Day: December 1, 2017

Rutgers University Must Deal with Anti-Semitism


On the banks of the old Raritan stands Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, with its 30 schools and colleges making it one of the top 25 public universities in the United States. Committed to academic inquiry and scholarship, it is dedicated to principles and values of respect for people of all backgrounds. Its reputation has been enhanced by its history as the birthplace of college football, since it hosted the first intercollegiate football game, beating a team from would-be Princeton University in 1869.

That reputation has continued to be upheld by its academic programs, its Scarlet Knights football team, once graced by Paul Robeson, and by a song in the 1947 Broadway musical High Button Shoes. However, that reputation is now being questioned by manifestations of bigotry and anti-Semitism and perverse comments about the State of Israel and by anti-Israeli animosity exhibited by some members of the faculty. A Rutgers football song proclaims “The Bells must Ring.” The question now is whether the bells are discordant.

The Rutgers administration and faculty are now confronted, as are so many other academic institutions, by an issue involving the nature and limits of free speech, and by behavior in public statements and social media that violates the principles and values held by academic institutions such as Rutgers.

The present issue is concentrated on the behavior and opinions of three members of the faculty: Michael Chikindas, professor of food science, Jasbir Puar, associate professor of women’s and gender studies, and Mazen Adi, political scientist and adjunct professor of international law. who served as a Syrian diplomat at the United Nations between 2007 and 2014.

Chikindas, a microbiologist, is director of the Rutgers Center for Digestive Health, but has issued statements and Facebook pronouncements that go far beyond his academic field. It is troubling to see the extent and variety of those statements, reported in the journal The Algemeiner. Some of the reported allegations of those statements go beyond the edge of racism, since they hold that Judaism is the most racist religion in the world. The Talmud is said to feature racist and supremacist passages.

Chikindas appears to be a believer in the tropes of Jewish conspiracies. The conspiracies are past and present. Israel, he is quoted in one post, is the terrorist country aimed at genocidal extermination of the land’s native population, Palestinians. Yet, also in incredible fashion, the Jewish conspiracy was also present in the events starting in April 1915 with the extermination of at least 1.5 million Armenians, the so-called Armenian Genocide, by the Young Turks, the Turkish government at the time. He holds this was orchestrated by the Turkish Jews who pretended to be real Turks. He appears to believe that Ottoman crypto Jews, descended from the 17th-century fake messiah Sabbatai Zevi, infiltrated the Young Turks and were behind the genocide. It is not coincidental that Chikindas was educaed in schools in Armenia, and gained a doctorate in genetics in Moscow.

Other academics outside Rutgers have joined in similar lunacy. Rutgers officials should note the case of Joy Karega, assistant professor of rhetoric at Oberlin College, who asserted that ISIS is really an arm of Israel, and U.S. intelligence agencies, and that Israel was behind the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris in January 2015 committed by gunmen from the al-Qaeda branch in Yemen. Oberlin authorities decided, as Rutgers should do, that academic freedom does not cover inaccurate or false facts, and dismissed Karega because of failure to demonstrate intellectual honesty.

Rutgers must consider a similar approach towards Chikindas, who among other insights has held that American Jews and Israel were behind 9/11. For no apparent reason he also touches on the fact that Israel has one of the highest percentage of gays in the world; according to him 25% of Tel Aviv inhabitants are gay or lesbians. Rutgers officials should heed the argument of Karl Popper in The Open Society and its Enemies that conspiracy theories draw on imaginary plots stemming from paranoid scenarios based on tribalism, chauvinism, or racism.

Chikindas has denied he is anti-Semitic and said his Facebook account was hacked, but the images on the graphics he published are telling. They show the Jews, portrayed with large, hooked noses, controlling the Federal Reserve, Hollywood, and sex trafficking, and an Israeli flag over the White House. As expected, he supports the BDS movement, as well as making uncomplimentary remarks about a variety of figures, Ayelet Shaked, Israeli justice minister, Israeli culture minister Miri Regev, and Melania and Ivanka Trump.

The views of a second individual, Mazen Adi, are also pertinent to this inquiry. Ali, appointed at Rutgers in 2015, was previously a legal adviser to Syria and part time charge d’affaires for the Syrian Foreign ministry for 16 years, including a stint as a Syrian diplomat at the UN between 2007and 2014.

In that role at the UN, it was natural for Ali to defend the atrocities and killings committed by the Assad regime, and to argue that Syria was restoring security and stability. But it was not appropriate for him on April 25, 2012 to argue that international gangs led by some Israeli religious figures were trafficking in children’s organs. Israel, he argued, is committing crimes against humanity, adopting a slow kill policy against 1.5 million Palestinians, and responsible for ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and genocide. He did not realize this was a new, if indirect, reference to the old blood libel against Jews.

His conclusion is that acts of international aggression, occupation, and piracy by Israel cannot be hidden from the international community. Perhaps the best comment on this view is that Ali on the laws of the international community is as sensible as the view of Harvey Weinstein on preventing sexual harassment.

A third controversial figure is Jasbir Puar, who, though nominally academically involved in women’s and gender studies at Rutgers, and seemingly a disciple of queer theory and of Michael Foucault, made known at an event sponsored by a number of departments at Vassar College on February 3, 2016 that she is an expert in Israeli nefarious activity. Vassar students two days earlier had anticipated their future internal deprivation by approving a resolution upholding the BDS movement, and calling for disinvestment from and no purchases, and therefore no eating, from Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, apparently known to Vassar for its link to international Jewish conspiracies involving ice cream.

Puar, in barely comprehensible language, held that Israel and Jewish populations in general “have thoroughly hijacked the discourse of trauma through exceptionalizing Holocaust victimization.” In similar fashion to Ali, she is reported to have alleged that the “bodies of young Palestinian men were mined for organs for scientific research,” by Israel. This, according to her, is genocide in slow motion. Therefore what is needed is the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement as part of organized resistance and armed resistance in Palestine.

What is disappointing in this event is the mild response of the Rutgers administration, especially that of President Robert Barchi at an event on November 16, 2017 to this painful and harmful nonsense of three of the faculty. He correctly regarded some of the alleged remarks as repugnant but said they were constitutionally protected. The university is reviewing the issue. University spokesman have articulated that the university seeks to foster an environment “free from discrimination as articulated in our policy prohibiting discrimination.” In the matter of Chikindas, it will see if “actions taken in the context of his role as a faculty member” about Jews and their role in the massacre of Armenians in 1917 may have violated that policy”. But the absurd remarks of Chikindas hardly need examination.

Everyone knows that free speech must be upheld as far as possible, but that speech should be based on facts and reality not on bigotry. Academic freedom must be strongly defended, but hate speech must be outlawed and punished. The least that university officials can do is to be forthright on this. The Rutgers bells should be ringing the right notes.

On the banks of the old Raritan stands Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, with its 30 schools and colleges making it one of the top 25 public universities in the United States. Committed to academic inquiry and scholarship, it is dedicated to principles and values of respect for people of all backgrounds. Its reputation has been enhanced by its history as the birthplace of college football, since it hosted the first intercollegiate football game, beating a team from would-be Princeton University in 1869.

That reputation has continued to be upheld by its academic programs, its Scarlet Knights football team, once graced by Paul Robeson, and by a song in the 1947 Broadway musical High Button Shoes. However, that reputation is now being questioned by manifestations of bigotry and anti-Semitism and perverse comments about the State of Israel and by anti-Israeli animosity exhibited by some members of the faculty. A Rutgers football song proclaims “The Bells must Ring.” The question now is whether the bells are discordant.

The Rutgers administration and faculty are now confronted, as are so many other academic institutions, by an issue involving the nature and limits of free speech, and by behavior in public statements and social media that violates the principles and values held by academic institutions such as Rutgers.

The present issue is concentrated on the behavior and opinions of three members of the faculty: Michael Chikindas, professor of food science, Jasbir Puar, associate professor of women’s and gender studies, and Mazen Adi, political scientist and adjunct professor of international law. who served as a Syrian diplomat at the United Nations between 2007 and 2014.

Chikindas, a microbiologist, is director of the Rutgers Center for Digestive Health, but has issued statements and Facebook pronouncements that go far beyond his academic field. It is troubling to see the extent and variety of those statements, reported in the journal The Algemeiner. Some of the reported allegations of those statements go beyond the edge of racism, since they hold that Judaism is the most racist religion in the world. The Talmud is said to feature racist and supremacist passages.

Chikindas appears to be a believer in the tropes of Jewish conspiracies. The conspiracies are past and present. Israel, he is quoted in one post, is the terrorist country aimed at genocidal extermination of the land’s native population, Palestinians. Yet, also in incredible fashion, the Jewish conspiracy was also present in the events starting in April 1915 with the extermination of at least 1.5 million Armenians, the so-called Armenian Genocide, by the Young Turks, the Turkish government at the time. He holds this was orchestrated by the Turkish Jews who pretended to be real Turks. He appears to believe that Ottoman crypto Jews, descended from the 17th-century fake messiah Sabbatai Zevi, infiltrated the Young Turks and were behind the genocide. It is not coincidental that Chikindas was educaed in schools in Armenia, and gained a doctorate in genetics in Moscow.

Other academics outside Rutgers have joined in similar lunacy. Rutgers officials should note the case of Joy Karega, assistant professor of rhetoric at Oberlin College, who asserted that ISIS is really an arm of Israel, and U.S. intelligence agencies, and that Israel was behind the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris in January 2015 committed by gunmen from the al-Qaeda branch in Yemen. Oberlin authorities decided, as Rutgers should do, that academic freedom does not cover inaccurate or false facts, and dismissed Karega because of failure to demonstrate intellectual honesty.

Rutgers must consider a similar approach towards Chikindas, who among other insights has held that American Jews and Israel were behind 9/11. For no apparent reason he also touches on the fact that Israel has one of the highest percentage of gays in the world; according to him 25% of Tel Aviv inhabitants are gay or lesbians. Rutgers officials should heed the argument of Karl Popper in The Open Society and its Enemies that conspiracy theories draw on imaginary plots stemming from paranoid scenarios based on tribalism, chauvinism, or racism.

Chikindas has denied he is anti-Semitic and said his Facebook account was hacked, but the images on the graphics he published are telling. They show the Jews, portrayed with large, hooked noses, controlling the Federal Reserve, Hollywood, and sex trafficking, and an Israeli flag over the White House. As expected, he supports the BDS movement, as well as making uncomplimentary remarks about a variety of figures, Ayelet Shaked, Israeli justice minister, Israeli culture minister Miri Regev, and Melania and Ivanka Trump.

The views of a second individual, Mazen Adi, are also pertinent to this inquiry. Ali, appointed at Rutgers in 2015, was previously a legal adviser to Syria and part time charge d’affaires for the Syrian Foreign ministry for 16 years, including a stint as a Syrian diplomat at the UN between 2007and 2014.

In that role at the UN, it was natural for Ali to defend the atrocities and killings committed by the Assad regime, and to argue that Syria was restoring security and stability. But it was not appropriate for him on April 25, 2012 to argue that international gangs led by some Israeli religious figures were trafficking in children’s organs. Israel, he argued, is committing crimes against humanity, adopting a slow kill policy against 1.5 million Palestinians, and responsible for ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and genocide. He did not realize this was a new, if indirect, reference to the old blood libel against Jews.

His conclusion is that acts of international aggression, occupation, and piracy by Israel cannot be hidden from the international community. Perhaps the best comment on this view is that Ali on the laws of the international community is as sensible as the view of Harvey Weinstein on preventing sexual harassment.

A third controversial figure is Jasbir Puar, who, though nominally academically involved in women’s and gender studies at Rutgers, and seemingly a disciple of queer theory and of Michael Foucault, made known at an event sponsored by a number of departments at Vassar College on February 3, 2016 that she is an expert in Israeli nefarious activity. Vassar students two days earlier had anticipated their future internal deprivation by approving a resolution upholding the BDS movement, and calling for disinvestment from and no purchases, and therefore no eating, from Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, apparently known to Vassar for its link to international Jewish conspiracies involving ice cream.

Puar, in barely comprehensible language, held that Israel and Jewish populations in general “have thoroughly hijacked the discourse of trauma through exceptionalizing Holocaust victimization.” In similar fashion to Ali, she is reported to have alleged that the “bodies of young Palestinian men were mined for organs for scientific research,” by Israel. This, according to her, is genocide in slow motion. Therefore what is needed is the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement as part of organized resistance and armed resistance in Palestine.

What is disappointing in this event is the mild response of the Rutgers administration, especially that of President Robert Barchi at an event on November 16, 2017 to this painful and harmful nonsense of three of the faculty. He correctly regarded some of the alleged remarks as repugnant but said they were constitutionally protected. The university is reviewing the issue. University spokesman have articulated that the university seeks to foster an environment “free from discrimination as articulated in our policy prohibiting discrimination.” In the matter of Chikindas, it will see if “actions taken in the context of his role as a faculty member” about Jews and their role in the massacre of Armenians in 1917 may have violated that policy”. But the absurd remarks of Chikindas hardly need examination.

Everyone knows that free speech must be upheld as far as possible, but that speech should be based on facts and reality not on bigotry. Academic freedom must be strongly defended, but hate speech must be outlawed and punished. The least that university officials can do is to be forthright on this. The Rutgers bells should be ringing the right notes.



Source link

Who Is Mocking the Pence Rule Now?


The chickens of the era of moral relativism are coming home to roost in the scandals that have rocked the studios of Hollywood, the green rooms of media moguls, and the cloak rooms of Congress. Are the cases of Matt Lauer, Harvey Weinstein, John Conyers, and Charlie Rose et al any surprise in an era where traditional marriage and fidelity to one spouse of the opposite sex have been under assault and routinely mocked?

We live in any age of transgendered restrooms, where transgendered athletes like Caitlyn Jenner are given courage awards by sports channels like ESPN. Harder work is done and truer courage shown every day by those who get married, stay married, stay in the body God gave them and withstand the mockery of a society that considers such people as fossils on the verge of extinction.

Vice President Mike Pence was roundly mocked for his rule that he would not travel, meet, or dine alone with a woman other than his wife. He saw that the best way not to be led into temptation is to not lead yourself into it and it is hard to get into trouble if the only woman you find yourself alone with is the woman you married, the mother of your children. That did not sit well in the age of gay marriage, transgendered people, and cohabitation as if marriage came with a warranty and was a commodity you could exchange if you were later not pleased:

Vice President Mike Pence was roundly ridiculed when it was revealed that he makes an effort never to be alone with a woman who is not his wife, but the policy is looking less prudish and more sensible as accusations of sexual misconduct against powerful men proliferate.


Accusations first surfaced last month against movie mogul Harvey Weinstein and have since reverberated through Hollywood, the media and government at every level. On Wednesday, Matt Lauer, a longtime host of NBC’s “Today,” and Minnesota Public Radio’s Garrison Keillor were fired by their respective organizations amid accusations of improper behavior. …


The “Pence rule” is a variation of the personal conduct policy popularized by the Rev. Billy Graham, who refused to travel, meet or dine alone with a woman. In addition, the vice president does not attend parties where alcohol is served without his wife by his side.


Feminists have criticized the Pence rule as a potential barrier to women’s advancement in the workplace, although there is no evidence to suggest that women who worked for Mr. Pence were held back by the rule…


Jay Richards, research professor at The Catholic University of America and executive editor of the conservative news website The Stream, said the Pence rule is a reasonable response to the dramatic social changes that have torn down the boundaries between the sexes over the past half-century…


In addition to guarding against infidelity and other sexual misconduct, Mr. Richards said, the Pence rule preserves the reputations of all parties involved.


“It’s as much or more about preserving the reputations of himself and other women,” he said. “A simple guardrail is absolutely reasonable if you want to prevent the rumor mill from starting, let alone even worse sexual transgressions.”

Moral fortitude and a healthy fear of human weakness was not shared by Hollywood and television moguls and liberal politicians who, while looking away from the Sodom and Gomorrah in their midst, mocked Pence as a prude who was merely trying to hide his inner predator. They were led by the profane ad from an unhinged Steven Colbert:

According to Colbert, Pence’s rule about not dining alone with women “can only mean one thing: Mike Pence is such an out-of-control, force-five bone-icane that he has to be monitored by Karen Pence at all times. One Amstel Lite and he’s dry-humping the bread basket. O.K.? Oh, there’s snow on the roof—but there’s a fire in the furnace.”…


“He is so naughty, if you left him alone with a bottle of whiskey, he might try to have sex with it,” Colbert quipped. “And Jim Beam and Jack Daniels are both dudes, and he’s not into that scene. All right? He has to pray away the Mount Gay.”…


Even Pence’s engagement story — he hid a ring and a bottle of champagne in two hollowed-out loaves of bread when he and Karen went out to feed some ducks — became fodder for ridicule.


Colbert admitted the anecdote was charming, but he also couldn’t help himself: “It’s a good thing Karen was there, because you do not want to leave Mike Pence alone with one of those seductive loaves of bread. The yeast isn’t the only thing that’s rising.”

Colbert’s view is not unique among the cultural elites and helps explain why we find ourselves in a world where even those who write our laws about sexual harassment have a secret slush fund to silence the victims of their sexual harassment. One would think that a world that followed the Pence rule would be a feminist dream — a world of respect where merit and not allure mattered in your career and a world where you need not fear your boss locking the door behind you because he was on his way to meet his wife for dinner.

It is easy to mock fidelity and, yes, we are all sinners. It is one thing to lust in your heart as long as you keep it there.

Do the Colberts of the world want to live in a Weinstein/Lauer world where there are no rules and no restraints on our behavior, or in a world where the Pence rule reigns, based on a set of rules established two thousand years ago by the highest authority on such things?

Matt Lauer, John Conyers, Harvey Weinstein, and Charlie Rose did not follow the Pence rule. Neither did Bill Clinton, whose wife Hillary road his stained coattails to political power while handling the “bimbo eruptions” of those he preyed upon. Mike Pence honors his wife and his marriage. Bill and Hillary saw women and marriage as expendable in their quest for pleasure and power.

We do not know how this will all play out, but one thing is certain. Somewhere Mike Pence will be pulling the chair out for his wife as they sit for dinner.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.              

The chickens of the era of moral relativism are coming home to roost in the scandals that have rocked the studios of Hollywood, the green rooms of media moguls, and the cloak rooms of Congress. Are the cases of Matt Lauer, Harvey Weinstein, John Conyers, and Charlie Rose et al any surprise in an era where traditional marriage and fidelity to one spouse of the opposite sex have been under assault and routinely mocked?

We live in any age of transgendered restrooms, where transgendered athletes like Caitlyn Jenner are given courage awards by sports channels like ESPN. Harder work is done and truer courage shown every day by those who get married, stay married, stay in the body God gave them and withstand the mockery of a society that considers such people as fossils on the verge of extinction.

Vice President Mike Pence was roundly mocked for his rule that he would not travel, meet, or dine alone with a woman other than his wife. He saw that the best way not to be led into temptation is to not lead yourself into it and it is hard to get into trouble if the only woman you find yourself alone with is the woman you married, the mother of your children. That did not sit well in the age of gay marriage, transgendered people, and cohabitation as if marriage came with a warranty and was a commodity you could exchange if you were later not pleased:

Vice President Mike Pence was roundly ridiculed when it was revealed that he makes an effort never to be alone with a woman who is not his wife, but the policy is looking less prudish and more sensible as accusations of sexual misconduct against powerful men proliferate.


Accusations first surfaced last month against movie mogul Harvey Weinstein and have since reverberated through Hollywood, the media and government at every level. On Wednesday, Matt Lauer, a longtime host of NBC’s “Today,” and Minnesota Public Radio’s Garrison Keillor were fired by their respective organizations amid accusations of improper behavior. …


The “Pence rule” is a variation of the personal conduct policy popularized by the Rev. Billy Graham, who refused to travel, meet or dine alone with a woman. In addition, the vice president does not attend parties where alcohol is served without his wife by his side.


Feminists have criticized the Pence rule as a potential barrier to women’s advancement in the workplace, although there is no evidence to suggest that women who worked for Mr. Pence were held back by the rule…


Jay Richards, research professor at The Catholic University of America and executive editor of the conservative news website The Stream, said the Pence rule is a reasonable response to the dramatic social changes that have torn down the boundaries between the sexes over the past half-century…


In addition to guarding against infidelity and other sexual misconduct, Mr. Richards said, the Pence rule preserves the reputations of all parties involved.


“It’s as much or more about preserving the reputations of himself and other women,” he said. “A simple guardrail is absolutely reasonable if you want to prevent the rumor mill from starting, let alone even worse sexual transgressions.”

Moral fortitude and a healthy fear of human weakness was not shared by Hollywood and television moguls and liberal politicians who, while looking away from the Sodom and Gomorrah in their midst, mocked Pence as a prude who was merely trying to hide his inner predator. They were led by the profane ad from an unhinged Steven Colbert:

According to Colbert, Pence’s rule about not dining alone with women “can only mean one thing: Mike Pence is such an out-of-control, force-five bone-icane that he has to be monitored by Karen Pence at all times. One Amstel Lite and he’s dry-humping the bread basket. O.K.? Oh, there’s snow on the roof—but there’s a fire in the furnace.”…


“He is so naughty, if you left him alone with a bottle of whiskey, he might try to have sex with it,” Colbert quipped. “And Jim Beam and Jack Daniels are both dudes, and he’s not into that scene. All right? He has to pray away the Mount Gay.”…


Even Pence’s engagement story — he hid a ring and a bottle of champagne in two hollowed-out loaves of bread when he and Karen went out to feed some ducks — became fodder for ridicule.


Colbert admitted the anecdote was charming, but he also couldn’t help himself: “It’s a good thing Karen was there, because you do not want to leave Mike Pence alone with one of those seductive loaves of bread. The yeast isn’t the only thing that’s rising.”

Colbert’s view is not unique among the cultural elites and helps explain why we find ourselves in a world where even those who write our laws about sexual harassment have a secret slush fund to silence the victims of their sexual harassment. One would think that a world that followed the Pence rule would be a feminist dream — a world of respect where merit and not allure mattered in your career and a world where you need not fear your boss locking the door behind you because he was on his way to meet his wife for dinner.

It is easy to mock fidelity and, yes, we are all sinners. It is one thing to lust in your heart as long as you keep it there.

Do the Colberts of the world want to live in a Weinstein/Lauer world where there are no rules and no restraints on our behavior, or in a world where the Pence rule reigns, based on a set of rules established two thousand years ago by the highest authority on such things?

Matt Lauer, John Conyers, Harvey Weinstein, and Charlie Rose did not follow the Pence rule. Neither did Bill Clinton, whose wife Hillary road his stained coattails to political power while handling the “bimbo eruptions” of those he preyed upon. Mike Pence honors his wife and his marriage. Bill and Hillary saw women and marriage as expendable in their quest for pleasure and power.

We do not know how this will all play out, but one thing is certain. Somewhere Mike Pence will be pulling the chair out for his wife as they sit for dinner.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.              



Source link

Is There Really Nuke Danger from North Korea?


The lib media are running around screeching at the heavens because that madman Trump is going to get us attacked by Kim III’s  nukes.  If you Google it you’ll see scare stories all over the web.

But we know the left lies every day, and this story shows all the hallmarks of a coordinated scare campaign.

So what should a rational reader think?  Well, first of all, don’t believe an obvious PR campaign to panic us.

The left is telling us that Kim is a madman, and now he has ICBM’s and perhaps an H-bomb.  Why did Trump make Kim so mad?  Now we’re all in trouble.  Trump is a nuclear war-monger.

Knowing what we know about the liberal media, and their lie-a-day habit, and their determination  to destroy the POTUS, what they say has little value.  It would be nice if they had a record of telling the truth, but they don’t.  They thought we couldn’t beat Saddam Hussein.  Until Trump, they thought we couldn’t beat ISIS.  They always try to demoralize this nation, an agitprop strategy that goes back to the Vietnam War.

Question: In reality, how realistic is Kim’s nuclear and missile threat?

Capability.  Kim has launched intermediate-range ballistic missiles, which may have a longer range, into the Sea of Japan.  Such a long range has not been proven in practice, and we know little about accuracy – although the liberals tell us the North Koreans can hit California.

Our capability.  The libs tell us we have no defense against nukes and missiles.  But the United States is hardly going to reveal our defensive capabilities for the enemy, right?  The libs have now rediscovered high-altitude EMP weapons, which we nominally have no defense against.  But if they have EMP capability, so do we, and we can beat them to the punch.  We also have layered anti-missile defenses, including Aegis ships, Patriot anti-missile missiles, and jets with a midair anti-missile launch capacity.  How good are they?  I sure hope we ain’t saying.

Israel’s anti-missile development.  Israel is one of the few countries that has publicized its anti-missile systems, because the Israelis have to reassure their domestic public.  But they are inevitably going to understate, not overstate, their capabilities.  We do know that their technical capacity keeps growing, in collaboration with the U.S.

Russia and China.  There is evidence that Russia and China have helped the Norks and may still be helping them.  The Iranians are also said to be working closely with the nuclear and missile programs in North Korea.  The strategic problem with that scenario is that a Nork launch of nukes  could easily be suicidal for China and Russia, who have territory well within range of Pyongyang.

Neither of those regimes is suicidal.  So something doesn’t make sense here.  Yes, the Russians and Chinese always push the limits when they can, but not to the point of self-destruction.  It is quite possible that Putin and Xi have used their weapons aid to North Korea to plant agents in case Kim becomes dangerous.  They are certainly not going to tell the world about their espionage apparatus.

Claimed U.S. helplessness.  The left-media are constantly telling us about EMP weapons, which can knock out large parts of terrestrial electrical systems.  But somehow they never tell us that the United States can also use EMP against the North.  It’s just as if the libs want us to think we are helpless.  I have no doubt that U.S. EMP capacity is better than theirs.

Our Indo-Pacific allies are at least as threatened by the Norks as we are, and they are not stupid or helpless.  South Korea has worked closely with the USA for half a century, as have Japan, the Philippines, Australia, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, and Singapore.  None of those allies wants to see a rogue nuke power within range of its homeland.  Japan is not going to sit by and watch Nork missiles continue to fly over the island.  Russia and China are not exactly allies, but we have cooperated with those regimes in the past.  Japan has been publicly helpless against Kim, but the idea that the Japanese are actually helpless makes no sense.

All those countries have formidable military forces, and they are not going to publicize them until needed.

Our media are hopeless when it comes to really telling us about threats and defenses.  That does not mean we are actually helpless.  It means they have not told us, and we simply do not know.

You’ll see more scare headlines in the coming days, the purpose being to weaken Donald Trump and the United States.  We may have to live with uncertainty, but I would never believe the media. 

The lib media are running around screeching at the heavens because that madman Trump is going to get us attacked by Kim III’s  nukes.  If you Google it you’ll see scare stories all over the web.

But we know the left lies every day, and this story shows all the hallmarks of a coordinated scare campaign.

So what should a rational reader think?  Well, first of all, don’t believe an obvious PR campaign to panic us.

The left is telling us that Kim is a madman, and now he has ICBM’s and perhaps an H-bomb.  Why did Trump make Kim so mad?  Now we’re all in trouble.  Trump is a nuclear war-monger.

Knowing what we know about the liberal media, and their lie-a-day habit, and their determination  to destroy the POTUS, what they say has little value.  It would be nice if they had a record of telling the truth, but they don’t.  They thought we couldn’t beat Saddam Hussein.  Until Trump, they thought we couldn’t beat ISIS.  They always try to demoralize this nation, an agitprop strategy that goes back to the Vietnam War.

Question: In reality, how realistic is Kim’s nuclear and missile threat?

Capability.  Kim has launched intermediate-range ballistic missiles, which may have a longer range, into the Sea of Japan.  Such a long range has not been proven in practice, and we know little about accuracy – although the liberals tell us the North Koreans can hit California.

Our capability.  The libs tell us we have no defense against nukes and missiles.  But the United States is hardly going to reveal our defensive capabilities for the enemy, right?  The libs have now rediscovered high-altitude EMP weapons, which we nominally have no defense against.  But if they have EMP capability, so do we, and we can beat them to the punch.  We also have layered anti-missile defenses, including Aegis ships, Patriot anti-missile missiles, and jets with a midair anti-missile launch capacity.  How good are they?  I sure hope we ain’t saying.

Israel’s anti-missile development.  Israel is one of the few countries that has publicized its anti-missile systems, because the Israelis have to reassure their domestic public.  But they are inevitably going to understate, not overstate, their capabilities.  We do know that their technical capacity keeps growing, in collaboration with the U.S.

Russia and China.  There is evidence that Russia and China have helped the Norks and may still be helping them.  The Iranians are also said to be working closely with the nuclear and missile programs in North Korea.  The strategic problem with that scenario is that a Nork launch of nukes  could easily be suicidal for China and Russia, who have territory well within range of Pyongyang.

Neither of those regimes is suicidal.  So something doesn’t make sense here.  Yes, the Russians and Chinese always push the limits when they can, but not to the point of self-destruction.  It is quite possible that Putin and Xi have used their weapons aid to North Korea to plant agents in case Kim becomes dangerous.  They are certainly not going to tell the world about their espionage apparatus.

Claimed U.S. helplessness.  The left-media are constantly telling us about EMP weapons, which can knock out large parts of terrestrial electrical systems.  But somehow they never tell us that the United States can also use EMP against the North.  It’s just as if the libs want us to think we are helpless.  I have no doubt that U.S. EMP capacity is better than theirs.

Our Indo-Pacific allies are at least as threatened by the Norks as we are, and they are not stupid or helpless.  South Korea has worked closely with the USA for half a century, as have Japan, the Philippines, Australia, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, and Singapore.  None of those allies wants to see a rogue nuke power within range of its homeland.  Japan is not going to sit by and watch Nork missiles continue to fly over the island.  Russia and China are not exactly allies, but we have cooperated with those regimes in the past.  Japan has been publicly helpless against Kim, but the idea that the Japanese are actually helpless makes no sense.

All those countries have formidable military forces, and they are not going to publicize them until needed.

Our media are hopeless when it comes to really telling us about threats and defenses.  That does not mean we are actually helpless.  It means they have not told us, and we simply do not know.

You’ll see more scare headlines in the coming days, the purpose being to weaken Donald Trump and the United States.  We may have to live with uncertainty, but I would never believe the media. 



Source link

#NeverTrumps Stuck on Style over Substance


Ten months into the Trump presidency, #NeverTrumpers are still stuck in denial and anger, a long way from acceptance, the final step of grieving. Despite endless predictions that he wouldn’t be the nominee or that he wouldn’t win the election, here we are ten months into the era of Trump. Here’s a montage of the predictions if you want a laugh.

Many famous #NeverTrumpers have gone to ground since the election. Karl Rove makes only rare appearances on Fox News, only to comment on special elections. The Bushes only recently resurfaced, saying that they didn’t vote for Trump and that Pappy voted for Hillary Clinton. Bill Kristol, another famous #NeverTrumper, crawled out from under his neocon rock to tweet, “Donald Trump and Roy Moore are bringing out my inner liberal.” No surprise there. Many closet liberals have outed themselves over Trump.

Another noted #NeverTrump publication, National Review, offered up a surprising article, “This Thanksgiving, thank Donald J Trump.” Enough to make their readers choke on their turkey drumstick.

This Thanksgiving, Americans in general — and free-market conservatives in particular — have plenty for which to be grateful. And much of it would be absent had the White House’s current occupant not become president on November 8, 2016.

Wow! Quite the admission from one of the leading #NeverTrump publications. They listed his many accomplishments, virtually all from the conservative wish list. Concluding with, “Ten months down. Thirty-eight to go. The best is yet to come. Thank you, Mr. President!”

Indeed, he has accomplished much, despite ineptitude or sabotage from the GOP Congress, depending on how you view its lack of legislative accomplishment this year. If we had a different Republican president now, say, a President Jeb or a President Kasich, such a string of accomplishments would be lauded by all Republicans. Not so for President Trump.

Going further, if either of the past Presidents Bush had a fraction of the accomplishments of President Trump, how might things have played out differently?

George HW Bush might have won a second term, leaving Bill Clinton to grope women in Arkansas, or perhaps in the U.S. Senate along with Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Rather than setting the stage for the sex scandals today that can be attributed to Clinton’s behavior and enabling by his wife, party and media. We would then most likely not have had his son George W, Obama or Trump as responses to previously failed presidencies.

So why the persistent resistance to and consternation over President Trump? Not his policies. Nor the economic recovery, roaring stock market, low unemployment, new found respect overseas and great judicial picks. All right out of the conservative wish list. The fuss is over his style.

Criticism from #NeverTrumpers invariably is over his “how”, not his “what”. His style. His tweets. His hitting back when attacked. Calling out hypocrisy. His honest responses, echoing what his supporters think but which a president should dare not say.

We all know about Trump’s tweets. The media is obsessed, covering each and every one, amplifying the reach of his already massive 43 million followers. Recent tweets include the dustup over the UCLA basketball players caught shoplifting sunglasses in China, begrudgingly showing gratitude to the President for saving them from a decade in a Chinese prison. Trump punching back again when one of the players father got involved.

Or his Time magazine Person of the Year turndown just days ago. As well as his frequenting opining about kneeling NFL players. His tweets reflecting what many Americans think but never hear on network or cable news. Or in local or national newspapers.

Don’t forget his name calling. Fake news CNN. Crooked Hillary. Little Rocket Man. And this week another jab at Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren. Beneath the dignity of the office, they say. Senator Warren was outraged, over Trump calling her Pocahontas, yet had no problem with Bill Maher calling her the same while interviewing Warren on his TV show earlier this year.

Confirming again that the beef is with the messenger, not the message. Yet this style propelled Trump to the White House and continues to this day.

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon“ and “A good tactic is one your people enjoy“. 

It’s all about his style. As George HW Bush said, “I don’t like him. I don’t know much about him, but I know he’s a blowhard. And I’m not too excited about him being a leader.” Very telling. He doesn’t know much about him yet he doesn’t like him because he is a “blowhard”.

Sounds like the definition of prejudice, preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience.

Trump is unlike George W. Bush, who remained silent for eight years, letting the media characterize him as either Hitler or a chimp, never defending himself or his policies. Which gave us Obama and a Democrat Congress.

A Republican will never get a fair shake from the media. A successful president knows how to go around the wall of bias and fake news, as Reagan did. Would Reagan use Twitter if it existed at the time? You bet he would.

Not so Bill Clinton, who didn’t need to go around the media. The media was embedded with the Clintons. Ignoring his myriad scandals, attacking his critics. Even his “smartest woman in the world” wife observed that Bill “didn’t tweet” while in the White House. Missing the minor detail that Twitter wasn’t invented until a decade after he was president. Sort of like how she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, despite him being a New Zealand beekeeper at the time of her birth.

This is the era of social media. The new source of information, unfiltered by the “Piegate” CNN hacks. How ironic that a guy in his 70s is one of the most effective users of this new medium of communication. Going around a hostile media to speak directly to the American people.

Punching back at critics, not simply turning the other cheek. Not playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules when facing an opponent with a knife. Not the stodgy decorum of John McCain or Mitch McConnell. Though when advancing their agenda, they have no qualms about hitting below the belt. Whether McCain’s involvement in the fake Trump Russian dossier or McConnell promoting bogus allegations against Roy Moore.

Somehow that’s okay, and befitting national leaders, but using Twitter is not? Give me a break.

Their real beef with Trump is that he is effective. His tweets are on target, like a precision missile. Same with his comments about fake news or crooked Hillary or Pocahontas. What millions of Americans have been waiting for one of their elected representatives to say. Rather than hearing how undignified Trump is from the smug set at the Weekly Standard or National Review.

Republicans should learn from Trump rather than criticize him. If Ryan and McConnell had any sense, they would use social media to move their Congressional agenda, rather than play defense over media cackles of “tax cuts for the rich” and “taking away everyone’s health insurance”.

It’s a rough and tumble world. Trump understands this and is playing accordingly. #NeverTrumpers prefer to bring a water pistol to a gun fight, then wonder why they keep losing. Rather than celebrating the substance of Trump’s accomplishments, they prefer to remain in the peanut gallery, fussing over his style. Just as Bill Kristol observed about himself, Trump is bringing out the inner liberal in the NeverTrumpers.

Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter. 

Ten months into the Trump presidency, #NeverTrumpers are still stuck in denial and anger, a long way from acceptance, the final step of grieving. Despite endless predictions that he wouldn’t be the nominee or that he wouldn’t win the election, here we are ten months into the era of Trump. Here’s a montage of the predictions if you want a laugh.

Many famous #NeverTrumpers have gone to ground since the election. Karl Rove makes only rare appearances on Fox News, only to comment on special elections. The Bushes only recently resurfaced, saying that they didn’t vote for Trump and that Pappy voted for Hillary Clinton. Bill Kristol, another famous #NeverTrumper, crawled out from under his neocon rock to tweet, “Donald Trump and Roy Moore are bringing out my inner liberal.” No surprise there. Many closet liberals have outed themselves over Trump.

Another noted #NeverTrump publication, National Review, offered up a surprising article, “This Thanksgiving, thank Donald J Trump.” Enough to make their readers choke on their turkey drumstick.

This Thanksgiving, Americans in general — and free-market conservatives in particular — have plenty for which to be grateful. And much of it would be absent had the White House’s current occupant not become president on November 8, 2016.

Wow! Quite the admission from one of the leading #NeverTrump publications. They listed his many accomplishments, virtually all from the conservative wish list. Concluding with, “Ten months down. Thirty-eight to go. The best is yet to come. Thank you, Mr. President!”

Indeed, he has accomplished much, despite ineptitude or sabotage from the GOP Congress, depending on how you view its lack of legislative accomplishment this year. If we had a different Republican president now, say, a President Jeb or a President Kasich, such a string of accomplishments would be lauded by all Republicans. Not so for President Trump.

Going further, if either of the past Presidents Bush had a fraction of the accomplishments of President Trump, how might things have played out differently?

George HW Bush might have won a second term, leaving Bill Clinton to grope women in Arkansas, or perhaps in the U.S. Senate along with Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Rather than setting the stage for the sex scandals today that can be attributed to Clinton’s behavior and enabling by his wife, party and media. We would then most likely not have had his son George W, Obama or Trump as responses to previously failed presidencies.

So why the persistent resistance to and consternation over President Trump? Not his policies. Nor the economic recovery, roaring stock market, low unemployment, new found respect overseas and great judicial picks. All right out of the conservative wish list. The fuss is over his style.

Criticism from #NeverTrumpers invariably is over his “how”, not his “what”. His style. His tweets. His hitting back when attacked. Calling out hypocrisy. His honest responses, echoing what his supporters think but which a president should dare not say.

We all know about Trump’s tweets. The media is obsessed, covering each and every one, amplifying the reach of his already massive 43 million followers. Recent tweets include the dustup over the UCLA basketball players caught shoplifting sunglasses in China, begrudgingly showing gratitude to the President for saving them from a decade in a Chinese prison. Trump punching back again when one of the players father got involved.

Or his Time magazine Person of the Year turndown just days ago. As well as his frequenting opining about kneeling NFL players. His tweets reflecting what many Americans think but never hear on network or cable news. Or in local or national newspapers.

Don’t forget his name calling. Fake news CNN. Crooked Hillary. Little Rocket Man. And this week another jab at Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren. Beneath the dignity of the office, they say. Senator Warren was outraged, over Trump calling her Pocahontas, yet had no problem with Bill Maher calling her the same while interviewing Warren on his TV show earlier this year.

Confirming again that the beef is with the messenger, not the message. Yet this style propelled Trump to the White House and continues to this day.

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon“ and “A good tactic is one your people enjoy“. 

It’s all about his style. As George HW Bush said, “I don’t like him. I don’t know much about him, but I know he’s a blowhard. And I’m not too excited about him being a leader.” Very telling. He doesn’t know much about him yet he doesn’t like him because he is a “blowhard”.

Sounds like the definition of prejudice, preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience.

Trump is unlike George W. Bush, who remained silent for eight years, letting the media characterize him as either Hitler or a chimp, never defending himself or his policies. Which gave us Obama and a Democrat Congress.

A Republican will never get a fair shake from the media. A successful president knows how to go around the wall of bias and fake news, as Reagan did. Would Reagan use Twitter if it existed at the time? You bet he would.

Not so Bill Clinton, who didn’t need to go around the media. The media was embedded with the Clintons. Ignoring his myriad scandals, attacking his critics. Even his “smartest woman in the world” wife observed that Bill “didn’t tweet” while in the White House. Missing the minor detail that Twitter wasn’t invented until a decade after he was president. Sort of like how she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, despite him being a New Zealand beekeeper at the time of her birth.

This is the era of social media. The new source of information, unfiltered by the “Piegate” CNN hacks. How ironic that a guy in his 70s is one of the most effective users of this new medium of communication. Going around a hostile media to speak directly to the American people.

Punching back at critics, not simply turning the other cheek. Not playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules when facing an opponent with a knife. Not the stodgy decorum of John McCain or Mitch McConnell. Though when advancing their agenda, they have no qualms about hitting below the belt. Whether McCain’s involvement in the fake Trump Russian dossier or McConnell promoting bogus allegations against Roy Moore.

Somehow that’s okay, and befitting national leaders, but using Twitter is not? Give me a break.

Their real beef with Trump is that he is effective. His tweets are on target, like a precision missile. Same with his comments about fake news or crooked Hillary or Pocahontas. What millions of Americans have been waiting for one of their elected representatives to say. Rather than hearing how undignified Trump is from the smug set at the Weekly Standard or National Review.

Republicans should learn from Trump rather than criticize him. If Ryan and McConnell had any sense, they would use social media to move their Congressional agenda, rather than play defense over media cackles of “tax cuts for the rich” and “taking away everyone’s health insurance”.

It’s a rough and tumble world. Trump understands this and is playing accordingly. #NeverTrumpers prefer to bring a water pistol to a gun fight, then wonder why they keep losing. Rather than celebrating the substance of Trump’s accomplishments, they prefer to remain in the peanut gallery, fussing over his style. Just as Bill Kristol observed about himself, Trump is bringing out the inner liberal in the NeverTrumpers.

Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter. 



Source link