Trump Is Not Anti-Semitic

There were conflicting articles this week in the New York Times pertaining to the relationship of Donald Trump and Jews.

Paul Krugman, op-ed columnist for the Times, dredged up a distasteful, public comment made by Trump in his piece on Tuesday. Krugman believes it substantiates that the president is anti-Semitic. Specifically, in a speech to the Israeli American Counsel, Trump said, “that many in his audience were not nice people at all, but that [they] have to vote for him because Democrats would raise taxes.”

Krugman indicated that the president was “peddling an anti-Semitic stereotype, portraying Jews as money-grubbing types who only care about their wealth.” Actually, the observation that some Americans (including Jews) will vote for Trump because he is committed to decreasing taxes is factual. The money-grubbing reference is typical Krugam left wing rhetoric.

It’s undeniable that the president frequently makes stupid, inane and untrue statements, especially on social media. He’s not a role model for aspiring statesmen; that’s for sure. But he appears to be very sympathetic to the plight of Jews as they continue their never-ending fight against bigotry.

In fact, the Times reported on Thursday that Trump plans to issue an executive order that addresses anti-Semitism on college campuses. Federal money will be withheld from educational institutions that “fail to combat discrimination.”

Judaism will be defined as a race or nationality, not just a religion, so that colleges and universities will be sanctioned if they don’t meet their responsibility “to foster an open climate for minority students [such as Jews]”

Opponents of this policy say it could be used to “stifle free speech and legitimate protest of Israel’s policies toward Palestinians in the name of fighting anti-Semitism.” Of course, this is an overstatement by those unhappy with Israel’s righteous obsession with security.

This action by Trump hardly portrays a person who is biased against Jews. And, Trump has taken other actions that further solidify his efforts to protect Jews and the Israeli state. He moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, supported settlements in the West Bank and recognized seizure of the Golan Heights. Trump even attacked Rep. Ilhan Omar when she said support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins,” a reference to money.

Anti-Semitism continues to flourish around the world and in the US. America must stand behind Israel as we have done since the birth of the Jewish nation after World War II. To justify our efforts overseas for the benefit of Israel, we must ensure that bigotry directed at Jews in the US is an illegal act.

Democrat Candidates Are The Pits

Some members of the left are beside themselves because Kamala Harris has given up her dream to becoming the first black female to win the presidency, for now. Just like Clinton, she and her crybaby followers are screaming misogyny and racism. Everyone is to blame except the candidate herself for her terrible performance.

Who are Harris and her minions pointing their fingers at? The electorate, Democrat leaders and, believe it or not, the “liberal media” are a few of the targets.

The electorate is culpable because it doesn’t want a female, black president. Really? I would remind the reader that half the people who vote, or more, are women. Most people believe liberals would die to have a black woman in the White House, as president. In fact several black, female celebrities have been mentioned during the past year or so. Of note are Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama. But neither was amenable to compete, thank heavens.

Democrat leaders supposedly didn’t give Harris the support she needed. With 20+ individuals vying for the nomination, the Democrat higher-ups decided to see who distinguished themselves before backing anyone. This makes perfect sense. And what did Harris fail to do during her campaign? She was inept at justifying her actions as a fierce prosecutor of drug dealers and users, and she attacked Joe Biden for his perspectives and actions 20, 30 and 40 years ago. The irony is that blacks are very fond of Biden, more so than for Harris and Booker.

Harris supporters say the press has been unfair to the candidate. The only thing the press is guilty of is reporting the facts about Harris lousy campaign, and inability to get campaign funding to stay in the race.

Compared to the incredible venomous treatment Trump has received from the press, Harris’ was tame. No president has been assaulted to the extent that Trump has been. It appears that future presidents will have to be prepared to be sliced and diced by the media on a daily basis. Kamala is not. Social media will make politician’s lives intolerable in the future.

From the Democratic perspective there is little bias in politics against people of color or women. Obama proved that blacks can endear themselves to expansive swathes of the electorate. Hillary Clinton proved that women are acceptable candidates when she received the majority of votes in 2016. And Nikki Haley will soon prove that a woman can become president in 2024.

A round robin of Democratic candidates reveals the following. Mayor Pete is the apparent winner in Iowa. He has no support from blacks, so his performance should slide off greatly in South Carolina.

Biden is still running on Obama’s “non-accomplishments,” but without Barrack’s endorsement. Biden’s staff is sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for his next gaffe. Joe has a tendency of saying stupid and untoward things. And he still needs to tell America about his son’s (and his) exploits in Ukraine. He will likely kill it in South Carolina given the size of the black vote.

Warren is freaking out Americans who have any idea about what it takes to effectively manage our economy. Her proposed giveaways are dangerous and have no chance of enactment.

Sanders is old and too fragile to continue much longer. Young people love his anti-establishment credentials, but will they even show up at the polls?

And who knows whether Bloomberg will be able to buy the nomination in this day and age?

The rest of the field is moot.

Take away: Trump wins the election easily.

Why The Heck Is Bloomberg Running For President?

What is Michael Bloomberg trying to accomplish? Why did he decide to jump into the 2020 Democratic Primary so late in the game? Can he compete even if he’s not participating in the first few state contests?

The most obvious issue inspiring Bloomberg has to be the lack of quality of the current field of Democrats. He must not believe Sanders, Warren or Biden, much less Buttigieg and Harris, have a chance in hell to beat Donald Trump.

Democrats are not finding traction for a few reasons. For one, they pivoted hard left. Most are trying to convince the electorate that they are more left wing than the others. This is expected in primaries (where most hard liners fare better than middle of the road candidates). But efforts to be more populist are turning off quite a few moderate Democrats and independents. Moreover, conservatives are really spooked, and mobilized, by the socialistic proposals by the Democrat side of the aisle.

Proposals like one payer medical insurance, free tuition, forgiving college debt and a plethora of other giveaway entitlements will hurt the country financially. The voters are beginning to recognize this reality with each passing day.

Bloomberg would be a true moderate option to the existing slate of presidential contenders.

Democrats are running for president by impeaching Trump, not by offering new initiatives. Proposed policies are being overshadowed by bogus hearings that will not lead to Trump’s demise. Voters are asking why Congress, in particular Democrats, are wasting so much time, energy and resources trying to conjure up reasons to unseat a sitting president, rather than taking care of the nation’s business.

So, it’s no wonder that Bloomberg has been motivated. But does he have a chance to defeat members of the Democratic establishment? And, is Bloomberg recognizable across the country in the states between New York and California?

The main reasons why Bloomberg will not win the Democratic nomination are, he’s a male, he’s super rich and he’s old. Democrats are hell bent on finding a truly politically correct candidate who is a female, someone who seemingly can relate to the middle class and someone who doesn’t fly around in his or her own private jet. Bloomberg doesn’t fair well in any of these categories.

Another issue for Bloomberg is that he did things when he was mayor of New York City that really pissed off various special interest groups. At the top, was his stop and frisk policy that courts judged to be unfair to blacks. Bloomberg has defended his stop and frisk policy vigorously up until recently, when he decided to seek the Democratic nomination.

Bloomberg has been a great supporter of grand causes including climate change. He has thrown millions of dollars into a number of efforts to improve schools and the welfare of children, encourage gun safety and increase healthcare benefits to the poor. He is an extraordinarily generous and caring person. But will the electorate respond to his good intentions, and gargantuan ambition.

Why Bloomberg, who is 77, would want to be president is a mystery. If he wants to save the world from Trump, I suppose his candidacy makes some sense. However he will dilute the efforts of the liberals opposing him whether he wins or loses (consider Ross Perot and George H.W. Bush).

But if he wants to just save the world, Bloomberg could continue to support his many causes. He really doesn’t need the bully pulpit to get great things done. In fact he would have more freedom to support audacious projects by not being an elected official.

Considering everything, Michael Bloomberg is far superior to any person contending for the presidency. The only problem is he’s not well known, and so the odds of him winning the primary are slim.

 

Indiana U. Protects Free Speech On Campus

Indiana University has taken a courageous stance to protect freedom of speech on its campus.

The IU provost, Lauren Robel, indicated that “[an Indiana professor’s] views were racist, sexist and homophobic . . . They were ‘vile and stupid’ . . . [They] were consistent with someone who lived in the 18th Century . . .’”

Robel then said, “The First Amendment prohibited the university from firing the professor, Eric Rasmusen, for expressing his views.”

What a reversal from Berkeley, which cratered when a right leaning commentator was not allowed to speak, and students violently protested his presence on campus.

And more recently The Daily Northwestern, the school newspaper at Northwestern University, apologized for covering a speech made by Jeff Sessions, the former Attorney General in the Trump administration. After a highly charged condemnation by activists, the paper promised not to report, take photos or ask students to comment on any events that might offend any students or specific groups at the institution.

Thank you Indiana for stepping up to protect free speech, even if the purveyors of some perspectives are abhorrent. And thank you for recognizing that censorship subverts the right of every American to speak his or her mind.

Left wing professors and activists overrun colleges these days. It’s disappointing that some teachers poison their lesson plans by only presenting one side of the most controversial issues. True scholars encourage civil discussion and debate of opposing sides of the most important issues facing America.

College students will find that after graduation they will encounter many people who have different opinions than they do. Society away from universities is much more diverse.

The ability of Americans to freely speak their minds is our nation’s greatest freedom and is the basis of most other freedoms we enjoy in this country.

Democratic Monkey Business

The impeachment stage is thankfully coming to an end. Articles should be delivered to the House of Representatives soon, and Democrats, with their majority will impeach Donald Trump. The Senate will then convene and acquit making the whole process a colossal waste of time.

There are a number of important takeaways that can be drawn from this horrid experience, none of which are positive things for our country or the people we elected to represent us.

The process to impeach the president has completely disregarded the rule of law. It is defined as “a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated.”

The law has not been fairly applied by Democrats during the impeachment of Trump. They kept the whistleblower’s identity a secret for reasons unknown. How can the person who initiated this process not be questioned? Customarily the accused have the ability to face their accusers.

Defendants are supposed to be able to call witnesses. This was not permitted in the House proceedings. And hearsay is typically not admissible. Democrats have not presented one witness who saw or heard with his or her own eyes or ears the commission of an impeachable offense.

There have been multiple accusations against Adam Schiff, the Chairman of the impeachment brigade. Republicans objected to the aforementioned rule of law violations and the way the congressman has scornfully led the process.

In the future any majority in the House will not hesitate to impeach a future president based upon current events. The problem with impeachment is that it costs millions of dollars of taxpayer money and completely paralyzes Congress. Our lawmakers cannot effectively conduct the business of the country while attempting to destroy a presidency.

But most important thing about impeachment is the animosity it engenders. Republicans and Democrats in a two-party democracy must serve as a check and balance against corruption, obstruction and misuse of taxpayer money by the other party. But the venom existing between the parties will likely change the way that lawmakers negotiate with each other in Congress in a bad way.

Democrats moved forward with impeachment despite the fact that another presidential election is right around the corner. Sixty-something million Americans voted for Trump, and he collected 304 electoral votes in 2016. Why wouldn’t Democrats defer to the electorate, rather than defying the will of the voters with such laughable evidence?

The answer is obvious. Democrats do not have a candidate that moves the country. The only way for Dems to beat Trump is to remove him legislatively from office before the 2020 election. Moreover, Dems think that rapid-fire accusations- Trump is a traitor, he colluded with Russia to win in 2016, he obstructed justice, he bribed Ukraine into helping him in 2020 and so on- will denigrate Trump and enable a liberal to win next November.

Things in Washington have never been worse. Yet, the country is chugging along nicely economically, and most Americans are benefiting by high employment, higher wages, low energy prices, etc. There are major foreign affairs issues that threaten our peace and prosperity, but Trump seems to be doing quite well dealing with them.

It’s amazing that conservative and liberal perspectives about the impeachment are so different. Frankly, I think Democrats have struck out during the proceedings. They are not going to be able to throw Trump out of office with hearsay. They have already struck out twice before trying to prove collusion and obstruction.

I hope that voters punish Democrat lawmakers for damaging our country in 2020.

And, of course, there is Trump, the man that Obama installed into the Oval office. He’s a menace, but he’s going to be leading the country for another five years. So, everybody, get over it.

Democrats’ Dream Of Impeachment Fades

The presidential impeachment circus continues. For hours, liberal lawmakers slogged through a myriad of meetings, phone calls and gossip trying to dredge up a crime by Trump that would justify removing him from office.

Viewers of the proceedings are reported to be fewer and fewer each day. Everyone is waiting for a breakthrough revelation, but none have materialized. Odds are that 80% of Americans still don’t know the capital of Ukraine (Kiev), 90% don’t know where the country is located (eastern Europe on the Black Sea) and 99.99% don’t know the president’s name (Zelensky).

Basically, every witness called has been a State Department bureaucrat affiliated to Ukraine. All of those called to testify are government hacks (with fancy titles- mostly “ambassador”), whose purpose is to legitimize Ukraine, assist it in becoming a loyal and non-corrupt member of NATO and the European Union and arming it so it can serve as a buffer between Europe and Russia. The latter, led by Vladimir Putin, yearns to of reassemble the Soviet Union by reclaiming all of the original Soviet States. Recapturing Ukraine would be a first step in the process.

When this witch-hunt began, many expected the individuals appearing before the House Intelligence Committee to be avid Trump-haters, plain and simple, and their objective would coincide with Democrat’s- to impeach Trump. The fact is that each bureaucrat, to date, is a rabid Ukrainian supporter determined to convince the president and Congress that Ukraine can evolve into a productive member of the community of nations. Surprisingly most of the witnesses are apolitical, and only interested in the well being of Ukraine. Most of them have worked under both Republican and Democrat presidents.

Not one of the witnesses on Tuesday incriminated Trump for pressuring Zelensky to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, or said Trump bribed, extorted or intimidated the Ukraine president. The harshest criticism was directed at Rudy Giuliani. He’s not a government official. But he’s acting on behalf of President Trump regarding Ukraine. Time and again the State Department officials indicated that they resented Giuliani’s intrusion onto their turf, and his actions have been detrimental to US policy regarding Ukraine.

Tuesday could be the worse day so far for Schiff and his misinformed minions. Nobody cares about the impeachment because it’s a charade, and the Senate will acquit.

Is it possible that not one single person will actually testify that he or she, first hand, witnessed Trump committing an impeachable crime? It appears so.

Pathetic Witnesses: Impeachment Doomed

The US is on the verge of a great miscarriage of justice. Referencing second, third and fourth hand evidence, the House of Representatives is preparing to impeach the president of our country.

It’s difficult to be moved by the accounts of testimony given by two State Department hacks. Both tried to make Americans believe that they were at the epicenter of American policy relating to Ukraine. And their gossip mongering was factual and reliable.

The truth is that neither of these men ever spoke with the president, his chief of staff or any significant decision makers. They merely heard and reported dirt and opinions of others from around the water cooler. As many critics have already said, their testimony would be banished from any legitimate court of law, if, in fact, the Democratic investigation were not a kangaroo court.

Despite their fancy titles, long-term careers in public service and fashionable bow ties, neither Taylor nor Kent participated in creating policy (they admitted it). Their job is to execute policies that begins with the president.

Several times Taylor said he wasn’t testifying to take sides in the impeachment of Trump. Really? Rather he was reporting what he heard. More than once Taylor opined about what Trump was trying to do during conversations he was not a party to. Unless Taylor and Kent are psychics, neither could have possibly known whether Trump was rooting out corruption in Ukraine, or looking for dirt on a political opponent.

And what status do Taylor and Kent have to officially criticize their president? None. In fact their opinions about Trump’s Ukraine policies never reached the Oval Office.

Both men were so tickled and thrilled that they were getting attention, and members of Congress acted like they cared about what they do. Their jobs are to accumulate information from superiors and try to keep Ukraine officials on track. And, in an attempt to get Ukraine to be a little less corrupt, Taylor was able to dangle javelin tank missiles in the faces of Ukraine leaders. Taylor and Kent are nothing more than political yentas.

If this is the best Democrats can do to convince the Senate to convict Trump, I can’t wait to see what happens next. Americans should be ashamed of Schiff and Pelosi for trying to destroy a presidency with so little evidence. And by the way we already know Trump’s not a nice guy. But this is not an impeachable offense.

Just a few words about Ambassador Marie Yanovitch. The big question is what did her appearance before the Intelligence Committee have to do with Trump’s impeachment?

Yanovitch was fired by Trump prior to the phone calls and alleged actions that are being showcased by House Democrats. If the Dems wanted to question a sympathetic character, they were successful.

Please remember that ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. He doesn’t have to provide any reasons why he dismissed Yanovitch. If she was unhappy with her fate at Trump’s hands, she should have quit and wrote a book like so many others. She could have told the world that Trump is a lousy boss.

Yet Another Attack On Freedom Of Speech

The Daily Northwestern, the student newspaper of Northwestern University, apologized to students for reporting on a speech made by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to a group of student Republicans. This act of contrition by the university media represents yet another direct assault on freedom of speech. It’s becoming more and more prevalent that opposing opinions to liberal perspectives are not tolerated on college campuses, places where freedom of speech has flourished historically.

Liberal activists were also unhappy with the manner in which The Daily covered the event. In fact they were apoplectic about Sessions expressing his opinions on campus at all, as his perspectives are not aligned with the protesters’ ideology. Many students were upset that they were contacted by The Daily reporters asking for comments on Session’s presentation after the fact, and that student photographers took pictures of dissenting students (a supposed invasion of their privacy).

The student newspaper has pronounced that it will no longer report on any events, or take photos of students if they, in some way, traumatize or threaten said students or specific groups at the school. In other words The Daily will only report on events and issues that are consistent with liberal, and radical, dogma. The students are to be protected from the opposition to these political and moral perspectives.

This affair is reminiscent of a recent student revolt that occurred at Berkeley just a short time ago. Activists reacted to a proposed speech by a conservative commentator. Property was destroyed and violence was encouraged to emphasize liberal ideology. This activity, protesting and repressing all opposing opinions, is becoming more commonplace every day. It seems as if liberals believe free speech should only be protected for left wing interests.

Four year college students live a charmed life in an ivory tower. It should be a time to experiment with new ideas and test the validity of all perspectives pertaining to the most controversial issues of the day. Why are colleges, professors, activists, and left-wing radicals demanding censorship of ideas? Why is free speech being denied to anyone on campus? Why would students resort to violence to inhibit the most basic right of an American? You would think that schools of higher learning would want to present all sides of important issues. But liberal activists don’t see it that way.

Northwestern is the home of the prestigious Medill School of Journalism. Why would professors in this department condone the censorship of anything? Are they really concerned about student feelings if a Fox commentator makes a speech about the virtues of Trump’s policies? What’s going to happen when students graduate and read about the horrors occurring in the world every day in the most prestigious newspapers? Will graduating students weep in response to genocide, terrorism, wars and the like?

Students should be taught to recognize that when the most hideous among us are silenced, the right of free speech is diminished for all Americans. You can’t have it both ways. Neither liberals nor conservatives own free speech. Students are cheating themselves by not listening to the other side of every difficult issue. You will never be an effective advocate if you don’t appreciate what the opposition is thinking about.

Nikki Haley Begins Her Quest To Be President In 2024

Nikki Haley has begun to position herself as the successor to President Donald Trump. She is portraying herself as a loyal Trump devotee by not challenging him in the 2020 Republican primaries, denigrating the impeachment fiasco orchestrated by rabid, radical and misled Democrat lawmakers and outing disloyal former members of the Trump administration.

Clearly Haley has her eye on 2024. With a resume that includes the governorship of South Carolina and US Ambassador to the United Nations, she looks like a top contender for the Republican nomination for president in a few years.

In an interview with Norah O’Donnell of CBS News, Haley indicated that she did not believe Trump pressured the Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden for corruption. And the president ultimately delivered weapons to Ukraine that had been appropriated by Congress. Since there was no inquiry of the Biden family and the weapons were given to the Ukraine, there was no “quid pro quo.”

Additionally Haley had very strong words for the clandestine actions of John Kelly, the former White House Chief of Staff and Rex Tillerson, the former Secretary of State. These men, Haley said, tried to enlist her support to avoid compliance with direct orders of the president, an act that borders on treason. Haley told these men to voice their concerns with President Trump and resign if his response was not in line with their perspectives.

It’s refreshing to see that loyalty and respect for the presidency is not totally passé in Washington, and some people believe it’s honorable to support Trump while he is still our president.

All the aforementioned issues are documented in Haley’s new book titled “With All Due Respect: Defending America With Grit and Grace.” The book along with many more personal appearances will definitely give Haley an edge over competition she may encounter in the next presidential election.

Am I The Only American Disgusted With Trump And House Democrats?

Millions of Americans are fed up with the current state of the federal government.

For three years Donald Trump has been trying to convince us that he is the greatest American president. His arguments are not convincing considering that about half of the country would like to see him impeached. At the same time Trump’s opponents have been trying unsuccessfully to dig up dirt on the president since his first day in office. Both parties have failed dismally to win over new supporters and most Americans are furious that Congress has been unable to do the people’s business.

Every time I read the New York Times or watch CNN, I want to pull the hair from my head. Can a president actually be as horrible as both of these news outlets portray Trump? But the big question is did the president commit high crimes and misdemeanors? We lived through the Mueller investigation for two years and it was a total bust. No evidence was uncovered to prove Trump colluded with Russia or obstructed justice.

At the same time Trump is lambasting the liberal press and do-nothing Democrats. “Fake news!” is the president’s mantra. In over 11,000 tweets since being elected, he makes fools out of those who criticize him and a fool out of himself. He repeatedly says House Democrats are incompetent, liars, and dangerous to our country.

To make matters worse, many Democrat presidential candidates are trying to convince the electorate that the US should morph into a socialistic state. In particular Sanders and Warren are attempting to buy the loyalty of voters by telling them they will overtax successful people in our country. What a bad plan. Even Bill Gates criticized this ploy. These geniuses say they will provide one-payer health care for all Americans that is projected to cost between $20 and $40 trillion (our current level of debt is about $20 trillion). Even Democrats are attacking Warren for her ridiculous entitlement promises. How does she intend to pay for all of her giveaways without bankrupting the country?

Trump is sashaying across America and every day unleashes a string of offensive tweets like a schoolboy. He says horrible things about anyone who criticizes him. He proclaims that the economy is the best in history. In the meantime a setback in Chinese trade negotiations would reduce the Dow Jones by several thousand points in a heartbeat. It’s true that employment is up, unemployment is down (even for minority groups) and Trump continues to ride roughshod on Iran, Europe, Mexico, Canada and many more countries in an effort to negotiate fair deals.

A disgraceful situation occurred a few days ago when Trump took credit for the assassination of al-Baghdadi, the former terrorist leader of ISIS. From his bunker in the basement of the White House, our Commander-in-Chief “orchestrated” the operation. Trump was not part of the mission, other than giving his approval to move ahead (to which he deserves some credit). I wonder if the president dressed up in camouflage as he directed his special operators.

I’ve had it with the investigations of every move by Trump. In a short year voters will have a chance to change leaders. Democrats believe that they can denigrate Trump so one of their pathetic candidates will win. It’s not going to happen. Voters will resent the obvious outcome of the impeachment- Trump will stay in office because the Senate will acquit. Why are Democrats acting like there is any chance to convince 20 or 25 Republican senators to join them and convict Trump of a high crime?

In the meantime the country is going to hell and a hand basket. Budgets are not being approved, infrastructure is crumbling, LGBTQ rights are being violated, health care is deteriorating, immigration is unsettled and trade agreements are not being signed. I want a government that does its job. I abhor sanctimonious legislators who break the law every day by leaking confidential information and lying to the public.

Obama and Democrats are responsible for setting the stage for a person like Trump. We are stuck with him at least until next November when he will likely defeat an incompetent Democrat, unless Bloomberg jumps into the fray.