New Year Reflections, Part IV (The Waning Support for Israel in D.C.)

Israeli P.M. Netanyahu had an Op-Ed in the 12/26/23 Wall Street Journal, laying out "Israel's Three Prerequisites For Peace."  First prerequisite is that Hamas must be destroyed.  That should be obvious to everyone.  Hamas is a terrorist organization.  Hamas leaders have vowed to repeat the atrocities they carried out on October 7 "over and over and over again."  What more could anyone need to know?

Second, Gaza must be demilitarized.  "For the foreseeable future Israel will have to retain overriding security responsibility over Gaza."  Why isn't this obvious to everyone?  If the house next door to you houses (pick a number) 10 people, say, and they continually fire bullets into your home, and even invade your home and kill some family members, what would you want to happen?  That one or two get arrested, and the rest keep attacking you?  Or, do you want to see them thrown out, and also make sure that there are no weapons left behind - with your family guarding the house to make sure.

The third prerequisite is that Gaza "will have to be deradicalized."  No more school books showing the "river to the sea" as being "Palestine" - with no Israel anywhere.  No more teaching young kids to want to be martyrs.  Teach them to respect life.  No more Imams "preaching for the murder of Jews."  In other words, a normal civil society.  As Netanyahu pointed out, Abbas and the P.A. (Palestinian Authority) cannot be counted on for any of that.  They did not condemn the 10/7 atrocities; they supported it.  They continue to reward terrorists and their families for killing Jews.

And yet, the Biden Administration has apparently come up with a plan in conjunction with Qatar and Egypt (as reported by i24News), that, in a three step process, will end all hostilities.  At each step some hostages will be released, and Israel will release Palestinian prisoners.  At the third step there would be a permanent ceasefire, Saudi Arabia would normalize relations with Israel, and the process would begin for creation of a Palestinian state.  Qatar is involved with this?  The same Qatar that helps fund Hamas, and gives sanctuary to Hamas leadership?  Unbelievable.  In the description that I read I saw nothing about ending Hamas and ending the P.A.  I have seen elsewhere the idea that Gaza and the West Bank should be unified under the leadership of the P.A.  Seriously?

Meanwhile, Democrat Senator Bernie Sanders (yes, I know he's an Independent, but he caucuses with, and votes with, the Democrats) proposed an extraordinary anti-Israel resolution.  Thankfully, the measure failed by a vote of 72 nay to 11 aye, with 17 being absent.  The other 10 voting with Sanders were all Democrats, except for Republican/Libertarian Rand Paul, who generally has a problem with all foreign aid.  The measure would require the State Department to report on whether human rights abuses by Israel are occurring with U.S. aid, with the report due within 30 days.  A failure to issue the report would result in an automatic cessation of aid to Israel.

Sanders has made his anti-Israel position quite clear.  After saying that Israel has the right to go to war with Hamas, he said this:  "It does not have the right to go to war against the Palestinian people and innocent men, women and children in Gaza."  I'd like to ask Sanders some questions.  How does that work?  Israel is only allowed to kill Hamas leaders and soldiers?  Does he really not know that Hamas stores weapons under schools, hospitals and mosques?  That Hamas uses the people of Gaza as human shields, hoping that they become martyrs.  It sounds as if Israel would only be allowed to send in "hit squads" targeting Hamas leaders and soldiers.  

And what about the fact that polls show that 70% to 80% of the people in Gaza support what Hamas did on October 7?  Sanders is a self-hating Jewish moron.  Lest you have any doubt about Sanders personal opinion, here it is, explaining that Israel has "continued this military approach...in my view, that approach is immoral and is in violation of international law."  I wonder if Sanders has ever called for cutting off aid to the P.A. (which Biden reinstated after Trump stopped providing it), which funds terrorists (and their families) for killing Jews.  I wonder if Sanders has ever called for the cessation of funding to UNRWA (which Biden reinstated after Trump stopped it), the UN agency operating in, and as part of, Hamas.  But all that money just funds the killing of Jews, so if I had to guess, Sanders has not objected.

Now we have 15 Jewish Democrats in the House issuing a statement critical of Netanyahu.  "We strongly disagree with the prime minister...a two-state solution is the path forward."  Israel is in the middle of a war, a war that will determine the ultimate safety and even viability of the Jewish state of Israel.  So this is the time 15 Jewish members of the House decide to issue a statement against Netanyahu?  These 15 Jewish House members include such "luminaries" as Jerry Nadler (NY), Jake Auchincloss (Mass), Mike Levin (CA), Adam Schiff (CA), Brad Sherman (CA), Jamie Raskin (MD). and Steve Cohen (Tenn).  

Here are a few remarks by Secretary of State Antony Blinken.  Referring to post-war Gaza, he said it "must include Palestinian led governance and Gaza unified with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority."  Although he did say that "the Palestinian Authority also has a responsibility to reform itself, to improve its governance..."  What?  How does one "improve" rather than replace a dictatorial, terrorist supporting regime?  No, if there is a future Palestinian state (open to debate) it must NOT include either Hamas or the P.A.  

Perhaps the most cogent position was stated by Professor Eugene Kontorovich in a 1/3/24 Op-Ed in the WSJ.  In discussing how Jews were able to return to post-war West Germany, and live safely, he then discusses how Jews and Arabs live together in Israel.  Yet, there seems to be an assumption that post-war Gaza will be free of Jews.  He then states what should be obvious to everyone:  "If Jews aren't safe in Gaza, they won't be safe in Israel either."  That is really all anyone needs to know.

New Year Reflections, Part III (The Corrupt Mainstream Media)

Make no mistake, the Democrat-Mainstream Media Complex (D-MSMC) is corrupt.  Not just biased, but corrupt.  Following former President Trump's historic win in the Iowa caucuses, Rachel Maddow explained why MSNBC would not air Trump's victory speech.  "We will let you know if there is any news made in that speech, if there is anything noteworthy, something substantive and important."

Maddow:  "The reason I'm saying this is, of course, there is a reason that we and other news organizations have generally stopped giving an unfiltered, live platform to remarks by former President Trump.  It is not out of spite, it is not a decision that we relish, it is a decision that we'll regularly revisit.  And honestly, earnestly, it is not an easy decision."

But there is a cost to us, as a news organization, of knowingly broadcasting untrue things.  That is a fundamental truth of our business and who we are.  And so, his remarks, tonight, will not air live here, we will monitor them and let you know about any news that he makes."  

Well isn't that special.  Here is the truth, however.  The D-MSMC wants Biden to win, regardless of the cost to their journalistic integrity.  And they will do their best to make sure that Biden does win.  They certainly do not want their viewers to see a man, only a few years younger than Biden, able to speak extemporaneously, unlike the presumed Democrat candidate.  And just how elitist are these people, telling the American people that they do not need to hear the words of the likely Republican nominee for President of the United States.  You also have to wonder how Maddow was able to say with a straight face that they do not want to broadcast "untrue things."  Here is the short reply I would give to Maddow:  Russian collusion hoax, which you repeated over and over again.

Should Biden and Trump end up being their party's nominees, and in the unlikely event Biden agrees to a debate, I have a recommendation for the D-MSMC.  When Biden is speaking, air all of his remarks.  When Trump speaks, mute his comments and put up on the screen "we will let you if the former President says anything newsworthy."  Ridiculous?  Of course.  Yet that is exactly what MSNBC just did.

Not surprisingly, CNN joined in.  Here was Jake Tapper:  "A relatively subdued speech as the(se) things go so far.  Although, here he is, right under my voice."  Under my voice?  Why are you talking over him?  Here is one excuse why people should not be allowed to hear Trump.  "You can hear him repeating his anti-immigrant rhetoric."  What???

The American people view the open border and illegal immigration as the biggest issue facing the country.  Big city mayors across the country - Democrats - are complaining about the flood of illegal immigrants.  Here is Trump's so-called anti-immigrant rhetoric:  "W are going to seal up the border.  Because right now, we have an invasion.  We have an invasion of millions and millions of people that are coming into our country.  I can't imagine why they think that's a good thing."

So, Trump is saying he is against illegal immigration, not all immigration.  But the corrupt D-MSMC never makes that distinction when talking about Republicans.  Trump said it's an "invasion."  Well, what the hell else would you call it when as many as 10 million people have entered the country illegally during Biden's first three years in office.  Anybody need a better example of why I refer to most of the media as the Democrat-Mainstream Media Complex?

New Year Reflections, Part II (A Further Discussion of DEI)

(Note:  In the December 9, 2023 post, "Year End Reflections, Part II,"  I discussed the evil of DEI.  This is a further discussion about that.)  As with many universities and businesses, Johns Hopkins Medicine has an Office of Diversity.  Heading the office is one Dr. Sherita H. Golden.  In the January edition of their Diversity Digest (yes, they have such a publication), Dr. Golden said this:  "In the United States, privilege is granted to people who have membership in one or more of these social groups identity groups:  white people, able bodied people, heterosexuals, cisgender people (you identify with the sex you were born with, i.e. almost everybody), males, Christians, middle or owning class people, middle aged people, and English-speaking people."

So then, what are we talking about?  99% of the population?  Won't the vast majority of people fall into one of those groups?  It's nonsense.  And what's the point?  Taking the first two groups, white people and able bodied people, I'll use myself as an example.  Am I white?  Yes.  Am I able bodied?  Not since age 15.  So, as between those those groups, would I be identified as 50% privileged and 50% non-privileged?  But what if my physical limitations have had a greater impact on my life than being white?  So, can we say then I am only 25% privileged and 75% non-privileged?  How would we even measure the impact of the two?  And what's the point?

I have good reason to believe that early in my career I was turned down from two different jobs for these reasons.  The first time was because I am Jewish.  So...I ended up at a firm run by Jewish attorneys and where I was very happy.  The second time was because of my physical disability issues, and was walking with a cane for years prior to my bilateral hip replacements.  So...I ended up at a firm that said they didn't care about that.  In fact, I had the two hip replacements while working at that firm, and they took care of me while I was off for two months each time.  And they paid my salary.  What's the lesson?  There are a-holes in the world, but there are plenty of good people also.   

Dr. Golden:  "...privileges are unearned and are granted to people in the dominant groups whether they want those privileges or not, and regardless of their intent."  Whether you want it or not.  Regardless of your intent.  Well, there is guilt by association for sure.  How should we punish you?

Dr. Golden subsequently apologized for her post, likely under pressure from the administration at Johns Hopkins Medicine.  The President and Dean issued a statement in which they "repudiate(d)" the statement by Dr. Golden.  And they added that the definition of privilege by Dr, Golden "runs counter to the values of our institution, and our mission and commitment to serve everyone equally."  Here are a couple of questions.  I would ask the President and Dean:  Are you serious?  What did you expect from a DEI office?  And I would ask everyone, how comfortable would you be getting treatment from Dr. Golden if you fall into one of her privilege categories?  And, depending on how much influence Dr. Golden has had on the other doctors at Johns Hopkins, how comfortable would you be there at all?  

In May of last year, the Pew Research Center issued poll results from people who work as employees.  56% said focusing on DEI at work is a good thing.  28% said it is neither good nor bad.  And 16% called it a bad thing.  Not surprisingly, more women (61%) than men (50%) thought it was a good thing.  Also not surprising was the difference between the races.  78% of blacks said it was a good thing, joined by 72% of Asians and 65% of Hispanics.  But a minority of whites, 47%, said it was a good thing.  

Also not surprising was the age gap, with 68% of those 18 to 29 saying the focus on DEI was a good thing.  56% of those age 30 to 49 agreed, but only 46% of those age 50 to 64 agreed.  In the 65 or older group (likely many were soon to be retired) the number went back up to 52%.  And, least surprising of all was the difference between the two parties.  Democrats and those leaning Democrat favored the focus on DEI by 78%.  Republicans and those leaning Republican - only 30%.  (Pew said the poll was taken of employees at companies with 10 or more people.  And the results for Asians consisted of only those who spoke English.)  

I would submit to my readers that Republicans came in with that low number because they actually believe in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King - that people be judged based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

New Year Reflections, Part I (What To Expect This Presidential Election Year)

The timing was perfect for Joe Biden and the D-MSMC (what I call the Democrat-Mainstream Media Complex).  A day before the third anniversary of what is now referred to simply as "January 6," Biden gave a campaign speech discussing the threat to democracy by Donald Trump, and how re-electing him will save our democracy.  The New York Times, the leading paper of the D-MSMC, followed suit with an editorial in the first Sunday edition of the year, on January 7, 2024.  

The Times:  "As president, he (Trump) wielded power carelessly and often cruelly..."  How's that exactly?  They don't say.  "He deepened existing divisions among Americans..."  I believe Obama started that, making everything a racial issue.  Then Biden furthered the divide, after promising to be a uniter.  Obama talked about the deplorables in a manner akin to Hillary Clinton.  Biden followed along, with his nonstop attacks on Republicans.  I don't care if he refers to them as "MAGA" Republicans, it's divisive.  

Biden:  "And our campaign is about preserving and strengthening our American democracy."  At least one site online says that 10 million people have entered the country illegally under Biden.  That's more people than in all of New York City, our nation's largest city.  That's more than the individual population of 41 states.  How does ignoring the sovereignty of the United States strengthen the United States?  

The Times:  "(Trump) has repeatedly demonstrated a deep disdain for the First Amendment..."  Okay, how about this:  "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Friday ruled that the Biden White House, top government health officials and the FBI likely violated the First Amendment by improperly influencing tech companies' decisions to remove or suppress posts on the coronavirus and elections."  (Per the Washington Post, 9/8/23.)  This part bears repeating:  "remove or suppress posts on the coronavirus and elections."  That should make it clear why I refer to them as the D-MSMC, which clearly includes social media (except, perhaps, for "X" now).  

The Times:  "Mr. Trump's forays into foreign affairs remain dangerously misguided and incoherent...he displayed consistent admiration for autocratic leaders..." Let's compare.  Trump started no new wars.  He defeated ISIS.  He pulled us out of the bad Iran nuclear deal.  He told NATO allies to start paying their required fair share, or don't assume reliance on the US.  Lo and behold, they started to pay up.  He refused to fund the Palestinian Authority, as they used US tax dollars to reward terrorists, and their families, for killing Jews.  He refused to fund UNRWA, which is a ridiculous UN agency in Gaza, that acts at the behest of Hamas.  

Trump moved the US embassy in Israel to Israel's capital city, Jerusalem.  Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.  Trump helped to bring about the Abraham Accords, establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, and shortly thereafter Morocco and Sudan.  But, I forget.  The Times main concern is the Palestinians.  They did not approve of Trump's policies favoring Israel.

Biden?  A disastrous and embarrassing withdrawal from Iraq, leaving behind billions in American weaponry.  Lifting sanctions on Iran, allowing the flow of billions of dollars into the coffers of the leading state sponsor of terrorism.  Attempting to reenter the Iran nuke deal.  Restoring funding to the terrorist supporting PA and UNRWA.  Under Obama, Russia invaded Ukraine and Hamas went to war with Israel.  Under Trump, Putin did nothing and Hamas did not start another war with Israel.  Then we had Biden - Putin launched a massive invasion of Ukraine, and Hamas conducted an unprecedented attack on Israel.  

The Times says Trump has threatened "the deployment of the military and the Justice Department, to have his way."  What?  It was Biden's Justice Department which directed the FBI to investigate parents as possible terrorists, for daring to challenge the woke lies being fed to their children in the public schools.  It is Biden's Justice Department that is currently prosecuting the leading Republican candidate for president against their boss.  Coincidence?  I don't think so.  That shows support for our democracy?  Decidedly not.  

Biden:  "Political violence is never, ever, acceptable in the United States political system - never, never, never.  It has no place in our democracy.  None."  Well, his allies in the D-MSMC apparently did not get that message during the summer of nationwide rioting in 2020, calling the "protests" mostly peaceful.  I am curious as to how such peaceful protests resulted in nearly $2 billion worth of damages to businesses and government buildings around the country.  And when rioters pulled down a statue of Christopher Columbus in her native Baltimore, what did then Speaker Nancy Pelosi have to say?  "People will do what they do."  She didn't say that about January 6.  

Here is a precious line by the Times:  "Democracy in the United States is stronger with a formidable conservative political movement to keep diversity of thought alive on important questions, such as the nation's approaches to immigration, education, national security and fiscal responsibility."  Excuse me while I stop laughing.  If the Times truly believed one word of that, then 95% (99%?) of their editorials and Op-Ed columns would not have a left-wing point of view.  

I'll conclude with this.  I have my own complaints about many of the unnecessary and improper comments made by Trump.  But this simply sounds like a replay of all the allegations made against Trump in 2016, when we were assured that the world would end if Trump won.  The world didn't end.  Peace broke out in new places.  Wars didn't.  The economy was good.  We were energy independent.  Methinks that Biden and the Times are "crying wolf."    

Year End Reflections, Part VIII (Happy New Year?)

Erin Aubry Kaplan is a regular Op-Ed contributor to the Los Angeles Times.  Her 12/29/23 year-end column is titled "Why I'm not wishing you happy holidays."  She explains:  "We need every bit of our attention focused on what's going on - Israel's merciless war on Gaza, the dangerously stagnated international effort to combat climate change, our frighteningly partisan judicial system...and we cannot avoid what's shaping up to be a terrifying 2024..."  

So, basically, many of the leftwing talking points.  Nothing about the millions entering illegally.  Nothing about crime.  Nothing about people's concerns over "Bidenomics."  Nothing about trying to eliminate fossil fuels, with apparently no understanding of the thousands of products made with petroleum.  And nothing about the Biden family corruption, or the very anti-democratic efforts to keep Trump off the ballot.

No, after telling us the leftwing talking points, she, of course, turns to Trump, and "the realization that Donald Trump could win a second presidency."  She then suggests that evangelical Christians push racism and xenophobia and a belief in racial superiority.  We can thank Biden for being the most divisive President in history for pushing this racial division and DEI nonsense.  

Kaplan:  "...this is troubling.  That 30% to 40% of my fellow Americans actively support or are willing to accept such a dark vision of this country - our country - is colossally depressing."  I agree.  How can so many people still support the Democrats, who are doing everything possible to undermine our democracy and eliminate the idea of national sovereignty for the USA.  Imagine the Secretary of State of Maine, leftwing Democrat Biden supporter that she is, thinks it is somehow supporting democracy, by taking Trump off the ballot.  I guess the Left is proving to us "if you can't beat 'em, cheat."

After acknowledging that she will be criticized for not realizing the greeting is about family and love and affirmation and "nothing to do with Trump," she still can't bring herself to extend New Year's greetings.  Here's why:  "The long campaign to dismantle pluralistic America isn't taking a holiday and I can't either."   

I don't know how much longer our country can exist if it continues to be governed by the progressive/Marxist people running the Democrat party.  Nevertheless, I have happily wished many a "Happy and Healthy New Year."  Even in the darkest times, we need to be beacons of light.

So a Happy and Healthy New Year to all my friends and readers of the blog!

Year End Reflections, Part VII (What a Surprise)

Just as I was already preparing a post in my head about how the D-MSMC is so focused non-stop on Gaza, with far less concern about Israel and the hostages, I picked up today's New York Times.  On the front page, the lead article was "'Screams Without Words':  Sexual Violence on Oct. 7."  I'll let the article speak for itself, other than a few sentences by me at the end.  The Times says they conducted a two-month investigation "relying on video footage, photographs, GPS data from mobile phones and interviews with more than 150 people, including witnesses, medical personnel, soldiers and rape counselors."

One witness saw a woman forcibly bent over while she raped from behind.  "Every time she flinched, he (a Hamas terrorist) plunged a knife into her back."  

The witness saw another woman "shredded into pieces."  As the Times recounts it:  "While one terrorist raped her...another pulled out a box cutter and sliced off her breast."  "One continues to rape her, and the other throws her breast to someone else, and they play with it, throw it, and it falls on the road."  Then they sliced her face.  

Another witness tells of seeing a group of five terrorists raping a woman, and she screams.  "I still remember her voice, screams without words."  "Then one of them raises a knife and they just slaughtered her."  

Others tell of terrorists "talking, giggling and shouting" while taking a knife and "literally butchering her."  Others tell of a woman's vagina sliced open.

Still other described women and girls found "naked or half naked, some mutilated..."  

Another described having "seen several bodies with cuts in their vaginas and underwear soaked in blood, and one whose fingernails had been pulled out."

These atrocities were committed by Hamas, a terrorist group that not only finds support around the world: but also, incredibly, finds support for their involvement in a future Palestinian state in Gaza.  It should be mandatory for every protester in this country to be arrested when violating the law (such as blocking traffic), and the sentence should be a requirement that they view all the photos and the videos documenting these unspeakable, abominable and atrocious acts.  And preferably with their hands bound behind their backs, like many of the victims were found.  And, sorry to say, but let the protesters have some sense of what these victims experienced, by having to also watch while naked.  

Year End Reflections, Part VI (My Beef With Tucker Carlson)

I've known for sometime that Tucker Carlson is an isolationist.  I happen to disagree with that philosophy, because I think it is dangerously naive.  Still, he is not alone in holding that viewpoint, as is his right.  But recently, it appears that he crossed over into antisemitism - and that is not acceptable.  In speaking with Saagar Enjeti on "Breaking Points," Carlson attacked fellow conservative Ben Shapiro and others on the right for something he either does not understand (which I doubt, because Carlson is not stupid) or willfully ignores.

Carlson:  "...there are people on the 'right' who have spent the last two months every single day focused on a conflict in a foreign country as our own country becomes dangerously unstable, on the brink of financial collapse, with tens of millions of people who shouldn't be here in the country, we don't know the identities or the purpose of their being here."  He then expresses his concern for those things making it impossible "for my kids to live here."

Then he makes this incredible assertion:  "I'm shocked by how little they care about the country (including Ben Shapiro).  And I can't imagine how someone like that could get an audience of people who claim to care about America, because he doesn't, obviously."  Carlson, that is just reprehensible!

Let me give you a little background, Carlson.  I know you are not Jewish.  Shapiro is an observant Jew.  All Jews who pray know that Jerusalem and Israel are mentioned in our prayers.  You may have felt bad for the people who were brutally murdered on October 7, but myself, like many, many Jews, felt it to our core.  This was the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust.  And whether you like it or not (I don't give a damn if you don't), we Jews understand that Israel is not only our Biblical homeland, but since 1949 it has been a safe haven for Jews suffering from oppression around the world. 

The first two weeks after October 7, I had a difficult time sleeping.  When I would get up during the night to go the bathroom, I would go to the family room and turn on the TV and watch i24News, out of Israel, for an hour or two.  Maybe you understand that, maybe you don't.  If you don't, I don't give a damn.  And, apparently you are not terribly concerned about the worst antisemitism since the Holocaust, as you believe Jews are behind the "white replacement" theory.

So, let's clarify a few things.  Ben Shapiro is a strong conservative and a strong defender of America.  But you are willing to take this relatively brief window of time, when Shapiro and many Jews, have been focused on Israel and the growing antisemitism, and conclude that Shapiro does not care about America.  I have written this blog since 2009.  Over 640 posts.  But since October 7, 12 of my last 15 posts have been about Israel and antisemitism.  I assume you would conclude from that number that I don't care about America either.

I guess my other 630 posts over 15 years would not mean anything to you.  My constant defense of American values would not mean anything to you.  My repeatedly saying that the USA is the best country in the history of the world, would not mean anything to you.  If you were a man, Tucker, you would give a very public apology to Ben Shapiro and all the other Jews on the right who you claim do not care for America, simply because you willfully ignore the history of the Jewish people.  

I'll finish with this, Carlson.  Jews will continue to focus on Israel, given the very existential threat to the country from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Iran.  And I will do so in my blog.  And Jews will also focus on the growing antisemitism/outright Jew-hatred in this country, making us wonder if America will continue to be the best country in the world for the Jewish people (outside of Israel).  I will also continue to focus on that.  So, good for you being a Christian in a Christian country, with none of these concerns.  Instead of attacking us, why not try to be grateful for the fact that you have two less things to worry about than we do.