Day: December 15, 2017

How the Media Already Have Twisted the Meaning of the Alabama Election


In their elation over Doug Jones having prevailed in the Alabama Senate race to fill the seat vacated by now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the media are now trying to position the election as a referendum on President Trump.

Take a recent New York Times article, for example, which cites “4 Takeaways from Doug Jones’s Alabama Victory.” 

Doug Jones’s win in the “reddest of red states,” the article suggests, signifies that Alabama’s “highly educated and high-income voters, while often open to supporting Republicans, are uneasy with the hard-edged politics of President Trump.”  Simply put, this is meant to suggest that the race was a referendum on President Trump’s politics, and specifically, that Moore’s loss was not a reaction to the “claims of sexual misconduct against Roy Moore.” After all, the voting results in the suburbs of Alabama “mirror” the voting pattern of “well-heeled suburbanites” in Virginia last month — a comparison which I cannot imagine the article’s authors could have typed with a straight face.  Comparing the voting impulses of D.C. suburbanites in Virginia to Alabama’s suburbanites is about as apples-and-oranges of a comparison as one might get.

But here’s the interesting thing.  Anyone who’s honest knows that the media centerpiece of the Alabama election was the troubling allegations of child molestation and sexual assault against Roy Moore, and the scandal which followed.  However, the only other mention of the prominent scandal in the New York Times piece is that that “some of Moore’s allies placed the blame for the loss on [Mitch] McConnell, who withdrew his support after the allegations first emerged that Mr. Moore had pursued teenage girls sexually or romantically.”

Do you notice the sleight-of-hand in the language and messaging here?  On the one hand, “claims” of “sexual misconduct” were not the reason Moore lost suburbanites, and therefore the election.  It was because Trump’s “hard-edged policies” were rebuked.  On the other, “allegations” that Moore had “pursued teenage girls sexually or romantically” is what Roy Moore’s defenders are claiming was the real reason he lost.  But that’s simply not true, the Times now insists.

To prove just how disingenuous this is, let’s try a thought experiment.  Had Roy Moore won the election, would the media narrative be about how Alabamans had the audacity to vote for a candidate who supports Trump’s “hard-edged” policies?  Or would it be about how deeply-red, backward Alabamans had the questionable moral proclivities which allowed them to elect an accused child predator? 

You know the answer, and if the media were more honest than opportunistic, they would, too.  The media narrative prior to the election was not an effort to suggest that Alabama voters were wrong to agree with Trump’s desire to cut taxes, curtail illegal immigration, or repeal and/or replace Obamacare.  The loudest cries from the media ramparts were that Roy Moore winning the seat in Alabama would be a travesty because he was a suspected child predator.

Yet interestingly, nowhere in the Times “takeaways” article is there a reference to the single, many decades-old, but extremely timely allegation of child molestation made by then-14-year-old Leigh Corfman.  Nor was there a reference to the single (and similarly old and timely) allegation of sexual assault made by Beverly Young Nelson, whose credibility has been verifiably called into question with her conflicting claims about the yearbook that Moore allegedly signed and inscribed in 1977.    

Contrast this to any similar article published prior to the election.  Invariably, it was routinely touted that nine accusations were made against Moore, all of which signified that he was a child predator, though the other seven claims were nowhere in the realm of the aforementioned two.  The other seven claims ranged from a relationship between a 32-year-old man and a 17-year-old girl, for which the girl’s parents offered consent and that “never went beyond a kiss,” to a claim by then-18-year-old Gena Richardson, who said she agreed to date Moore, and that he ended the date with an “unwanted forceful kiss.”

Now that Roy Moore has lost the election and Democrat Doug Jones will be seated, however, the most damning two allegations of child molestation and sexual assault are fading into the background, and inversely, references to the mildest accusations are being amplified.  “Sexual misconduct” and Moore’s pursuance of “teenage girls sexually or romantically” don’t have the same headline cachet that would have been needed in the past months to have destroyed Roy Moore’s political future.  The former is vague charge, and nowhere near as damning as an allegation of sexual assault or child molestation.  And while the latter may be antiquated, it was not then, and is not now, a crime, if said teenage girls are of the legal age of consent.

There is a distinct reason for this dramatic shift in narrative.  There is little value in painting the defeated and now-irrelevant Roy Moore as a child predator to destroy his political future, as the media unquestionably and tirelessly worked toward before the election.  The Alabama election results have made him toxic.  His political future has been destroyed.

There is value, however, in painting Roy Moore and the Alabama Senate race as something other than a peculiar microcosm involving only Roy Moore, in which a spectacularly flawed candidate was ultimately destroyed by a media-driven effort designed to do just that.  There’s far more value to be had, today, in tying this loss to President Trump.

But do you know who recognized that Roy Moore might have a difficult time winning the general election against a Democrat in Alabama, long before the allegations of teenager-chasing, sexual misconduct, sexual assault, or child molestation arose?  Donald Trump did.

As The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles reminds us, on September 22nd, Trump appealed:

I have to say this, and you understand this and just look at the polls.  Luther [Strange] will definitely win.  Roy has a very good chance of not winning in the general election.  It’s all about the general… You’ve got to beat a Democrat.  Luther is going to win easily and Roy’s going to have a hard time winning.    

This seems incredibly prescient now.  But Trump made an equally smart move by offering congratulations to Doug Jones for the victory, tweeting:

Congratulations to Doug Jones on a hard fought victory.  The write-in votes played a very big factor, but a win is a win.  The people of Alabama are great, and the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time.  It never ends!

Roy Moore is, as of this writing, yet to concede.  Yet more evidence as to why he was a uniquely bad candidate.  And yes, the seat in Alabama is a loss for Republicans.  But let’s not pretend that Roy Moore’s loss signifies anything broader than the peculiar microcosm that it was, and that you’ll remember for years, if only for the media-driven hysteria around it.

Because, as any fool should plainly see, this election wasn’t about Donald Trump.

William Sullivan blogs at Political Palaver and can be followed on Twitter.

In their elation over Doug Jones having prevailed in the Alabama Senate race to fill the seat vacated by now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the media are now trying to position the election as a referendum on President Trump.

Take a recent New York Times article, for example, which cites “4 Takeaways from Doug Jones’s Alabama Victory.” 

Doug Jones’s win in the “reddest of red states,” the article suggests, signifies that Alabama’s “highly educated and high-income voters, while often open to supporting Republicans, are uneasy with the hard-edged politics of President Trump.”  Simply put, this is meant to suggest that the race was a referendum on President Trump’s politics, and specifically, that Moore’s loss was not a reaction to the “claims of sexual misconduct against Roy Moore.” After all, the voting results in the suburbs of Alabama “mirror” the voting pattern of “well-heeled suburbanites” in Virginia last month — a comparison which I cannot imagine the article’s authors could have typed with a straight face.  Comparing the voting impulses of D.C. suburbanites in Virginia to Alabama’s suburbanites is about as apples-and-oranges of a comparison as one might get.

But here’s the interesting thing.  Anyone who’s honest knows that the media centerpiece of the Alabama election was the troubling allegations of child molestation and sexual assault against Roy Moore, and the scandal which followed.  However, the only other mention of the prominent scandal in the New York Times piece is that that “some of Moore’s allies placed the blame for the loss on [Mitch] McConnell, who withdrew his support after the allegations first emerged that Mr. Moore had pursued teenage girls sexually or romantically.”

Do you notice the sleight-of-hand in the language and messaging here?  On the one hand, “claims” of “sexual misconduct” were not the reason Moore lost suburbanites, and therefore the election.  It was because Trump’s “hard-edged policies” were rebuked.  On the other, “allegations” that Moore had “pursued teenage girls sexually or romantically” is what Roy Moore’s defenders are claiming was the real reason he lost.  But that’s simply not true, the Times now insists.

To prove just how disingenuous this is, let’s try a thought experiment.  Had Roy Moore won the election, would the media narrative be about how Alabamans had the audacity to vote for a candidate who supports Trump’s “hard-edged” policies?  Or would it be about how deeply-red, backward Alabamans had the questionable moral proclivities which allowed them to elect an accused child predator? 

You know the answer, and if the media were more honest than opportunistic, they would, too.  The media narrative prior to the election was not an effort to suggest that Alabama voters were wrong to agree with Trump’s desire to cut taxes, curtail illegal immigration, or repeal and/or replace Obamacare.  The loudest cries from the media ramparts were that Roy Moore winning the seat in Alabama would be a travesty because he was a suspected child predator.

Yet interestingly, nowhere in the Times “takeaways” article is there a reference to the single, many decades-old, but extremely timely allegation of child molestation made by then-14-year-old Leigh Corfman.  Nor was there a reference to the single (and similarly old and timely) allegation of sexual assault made by Beverly Young Nelson, whose credibility has been verifiably called into question with her conflicting claims about the yearbook that Moore allegedly signed and inscribed in 1977.    

Contrast this to any similar article published prior to the election.  Invariably, it was routinely touted that nine accusations were made against Moore, all of which signified that he was a child predator, though the other seven claims were nowhere in the realm of the aforementioned two.  The other seven claims ranged from a relationship between a 32-year-old man and a 17-year-old girl, for which the girl’s parents offered consent and that “never went beyond a kiss,” to a claim by then-18-year-old Gena Richardson, who said she agreed to date Moore, and that he ended the date with an “unwanted forceful kiss.”

Now that Roy Moore has lost the election and Democrat Doug Jones will be seated, however, the most damning two allegations of child molestation and sexual assault are fading into the background, and inversely, references to the mildest accusations are being amplified.  “Sexual misconduct” and Moore’s pursuance of “teenage girls sexually or romantically” don’t have the same headline cachet that would have been needed in the past months to have destroyed Roy Moore’s political future.  The former is vague charge, and nowhere near as damning as an allegation of sexual assault or child molestation.  And while the latter may be antiquated, it was not then, and is not now, a crime, if said teenage girls are of the legal age of consent.

There is a distinct reason for this dramatic shift in narrative.  There is little value in painting the defeated and now-irrelevant Roy Moore as a child predator to destroy his political future, as the media unquestionably and tirelessly worked toward before the election.  The Alabama election results have made him toxic.  His political future has been destroyed.

There is value, however, in painting Roy Moore and the Alabama Senate race as something other than a peculiar microcosm involving only Roy Moore, in which a spectacularly flawed candidate was ultimately destroyed by a media-driven effort designed to do just that.  There’s far more value to be had, today, in tying this loss to President Trump.

But do you know who recognized that Roy Moore might have a difficult time winning the general election against a Democrat in Alabama, long before the allegations of teenager-chasing, sexual misconduct, sexual assault, or child molestation arose?  Donald Trump did.

As The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles reminds us, on September 22nd, Trump appealed:

I have to say this, and you understand this and just look at the polls.  Luther [Strange] will definitely win.  Roy has a very good chance of not winning in the general election.  It’s all about the general… You’ve got to beat a Democrat.  Luther is going to win easily and Roy’s going to have a hard time winning.    

This seems incredibly prescient now.  But Trump made an equally smart move by offering congratulations to Doug Jones for the victory, tweeting:

Congratulations to Doug Jones on a hard fought victory.  The write-in votes played a very big factor, but a win is a win.  The people of Alabama are great, and the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time.  It never ends!

Roy Moore is, as of this writing, yet to concede.  Yet more evidence as to why he was a uniquely bad candidate.  And yes, the seat in Alabama is a loss for Republicans.  But let’s not pretend that Roy Moore’s loss signifies anything broader than the peculiar microcosm that it was, and that you’ll remember for years, if only for the media-driven hysteria around it.

Because, as any fool should plainly see, this election wasn’t about Donald Trump.

William Sullivan blogs at Political Palaver and can be followed on Twitter.



Source link

Stranger Things and the Deep State


“Stranger Things” is a popular Netflix television series set in the 1980s, starring a bunch of enchanting preteens contending with an alternate dimension called the “Upside Down.” This alternate world is dark and scary, filled with supernatural monsters and a pervading sense of evil.

The Upside Down is much like “The Deep State” or “The Swamp”, the real-life world of political, economic and social power, corruption and evil. “Stranger Things” is a classic battle of good versus evil. A similar battle is playing out on an international stage, obscured by the media and power elite, who prefer this conflict remain hidden. And buried.

One has to peel back the onion a bit to get a glimpse of the Washington DC Upside Down. Just as in the TV series, there are portals where one can view the Upside Down.

Not via mainstream news. Some radio talk shows dance close to the Upside Down, perhaps unknowingly, but don’t provide the entry portal. Fortunately, some websites do.

One in particular is Conservative Treehouse, where Sundance offers a detailed and thoughtful analysis of the Upside Down. American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson described a view of this world in a recent blog posting. Timelines are laid out, from FISA warrants to unmasking to weaponized government agencies attempting to negate a lawful election.

The Upside Down may not be the world that CNN and MSNBC sees and reports on. They only see a president suffering dementia, doing nothing but chugging Diet Coke and watching television. His attorney general is asleep on the front porch hammock, while Special Counsel “Beyond Reproach” Robert Mueller is preparing to throw the entire Trump family and administration into Supermax.

Instead, as Sundance provides a glimpse into the Upside Down, more may be going on. “Seeding false information into the blood stream of a closed unit within the organization then waiting to see if/where/when it turns up is a specific way to identify leakers and black hats.”

Watching ongoing fake news stories, based on leaks, this makes sense. With CNN and ABC playing the useful idiots. Brian Ross’s false announcement a week ago after the Flynn plea deal. Last week the Deutsche Bank subpoena false story. And the fake CNN exclusive of Donald Trump Jr and Wikileaks. All perhaps to flush out the leakers.

Did the media simply make up these stories? Perhaps, but more likely they were leaked from well-placed Democrats, and perhaps some Republicans. There is speculation that Rep. Adam Schiff, House Intelligence Committee Minority Chairman, may be the source of some of CNN’s discredited stories.

Is this simply sloppy reporting? Or wishful thinking by the media? What if instead this is a counterintelligence sting operation, with the good guys in the intel community passing bogus information to Chairmen Devin Nunes and Schiff, knowing that Nunes isn’t leaking, leaving Schiff as the only possible source for the leaks? In this case an incorrect and easily refutable date on an email to Donald Trump Jr. from WikiLeaks.

Shedding light on the Upside Down is the only way to learn the scope of corrupt resistance to Trump and flush it out. Leakers and other corruptocrats slowly being exposed.

Trump has likely been aware from early on of the Obama administration weaponizing both law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political purposes, to destroy him and to elect his opponent. Suppose one of the few white hats in the Obama administration, at their own personal and professional risk, gave Trump a heads up?

Barely a week after the election, on November 17, NSA Director Mike Rogers travelled to New York City to meet with president-elect Trump. The very next day a story in the Washington Post reacted to the meeting, “Pentagon and intelligence community chiefs have urged Obama to remove the head of the NSA.”

Cockroaches scurrying when someone turns on the light?

The following weekend, the Trump transition team moves from Trump Tower to Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Coincidence? Or a smart move to protect his transition?

Remember Trump’s later tweet about Trump Tower being “wiretapped”? Did Rogers meeting with Trump simply as a welcoming gesture to the president-elect or to provide a warning about what lay ahead?

This may have been Trump’s first real glimpse into the Upside Down, the evil lurking below the surface threating his presidency before it even began. And the beginning of a grand strategy to counteract and close off the Upside Down, just as in the TV show.

Some call it 4-dimensional chess. Or just the product of Trump’s rough and tumble decades in the New York real estate world. Trump surrounding himself with those he needed to accomplish the herculean task ahead. Suppose Jeff Sessions, contrary to popular opinion, is not asleep, but rather using his power as attorney general and the legal system to begin cleaning house?

As of last month, 1183 sealed indictments. From Mueller? Doubtful. He has come up empty thus far on his original mandate to investigate, “Any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individual associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”

More likely from the DOJ. Sessions quietly busy despite the image of him as a befuddled Mister Rogers. Is it the coming “Big Ugly,” as Sundance describes?

What if Sessions is the lynchpin in Trump’s plans? Letting Lady Justice do her job, keeping the President out of the process due to the optics. Are Trump’s tweets, strategic and purposeful, designed to keep his opposition off balance? Sending the media and the left into yet another frenzied outrage, distracting from his behind the scenes housecleaning?

Are leaks of “fake news” working in similar fashion, not only flushing out leakers, but also ruining the rapidly diminishing credibility of the media? Story after story, from CNN to ABC. It’s getting to the point that any news about Trump will be viewed with suspicion.

I won’t go as far as some, postulating that Mueller is actually working with Trump, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility. More likely, Mueller’s investigation is going nowhere, with the DOJ and Rep. Nunes slowly rooting out and exposing the bad players such as Bruce Ohr, and now his wife, who worked for Fusion GPS, bypassing potential surveillance using a ham radio. Stories that are chipping away the façade of integrity surrounding Mueller and his investigation.

Numerous members of Congress are not seeking reelection. Trump fatigue, as the fake news media suggests? Or more like animals fleeing the coastline well ahead of an incoming tsunami? Grabbing their pensions and retreating to the safety of K Street before the storm arrives.

I don’t have definitive answers. Many thoughtful readers of American Thinker are catching glimpses of the Upside Down through various sources and are wondering what’s really going on, as am I. Time will tell if this is simply fantasy, like “Stranger Things.” Or if this is the calm before the storm.

If Mueller finds high crimes and misdemeanors and Trump is impeached, the joke will be on me. And Sundance, and others believing they are catching glimpses of the Upside Down. Watching Trump over the past few years, however, tells me there will be a different outcome. Trump is confident and upbeat. Watch his recent rally in Pensacola. Not the demeanor of someone whose world is crashing down.

Read and think. Don’t be content with what you hear on TV or the radio. The Upside Down may very well be real. 2018 will be an interesting year.

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

“Stranger Things” is a popular Netflix television series set in the 1980s, starring a bunch of enchanting preteens contending with an alternate dimension called the “Upside Down.” This alternate world is dark and scary, filled with supernatural monsters and a pervading sense of evil.

The Upside Down is much like “The Deep State” or “The Swamp”, the real-life world of political, economic and social power, corruption and evil. “Stranger Things” is a classic battle of good versus evil. A similar battle is playing out on an international stage, obscured by the media and power elite, who prefer this conflict remain hidden. And buried.

One has to peel back the onion a bit to get a glimpse of the Washington DC Upside Down. Just as in the TV series, there are portals where one can view the Upside Down.

Not via mainstream news. Some radio talk shows dance close to the Upside Down, perhaps unknowingly, but don’t provide the entry portal. Fortunately, some websites do.

One in particular is Conservative Treehouse, where Sundance offers a detailed and thoughtful analysis of the Upside Down. American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson described a view of this world in a recent blog posting. Timelines are laid out, from FISA warrants to unmasking to weaponized government agencies attempting to negate a lawful election.

The Upside Down may not be the world that CNN and MSNBC sees and reports on. They only see a president suffering dementia, doing nothing but chugging Diet Coke and watching television. His attorney general is asleep on the front porch hammock, while Special Counsel “Beyond Reproach” Robert Mueller is preparing to throw the entire Trump family and administration into Supermax.

Instead, as Sundance provides a glimpse into the Upside Down, more may be going on. “Seeding false information into the blood stream of a closed unit within the organization then waiting to see if/where/when it turns up is a specific way to identify leakers and black hats.”

Watching ongoing fake news stories, based on leaks, this makes sense. With CNN and ABC playing the useful idiots. Brian Ross’s false announcement a week ago after the Flynn plea deal. Last week the Deutsche Bank subpoena false story. And the fake CNN exclusive of Donald Trump Jr and Wikileaks. All perhaps to flush out the leakers.

Did the media simply make up these stories? Perhaps, but more likely they were leaked from well-placed Democrats, and perhaps some Republicans. There is speculation that Rep. Adam Schiff, House Intelligence Committee Minority Chairman, may be the source of some of CNN’s discredited stories.

Is this simply sloppy reporting? Or wishful thinking by the media? What if instead this is a counterintelligence sting operation, with the good guys in the intel community passing bogus information to Chairmen Devin Nunes and Schiff, knowing that Nunes isn’t leaking, leaving Schiff as the only possible source for the leaks? In this case an incorrect and easily refutable date on an email to Donald Trump Jr. from WikiLeaks.

Shedding light on the Upside Down is the only way to learn the scope of corrupt resistance to Trump and flush it out. Leakers and other corruptocrats slowly being exposed.

Trump has likely been aware from early on of the Obama administration weaponizing both law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political purposes, to destroy him and to elect his opponent. Suppose one of the few white hats in the Obama administration, at their own personal and professional risk, gave Trump a heads up?

Barely a week after the election, on November 17, NSA Director Mike Rogers travelled to New York City to meet with president-elect Trump. The very next day a story in the Washington Post reacted to the meeting, “Pentagon and intelligence community chiefs have urged Obama to remove the head of the NSA.”

Cockroaches scurrying when someone turns on the light?

The following weekend, the Trump transition team moves from Trump Tower to Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Coincidence? Or a smart move to protect his transition?

Remember Trump’s later tweet about Trump Tower being “wiretapped”? Did Rogers meeting with Trump simply as a welcoming gesture to the president-elect or to provide a warning about what lay ahead?

This may have been Trump’s first real glimpse into the Upside Down, the evil lurking below the surface threating his presidency before it even began. And the beginning of a grand strategy to counteract and close off the Upside Down, just as in the TV show.

Some call it 4-dimensional chess. Or just the product of Trump’s rough and tumble decades in the New York real estate world. Trump surrounding himself with those he needed to accomplish the herculean task ahead. Suppose Jeff Sessions, contrary to popular opinion, is not asleep, but rather using his power as attorney general and the legal system to begin cleaning house?

As of last month, 1183 sealed indictments. From Mueller? Doubtful. He has come up empty thus far on his original mandate to investigate, “Any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individual associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”

More likely from the DOJ. Sessions quietly busy despite the image of him as a befuddled Mister Rogers. Is it the coming “Big Ugly,” as Sundance describes?

What if Sessions is the lynchpin in Trump’s plans? Letting Lady Justice do her job, keeping the President out of the process due to the optics. Are Trump’s tweets, strategic and purposeful, designed to keep his opposition off balance? Sending the media and the left into yet another frenzied outrage, distracting from his behind the scenes housecleaning?

Are leaks of “fake news” working in similar fashion, not only flushing out leakers, but also ruining the rapidly diminishing credibility of the media? Story after story, from CNN to ABC. It’s getting to the point that any news about Trump will be viewed with suspicion.

I won’t go as far as some, postulating that Mueller is actually working with Trump, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility. More likely, Mueller’s investigation is going nowhere, with the DOJ and Rep. Nunes slowly rooting out and exposing the bad players such as Bruce Ohr, and now his wife, who worked for Fusion GPS, bypassing potential surveillance using a ham radio. Stories that are chipping away the façade of integrity surrounding Mueller and his investigation.

Numerous members of Congress are not seeking reelection. Trump fatigue, as the fake news media suggests? Or more like animals fleeing the coastline well ahead of an incoming tsunami? Grabbing their pensions and retreating to the safety of K Street before the storm arrives.

I don’t have definitive answers. Many thoughtful readers of American Thinker are catching glimpses of the Upside Down through various sources and are wondering what’s really going on, as am I. Time will tell if this is simply fantasy, like “Stranger Things.” Or if this is the calm before the storm.

If Mueller finds high crimes and misdemeanors and Trump is impeached, the joke will be on me. And Sundance, and others believing they are catching glimpses of the Upside Down. Watching Trump over the past few years, however, tells me there will be a different outcome. Trump is confident and upbeat. Watch his recent rally in Pensacola. Not the demeanor of someone whose world is crashing down.

Read and think. Don’t be content with what you hear on TV or the radio. The Upside Down may very well be real. 2018 will be an interesting year.

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



Source link

Homage to a French Literary Giant


The Chinese have a character for “double happiness.” The French would benefit from a similar character of “double sadness” for the events of December 2017, when two giants of French culture, dissimilar in every way, died on successive days. This is not the first time this has occurred: Edith Piaf and Jean Cocteau died on successive days in 1963. However, in December 2017, two striking figures died and were honored on successive days, Johnny Hallyday, the champion of French rock, aged 74, by an elaborate tribute at the Madeleine Church in Paris, and the writer and philosopher Jean d’Ormesson, embodiment of the French classical tradition, aged 92, at a less elaborate function at the Cathedral of the Invalides. Curiously, though both men were national treasures, if not as symbolic as the Eiffel Tower or Mont-Saint-Michel, in their own country France, they were essentially unknown abroad.

In a sense, the two men illustrated complementary aspects of French civilization. Both loved life and both were seducers in their different ways. Johnny was a living legend whose music lives on. Jean was a prolific writer and latterly television personality, a graceful charmer with a playful spirit who loved life and communicated this. For Johnny, who appealed to emotion, music, beginning with rock, was his religion. For Jean, language and literature was his rock of reason.

France is a country that admires its intellectuals and writers. Jean d’Ormesson, born in 1925 of an aristocratic and diplomatic family who died in Paris on December 5, was the incarnation of French culture and defender of the French language, a charmer. He held right-wing political views but was not dogmatic and was admired by the left, as his friendships with political opponents such as Francois Mitterand and Nicolas Sarkozy, to whom he was close, showed. He was Catholic but more agnostic than believer.

In his writings and commentaries, he combined elegance with depth, humor with learning. At Jean’s funeral service, President Emmanuel Macron, who put a simple pencil on the tomb as Jean wished, eloquently pointed out some of his complexities. If he was an egotist he was also modest and passionate about others. If he had shadows, he was a master of clarity.

Jean was a prominent figure in the French literary world, publishing 40 books, novels, and plays, many of them bestsellers. He was general manager of Le Figaro for a few years, and for many other years a news commentator, and even in his last years a broadcaster and part-time actor on television. He was never as influential a commentator as Raymond Aron, who was more biting and penetrating, and never supported large causes or ideologies, rather addressing more specific issues from a conservative point of view. His prominence was recognized by the publishers of the Pleiades editions, which publishes the complete works of an author, an action which is considered to be a major sign of recognition of that author’s significance.

Jean was officially honored, and made an Immortal, appointed in 1973 at age 48 to the Academie Francaise, still a body of undeniable prestige, and one representative of the French esprit. At his death, he was the Dean of the Academie, the longest serving member of it. In 1980, he sponsored Marguerite Yourcenar, whom he called one of the greatest living writers, as a member. She was the first woman to be elected to the AF. So far only eight of the 729 members have been women. Jean in 2009 was also appointed to another high honor, Grand Officer, Grand Cross of the Legion of Honor, by President Francois Hollande.

Jean may have been an Immortal, but he was a constant presence with his charm and wit, which he exhibited on TV screens, including an acting performance with Charlotte Rampling. He was a prince of letters who never took himself too seriously. His comments on politics and on language typifies classical French moderate conservatism and humane politics.

Jean can be considered a modernist, conscious that the world was changing. Moreover, though it was always changing, it was now changing at a faster pace, and in that changing world, the triumph of science must be reconciled with humanism.

He illustrated that change in at least three ways. The French language that he loved had become less important; it was hard to challenge English as the dominant language in the world. Similarly, Europe was no longer the center of world affairs, nor was France the first country in Europe that had become less important, though it was wrong to talk about decline all the time.

As a result of the weakness of European countries, populism had advanced in some of them. He insisted that culture goes together with a flourishing economy and military power. Yet, though Africa was advancing, Europe must be praised and safeguarded; it had succeeded in forming a single currency and preventing war among its members.

Jean was concerned about the future of democracy. Europe must now be vigilant against populism and its manifestations with Brexit, elections in The Netherlands, in the U.S. with Donald Trump, but above all in his own country. Jean forecast accurately that Marine Le Pen would get 25-30% of the vote in the presidential election but would not win the election. He was fearful she might win in 2022, and posed a cultural as well as a political threat, especially a threat to freedom of the press. 

Some of d’Ormesson’s assertations are debatable. He thought that the French people had changed. Once they were happy and carefree; now quoting the jocular Jean Cocteau, they had become “like Italians in a bad mood.” France is moving politically to the right, and the Communist and Socialist parties no longer seem to exist in France. He was critical of the disastrous five years of the Hollande presidency.  The danger of terrorism remains, and the problem of migrants is acute.

Nevertheless, writers are still a privileged group in France and have a certain respected voice in society, even if the myth of the great influential writer, like Victor Hugo, or Francois Mauriac, or Andre Gide, is longer applicable to the present.

Jean did participate in the last year of his life in an interesting controversy about language and indeed about society. The present administration under President Macron is urging a gender-neutral version of the French language that the AF, including Jean, thought poses a danger to the purity of French. Historically, the masculine takes precedence over the feminine. A group of women only is referred to in feminine way, but if it includes even only one man, the entire group will be referred to as masculine. Proponents of change call for gender exclusiveness; opponents argue this would be an “aberration” that puts France in “mortal danger.”

The controversy continues, and purists and others will disagree, but all should agree that the prolific writings of Jean d’ Ormesson should be more widely translated. It would be particularly valuable to have the voice of moderate and sensible conserveatism in English in the United States at the present time.  

The Chinese have a character for “double happiness.” The French would benefit from a similar character of “double sadness” for the events of December 2017, when two giants of French culture, dissimilar in every way, died on successive days. This is not the first time this has occurred: Edith Piaf and Jean Cocteau died on successive days in 1963. However, in December 2017, two striking figures died and were honored on successive days, Johnny Hallyday, the champion of French rock, aged 74, by an elaborate tribute at the Madeleine Church in Paris, and the writer and philosopher Jean d’Ormesson, embodiment of the French classical tradition, aged 92, at a less elaborate function at the Cathedral of the Invalides. Curiously, though both men were national treasures, if not as symbolic as the Eiffel Tower or Mont-Saint-Michel, in their own country France, they were essentially unknown abroad.

In a sense, the two men illustrated complementary aspects of French civilization. Both loved life and both were seducers in their different ways. Johnny was a living legend whose music lives on. Jean was a prolific writer and latterly television personality, a graceful charmer with a playful spirit who loved life and communicated this. For Johnny, who appealed to emotion, music, beginning with rock, was his religion. For Jean, language and literature was his rock of reason.

France is a country that admires its intellectuals and writers. Jean d’Ormesson, born in 1925 of an aristocratic and diplomatic family who died in Paris on December 5, was the incarnation of French culture and defender of the French language, a charmer. He held right-wing political views but was not dogmatic and was admired by the left, as his friendships with political opponents such as Francois Mitterand and Nicolas Sarkozy, to whom he was close, showed. He was Catholic but more agnostic than believer.

In his writings and commentaries, he combined elegance with depth, humor with learning. At Jean’s funeral service, President Emmanuel Macron, who put a simple pencil on the tomb as Jean wished, eloquently pointed out some of his complexities. If he was an egotist he was also modest and passionate about others. If he had shadows, he was a master of clarity.

Jean was a prominent figure in the French literary world, publishing 40 books, novels, and plays, many of them bestsellers. He was general manager of Le Figaro for a few years, and for many other years a news commentator, and even in his last years a broadcaster and part-time actor on television. He was never as influential a commentator as Raymond Aron, who was more biting and penetrating, and never supported large causes or ideologies, rather addressing more specific issues from a conservative point of view. His prominence was recognized by the publishers of the Pleiades editions, which publishes the complete works of an author, an action which is considered to be a major sign of recognition of that author’s significance.

Jean was officially honored, and made an Immortal, appointed in 1973 at age 48 to the Academie Francaise, still a body of undeniable prestige, and one representative of the French esprit. At his death, he was the Dean of the Academie, the longest serving member of it. In 1980, he sponsored Marguerite Yourcenar, whom he called one of the greatest living writers, as a member. She was the first woman to be elected to the AF. So far only eight of the 729 members have been women. Jean in 2009 was also appointed to another high honor, Grand Officer, Grand Cross of the Legion of Honor, by President Francois Hollande.

Jean may have been an Immortal, but he was a constant presence with his charm and wit, which he exhibited on TV screens, including an acting performance with Charlotte Rampling. He was a prince of letters who never took himself too seriously. His comments on politics and on language typifies classical French moderate conservatism and humane politics.

Jean can be considered a modernist, conscious that the world was changing. Moreover, though it was always changing, it was now changing at a faster pace, and in that changing world, the triumph of science must be reconciled with humanism.

He illustrated that change in at least three ways. The French language that he loved had become less important; it was hard to challenge English as the dominant language in the world. Similarly, Europe was no longer the center of world affairs, nor was France the first country in Europe that had become less important, though it was wrong to talk about decline all the time.

As a result of the weakness of European countries, populism had advanced in some of them. He insisted that culture goes together with a flourishing economy and military power. Yet, though Africa was advancing, Europe must be praised and safeguarded; it had succeeded in forming a single currency and preventing war among its members.

Jean was concerned about the future of democracy. Europe must now be vigilant against populism and its manifestations with Brexit, elections in The Netherlands, in the U.S. with Donald Trump, but above all in his own country. Jean forecast accurately that Marine Le Pen would get 25-30% of the vote in the presidential election but would not win the election. He was fearful she might win in 2022, and posed a cultural as well as a political threat, especially a threat to freedom of the press. 

Some of d’Ormesson’s assertations are debatable. He thought that the French people had changed. Once they were happy and carefree; now quoting the jocular Jean Cocteau, they had become “like Italians in a bad mood.” France is moving politically to the right, and the Communist and Socialist parties no longer seem to exist in France. He was critical of the disastrous five years of the Hollande presidency.  The danger of terrorism remains, and the problem of migrants is acute.

Nevertheless, writers are still a privileged group in France and have a certain respected voice in society, even if the myth of the great influential writer, like Victor Hugo, or Francois Mauriac, or Andre Gide, is longer applicable to the present.

Jean did participate in the last year of his life in an interesting controversy about language and indeed about society. The present administration under President Macron is urging a gender-neutral version of the French language that the AF, including Jean, thought poses a danger to the purity of French. Historically, the masculine takes precedence over the feminine. A group of women only is referred to in feminine way, but if it includes even only one man, the entire group will be referred to as masculine. Proponents of change call for gender exclusiveness; opponents argue this would be an “aberration” that puts France in “mortal danger.”

The controversy continues, and purists and others will disagree, but all should agree that the prolific writings of Jean d’ Ormesson should be more widely translated. It would be particularly valuable to have the voice of moderate and sensible conserveatism in English in the United States at the present time.  



Source link

Middle East Optimists, Be Wary


Here is more proof that Mr. Kushner is on a fool’s errand. On November 2, 2017, the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration was celebrated. Arabs mourned. That simple declaration of support for “a national home for the Jewish people,” which does not delineate borders and which is silent about Jerusalem, is intolerable to the Arabs.

Non-negotiable Arab position

The monomaniacal aim of Arabs is a “Palestine” which extends “from the river to the sea.” The expression erases the State of Israel from the map. Implementation of the expression would erase the Jews in the Land of Israel from the world population.

No peace deal is possible when, as Dennis Prager put it, “One side [the Arabs] wants the other side [the Jews] dead.”

Jihad

Negotiations between Jews and Arabs will fail, because Arabs are Muslims. They are enlisted men, non-commissioned officers, and officers of the anti-West jihad of Islam. The jihad is fourteen centuries old. The jihad is world-wide.

Antipathy to Jews and detestation of Judaism are strands of the jihad.

The most-recent phases of the never-ending jihad are the Islamic Insurgency (1979–2001) and the Islamic War Against the West (2001–present).

The Islamic Insurgency began in 1979, when Iranian Muslims stormed the United States embassy in Teheran. In 2001, the terrorist attacks by Saudi Arabian Muslims against the United States upgraded the Islamic Insurgency to the Islamic War Against the West.

In this seventeenth year of the war, the West is being thrashed, due to continued importations of Muslims into Western countries, the United States among them. Due to official pap about “lone wolves” and “unknown motives.” Due to purblind refusal to monitor mosques and imams. Due to artificial distinctions between “mainstream Islam” and “militant Islam.” Islam is Islam.

Lost territory to date, among countries of Western Europe, includes the United Kingdom, France, sand Germany. Still-Christian countries in Eastern Europe, such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, are under Soros-financed assaults.

The wider context of potential Jews-Arabs negotiations is the perception of Muslims that, in the twenty-first century, victory in the jihad is achievable. The West is weak, and uncaring about its survival. When victory comes, the State of Israel will fall, for lack of the American guarantee of its survival. Arabs have no incentive to sign a treaty with Jews, which gives them part of what they want, when patient awaiting of victory will give them everything which they want.

Real estate

The premise of the Kushner-Greenblatt-Powell-Friedman diplomatic efforts is that the Land of Israel is just another piece of real estate. That the Land of Israel can be broken by the big powers into two pieces, in the manner of the breaking, by the big powers, of the Republic of Serbia into the rump republic and “independent” Kosovo.

The Land of Israel is not just another piece of real estate. It is the God-given, irrevocable inheritance of Jews. They are in the Land of Israel of right. The territorial extent of the Land of Israel is as delineated in the Bible. The inheritance and its territorial extent are not negotiable.

If God and the Bible are not the foundation of the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel, then Jews hold the Land of Israel by conquest. Arabs may conquer the Land of Israel, as soon as their military might is sufficient to that task.

Subjects of negotiations

Were Jews and Arabs to sit at the same table, they will be at loggerheads, due to zero-sum territorial circumstances. Either the Jews or the Arabs get Jerusalem, or get Judea and Samaria, or get Gaza, or get the Golan Heights, or get the Sheba’a Farms.

The predicate of a successful negotiation is that each side has minor points to give up, to gain major points. However, neither Jews nor Arabs consider Jerusalem, or Judea and Samaria, or Gaza, or the Golan Heights, or the Sheba’a Farms, to be minor points.

United States and Canada

Boundary disputes between the United States and the United Kingdom, concerning the boundary between the United States and Canada, were resolved by negotiations and treaties. The International Boundary Commission maintains the boundary.

War-free establishment of the boundary, and its friction-free maintenance, rest on the bedrock of the same language and similar cultures of the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. It is otherwise in the Middle East. The languages and cultures of Jews and Arabs are antagonistic. Successful negotiation of a boundary between Jews and Arabs is impossible.

President Trump

On behalf of the United States, President Trump announced recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. That benefit to the State of Israel came with two catches. In the announcement:

1. President Trump referenced the United States policy of Middle East peace through a two-state “solution.” The proviso was that both sides have to want that “solution.” The essence of that “solution” is additional territorial losses by the State of Israel.

2. President Trump required that there be no change of the status quo at the Temple Mount. Meaning, the Waqf is in charge of the Temple Mount. Jews may worship only at the Western Wall. They are excluded from the Temple Mount. Muslims may pray at Al-Aqsa Mosque. They have unlimited access to the Temple Mount.

The requirement makes Muslim sovereignty over the Temple Mount permanent. Israeli police will continue their shameless role of dhimmi enforcers of the anti-Jews and anti-Judaism exclusion promulgated by the Waqf.

Saudi Arabia

There is talk about joint efforts of the State of Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to counter Iran.

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a principle which rationalizes the sharing of counter-terrorism intelligence.

Sharing would not erase multiple verses in the Koran which demonize Jews and Judaism. Would not eliminate hostility to Jews and Judaism, taught in Arab elementary-school and secondary-school class rooms. Would not silence advocacy by imams of wholesale slaughtering of Christians and Jews, and placing survivors under the cultural boot and the economic boot of Islam.

Conclusion

Dr. Martin Sherman, executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies, hit the nail on the head. He formulated the humanitarian paradigm (his term). Pay the Arabs to move out of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Subsidize new housing, somewhere in the 5,000,000 square miles of Arab territory, for them. They would be freed thereby from the squalid conditions in which they live, and from oppression by the “Palestinian Authority” and Hamas. The Jews would get all of the 12,000 square miles of the Land of Israel.

Happy ending.

The writer is a lawyer in Hong Kong. Comments are welcome. Contact the writer on krugerwork@yahoo.com.

Arabs who live in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (who are not to be called “Palestinians” — a misnomer when applied to them) remain unappreciative of giveaways and potential giveaways — beneficial to Arabs and self-destructive to Jews — offered by the State of Israel. Oslo I Accord (1993). Oslo II Accord (1995). Clinton Parameters (2000). Olmert Plan (2008).

Arab lack of appreciation proves that Mr. Kushner won’t get anywhere, any more than other intermediaries (e.g., former Sen. Mitchell, former PM Blair) did.

Here is more proof that Mr. Kushner is on a fool’s errand. On November 2, 2017, the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration was celebrated. Arabs mourned. That simple declaration of support for “a national home for the Jewish people,” which does not delineate borders and which is silent about Jerusalem, is intolerable to the Arabs.

Non-negotiable Arab position

The monomaniacal aim of Arabs is a “Palestine” which extends “from the river to the sea.” The expression erases the State of Israel from the map. Implementation of the expression would erase the Jews in the Land of Israel from the world population.

No peace deal is possible when, as Dennis Prager put it, “One side [the Arabs] wants the other side [the Jews] dead.”

Jihad

Negotiations between Jews and Arabs will fail, because Arabs are Muslims. They are enlisted men, non-commissioned officers, and officers of the anti-West jihad of Islam. The jihad is fourteen centuries old. The jihad is world-wide.

Antipathy to Jews and detestation of Judaism are strands of the jihad.

The most-recent phases of the never-ending jihad are the Islamic Insurgency (1979–2001) and the Islamic War Against the West (2001–present).

The Islamic Insurgency began in 1979, when Iranian Muslims stormed the United States embassy in Teheran. In 2001, the terrorist attacks by Saudi Arabian Muslims against the United States upgraded the Islamic Insurgency to the Islamic War Against the West.

In this seventeenth year of the war, the West is being thrashed, due to continued importations of Muslims into Western countries, the United States among them. Due to official pap about “lone wolves” and “unknown motives.” Due to purblind refusal to monitor mosques and imams. Due to artificial distinctions between “mainstream Islam” and “militant Islam.” Islam is Islam.

Lost territory to date, among countries of Western Europe, includes the United Kingdom, France, sand Germany. Still-Christian countries in Eastern Europe, such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, are under Soros-financed assaults.

The wider context of potential Jews-Arabs negotiations is the perception of Muslims that, in the twenty-first century, victory in the jihad is achievable. The West is weak, and uncaring about its survival. When victory comes, the State of Israel will fall, for lack of the American guarantee of its survival. Arabs have no incentive to sign a treaty with Jews, which gives them part of what they want, when patient awaiting of victory will give them everything which they want.

Real estate

The premise of the Kushner-Greenblatt-Powell-Friedman diplomatic efforts is that the Land of Israel is just another piece of real estate. That the Land of Israel can be broken by the big powers into two pieces, in the manner of the breaking, by the big powers, of the Republic of Serbia into the rump republic and “independent” Kosovo.

The Land of Israel is not just another piece of real estate. It is the God-given, irrevocable inheritance of Jews. They are in the Land of Israel of right. The territorial extent of the Land of Israel is as delineated in the Bible. The inheritance and its territorial extent are not negotiable.

If God and the Bible are not the foundation of the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel, then Jews hold the Land of Israel by conquest. Arabs may conquer the Land of Israel, as soon as their military might is sufficient to that task.

Subjects of negotiations

Were Jews and Arabs to sit at the same table, they will be at loggerheads, due to zero-sum territorial circumstances. Either the Jews or the Arabs get Jerusalem, or get Judea and Samaria, or get Gaza, or get the Golan Heights, or get the Sheba’a Farms.

The predicate of a successful negotiation is that each side has minor points to give up, to gain major points. However, neither Jews nor Arabs consider Jerusalem, or Judea and Samaria, or Gaza, or the Golan Heights, or the Sheba’a Farms, to be minor points.

United States and Canada

Boundary disputes between the United States and the United Kingdom, concerning the boundary between the United States and Canada, were resolved by negotiations and treaties. The International Boundary Commission maintains the boundary.

War-free establishment of the boundary, and its friction-free maintenance, rest on the bedrock of the same language and similar cultures of the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. It is otherwise in the Middle East. The languages and cultures of Jews and Arabs are antagonistic. Successful negotiation of a boundary between Jews and Arabs is impossible.

President Trump

On behalf of the United States, President Trump announced recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. That benefit to the State of Israel came with two catches. In the announcement:

1. President Trump referenced the United States policy of Middle East peace through a two-state “solution.” The proviso was that both sides have to want that “solution.” The essence of that “solution” is additional territorial losses by the State of Israel.

2. President Trump required that there be no change of the status quo at the Temple Mount. Meaning, the Waqf is in charge of the Temple Mount. Jews may worship only at the Western Wall. They are excluded from the Temple Mount. Muslims may pray at Al-Aqsa Mosque. They have unlimited access to the Temple Mount.

The requirement makes Muslim sovereignty over the Temple Mount permanent. Israeli police will continue their shameless role of dhimmi enforcers of the anti-Jews and anti-Judaism exclusion promulgated by the Waqf.

Saudi Arabia

There is talk about joint efforts of the State of Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to counter Iran.

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a principle which rationalizes the sharing of counter-terrorism intelligence.

Sharing would not erase multiple verses in the Koran which demonize Jews and Judaism. Would not eliminate hostility to Jews and Judaism, taught in Arab elementary-school and secondary-school class rooms. Would not silence advocacy by imams of wholesale slaughtering of Christians and Jews, and placing survivors under the cultural boot and the economic boot of Islam.

Conclusion

Dr. Martin Sherman, executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies, hit the nail on the head. He formulated the humanitarian paradigm (his term). Pay the Arabs to move out of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Subsidize new housing, somewhere in the 5,000,000 square miles of Arab territory, for them. They would be freed thereby from the squalid conditions in which they live, and from oppression by the “Palestinian Authority” and Hamas. The Jews would get all of the 12,000 square miles of the Land of Israel.

Happy ending.

The writer is a lawyer in Hong Kong. Comments are welcome. Contact the writer on krugerwork@yahoo.com.



Source link

What the Heck Happened in Alabama?


Years ago, my brother David gave me a nugget of wisdom. He advised, “When faced with a crisis, stabilize your emotions before responding/acting.” Thus, I thought it best to wait a day or so before sharing my thoughts about Roy Moore losing in Alabama.

Moore’s loss simply does not make sense. Alabama is a red state. It is hard to believe Alabama voters chose Jones,  who supports killing babies even at the point of birth, over 38-year-old unproven sexual misconduct allegations against Moore. Yes, I smell the foul stench of Democrat voter fraud in the Alabama senate race. 

We’ve heard the term partial-birth abortion, but most folks don’t know what it is. The abortionist takes the entire baby out of its mother except for the head. He then shoves scissors into the baby’s brain to kill it. Planned Parenthood is elated when abortionists can murder the baby without too much damage to the baby’s head. Intact heads sell for premium prices. Jones supports this horrific evil.

Rather that believing Alabama voters knowingly chose a man who supports murdering babies and trafficking their body parts, I tend to believe fake news media successfully hid Jones’ hostility towards unborn innocent human life. Leftists celebrate Jones’ mindset because Leftists deem killing babies environmentally responsible; necessary to save the planet from too many humans. Step on a spotted frog and Leftists are outraged at you!

Like nothing we’ve seen before, Leftists saturated the airwaves, social media, and fake news media with 24/7 attacks on Moore, his wife and anyone supportive of him.

I want to thank Judge Moore for hanging in there when everyone and their brother on both sides of the political aisle demanded that he get out of the race. Moore said the allegations were untrue and he was not running away. I loved it; a real man with a steel backbone.

I realize we lost an important Senate seat. But I am so sick of Republicans behaving like spineless wimps; allowing Leftists to dictate the rules of engagement; who we’re allowed to run, what is acceptable speech, what is racist, what is presidential and so on. When Leftists say, “Jump” the typical Republican response is, “How high?”

Folks, we throw our warriors under the bus far too quickly, reacting to Leftists’ and fake news media’s lies, distortions and smears. We have fallen for this Democrat and fake news media tag-team tactic far too many times.

We pray for courageous conservative Republican warriors who will fight on our behalf in Washington DC. When God sends us a hero, establishment elites, Democrats, Hollywood and fake news media join together in a 24/7 campaign to brand our hero a kook, racist, sexist, mean-spirited, stupid, and insane. Suddenly, folks on our side begin backing away, embarrassed to be associated with our brave conservative warrior. Folks, I have seen this happen with Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Judge Moore and others.

Meanwhile, Democrats run candidates who are the scum of the earth; liars, con-artists, sexual predators, and thieves. Leftists media promote Democrat scoundrel candidates as our superiors with compassion for the little guy. We Conservative/Republicans abandon our candidates every time Leftists point out our candidate’s inability to walk on water.

It is amazing how effective leftist media’s 24/7 relentless negative branding can be. Sarah Palin did an awesome job as governor of Alaska. When she became the Republican VP nominee, suddenly the woman is a complete idiot, according to Leftists and fake news media. The American Left viciously and relentlessly politically spun, twisted, and distorted every word out of Palin’s mouth to brand her stupid and crazy.

Wimpish Conservatives/Republicans began saying we must get rid of Palin because the media made her toxic. I was outraged. Is this how we treat our friends, our heroes, our warriors? I thought, “News flash, anyone we send to DC who is committed to fighting for our principles, values and best interest will be branded a wacko airhead by fake news media.” This is the tactic the American Left is using to get rid of Trump; branding him mean, dumb, and unstable.

I have no problem with Trump being Trump; tweeting and so on. Leftist media will negatively spin whatever Trumps says. Therefore, I love Trump sticking it to them, not allowing Leftists to control him. I hate the Republican’s typical fearful kowtowing to Leftists’ narratives and dictates. 

Trump has made incredible headway in an extraordinary short time; unshackling us from the chains of political correctness and rolling back Obama’s punish-America agenda. God knew as an outsider Trump would be undeterred by fake news media’s dictates regarding acceptable Republican behavior. Trump’s fearlessness terrifies and enrages fake news media and their fellow Leftists. They are obsessed with getting Trump out of the White House.

After a week of intensely campaigning for Judge Moore, his loss was unexpected. But this was just one battle. All I know to do is trust God and continue faithfully fighting the good fight for my country; backing real-deal courageous conservative candidates; our warrior heroes.

My wife Mary and I will fly home and enjoy Christmas with our family.

Come next year, we’ll be back on the road fighting to keep Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer out of power. Please stand firm in your support for our president.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Help Lloyd spread the Truth

http://LloydMarcus.com

Years ago, my brother David gave me a nugget of wisdom. He advised, “When faced with a crisis, stabilize your emotions before responding/acting.” Thus, I thought it best to wait a day or so before sharing my thoughts about Roy Moore losing in Alabama.

Moore’s loss simply does not make sense. Alabama is a red state. It is hard to believe Alabama voters chose Jones,  who supports killing babies even at the point of birth, over 38-year-old unproven sexual misconduct allegations against Moore. Yes, I smell the foul stench of Democrat voter fraud in the Alabama senate race. 

We’ve heard the term partial-birth abortion, but most folks don’t know what it is. The abortionist takes the entire baby out of its mother except for the head. He then shoves scissors into the baby’s brain to kill it. Planned Parenthood is elated when abortionists can murder the baby without too much damage to the baby’s head. Intact heads sell for premium prices. Jones supports this horrific evil.

Rather that believing Alabama voters knowingly chose a man who supports murdering babies and trafficking their body parts, I tend to believe fake news media successfully hid Jones’ hostility towards unborn innocent human life. Leftists celebrate Jones’ mindset because Leftists deem killing babies environmentally responsible; necessary to save the planet from too many humans. Step on a spotted frog and Leftists are outraged at you!

Like nothing we’ve seen before, Leftists saturated the airwaves, social media, and fake news media with 24/7 attacks on Moore, his wife and anyone supportive of him.

I want to thank Judge Moore for hanging in there when everyone and their brother on both sides of the political aisle demanded that he get out of the race. Moore said the allegations were untrue and he was not running away. I loved it; a real man with a steel backbone.

I realize we lost an important Senate seat. But I am so sick of Republicans behaving like spineless wimps; allowing Leftists to dictate the rules of engagement; who we’re allowed to run, what is acceptable speech, what is racist, what is presidential and so on. When Leftists say, “Jump” the typical Republican response is, “How high?”

Folks, we throw our warriors under the bus far too quickly, reacting to Leftists’ and fake news media’s lies, distortions and smears. We have fallen for this Democrat and fake news media tag-team tactic far too many times.

We pray for courageous conservative Republican warriors who will fight on our behalf in Washington DC. When God sends us a hero, establishment elites, Democrats, Hollywood and fake news media join together in a 24/7 campaign to brand our hero a kook, racist, sexist, mean-spirited, stupid, and insane. Suddenly, folks on our side begin backing away, embarrassed to be associated with our brave conservative warrior. Folks, I have seen this happen with Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Judge Moore and others.

Meanwhile, Democrats run candidates who are the scum of the earth; liars, con-artists, sexual predators, and thieves. Leftists media promote Democrat scoundrel candidates as our superiors with compassion for the little guy. We Conservative/Republicans abandon our candidates every time Leftists point out our candidate’s inability to walk on water.

It is amazing how effective leftist media’s 24/7 relentless negative branding can be. Sarah Palin did an awesome job as governor of Alaska. When she became the Republican VP nominee, suddenly the woman is a complete idiot, according to Leftists and fake news media. The American Left viciously and relentlessly politically spun, twisted, and distorted every word out of Palin’s mouth to brand her stupid and crazy.

Wimpish Conservatives/Republicans began saying we must get rid of Palin because the media made her toxic. I was outraged. Is this how we treat our friends, our heroes, our warriors? I thought, “News flash, anyone we send to DC who is committed to fighting for our principles, values and best interest will be branded a wacko airhead by fake news media.” This is the tactic the American Left is using to get rid of Trump; branding him mean, dumb, and unstable.

I have no problem with Trump being Trump; tweeting and so on. Leftist media will negatively spin whatever Trumps says. Therefore, I love Trump sticking it to them, not allowing Leftists to control him. I hate the Republican’s typical fearful kowtowing to Leftists’ narratives and dictates. 

Trump has made incredible headway in an extraordinary short time; unshackling us from the chains of political correctness and rolling back Obama’s punish-America agenda. God knew as an outsider Trump would be undeterred by fake news media’s dictates regarding acceptable Republican behavior. Trump’s fearlessness terrifies and enrages fake news media and their fellow Leftists. They are obsessed with getting Trump out of the White House.

After a week of intensely campaigning for Judge Moore, his loss was unexpected. But this was just one battle. All I know to do is trust God and continue faithfully fighting the good fight for my country; backing real-deal courageous conservative candidates; our warrior heroes.

My wife Mary and I will fly home and enjoy Christmas with our family.

Come next year, we’ll be back on the road fighting to keep Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer out of power. Please stand firm in your support for our president.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Help Lloyd spread the Truth

http://LloydMarcus.com



Source link

An Early Hanukkah Present


President Trump gave supporters of Israel an early Hanukkah present when he recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital on December 6th. This is very much overdue and recognizes the obvious reality. Moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem shows that at least America realizes that the nation of Israel should be allowed to determine its own capital.

Presidents’ Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump all made the campaign promise to move the embassy and the current president was the only one of the four to make this significant move. Unlike the previous three presidents of both parties who only paid lip service, Trump honored his campaign commitment.

Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former deputy national security adviser to President George W. Bush. He told American Thinker, “The Palestinian Liberation Organization’s executive committee and former negotiator Saeb Erekat were quoted this week protesting that an American president cannot decide Israel’s capital. Quite right, but neither could the PLO or the United Nations. Only Israel can, and it has. In peace negotiations, West Jerusalem is not in dispute anyway. It is where the Knesset, Supreme Court, president’s and prime minister’s offices are, and where they have always been. So I give the President high marks.”

Unfortunately, the current rhetoric concerning President Donald Trump’s decision can best be described as anti-Semitic. Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdoğan called the United States a “partner in bloodshed.” In Malmo, Sweden Muslim demonstrators chanted “death to the Jews,” and “shoot the Jews.”

Andrew McCarthy answered those who said all President Trump has done is spur anti-Semitism, “If you treat terrorists like they’re normal, they make terrorism a norm. If you reward their savagery with concessions, they go savage to get concessions. And if you treat Israel like it’s not a real country with real sovereign rights, Islamists conclude that they can attack Israel with abandon, on every platform from Gaza to Turtle Bay, until Israel is no more.”

Abrams goes even further, telling American Thinker, “The growth of Muslim anti-Semitism in Europe is a great problem. It has been happening for years. Some questions that need to be considered, ‘given the fact that there is such Muslim anti-Semitism in Europe how much do we want that to control American Foreign policy? How far does that argument go? How much do you give rioters, demonstrators, and anti-Semites a veto over American foreign policy?’”

If Nancy Pelosi had her way the embassy would not be moved, and those critics would have a voice. She states, “Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish homeland. But in the absence of a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem now may needlessly spark mass protests, fuel tensions, and make it more difficult to reach a durable peace.” Someone should remind her that she is ignoring the fact she supported the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act. It had passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House and reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate that urged the Federal government to relocate the American embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing the city as Israel’s capital.

Maybe Pelosi should consider that under the eight years of President Obama, the Palestinians refused to negotiate. Basically, there was no peace process. So what has really changed? The Palestinians over the years have said “from the river to the sea,” fired off crude missiles, encouraged suicide bombers, paid off families if someone kills an Israeli, and still refuse to recognize Israel.

If anything, rejecting Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has delegitimized the Jewish state. Abrams believes, “The refusal to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has for all these years been part of the campaign to refuse the Jewish state the legitimacy every other state gets. It makes Israel uniquely disadvantaged among nations, the only country in the entire world not permitted to choose its capital, giving a sense of impermanence and reduced rights. This is precisely why Trump’s decision is right and is important. It sends a message: The Jewish people are there now and they will be there forever, and they are there by right and not by our sufferance.”

He also wants Americans to consider an additional response, “It is the reaction of leaders all around the world who will now take Trump’s promises more seriously. Everyone knew that he couldn’t possibly mean to move the American embassy to Jerusalem, that this was just another campaign promise, but it turns out he did mean it. So when next he makes a pledge or promise or threat, don’t you think Xi or Putin or Khamenei will think twice before dismissing it?”

“Next year in Jerusalem,” are words uttered at the conclusion of the Passover Seder. Wouldn’t it be nice if those words rang true regarding the U.S. Embassy? Let’s hope it will be built with speed and President Trump will not let those in the State Department delay progress.

The author writes for American Thinker. She has done book reviews, author interviews, and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.

President Trump gave supporters of Israel an early Hanukkah present when he recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital on December 6th. This is very much overdue and recognizes the obvious reality. Moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem shows that at least America realizes that the nation of Israel should be allowed to determine its own capital.

Presidents’ Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump all made the campaign promise to move the embassy and the current president was the only one of the four to make this significant move. Unlike the previous three presidents of both parties who only paid lip service, Trump honored his campaign commitment.

Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former deputy national security adviser to President George W. Bush. He told American Thinker, “The Palestinian Liberation Organization’s executive committee and former negotiator Saeb Erekat were quoted this week protesting that an American president cannot decide Israel’s capital. Quite right, but neither could the PLO or the United Nations. Only Israel can, and it has. In peace negotiations, West Jerusalem is not in dispute anyway. It is where the Knesset, Supreme Court, president’s and prime minister’s offices are, and where they have always been. So I give the President high marks.”

Unfortunately, the current rhetoric concerning President Donald Trump’s decision can best be described as anti-Semitic. Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdoğan called the United States a “partner in bloodshed.” In Malmo, Sweden Muslim demonstrators chanted “death to the Jews,” and “shoot the Jews.”

Andrew McCarthy answered those who said all President Trump has done is spur anti-Semitism, “If you treat terrorists like they’re normal, they make terrorism a norm. If you reward their savagery with concessions, they go savage to get concessions. And if you treat Israel like it’s not a real country with real sovereign rights, Islamists conclude that they can attack Israel with abandon, on every platform from Gaza to Turtle Bay, until Israel is no more.”

Abrams goes even further, telling American Thinker, “The growth of Muslim anti-Semitism in Europe is a great problem. It has been happening for years. Some questions that need to be considered, ‘given the fact that there is such Muslim anti-Semitism in Europe how much do we want that to control American Foreign policy? How far does that argument go? How much do you give rioters, demonstrators, and anti-Semites a veto over American foreign policy?’”

If Nancy Pelosi had her way the embassy would not be moved, and those critics would have a voice. She states, “Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish homeland. But in the absence of a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem now may needlessly spark mass protests, fuel tensions, and make it more difficult to reach a durable peace.” Someone should remind her that she is ignoring the fact she supported the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act. It had passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House and reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate that urged the Federal government to relocate the American embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing the city as Israel’s capital.

Maybe Pelosi should consider that under the eight years of President Obama, the Palestinians refused to negotiate. Basically, there was no peace process. So what has really changed? The Palestinians over the years have said “from the river to the sea,” fired off crude missiles, encouraged suicide bombers, paid off families if someone kills an Israeli, and still refuse to recognize Israel.

If anything, rejecting Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has delegitimized the Jewish state. Abrams believes, “The refusal to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has for all these years been part of the campaign to refuse the Jewish state the legitimacy every other state gets. It makes Israel uniquely disadvantaged among nations, the only country in the entire world not permitted to choose its capital, giving a sense of impermanence and reduced rights. This is precisely why Trump’s decision is right and is important. It sends a message: The Jewish people are there now and they will be there forever, and they are there by right and not by our sufferance.”

He also wants Americans to consider an additional response, “It is the reaction of leaders all around the world who will now take Trump’s promises more seriously. Everyone knew that he couldn’t possibly mean to move the American embassy to Jerusalem, that this was just another campaign promise, but it turns out he did mean it. So when next he makes a pledge or promise or threat, don’t you think Xi or Putin or Khamenei will think twice before dismissing it?”

“Next year in Jerusalem,” are words uttered at the conclusion of the Passover Seder. Wouldn’t it be nice if those words rang true regarding the U.S. Embassy? Let’s hope it will be built with speed and President Trump will not let those in the State Department delay progress.

The author writes for American Thinker. She has done book reviews, author interviews, and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.



Source link