I fully expect for Kayleigh Mcenany to appear on CNN later and say this is what Trump was trying to say when he confused 9/11 and 7/11. Or it could just be that he was trying to say that Muslims are responsible for both.
LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER
READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN
JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK
GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement
IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL
Be honest. When the dirty player is on your team you tend to look past the dirty tactics. You may occasionally make a veiled attempt at objectivity, but even when you do, you do it with a mischievous grin. After all, a few fouls here and there are OK if the player has the skill to back it up. Especially if that skill translates into a victory for your team. All the discussions and debates taking place within both parties regarding the presidential nomination process are really no different. Contested convention? Just fine if you don’t want to see Trump be the Republican nominee. Super Delegates? Thank the Lord they’re out there if you’re a Hillary Clinton supporter or feeling the Bern is something you would otherwise equate with the need for penicillin.
It’s the hottest thing, everyone’s talking about it. Those would be the words Donald Trump might, and probably has used to describe the discussion taking place about the possibility of a Contested or Brokered Republican Convention. Of course as the front runner, and the candidate almost assured at going into the Convention in Cleveland with the most delegates, Trump and his supporters are already crying foul at the prospect of anything other than his coronation as the nominee. Problem is, not only is no one breaking any laws, unlike the athlete that does commit a foul, no one is even breaking the rules that exist within the private institution that is the Republican Party.
Same thing with the Democrats. Although there are many Bernie Sanders supporters getting increasingly exuberant in their argument that foul play is going on, like it or not the Super Delegates have every right to pick whomever they want as their candidate. In fact, the Democratic Party put these rules in place just for the purpose of stopping an insurgent candidate like Sanders from getting the nomination. Does it make Bernie and his people happy? No. Is it against the law or against the rules of the Democratic Party? The answer to that is also a big no.
So then the next obvious question is, is this process fair? That is when it becomes subjective. First of all, out of the 5 candidates remaining in the process, the 2 crying foul are the ones with the most to lose, so to speak. I say so to speak because to lose something you actually had to have had it in the first place. Neither Donald Trump nor Bernie Sanders have their party’s nomination at this point, so to say it would be lost in either scenario is a misnomer. The bigger question, and the one that is far more of a sensitive issue, is whether or not those who make the choice of voting for either Trump or Sanders are being disenfranchised by the process. The way I heard one commentator describe it, and I am paraphrasing, “thanks for participating, now we’ll make the decision as to which candidate we want representing our party”.
But not so fast. The point that people seem to be conveniently glossing over is that the only way either of these scenarios become relevant is if the people do not choose their candidate through the structured process, and like it or not the process is structured. If Donald Trump gets 1,237 delegates all talk of a Contested Convention will be over, and if Bernie Sanders is so far behind Hillary that he can only win with the Super Delegates, the nomination would actually be stolen if it were to be altered, just from Hillary rather than Bernie.
I guess if right now you like Trump or Sanders, it seems very unfair, but should they win, either through the process you hate so much or just by getting more delegates, all will be forgiven. The reality is that the processes are what the processes are, and regardless of who gains benefit from those processes, the organizations that set them up, otherwise known as the Republican and Democratic Party, have every legal right to see them to fruition. As long as they are willing to accept the consequences they face should many of their members feel betrayed by that process. I guess if that happens the winning candidate will have their first real test in leadership, a test that may just decide whether or not they win the general election.
LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER
READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN
JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK
GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement
IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL
After watching the debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, some commentators went on the record as saying they felt Senator Sanders showed courage in his continuing insistence that Israel’s military action in the most recent Gaza War was a “disproportionate response”. Their analysis was that a Jewish politician coming to New York and taking this unpopular stance in, of all places Brooklyn, took bravery and character, regardless of whether you agree with his viewpoint or not. The reality is, despite how it looks on the surface, nothing could be further from the truth.
I don’t blame the commentators for feeling this way. I do recognize that when Van Jones, a journalist for CNN and an African-American showed a degree of admiration for Sanders for not backing down, he was very clear about the fact that it was whether you agree with him or not. His admiration for his character was not an endorsement of the viewpoint. Nevertheless, just as I can intellectually understand but not comprehend what it means to be black in America, so too Van does not understand what it is like to be the son of Holocaust survivors. Incidentally, neither does Bernie Sanders.
Even when discussing his Jewish background and experience with Israel, Senator Sanders comes across more as he is talking about them than us. I hardly ever use the term self-hating Jews anymore, not because I don’t believe that some Jews fall into that category, but because I believe it to be inappropriate to declare what someone hates or loves unless they come right out and say it. However, I do know that the perspective of a cultural Jew whose parents immigrated from Poland with little money is very different than a proud Jew whose parents lived through Nazi-occupation first hand. But more importantly I recognize that those who take the side of the enemy hardly ever do so because of a courage of convictions, rather they do so out of a fear so deep-rooted, they either don’t know it exists or they deny it to the world.
The enemies of the free world are dangerous and frightening people. Most of these enemies hate America and its way of life with a passion. To an Islamic Extremist, there is almost nothing worse than an American with American values. Almost. The one thing worse is a Jewish American. That’s not to be taken lightly in today’s world. After all if history proves nothing else, it proves that hatred for Jews is easily converted into violence against Jews. Throughout time, but most notably during the time of Adolph Hitler, there were always Jews who took the side of the enemy because they felt it would save them. The harsh reality is, that it not only ended up in the loss of their lives, it ended up in the destruction of their soul.
I have absolutely no problem with a presidential candidate speaking of the rights of Palestinians to live in dignity. I have also gone on the record many times as being someone completely willing to blame Israel when they deserve to be blamed. That being said, a sovereign nation defending its very right to exist and retaliating against missile attacks on its population centers by a terrorist organization is not the guilty party. Furthermore, being a Jewish politician in America and taking the side of the terrorist organization not only does not make you an individual of courage and character, it ultimately does nothing to make you immune from those who hate the Jewish people. All it does do is make you another typical politician pandering to a certain demographic, albeit not the demographic of those born into the same religion as you. It also makes you a coward more than it makes you a hero. Taking on Israel is not the same as taking on Wall Street. Taking on Israel is easy. In the world in which we live today, it might even help a politician get more funding, and generally speaking, and I say this with pride,pro-Israel Jews don’t commit acts of violence against those who oppose their views. I have little doubt Bernie Sanders knows that as well.
LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER
READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN
JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK
GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement
IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL
Dear Senator Sanders,
I write this letter to you as someone who is deeply disturbed by your stance on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. If I am to take you on your word, something I certainly hope is feasible due to the fact that you are a Jewish man with ties to Israel, your feelings about Israel’s right to exist are not at issue here. What is at issue is your approach, an approach that not only feeds directly into those that wish to see Israel destroyed, but also puts not only Israel but the Jewish people worldwide in even greater danger than the one that exists today.
To be frank Senator Sanders, I find your words to be not only damaging but terribly irresponsible. I have been following the election with great interest and have listened to as many of your speeches and soundbites as possible. I understand that like Donald Trump, you are appealing to a populist movement of disenchanted, angry and concerned voters. You are clearly a very intelligent and savvy politician. I am certain that you understand that your words, even if only soundbites, influence a great number of people. Therefore you must understand that more of your followers are likely to remember the 10,000 number you blurted out, the number of Palestinian deaths you said that Israel was responsible for in the last war in Gaza, than they will your insistence that Israel has the right to exist in freedom and security. They will take your words and see Israel as the guilty party in the conflict, subsequently making the terrorist organization Hamas, a group very similar to ISIS in their violent and ambitious tactics, as the defenders of the freedoms and rights of the Palestinians. Just as Donald Trump’s comments on Muslims and Mexicans create a perception of all Muslims and Mexicans by many of his supporters, your comments will have the same impact on many of your supporters towards Israel and the Jewish people. As a smart man I am sure you are aware of the fact that modern day anti-Israel sentiment has translated into a rise in worldwide anti-Semitism.
What I also believe is happening Senator Sanders is a continuing hijacking of liberalism by those who, to be quite honest, are nothing better than blatant anti-Semites. Clearly, as an individual who speaks openly of your Jewish background I am not accusing you of hating your fellow Jews, but I am going to come right out and say that you are perpetuating the argument of those that do, and in the process putting us at greater risk. I urge you to listen to the words of Alan Dershowitz, someone never accused of being too conservative, in his wise and educated understanding of the Arab-Israel conflict in which he says,
“whenever I speak to audiences about the Middle East, sometimes audiences very hostile to Israel, I issue one challenge. Name a single country in the history of the world, faced with threats comparable to the threats faced by Israel, that has ever had a better record of human-rights, a better record of concern for civilians, a better record towards the sensitivity of legal issues and the rule of law. In a 100 speeches in which I issued that challenge, no one has ever come up with a country that has a better record than Israel faced with comparable threats”.
Even if this is a miscalculation or ignorance on your part rather than a cynical attempt to pander to an audience you feel you need to win elections, your words are still damaging. I watched the few minutes with Jake Tapper of CNN in which you discussed this issue and was quite honestly startled by how you shrugged off what you referred to as your question of whether or not it was 10,000 people killed in Gaza as not being a big deal. Senator Sanders, it is a very big deal. Hamas, the terrorist organization that espouses the very same stance you take of “disproportionate response” by Israel and uses it as justification to murder women and children in the streets of Israel without remorse, does so with a claim that Israel was responsible for the deaths of less than 2,000. Well congratulations Senator, you just increased their justification more than five fold. After all, if an American presidential candidate and a Jew from Brooklyn wonders if it was 10,000 people, Hamas might not only be correct, they might be understating the number.
What makes this worse is the fact that you would say that Israel is responsible for these deaths in the first place. I am far more open minded than you might think. I recognize the fact that Israel does things wrong and needs to work hard at changing the conditions of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. What I also recognize however is that the main obstacle in making these changes is not the Israeli government but the terrorist groups running the show in these territories. Millions upon millions of dollars have been squandered and stolen from the Palestinian people, not by the Israeli government but by the very people who claim to want to lead them to a better life. In truth, these people, the very same people you have empowered with your words, are cynical and devious criminals more concerned about Israel’s destruction and their personal lot than they are about the well-being of their population.
Someone recently made the argument to me that as a Jew you need to overcompensate in order to not seem too biased on the side of Israel. Even if I do believe that is what you were doing, the question that needs to be asked is, at what cost? Your words mean something. If you want to be the leader of the free world, why would you take the side of an organization that not only wants to destroy the freedom of the people of your origin, but obstruct the freedom of their own? If it is to increase support among your constituency, you are going against the very thing you base your entire campaign on, a different kind of politics. If you want to be a true leader, a leader that guides the country and the youth of America to a better future, I urge you to first recognize the responsibility you have towards clearly distinguishing between right and wrong. That Senator Sanders is indeed a very big deal.
Sincerely,
David Groen
LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER
READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN
JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK
GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement
IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL
Donald Trump is right about one thing. More people are talking about this year’s presidential primaries than any time in history. One could argue this is partly due to the fact that we are dealing with a polarizing populist with a one syllable name. As the primaries continue, the feelings towards Republican candidate Donald Trump are becoming more and more intense on both sides. By now most people either love him or hate him. He’s been called a racist, misogynist, another Hitler, Mussolini, demagogue, fascist, you name it, he’s been called it. Who and what Donald Trump is has become the most talked about issue, not just in American politics, but in the entire country. It’s even transcended American politics, becoming a discussion all over the world where the big question being asked is, “what if he wins?” Of course a lot of this discussion is rooted in fear. Even a lot of the people who like him have at least some trepidation. So the obvious question is whether or not we actually should be afraid of Donald Trump. The short and definitive answer is yes, just not necessarily for the reasons most often discussed.
While most people think the most frightening thing about him is his behavior and demeanor, something certainly a cause for at least some concern, I believe the thing we should be most worried about is far more significant. When people speak about Trump being anti-establishment they are generally referring to his developing battle against the Republican establishment. That in itself might be fine to everyone other than members of the actual Republican establishment. Their fear is based more on their personal status than the future of the country. The thing we as a nation really need to be worried about is far more serious than the damage being done to the GOP and its high-ranking members. What we need to be concerned with is how Donald Trump is trying to change a lot more than the Republican establishment, he is looking to change the entire American establishment. If that doesn’t scare you, it should.
A perfect example of what Trump is doing can be seen in the impact he is having on the media. The actions and words of Donald Trump and members of his campaign together with the polarization his candidacy is causing has often created a situation journalists and members of the press universally try to avoid, and that is those reporting the news becoming the story. The most notable example is Megyn Kelly of FOX. Kelly is a consummate professional very adept at reporting the news while never actually becoming the news. But the following exchange with Donald Trump in a debate last August 6th did just that, not so much because of Trump’s response at the debate, but because of his subsequent behavior and comments towards Kelly since.
Kelly: “You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals.’ Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?”
Trump: “What I say is what I say. And honestly, Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry, I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn’t do that to you.”
As we all know by now, Trump went back on his word and did indeed do that t0 her. If we want to be fair and say that Kelly was particularly hard on Trump at the debate, we can go one step further and say that Trump’s response was appropriate and fair. But it did not end there. That was just the beginning of a continuing onslaught as he went on to repeatedly refer to her as Crazy Megyn Kelly on Twitter, and calling her names like “sick” or “overrated”. Nothing however was more bizarre than the line, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever …”. All of this was punctuated by a call by Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski to FOX prior to a later debate in which he basically threatened Kelly by saying, she had a ‘rough couple of days after that last debate’ and he ‘would hate to have her go through that again.’
Then of course there’s the Michelle Fields incident. Regardless of whether or not one believes Fields is right or wrong, it was without doubt, Trump’s subsequent handling of the situation that truly made her the story. After Fields accused Trump’s campaign manager of manhandling and injuring her to prevent her from getting close to his boss, rather than deal with it swiftly and tactfully, Trump decided to once again go on the attack. In most instances a campaign would do everything in their power to make something like this go away quietly. But not this time. Donald Trump’s reaction was to go on the attack and accuse Fields of making up the allegations. In doing so Trump made Fields the story. Had he reacted differently and allowed the current established system the opportunity to handle this through the legal system, the worst case scenario would have been that she would be proven correct and it would likely have become much less of a story. The best case for Donald Trump and his campaign would have been that his assertion that this was a fabrication would have been validated, making anything that would happen to her be a result of her actions, not his. If you take Michelle Fields on her word, an apology would have made this go away entirely. What happened instead? Trump went on full attack mode and Fields would wind up having to leave her job and deal with death threats. All this as a result of Trump’s continuing strategy of bucking the establishment.
Losing graciously is not an established tradition of the Republican Party, rather an expected and yes, there’s that word again, established behavior in American politics. After losing in Wisconsin, Trump issued the following statement:
“Donald J. Trump withstood the onslaught of the establishment yet again. Lyin’ Ted Cruz had the Governor of Wisconsin, many conservative talk radio show hosts, and the entire party apparatus behind him. Not only was he propelled by the anti-Trump Super PAC’s spending countless millions of dollars on false advertising against Mr. Trump, but he was coordinating `with his own Super PAC’s (which is illegal) who totally control him. Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet— he is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump. We have total confidence that Mr. Trump will go on to win in New York, where he holds a substantial lead in all the polls, and beyond. Mr. Trump is the only candidate who can secure the delegates needed to win the Republican nomination and ultimately defeat Hillary Clinton, or whomever is the Democratic nominee, in order to Make America Great Again.”
In direct contrast, after losing to Bernie Sanders in Wisconsin Hillary Clinton made the following comments:
“Sen. Sanders had a good night last night, and I congratulated him, but if you look at the numbers, I’m still considerably ahead in both the popular vote and most importantly, the delegate count,” Clinton told CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “So I’m feeling very good about where we are.”
This is not to say that the more amicable comments of Clinton automatically make her a better person or better candidate than Trump, rather to show the distinct difference between someone who follows the established process rather than work towards changing and restructuring it according to their own will.
That is where the ultimate danger lies. Of the many people who chuckle at the entertainment value provided by the Trump candidacy, there are those who think he is exactly what the country needs and there are those who believe he may just be an out of control lunatic. Regardless of what you may think, make no mistake. His strategy is extremely well-planned and calculated. To use the old cliche’, Trump is looking to divide and conquer. Many people already see that, but a large percentage of these people believe he is attempting to do it only to the Republican Party. In reality what he is really attempting to do, with a somewhat frightening degree of success till now, is tear down the entire established way of doing things so he can rebuild it according to his will. The one glaring problem with Democracy, is if you convince enough people that your way is the right way, it becomes more and more difficult to fight against it, no matter how damaging it may be. Populism feeds into the fear and anger of the citizenry and Trump is nothing if not a populist. The continued popularity of Trump and increasing popularity of Bernie Sanders is all about populism. There are people out there who don’t even need to know that their political savior has realistic or safe approaches towards what ails them, they merely need to hear someone say they are going to do things differently and save them.
If Donald Trump is successful, a lot of what we know to be the norm will change. As a successful and powerful businessman, Trump is used to doing things his way, not necessarily the expected way. This is why he does nothing truly genuine to discourage violence at his rallies and why he can go as far as to talk about his private parts at a rally. A valid argument can be made that we want a leader with so much confidence in their way that they only want to do things according to their plan. The problem with this is very clear and very simple. The amount of power that scenario potentially gives that leader is extremely dangerous, regardless of whether that leader is Donald Trump or anyone else. The difference with Trump is that he has shown a clear desire and ability to break down many elements of the establishment and has garnished enough support in his populist movement to be very relevant. The one thing no one can be sure of is, should he achieve his desired goal, is whether or not that power will translate into brilliant leadership or devastation and catastrophe. It is human nature to get drunk on power, and the dangers of Trump getting that power make it a risk anyone supporting him should think about long and hard before taking. The problem with populism is that it is often fueled far more by emotion than reasonable thought. A factor Trump may very well be counting on.
LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER
READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN
JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK
GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement
IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL
The ongoing saga surrounding the search for the next President of the United States is an almost overwhelming exercise in analysis and judgement flooding the press and social media. It’s clear that everyone is in search of something. The obvious question is what? The answer is a very simple one. People are looking for a hero.
8 years ago, some in America thought they found their hero in Barack Obama. Partisan politics pretty much guaranteed that a majority were Democrats, but that being as it may, a significant percentage of these people did hold hope that this president would save the country from its growing travails. Today, although there are some who still may see the current President in the same light, many people are disillusioned by their perception that he has been anything but the hero they so hoped he would be. As the country narrows down it’s search to 5 people, potentially more depending on how the conventions go, what is glaringly apparent is that the people need a hero now more than ever.
Whether you like them or not, the two candidates feeding into that need the most are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. It can’t be denied that to the liberal college student Bernie Sanders is a champion unlike any they’ve seen in their lifetime. The fact that most are only old enough to be voting for the 2nd time at best, plays into this a little, but be that as it may, many of the more liberal and disillusioned of all ages are certainly”feeling the Bern”.
Although his supporters include different types of people, Donald Trump is most definitely the hero of a large percentage of white blue collar males. Feeling forgotten and betrayed by their government, many of these people feel the message of Trump is either more important than his delivery, or are staunch supporters of not only what he says, but how he says it. Many women who support him, even those distancing themselves from his, at best questionable behavior towards women, still see him as the one person in the race that can save the country or as he says,”Make America Great Again”.
This issue also magnifies the biggest problem facing Hillary Clinton. There is a percentage of her supporters who are energized and excited by her candidacy, and some men and many women who find the prospect of her being the first female President heroic from an historical perspective, but the various scandals she is connected to or allegedly involved in, are certainly enough to cause someone to seriously question her ability to govern at all, let alone be that hero so many people are looking for.
Candidates like Ted Cruz and John Kasich may be getting more votes because of people that like them better than the other two, Trump being the third, than because of being seen as the statesman, or woman people are so desperately in search of. In the case of Cruz, there are so many people who don’t like him, it’s impossible to imagine he would ever be seen as a hero to any significant majority of American people. Then again, before 9/11 Rudy Giuliani was at best a good Mayor to some, many people did not like him at all, while after 9/11 some were comparing him to Winston Churchill.
It was Shakespeare who wrote, “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them”. The truth is that as much as anyone seems sure of who would be good and who would be bad for the country, none of us know for sure. We think we do, and we often vehemently say so, but until any one of these candidates is in the position of leadership we just don’t know for sure. Many who felt that they knew Obama would be great now feel very differently and it’s safe to say that many people did not know that Harry Truman would have the courage to make what might have been the hardest decision a President ever made in order to end a war. What we can be fairly certain of is that whoever is chosen as the next President, he or she will most likely be severely tested. The danger facing the country is twofold. The first one, which is the more basic of the two, is that should the next President not be up to the task, failing these tests could be catastrophic, not just for America but the entire world. The second danger is that if the President is unable to accomplish the most basic needs of the nation, keeping it safe and improving its economy, the backlash will be so severe that the continuing search for that populist heroic leader could bring about a devastating collapse in the political structure. It’s not far-fetched to say that the stakes have never been higher.
Christian evangelicals, feminists, college students, white males, socialists, racists, are all part of the reason there has been such a large turnout of voters this Presidential primary season. It may indicate a greater interest in politics by American citizens, but when all is said and done there will likely only be 2 candidates remaining, and other than a protest vote, we can be fairly certain that a large number of people voting in the primaries will be too disillusioned to vote in the general election.
The most likely demographic to be disillusioned are the supporters of Bernie Sanders. Those ‘feeling the Bern’, particularly those normally not showing an interest in politics, will find their usual apathy vindicated should Hillary not only win the nomination but do so with the help of the Democrats hierarchy. If it becomes obvious that the deck is stacked against Bernie thanks to Hillary’s support from Super Delegates, many of the more than 2.5 million people who have supported Sanders to date will either choose to ignore the process or even worse for the Democrats, protest it. One thing they won’t do is vote.
Then there’s the approximately 35% of Republicans, mostly white males, supporting Donald Trump. If Donald Trump is not the nominee, regardless of whether or not an argument can be made for it being for fair or unfair reasons, a large number of those voters are likely to stay home as well. With the way Trump has gone after Cruz, even if he were to give his support to Cruz should the Texas Senator get the nomination, his constant use of the term “Lying Ted” will make it very difficult to convince Trump supporters to give their vote to Cruz. If the Convention is contested or worse for the Republicans, brokered, the only way these people will vote is if Donald Trump decides on a 3rd party run. I’ve repeatedly said that I don’t believe Donald Trump is actually a racist, a Demagogue yes, a racist no, but it is also fairly clear that the majority of white supremacists and anti-Semites are Trump supporters. If we are to accept that this demographic is galvanized by Trump’s atypical demeanor and rhetoric, the only other candidate out there fitting that mode would be Bernie Sanders. Well forget about that. These guys most certainly won’t go for the Jewish Socialist.
Of course all of that also means that a large percentage of Cruz supporters won’t vote for Donald Trump. Many of these same people would likely stay home if another candidate was put forth at the convention unless Cruz was offered the job of Vice President. But even then, the Cruz supporters who are anti-establishment would feel betrayed by their candidate being pushed to the second spot.
Trump getting the nomination for the Republicans also creates a problem, particularly if Clinton gets the nomination for the Democrats. There are many people, people who have shown support for many of the other candidates, who find neither of these candidates to be a viable option. The only way these people would vote is to stop a candidate, in which case their vote would be based on hate for one, rather than support for another. Either way this diminishes the turnout.
Unless by some miracle a candidate presents themselves as someone who can unite the entire country, it is very apparent that the great turnout we see in the primary season is unlikely to repeat itself in November. Since neither of the front runners have been able to even do that within their own party, I think it is fairly safe to say that won’t happen, which means many Americans will look back at this past year as a big waste of time. Not the best thing for Democracy.
LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER
READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN
JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK
GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement
IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL
In a bizarre case of worrying about things that shouldn’t really matter, and Egyptian member of Parliament is angry at Soccer great Lionel Messi for donating his boots to one of the country’s charities. Here’s a man, an athlete at the highest level of his sport, someone who doesn’t need anyone to care or like him at this point, trying to be nice and instead he hears the following attack from the Egyptian politician: “We have never been so humiliated during our seven thousand years of civilization.” Really? Want to think about that one more time? Since I tend to have a more positive than negative opinion of Egyptians I won’t come up with humiliations greater than a celebrity trying to be nice. All I will say is this. Please try to learn how to be a little more gracious when someone is charitable to your people. Every nation in the world has people who welcome gifts and need things they would otherwise not get. If anything I think Messi deserves a thank you followed by an apology.
LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER
READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN
JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK
GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement
IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL
It’s somewhat encouraging to see the free world attempt to unite in its battle against ISIS. On the surface it would appear the world is serious about stopping terrorism. Unfortunately, if you look a little more closely, and you really don’t have to go that deep, you will realize that the same people claiming to battle terrorism are actually tolerating it, or even worse, supporting it.
All over the world there are governments claiming to take the fight against terror seriously while simultaneously opposing Israel in its fight against terror. European governments, now frantically scrambling to defend themselves, reward Palestinian terror by calling on Israel to withdraw from the territories. The contradiction is a glaring one that is rationalized away by a disingenuous concern for the plight of the Palestinians. Without delving into the topic of whether or not the Palestinians are treated fairly as people, as long as the world’s reaction to innocent Jews getting mowed down by a car or stabbed in the street is a call to Israel to make changes, the message it sends about terror is a damaging one. Terrorism is terrorism. It’s never freedom fighting or armed rebellion if it’s not a battle against other soldiers. When people with weapons attack innocent men, women and children, saying it’s different than what ISIS is doing doesn’t make it so.
The two most guilty parties in this tragic comedy of errors is the United Nations and the U.S. Administration. When the UN files a report, in today’s world, and calls Israel the world’s top human rights violator, the message it sends is twofold. First of all, it shows a clear bias against Israel, something very counterproductive to fighting worldwide terrorism, and secondly it shows a tolerance for those countries truly involved in human rights violations. The UN is the type of organization that would offer ISIS land to call its own, accept it as a nation, and as long as they are at least willing to lie about treating its citizens fairly, declare the Islamic State more of a champion of human rights than the democratic State of Israel. The United Nations is an ongoing farce and doing more to lead the world down a path of terror and destruction than towards a path of freedom and safety.
The other main culprit is the current American administration. To make a deal with Iran, any deal, is in short, making a deal with terrorists. As much as President Obama and John Kerry go on and on about how this deal stops Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, the message here is frighteningly clear. The message is that this United States administration is willing to deal with terrorists. The Iranian regime has funded and trained terrorists for years. It calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. It is a nation responsible for the murder of men, women and children. Rather than send the message to the entire world that terror will not be rewarded with negotiation, this administration not only chose to negotiate, but chooses to release billions of dollars to a nation using its money to support and train more terrorists. Then the administration takes this to an even more grotesque level by actually being proud of the accomplishment of making a deal with a nation that represents everything we claim to be fighting. The only way the President might have been right when calling ISIS the JV Team, would be if he simultaneously referred to Iran as the Pro Team.
If terrorism is to be defeated, it can only be done without the interference of fear, corruption, and bigotry. If any of those factors get in the way, the enemy will know this, laugh in our faces, and gain tactical and political strength. If we are truly going to show intolerance towards terror, we must show equal intolerance towards those allowing it to grow, regardless of whether or not they claim to have our best interests in mind.
LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER
READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN
JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK
GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement
IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL
I have friends from all walks of life. I don’t pick friends based on race, color, religion or lifestyle. I pick my friends based on common interests and how they are as human beings. That’s assuming they even want to be my friend. I’ve always maintained, and when you look around you’ll see it to be generally true, that the person who is not a racist or bigot is more comfortable criticizing someone regardless of what they are. To put it in more basic terms, it’s never shocking to find out that a white man who never says anything bad about black people is actually a racist. I’m not saying criticizing someone of a specific race is a prerequisite to treating people equally, but I am saying that overcompensation in one direction is often a red flag that something is not right about someone’s thinking.
When you speak of the President of the United States, the general rules of behavior don’t apply. Therefore when President Obama shows his consistent discomfort and reluctance to call out Islamic extremists by name, he may not be revealing a bigotry towards Muslims, but he is doing exactly what he claims he does not want to do, and that is marginalize the Muslim population. No matter how often the President refuses to say the constant barrage of terror is being committed by Muslim extremists, the facts are the facts and the whole world knows it to be true. Paris, Brussels, Lahore, San Bernadino, various cities all over Israel, are all places where there are examples of recent acts of terror all committed by Muslim extremists. There, I said it. Muslim extremists. But I did not say all Muslims are terrorists did I? If anything, by calling the terrorists Muslims Extremists I am separating them from the rest of the Muslim population. To prove my point, I could easily forward this piece to the likes of M. Zuhdi Jasser, a great Muslim American, without being concerned that I would offend him. Why? Because I am comfortable in making the distinction between him and the terrorists that happen to be the same religion as he and many more millions of Muslims who are not terrorists. When a President leaves a philosophical vacuum he leaves the door open for the less intelligent and thoughtful to make very broad, bigoted, and very often dangerous generalizations. To be blunt, it is better to make the statement ‘all Muslim are not terrorists, but most terrorists these days are Muslim’, than it is to pretend none of the terrorists are Muslim.
When the President says the terrorists do not represent Islam, he may be making what he perceives as an ideologically positive statement, but the truth is that the IS in ISIS or ISIL still stands for Islamic State, and the followers of the terrorist organization identify themselves as Muslims. To not distinguish members of ISIS from decent Muslims does not make that go away. If anything it helps create the reaction some people will have when they read this, which will be to say, “there are no good Muslims”.
Yes Mr. President, there are many people who feel and speak that way. Why? Partially because they are extremists or radicals themselves, partially because some are just racist, but very importantly and not to a small part because of the vacuum created by your reluctance to call it by name. If you look around the world, specifically the western world, other than the Pope, no one individual can impact people’s thinking with words more than the President of the United States of America. By avoiding the terms Islamic extremism or Muslim terrorists, this President may just be doing the exact opposite of what he claims he wants to be doing, and the anger and hatred it may cause may do all of us more harm than good.
LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER
READ MORE OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IN THE DAILY COLUMN
JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK
GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL IS NOW ON TWITTER @gcimovement
IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL
Holland's Heroes 