Following this weekend’s horrific shooting in a California synagogue, here are how some of the leading Democratic candidates for President responded. There was a lot of condemnation of gun ownership, but barely a word condemning anti-Semitism.
For the record, President Trump responded that the shooting "looked like a hate crime" and later said at a rally in Wisconsin, “Our entire nation mourns the loss of life, prays for the wounded and stands in solidarity with the Jewish community. We forcefully condemn the evils of anti-Semitism and hate, which must be defeated."
Trump also praised an off-duty Border Patrol agent who happened to be armed and on the scene (a “good guy with a gun” is the common phrase) and who fired at the attacker as he was fleeing, possibly preventing further deaths.
Speaking of the left’s blindspot for anti-Semitism, many these days are on automatic pilot when it comes to branding anyone who disagrees with them as bigots. Even if you said nothing at all that was bigoted, they will pick out certain words and declare them to be “dog whistles”: words that carry some alleged ugly connotation that only bigots can hear.
Well, do you know how I would define a “dog whistle” that reveals you’re a bigot? When you run a cartoon that literally depicts the leader of Israel as a dog (a common trope in vile anti-Semitic circles), like the New York Times did last week.
Joining the esteemed ranks of such organizations as Hamas, ISIS, al-Qaeda and the KKK, the Times illustrated a story on US-Israel policy with an editorial cartoon depicting Benjamin Netanyahu as a dog with a Star of David on its collar, leading a blind President Trump, who is wearing a yarmulke for some reason known only to the twisted mind of the cartoonist (do leftists now accuse Trump of being both a Nazi and a Jew? It’s like when they accused George W. Bush of being either a bumbling idiot or an evil Machiavellian genius, depending on which slander was convenient at the time.)
The cartoon rightly raised a firestorm of response from a wide spectrum of readers, from Netanyahu’s son to Muslim peace advocate Imam Mohamad Tawhidi, who wrote that “militant Islamist texts refer to Jewish people as ‘the ancestors of pigs, monkeys and dogs.’” He accused the Times of furthering ISIS’ agenda by printing a cartoon that would be right at home on the wall of an ISIS terrorist.
The Times’ editors printed a statement reading in part, “The image was offensive, and it was an error in judgement to publish it. It was provided by the New York Times News Service and Syndicate, which has since deleted it.” Critics pointed out that missing from that statement were any words such as “sorry” or “we apologize.”
I’m not the kind of person who is quick to take offense where none is meant, and I think we have way too much of that in society already. But that doesn’t apply in this case. Considering that the New York Times’ editors consider it their job and talent to tell the rest of us what to think on a daily basis, it is unfathomable that they could not have seen how offensive that cartoon was. It wasn’t just an anti-Semitic “dog whistle,” it was more like a factory whistle.
But then, in recent days, the left has been turning a blind eye to a lot of anti-Semitism within its own ranks, making excuses and denials for it, and trying to accuse anyone who criticizes it of being bigoted against the sources. Well, if liberal media outlets and politicians don’t like being called out for blatant anti-Semitism in their ranks, then the solution is to condemn it wholeheartedly themselves, not to join in. Or have the denials become so ingrained that they can actually look at that vile cartoon and not even see the anti-Semitism? If that’s what’s wrong, then I prescribe a trip to the United States Holocaust Museum in Washington for a refresher course on right and wrong.
California State University-Long Beach is doing away with its longtime team mascot, Prospector Pete, to appease the protests of students who claim the image is offensive because “the 1849 California gold rush was a time in history when the indigenous peoples of California endured subjugation, violence and threats of genocide” so the mascot represents “colonization, white supremacy, racism and exclusion.”
Seems like an awful lot of guilt to heap onto the shoulders of a crusty old guy with a pie pan, leaning over a creek.
Even though Prospector Pete was chosen in 1949 simply to represent that students had “struck the gold of education” by coming there, officials caved and not only yanked the mascot but removed a statue of him. So I guess the real message is: “This is no longer the gold standard of education.”
Now we can add the old Gabby Hayes-like prospector to the long, long, and ever-lengthening list of things from American history that must be thrown down the black hole of history, never to be seen nor spoken of again; everyone from Thomas Jefferson to Robert E. Lee to Kate Smith to…well, name your favorite contemporary celebrity who accidentally slipped up and said something too reasonable.
A spokeswoman for the university said, “This is not about political correctness; it’s about correcting the historical record.” But is it really about “correcting” the historical record, or erasing it?
I can’t help wondering what these people really think they’re accomplishing by vanishing everything in history that’s even marginally related to something that’s not in line with their current, ever-changing standards. Do they think it changes history to pretend it didn’t happen? Are they seriously stupid enough to think that not looking at mistakes of the past will make them less likely to repeat them in the future? Do they think that whatever negatives they can dig up should obliterate everything positive? Do they believe that simply depicting or putting up a statue of something from the past means we wholeheartedly endorse everything about it? FDR did a lot of things Democrats think are great. He also limited the number of Jewish refugees from the Nazis that we would take in and put Japanese-Americans in internment camps; so let’s remove all monuments to him and scrub him from the history books.
For many years, the left complained that American history classes only glorified the accomplishments of white males. So textbook writers started adding the contributions of women and people of color, as they should, to give students a more comprehensive view. But apparently, that wasn’t enough. Instead of learning about every important figure of history (good, bad and in-between), those who displease leftists are first smeared, then banished to the corn field. Once again, students receive a biased, inaccurate and incomplete picture of American history, except now it’s an entirely negative picture.
For example, this new textbook that may be coming to your kids’ school in 2020...
And here’s some information on its author…
If your kids’ school wants to use it, you should react as if they were welcoming a measles carrier into the classroom.
This sort of thing doesn’t arise from wanting to give students a more complete view of American history. It comes from a desire to obliterate American history and convince students there is nothing redeeming in this nation’s heritage. Anyone who hears the slogan “Make America Great Again” and angrily responds that “America was never great” should not be in charge of teaching our kids about their nation’s history since they obviously know nothing about the subject.
If you’re not sick of this topic yet, this is a very good point-by-point summary of the Mueller report and how it blows out of the water like sitting ducks one anti-Trump media fantasy after another. It won’t come as any surprise to anyone who’s been reading my newsletter for the past two years, but the really astounding thing about it is that it’s from the far-left magazine, The Nation!
All those Democrats who are still “bitterly clinging” to the “Russian collusion” delusion (California Rep. Eric Swalwell still refuses to face reality, and he wants us to make him President! Talk about delusional!) should consider this yet another loud wake-up call. When even The Nation is telling them, “It was all phony! Face it!,” it’s time to move on.
And if The Nation’s cold bucket of reality doesn’t snap Congressional Democrats out of their “collusion/impeachment” fever dreams, maybe this will:
A new Washington Post poll found that among Americans, support for impeaching Trump has dropped to 37 percent. That’s still ridiculously high, considering there are no grounds (nope, sorry: I don’t care what the Mueller report said he told people he wanted to do but didn’t. Being ticked off over being falsely accused 24/7/365 of committing a treasonous act, but not doing anything about it that’s beyond your powers, is not a high crime or misdemeanor.)
I have a feeling that 37 percent are like the Democrats in Congress: they’ve been itching to impeach Trump since the second he won the election, and the grounds are immaterial. If they could catch him recording a game without the express permission of Major League Baseball or ripping the label off his mattress, they’d impeach him for that.
Problem for Congressional Democrats is that those people are surely already Democratic voters. For the good of the nation, I wish the Democrats would stop acting like spoiled children throwing a tantrum and work across the aisle to get things done for the good of America. But if they insist on focusing on anti-Trump impeachment dreams to guarantee themselves 37% of the vote in the 2020 election, I’m not going to waste my time trying to reason them out of it.
Not to toot my own horn, but I predicted that once “Beto” O’Rourke was no longer the great Democratic hope to vanquish Ted Cruz and the liberals who had been showering him with money finally took a hard look at him, their support would curdle pretty quickly. Looks as if he’s already approaching his sell-by date.