Resurgent Anti-Semitism

It cannot be coincidence that anti-Semitism is a serious issue on both sides of the Atlantic at this time.  In the US, the Democratic Party is on the defensive about the stands taken by its two Muslim Congresswomen Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich).  The former is a Somali refugee and the latter is of Palestinian origin.  Omar has made overtly anti-Semitic statements, accusing Jewish members of Congress of having dual loyalty and saying that she refuses to take an oath of allegiance to Israel, like her colleagues.  As a result of many complaints, including by Jewish Democrats, Nancy Pelosi was preparing a resolution refuting her anti-Semitic statements.  But, an internal fight ensued in which the Congressional Black Caucus supported Omar, and so the resolution was watered down to be against all racism, including anti-Black, Islamophobia as well as anti-Semitism.

But, we should acknowledge that Omar cannot help herself, all Muslims are brought up to be anti-Jewish, as Christians once were.  And now this form of virulent anti-Israelism has infected their culture.   What is perhaps worse is that the Black members of Congress support her, as do her leftist colleagues, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Saunders, who is incredibly running for President again.  So anti-Semitism is now a major issue in the US and has infected the major Democratic party thru the infiltration of Muslims and hard leftists.

In the UK the situation is similar, but in a way worse, because the leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn has shown himself to be a committed anti-Israel activist, sympathizer with the extreme wings of Palestinian terrorism, as well as being openly anti-Semitic.  And this has resulted in a strong anti-Semitic wave in the Party, resulting in intimidation of those who oppose this wave, and as a result 10 members of the Parliamentary Labour Party (MPs), some of them Jewish, have left the Party.  Once again anti-Semitism is a major live issue in British politics, also at a time of political upheaval due to the Brexit situation.

Historically, whenever there has been a time of political upheaval and uncertainty, as found in both the UK and Britain now, there is an upsurge of anti-Semitism.  Popular movements in times of stress look for scapegoats and the Jews are the favorite ones.  Add to this the extreme anti-Jewish and anti-Israel views of the Muslims now infiltrating Western politics and left-wing parties and you have a cause for deep concern

Advertisements

The Dishonesty of the Left

The Jussie Smollett case has exposed for all to see the dishonesty and self-deception of the left.  For those who don’t know, Jussie Smollett is a small time Black actor on TV who  claimed he had been attacked at night in Chicago by two white men wearing ski masks who shouted racist and homophobic slurs at him, they put a noose around his neck and they were wearing MAGA (Make America Great Again) hats.  The leftist media and commentators went into overdrive lambasting Pres. Trump for causing racism and dissension in America.  It was clearly Trump’s fault!

The only problem was that the whole incident was staged by Smollett himself, because he wanted to be rich and famous. He thought if he made himself the victim of a racist attack he would receive publicity and be paid higher wages.  You might call this leftist wish fulfillment. But, he was found out.  First of all the Chicago police followed him and his supposed attackers using CCTV cameras and found out where they lived.  They also used phone records and found direct calls between them.  It turned out that the attackers were actually a pair of Black brothers of Nigerian origin who had worked on the same show as Smollett.   After the attack the brothers flew to Nigeria.  But, when they flew back to Chicago they were met at the airport by the police and they soon confessed. Smollett gave them $500 to buy ski masks, etc, and also $3,500 for the actual attack.  The police found all the incriminating bank records and receipts.

Smollett was arrested and charged and hopefully will spend time in prison for his despicable act.  But, what did the same leftist media and commentators say when he was exposed as a fraud, they still maintained that Trump was responsible for white racism in America, and I am sure they sincerely believe it.  Just yesterday Trump hosted a Civil Rights meeting at the White House and in his speech pointed out that the employment statistics for Blacks and Hispanics under his Administration are higher than ever before and the average wage is higher.  These unprecedented figures cannot be ignored by the Blacks and Hispanics themselves, and hopefully some of them will vote for him, rather than genuflect to the leftist bias that falsely attributes white racism to Trump.  There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Is there a National Emergency?

In order to get his wall built and to attempt to stop the constant illegal immigration from Mexico, Pres. Trump has declared a National Emergency.  We all know he has done this because he has been unable to persuade the Democrats in Congress, who control the House of Representatives, to support putting a payment large enough (b$6) in the national budget to fund the wall.  It is certainly within his legislative right as President for Trump to declare an emergency.  But, is it truly an emergency that justifies the President’s maneuver?

This will only be fought out in the courts and several lawsuits have been filed by individuals, States and organizations and eventually the Supreme Court will be called upon to adjudicate.  Has the nature of a “national emergency” ever been considered before by the Supreme Court.  Cannot the President as the Chief Executive be allowed to decide what is and is not a national emergency?

There are two aspects that support Trump’s contention that the need to build a wall along the US’s southern border is a national emergency.  First, the flood of illegal immigrants that come into the US every day.  In one section of the border in Texas an agent estimated that ca. 1,000 people a day enter the US illegally.  There are estimated to be at least 8 million illegal immigrants in the US, and this is a drain on US resources and jobs.  No country can continue to exist indefinitely if it has open borders, and previous Administrations have essentially ignored the problem.

The second serious problem is drugs and crime committed by some of the immigrants.  Even if its only a small fraction of them, its sill enough to stop the open border access.  Certainly the drug cartels infiltrate their men into the US posing as immigrants.  This must be stopped, particularly when it is known that terrorist organizations pay have their members infiltrated into the US.  As a legal immigrant to the US I greatly resent the fact that poor, uneducated peasants can walk over the border and effectively become citizens.

 

Muslim Congresswoman

Why is everyone so surprised that Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (Minn) has immediately expressed anti-Semitic views upon taking office?  It is well-known that most Muslims have such views and since she is their representative you would expect her to express them.  For example, most Muslims in polls agree that Jews are trying to take over the world, and also that Jews have undue influence due to their control of money.  These are classic anti-Semitic views, and Omar is merely reflecting this when she tweets that many US Congressmen support Israel because they are paid by AIPAC.  Add to this the fact that in any poll taken a majority of Palestinians support the use of terrorism against Israeli civilians.

There are two origins for these views, first, Islam, the fact that in the Koran Mohammed was rebuffed by the Jewish leaders of the city of Medina (which means “State” in Hebrew), whereupon he made a pact with them that he later broke and massacred them. There are clear anti-Jewish/anti-Semitic statements in the Koran.  Second, European Nazi ideology.  Many people forget that the vast majority of the Arab world sided with Germany during WWII.  Iraq had a pro-Nazi government that carried out an anti-Jewish pogrom in Baghdad in 1941 (known in Arabic as the Farhud).  Egyptian anti-British nationalists (such as Nasser) sided with the Nazis, and the Ba’ath Party that had its origin in Christian French-oriented Lebanon, was a pro-fascist (national socialist) party that subsequently ruled Syria (Assad) and Iraq (Saddam Hussein).

The other recent Muslim electee, Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich) has not so far issued as many controversial statements, but if you ask her she will certainly agree with her colleague Omar.  Also, in Congress is the Black American Muslim Keith Ellison (D-Minn), who generally takes a pro-third world view, in which America is the imperialist bad guy exploiting the poor colonized third world.  However, there is a stark contrast between the views of the leftist liberal electorate of Minnesota that elected both Ellison and Omar, and those of the Arab/Muslim parties they support, who are basically third world fascist thugs and terrorists (like Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas).  I predict even worse days to come for the Democratic Party that has segued further and further to the left and is now in the process of trying to separate itself from the crude anti-Semitism of Omar, that she cannot disavow.

Brexit or the Wall

I do not know what is a worse mess, the UK’s future tied up in Brexit, or the US Govt. brought to a stand-still by the budget dispute over The Wall!  I have a modest proposal. To let cool heads prevail in both cases, let the Governments switch, just for the solution to these two seemingly insoluble problems.  Let Pres. Trump and the US Govt. take over the Brexit negotiations, and let PM May and her Govt. take over the negotiations for the Wall.

While the Brexit negotiations primarily concern the UK Govt. and the EU, this is far from being the main problem.  The main problem is convincing the House of Commons (HC) to accept May’s Plan to resolve the problem and to satisfy the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland that their border will be a “soft” border, according to the so-called “back-stop” agreement.

With the US border with Mexico, the problem is not Mexico, the problem is getting the Democrats to agree to compromise with Trump and pay towards the Wall (or fence) in order to allow the US Govt. to avoid another shut-down.  Maybe with fresh eyes, people on both sides could see a better way ahead.  Perhaps the Democrats would find it easier to compromise with May than with Trump, and perhaps the MP’s would find it easier to compromise with Trump rather than with May.

What would happen if this idea was instituted, it could be a model for future intractable problems, let another Government and system come in and resolve the problem their way.  But, actually I don’t see it happening, it’s like when couples throw their keys into a bowl, but they always take out their own keys.  The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know.  So let Trump not worry about taking a hammering in the Commons, and let May not worry about begging Pelosi to give her a few dollars.  They have big enough problems of their own. Still it would be a nice experiment.

Impeachment?

There are many Democrats and others who are baying for Pres. Trump to be impeached.  Should he be impeached?  Based on the opinions of several legal experts interviewed by  Fareed Zakaria for a special on impeachment on CNN, the answer is definitely “no”.

This in no way means an endorsement of Trump’s policies or of his agenda, but it does have to do with what the founding fathers meant when they added impeachment to the Constitution.  Therein it states that a President can only be  impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Over the years this has been interpreted to mean significant crimes when the President is in office, that could endanger the security of the United States.  Note the fact that it has to be when the President is actually serving in that office, nothing that was done before he or she was inaugurated can be considered as a sufficient article of impeachment.

It may be that members of Trump’s election committee committed terrible crimes, but that does not justify impeachment, it may even be that Trump himself engaged in nefarious conduct, but that does not justify impeachment.  For example, it is well-known that Barack Obama was in contact with Russian President Putin before his inauguration, but that does not constitute reason for impeachment, neither does it for Pres. Trump.

Only two US Presidents have actually been impeached.   The first was Andrew Johnson, in 1868, for dismissing Edwin M. Stanton as secretary of war and the second was Bill Clinton, in 1998 for charges of lying under oath in regards to sexual relations with a White House intern. Both presidents were acquitted in trials that were held by the Senate because the two-thirds majority votes needed to convict them, were not reached. This meant both presidents remained in office and served the remainder of their terms. President Richard M. Nixon also faced impeachment after the Watergate scandal in 1974 but, as it was near-certain that he would be removed from office, Nixon decided to resign before the impeachment process could be completed.  All three were being impeached for serious acts they committed while in office.

It will be a sad and dangerous precedent if left-wing Democrats get their way and have the Senate vote articles of impeachment against Pres. Trump for what amount to political differences and unpopular policies.  For example, colluding with Russia prior to being inaugurated as President does not constitute reasons for impeachment; building a wall on the southern US border may seem to many a totally wrong policy, but it certainly does not amount to reasons for impeachment; refusing to re-start funding for the Government unless he gets a program funded, may seem very bad policy to many, but it does not constitute reasons for impeachment.  And then again, the Senate must vote on impeachment, and since the Senate is controlled by the Republicans, there is no way that two-thirds of the Senate is going to vote for impeachment.  So the new, young, left-wing Congressmen and women should stop this nonsense about impeaching Pres. Trump,  unless they know about something terrible he has actually done while already President.

Parallel Crises in the US and UK

It is strange that both the US and UK are entangled in serious crises relating to their relationship to their neighboring countries.  In the case of the USA it is in relation Mexico and the many thousands of illegal immigrants continually streaming over the southern border, in other words “the Wall.”  In the case of the UK it is the relationship to the European countries that make up the EU, in other words Brexit.

In the US, the failure of the Democrats to support the strengthening of the southern US border with a “wall” or fence has led to a crisis in which the US Govt. is shut down.  Even though opinion in the US is mixed, and even though many have ridiculed Trump’s statements, nevertheless there is a real case to be made for the need for such a “hard” border.  Of course, the leading Democrats, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, blame Trump for the Govt. shut-down and the failure of the Govt. to pay some 800,000 workers.

In the UK, Theresa May’s Govt. has been defeated in Parliament over her policy of negotiating a deal with the EU and presenting it as a fait accompli.  As she states, “it’s either my deal or no deal.”  Many of her own Conservative Party have shown their opposition to this approach by voting against her and in the latest fracas, a majority of 11 voted for an amendment to her Plan, that if it is voted down next Tues in Parliament, she will have to come up with a Plan B in 3 days!  This is really an embarrassment and a defeat for May, and puts her in a very difficult position.  This all started with the need for a “soft” border between Northern Ireland (part of the UK) which voted to stay in the  EU and the Republic of Ireland (Eire) which is in the EU.  This resulted in the the Ulster Democratic Party  (UDP), withdrawing their support for May’s coalition Government and her “backstop” border solution.

So you could say that in both cases the crises are over a choice between a hard or a soft border.  In both cases, May and Trump have basically put their political lives on the line in a take it or leave it stand, either for a hard border with Mexico, or my Brexit or none.  It will be very significant to see how they each fare in the two showdowns.  Afterwards they should meet for a drink to compare notes.