My commentary on the chaotic response in Congress to Rep. Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism (“Congress symptomatic of anti-Semitism on the left”) has sparked some outstanding reader responses. Here’s one example, from Kathleen:
“There are several petitions circulating to remove Ilhan Omar from the committee where she would carry out her anti-Semitic, anti-Israel prejudices and then to be "relieved" of her Congressional seat. I encourage others to find these and sign them. Israel has been a stable democracy in the unstable Middle East, surrounded by hateful enemies calling repeatedly to wipe her off the face of the map. Omar has revealed her heart by her words and shows us clearly she is a danger to the US, to the Jewish people, to the values we hold dear and US international relationships. Shame on the Democrats for protecting and excusing her!! They expose just how incapable they are of doing the right thing.”
Kathleen’s letter sends the message: THIS IS NOT OVER. We have to speak up loudly, and signing petitions is one way to make ourselves heard. She’ll have to be removed from her congressional seat through the ballot box, but Rep. Omar has no business being on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where she is already working overtime to turn it into an American version of the U.N. Security Council. (Incidentally, I’m curious to know how she managed to swing that important committee assignment, when we just saw Nancy Pelosi lamely excuse her comments by saying she’s so new she doesn’t even know how to speak like a member of Congress.)
If we don’t create an uproar over this, it’ll just keep happening. Rep. Omar will undoubtedly offer more anti-Semitic “tropes” (that’s the Word Of The Week). How do I know this? Because SHE’S ANTI-SEMITIC and doesn’t care who knows. She can’t help herself and has only been emboldened by the failure of Congress to discipline her. So sign the petitions, write your representative, speak up loudly, or this shameful trend will continue and grow, just as it has in Europe.
I also enjoyed this letter, from Dolores:
So the House is going to come out against hate. Wonderful! They will, of course, include Catholics in this protected group. And Christian bakers. And pro-life activists. And conservatives. And.... aw heck. Let’s include all Americans! How about that idea, legislative lemmings?
Thanks, Dolores! Intentionally lost in the laughable resolution passed in Congress is any specific mention of Rep. Omar or even the anti-Semitism that started this whole thing. Most Democrats in Congress either agree with Omar or are scared to death to condemn her point of view. So they buried the original issue and promoted identity politics by bringing in each and every one of the usual “oppressed” groups. As long as they were going to do this ridiculous thing, they might have thought to include embattled Christians, conservatives and MAGA hat-wearers, who don’t dare venture onto most college campuses without protective facewear and a security detail. But, gosh, those victims of "hatred" were left out.
Virtually all of the platoon of announced Democratic Presidential candidates have endorsed "Medicare for All." When asked how we could possibly pay for that when the government is already $22 trillion in debt, they wave the question away like a pesky fly. "You just pay for it," they might say with the confidence of magical thinking. Then they say that it's shameful that Americans aren't provided with free health care as a right when so many other countries do it.
At the link is today's must-read by former USA Today writer John Merline, who covered health care reform for over three decades. He takes a look at the real, staggering costs, the imaginary "savings" and the unintended negative consequences (including the inevitable doctor shortages and hospital closings) that are the reasons why no industrialized nation has ever provided full health coverage for all.
Wait...NO nation? Nope. Not the left's favorite example of government health care, Canada, where 15% of health care costs are paid out of pocket and 2/3rds of Canadians have private policies to cover vision, dental, prescription drugs and long term care that the government doesn't cover. Also not China, where even communism doesn't keep citizens from having to pay 32% of their health care costs out of pocket. And certainly not in those Scandinavian nations that are often cited as examples of successful "Democratic" socialism, even though they are not socialist.
Merline has compiled a stunning list of facts and figures that show "Medicare for All" is so unrealistic, it's "like running on a platform of flying pigs." Is so, at least it will fit right in with the rest of the current Democratic platform.
Just about the only thing he left out is the states that tried single payer health care, only to quickly backtrack like scalded cats as it started plunging into debt before it even got off the ground. One of them was Vermont, which, coincidentally, gave us Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Ever get the feeling they sent him to Washington just to get him out of Vermont?
Pop Quiz: Which of these two cable outlets is a legitimate news channel and which is a politically-biased "faux" news channel? Hint: The answer is not what CNN would assume.
Well, it’s official: after more than two years of leading Democrats hysterically accusing Donald Trump of “normalizing bigotry,” the Democratic House just voted to normalize bigotry.
Of course, that’s not what they’ll say. They will claim that the anti-hate resolution passed overwhelmingly in the House Thursday shows that Democrats have taken a strong stand against bigotry. Sadly, anyone who bothers to look at how this particular piece of rancid sausage was made will be forced to admit it’s the exact opposite.
The original resolution was in response to shocking anti-Semitic remarks from their own party members, specifically freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar. But Speaker Pelosi, under pressure from both sides of her warring party, turned the resolution over to the very committee Omar sits on. Pelosi and other party leaders are now so cowed by the rising radical leftist branch of their party, so beholden to toxic identity politics and so terrified of being branded politically incorrect that by the time the final draft emerged, it not only didn’t even mention Omar, but anti-Semitism had been lost in a laundry list of generally negative concepts.
Sure, it passed overwhelmingly. Who would want to vote against a bill that took the brave stand that “We hate hate”? Well, other than a few Republicans who voted “nay” in protest, which as Ben Shapiro noted, ironically got them branded as “anti-Semitic” by Democrats too cowardly to condemn the actual anti-Semites in their own party who inspired this watered-down resolution in the first place.
How meaningless is this bill in opposing anti-Semitism? The vote was cheered by both former KKK grand wizard David Duke and Nation of Islam leader, the Rev. Louis Farrakhan. Talk about politics creating strange bedfellows.
Also, Islamists hailed it as a bill condemning Islamophobia. Does that show how far off the original purpose it wandered?
At this link, John Podhoretz recounts some of the outrageous comments leading to this powderpuff of a response, offers some sobering thoughts on how appalling it is that Democrats caved to blatant anti-Semitism in their own ranks, and questions if this marks a major turning point in political history.
The new anti-Semites within the Democratic Party are celebrating, and for the same reason those who push socialism, open borders and infanticide are celebrating: every little victory inches the party a little further to the left, allows them to get away with just a little more, and they hope, softens up Americans for accepting a little bit more of what should be condemned as absolutely unacceptable.
Democratic Party leaders may be making a deal with the devil, assuming that they can afford to risk alienating their Jewish base if it means getting more votes from young leftists and Muslims. The NewNeo blog has some interesting thoughts about the direction of the Party, and whether its leaders are willing to gamble that the Jewish vote is small enough and concentrated enough in deep blue areas that it’s safe to cut them loose, or that big Jewish donors care more about secular leftism than Judaism.
The cold truth is that soft-pedaling anti-Semitism and even pondering questions like “Are the Jews expendable?” is a road that the world went down in the last century, and we vowed that it would never happen again. Now, generations who haven’t been taught real history are going down that same road. And they’re doing it while calling anyone who disagrees with their trendy socialist views a “Nazi.” Well, here’s a desperately-needed history lesson for them: the actual Nazis were the National Socialist Party of Germany. They also found scapegoating the Jews to be a convenient first step in their pathway to power.
Whenever Prof. Thomas Sowell speaks, it’s wise to listen, and he has a sobering warning for Americans. He’s worried that the US might not be able to survive the rise in popularity of socialism among young people. He notes that in his youth, he was a Marxist, but he has also always been an empiricist (someone who believes that knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses – in other words, beliefs should be based on evidence.) Anyone who looks at the evidence can't remain a Marxist for long.
Unfortunately, universities these days not only don’t teach young people the true, tragic history of communism/socialism (instead, professors promote it while denouncing capitalism), they also don’t teach them to think rationally. They promote the idea that emotions and feelings are paramount, and that logic is outmoded and oppressive. It’s created a generation that’s ripe for falling for the same traps that socialists have led people into for decades.
The universities didn’t do their jobs, but maybe it’s not too late to try to warn young people of the traps they’re walking into by using lessons that they were taught before they got to college. If you have someone in your family who came back from the university wearing an AOC button on his/her/xir Che T-shirt, try sitting them down and telling them this:
Do you remember how you learned by the time you were three never to swallow free candy offered by a stranger on the playground who promises more if you get in his van? Why? Because the free candy was to lure you into letting the pervert get the sick thrills he craves by victimizing you.
Then do you remember how you learned by the time you were ten never to swallow free pills offered by someone outside the school who promises more if you like those? Why? Because the free drugs were to get you hooked so the dope peddler could get the money he craves by victimizing you.
What they failed to teach you before you went to the university is never to swallow promises of free stuff from socialists who say you’ll get more if you just vote for them. Why? Because the free stuff is to get you hooked so you’ll climb onto their bandwagon, and they can get the power they crave by victimizing you.
Just like the pervert and the drug pusher, they advance their self-enriching, society-destroying cause by luring in naïve youth.
Whether it’s free candy, free drugs or all the free stuff promised by socialists, nobody in history who’s fallen for it has ever come out well in the end.
Thursday, Judge T.S. Ellis shocked liberal lawyers and pundits by sentencing former Trump campaign aide Paul Manafort to just 47 months in jail on tax and bank fraud charges. Special counsel Robert Mueller had pressed for a sentence of up to 24 years, which Ellis called “excessive.” Throughout the trial, Ellis seemed skeptical of Mueller’s team, which has come in for criticism for its heavy-handed approach to leveling multiple felony charges for infractions that have nothing to do with the “Russian collusion” they were appointed to investigate. He also voiced suspicions that Mueller was using excessive charges to force Manafort to “sing.”
The judge said Manafort had lived an “otherwise blameless life,” which was admittedly rich, considering some of the shady lobbying and consulting dealings he’s had in the past. On the other hand, if the same legal and moral standards were applied across the Washington lobbyist and political set, we’d have to build a new prison on the Potomac to hold all the lifers. Not that I would be averse to that.
For liberals whining that Manafort got off too easy, he’ll face sentencing soon on other charges from a judge who will likely be far tougher on him. And if they really think that political figures should be held to the harshest standards of the law and not let off too easy, then would you like to talk about Hillary Clinton again? No? Didn’t think so.