuming they have not had gender reassignment surgery).  Let me be clear.  I have complete empathy for anyone who feels they were born into the wrong sex, the wrong body.  But let me also be clear - only women are capable of giving birth.  Although, the Democratic left finds it convenient to ignore the science when it suits their purposes.  Oh, these woke Democrats also talk about "chest" feeding.

With the latest census results out, it has been reported that whites now make up less than 60% of the US population, at 57.8%.  Hispanics constitute 18.7%, Blacks 12.4% and Asians 6%.  A person of the left advised me that this will be bad for the Republican Party.  But on the bright side, I was told that we Republicans will now have more people to hate.  What utter nonsense and tripe.  I replied by asking him this:  "Assuming Governor Newsom is recalled, will you be voting for Larry Elder, a black man, to replace him, or do you hate blacks?"  Of course, what I presented was a silly alternative, but no more so than what I was given.  And I wanted to make a point.  Not surprisingly, the other individual did not accept my comparison.  The most disturbing, of course, is his belief that Republicans hate people of color.  I assume that many other elitist Democrats feel the same way about Republicans.  Yet every Republican I have spoken to said they will vote for the black man, Larry Elder, to replace Newsom.  As will I.  

"Squad" member Cori Bush, a supporter of defunding the police, was asked to defend the $70,000 she paid for personal security.  Her answer to her critics was:  "They would rather I die?"  No, Representative Bush, no one I know wants to see you die.  But here's a question:  how will defunding the police help prevent a repeat of the 20,000+ murders that we saw in 2020 (not to mention all the other violent crime).  Are those lost lives worth less than yours, Representative Bush?  Typical leftist, elitist thinking:  I need protection, the hell with the rest of you.  As of 8/9/21, Portland, Oregon saw a year to date increase in homicides of 327%, compared to 2020.  From 1/1/21 to 7/31/21, there was an increase by 126% of attacks on police.  So, go ahead, Representative Bush, push to defund the police, along with the rest of your elitist Democrat allies, as long as you remain protected,

While the mask debate rages on, it was rather interesting to see former President Obama celebrate his 60th birthday, with a "small" crowd of hundreds of party goers.  The pictures that we saw were of Obama and others dancing and celebrating, maskless.  One CNN commentator explained why masks were unnecessary:  "this is a sophisticated, vaccinated crowd."  Of course.  I knew that.  The sophisticated (i.e. elites) know how to behave.  And they are somehow protected from getting the coronavirus.  But the rest of us rubes?  Not so much.  Which brings to mind this question:  are all the people crossing into our country through the southern border also sophisticated?  Is that why we can release them into our society, because they pose no risk to the rest of us?  None have Covid?  None commit crimes, because the sophisticated do not engage in criminal behavior?  

Maybe letting people cross the border illegally is akin to the elites letting the homeless live on our city streets.  After all, we know that a number of illegal immigrants do, in fact, have Covid.  Yet they get released into the country.  We know that these tent cities of the homeless are breeding grounds for various diseases.  But the Democrat elites running many cities do not seem to be concerned.  Nor are they concerned about the deleterious effects on businesses, when homeless encampments spring up in commercial areas.  And property values of homeowners?  The Democrat elites are above all of that.  

But surely the Democrat elites care about women.  Right?  Not so much.  In California, a "woke" state, a law now allows transgender women (biological men, with penises) to be housed with biological female prisoners in California.  One female inmate has already become pregnant.  Said another:  "Does anyone care that we are being forced to house with 6'2" 250+ lbs men with penises that are here for brutally raping women?"  My answer is - they do not care.  Just like they do not care about high school female athletes having to compete with transgender females (who have male bodies), resulting in those athletes who were born female not only losing competitions, but likely losing out on college  scholarships as well.  

So, never question whether the Democrat elites are looking out for you.  After all, they are "woke."  And being "woke" makes the elite Democrats feel good.  The harm that they cause is irrelevant.  At least it is to them.  

            

The Return of the Coronavirus - Nancy Pelosi Has Her Select Committee on January 6, 2021, and Other Matters

Is the coronavirus back?  The concern seems to be the Delta variant.  But overwhelmingly it is the unvaccinated who are getting sick and being hospitalized.  The CDC is again recommending that those with certain underlying conditions mask up again, even if they are fully vaccinated.  The local NBC station reports that L.A. County now has 891 people hospitalized - the highest number since 3/13/21.  

The House Select Committee on the events of January 6 opened with their first hearings today.  Speaker Pelosi gave herself eight appointments to the committee, and allowed five to be appointed by minority leader McCarthy.  Except, not really.  Pelosi booted two of those five, Jim Jordan and Jim Banks, both Trump supporters.  She admitted that her decision to not allow two of the minority party's selections was "unprecedented."  

Pelosi attempted to justify her unprecedented decision with this:  "With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these members, I must reject the recommendations."  "Pelosi" and "truth" do not belong in the same sentence.  She appointed Adam Schiff to the committee, notwithstanding Schiff lying for over two years about his irrefutable evidence of Russian collusion.  The truth is that she did not want Jordan and Banks asking any questions about what threats were known in advance and why there was not greater security provided that day.

But I'm confused by the entire proceeding.  I thought the House already concluded that this was all Trump's fault when they impeached him a second time back in January.  Why are they having hearings over six months later?  Oh, I know.  These are the hearings that they should have had before voting on impeachment.  This is what the House Judiciary Committee should have done before any impeachment vote.  But that did not suit the political ends of the Speaker.  No, the purpose was to impeach Trump, weaken Trump, and most importantly, weaken the Republican Party.  And, how disappointing that two Republicans, Cheney and Kinzinger, not only voted to impeach Trump without any evidentiary hearing first, but also agreed to be used as political pawns by consenting to serve on the Select Committee when their party's choices were denied seats.  But Pelosi got what she wanted - a committee that will speak with a single voice.  Contrary opinions not welcome.  How's that for democracy?

But no one should be confused about where I stand.  I made my position clear in my 1/10/21 post.  I said that I was appalled by watching people invade the Capitol building.  I condemned it.  The attacks on police officers could not be justified.  The threats to elected officials could not be justified.  But I do not agree with President Biden's comment that the attack on the Capitol on January 6 was the "worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War."  Just to name a couple of big ones, how about the attack on Pearl Harbor?  How about 9/11?  And what about the nationwide rioting and looting last summer resulting in $2 billion worth of economic damage to businesses and government facilities, with different sources reporting 19 or 25 people killed.  How about the general lawlessness we are now seeing with surging crime rates, and prosecutors who will not prosecute?  How is that for democracy and the rule of law?  

As a new grandfather, this next story is one that I could not pass up.  Dennis Prager reported on some letters to the editor in the New York Times.  I wish these were made up.  Said one letter writer:  "I have one child, a daughter, who told me (at) age 8 that she would never have a child because of global warming.  She's now 34 and has never changed her mind.  So I will not experience a grandchild.  For her wisdom I am grateful.  I would be heartsick if I did have a grandchild who would have to experience the onslaught of changing climate."  Other letters expressed a similar sentiment.  

Holding my new granddaughter is just the best.  She is a blessing to the entire family.  I am grateful that I lived long enough to meet my granddaughter, and I pray that I have many more years so that I can watch her grow.  Prager said he agreed with these letter writers about their children not having children of their own:  "The world doesn't need more fools."  Not just fools, but evil fools.  After all, what parent has so frightened their 8 year old daughter to make her think that the world is ending.  People who stood on street corners with signs saying "The End is Near" used to be thought of as kooks.  But not now.  I would like to know who is able to tell me when the world will be ending.  If no one is able to do so, then those not having children are indeed fools.  And frightened fools at that.  As far as I know, people continued to have children throughout the worst events in history.  

I am reminded of a scene in Annie Hall, which is a flashback to the young Alvy Singer (Woody Allen's character) being taken to the doctor by his mother.  She tells the doctor that the young Alvy is depressed, and he won't do his homework.  When the doctor asks why, young Alvy replies:  "What's the point?  The universe is expanding."  At which point his mother tells him:  "Brooklyn is not expanding."  For those letter to the editor writers, the universe is expanding.  For those of us who have not lost their minds, Brooklyn is not expanding.  Nor is the town or city in which we live.  So, let the morons not procreate.  The fewer the better.  

Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream joined the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel.  Oh, they deny it.  Here is what the Chairperson of the Board, Anuradha Mittal, said about it:  "I am proud of @ben and jerrys for taking a stance to end sale of its ice cream in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."  Without recounting the entire history of the area, there is no "occupied Palestinian territory," because there has never been a Palestinian state on any of the land.

And:  "This action is not antisemitic.  I am not antisemitic."  Actually, she is a liar and an antisemite.  Here is a Tweet from 2018:  "The catastrophe continues # Nakba 70 years later # palestine bleeds Boycott Divest Sanction # Israel."  "Nakba" is the Arabic term for "disaster."  It is said in connection with the founding of the modern state of Israel in 1948, which the Palestinians call a "catastrophe."  It is why Ms. Mittal referred to the "Nakba 70 years later" in 2018 - calling the establishment of Israel 70 years earlier a catastrophe.  Good to know that saying such a thing about the one Jewish state in the world is not being antisemitic.  One thing is certain:  there will be no Ben and Jerrys ice cream in this house.       

 

Quick Hits

(Note:  Early on in the blog I titled a number of posts "Quick Hits."  Usually because there was too much going on to limit the post to one topic.  Here, it's been a while since my last post, so I'll cover a number of recent events in a single post.)

Recently, a reporter for Campus Reform, took a stroll around Georgetown in order to ask young people how they felt about being an American.  Here's one:  I am "embarrassed to be an American every day," citing our "racist history, (and) colonization."  Here's another:  "A lot of times it's just embarrassing (because) we continue to support Israel, which is dislocating quite a few Palestinian people."  Yet another said our economic system of capitalism "just cares about money."  Not a surprise, really.  I am sure young people frequently hear from their professors how bad the United States is.  Not to mention what they hear from Democratic leaders and the mainstream media.

Here was an Op-Ed in the New York Times:  "Today, flying the American flag from the back of a pickup truck or over a lawn is increasingly seen as a clue, albeit an imperfect one, to a person's political affiliation in a deeply divided nation."  Oh.  Or, maybe, it is a sign of being proud of our country, of being proud to be an American.  

Here is Democratic Representative Cori Bush, a newer member of "The Squad":  "When they say that the 4th of July is about American freedom, remember this:  the freedom they're referring to is for white people.  This land is stolen land and Black people still aren't free."  Oh.  Shame on all of you who still own black slaves.  Don't you know about the Emancipation Proclamation?  The 14th Amendment?  Juneteenth?  Please, dear readers, report any slave owners you see to the appropriate authorities.  

Here is NPR:  The Declaration of Independence is "a document with flaws and deeply ingrained hypocrisies."  Oh.  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  But women were not included in that declaration.  Nor were blacks.  But, you say, they certainly are today!  Wrong.  Everything is just as bad as it was in 1950, even as bad as in 1850.  Just ask Cori Bush.  

Here's a former MSNBC anchor:  "Fuck Independence Day."  Nice talk.  "Not only were we not free, the whole reason the Colonies wanted independence was because Britain was moving toward abolishing slavery."  There it is.  The 1619 Project.  America was founded on slavery.  For no other reason.  America did have slavery at the time of its founding.  But if America was founded on slavery, then why didn't all the colonies/states allow slavery?  

Here is an Op-Ed from the Washington Post, describing the Statue of Liberty as "a symbol of hypocrisy and unfilled promises."  Oh.  The title of the Op-Ed was "Maybe it's time to admit that the Statue of Liberty has never quite measured up."  Here's more:  the statue is " a symbol of the misuse of liberty - as a hollow promise, unequally distributed and limited in its application to certain groups."  When I hear this claptrap I hear the voice of a child saying "no fair."  If everything is not perfect for a child it's no fair.  It's akin to kneeling while the Anthem is being played.  "I won't stand for the flag until the country is perfect in every way.  How can I celebrate an imperfect, albeit great, country."  That's what I hear.  And that is the voice of a child.

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.  Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door."  The golden door indeed.  Does not ring "hollow" to me.

Here is a Hispanic contributor to MSNBC:  "What we're seeing right now is a cultural identity crisis that we are undergoing as a community that is completely splitting and dividing Latinos."  Oh.  I did not realize that Latinos, or members of any group, all had to think alike.  "In this crisis, you have on the one hand, Latinos that believe in order to achieve the American Dream, you have to get as close as possible to whiteness, and that is something that Trump gave them permission to do."  Oh.  Trump gave them permission to want to achieve the American Dream?  Good for Trump!

"On the other hand, you have Latinos that believe that in order to achieve the American Dream, you have to get as far as possible from whiteness."  Oh.  What is "whiteness" anyway?  I am not sure if this commentator understands that she is saying, essentially, that all Latinos want to achieve the American Dream.  Well good for them.  I for one would like to see everyone in our society succeed.  I do not know anyone who does not.  If they all want to achieve the American Dream, why does it follow that they all must think alike?  There is no "cultural identity crisis."  But there was, to her chagrin, an increased number of Latinos voting for Trump and Republicans in the last election.    

A Quick Look at the Biden Administration

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken actually invited the UN to investigate the US.  Why?  Because of "the scourge of racism, racial discrimination, and xenophobia" in the US.  For those of you who believe that things have improved greatly, in terms of racial issues, in the last 70 years, you would be wrong.  If you believe that other countries in the world that have far worse human rights violations than the US, countries such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and North Korea, you would be wrong again.  In fact, those same countries were the ones criticizing the US last year, following the death of George Floyd.  Here's a question for virtually any sane person on the planet:  in which country would you prefer to live - the US, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia or North Korea?  Maybe Blinken should live in one of those countries for a year, and then tell us which country needs investigating for human rights abuses.

  Not to be outdone, Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, decided to comment on the current demonstrations by the people of Cuba against their dictatorial, communist regime.  In case any of those demonstrators were thinking of trying to make their way to the US, Mayorkas told them:  "Allow me to be clear: if you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States."  And:  "If individuals establish a well-founded fear of persecution or torture, they are referred to third countries for settlement."

To "third" countries?  How is it that the Biden Administration has open arms for other Central American and South American "refugees" who have a "well-founded rear of persecution or torture?"  Actually, those people need not have any fear at all.  As long as they are able to cross our southern border they get to stay.  And they get to settle anywhere within the US that they choose.  So why are Cubans, actual refugees with legitimate fears of persecution or worse, being treated differently?  I would not be the first to suggest that Cubans generally are likely to identify as Republican.  But the ones likely to identify as Democrats are more than welcome.  

Recently, Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib said this:  "Just this past week, Israel demolished and leveled the home of a Palestinian family in the beloved village of Turmusaya.  For what?  To dehumanize."  That was a complete lie.  The house was not randomly selected by Israeli authorities to "dehumanize."  Congresswoman Tlaib left out the fact that the house was that of a murdering terrorist who killed a 19 year old Jewish Yeshiva student.  (A Yeshiva is an orthodox Jewish school.)  And, the murderer also wounded two others.

But why would Tlaib mention that?  She does not believe that Israel should even exist.  And while she may understand that Israel destroys houses of terrorists and Jew killers in the hopes of deterring further attacks, it is clear that a Jewish life is worth less than the house of a murderer in her eyes.  And what does this have to do with the Biden Administration?  The aforementioned Secretary of State Blinken joined in the criticism of Israel for leveling the house and trying to deter future attacks.

Here's President Biden on Republican led states actually trying to make sure that everyone who votes has a right to do so:  "Twenty-first century Jim Crow is real.  And we're going to challenge it vigorously."  By which Biden means he has asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to file lawsuits against some Republican states that have passed laws requiring some form of voter ID.  These lawsuits are not being filed because of "Jim Crow" laws.  That is a blatant lie.  Yet Biden continues to lie about the Georgia election.  Recall that Biden encouraged Major League Baseball to move yesterday's All Star game from Atlanta to Denver.  

Never mind that the Washington Post fact checker gave Biden's comment 4 pinocchios - the biggest lie.  Never mind that the All Star game may have have cost Atlanta businesses, many black-owned, $100 million.  That money went to the overwhelmingly white state of Colorado.  With regards to those states trying to ensure election integrity, Biden said "They want to make it so hard...that they hope people don't vote at all."  So, if people don't vote, who wins?  

But Biden did get to the truth behind his lies:  "We must pass the 'For the People Act.'  It's a national imperative."  That act, known as HR1 in the House, and SB1 in the Senate, would result in a federal takeover of all state elections.  It more accurately should be titled the "For the Democrats Act."  As funnyman Greg Gutfeld of Fox said:  "Every American has the right to vote, except the left's favored voting blocs, which are felons, illegal immigrants, and the dead."  Although he left out 16 and 17 year olds.  The "For the People Act" is meant to deal with those currently "disenfranchised" voters.

The Democrats, Israel and the Jews

A confession.  After the last six posts, I was feeling pretty alone out there.  The posts discussed Israel's war with Hamas, and the surging antisemitism here in the US.  But the only complaints I got were from left-wing fellow Jews.  Here are some of the comments.  "Israel started the war."  "It's Israel's fault that there is no peace."  "I never liked Netanyahu."  "If you love Israel so much you should move there."  "Who cares" about the antisemites in Congress."  "The New York Times isn't antisemitic, just anti-Israel."  As if that wasn't bad enough, here are a couple more I heard through some friends.  

A Jewish woman told her daughter, who said she want to go to Israel through the Birthright Israel program, that she should not go.  Why?  Because the Palestinian young adults don't get to go.  (See my 9/10/17 post for a discussion of Birthright Israel.)  Briefly, the program is a way for young Jews in the Diaspora (the lands outside of Israel), who are ages 18 to 26, to have an all expenses paid trip to Israel.  They visit the holy sites and historical sites and hopefully have some fun along the way.  The idea is to create a bond between young Diaspora Jews and the Land of Israel.  

Yet here was a Jewish mother telling her adult child not to go.  "It's not fair."  So the daughter did not go.  I wonder if this mother would think it's not fair for her family to live in a nice house (I'm told that they do) when poor people cannot afford the same living conditions.  Or, as with many, their left-wing politics is fine - as long as it does not affect them personally.  As if that was not bad enough, another Jewish friend was asked by a fellow Jew of the left:  "What's your connection to Israel anyway?"  What is the Jewish people's connection to the Land of Israel?  It's just very hard to take.

So, I had not planned to have yet another post discussing Israel or antisemitism.  I felt like "what's the point?"  But then I read this.  Ihan Omar Tweeted:  "We have seen some unthinkable atrocities committed by the US, Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban.  I asked @SecBlinken where people are supposed to go for justice."  I took heart that 12 Jewish Democratic members of Congress called the comparison "as offensive as it is misguided," adding "false equivalencies give cover to terrorist groups."  Yet, some Jewish members of Congress came to Omar's defense.  Kentucky Rep. John Yarmouth said this:  "People are ready to parse every word that she says.  And I just think that's unfair."

Yarmouth added:  "The idea  that you can't mention the US, Israel and Hamas in the same sentence without being accused of being antisemitic?  That's just stupid."  Really?  Here they are in the same sentence:  "Hamas is a terrorist organization seeking the destruction of a country; Israel and the US are not terrorist organizations, and do not seek the destruction of other countries."  Here's Michigan Rep. Andy Levin, explaining that Omar was just defending "human rights."  But Omar clearly was not defending the right of Israel to defend itself from thousands of rockets aimed at its cities.  

Then I read this story.  One-third of the entire Democratic caucus in the House, 73 members, sent a letter to President Biden.  To what end?  They asked that Biden reverse Trump's "abandonment of longstanding, bipartisan United States policy" on Israeli-Palestinian relations.  The letter requests that Biden consider Israeli "settlements" to be illegal.  They want Biden to say that the West Bank and Gaza are "occupied" by Israel.  They want Biden to reopen a Palestinian consulate in Jerusalem, Israel's capital city.  They want Biden to stop Israel from evicting Palestinians in the disputed area of "East" Jerusalem.  They want a withdrawal from the Trump peace plan.  And they want aid restored to the Palestinians, which Biden has already done.

Oh yes.  They also want Biden to insist that Hamas stop sending rockets into Israel.  What a bunch of duplicitous fools.  First of all, Hamas does not give a damn about being told to stop rocket attacks.  They have not stopped since Israel vacated Gaza in 2005, nor will they stop.  Second, notice that Biden is to give a meaningless tongue lashing to Hamas, but is told to take affirmative ACTION against our ally Israel.  I can hardly wait to hear from left-wing Jews on that.  

Seven Democratic Jewish members signed off on the letter:  John Yarmouth, KY; Jan Schakowsky, Ill (one of the initiators of the letter, no less); Alan Lowenthal, CA; Andy Levin, Mich; Sara Jacobs, CA; Steve Cohen, TN; and Jamie Rashkin, MD.  I was reminded of being at a dinner party years ago when yet another left-wing Jew said to me something to this effect:  "The US should do everything in its power to make Israel create a Palestinian state."  The dinner party was not at my house.  So I kept my mouth shut.

The letter to Biden was also signed, not surprisingly, by Ilhan Omar.  It was not signed by Rashida Tlaib.  Tlaib does not believe Israel should even exist.  I do not know if Omar believes Israel should exist; she may have signed the letter as a tactical move to put pressure on Israel.  The question I have is this - do these Jewish members of Congress also believe Israel should not exist?  Or, do they do not give a damn one way or the other?