Monday, November 13, 2017

Roy Moore

I think there is probably something to the accusations against Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore. It’s not clear to me how much of a criminal act it was.  One of the Sunday talk shows made a big point of the fact that the victim was 14, which would make this a lesser offense than if she were younger.  It was probably not a felony, and the statute of limitations has probably run out, although I’m not sure.  In any case, it’s messy unless it’s an outright lie.  

Assuming it’s not a complete lie, one thing concerns me.  Did the Washington Post delay publishing this story until after the primary election?  If it had come out before the election, it would have improved the chances of Moore’s Republican opponent, Luther Strange.  If Strange had been elected, he almost certainly would have beaten his Democratic opponent, Doug Jones.  Now, the story greatly benefits Jones.  It remains to be seen whether it will swing the election in Jones’ favor.  

If Moore is elected despite the story, I suspect that he will be seated in the Senate.  It does not look like he is a criminal, whatever his morals.  Other Senators may treat him as an outcast, but he will be there and will be able to vote.  Under those circumstances he may be even more obstreperous than he would have been before the story.  

Another effect of this story may be to keep many basically good people out of politics.  Almost everyone has some blot on their record, something they did in a weak moment and wish they had not done.  In the old days, some indiscretions were overlooked or hushed up, but that is almost impossible today.  The fact that so many basically good people eliminate themselves from politics is at least partly responsible for the horrible political scene we have now.  We get people who run who don’t care about moral failings, people consumed by a lust for power or publicity, or on the other hand, people who are completely colorless, who have never done anything interesting in their lives.   Neither type produces the best politicians or leaders.  

Monday, October 30, 2017

Niger Ambush

I am tired of hearing the press complain about the White House insulting La David Johnson.  I’m also tired of hearing the press talk about what bad soldiers he and his colleagues were because they got caught in an ambush.  I was turned off by the contempt of the White House press for Gen. Kelly when he spoke about his son being killed.  The press’ attitude was that the press corps consists of much better people who had made much greater contributions to the country than Kelly.  They think they are God’s gift to the world.  I don’t agree. They are conceited, egotistical, unpatriotic blowhards.  It’s fine to mourn La David Johnson,  but it’s terrible to revile General Kelly for talking about the death of his son.   Chip Reid (CBS) believes Gen. Kelly is scum for allowing his son to die in service to America as a Marine.  Chip Reid has no heart; he is consumed by hatred of Trump, Republicans, and the American military.  

Both Trump and Kelly made mistakes while talking about Sgt. Johnson’s death, but I would think that everyone involved would make the best of it and move on to respect his memory.  Instead his death has been made into a circus sideshow, mainly by his dysfunctional family, an eavesdropping congresswoman, and the invasive press.  Apparently the American press spits on the three dead white soldiers; only the dead black soldier is worth memorializing.  

Since all the media coverage has been critical of the White House, I think someone should question the party line being screamed in unison by the press.  How did Sgt. La David Johnson end up so far from the rest of his unit that his body was not found for two days?  It sounds like the four killed soldiers were in a convoy that was separated from the main body of troops, according to CNN.  It’s possible that he was cut off from the rest of his small group, or that he was trying to go for help, or that he was just trying to escape from the ambush.  But there is a question why he did not stay and fight with his three colleagues who were killed fighting together.  The New York Times raised further questions about discipline and unity among elite troops by reporting suspicions that two members of a Navy seal team in Mali had killed an Army special forces soldier.  I have not seen anything about whether all three were the same race or not.  Because of the press’ ignoring all the dead white soldiers and its focus on the one dead black soldier, La David Johnson, we need clarification of what really happened in darkest Africa.  

The press has made the military deaths in Niger a matter of racial discrimination where only black lives matter.  Chip Reid and his colleagues believe that any white man who is stupid enough to enlist in the military deserves to die like Gen. Kelly’s son.  But they should read Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness or watch the war movie Apocalypse Now, which is based on it, to get some realistic concept of race and war.  Perhaps then Chip Reid and his colleagues would not rejoice in the death of Gen. Kelly’s son.  

"The horror! The horror!"

Monday, October 9, 2017

John Oliver on the Confederacy

John Oliver’s in-depth issue this week was the Confederacy on “Last Week Tonight.”  Oliver condemned the Confederacy and everything connected to it because one of the things it fought for was the maintenance of slavery.  According to him, this justified getting rid of all public monuments to, and statues of, anything or anybody connected to the Confederacy.  

If slavery is what condemns a civilization, then clearly the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians must be condemned, and all artifacts, statues, buildings, and other monuments must be removed from public view.  That would mean that the Roman forum, the Acropolis, the Parthenon and the Egyptian pyramids would have to be destroyed, along with the many other Roman ruins spread across Europe and North Africa. By the same reasoning, Oliver, the Democratic Party and other anti-Confederate hate groups must applaud the destruction by ISIS of the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and the destruction of the Bamiyan cliff buddhas by the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Can you imagine the horror that would ensue if the mayor of Charlottesville were the mayor of Rome, destroying thousands of monuments?  

Of course the Confederates got their moral guidance on slavery from the books of Moses in the Bible.  Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon all had slaves and lived in a society where slavery was an ordinary fact of life.  Abraham had a son, Ishmael, by his family’s female slave Hagar.  Moses freed the Jews from slavery in Egypt, but he wrote the Jewish law authorizing slavery and describing how Jews should treat their own slaves, particularly in Leviticus.  It describes different treatment for Jews enslaved to other Jews, and for non-Jewish slaves.  It seems likely that Solomon’s temple was built with slave labor.  If they were going to be consistent, Oliver and the Democrats should call for the destruction of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.  And because Moses and King David had slaves, they should call for the destruction of Michelangelo’s statues of Moses and David.  

Of course any statues or monuments to any famous people of these countries would have to be destroyed -- statues of Plato, Aristotle, all Roman emperors, and statues of all Egyptian Pharaohs.  History is unimportant.  Only morality as defined by Oliver is important.  People who lived in societies that condoned slavery were evil, and any image of them must be destroyed according to Oliver and the Democrats.  

They really do have much in common with ISIS and the Taliban, believing that a tangible representation of anything they think is morally repugnant must be destroyed.  They believe that their morals are supreme and unimpeachable and that no other ideas can be allowed to be expressed.  They are not chopping off heads yet, but that may be coming.  HBO is preaching the ideology of ISIS and the Taliban in the US while American troops are fighting against it in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It is sad to see such fundamentalist religious intolerance being preached in the US.  

Leonhardt on Jewish Advisers

David Leonhardt called on Gary Cohn and Steven Mnuchin to stand up and oppose Trump’s tax plan in his NYT article “Cohn and Mnuchin Risk Reputations.”  The article illustrates the Jewish opposition to Trump.  I don’t know if Leonhardt is Jewish, but he is very sympathetic to the NYT’s devotion to Jewish issues and viewpoints.  Establishment Jews are of two minds; they hate Trump, but they want their own Jews in the corridors of power.  Jared Kushner is not reliable as a Jew because he is too close personally to Trump.  Steve Miller is a Jewish insider in the Trump administration, but he is not part of the Jewish establishment.  There are establishment Jews who want Cohn and Mnuchin to leave because, as Leonhardt’s column states, they are in danger of embarrassing themselves (and their Jewish brethren) by associating themselves with Trump’s administration and his comments on Charlottesville and other anti-Semitic issues.  On the other hand, Jews want to influence Trump to the extent that they can.  

Cohn and Mnuchin find themselves in a tough position.  Their Jewish supporters want them to leave and stay,  Leonhardt tells themthat  if they stay, they must stand up against Trump.  Leonhardt’s model is Defense Secretary Mattis.  The problem is that Trump has a higher opinion of Mattis than he does of Cohn and Mnuchin, making it less likely that they can emulate Mattis.  

In any case Leonhardt’s article illustrates the NYT’s and Jew’s obsession with the two main establishment Jews in the Trump administration.  

Thursday, September 28, 2017

David Brooks on Abbie Hoffman

David Brooks’ column in the NYT “The Abbie Hoffman of the Right” says that Donald Trump is trying to win the “culture wars” in the same way that Jews won the culture wars in the 1960s.  Brooks delights in the destruction of the “Protestant establishment” in the 1960s.  He says:

So in the late 1960s along came a group of provocateurs like Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and the rest of the counterculture to upend the Protestant establishment.

Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin were Jewish.  Of the new Jewish-dominated establishment, he says:

But eventually a new establishment came into being, which we will call the meritocratic establishment….

Hillary Clinton is part of this more educated cohort. So are parts of the conservative establishment….

This establishment, too, has had its failures. It created an economy that benefits itself and leaves everybody else out.

So in 2016, members of the outraged working class elected their own Abbie Hoffman as president. Trump….

Brooks then says that Trump has made the NFL culture war about race, i.e., blacks.  But what Brooks doesn’t say, or is afraid to say, is that the culture war is about Jews.  Jews like Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and David Brooks replaced the old Protestant establishment with the new “meritocratic” Jewish-led establishment.  Hillary was supposed to be the public front-person for the new establishment, which was made up of Jews - who supplied the brains and the money - and the other anti-old-establishment groups who supplied the votes and public support - blacks, Hispanics, gays, etc.  However, the Jewish brains miscalculated in 2016 and all the needed voters did not show up.  Nevertheless, the Jews continue to use blacks (in the NFL in this case) and other minorities to pursue their own dominance.  A high percentage of NFL team owners are Jewish.  

I was surprised to see David Brooks revel in the destruction of the Protestant establishment and the rise of the Jewish establishment so clearly, even if he did not state it explicitly.  

Monday, September 25, 2017

NFL - Blacks Love Their Plantation

The NFL is one of the closest things we have to the old ante-bellum Southern plantations running on slave labor.  We have a bunch of rich white guys, about half of them Jews, each owning dozens of black men.  Of course, the black men are not slaves; they are well paid, but they are not always free to leave, depending on their contracts which bind them to their owners.  But the black players love their owners, just like the old slaves used to love the plantation masters with whom they lived.  It’s nice that black players love their white owners.  It’s ironic that men who choose to be slaves are now protesting for more freedom.  

Saturday, September 23, 2017

American Jews Are Driving America’s Wars

I am surprised to find so many serious articles claiming that America’s Jews are driving America’s wars.  It started out when I found a tweet by by former CIA agent Valerie Plame favorably citing an article with that subject by Philip Giraldi, also a former CIA agent.  From that I found a Mother Jones article listing many people who were movers and shakers of American policy toward Israel.  Most of them I recognized as Jewish, but I was not sure about Danielle Pletka, who seems to have something of a second life on TV, appearing frequently on “Meet the Press.”  I then found this article in Israel Behind the News which says she is Jewish and has strong views on US policy toward Israel.  Surprisingly, none of these mention Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who is also Jewish, and who is on TV constantly, starting with “Morning Joe” first thing in the morning.  

These articles make me wonder whether American Jews are loyal to America first or Israel first.  Of course, Jewish political doctrine is not monolithic, but given the relatively small size and the homogeneity of the Jewish population, it is probably more uniform that among larger ethnic groups.  American may be experiencing a hostile takeover by Jews.  There is nothing illegal about this, as long as it is done without violating any laws (like insider trading or illegal political contributions).  But most Americans may not be aware that it is happening.  

About half of the richest 10 or 20 Americans are Jewish.  Google, Facebook, The New York Times, most TV networks, particularly CNN, are controlled by Jews. Jews, led by Chuck Schumer, are a powerful bloc in the Senate.  Jews are less powerful in the House, but Adam Schiff, a Jew, has been the most outspoken and widely televised House member attacking Trump about the Russian investigation.  

Jews were extremely powerful behind the scenes in support of Hillary Clinton.  Her defeat was an uncharacteristic failure for them.  As a result, they are leaders in the subsequent attack on Trump, either to remove him from office, or render him powerless.  Because of the huge number of Jewish lawyers and judges, they see the legal system as a principal means of attacking him.  The need to exert Jewish power in the White House is one reason that the status of Gary Cohn has become so important.  Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner is Jewish, but he’s still a kid by Washington standards.  Gary Cohn is rich and powerful enough in his own right to smack Trump in the face with a two-by-four if Jews believe it is necessary.  Treasury Secretary Mnuchin does not have the heft of Cohn.  Of course Trump’s young flamethrower of an adviser, Stephen Miller, is also Jewish.  There are probably others as well.  

The disturbing theme of the articles cited above is that these powerful Jews are using America’s power to further Jewish interests.  America’s and Israel’s interests may converge on many issues, but not on all.  I fear that it is Jewish political power than has drawn the US into the protracted conflict in the Middle East.  In essence gentile Americans are killing Arabs to advance Israel’s interests.  Of course, Osama bin Laden attacked the US, but he did it mainly because he saw the US and Israel as joined at the hip.  He was mad because Israelis were killing Palestinians with weapons supplied by the US.  The US and Israel were one enemy.  After 9/11, we could have gone into Afghanistan, destroyed his operations there, and left.  But we are still there 16 years later.  There was no reason to attack Iraq based on the 9/11 attacks, but we did anyway.  The Iraq war was ginned up mainly by Jews -- Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, etc.  Did we attack Iraq because it was in America’s interest, or Israel’s?  The argument in the above articles is that now it is mainly Jews who are pushing for war with Iran.  Conservative Republicans support various levels of effort against Iran, but would they be as enthusiastic if the Jewish controlled press did not discuss this issue daily.  Many liberal Jews support maintaining the nuclear agreement with Iran, but Israel is strongly opposed to it.  I believe that Israel is safer with the nuclear agreement in place than without it.  Some Jews may also view the nuclear agreement as beneficial to Israel.