Trump's Gaza Plan - Crazy or Brilliant? Part II

I think it's safe to say that an article online on CNN by Stephen Collinson, is representative of Democratic and leftwing thinking about Trump's plan for Gaza.  Collinson:  "To see an American president endorse what would be the forcible expulsion of Palestinians from their home, in an exodus that would subvert decades of US policy, international law and basic humanity, was breathtaking."  Well, decades of US policy has clearly not resulted in peace between Israel and the Palestinians.  So, who gives a damn about failed policy.  International law?  Would not be an issue if UNRWA  had not insisted on working with the worst extremist/terrorist elements in Gaza, by forcing people to stay in what they have called "an outdoor prison," instead of resettling them as millions of other refugees did after WWII.  

Basic humanity?  If the Dems and the Left cared about basic humanity, they might ask themselves this:  "do I want to live in area where Hamas uses me and my family as human shields, where my children and I may die from the constant wars, or would I rather live in peace somewhere else?"  Because Israel is not going anywhere.  And for UNRWA and Hamas to teach the children of Gaza that the goal in life is to kill all the Jews, is pure evil.  You see, people like Collinson have no plan, other than another 100 years of war and dying.  

Collinson:  "The president's obliviousness to the aspirations of Palestinians and his assumption that they'd prefer a modern housing development elsewhere showed a stunning naivety about the causes of the conflict."  If I had to guess, it would be to say that Collinson believes the conflict is over land.  It is only in this sense - the Palestinians want all the land, including Israel.  And they don't care how they get there, even if it takes another 100 years of killing Jews, and tens of thousands of their own people dying.  The leaders of Hamas openly admit that the more dead Palestinians there are, the more martyrs there are.  Not to mention the propaganda value of dead Palestinians, in whipping up hatred of Israel and the Jewish people worldwide, as the useful idiots of the Left fall for it every time. 

But even the Left has to once in a while admit reality.  In explaining why Jordan and Egypt do not want to take in the Palestinians, Collinson said this:  "Jordan...fears the Hashemite Kingdom would be fatally destabilized by a new influx (of Palestinians)."  And Egypt?  "Egypt's military fears a massive influx of Palestinians that would include Hamas sympathizers of the Sunni Islamist Muslim Brotherhood."  

A reminder.  From 1948 until the 6 Day War in 1967, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank (Judea and Samaria).  Since then, Egypt has renounced ownership of Gaza, just as Jordan has renounced ownership of the West Bank.  They don't want the Palestinians.  So, all this talk about the "poor Palestinians," is nothing other than lip service.  If your neighbors were being bombed and killed, but you could take them in and provide safe and better living conditions, would you do it?  Well, the Egyptians and the Jordanians won't.  They don't give a damn about their fellow Arabs.  They just pretend that they do. 

Again, we see a glimmer of reality from Collinson, who calls Trump "an outsider president who lives to shake things up and who is beloved by his voters for rejecting the orthodoxy of elites and the conventional approaches that have failed."  So, if the past has failed - and it clearly has - why do so many Democrats and the Left want to keep repeating it?  

As Elliot Kaufman wrote in that 2/6/25 Op-Ed in the WSJ:  "Even as Arab states claimed Israel was slaughtering Palestinians indiscriminately, they insisted Gaza's borders stay shut.  When Palestinians tried to flee the war, as is their human right, Egypt forcibly closed the border - with the support of the international community."  Including the Biden Administration.

Rather than give credence to Trump's bold proposal, the Dems and the Left prefer to stick with failed policies.  They refuse to acknowledge the reality of staying the course.  Kaufman summed it up best:  "The humane solution, by liberal lights, is to sacrifice another generation of Palestinians to permanent refugee status and a forever war on Israel.  That's what life in Gaza holds for them."

How about we get behind President Trump on this?  Peace rather than war.  Economic prosperity rather than squalor.  

Trump's Gaza Plan - Crazy or Brilliant? Part I

Looking back on the last 100 years or so, three events stand out as having had a significant impact on the Middle East, and specifically the Arab-Israeli conflict.  First, in 1917, we had what came to be known as the "Balfour Declaration."  Then British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, wrote to Lord Rothchild the following:  "His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."  Prior to WWI, the Ottoman Empire controlled much of the Middle East for 400 years.  Following the Allies' victory, Britain controlled the area of what later became Jordan, Israel and the West Bank.  British authority came from the League of Nations in what was called the "British Mandate," also referred to as "Mandatory Palestine."  

To be clear, there was never a country called Palestine on that land.  There was a Kingdom of Israel 2000 years ago, and the country of Israel since 1948.  But the geographic area was called "Palestine," and was home to Jews and Arabs.  Yes, I've seen online articles referring to Palestine as if it was a country run by the Arabs.  Simply not true.  The second significant event  was the 1947 UN General Assembly voting to partition the land of the British Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state.  The Arabs immediately rejected the idea, and made war on the new country of Israel.  But, the Arabs had been killing Jews since the 1920's.  And while the Jews sided with the US and the Allies in WWII, the Arabs sided with Hitler.  

Now we come to the third significant event - Trump's outline for the future of Gaza.  Steve Witkoff has been Trump's emissary to the Middle East, and was instrumental in bringing about the current cease-fire and release of the hostages.  Based on his speaking with people there, and his own observations, Witkoff said this:  "There's 30,000 unexploded munitions.  Buildings that could tip over at any moment.  There's no utilities there whatsoever.  No working water, electric, gas.  Nothing.  G-d knows what kind of disease might be festering there."

So, Trump has a different idea.  Move the people out of Gaza, at least temporarily.  Then, "level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings.  Level it out.  Create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area...do something different.  If you go back, it's going to end up the same way it has for 100 years."  Exactly!  It's been war after war after war, terrorist attack after terrorist attack after terrorist attack.  Until October 7, 2023, when much of the Jewish world woke and acknowledged the failure of the two-state solution.  

Trump has consistently shown that he thinks "outside the box," especially when it comes to the Middle East.  It wasn't just moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel's capital city.  It wasn't just recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the strategic Golan Heights.  During his first term, Trump acknowledged the reality that the Palestinians would never make peace with Israel.  So, he said, let's make peace deals between Israel and the other Arab countries.  Which is how the unthinkable happened with the Abraham Accords.  No one thought that was possible.  But Donald Trump did.  

Here is how The Jewish Press described the situation since Israel's rebirth in 1948:  "Over the next 78 years, the Western nations tolerated the Arabs' bloodlust and hatred, blaming most of it on the Jews for their insolent survival of Arab hostility, until yesterday, when an unusually practical American president put a stop to the charade."  Trump said the Gaza strip "has been a symbol of death and destruction for so many decades and so bad for the people anywhere near it."  Said the Wall Street Journal of Trump's idea:  "however preposterous, does have the virtue of forcing the world to confront its hypocrisy over the fate of the Palestinian people."

The Journal:  "The best the world can come up with is to mouth the 'two-state' platitude and let Gaza remain a hell-hole where Hamas will revive its reign of terror, and Palestinians who want something different will be tossed off buildings."  In a 2/6/25 Op-Ed in the Journal, Elliot Kaufman wrote that UNRWA (the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees) has had the singular goal of keeping the Arabs in Gaza as permanent "refugees."  Refugees from where?  From Israel, because they claim Israel has no right to exist, and the Jewish people have no right to live there.  Think about that.  Every other actual refugee group following WWII, moved on.  

They moved to other countries around the world.  Even 700,000 to 800,000 Jews living in the Arab world were forced to leave their homes where their families had lived for hundreds of years.  But Kaufman explains that UNRWA's "job is to keep them (the Arabs of Gaza) in forever refugee status down into the third, fourth and soon fifth generation.  This way, they stay poor and crowded in Gaza's permanent refugee camps, whipped up for a final return to overwhelm the Jews."  

So, is Trump's idea crazy or brilliant.  If by "crazy" people mean difficult to achieve, I agree.  But the idea is brilliant because Trump is looking for a better life for all the people in the area, and he has a plan to get there.  Do I think Trump will ask US taxpayers to pay for the cleanup and rebuilding?  No.  I think pressure will be put on the wealthy Arab countries (think Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar) to foot the bill.  And maybe some pressure on the Europeans.  

When Robert F. Kennedy was running for president in 1968, he often repeated a quote originally attributable to George Bernard Shaw:  "some people see things as they are and say 'why?'  I dream things that never were and say 'why not'?"  But we know Trump will never get credit from the Democrats and the Left.  So, let's look at a typical Democrat reaction - in Part II.  

New Year Reflections, Part II (My 700th Post!)

A few words about the blog.  In the spring of 2009 I started writing emails every other week, discussing current events, to about five or six people.  I was particularly upset with the new Obama/Biden team.  My daughters kept telling me I should have a blog, which, I had no idea what they were talking about.  But come Thanksgiving Day in 2009, they told me to sit down at the computer and check out my blog.  They named it "The Truth - Uncensored."  They moved a bunch of my earlier weekly emails to the blog.  And they showed me how to write new posts.  So, thank you to my daughters.

From the beginning, the blog topics have included politics, culture, strong support for Israel, and a bunch of personal posts about me.  A popular post was "Lessons From My Childhood," posted July 22, 2017.  One of my favorite personal ones was "Growing Up In 1961," posted July 10, 2022.  That was followed by "Growing Up In 1971," then 1981, 1991 and 2001.  I've yet to do 2011 and 2021.    

I'd like to say that the new year started off on a happy note, but we know that a US Army veteran who became a radical Islamist, decided it was a good idea to drive a truck into a crowd of people celebrating the new year on Bourbon Street in New Orleans.  14 people were killed and dozens were injured by this despicable person.  After crashing his vehicle, he engaged the police in a shootout.  Sad to say, he was shot and killed by the police.  Sad, because he got off too easy.  Way too easy.  Maybe public torture and execution for such an evil monster, driven by an evil ideology.  

On a lighter note, college football is my favorite sport.  And I enjoyed watching much of the the quarter final bowl games in the new 12 team championship playoff.  Penn State beat Boise State, Texas defeated Arizona State, Ohio State easily beat no. 1 Oregon, and Notre Dame Beat Georgia.  In the semifinals, Notre Dame will take on Penn State and Ohio State will play Texas.  What is notable is the way the teams were seeded.  I noticed that not a single one of the top four teams made it to the semi-finals.  

Then I read an article in the WSJ weekend edition discussing this very thing.  The 4 champions of the 4 power conferences left in college football, automatically qualified for the playoffs.  And they got a first round bye.  And they all lost in the next round.  The writer discusses that maybe there should be only 8 teams in the playoffs.  I have advocated that for years.  4 teams is too few, because often numbers 5 and 6 deserve to be there.  And 12 seems to be too many.  The oddsmakers also did not think highly of these automatic qualifications for the 4 conference champions - none of them were favored to win their games and none did.  Let's go with 8 next year, with no automatic berths for conference champions. 

Should anyone be surprised by this story?  New York Judge Juan Merchan set a January 10 date for the sentencing of former, and soon to be current, President Trump, in the so-called hush money case.  Trump is expected to receive an "unconditional discharge," meaning no prison time and no fine.  So then what's the point?  The point is that , in New York State, even after a jury verdict finding a defendant guilty, they are apparently not considered a convicted felon until sentencing.  So, clearly, Merchan wants Trump to assume the presidency as the only convicted felon ever.  Just disgusting that the judge would engage in such political gamesmanship.  But this judge showed his bias throughout the trial.  And what he, and Bragg and Smith and the others, don't get, is that their politization of the justice system no doubt helped Trump win the election.  People did not like the unfairness, the targeting of one man.  It's un-American.    

Thanks to Israel, Trump will be entering into office with a remade Middle East.  Hamas is weaker.  Hezbollah is weaker.  Israel has also hit the Houthis and Iran.  So, Iran's proxies are not doing well.  And Assad is out of Syria; but the Islamists in his place do not bode well for that region. 

I guess I should say a few words about the passing of Jimmy Carter.  He was a terrible president.  Inflation was out of control.  I realize that cannot all be blamed on Carter.  But it was.  Iran took Americans hostage.  And yes, Carter helped to broker the Camp David Accords, resulting in a lasting, albeit uneasy, peace between Israel and Egypt.  Carter is mostly remembered for his humanitarian efforts, especially Habitat for Humanity, after leaving office.  But I also remember his 2006 anti-Israel book, "Palestine:  Peace Not Apartheid."  I knew that Carter was a lover of the Arabs.  And this book just confirmed it.  As far as I am concerned, Carter proved himself to be an antisemite.  Okay, I mentioned Carter.

I'll end by thanking everyone for your readership on the occasion of my 700th post.  What started out as a simple email to 5 or 6 people, now gets up to several thousand hits in a month's period.  I know that's  not much, but I've done nothing to link the blog to other sites.  Maybe I'll retire soon and expand its reach.  Happy New Year, everyone!    

New Year Reflections, Part I (Here Comes The Trump Administration)

Starting at the top, I'm happy that Trump will be replacing Biden.  And Vance vs Harris...please.  Anyway, there will a lot of new faces.  Historically, the top four cabinet positions were Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury and the Attorney General.  But with the relatively new Department of Homeland Security, I think we need to add that as a fifth.  And, while not a cabinet position, I would say that the White House Chief of Staff rounds out the top six.  There are obviously various other positions of importance, which I do not expect to get to today - Director of National Intelligence, National Security Adviser, Director of the FBI, Director of the CIA, Border Czar, and the newly minted Department of Government Efficiency, among others. 

While readers know that I am not a fan of woke ideology, such as critical race theory or DEI, I do want to mention that of the top six positions three are women.  I mention that only because Trump has been accused of all the usual - racism, sexism, etc.  

Secretary of State.  Marco Rubio will be replacing Antony Blinken.  I shouldn't have to say anything else.  Rubio will be the first Latino to serve in that position.  (Which, again, I mention only because of the accusations against Trump.)  Rubio has been the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  He's a solid conservative, yet has worked across the aisle when it has served America's interests.  I support Rubio.

Secretary of Defense.  Pete Hegseth is nominated to replace Lloyd Austen.  I do not wish to diminish Austen's long military career, rising to the rank of 4-star General.  He is a silver star recipient.  And on 10/13/23, a mere week after the terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas, Austen went to Israel and announced:  "I am here in person to make something crystal cleat:  America's support for Israel is ironclad."  Where Austen has been criticized is his failure to notify his boss, the President, that he had surgery in December, 2023, and was in the hospital from January 1 through January 4 of this year.  Not a good thing when the second in line (after the President) in the chain of command is MIA.

What about Pete Hegseth?  He got his undergraduate degree from Princeton and a Masters degree from Harvard.  He has been awarded the Bronze Star.  He served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But he has issues.  He has never run a large anything, and the DoD is huge.  He was accused of sexual assault, but never had his day in court because the prosecutor declined to bring charges.  Yes, there was a civil case which he settled.  But we attorneys know there are various reasons to settle those cases.  And he has had at least one affair.  So, he won't be Pope or Chief Rabbi.  

But, I expect he will get rid of any woke nonsense currently inhabiting the DoD.  And I don't think he can do worse than Austen in building up our military.  We need to build up our Navy to deal with the growing threat from China.  Russia is always a threat.  And Iran may already have nukes.  We have been supplying Ukraine and Israel (both of which I support) with missiles and other weaponry, but we need our own armaments to protect Americans.  And, under Austen, military recruitment has been failing to meet its quotas.  So, I support Hegseth. I believe he understands the concept of "peace through strength."

Secretary of the Treasury.  Scott Bessent to replace Janet Yellen.  I know nothing of Bessent.  So I read a little.  He will be the highest ranking openly gay member in government.  (Again, I mention it because of the attacks on Trump that he hates every minority.)  However, Bessent worked at the Soros Fund Management.  When he started his own company, Key Square Group, Soros invested $2 billion with him.  He has supported Al Gore, Obama and H. Clinton.  Although Bessent supported Trump in 2020 and now.  So, I'm concerned.  But without more information, I will support Trump on this.

Attorney General.  Pam Bondi to replace Merrick Garland.  So many issues with Garland that virtually anyone would be an improvement.  Garland thought the DOJ and FBI should investigate parents who attended local school board meetings, and who loudly complained about woke nonsense such as CRT.  Garland appointed Jack Smith to go after Trump; basically because his boss told him to do so.  Bondi was the Attorney General of Florida from 2011 to 2019.  She was the lead attorney, among 27 state AG's, trying to overturn the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare.  (See my 7/1/12 post "Obamacare Upheld Under a Flimsy - and Dangerous - Theory.")  I support Bondi.

Secretary of Homeland Security.  Kristi Noem to replace Alejandro Mayorkas.  Again, no further comment should be necessary.  I watched as Mayorkas repeatedly asserted that the border was secure, while Fox simultaneously showed video of hundreds/thousands crossing daily over the southern border illegally into our country.  Noem has been Governor of South Dakota, having previously served in Congress.  Was I happy when I heard about Noem shooting a dog on her farm?  No.  I love dogs.  But I've never lived on a farm.  And I don't know if there were any possible justifications.  Obviously, Noem felt there were.  And Noem is a solid conservative.  I support Noem.  

White House Chief of Staff.  Susie Wiles to replace Jeff Zients.  I do not know anything about either one.  Obviously, however, an incoming President would not keep the outgoing President's political staff, when the two presidents are in different political parties.  Fun fact for you football fans - Susie Wiles is the daughter of Pat Summerall, former NFL player for the Lions, Cardinals and Giants.  He subsequently became a sportscaster.  But I digress.  Wiles has worked as a political consultant, and was co-chair of Trump's successful 2023-2024 campaign.  For now, that's good enough.

Year End Reflections, Part VI (Are The Jewish People Safe Anywhere?)

(Note.  I'm well aware that of my now 6th Year End Reflections, this will be my 4th asking "Are The Jewish People Safe Anywhere?"  Believe me, I wish this was not the case, where I had to do so many posts about this topic.  But I feel confident in saying that most people understand that a society that does not provide a safe home for the Jewish people, is not a successful society.  Just look around the world and you will see that.  And America, long the safest society for the Jewish people, has been blessed.  For G-d said to Abraham (and by extension to the Jewish people through the generations):  "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you.")

George Mason University is in Fairfax, Virginia.  An 18 year old freshman was arrested for "allegedly plotting a mass casualty attack on Israel's General Consulate in New York City."  (As reported by the New York Post on 12/19/24.)  This Egyptian national was caught after communicating online with an undercover FBI agent.  (As an aside, there's a reason to not get rid of the FBI, even if those at the top need to be replaced.)  This disgusting individual had a history of online support for ISIS and bin Laden.  

Not knowing he was communicating with an FBI agent, he provided suggestions on how to kill Jews.  "Two options, lay havoc on them with an assault rifle or detonate a TATP (suicide) vest in the midst of them."  This Egyptian national also sent the agent a video previously, in which he called for the death of the Jewish people.  

Over in Montreal, a synagogue was fire bombed - for the second time.  The first time was shortly after the October 7 attack on Israel.  This latest attack was on December 18th.  Canada is also going through a reckoning with regards to antisemitism and Jew hatred.  Shots have been fired at Jewish schools.  Bomb threats have been made at dozens of Jewish institutions.  (As described by The Forward.)

And over in Melbourne, a synagogue there was also fire bombed.  Much of the structure was ruined.  But what can I say when much of the world gives lip service to combatting antisemitism, while their actions say otherwise.  Australia and Canada, along with New Zealand and the U.K. among others, all voted in favor of a UNGA resolution that called for Israel to end its "unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian Territory."  Occupied Palestinian Territory?  Please.  When Israel vacated Gaza in 2005, did the PA and then Hamas use the billions of dollars in foreign aid to build modern cities?  No.  They used that money to build sophisticated underground tunnels so they could sneak into Israel and kill Jews.  

The vote by these countries sends exactly the wrong message to Hamas and their supporters around the world.  The useful idiots of the Left in the Western World will find themselves with no Jewish people, but plenty of radicalized Muslims.  Good luck to them then because they will need it.  One of the worst offenders has been Ireland.  Israel's Foreign Minister closed their embassy in Dublin, because of Ireland's "extreme anti-Israel policies."  Ireland had previously given recognition to a Palestinian state.  Most often, that recognition is based on the so-called 1967 borders.  Never mind that those borders end up giving the Arabs control of the holiest sites in Judaism - the Temple Mount and the Kotel (Western Wall).  

Ireland's Prime Minister took umbrage at Israel's actions, saying:  "Do you know what I think is reprehensible?  Killing children...seeing the scale of civilian deaths that we've seen in Gaza...people being left to starve and humanitarian aid not flowing."  I can't (won't) say here what I really think of this ignorant, lying, immoral Prime Minister.  But it's obvious that he blames Israel rather than the perpetrators of all these events - Hamas.  A shame he does not express the same concerns for the hostages, or for the 100,000 Israelis displaced from their homes.  

This is a good one.  And easily believable because this story comes from Columbia University, one of the so-called "elite" Ivy League schools.  There will be an upcoming class on "Zionism."  The course is described as giving the "History of the Jewish Enlightenment (Haskala) in 19th century Europe and the development of Zionism through the current peace process between the State of Israel and the Arab States and the Palestinian national movement."   

But, Mike, what's wrong with that?  What's wrong is that the class will be taught by the Jew-hating professor who described the 10/7 terrorist attack on Israel as "awesome."  Awesome that babies were killed, that women were brutalized and raped and that the attack was on civilians, 1200 of whom were murdered?  Yes, just awesome.  Once again, Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY) got it right:  "What's next at Columbia?  (Former KKK leader) David Duke teaching a course on antiracism?"  What's next at Columbia?  I'm reluctant to ask.  

Year End Reflections, Part V (A Tale Of Two Cases)

On May 1, 2023, Daniel Penny was on a NYC subway, going to the gym.  Penny, a former Marine and current architecture student, observed another man, Jordan Neely, harassing and threatening other passengers.  It turned out that Neely had a history of mental health problems, as well a history of run-ins with the law.  In NYC, however, violations of the criminal laws do not necessarily result in any jail time.  In any event, passengers on the subway claimed that Neely was saying crazy things, including "someone is going to die today."  Given what he was saying, and given his bizarre behavior, Penny stepped in.

Penny knew how to apply a chokehold in order to subdue someone, and that is what he did.  The medical examiner ruled that Neely's death was a homicide, but did not testify at the trial.  That allowed the defense to not only argue self-defense (which includes the defense of others), but to also dispute the cause of death.  Of course, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg prosecuted Penny.  But the jury saw it differently.  On the charge of manslaughter the jury was deadlocked, and a mistrial was declared.  On the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, Penny was acquitted.  

Penny is white.  Neely was black.  Sadly, those facts alone often dictated the reaction to the verdict.  Mehdi Hasan was an anchor on MSNBC.  Here is what Hasan posted:  "Imagine, just imagine, if Jordan Neely had been White and Daniel Penny was Black.  Imagine what some of the folks defending Penny today would be saying."  First, I'd like to ask Hasan why he is capitalizing the words "black" and "white."  Second, are some people racist?  Obviously.  But I think most people understand when a good man steps in to protect innocent people, and that the vast majority of people appreciate that.  Third, here is a question.  What if Penny was black, put a chokehold on Neely to subdue him, would Penny, as a black man, have even been prosecuted?   

That does not mean we should celebrate Neely's death.  He had a family.  Unfortunately, the family was not able to keep him off the streets.  The DA did not put him in jail for his past multiple offenses.  And the mental health system...well, is there a mental health system?  Apparently not since the 1980's, when it was decided that the mentally ill were better off on the street than in institutions.  

Said one leftwing commentator on X:  "Daniel Penny is a racist, classist, ableist murderer.  He should face ignominy forever regardless of what a court does or doesn't do to him."  Here was Black Lives Matter:  "People want to jump up and choke us and kill us for being loud?  How about we do the same when they attempt to oppress us?"  Neely was not just loud.  Passengers said they were fearful for their safety given the way he was ranting and what he was saying.  When people are terrified for their safety, they want someone to step in.  But, no surprise that Al Sharpton joined Black Lives Matter protesters outside the courthouse.  

Recently defeated Congressman Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) was outraged by the decision.  He posted on X, starting with this:  "Dear White People."  Very glad that Bowman lost.  Dear White People?  What does that mean?  Do white people all think the same way?  Hardly.  That all white people are racist?  Please.  How about "Dear Black Passengers on the subway, thank you for appreciating Daniel Penny's actions in defense of all of you."  Meanwhile, within the last week, an illegal alien from Guatemala set fire to a woman on the subway in NYC, resulting in her death.  Can everyone agree that it's too bad a Daniel Penny was not on that subway subduing that perpetrator before he murdered (I know, allegedly murdered) that woman?  I'd be willing to bet that she and her family would have been thrilled if a Daniel Penny prevented her death.  

In stark contrast is the case of Luigi Mangione, accused of murdering health insurance CEO, Brian Thompson.  By now, I assume everyone has seen the video of Mangione (allegedly it's him) shooting Thompson in the back on a street in Manhattan.  A completely cowardly act of cold-blooded murder.  Yet, tens of thousands of people online celebrated this murder.  Why?  Because too often insurance companies deny authorization for needed medical care.  No one needs to lecture me about the abuses of insurance companies.  I have been fighting insurance companies for 38 of my 46 years as an attorney.  But I also know right from wrong.  If Thompson's company fraudulently denied claims, prosecute him.  

I understand that Thompson was separated from his wife.  But he was a father of two.  In what universe is this cold-blooded murder okay?  In an Op-Ed in the 12/8/24 LA Times, Robin Abcarian tells us this:  "What a stunning illustration of the hatred so many Americans feel toward for-profit health insurance companies, which too often make money for stockholders by withholding care from sick people.  United Healthcare (Thompson's company) is a particularly awful exemplar.  It is infamous for high denial rates and low reimbursement levels."  I see.  Let's make this case about the need for government run healthcare.  

My wife and I liked our Blue Cross policy before the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare kicked in.  After it passed, we got a letter from Blue Cross advising that our prior policy no longer qualified under the law.  Our new policy would cover us for maternity care (we were in our 60's!) and pediatric care (again, we were in our 60's!).  For these added "benefits" we had the privilege of paying $800 a month more in our premiums.  Winston Churchill was to have said that "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise.  Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." 

Perhaps the same can be said about the private health insurance system - it's the worst except for all the others that have been tried.  (I do not intend to make this post about all the horror stories resulting from private insurance vs government run insurance.)  But if you ask me if I prefer an unaccountable government bureaucrat deciding my healthcare vs a private claims adjuster, I'll go with the latter.  My preference, of course, is that my doctor decide - with no interference from anyone.  

Here was U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass):  "The visceral response from people across this country who feel cheated, ripped off, and threatened by the vile practices of their insurance companies should be a warning to everyone in the healthcare system.  Violence is never the answer, but people can be pushed only so far."  What is she talking about?  This is crazy.  Where will it stop?  Everyone who feels they have been wronged by some company or business, or individual even, should be able to address their beef by killing someone?  Is she calling for anarchy?  I don't care if she said that "violence is never the answer," when it was followed up with a "but."  

My conclusion?  The Left got both cases wrong.  Penny was a hero to his fellow passengers on the subway.  Mangione is (allegedly) a cold-blooded murderer, and should be condemned as such.  I think that the Wall Street Journal said it best:  "Murder can't be rationalized, and a society does so at it's peril...And sympathy for it is a sign of the degraded state of our culture and politics."  But if it is a free for all, then everybody better start packing.    

Year End Reflections, Part IV (Sometimes Big News Stories Break)

Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution says "The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in case of Impeachment."  So. impeachments are excluded, but so are offenses under state law, as the power applies to pardons for offences against the United States, which would be federal law.  

I don't know about you, but I was not surprised by Biden's pardon of his son Hunter.  Yes, it seemed as if Biden promised dozens of times that he would not pardon Hunter.  Yes, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre seemed to say dozens of times that Biden would not pardon Hunter.  But absent a conviction for murder, rape or other violent offense, did anyone really think Biden would not pardon his son?

Biden justified the pardon factually by saying that the filling out of a gun form (lying actually) almost never results in a felony charge.  That may be true.  Then he said his son was late in paying his taxes because of his serious addiction; and he eventually paid the taxes with interest and penalties.  Well, his serious addiction did not prevent Hunter from splurging on various things, rather than using that money to pay his taxes...but that's another topic.

Let's talk about Biden's legal justifications for the pardon.  "No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter's case can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son.  And that is wrong."  Yes, well, Hunter was definitely singled out.  First, the special counsel let many of the possible charges lapse due to the running of the statute of limitations.  Who else would get such slow walking of a prosecution?  Who else would get such a favorable plea deal?  But the Judge saw it differently, and refused to accept the special treatment given to Hunter.  So, yes, he was singled out - favorably.

Biden:  "I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice..."  There's the rub.  So, President Biden, exactly when was it that "raw politics" infected your son's prosecution?  Clearly not when you said so many times that you would not pardon Hunter.  Or, were you lying all those times to the American people?  And you let your press secretary lie also?

Karine Jean-Pierre, after also telling us many times that Biden would not pardon Hunter, said "how politically infected these cases are."  Once again, just when did she and the president become aware that the cases against Hunter might be politically infected?  Which, of course, brings me to my next question:  Are you freaking kidding me?  Let's talk about politically infected cases.

President Biden, here is what you said about your hand-picked Attorney General, Merrick Garland, when speaking with your "inner circle."  As reported by the New York Times in 2022:  "As recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, according to two people familiar with his comments.  And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6."

The President never said anything to Mr. Garland directly?  He sure as hell did, because unless you believe in everything being a coincidence, that conversation was leaked, and Mr. Garland got the message loud and clear.  The next thing you know, we had Jack Smith appointed as special counsel, bringing charges against President Trump.  What about the unspoken rule that says presidents should not be involved in deciding who gets prosecuted?  Clearly, Biden did not care about that.  (Well, he did not care about lying numerous times either, so no surprise I guess.)

Every case brought against President Trump has been, allow me to say, "infected"...by "raw politics."  But it's worse.  Not only did Biden place his hand on the scales of justice, he did so against the likely (and eventual) Republican nominee for president.  In other words, Biden wanted political prosecutions to defeat his political opponent.  Biden acted like a third world dictator.  Many of Trump's associates who faced prosecution, did so because they had been affiliated with Trump.

I think we can all agree (or should agree) that Biden just opened the door for Trump to pardon, or commute the sentences of, the January 6 defendants (and others).  Obviously, it should be on a case by case basis.  Anyone who committed violence, especially against a police officer, should not necessarily get a pardon.  But if the sentencing was disproportionately long compared to others, that would warrant a commutation.  And, if Biden means what he said about politics infecting prosecutions, he should immediately pardon President Trump.  I won't hold my breath,