Antisemitism Has Reached The Highest Levels Of Society, Part I

Foreign Affairs journal/magazine is published by the Council on Foreign Relations.  It is likely the preeminent journal dealing with foreign affairs.  While the Council is an independent think-tank, Wikipedia notes that "its membership has included senior politicians, numerous secretaries of state, CIA directors, and senior media figures."   It would not be an understatement to say that it is highly influential.

So it was rather disturbing to see the article that was published in the 100 year old journal, on the occasion of Israel's 75th anniversary.  The piece was written by 4 professors, from the University of Maryland and George Washington University.  According to the authors:  "Forced to choose between Israel's Jewish identity and liberal democracy, Israel has chosen the former."  The last I looked, Israel still has free elections, in which all citizens are allowed to vote.  I can't say the same for the many surrounding Arab countries.  Arab citizens vote, served in the last government, are in the Knesset, are lawyers and doctors, and I could go on. 

The authors go on to discuss a "draconian blockade of Gaza."  Both Israel and Egypt control land access to Gaza.  Israel has no control over Gaza's 7 1/2 mile border with Egypt.  Of course, humanitarian supplies and other necessities are allowed in through the Israeli border crossings.  But why would any sane country allow unlimited access to an entity that is sworn to its destruction?  Gaza is run by Hamas, with a secondary player being Islamic Jihad.  Those two entities have no interest in making peace with Israel.  Their charters call for Israel's destruction.

But I must ask something that I have asked previously.  If Gaza is so closed off, how does Hamas continually manage to get access to mortars, rockets and missiles, which they use to attack Israel.  If Gaza is so closed off, how do they manage to get cement, wiring and other materials used to build their underground tunnels which lead into Israel, and which Hamas uses for the purpose of killing or capturing Jews.  

The authors then say that Israel has "control (of) the West Bank with a system of checkpoints, policing, and relentlessly expanding settlements."  Of course, areas of the West Bank are under the control of President (for life, apparently) Abbas, and the Palestinian Authority, along with 77,000 security personnel.  Israel must maintain control over the border with Jordan.  If that area of the West Bank was turned over to the Palestinians, nothing would prevent ISIS and/or Al Qaeda from getting in and being directly on Israel's border.  And Israel could never give up all of the West Bank.  If they did, at one point Israel would only be 9 miles wide, risking an enemy attack that could cut the nation in two.  

Another reminder.  Following Israel's War of Independence (1948-1949), Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip.  For nearly two decades those Arab countries controlled the land now sought for a Palestinian state.  Their control ended with Israel's victory in the 1967 Six Day War.    Did Jordan and Egypt seek to establish a Palestinian state during their period of control?  Of course not.  Jordan actually expelled Jews who were living in the part of Jerusalem that Jordan captured in 1948-49, an area now referred to as East Jerusalem.  Jewish synagogues were destroyed when "East" Jerusalem was under Jordan's control.

It is disappointing, but hardly surprising, to see academics criticize Israel in this fashion.  Israel does what it needs to do to survive.  Would I like to see peace?  Of course, who wouldn't.  Would I like to see a time when people and goods could move freely between all areas of the West Bank, Gaza and Israel?  Yes, but not until the Arabs lay down their arms, stop both the militaristic and diplomatic attacks on Israel, and truly acknowledge and accept Israel's right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people.    

The Durham Report - A Nothingburger? Part II

The headline in the USA Today clearly had a different perspective from the New York Times:  "Durham blasts FBI for 2016 Trump-Russia probe."  Right off, the paper gives us this quote from the Durham report:  "Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department (of Justice) and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report."  The question is why?

Why did the agents and Department officials fail to adhere to the law?  Might it be because of their overwhelming anti-Trump bias.  The USA Today:  "Durham said the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane based on 'unevaluated evidence' at the direction of former deputy director Andrew McCabe and former deputy assistant director for counterintelligence Peter Strzok, who 'at a minimum, has pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump.'"  

And then there is this damning statement in the Durham report:  "...neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."  But, why would they need evidence if the goal was to get Trump?  

And the report told us this:  "The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence also reflected a noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign."  Another example of how Trump was treated differently from Clinton.  Who is surprised?  Good for the USA Today for demonstrating a willingness to report a harsher assessment of the actions taken by the FBI than the New York Times was willing to do; an assessment reflected in the Durham report.  But the New York Times was all in with regards to Russian collusion, and attacking Trump.  It is clear that the Times is not about to back off now.

Finally, here is the headline that was in the local paper, the Ventura County Star, on May 17:  "Durham:  FBI's Trump-Russia probe flawed."  The paper also notes that "the FBI has also long since announced dozens of corrective actions."  And, in responding to the report, The FBI said this:  "Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented."  Missteps?  The FBI is being too kind to itself.  

Meanwhile, the paper reports that House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jim Jordan, has invited Durham to testify.  

Here is my concern.  Any system of government still depends on people of good will.  No matter how many rules are put in place, it depends on people willing to do what is right.  However, our country is so divided, that people at the highest levels of federal agencies inappropriately expressed negative attitudes towards Trump, and then acted on those attitudes.  People in the mainstream media justified their biased reporting because they believed Trump had to be stopped.  So they acted as advocates, rather than acting as reporters and journalists.  Will anything change, especially if Trump turns out to be the 2024 Republican nominee for president?     

The Durham Report - A Nothingburger? Part I

(A note.  I have not read the 306 page report, dealing with the investigation into the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation by the FBI into the Trump campaign and Russia.  The comments in these posts are taken from various media reports, and where obvious, are my own.  Additionally, I have never used the expression "nothingburger," either in conversation or in writing.  I am generally not a fan of words or expressions that become a fad, and then fade away.  However, in this case, based upon reading various sources, it seemed to be an appropriate usage.)

Here was the headline in the May 17 New York Times:  "After Years of Political Hype, the Durham Inquiry Failed to Deliver."  The Times reports that "no high-level F.B.I. or intelligence official" was charged with a crime.  They do acknowledge that the report found the F.B.I. guilty of "confirmation bias."  And:  "There were real-world flaws with the Russia investigation, especially how the F.B.I. botched applications to wiretap a former Trump campaign adviser."  Botched?  How about lied in the warrant application.  

The Times then reverts to the earlier report of the DOJ's inspector general, Michael Horowitz, saying he found "no evidence that F.B.I. actions were politically motivated."  Not politically motivated?  Then what is the "confirmation bias?"  And what about the text messages between Peter Strzok, the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, and FBI attorney Lisa Page?  Text messages discussing how to prevent Trump from becoming president.  And what about the discussions they had in the office of Andrew McCabe, the Deputy Director of the FBI?   

The Times does acknowledge that Strzok cautioned about use of the Steele dossier, and that it "should be viewed as intended to influence as well as inform," and that the source was "presumed to be connected to the (Clinton) campaign in some way."  But that did not prevent the FBI was citing the dossier in their warrant applications.  

The Times does offer a quote from the head of Judicial Watch:  "Never in American history has so much government corruption faced so little accountability."  

The Wall Street Journal had a different take in their May 17 editorial.  They cite the fact that the FBI had no "actual evidence of collusion" between Russia and the Trump campaign.  The Journal further asserts that "not a single U.S. agency had evidence of collusion."  Then why did the FBI open an investigation?  The Journal says the Durham report claimed a "clear predisposition" to open the investigation based on a "prejudice against Trump," and "pronounced hostile feelings."  

And the Journal tells us this:  "The FBI gave a Clinton representative a 'defensive briefing' about the risks of foreign actors.  Mr. Trump received no such briefing."  The Journal then asserts that "...the FBI probe that disrupted American politics for three years may have begun as a Russian intelligence operation," as there may have been connections between Steele and Russian agents.  Which would not be surprising as Steele was not only a former British MI6 agent, but was in charge of the Russia desk there.  And there is no doubt that the dossier was opposition research conducted on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

The Journal:  "All of this is an indictment of officials who were supposed to supervise the FBI," such as AG Loretta Lynch and Deputy AG Sally Yates.  The Journal tells us that the FBI has since "implemented dozens of corrective actions," which, had they been in place at the time, would have "prevented" these events from happening.  Why were such corrective actions necessary, unless FBI agents were acting outside of their legal responsibilities, based on an anti-Trump bias?    

Finally, acknowledging the obvious anti-Trump bias of the mainstream media, the Journal says this:  "The press corps was also an all-too-willing accomplice to the collusion con, yet there has been little to no outrage or even self-reflection at having been played for dupes.  Most coverage largely dismisses the Durham report because no one new was indicted."  

I take issue with the Journal's comment that the mainstream media was "played for dupes," but agree that they were "all-too-willing accomplices."  The media's hatred for Trump was, and continues to be, obvious.  That many in high levels of government had the same hatred for Trump, made the Russian collusion story possible.  And the mainstream media made sure that the story had legs.  It is impossible for this writer to believe that there was no political motivation behind the Russian collusion narrative.     

Biden's Approval Numbers Are Down, But...

A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (from 4/28-5/3) found that 63% of adults believe that President Biden lacks the "mental sharpness" to serve as president.  It is hard to believe that 32% believe he is capable.  And 62% believe Biden is not in "good enough physical health" to serve, with 33% believing he is.

As for former President Trump, his numbers are considerably better.  54% said he was sufficiently sharp, with 64% saying he was sufficiently healthy physically, to serve as president.  When asked who they trusted more to deal with the economy, 54% said Trump, with only 36% saying Biden.  (The poll has  a margin of error of +/- 3.5%.)

So Biden is considerably under water on three significant issues affecting his electability.  But...  But what if one issue dominates over all others?  What if abortion drives the vote in 2024?  In a 2022 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), it was found that 61% of Americans opposed overturning Roe, as the Supreme Court did in Dobbs.  

Not surprisingly, a significant super majority of Democrats (82%) opposed overturning Roe.  But the Independents also opposed overturning Roe (by 63%).  And, even 40% of Republicans opposed overturning Roe.  Here is a statistic that ought to give Republicans pause.  In 2021, the PRRI found that there was not one single state where a majority favored overturning Roe.  

Recently, the Nebraska legislature failed to pass a measure that would have banned abortions after about six weeks.  The current law banning abortion after 20 weeks, remains in effect.

In South Carolina, the legislature tabled a measure that would have banned nearly all abortions.  The purpose of this post is not to discuss the pros and cons of either Roe or Dobbs.  Just last summer I did three posts discussing Dobbs.  (See the two posts on 6/26/22 and one on 6/29/22.)

The question for Republicans is, how should they address the issue of abortion in 2024, as it is clearly going to be a major issue for many people.  During the oral argument of the Dobbs case, Chief Justice Roberts attempted to get both sides to focus on the actual 15 week limitation in the Mississippi statute that was before the Court.  The minority voted to keep Roe intact.  The majority overturned Roe.  Roberts found himself alone, suggesting that the 15 week ban might not be an "undue burden" under the Casey standard.  

I ended up siding with Roberts, and opposing the Dobbs decision.  If the Republicans do not come up with an answer, we may see landslide victories, up and down the ballot, for Democrats. 

Sanctuary Cities Didn't Really Mean It

Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, has been busing people who cross the southern border illegally (now called "migrants" by the left) to various northern cities, including Chicago and New York.  

Chicago Mayor, Lori Lightfoot, communicated this to Governor Abbott:  "I am, yet again, appealing to your better nature and asking that you stop this inhumane and dangerous action."  And this:  "We are completely tapped out.  We have no more space, no more resources, and frankly, we are already in a surge.  We've been seeing over the last week, two to three weeks, 200 plus people coming to Chicago every day."  

New York City Mayor, Eric Adams, had this to say:  "Not only is this behavior morally bankrupt and devoid of any concern for the well-being of asylum seekers, but it is also impossible to ignore the fact that Abbott is now targeting five cities run by black mayors."

Here is what Governor Abbott replied to Mayor Lightfoot:  "If you truly want to 'work together to find a real solution' to this border crisis gripping our nation, you must call on the Biden Administration to do its job by securing our border, repelling the illegal immigrants flooding into our communities, classifying the Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, and intercepting the deadly fentanyl that is endangering our country."

My take.  During the first two years of the Biden Administration, approximately 5 million people have entered the country illegally.  Why?  Because Biden immediately reversed the policies that President Trump had put in place.  But now it's a concern for these "sanctuary cities?"  Sounds like a typical left-wing reaction - supporting a policy until it actually affects them.  In this case, open borders is fine, as long as those pesky migrants stay in the southern states.  Sounds like another case of NIMBY - not in my backyard.

Mayor Lightfoot complains of 200 migrants a day.  That comes to 73,000 a year.  That's nothing compared to what our border communities have had to deal with.  I am not surprised that Mayor Adams played the race card.  The fact is, the Mayors of New York, Chicago, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia, are all black.  So what?  Should Governor Abbott only be permitted to bus the migrants to cities with Republican mayors?  The Governor of Texas is sending the migrants to cities run by Democrats, and that's the key.  He is trying to get these Democrats, as he said, to "call on the Biden Administration to its job."  

The buck stops with Biden, as the federal government is the entity responsible for securing our borders.  But Biden has not accepted any responsibility for anything.  As far as he is concerned, the buck stopped with Trump.  Or anyone else he and his cabinet members can blame.  Kudos to Governor Abbott for forcing the rest of the country into acknowledging that the border crisis is a national problem.  It is not, nor should it be, thought of as a problem for the border states only.

The State Of Our Country

There was an interesting poll taken by the Wall Street Journal - NORC (out of the University of the Chicago) from March 1 through March 13, 2023.  The poll sample consisted of 1019 people and has a margin of error of +/- 4.1%.  62% of the respondents were employed, with 38% not employed.  That is a fairly typical employment rate.  

The survey asked for the respondents' political outlook.  10% said they were "very liberal," with 13% "somewhat liberal."  12% were "very conservative," with 16% "somewhat conservative."  47% described themselves as "moderate."

In a survey of values, the respondents were asked what was "very important," "somewhat important," "not that important," or "not important at all."  In that order, with regards to "hard work," the numbers were 67%, 26%, 3% and 3%.  Not too bad at all.

With regards to "marriage," the numbers were 43%, 27%, 18% and 10%.  A little disappointing.  "Patriotism" came in at 38%, 35%, 16% and 11%.  Very disappointing.  This sense of patriotism is no longer instilled in our public schools.  Instead, students today are taught about the evils of America - slavery, white supremacy, racism, sexism, gender bias, etc.  Without a love of country, it is no surprise that the U.S. Army was 25% off of its target for recruiting in the last fiscal year.  Who will fight America's wars?  If there are an insufficient number of volunteers, will the country will be forced to return to conscription?  

More importantly, how does a country survive if the population no longer believes in the basic goodness of the country?  And, in an indication of the direction American values are headed, a 1998 New York Post poll found that 70% said that patriotism was "very important."  Currently, only 23% of Americans under 30 said that patriotism is "very important," compared to 59% of seniors over 65. 

As for religion, the numbers are as follows:  39%, 20%, 21% and 19%.  Also disappointing.  And the NY Post poll in 1998 found 62% saying that religion was "very important."  In terms of attendance at religious services, 32% said never, 19% one time a year, 9% about twice a year, 8% several times a year, 3% about once a month, 5% 2-3 times a month, 5% nearly every week, 13% every week, and 6% several times a week.  Only 31% of young Americans said that religion was "very important," compared to 55% of seniors.    

Insofar as having children is concerned, only 30% said it was "very important," then 36%, 18% and 15%.  This is also disappointing.  Children are our future.  But many young people believe having children causes an extra burden on the environment.  By age, only 23% of young Americans said having children was "very important," compared to an also disappointing 32% of seniors.

Not surprisingly, Republicans supported traditional American values more than Democrats.  59% of Republicans said that patriotism was "very important," compared to only 23% of Democrats.  For religion, the percentages were Republican 53% and Democrats 27%.  And for having children, it was 38% for Republicans and 26% for Democrats.  

These declining numbers in traditional American values should come as a surprise to no one.  Not when "leftist" values have increasingly replaced "liberal" values in American society.   

The Subtle Indoctrination Techniques Used By The Mainstream Media

(Note.  Over the years, I have written quite a few posts about media bias.  Many focused on the New York Times.  I have suggested to some on the left that they can pick out any day's edition of the New York Times, and I will show them the bias.  This post focuses on a single front page story, continued for a full half page on page 17, of the April 21, 2023 New York Times.  The article is titled "Moves by Israel Open a Divide With U.S. Jews."  And yes, I acknowledge that conservative media also has a bias.  However, my friends on the left often are unable to detect the subtle bias of the mainstream media.) 

On page one we learn of the new "far-right" government in Israel.  Yes, there are a couple ministers who might be described as far-right.  But Benjamin Netanyahu is not, and he is the Prime Minister.  Besides, a  descriptive term such as "conservative" government, is not sufficiently disparaging.  Nor, apparently, is even "right-wing" government.  And make no mistake, the idea is to disparage the Netanyahu government.  We are also told of this government's "efforts to undermine Israel's independent judiciary."  This is a gross exaggeration at best.  (See the March 30, 2023 post regarding "Israel's Proposed Judicial Reform, Part II," for a fair discussion of the proposals.)

On page 17 we get many quotes from prominent American Jews and American Rabbis.  These people are Democrats and left-wing.  They start with Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass):  "On this issue there is unanimity."  No, there is not.  "There are extreme concerns about the direction that Israel is headed, toward illiberal democracy."  The current government was democratically elected.  The conservative parties won.  The left in Israel can no more tolerate that than the left in the US was able to tolerate the victory of Donald Trump.  

After saying P.M. Netanyahu previously courted support from Republicans and evangelicals, they malign our former president with this: "President Donald J. Trump, in turn, did virtually whatever Mr. Netanyahu wanted."  What President Trump did was show his support for Israel by moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital city of Jerusalem, and by recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and by refusing to fund the Palestinian Authority until they stopped killing Jews.  But the leftists at the New York Times opposed those measures.  They opposed U.S. support for our greatest ally in the Middle East, and one of our greatest allies in the world.  The Times prefers the anti-Israel stances taken by Presidents Obama and Biden.    

The Times:  "For American liberals, the Netanyahu government's push to overhaul the judiciary came on top of the marginalization of liberal parties in Israel, despair in Gaza and the absence of progress toward Palestinian autonomy and equal rights."  The marginalization of liberal parties?  Does the Times no longer believe in democracy?  The liberal parties lost in the last election.  Despair in Gaza?  Did the Times forget that Gaza is run by Hamas, which has been designated a terrorist organization?  Did the Times forget that Hamas does not accept Israel's right to exist?  The absence of progress toward the Palestinians?  Did the Times forget all the times that the Palestinians have been offered a state of their own, only to refuse as long as Israel still exists, with the Palestinians choosing war instead?

I give the Times credit for providing a quote from Morton Klein, the president of the Zionist Organization of America, the strongest pro-Israel organization in the U.S.  Although the quote comes near the very end of the article.  The Times asserts that Mr. Klein said that "American Jews of all stripes see its high court as the last lever of liberal power," although that sentence is not put in quotes by the Times.  Here is what they quote Klein as saying:  "That is the main motivator" of American Jewish criticism.  "They're losing their power to control policy."  Exactly.

One of the biggest objections to the judicial reforms is that politicians - not sitting justices and bureaucrats - would be able to select High Court justices.  The conservative parties won the last election in Israel, and if the reforms pass, those conservative politicians would be able to select High Court justices.  How is that any different from all the objections we heard about President Trump being able to appoint 3 justices to the Supreme Court?  Not only did the left viciously attack Trump's nominees to the Supreme Court, a number of Democrats decided the selection process needed to be changed, or there needed to be term limits for the justices, or the Court needed to be expanded under Biden so that more left-wing justices could be nominated.   

Is there bias throughout the media?  Yes.  But the more subtle bias tends to be employed by the left-wing/mainstream media.