The Biden Administration and Israel

In case you were worried that Biden and the State Department were not aggressively dealing with our country's enemies, have no fear.  They are going after Israel big time.  Wait, Israel is not an enemy?  Israel was to Biden's former boss, Obama.  I guess Biden learned well.

The Biden Administration is determined to open a Palestinian consulate in Jerusalem.  But wait, isn't Jerusalem part of the State of Israel?  Yes.  In fact, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.  So how can the US open a Palestinian consulate in Israel without Israel's permission?  They can't, under international law.

The US embassy in Israel is in Jerusalem, thanks to President Trump.  It had been in Tel Aviv, which is not the capital city.  Other presidents said they would move our embassy to Jerusalem, where it should have been, but never did.  And our existing embassy does, in fact, also deal with Palestinian concerns.    Not surprisingly, as Israel says Jerusalem is its capital city, the Israelis have opposed the opening of a Palestinian consulate there.  As they have every right to do.  

A very brief history.  The Palestinians say they want a state on the so-called 1967 borders, the borders that existed between Israel and the surrounding Arab countries, before Israel defeated those countries in the Six Day War.  But those pre-1967 war borders were of no legal significance.  Rather, those were the borders that existed following Israel's war of independence; a war that was started by the surrounding Arab countries after Israel declared its independence in 1948.  When the fighting ended in 1949, there was no peace treaty declaring boundaries.  There was simply a cessation of hostilities.   

The Old City of Jerusalem is in the eastern part of Jerusalem.  At the end of hostilities in 1949, Jordan controlled the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and part of Jerusalem.  When Israel was victorious in the Six Day War, all of Jerusalem was under its control.  As an aside, under Israeli rule, all religions have access to their holy sites in Jerusalem.  That was not the case under Jordanian Arab rule.

So, what does Secretary of State Antony Blinken think about getting Israeli approval for a Palestinian consulate on Israeli soil?  He doesn't.  Blinken:  "We'll be moving forward with the process of opening a consulate as part of deepening of those ties with the Palestinians."  I get that the US, EU and UN want to pursue a two state solution.  But it is beyond outrageous for the US to open a Palestinian consulate in Jerusalem.  Why not Ramallah, the city which houses the Palestinian Administrative Authority.

But here is a better idea yet.  Why is the US rewarding the Palestinian Authority with any consulate?  What have they done to merit that?  Do they recognize Israel's right to exist, as the Jewish state?  No.  Have they agreed to stop attacking Israeli cities with rockets and missiles?  No.  But, you say, Hamas is doing that.  So what?  

If elections were held in the West Bank today (something that PA President Mahmoud Abbas has refused to do since elected to a four year term that began in 2005), would Hamas prevail over Fatah, the ruling party of the PA?  Is that why Abbas has refused any further elections since 2005?  If so, exactly who is Biden rewarding with the consulate?  Abbas is 85 years old.  Who takes over when he's gone?  Hamas? 

President Trump, of course, knew better.  He moved the US embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.    Democrats and progressives predicted a bloody war if he did that.  Never happened.  Because Trump made it clear that he stood with Israel.  Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.  Trump helped bring about the historic Abraham Accords, with four Arab countries to date establishing relations with Israel.  And Trump did this while ignoring the Palestinians, telling them to not expect further aid until they stop using US tax dollars to reward Palestinian terrorists who kill Jews. 

But that was Trump.  Now we have Biden - Obama 2.0.  Reward our enemies and punish our allies.  Excellent.    

The Biden Administration and the State Department Have Numerous Crises Confronting Them

No, not China.  Or Russia or Iran or Afghanistan.  Not terrorism.  Not an uncontrolled southern border.  No, no, no.  On October 21, the State Department Tweeted:  "Today on International Pronouns Day, we share why many people list pronouns on their email and social media profiles."  I did not even know that there was such a thing as International Pronouns Day.  

And I get it.  I pay attention to our "evolving" culture.  I'm just not sure what any of this has to do with our Department of State.  But then I saw this:  for the first time the State Department issued a passport with the person's gender listed as...'X.'  X?  What does that even mean?  

Not to be outdone, our Vice President posted this Tweet:  "President Biden and I released the first ever National Gender Strategy.  This is our vision for the future of our nation - one that is bold in strategy and one that this moment calls for."  (Apparently the strategy is a 42 page document.)  

Bold in strategy?  How about we see some of that bold strategic stuff being applied at our southern border?  Or maybe apply that bold strategic stuff against any of the numerous crises facing this President.        

Is Speech Really Free?

We know that the First Amendment protects our right to speech.  "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."  We also know that engaging in speech (such as the writing of this blog) can have negative consequences.  

Enes Kanter, of the NBA's Boston Celtics, has been critical of China's oppressive regime.  He had "Free Tibet" on his sneakers, and called China's President Xi a "brutal dictator."  His speech definitely had consequences.  As China is known to do, they used their economic power to retaliate.  Tencent Sports (China's streaming sports company) indicated they would not show any more Celtic games - for the foreseeable future.  (As reported by Fox.)  

Kanter's speech will likely end up costing the NBA and the Celtics and his teammates some money.  With the average salary in the NBA being reported as being $7.5 million, does that mean Kanter need not worry about pushback from his teammates?  How about from the league?  Will the team average income being over $260 million annually protect Kanter?  People overwhelmingly used to support the right to free speech, although less so in current times with political correctness, wokeness and the need for safe spaces.  But what about when that speech affects one's bottom line?  Do we still adhere to the First Amendment, or do we side with the suppression of speech?   

Speaking of the NBA...Grant Napear had been the announcer for the Sacramento Kings since 1988.  However, he was let go by the radio station that aired the games, after posting a politically incorrect Tweet.  Apparently, after George Floyd was killed, Napear Tweeted "ALL LIVES MATTER...EVERY SINGLE ONE."  

The company that owns the radio station fired Napear, saying that "...his recent comments about the Black Lives Matter movement do not reflect the views or values of Bonneville International Corporation.  The timing of Grant's Tweet was particularly insensitive."  As I previously stated in the blog, I do not support the Black Lives Matter movement, given its anti-police and antisemitic inclinations.  But I do support black lives, and yes, all lives.  

Dorian Abbot is a professor at the University of Chicago.  Whereas colleges and universities should be the center of free speech in our society, we know that is no longer the case.  Professor Abbot was to give a lecture at MIT, but asserts (in a 10/30-31/21 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal) that he was uninvited based on his previously expressed views.  Abbot:  "I believe that every human being should be treated as an individual worthy of dignity and respect."  No good?

Abbot:  "I care for all of my students equally.  None of them are overrepresented or underrepresented to me: they represent themselves."  No good?  Abbot:  "I believe that admissions and faculty hiring at universities are best focused on academic merit, with the goal of producing intellectual excellence."  No good?  Abbot says that if some students come from disadvantaged backgrounds, "the solution is improving K-12 education, not introducing discrimination at late stages."  No good?

Abbot makes an important point that the "safe spaces" crowd would do well to consider:  "It is normal to feel discomfort when someone contends against your strongly held beliefs.  But in a truth-seeking atmosphere, you must master this discomfort and either confront opposing arguments rationally or accept their validity."  Sounds like Classic Liberalism to me, and what used to be a fundamental part of a university's pedagogy.  

  

A Postscript to the 10/17/21 Post on The Tyranny of the Democrats, Part I

It's hard not to love a politician who speaks so directly.  Such is the case with Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).  On October 21, the House Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing of the Department of Justice.  In the hot seat was Attorney General Merrick Garland, the AG who issued the directive discussed in Part I of the 10/17/21 posts.  

Here is no nonsense Jordan:  "The Chairman (Jerry Nadler, D-NY) just said the Trump DOJ was political and went after their opponents.  Are you kidding me?  Three weeks ago the National School Board Association writes President Biden asking him to involve the FBI in local school Board matters.  Five days later, the Attorney General of the United States does just that..."

Jordan:  "Republicans on the Committee have sent the Attorney General 13 letters in the last six months.  It takes weeks and months to get a response.  Eight of the letters we've got nothing...And all our letters were actually sent to the Attorney General."  What Congressman Jordan knows, of course, is that the National School Board/teachers/administrators donate to the Democratic Party.  But it is a joke when Nadler says Trump's DOJ was political, but won't say the same about Biden's, which is obviously political. 

It turns out that the National School Board backed off of their initial assertions that "threats and acts of violence" might constitute "domestic terrorism."  One would think that the Board's retraction might get the AG to rescind his directive.  But not so.  Garland insisted that the threat of violence still existed.  Dear General Garland:  When did all local violence become a federal matter?    

Former retired FBI agent Thomas J. Baker had an Op-Ed in the 10/18/21 Wall Street Journal.  Baker:  When FDR's AG, Francis Biddle, ordered that Japanese-Americans be detained, "J. Edgar Hoover (then FBI Director) refused to cooperate.  The bureau would help apprehend aliens of enemy nationality (not only Japanese), but not U.S. citizens."  

Baker:  "Louis Freeh (another former FBI Director) often dodged meetings, contacts and invitations from President Bill Clinton so as not to receive awkward requests."  

Baker's suggestion for the current FBI Director, Christopher Wray?  "He could remind the public, and hence Mr. Garland, that the FBI - in conformity with existing attorney general guidelines for domestic investigations - won't undertake any investigation based on speech alone.  He could remind agents and the public that if any violence occurs at a local schoolboard meeting, its resolution is properly the purview of state and local law enforcement." 

Remember when former FBI Director James Comey alleged that Trump demanded loyalty from him, and Comey said he should have stood up to Trump, but instead "compromised to avoid a conflict."  Clearly, he was too weak a man to be FBI Director.  Will Christopher Wray stand up to Garland?  We should all be listening.

The True Threat To Our Democracy - The Tyranny Of The Democrats, Part III (Newsom Goes After...Everyone?)

As Governor of the most populous state in the nation, what Gavin Newsom does is often copied by other states.  Given that the Democrats have super majorities in the State Assembly and State Senate, there is nothing to restrain their push for asserting government control over ever increasing aspects of our lives.

I was not aware of the fact that parents looking for toys for their children did not know how to shop properly.  I was not aware of the fact that private businesses needed to be told how to properly display their merchandise.  But now I know.  "A retail department store that offers childcare items or toys for sale shall maintain a gender-neutral section or area, to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys."  This law will apply to businesses physically within California, with 500 or more employees in the state.

Exactly what is the purpose of this law?  Is it to make it easier for parents to find toys for their children?  Really?  Without this law, parents would not be able to walk through the aisles and find a suitable toy for their child?  I don't buy it.  There are fines that go along with this law for those companies violating it.  

No, as I wrote years ago (see the post "My Ex-Wife," 7/20/14, and "My Ex-Son and Ex-Daughters," 10/19/14), the Democratic "progressives" are simply pushing us down the path of obliterating all distinctions between men and women, boys and girls.  Follow the science?  Not when they come up with 57 "genders."   

Here is another.  Public schools and colleges in California must now provide free menstrual products in their restrooms.  Why?  Here is the author of that bill:  "Just as toilet paper and paper towels are provided in virtually every public bathroom, so should menstrual products."  I could be wrong, but I believe toilet paper and paper towels are used by boys and girls, by men and women.  Are menstrual products used by men?  I'm sure I will be sorry that I asked that question. 

The True Threat To Our Democracy - The Tyranny Of The Democrats, Part II (Biden Goes After The Unvaccinated)

Honestly, I do not need to hear from anyone claiming that I am anti-vaccinations.  In a prior post, I made it clear that I had gotten 2 Pfizer injections and planned on getting a booster.  I have since had the booster.  In that earlier post I also said that I believe in the efficacy of vaccines, as they do have an excellent history of helping to eradicate disease in our country.  And, I do not understand some of the objections to the vaccines.

Having said that, there is a legitimate issue regarding the proper role of the federal government.  President Biden has asked his Labor Department to come up with an emergency rule that will compel private businesses with over 100 employees to require those employees to either be fully vaccinated or test negative every week.  It is estimated that as many as 80 million Americans could be affected by this new rule.  It is quite telling that Biden decided to have his Administration simply issue a rule, without seeking Congressional authorization.  It is also quite telling that the Democrats in Congress are not objecting to this usurpation of their power.  Just do not expect the mainstream media to assert that Biden is acting like a king or dictator.  

The federal government can mandate military personnel to be vaccinated.  My brother, a Viet Nam vet, recounted how he had to get multiple vaccines, for the plague, polio and malaria, among others.  States, having the general police power, have for a very long time required that children attending public schools get certain vaccinations.  However, it is unlikely that the federal government has the authority to demand that a large segment of the civilian population get vaccinated.  Joe Biden admitted as much - until he decided he was going to do it anyway.  

Here was Biden last month:  "Many of us are frustrated with the nearly 80 million Americans who are still not vaccinated, even though the vaccine is safe, effective and free."  And Biden made this incredibly ignorant comment:  "Our patience is wearing thin."  Maybe somebody ought to get him a copy of "How To Win Friends And Influence People," by Dale Carnegie.  In what universe does that kind of threatening remark by the President help to persuade people.  If I was advising him, I would have suggested giving facts and figures proving the efficacy and safety of the vaccines.  

I realize that facts alone will not necessarily persuade people to any point of view.  But the art of persuasion was definitely lacking in our President.  State and local governments, as well as private businesses, have followed Biden's lead.  It has been reported that dozens of State Troopers in Massachusetts have resigned because of vaccine mandates.  Such resignations are happening throughout the country.  I do believe that states likely have the power to insist on state employees getting vaccinated.  But in a time of rising crime, do we want fewer police?  Do we want fewer firefighters?  Do we want anyone losing their livelihood over this?  Everywhere I go I see "Help Wanted" and "Now Hiring" signs.  Do we need even more jobs going unfilled? 

It is somewhat ironic that during the campaign last year, then vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris said:  "...if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it (the vaccine), I'm not taking it."  To which Vice President Pence replied:  "We're going to have a vaccine in record time...And we're right now producing tens of millions of doses.  So the fact that you continue to undermine public confidence in a vaccine, if the vaccine emerges during the Trump Administration, I think is unconscionable.  And Senator, I just ask you - stop playing politics with people's lives." 

If the vaccines protect the vaccinated, and if the unvaccinated are the ones getting sick and dying, then perhaps government mandates causing greater unemployment are not the answer.  Maybe all government officials who make the rules should take a look at Dale Carnegie's book.

The True Threat To Our Democracy - The Tyranny Of The Democrats, Part I (Biden Goes After Parents)

Recently, the National School Boards Association decided to ask the Biden Administration for some help.  Parents were showing up at school board meetings and objecting to the nonsense being taught to their children.  Alleging various threats, and citing only one example that could be construed as a criminal offense, the Board wanted Biden to treat these parents as "domestic terrorists," and sought prosecutions under the Patriot Act and federal hate crime laws.  You see, parents were disruptive, were shouting and acting like a mob.  The Board claimed, as all the talking heads on the left do, that no schools teach critical race theory (CRT); therefore the parents should have no complaints.

There have been numerous reports of children being taught CRT, even if under a different name.  Nevertheless, not wanting to alienate any part of their base, the Biden Administration dutifully complied with the School Boards' request.  On October 4, Attorney General Merrick Garland sent a memo to the Director of the FBI, the Director of the US Attorneys and the Assistant AG in charge of the Criminal Division in the Justice Department.  Here is part of the memo:  "In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation's public schools.  While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views."

He then directed the FBI and the various United States Attorneys across the country to meet with federal, state, local, tribal and territorial leaders within 30 days.  Imagine that.  A federally run, nationwide task force to address what?  Unruly parents who are upset with the racist pedagogy being pushed on their children.  Where is the task force going after Antifa?  Or Black Lives Matter?  What is the AG doing about United States Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who was harassed and followed into a bathroom, no less, by left-wing immigration "activists."  How about a task force to go after the Palestinians and their supporters who have harassed and intimidated Jews?

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides, of course, for a right to free speech.  But it also provides for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  Does "peaceably" also mean that people must speak softly?  I don't think so.  Yes, I saw scenes of parents holding up signs against CRT.  I saw parents taking pictures and/or recording audio with their phones.  And I saw parents shouting.  How does any of that warrant a federal task force headed up by the FBI?  Are there no more local police and District Attorneys able to handle actual criminal violations?  The federal government has no business being involved in these local matters.

Does the FBI have nothing else to do?  See two paragraphs up.  Maybe they can also be used to determine who is entering our country illegally, with an estimated 2 million people likely to have entered during Biden's first year in office.  Are any criminals, members of gangs or criminal cartels, or terrorists crossing our borders?  No, the biggest threat seems to be parents fed up with left-wing propaganda being taught in the schools.  Terry McAuliffe, the once and hoping to be future governor of Virginia, said this:  "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach."  Maybe not, if it was just about "reading, writing and arithmetic."  But when it comes to propagandizing their children into left-wing ideology, you better believe parents will be speaking up.  

Former US Representative James Sensenbrenner was a principal author of the Patriot Act (per his Op-Ed in the 10/13/21 Wall Street Journal).  As such, he wrote that "the legislation defined terrorism as unlawful acts of violence or acts dangerous to human life intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to affect the conduct of government by 'mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."  It was not intended to put a chill on free speech and civil liberties.  

But teachers and the bureaucrats in the school boards across the country are major donors to the Democrat Party.  So Biden did not push back.  Perhaps Gerard Baker, in his 10/12/21 Op-Ed in the WSJ, said it best:  "This flagrant attempt to intimidate parents into handing their children over to the mercies of the state is as sinister as anything the modern progressives who now control the Democratic Party have done."  When parents are told to sit down and shut up it sounds an awful lot like communist or totalitarian societies.  And with federal crimes often carrying sentences of 10 to 20 years, the threat to civil liberties - speech and assembly - is substantial.