Saturday, September 19, 2020

Black Lives Matter Embraces Criminality

Almost all of the people killed by police and embraced by Black Lives Matter have been criminals.  They did not deserve to be killed by police without a trial, but they were the dregs of society.  Most were convicted or accused criminals, high on drugs, who had beaten their wives and abused their children.  They resisted arrest when the police tried to arrest them, which causes the police to react physically whether the person resisting is white or black.  Many of them had significant mental problems. 

Black Lives Matter needs to find some exemplary black people to embrace, rather than painting criminals like George Floyd on buildings.  George Floyd did not deserved to be killed, but he should not be held up as a model for black children.  He was an awful man.  Blacks need better role models, starting with Barak Obama, and people like Colin Powell, George Washington Carver, Thurgood Marshall, Booker T. Washington, or Oprah Winfrey. None of the current heroes of the Black Lives Matter movement are in the league of those people. 

In general, Black Lives Matter reviles their ancestors rather than honoring them.  The New York Times today has an article about an Omaha diner being closed down because it called its biscuit and gravy breakfast “the Robert e. Lee.”  This ignores that fact that if he had them, Robert E. Lee’s biscuits and gravy were prepared by a black cook, cooking food that black people liked.  Southern cooking is largely black cooking, and it has a significant African influence in its ingredients and preparation.  So, should blacks be upset that Robert E. Lee liked food cooked by blacks? Slaves built the White House and Capitol; is that reason to tear them down or another reason to respect them.  They are still standing; why do blacks disparage their slave ancestors who built them. 

A Plague on Both Your Houses

Neither of the presidential candidates is appealing to me.  Trump is boorish, uncouth, impolite, mean and stupid.  He has been a policy disaster on virtually every issue from foreign affairs to health policy.  He has been good for business, but only by creating a mountain of debt for future generations to pay off.  He has created an enormous welfare program for the rich.  He did not make America great again; he made it worse.  In particular he failed miserably to get control of the immigration influx which was his main campaign pledge.  As a result, the US has become the United States of Latin America. 

Biden appears weak, but mainly he is a Democrat, a hostage to the Democratic Party’s ideology.  My main objection to the Democratic Party is that it hates Southern white men like me.  The Democratic Party is racist, and the race it hates is mine.  Hillary Clinton summed up the Democratic Party’s position when she called many of Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorables” characterized by “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic” views.  When Hillary was first lady of Arkansas, she clearly despised the people of Arkansas because they were not East Coast liberal intellectuals.  Now, in addition to the Hillary wing, the Democratic Party has the Bernie Sanders wing of young progressives who wish to give the most generous welfare benefits to every minority, paid for by what is left of the old white majority.  Biden has been a relative moderate on these issues, but he is captive to the leadership of the Party.  He doesn’t have the personal character or the political power to stand up to them. 

Two of the most appealing political figures to me at the moment are Chris Christie and Michael Bloomberg.  Bloomberg has lost my support by coming out whole-heartedly for the Democratic Party, thus putting him in the same category as Biden.  He is less weak than Biden, and I think he would be a good chief executive.  His current support for the Democrats is due mainly to his desire to get Trump out of the White House, but he is still too wedded to the Democratic Party. 

At first I was disappointed that Trump did not make Christie part of his administration.  Now, it is a big plus for Christie that he has not been part of the dumpster fire that is the Trump presidency.  I don’t really know where Christie stands politically, but after Trump I don’t care that much as long as he has not gone crazy on social issues, like race, sex, etc.  I think he is a reasonable man.  I would expect him to be left of me on hot social issues, but not as far left as Biden. 

At the moment, the choice between Biden and Trump seems to me like a choice between Stalin and Trotsky or between Hitler and Rosa Luxemburg.  I choose none of the above.  The political parties have failed America.  They did so four years ago in nominating Trump and Hillary.  Now, they are doing it again.  Thus, I am leaning toward writing in Chris Christie as my vote for President. 

 

Wednesday, October 2, 2019

Schiff’s Whistleblower and the Mueller Report


The whistleblower complaint against President Trump alleges acts very similar to those examined by the Mueller Report which occurred during the June 9, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower between the Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, Donald Trump, Jr., and several other participants.  In both episodes there was the possibility of a foreign government giving Trump opposition research information relevant to his campaign opponent. 

The Mueller Report examined the June 9, 2016, meeting in great detail.  Its conclusion was that there was no violation of campaign finance laws.  The same conclusion should apply to Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.  The Report said:

Accordingly, taking into account the high burden to establish a culpable mental state in a campaign-finance prosecution and the difficulty in establishing the required valuation, the Office decided not to pursue criminal campaign-finance charges against Trump Jr. or other campaign officials for the events culminating in the June 9 meeting.
In particular, on the question of whether opposition research provided by a foreign government constituted a thing-of-value, the Muller Report said:
… no judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under campaign-finance law. Such an interpretation could have implications beyond the foreign-source ban, see 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a) (imposing monetary limits on campaign contributions), and raise First Amendment questions. Those questions could be especially difficult where the information consisted simply of the recounting of historically accurate facts. It is uncertain how courts would resolve those issues. 
The Democrats working on impeachment refuse to mention the Mueller Report, although it is clearly relevant to their investigations.  Since the factual situations are so similar it is important to review the Mueller Report’s extensive analysis of the June 9, 2016, meeting between Trump Jr. and Veselnitskaya.  The Democrats would no doubt argue that they are different because Trump threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine, but in fact, Trump asked Zelensky to do him a “favor.”  A favor is not something you pay for.  It is something done at the other party’s discretion, and need not be done at all.  Zelensky did not do anything in response to Trump’s request, and Trump did not withhold the aid.  In that sense it was like the June 9 meeting in that nothing happened with regard to providing opposition research. 
Because it is so relevant, following is the complete text from the Mueller Report of its legal analysis of the June 9 meeting. 
Begin quote:
3. Campaign Finance
Several areas of the Office's investigation involved efforts or offers by foreign nationals to provide negative information about candidate Clinton to the Trump Campaign or to distribute that information to the public, to the anticipated benefit of the Campaign. As explained below, the Office considered whether two of those efforts in particular- the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump
Tower Harm to Ongoing Matter ---:-eonstituted prosecutable violations of the campaign-finance laws. The Office determined that the evidence was not sufficient to charge either incident as a criminal violation.
a. Overview Of Governing Law
"[T]he United States has a compelling interest... in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process." Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 288 (D.D.C. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., for three-judge court), ajf'd, 565 U.S. 1104 (2012). To that end, federal campaign- finance law broadly prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions, donations, expenditures, or other disbursements in connection with federal, state, or local candidate elections, and prohibits anyone from soliciting, accepting, or receiving such contributions or donations. As relevant here, foreign nationals may not make- and no one may "solicit,' accept, or receive" from them- " a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value" or "an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election." 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(l)(A), (a)(2).1283 The term "contribution," which is used throughout the campaign-finance law, "includes" "any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office." 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i). It excludes, among other things, "the value of [volunteer] services." 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(B)(i).
Foreign nationals are also barred from making "an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication." 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(l)(C). The term "expenditure" "includes" "any purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office." 52 U.S.C. §,30101(9)(A)(i). It excludes, among other things, news stories and non-partisan get-out-the-vote activities. 52 U.S.C. § 3010I(9)(B)(i)-(ii). An "independent expenditure" is an expenditure "expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate" and made independently of the campaign. 52 U.S.C. § 30101(17). An "electioneering communication" is a broadcast communication that "refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office" and is made within specified time periods and targeted at the relevant electorate. 52 u.s.c. § 30104(f)(3).
The statute defines "foreign national" by reference to FARA and the Immigration and Nationality Act, with minor modification. 52 U.S.C. § 30121(b) (cross-referencing 22 U.S.C. § 61 l(b)(l)-(3) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20), (22)). That definition yields five, sometimes- overlapping categories of foreign nationals, which include all of the individuals and entities relevant for present purposes-namely, foreign governments and political parties, individuals
outside of the U.S. who are not legal permanent residents, and certain non-U.S. entities located outside of the U.S. ·
A and willful[]" violation involving an aggregate of $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(l)(A)(i); see Bluman, 800 F. Supp. 2d at 292 (noting that a willful violation will require some "proof of the defendant's knowledge of the law"); United States v. Danielczyk, 917 F. Supp. 2d 573, 577 (E.D. Va. 2013) (applying willfulness standard drawn from Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 191-92 (1998)); see also Wagner v. FEC, 793 F.3d 1, 19 n.23 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (en bane) (same). A "knowing[] and willful[]" violation involving an aggregate of $2,000 or more in a calendar year, but less than $25,000, is a misdemeanor. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(l)(A)(ii).
b. Application to June 9 Trump Tower Meeting
The Office considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV.A.5, supra. The Office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof on issues of intent ("knowing" and "willful"), and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction." Justice Manual§ 9-27.220.
In brief, the key facts are that, on June 3, 2016, Robert Goldstone emailed Donald Trump Jr., to pass along from Emin and Aras Agalarov an "offer" from Russia's "Crown prosecutor" to "the Trump campaign" of “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to [Trump Jr.'s] father." The email described this as "very high level and sensitive information" that is "part of Russia and its government's support to Mr. Trump-helped along by Aras and Emin." Trump Jr. responded: "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." Trump Jr. and Emin Agalarov had follow-up conversations and, within days, scheduled a meeting with Russian representatives that was attended by Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner. The communications setting up the meeting and the attendance by high-level Campaign representatives support an inference that the Campaign anticipated receiving derogatory documents and information from official Russian sources that could assist candidate Trump's electoral prospects.
This series of events could implicate the federal election-law ban on contributions and donationsbyforeignnationals,52U.S.C.§3012l(a)(l)(A). Specifically, Goldstone passed along an offer purportedly from a Russian government official to provide "official documents and information" to the Trump Campaign for the purposes of influencing the presidential election. Trump Jr. appears to have accepted that offer and to have arranged a meeting to receive those materials. Documentary evidence in the form of email chains supports the inference that Kushner and Manafort were aware of that purpose and attended the June 9 meeting anticipating the receipt of helpful information to the Campaign from Russian sources.
The Office considered whether this evidence would establish a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 ; the solicitation of an illegal foreign- source contribution; or the acceptance or receipt of "an express or implied promise to make a [foreign-source] contribution," both in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 3012l(a)(l)(A), (a)(2). There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a "thing of value" within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted "willfully," i.e., with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation, see 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(l)(A)(i).

i. Thing-of Value Element
A threshold legal question is whether providing to a campaign "documents and information" of the type involved here would constitute a prohibited campaign contribution. The foreign contribution ban is not limited to contributions of money. It expressly prohibits "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value." 52 U.S.C. § 3012l(a)(l)(A), (a)(2) (emphasis added). And the term "contribution" is defined throughout the campaign-finance laws to "include[]" "any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value." 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i) (emphasis added).
The phrases "thing of value" and "anything of value" are broad and inclusive enough to encompass at least some forms of valuable information. Throughout the United States Code, these phrases serve as "term[s] of art" that are construed "broad[ly]." UnitedStatesv.Nilsen,967F.2d 539, 542 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) ("thing of value" includes "both tangibles and intangibles"); see also, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 20l(b)(l), 666(a)(2) (bribery statutes); id. § 641 (theft of government property). For example, the term "thing of value" encompasses law enforcement reports that would reveal the identity of informants, United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 71 (2d Cir. 1979); classified materials, United States v. Fowler, 932 F.2d 306, 310 (4th Cir. 1991); confidential information about a competitive bid, United States v. Matzkin, 14 F .3d 1014, I 020 (4th Cir. 1994); secret grand jury information, United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 680 (6th Cir. 1985); and information about a witness's whereabouts, United States v. Sheker, 618 F.2d 607, 609 (9th Cir.
1980) (per curiam). And in the public corruption context, " ' thing of value' is defined broadly to include the value which the defendant subjectively attaches to the items received." United States v. Renzi, 769 F.3d 731,744 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations recognize the value to a campaign of at least some forms of information, stating that the term "anything of value" includes "the provision of any goods or services without charge," such as "membership lists" and "mailing lists." 11 C.F.R. § 100.52(d)(l). The FEC has concluded that the phrase includes a state-by-state list of activists. See Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. FEC, 475 F.3d 337, 338 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (describing the FEC's findings). Likewise, polling data provided to a campaign constitutes a "contribution." FEC Advisory Opinion 1990-12 (Strub), 1990 WL 153454 (citing 11 C.F.R. § 106.4(6)). And in the specific context of the foreign-contributions ban, the FEC has concluded that "election materials used in previous Canadian campaigns," including "flyers, advertisements, door hangers, tri-folds, signs, and other printed material," constitute "anything of value," even though "the value of these materials may be nominal or difficult to ascertain." FEC Advisory Opinion 2007-22 (Hurysz), 2007 WL 5172375, at *5.
These authorities would support the view that candidate-related opposition research given to a campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a contribution to which the foreign-source ban could apply. A campaign can be assisted not only by the provision of funds, but also by the provision of derogatory information about an opponent. Political campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research. A foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value. At the same time, no judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under campaign-finance law. Such an interpretation could have implications beyond the foreign-source ban, see 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a) (imposing monetary limits on campaign contributions), and raise First Amendment questions. Those questions could be especially difficult where the information consisted simply of the recounting of historically accurate facts. It is uncertain how courts would resolve those issues.
ii. Willfulness
Even assuming that the promised "documents and information that would incriminate Hillary" constitute a "thing of value" under campaign-finance law, the government would encounter other challenges in seeking to obtain and sustain a conviction. Most significantly, the government has not obtained admissible evidence that is likely to establish the scienter requirement beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove that a defendant acted "knowingly and willfully," the government would have to show that the defendant had general knowledge that his conduct was unlawful. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses 123 (8th ed. Dec. 2017) ("Election Offenses"); see Bluman, 800 F. Supp. 2d at 292 (noting that a willful violation requires "proof of the defendant's knowledge of the law"); Danielczyk, 917 F. Supp. 2d at 577 ("knowledge of general unlawfulness"). "This standard creates an elevated scienter element requiring, at the very least, that application of the law to the facts in question be fairly clear. When there is substantial doubt concerning whether the law applies to the facts of a particular matter, the offender is more likely to have an intent defense." Election Offenses 123. ·
On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful. The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context. The government does not have strong evidence of surreptitious behavior or effo11s at concealment at the time of the June 9 meeting. While the government has evidence of later efforts to prevent disclosure of the nature of the June 9 meeting that could circumstantially provide support for a showing of scienter, see Volume II, Section II.G, infra, that concealment occurred more than a year later, involved individuals who did not attend the June 9 meeting, and may reflect an intention toavoidpoliticalconsequencesratherthananypriorknowledgeofillegality. Additionally, in light of the unresolved legal questions about whether giving "documents and information" of the sort offered here constitutes a campaign contribution, Trump Jr. could mount a factual defense that he did not believe his response to the offer and the June 9 meeting itself violated the law. Given his less direct involvement in arranging the June 9 meeting, Kushner could likely mount a similar defense. And, while Manafort is experienced with political campaigns, the Office has not developed evidence showing that he had relevant knowledge of these legal issues.
iii. Difficulties in Valuing Promised Information
The Office would also encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised documents and information exceeds the $2,000 threshold for a criminal violation, as well as the $25,000 threshold for felony punishment. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(l). The type of evidence commonly used to establish the value of non-monetary contributions-such as pricing the contribution on a commercial market or determining the upstream acquisition cost or the cost of distribution-would likely be unavailable or ineffective in this factual setting. Although damaging opposition research is surely valuable to a campaign, it appears that the information ultimately delivered in the meeting was not valuable. And while value in a conspiracy may well be measured by what the participants expected to receive at the time of the agreement, see, e.g., United States v. Tombrello, 666 F.2d 485, 489 (11th Cir. 1982), Goldstone's description of the offered material here was quite general. His suggestion of the information's value-i.e., that it would "incriminate Hillary" and "would be very useful to [Trump Jr.'s] father"-w as non- specific and may have been understood as being of uncertain worth or reliability, given Goldstone's lack of direct access to the original source. The uncertainty over what would be delivered could be reflected in Trump Jr.'s response ("if it’s what you say I love it") (emphasis added).
Accordingly, taking into account the high burden to establish a culpable mental state in a campaign-finance prosecution and the difficulty in establishing the required valuation, the Office decided not to pursue criminal campaign-finance charges against Trump Jr. or other campaign officials for the events culminating in the June 9 meeting.
Mueller 183-188

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Census Citizenship Question Should Be Asked


The Democratic Party is just as dishonest and corrupt in its opposition to putting a citizenship question in the census as the Republicans are in proposing one.  The Democrats are stuffing the ballot box by bringing in as many immigrants as they can, legally or illegally, believing that these immigrants from poor countries will be dependent on welfare for years to come, and since the Democrats are the party of welfare, they will vote Democratic. 

The immigrants may not be able to vote right away, but as soon as they are in a position of power, the Democrats will pass some kind of expeditious naturalization law that will allow newly arrived immigrants to vote.  Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, legalizing illegal immigrants who had entered the US before 1982, basically legalizing them after only five years.  Already the Democrats are passing legislation in several states to give the vote to felons who have served their time, believing that they will all vote Democratic.  The Democrats see immigration as a much more powerful means of increasing their voters than reforming gerrymandering, for example. 

The Democrats are opposed to the census citizenship question because it would reveal the enormous changes they are making to the character of the United States.  They argue that lack of information is a good thing; there are facts Americans should not know.  The Democrats are hiding the truth.  Americans should not be permitted to know who is an American citizen.  Big brother only allows you to know what he wants you to know.  The Democrats are doing exactly what they accuse Trump of doing, but they are even more dishonest and devious about it. 

The Democrats argue that they oppose the citizenship question because its presence would prevent Hispanics from participating in the census. First, this implies that Democrats think Hispanics are dishonest scofflaws, who routinely break laws, as illegal aliens certainly did to enter this country.  Second, the Democrats want to make sure all Hispanics are counted because their plan is to give them all welfare to persuade them to vote Democratic.  Thus, for them it is important to get the highest possible head count to support federal expenditures that are linked to population.  It better enables them to buy Hispanic votes for Democrats. 

The idea that the Democratic effort to prevent the census from counting citizens while increasing the count of non-citizen immigrants is motivated by high-minded love of the poor is balderdash.  It is simply to increase the power of the Democratic Party vis-à-vis the Republican Party.  Preventing the count of citizens is like hiding library books that the Democrats don’t want you to read.  They want you to be ignorant.  They want to manipulate the vote for all national elections. 

It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court ratified this powerplay by the Democrats, but perhaps it is a payoff to them for its making George W. Bush President over Al Gore, in a similarly corrupt decision that was basically a coup.  The Supreme Court has fouled its nest, but Trump is right to accept its decision because it is the final legal arbiter, although decisions like this will continue to undermine the court’s moral authority. 

Monday, June 17, 2019

Hearing Foreign Info about Political Opponents


I have heard enough criticism of Trump for saying he would listen if a foreign government representative said they had deleterious information about his political opponent.  What gets lost in demanded that he should not listen to it, is freedom of speech and the truth.  I think a politician should be able to talk to anyone he wants to. He should not be placed in a cage by the FBI and told whom he can talk to and whom he cannot talk to.  And what if a foreign government has seriously damaging information about a politician?  What if Putin wanted to tall Trump that when Hillary was Secretary of State, she used to tell him highly classified information about how the CIA was collecting intelligence on him.  Shouldn’t Trump be allowed to hear this, or would Hillary be safe forever because Putin was not allowed to speak of it to Trump.  To the Democrats, truth is unimportant; only the process is important. 

The Democratic Party’s position on talking to foreign people about politics is opposed to free speech and opposed to learning the truth. 

In order to operate in the world today, you need to talk to foreigners.  Yet the Democratic Party would prohibit Americans from talking to foreigners.  It’s a bad, bad policy.  It’s ironic that the Democratic policy is not “America first,” but “America only.”   If you talk to someone who is not an American citizen, how do you know that he might not causally mention something nasty about your political opponent, while making conversation?  Even if you talk only to Americans, there is the risk that a foreign government will hire an American to say something nasty about your opponent.  Foreign governments routinely hire American lobbyists. 

Even the strictest interpretation of the law seems to require that whatever you get has to have monetary value.  It’s not clear that political scuttlebutt would have real value to which you could assign a dollar amount.  The law is clearly meant to bar foreign political contributions, not conversations.  And what about foreign lobbies.  Under the Democratic interpretation, AIPAC should be disbanded as a prohibited organization. 

Thursday, June 13, 2019

Art Exhibit on Anti-Semitism


The New York Review of Books reviews an art exhibit about anti-Semitic art, “A Terribly Durable Myth,” by Sara Lipton, who has written a book on the subject.  The earliest artwork she describes of an unflattering depiction of Jews dates from 1233.  In her article she lays a lot of the blame for the creation of anti-Semitism on Saint Paul’s epistles in the New Testament Bible, although Paul was a Jew.  She cites Paul’s distinction between materialistic Jews and spiritually minded Christians.  She quotes the 1933 Oxford English Dictionary definition of Jew, “… a name of opprobrium: spec. applied to a grasping or extortionate person.”  The first question that arose for me was, “If this myth of Jewish financial rapaciousness is unfounded, how has it lasted 2,000 years?” 

To offset the unfavorable images of Jews, she says the show displays art that characterizes Jews as charitable givers helping the poor, and art that depicts the most common Jews in Britain as poor tradesmen, rather than bankers.  She says that many Jews went into banking in Britain because that was the only occupation open to them, but she says little else to discredit the stereotype.  She mainly emphasizes how it has endured through centuries.  So, I ask, “Why aren’t there contrasting caricatures?”  The Jewish hooked nose she describes as common in art, is also a Roman nose.  Why is it so unflattering for Jews and not for Italians?  Where are the counter-examples? 

She doesn’t mention what to me is the main lesson of today’s emphasis on “diversity,” that not all Jews are the same.  Some may be rapacious; others may be indistinguishable from their non-Jewish counterparts.  She doesn’t mention that 20% of Nobel prize laureates are Jewish.  Are there no portraits of them? 

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Democratic Party Has Become Racist


The Democratic Party has become biased against white men.  When Joe Biden, who is a white man, announced his candidacy for President, he did it by attacking the white me who took part in the Charlottesville demonstrations.  He was trying to say, “I’m not this kind of white man; I’m a good white man.”  The very fact that he had to start out his campaign by distancing himself from other white men indicates the disfavor with which white men are regarding in the Democratic Party.  It explains why so many of the the 20-plus Democratic candidates for President are women, non-white, gay, or Jewish.  They are:

Bennet – Jewish
Biden – White
Booker – Black
Bullock – White
Butigieg – Gay
Castro – Hispanic
De Blasio – White (married to black woman)
Delany – White
Gabbard – Woman
Gillibrand – Woman
Harris – Black Woman
Hickenlooper – White
Inslee – White
Klobuchar – Woman
Messam – Black
Moulton – White
O’Rourke – White (tries to appear Hispanic)
Ryan – White
Sanders – Jewish
Swalwell – White
Warren – Woman
Williamson – Woman
Yang – Asian

According to the Congressional Research Service:
Less than half of those running as Democrats are white men.  Fifty years ago, it would have been 100% white men of Western European descent.  You can argue that the diversity shows lack of racism, but on the other hand, the insistence on diversity is evidence of racism.  While the bulk of the Democrats in the House and the Senate are white men, there are fewer and fewer of them. 

Of the 239 Democrats in the House, 91 are women, 54 are African-American, 37 are Hispanic, 25 are Jewish.  Many of the Democratic Representatives may belong ot more than one group. 

Of the 45 Democratic Senators, 25 are women, 2 are African-American, 2 are Hispanic, 9 are Jewish. Again, Senators may belong to more than one group. 

On the Republican side, in the House, of the 199 Republicans, 15 are women, 1 is African-American, 8 are Histpanic, 2 are Jewish. 

In the Senate, of the 53 Republicans, 8 are women, 1 is African-American, 3 are Hispanic, none are Jewish. 


The Democrats are trying to bring in Central Americans by the trainload and the busload.  They say it is just because these people have terrible lives in their home countries and are looking for a better life.  But the Democrats are motivated by more than sympathy.  Their plan is to fill the US with brown and black people who will vote Democratic, mainly because the Democrats will offer them welfare.  For now the Democrats are not pushing for these immigrants to vote, but as soon as they have power – say with a Democratic House, Senate and President – they will start to press to give new immigrants the vote expeditiously.  This is the Democratic plan to put the Democrats in power permanently.  Blacks vote in a block for Democrats – 80 or 90%, or more.  Hispanics are not so homogenous, but they still vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. 

Democrats do deservedly have the reputation as the party of the poor, but they have another agenda behind their embrace of new immigrants: to make the Democratic Party the ruling party in the US for the indefinite future.  The Republicans are justified in questioning the need to bring in so many immigrants so quickly, who are coming here not because they love the US, but because they hate their home countries.  We run the risk that if things don’t go well for them, they will hate the US in the future like they hate their home countries now.