Category Archives: ILHAN OMAR

No. 10 Bookworm Podcast — Tlaib, Omar, Israel, and the Times takes on slavery

The advent of the internet means that ordinary people like me can loudly criticize Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and the Times‘ ridiculous 1619 project.

(If you prefer listening to reading, the companion podcast is embedded below, or you can listen to it at Libsyn or at Apple podcasts. I’m trying to make a go of my podcast so, if you like it, please share it with your friends and on social media. Giving it good ratings helps too.)

An internet world lets ordinary people praise Israel. It’s very hard to cast ones mind back to a pre-internet era when traditional news outlets were the only game in town and news was on a day-to-day cycle. In today’s world, the fact that two junior Congresswomen were denied admission to Israel has received 24/7 coverage in the old-line news media (television and what we still call “print,” even though it’s really internet). In addition, politicians — especially Leftists — have spoken about it steadily, flooding Twitter with their opinions.

Here are the basic outlines: Rashida Tlaib (D-Palestine) and Ilhan Omar (D-Somalia) have consistently and openly demonized both Israel and Jews. Among other things, both have actively pushed the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement, which seeks to destroy Israel economically. Of course, those who argue that this is an appropriate activity because of Israel’s alleged human rights abuses have not pushed a BDS movement against any other country that has provably violated human rights. The same people behind BDS are horrified that Trump would use economic sanctions against China, never mind that China’s human rights abuses against its own people are legion and that its economic abuses are terribly damaging to Americans here at home.

Anyhoo, Tlaib and Omar planned to travel on the taxpayers’ dime to visit Israel. Oh, wait! I misspoke. They planned to travel on the taxpayers’ dime to visit a place called Palestine:

Omar Tlaib itinerary Palestine Israel

Israel mulled letting the women into the country but eventually decided against it. In so doing, it relied on an existing law holding that Israel has the right to bar from entry people who support the BDS movement. One could add that it’s quite reasonable to prohibit entry to people who call for your country’s destruction and openly embrace activists who use violence to advance that destruction.

Democrats went nuts. How dare Israel enforce its borders! How dare Israel insult the U.S. Congress! How dare Israel insult American citizens! How dare Israel listen to Trump’s advice about the women!

Tlaib then upped the ante by announcing that Israel’s decision was barring her from seeing her beloved 95-year-old grandmother. She promised, in writing, that if Israel agreed, she would not engage in any anti-Israel provocation:

Israel yielded to this humanitarian request, only to have Tlaib immediately throw it back in Israel’s face:

In other words, the whole thing was a stunt to keep the news cycle going a bit longer. Which gets me back to my point about the non-stop news cycle. Would this kind of non-news also have been a story in the old days? I think it would have been. I distinctly remember when the media turned on Jimmy Carter (hoping, I’m sure, that Ted Kennedy would become the Democrat candidate for 1980). The traditional media was suddenly flooded with endless iterations about killer rabbits, lusting after the Polish people, and defecting from America.

The virtue of the internet era, despite the best efforts of Google, Facebook, and other Leftist outlets exerting out-sized control over the internet, is that people other than the mainstream media still have a say in the matter. That means that I — and you and every other sane person — can tweet or blog or podcast about the fact that, if Tlaib and Omar can boycott Israel, Israel can boycott them.

And I can point out that it’s really irrelevant that Israel is barring those two women from entering Israel, since their plan is to go to some other country altogether. That other country would be Palestine, a place found only on UNRWA maps and on the map that Tlaib put in her office when she was elected as a U.S. Congresswoman. (UNRWA, for those who don’t know, stands for United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. It is the only UN agency devoted entirely to a single group of refugees, a group, moreover, that gained its refugee status 52 years ago. All other refugee groups in the world have either been repatriated or absorbed into their new locales.)

One other opinion I’ve seen floating around is that Israel should let Tlaib and Omar in and have them see places unique to Israel, in the hopes of changing their minds. Daniel Pipes, one of the most profound thinkers about anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment believes this:

For starters, the possibility exists that the congresswomen would have learned something during their travels to diminish their hostility to Israel. It has happened before. Jesse Helms, the longtime Republican senator from North Carolina, who died in 2008, was renowned for his hostility to Israel, for example calling in 1982 for a “shut down” of U.S.-Israel relations. But he was strongly affected by a 1985 trip to the Holy Land and became Israel’s staunch supporter. In a more recent case, former Islamist Maajid Nawaz recalled on Twitter Thursday that a “trip to Israel & engagement with Israeli humans changed me profoundly.”

This is one of the few times I find myself at odds with Pipes. First, Israel can’t force the women to do anything, and visiting “pro-Israel” sites was not on their itinerary. Second, these woman have a political, public, and media investment in hating Israel. There’s no benefit to them in changing their minds. Third, serious haters are surrounded by a mental force field. This is especially true when it comes to calls (not Pipes’ call, by the way) that it would have helped Israel to take Tlaib and Omar to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Museum. I can’t think of a more terrible idea.

I can assure you that seeing Yad Vashem will not move these two open anti-Semites to see the error of their ways. Instead, whether they gloat openly or inwardly, a visit to Yad Vashem will represent something they devoutly wish — the bloody and complete destruction of the Jewish people. Keep in mind that their pals in Hamas have as part of their charter calls for the obliteration of the Jewish people and the complete Muslim takeover of their land. In other words, what Hitler started, they wish to finish. Yad Vashem is not a place of horror for them, but a reminder of work yet to be done.

So, I’m fine with the fact that Tlaib and Omar don’t get to go to Israel, that they don’t see Yad Vashem, and that the internet world, while every bit as Leftistly vicious and repetitive as the old, pre-internet mainstream media world, for the first time gives the rest of us a voice.

One more thing: I’ve seen a bunch of headlines for the past two days about the fact that that Tlaib’s grandmother called for “God to ruin Trump.” She didn’t. If you listen, you hear that she called for “Allah” to ruin Donald Trump.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never considered Allah to be the same creator as the Judeo-Christian God. Monothesist, yes. God, no. Just sayin’.

The risible Times’ take on slavery and America. Byron York has garnered deserved praise for his article describing the latest New York Times project, which isn’t just to say that Trump is racist (its planned narrative for the next 15 months), but to say that all of America is racist:

In the Times‘ view (which it hopes to make the view of millions of Americans), the country was actually founded in 1619, when the first Africans were brought to North America, to Virginia, to be sold as slaves.

This year marks the 400th anniversary of that event, and the Times has created something called the 1619 Project. This is what the paper hopes the project will accomplish: “It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”

[snip]

The basic thrust of the 1619 Project is that everything in American history is explained by slavery and race. The message is woven throughout the first publication of the project, an entire edition of the Times magazine. It begins with an overview of race in America — “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.” — written by Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones, who on Twitter uses the identity Ida Bae Wells, from the crusading late 19th-early 20th century African American journalist Ida B. Wells.

The essays go on to cover the economy (“If you want to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the plantation.”), the food we eat (“The sugar that saturates the American diet has a barbaric history as the ‘white gold’ that fueled slavery.”), the nation’s physical health (“Why doesn’t the United States have universal healthcare? The answer begins with policies enacted after the Civil War.”), politics (“America holds onto an undemocratic assumption from its founding: that some people deserve more power than others.”), daily life (“What does a traffic jam in Atlanta have to do with segregation? Quite a lot.”), and much more.

[snip]

A major goal of the 1619 Project is to take the reframing message to schools. The Times has joined an organization called the Pulitzer Center (which, it should be noted, is not the organization that hands out the Pulitzer Prize) to create a 1619 Project curriculum. “Here you will find reading guides, activities, and other resources to bring The 1619 Project into your classroom,” the center says in a message to teachers.

The paper also wants to reach into schools itself. “We will be sending some of our writers on multi-city tours to talk to students,” Hannah-Jones said recently, “and we will be sending copies of the magazine to high schools and colleges. Because to us, this project really takes wing when young people are able to read this and understand the way that slavery has shaped their country’s history.”

I have a few points I want to make, in no particular order.

To a hammer, everything is a nail. To the extent the Left is monomaniacal about America and racism, this truly is the prism through which it views this country. Nothing will change that.

The goal here is obvious: To make it clear that America is rotten to its very core. There can be no salvation. It must be destroyed root and branch, for the sin of African slavery is so deeply woven into the fabric of America’s soul that it cannot be expiated. There is no level of remorse or redemption that will wipe out this canker. The more than 600,000 American men whose bodies littered American soil are meaningless. The Civil Rights Movement is meaningless. The first black(ish) president . . . meaningless. The corruption is so interwoven with America that the country needs to be ended.

I’m reminded somehow of my aunt. She, along with her siblings (one of whom was my father) and her mother managed to escape Nazi Germany before the war. After the war, she found her way to Israel. Israel was socialist, which ought to have satisfied her, but it wasn’t socialist enough. She wanted communism, so she abandoned her husband and child and returned to Berlin. When people asked her how she could return to the land of the Nazis, she assured them that this was not a problem: “They’ve been purified by communism.” Looking at how East Germans suffered compared to their Western compatriots over the next 73 years, I have to say she was right. That’s the kind of purification the new American Left wants for us.

The Left ignores or misunderstands the history of slavery. Slavery is not uniquely American. Slavery is a part of the world and its history. I don’t believe that there has been a time or place in the world during which slavery has not existed. In the early years of European activity in North America, it was the Europeans — the Spaniards, French, and English — who brought slavery to these shores. At the same time, throughout the Muslim world, there was a huge traffic in European slaves, with millions of Europeans vanishing into Africa and the Middle East.

Moreover, slavery in America wasn’t initially driven by race. The British made a serious effort to use the Irish as slaves — in the form of indentured servants for debts or penal servitude for crimes — but the Irish, stubbornly, kept up and dying. It was black resistance to malaria, rather than their skin color, that initially made them the preferred unpaid servant race.

Put another way, for all of America’s pre-revolutionary history, slavery in every part of the world wasn’t the exception, it was the norm. Moreover, the fact that slaves ended up being black wasn’t a racial decision, it was a pragmatic decision based upon survivability.

The only places in which slavery ceased being the norm were those places that embraced capitalism. Slavery is an inefficient system, since those who labor without recompense produce at the most minimal level possible. It’s when people’s labor is tied to profit that they put energy into their work. Moreover, although the slave owner isn’t getting good work from slaves, he still has to maintain them. They must be fed, housed, and clothed. Moreover, a slave owner with the even most limited conscience also had to care for them at some level after their work years ended. After all, at this point they were unsaleable and, even in the cruelest of times during the Roman empire, slaughtering them like old horses wasn’t the done thing.

Beginning immediately after the Civil War, the northern states took off like gangbusters, creating the amazing American economic engine that exploded onto the world in the second half of the 19th century. Meanwhile, for more than 100 years after the War, the former slave states — the ones that immediately embraced Jim Crow — were economic backwaters. To the extent that they had a slavery legacy, it screwed them economically. It wasn’t until they turned their collective backs entirely on their racist pasts that the Southern states finally caught up with the northern states economically.

But again, to a hammer, everything is a nail. America is evil and modern Americans must be made to suffer until, as my aunt said, they are purified in the fires of communism.

The post No. 10 Bookworm Podcast — Tlaib, Omar, Israel, and the Times takes on slavery appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bookworm Beat 5/7/19 — the Vanishing Conservatives on Social Media edition

There are reasons for you to be very afraid of the social media crackdown on conservatives (even fringe ones), plus other scary stuff in today’s world.

Democrats prepare for 2020 by silencing conservatives.  If I had to identify the scariest news today, it would be Twitter’s purge of conservatives, which follows closely on the heels of Facebook’s purge of conservatives. These social media outlets, which hold power unimagined at any past time, are using that power to silence non-Progressive dissent.

When it came to Facebook’s most recent purge, I won’t argue that Alex Jones is an unpleasant, possibly slightly demented character. Others, though, are merely vocal not-Leftists, such as Paul Joseph Watson, whose platform is Alex Jones’s InfoWars, or provocateurs, such as Milo Yiannopoulos. As a sop to “equality,” Facebook also finally shutdown arch anti-Semite (and Democrat friend) Louis Farrakhan, whom two major Leftist media outlets promptly identified as “right wing.”

Other than Farrakhan, both Twitter and Facebook do not appear to have gone after Left wingers. Most conspicuously, they continued to ignore Left wing “news” sites that, for two years, promoted the biggest hoax in American political history or blue-checked Lefties who revel in fantasies of murdering Trump or slapping around conservatives, including the innocent Covington School boys, whose only crime was to wear MAGA hats. These same social media behemoths have also left alone Hamas sites that advocate for Israel’s destruction and the genocide of her people; and unhinged Leftists sites that screech hysterically about toxic whites, masculinity, straight people, etc., all in the most vile and violent terms.

Moreover, currently both Facebook and Twitter seem comfortable providing a platform for Pennsylvania State Representative Brian Sims, who proudly posted video of himself verbally harassing an old lady praying outside a Planned Parenthood clinic and then went on to promise to pay anyone who would dox three pro-life teenage girls.

When called on his behavior, the out-and-proud Sims doubled down on the hateful rhetoric, all of which seems to have escaped Twitter’s eagle eye for “hate speech”:

Speaking of Pennsylvania, do you recall Facebook closing down the social media account showing a school recital in which darling little American Muslim children joyously recited lines about becoming martyrs to take back the Al Aqsa mosque, all while beheading perfidious Jews in showers of blood? If you recall that, you recall more than I do. Of course, the Muslim American Society Islamic Center in Philadelphia (MAS Philly), the group that posted the video, did say that it erred in posting it, so I guess that was enough. Neither Facebook nor MAS Philly seemed troubled by the video’s genocidally anti-Semitic content, never mind the child abuse it displayed.

Given the prominence social media has in American communication, it’s fairly obvious that Twitter and Facebook both want to prevent a repeat of 2016. Their silencing of conservative voices, while doing nothing about the vile content emanating from those affiliated with the political Left, is their way of achieving that goal.

I’ve already harped on the fact that California’s open primary silences conservatives completely during November elections. This happens because California’s Leftist majority means that only Democrats show up on the ballot for state and federal offices. In other words, when voters are paying attention, the only voices they hear are Leftist ones.

My preference is for these social media outlets to be declared publishers. After all, they clearly exercise control over content. If these social media sites are identified as publishers, they can be sued over content. Then, sue them into oblivion or into even-handedness, one or the other. Failing that, the government is going to have to step in . . . and that’s never a good thing.

Why are gays and lesbians so stridently anti-abortion? One of the things Brian Sims’s behavior highlights is that, when it comes to abortion, gays and lesbians are on the front lines. On my real-me Facebook page, the most vicious posts attacking pro-Life people are from gay men, with lesbians following at a close second. (I grew up and lived for decades in the Bay Area, so I have/had a lot of lesbian and gay friends and acquaintances.)

I find peculiar the fact that people whose preferred form of sexual congress cannot result in pregnancy are the ones loudest and most aggressive in their loyalty to abortion on demand up to and including the moment a baby is born.

Is it hostility to procreators?

Is it the fact that they live in essentially child free worlds and therefore have no empathy for babies?

Is it that, when gays and lesbians are politically Left, they hew to the extremes of that ideology?

Honestly, I don’t know. What do you think?

Jews, Israel, and the Democrat presidential candidates Here are two stories, that are definitely related. The first is that 42% of American Jews, when polled, complained that Trump is too pro-Israel:

Roughly four-in-ten (42%) say they think Trump is favoring the Israelis too much, while a similar share (47%) say he is striking the right balance between the Israelis and Palestinians. The rest either say he is favoring the Palestinians too much (6%) or they don’t know (4%).

Daniel Greenfield, who brought this poll to my attention, sees a bright side:

On the bright side, this means that about 53% of American Jews are pro-Israel.

He makes another, even more important, point about those anti-Israel Jews (all of whom, I guarantee you, are products of American institutions of higher indoctrination and anti-Semitism):

Many don’t like the Jewish State and their idea of being Jewish is watching Woody Allen movies or, for millennials, Broad City.

In other words, these are Jews in name only (“My last name is Goldberg, I vote Democrat, I fast on Yom Kippur, I hate Trump, and Israel is a Nazi nation.”).

The other, related, story is that, after Hamas in Gaza (territory without any Israeli control or oversight) rained over 600 rockets down on Israel, killing four Israelis, not a single Democrat party presidential candidate spoke up.

Indeed, the only Dems who seemed willing to mention the issue were Representative Ilhan Omar (D. Somalia) and Representative Rashida Tlaib (D. Palestine). Ilhan Omar bemoaned that “cycle of violence” as if the facts weren’t that Israel did nothing until she’d been hit by hundreds of missiles. Tlaib, meanwhile, who is ostensibly an American politician, mourned what was happening to “our Palestinian people.” Not “the Palestinian people” or “our allies {as if!) in Palestine,” but “our Palestinian people.” I honestly can’t decide whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing that these two women are in Congress. On the one hand, they’re way too close to the levers of power. On the other hand, ordinary Americans can finally see what conservatives have been worrying about for years.

One of my Democrat Facebook friends, who is deeply concerned about Israel’s well-being and about rising anti-Semitism around the world, noted the Democrat primary candidates’ silence. He urged people following his Facebook feed to contact these candidates to complain. Because I don’t believe people can be harangued into agreeing with you, I confined myself to pointing out that, even if pressure caused these Dem pols to issue a belated pro-Israel statement, it was worth remembering that their initial instinct was to remain silent. I hope that thought fell on fertile soil.

I think we will see some Jewish migration to Republicans and even more Jewish migration away from Democrats. (That is, the latter group won’t be able to bring itself to conservativism, but will no longer be able to tolerate both open and covert anti-Semitism in the Democrat party.) The numbers will be small, but every vote — or lack of a vote — counts.

I’m personally ambivalent about Jews joining the Republican party. If their only reason for being there is to support Israel, but they remain Leftist in all their other values, they will do to the Democrat Party what Leftists did to red states when they fled high tax states for low tax states — they turned those states blue and promptly imposed in those states the same policies that had them fleeing their states of origin in the first place. Rush describes those people as locusts, and he’s right to do so.

My real preference is for disaffected Jewish Democrats just to sit out the 2020 election — or, even better, to cast a single protest vote for Trump and then do nothing.

Trump may have China’s number. To my great surprise, the New York Times published an opinion piece that says, not that Trump is an idiot in his dealings with China, but that Xi Jinping may have been the one who let the glory days of the Obama years go to his head. Yi-Zheng Lian argues that, while former Chinese premiers made nice with American presidents, Xi Jinping got increasingly aggressive in his policies, whether in trade, intellectual property theft, or attempts to expand China’s military and economic reach.

Lian says that Xi’s overreach happened because he became president in 2012 when China was still enjoying a great “economic miracle,” as compared to America’s ongoing recession. What Lian tactfully ignores is that Xi became Chinese’s president when Obama was America’s president — and the latter was always willing to back down and sell out.

Now, not only are China’s economic chickens coming home to roost because of its over-extension, Xi is facing a president who rightly views China as an economic and military threat. Additionally, rather than backing down, Trump is slowly but surely pushing China into a corner.

No wonder then that Steve Bannon, who may be unpleasant but is nobody’s fool, thinks that yesterday (Monday) was the most important day in Trump’s presidency:

“I happen to think that today [Monday] was the most important day of Donald Trump’s presidency,” Bannon told Dobbs. “He’s president of the United States because of the rejection of working-class people and middle-class people, about the managed decline of our country at the hands of people like Hillary Clinton. The Clinton global initiative, the whole Clinton apparatus. These globalists and elitists were very comfortable with the managed decline, particularly vis-a-vis the rise of China. And Donald Trump confronted that, particularly in the upper Midwest. This is the reason he won states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio. People understand […] the factories went to China, the jobs went to China, and the opioids came in. So I think that Trump understands that tariffs are more than taxes. They’re more about self-empowerment of the working class.”

Not only does Trump understand this, Bannon said, but he also explained it very well. “Today he said that […] ‘I’m not going to do this, you’re not gonna come back and retrade us. I’m going to hit you with the tariffs.’ And I think this is a very big week in American economic history,” he added.

In this regard, Bannon explained, it’s important to keep in mind that the pressure on Trump to be soft on China has been enormous. “The IR department of the Chinese Communist Party, the Investors Relations department, is Wall Street, the lobbyists of corporate America. The pressure on President Trump has been relentless, and it’s all the Fear Project.”

If you like seeing Leftists viciously attacked in the media, then you must read Kyle Smith’s preemptive strike against New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who is apparently planning to run for president:

Like an insecure college student trying on various personalities in an effort to capture the attention of the cutest girl in Postcolonial Gender Politics — now a preppy tennis player, now a tortured Goth guitarist, now an angry male feminist — de Blasio keeps trying to repackage himself, unable to perceive that it is the contents that people don’t like.

[snip]

De Blasio is not just a snoozy, groundhog-murdering buffoon who causes the city embarrassment on a par with the New York Knicks or JFK Airport. He’s also a skeezy money grubber who borrows tricks from his former boss Hillary Clinton (for whom he served as campaign manager in 2000). He has a tendency to set up noble-sounding activist groups that by miraculous coincidence attract dollars from entities wishing to grease the wheels with City Hall.

[snip]

What’s most salient about de Blasio is the sheer scale of his incompetence: Without even an “Oops,” he just shuttered his disastrous “Renewal” program, which torched three-quarters of a billion dollars on failed educators who were happy to cash the checks and delivered approximately zero results. De Blasio’s New York City Housing Authority — the outfit that runs all those charming housing projects — is so unspeakable (mold, rats, lead paint, unsafe elevators, leaky pipes, etc.) that the city was forced to accept oversight from a monitor appointed by Ben Carson’s Department of Housing and Urban Development. That’s right: The mayor bungled one of his central duties so badly that it’s now under the control of the administration of . . . Donald J. Trump.

What should really shake up the few sane people still loyal to a Democrat party is that de Blasio, with all his faults and failures, fits perfectly into the current Democrat party presidential candidate line-up.

Not all children’s deaths are equal. I sometimes get the sense the Progressives’ “compassion” is circumscribed by political need. For example, think of Democrats on the border issue: They’re all about “the children, the children, the children,” except that they don’t seem to care at all that, with the flood of people crossing our southern border, children are being rented out to create temporary families for asylum claims. These children are merchandise and, I suspect, get handed over to sex traffickers when their utility is over.

Moreover, many of the complaints about “the children, the children, the children,” don’t seem to be rooted in fact. For example, Sheriff David Clarke (ret.) wrote an article pointing out that three “cause célèbre” dead children all died from illnesses unrelated to the U.S. border. Each death was a tragedy, but none had political weight, so the media and their pro-immigrant fellow travelers had to lie about or obscure the reasons these poor children died.

Reading Sheriff Clarke’s article made me realize that I’ve seen almost nothing in the American media about Anders Holch Povlsen’s children. If you’re saying “Anders Holch who? And why his children?” you’ve made my point for me.

Asos is a huge British online fashion and beauty retailer. Its founder, however, is a Danish billionaire, Anders Holch Povlsen. He and his family — Povlsen, his wife, and his four young children — were in Sri Lanka for a vacation a little while ago. They stayed at a very nice hotel. Well, it was a very nice hotel until Muslim terrorists blew it up, along with several churches on an ill-fated Easter Sunday.

That explosion killed three out of the four Povlsen children: Alfred, Alma, and Agnes. Only little Astrid remains. You can see the surviving Povlsens’ overwhelming grief in this photo essay about the funeral, where they had to watch three of their children get carried away in little, white, flower-covered coffins.

Normally, you’d think the media would be all over a story about the deaths of three out of four children in a billionaire’s family. Imagine if they had died in a car accident or while marching in a pink pussy hat parade. We would have seen non-stop coverage, along with hand-wringing, about unsafe cars (a green world without cars would be better) or about the incredible evil of alt-right people.

But that’s not how these children died. Instead, they died quite politically incorrectly at the hands of Muslim terrorists. Their deaths, not being politically useful, have been ignored as much as possible.

Remember, if it doesn’t fit the narrative, it doesn’t exist.

If the only thing Trump did was change the federal judicial bench, he will have been the most important, consequential president in our lifetimes.

I say this because an Obama appointee just couldn’t bear to imprison for an extended period a young man who, at age 18, decided he wanted to blow up a whole bunch of people in the name of Allah. Fortunately, Adel Daoud confided, in between happy giggles, his plan to an undercover FBI agent, rather than a real terrorist. That’s why, when Daoud pushed the detonator on a car bomb outside a crowded Chicago bar, nothing happened.

But for Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, an Obama appointee, Daoud’s utterly evil intent didn’t matter. What mattered was that he was a poor, lost little boy:

Coleman said Daoud was uniquely immature at the time, when he was 18, noting how Daoud is heard giggling almost constantly as he brainstorms attacks to avenge what he saw as the West’s war on Muslims.

At an impressionable age, the judge said the “awkward young man with few friends” was immediately drawn to the 38-year-old FBI agent who first met with Daoud. Daoud promptly began tossing out ideas to impress the agent posing as a terrorist, once suggesting they mount an attack with “flying cars” packed with explosives.

“He continued to do what teenage boys do … talk big,” Coleman said.

Somehow that “big talk” translated into big action, because Daoud actually pushing what he thought was a detonator button. Coleman, though, was moved most by his giggles. Seeking to make things better for this poor little baby, Coleman gave Daoud the lightest sentence possible.

Thomas Lifson, who wrote about this story, explains:

All of that happened on 2012, and after years of incarceration while the case was prosecuted and he was tried, yesterday Daoud was sentenced to 16 years in federal prison, not the 40 years the prosecution asked for, with the six-plus years he has spent in jail credited against the sentence. In addition, he will concurrently serve (in other words, no extra prison time) for two other crimes: hiring an assassin to kill the informant who turned him in and the attempted murder of an inmate who he thought had insulted the Prophet Mohammed.

Next time you look at Trump in despair because he tweeted something that offended your sensibilities, think of Judge Coleman and ask yourself if you want more of her or fewer of her on the federal court. If you think her judicial sensibilities are too Progressive, just be grateful for Trump. Imagine what the federal bench, all the way up to the Supreme Court, would have looked like with four years of Hillary.

(Speaking of the Supreme Court, who believes that Justice Ginsburg is effectively fulfilling her responsibilities on that body? I’m not arguing that she’s dead; I just wonder if she’s functional.)

Helping out a friend. I just learned that Garry Hamilton, husband of master blogger Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, is being treated for cancer. And as is the case with cancer treatments, the experience is awful and expensive. Our thoughts and prayers can help the personal awfulness of it all and your donation to their GoFundMe campaign can help the expense. So, if you’ve got any spare change lying around, please send it their way.

The post Bookworm Beat 5/7/19 — the Vanishing Conservatives on Social Media edition appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bookworm Beat 4/10/19 — the flyover country edition

This discursive Bookworm Beat wanders from American black culture, to evil Leftists, to the wonders of Wal-Mart versus the horrors of socialized medicine.

Everything Leftists hate about America. I’ve been spending some time of late in small town America — in Eastern Tennessee to be specific. Frankly, I can see why coastal blue staters hate this part of America. There are so many things here that give offense: good suburban infrastructure, happy people, friendly interactions between the races, staggeringly beautiful nature with lots of open space, Wal-Marts, lawns that homeowners tend every weekend, and lots of pro-Trump and pro-Second Amendment bumper stickers on cars. This kind of well-managed, all-American environment is enough to give any Leftist chronic heartburn and a desire to destroy.

Speaking of those lawns, even though today is not a weekend day, I worked with a friend to get rid of ivy that had overtaken a corner of his property.

Ivy looks so pretty, doesn’t it? It’s not. There’s nothing pretty about it. It’s like Kudzu’s younger brother.

I filled seven big black garbage bags with the stuff and only cleared out 2/3 of it. I am exhausted. I also feel pretty darn self-righteous, though, which helps offset some of the fatigue.

But enough about living the good life in flyover country America. Let me get down to the brass tacks of today’s stories.

For American blacks, the problem isn’t race, it’s culture; more specifically, welfare culture. I’m going to assume that all of you saw Candace Owen’s testimony before a Democrat-run House Committee anxious to find a white nationalism problem where none exists. Owens was obviously nervous, but she was also rocking and rolling, talking about pathologies within the African American community that have nothing to do with white nationalism.

No wonder that the utterly vile Ted Lieu tried to smear Owens as a Hitler lover while the brain dead (Go)Nadler wrongly chastised her for calling Lieu stupid. The Democrats should be deeply embarrassed that these two moronic, immoral people represent them.

Shame, though, isn’t part of a Democrat lexicon unless the Democrat is trying to shame someone else. In fact, what the Leftist media did to try to offset the damage that Owens imposed on the Leftist brand was to repeat Lieu’s smear that a black woman is a Hitler lover. Even worse, those Democrats I follow on Facebook, rather than asking, as Owens did, “How dumb do you think we are?” gleefully passed on those same offensive and nonsensical smears.

A friend of mine keeps saying, “I don’t see any way that we’re going to avoid a Second Civil War.” I always come back at him saying, “We’re already in the Second Civil War. There just haven’t been any shots fired; only hats attacked.” (One of the more insane attacks involved a white woman attacking a Hispanic woman for being a racist because the Hispanic woman were a MAGA hat. As (Go)Nadler demonstrated, white Leftists aren’t even pretending to use their brains anymore.)

What I want to address here briefly is Candace’s point about self-inflicted pathologies within the black community. She’s right, of course, as I’ve blogged here before.

I’ll just add two things. First, while those pathologies were present in black communities through the early 1960s thanks to systemic racial discrimination in the form of slavery, Jim Crow in the South, and open racism in the North, the reality is that by the early 1960s, blacks were making huge social and economic gains by following the universal rules for success in a free market economy: education, job, marriage, children, in that order.

What brought all this to a screeching halt was Johnson’s “Great Society,” which was intended, as Johnson himself admitted to a friend, to keep “n*****s voting for Democratic for 200 years.”  (Some say this quotation is apocryphal, but it’s certainly held up to reality for almost 60 years.) Suddenly, education, jobs, and marriages went out the window. All that remained was children: half of which have been aborted and, of those not aborted, over of 70% of whom have been raised in poverty-stricken homes with single mothers getting some form of welfare.

This ongoing African-American tragedy has nothing to do with skin color and nothing to do with America’s history of either slavery or Jim Crow. Instead, it has everything to do with culture — a culture brought down thanks to what was effectively a pact with the Devil, with the Devil in this case being a welfare state that made education, men, work, and nuclear families redundant and, indeed, offensive. No wonder that, as blacks are finally recognizing the soul-stealing agreement the Left foisted on them, the Democrats are trying to distract them by calling a black woman . . . Hitler.

Looked at in this way, the reparations that all of the Democrat party candidate for president insist must be imposed on a generation of Americans who had nothing to do with slavery is just a reaffirmation of the original welfare contract with the Devil. Reparations won’t make things better. Instead, they will buy another 60 years of Democrat votes built on the ruined bodies and souls of American blacks.

The second thing I’ll add is a point that Scott Adams made, and he’s the first I’ve heard make it: Regarding reparations, he says that someone is going to ask, if we’re giving reparations, by what standard should we measure black lives in America, at least economically? Do we measure them against all whites? Inner city whites? Appalachian whites? Vietnamese who came here 40 years ago with nothing and now are middle class?

Or — and this is the kicker — do we ask how these blacks would be doing if they hadn’t been brought to America in the first place? The answer, of course, is not well. No matter how badly blacks are doing in America, they’re doing worse in Africa.

I’ll offer two links to support that last statement. The first is Kim du Toit’s post saying Let Africa Sink. The second is Keith Richburg’s masterpiece, Out of America : A Black Man Confronts Africa, in which he explains how a stint in Africa while working for the Washington Post made him grateful that his long-ago ancestors had suffered the horrors of being transported to and enslaved in America.

Some of today’s most storied Democrats are either very stupid or very evil. When it comes to the openly anti-Semitic, anti-American Ilhan Omar, I’m inclined to go with the latter choice, although I won’t deny her a strong dollop of the former. I don’t think she’s the brightest bulb on the block, but she has down pat the rap of victimhood, nicely wrapped around her adherence to sharia.

Anyway, the Democrat Omar tale today is a story told in three tweets.

Tweet 1 came when Dan Crenshaw heard how Omar described 9/11:

Tweet 2 is Omar’s response, which does not address the substance of Rep. Crenshaw’s tweet. Instead, she immediately heads straight to victimhood. No surprise there, because it’s worked so well for her up until now:

Tweet 3 explains why I said “up until now.” Dan Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL, won’t let her get away with her victimhood ploy. No doesn’t grovel. Instead, he just calls her out on her mindless victimhood calumnies:

I like the cut of Rep. Crenshaw’s jib.

Be sure to whip this out when a Leftist praises socialized medicine. One of my conservative Facebook friend is begging everyone to spread this link far and wide. I’m doing my best right here:

The fraying edges of universal health care : Britain’s version of ‘Medicare for All,’ delivers rationing and even blindness

If you’re wondering what Democrats have in mind when they tout “Medicare For All,” look no further than England. There are more reports of the U.K.’s National Health System’s collapse, this time featuring horror stories of rationing care for the elderly. Doctors are now sounding alarms bells that seniors with cataracts are going blind as they wait for surgical approval.

The Guardian reported, “Patients who are losing their sight are being forced to wait for months before having eye cataracts removed because of NHS cost-cutting. … The NHShas imposed restrictions on patients’ access to cataract surgery in more than half of England. … The Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) condemned the rationing as shocking. It warned that not treating people with cloudy vision risks them falling and breaking bones, thus costing the NHS more.”

Last year, The New York Times reported some people in England were waiting for 12 hours to be seen in emergency rooms.

There’s more in the article, much, much more. Once again, let me spell it out: Europe’s post-WWII fling with socialism, or at least its decision to socialize its welfare services, worked for one reason and one reason only: America paid for it. For 70 years, we absorbed most of Europe’s military costs. We worked so that they got free cradle to grave care.

In the unwinding of the world since the Soviet Union’s collapse, Europe’s had to pay for its own socialized welfare system, and it’s had to do that at the same time that its citizens decided once and for all that having children is time-consuming, exhausting, and expensive, so why bother? Without American money and without a rising class of young people to foot the bill for old people’s care . . . older Europeans are in deep doo-doo.

Remember: this is what the Democrats want for you.

The free market is always the best answer. Turn your eyes away from Europe and look at the 1 gig flash drive you got for free at a trade show or a craft fair. When those things first came on the market around the year 2000, you paid several hundred dollars for a 512 MB flash drive. Capitalism drove prices down. People finding needs and filling them, and building better mousetraps is the best way to deliver the greatest amount and quality of services and products to the largest number of people.

Don’t believe me? Go to Wal-Mart. If you’re a Lefty, stop sneering at Wal-Mart’s shoppers and start looking at the dazzling array of products, all at affordable prices. Maybe Wal-Mart shoppers aren’t dressed as expensively as the Kardashians (although most look a darn sight classier), but at Wal-Mart, these shoppers have something akin to the same buying power as the Kardashians do when they’re wasting their money on weird clothes sold on Paris catwalks.

My brain function feels as if it’s entangled with ivy. I’d better stop. Your comments are always welcome.

The post Bookworm Beat 4/10/19 — the flyover country edition appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Are there any normal Democrat primary candidates?

Watching the Democrat primary candidates emerge on the debate stage will be like watching a clown car disgorge its contents. Currently, they’re a joke.

I’ve been looking at the roster of current candidates for the Democrat primary and I have to ask — are any of them normal? Please understand that I’m not talking about qualifications. I’m really just talking about normalcy, as Warren G. Harding would have said. And for the ones who are normal, they are so undistinguished it’s almost breathtaking.

Just think about this roster of announced or thinking-about-announcing Dem presidential candidates. They make Jeb! look like a normal dynamo. Indeed, they make every Republican candidate ever look normal, scintillating, and highly qualified:
John Francis O’Rourke — Hit and run drunk driving, cow porn poetry, feeding his wife baby feces, eating dirt, sweating excessively, and so much more. Much, much more.

John Hickenlooper — Watches hardcore porn with his mother. ‘Nuff said.

Elizabeth Warren — She’s Fauxcahontas with a tin political ear and she drinks beer like a robot.

Joe Biden — Do I need to say more than “bad touch” Biden?

Cory Booker — I call him Spartawuss. Ace calls him “the Fiercely Heterosexual Cory Booker.” I’d respect Booker more if he’d just admit that he’s gay. Oh, and he admits to assaulting a woman in college.

Amy Klobuchar — The politician who would give Joan Crawford a run for her money in the “no wire hangers” category.

Kamala Harris — A woman who started her political career by sleeping her way to the middle, who lacks any charm, who has bad political instincts, and who lies about smoking pot in college. No, just no.

Andrew Yang — There’s the whole “don’t circumcise me, bro” thing, plus there’s that thing about handing out taxpayer money like candy. Why doesn’t he start with handing out his own money like candy?

Marianne Williamson — Her campaign asks people to “think. love. contribute.” She’s a New Age guru. Do I need to say more about that, either?

Bernie Sanders — Aside from being a hardcore communist, which means he cheerfully accepts one of the most evil, deadly ideologies in human history, he honeymooned in the Soviet Union, never met a totalitarian dictator he didn’t like, and drunkenly sang songs half-naked while in Russia. Really?

Kirsten Gillibrand — Do we really want as president a woman who sounds like a Barbie doll on helium and one, moreover, who panders to the Left even more than Elizabeth Warren? I don’t think this woman has stuck to any principled position ever.

Jay Inslee — This is a man with zero name recognition. Other than that, he’s a generic Leftist politician who’s been tight with the Clintons. He’s a Leftist of last resort.

Pete Buttigieg — The only openly gay candidate (sorry, Cory, you should have been honest). Buttigieg sounds great on paper, at least if you’re a Leftist (he loves Bernie), and he’s got that whole Bill Clinton Rhodes Scholar thing. The problem is that Buttigieg presides without distinction South Bend, Indiana — and that’s the sum total of his management experience.

Julian Castro — Like Inslee, a completely generic Leftist politician. His only distinctive qualification in the Democrat Party is that he’s Hispanic. Haven’t we learned from Obama that electing to the presidency because he’s a token representative of his race doesn’t presage good outcomes?

Tulsi Gabbard — Sorry, Tulsi, but you’re way too close to Assad in Syria. That’s some serious bad judgment.

John Delaney — Who?

Trump is now and always has been an eccentric, so maybe he doesn’t meet the “normal” metric. Nevertheless, before becoming president, he had a stunningly accomplished career distinguished by actual accomplishments. Moreover, in his two years as president he’s racked up a string of executive successes both domestic and foreign capped by getting a clean bill of health from political operative Robert Mueller and his team of Trump-hating attorneys.

I don’t see any of the Democrat clown car passengers taking Trump on successfully in 2020. Of course, that’s what everyone said about Trump vis-a-vis the Republican primary candidates so no, I’m not making predictions. I’m just struggling to deal with the facts before me.

Sitting here, I see a bunch of really weird or totally blah people, all of whom lack significant accomplishments. And that’s not even factoring in their hard, harder, hardest Leftist positions and their active or passive embrace of the anti-Semitism Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have made the Democrat Party’s worst kept secret.

The post Are there any normal Democrat primary candidates? appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Congressman Lee Zeldin Rips Anti-Semite, Ilhan Omar, on House Floor (video)

The three stooges (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar) in the House of Congress are the gift to cowering Republicans that keeps on giving.  Kudos to Congressman Lee Zeldin for daring to go where Kevin McCarthy among others are too spineless to go.

Published on Mar 11, 2019 by GLOBAL News

Watch congressman gets up and rips rep. Ilhan Omar to shreds! Omar’s worst nightmare. Congressman Lee Zeldin and Doug Collins condemns Rep. Ilhan Omar of her “a. n. t. i. S. e. m. i. t. i. c” rhetoric over the past month in light of recent legislation to pass through the House. Should Rep. Ilhan Omar stay on the Foreign Affairs Committee?

The post Congressman Lee Zeldin Rips Anti-Semite, Ilhan Omar, on House Floor (video) appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bookworm Beat 3/8/2019 — the Democrat Party goes full anti-Semitism

An illustrated edition focusing on the Dems’ weirdly ecumenical transition from anti-Black (slavery, Jim Crow, ghettoization) to untrammeled anti-Semitism.
(Plus other examples of the myriad threats socialists pose to America, and the way Trump is a bulwark against those threats.)

Before getting to the posters, a short video I urge you all to watch:

We now return to our regularly scheduled illustrated edition

Anti-Semitism Ilhan Omar David Duke Democrats















































The post Bookworm Beat 3/8/2019 — the Democrat Party goes full anti-Semitism appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Leftism, Islam, anti-Semitism, and the Jews

Democrats and Muslims have come together with anti-Semitism because it is their ideological destiny — and Leftist Jews are too indoctrinated to see it.

One of the fascinating things about the world in which we live is the alliance between Leftists and Muslims. At first glance, it seems as if they have nothing in common. Leftists tout women’s rights; Muslims tout women’s burqas. Leftists tout LGBTQ rights; Muslims tout homosexual hangings. Leftists purport to hate slavery; Muslims have slavery as a core doctrine. Leftists hate rape; Muslims have rape as another core doctrine.

Given these profound differences, one way to account for the Leftist/Muslim alliance today is to look to the old Arab adage stating “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” (Or, as Aristotle said first, “a common danger unites even the bitterest enemies.”) Both the Left and Islam are united in a fight against Western civilization. And significantly, the thing they are fighting against most fiercely is what lies at the core of Western civilization: The value of the individual.

Here’s the thing: Despite their superficial differences, Leftists and Muslims have something very profound in common, which is that both are completely totalitarian ideologies. Each envisions complete control over all people around the world. Individualism is anathema to them. It is this common vision that binds them in the short term. In the long term, of course, each assumes that its ideology will be victorious and that, like the Borg, the winning ideology (whether Islam or Leftism) will either assimilate or destroy the losing ideology (whether Leftism or Islam).

Oh, I almost forgot. There’s another thing that binds them and that is their abiding hatred for Jews. (They hate other religions too, don’t get me wrong, as we can see from the murderous purge of Christians across the Muslim world as well as the softer effort to purge Christians in America. But there’s something about the Jews….)

I have a theory about this Jew hatred. Judaism was the first ideology to identify individual worth, something that Jews wrote down in the Bible and that Christianity, which is Judaism’s ideological progeny, brought to the greater world. From first to last– that is, from God creating man in his own image to Christ recognizing the worth of each individual — the Judeo-Christian tradition is about the individual.

The Judeo-Christian belief system is about freedom of conscience, not mindless subordination to a tyrannical God, set of gods, or earthly dictator. It’s about moral values, not frantically thrashing about to find some way to appease moral or immortal despots, whether with human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, or meaningless rituals divorced from morality and human worth. It’s also about recognizing God in others, whether in the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount, both of which require that we treat other humans with the dignity we want for ourselves.

Everything the Bible demands is antithetical to both Leftism and Islam. Those faiths (for Leftism is a faith) divide the world into those with power and those without. They see people as either masters or slaves. They see individuals as beings who have no free will but, instead, as beings to be endlessly manipulated for some greater good that always, somehow, coincides perfectly with the masters’ needs.

For those in thrall to totalitarian ideologies, there is no enemy greater than the man who says, “I am me” — not “I am us,” or “We are you,” or “I am you,” or “Tell me what to do,” but “I am me. I am a person created in God’s image. I have free will. I have a moral compass that it is imperative upon me to follow because of my personal relationship with God, to whom I am ultimately answerable.” In a totalitarian world, the person who insists on his individualism and moral worth is the ultimate threat.

Given that this abiding commitment to the individual infuses both Jewish and Christian doctrine, why is anti-Semitism, not anti-Christianity, the oldest hatred? A few reasons.

First, in the Christian world, Christianity, as the child, had to sever itself from Judaism, the parent. As every parent of teens knows, this is often a brutal process — and no more so than when it takes place in a pre-modern world that is itself exceptionally brutal.

To its great credit (and I say this without any sarcasm), in the last two hundred years Christianity has left behind its childhood and adolescence. It now approaches Judaism as one adult to another, just as mature children can finally forge a new — and often so much better — relationship with the parent from whom they sought to separate. The two faiths can enjoy their familial bonds while still valuing their mature differences. It is today, as it should be, a healthy relationship. (I do not include Leftist “churches” in this analysis. They are Leftist first and only vaguely Christian second. To the extent they share a slender bond with Biblical Christianity, they are immature.)

Significantly, there is nothing in the New Testament itself that demands that Christians be anti-Semitic. This was something imposed from the outside, especially when earthly European sovereigns took Christianity as a state religion and used it as one more instrument of power and control. In these circumstances, they found Judaism to be a useful scapegoat for their own — and a cruel world’s — failings. Nothing did more to correct the Christian and Jewish relationship than the wonderful American decision to sever church and state. (I should point out that this does not mean keeping people of faith out of politics; it simply means that the government has no say in religious doctrine.)

Second, in the Muslim world, things took a very different turn. Islam is about Mohamed, the perfect man. And for Mohamed, Jew hatred was personal. He suggested to regional Jews that they declare him God’s prophet and the Jews refused. Mohamed, a narcissist who lacked Christ’s gracious spirit, took the rebuff personally and slaughtered every Jew he could find.

After that, Mohamed went one worse and baked his personal hurt and animus into Koranic doctrine. Anti-Semitism isn’t just an interpretative mistake as it was with the early Christian world. Instead, for each Muslim, it’s a religious imperative not just to hate the Jew but to destroy the Jew. The execrable Ilhan Omar is nothing more than a good Muslim.

There are two ways to jettison entirely Islamic anti-Semitism: re-write the Koran, which isn’t going to happen; or destroy world Islam as thoroughly as the Allies destroyed Germany, Italy, and Japan, which isn’t going to happen either.

Failing that, the best that can be done with Islamic anti-Semitism is to corral it wherever possible. Also, as is happening in the Middle East, the old “enemy of my enemy is my friend” principle still works. Now that Obama empowered Iran so that it has become an existential threat, not just to Israel, but to Sunni Gulf States, suddenly pragmatic Muslims are discovering that having Jews in the neighborhood isn’t such a bad thing.

Three, in the socialist world, just as in the Muslim world, anti-Semitism is baked into the cake. Let me start by saying that there is no anti-Semite worse than a renegade Jew. I was just reading about Jewish life in Romania and learned that the first blood libel there was sparked by a Jew who had converted to Christianity. Indeed, it’s a frequent refrain in Jewish history that those most violently opposed to Jews, and the ones most likely to spark pogroms, were converts. There is, of course, no zealot like a convert.

Karl Marx was genetically Jewish, but his father had converted so that the family could have better opportunities in early 19th century Germany. Marx therefore grew up as a shaky Christian in an anti-Semitic environment. He could have been like Disraeli, in England, who was fascinated by and proud of his Jewish heritage despite the family conversion when he was still a child. Instead, though, Marx clearly went the either way — he was going to out-hate the Jew.

When Marx eventually came up with his crackpot social and economic theories (and they are crackpot, because they were totally wrong about the past, totally misread his present, and were completely illiterate about economic principles), he wrote and wrote and wrote. His writings became gospel for Leftists and he baked Jew hatred into them. Read the following and tell me if it’s anything different from anything the National Socialists or Stalin or Ilhan Omar would say:

What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

Keep in mind, please, that not only did Marx smear the Jews with the worst canards that emerged from 1,900 years of an adolescent Christianity’s warfare against Jews, he folded it into his entire “capitalist versus proletariat” shtick. Even though most of the world’s Jews were mired in abysmal poverty, he nevertheless painted all as parasitical capitalists who needed to be destroyed in order to create a workers’ paradise.

Thanks to Marx’s historic, cultural, and economic illiteracy, a fundamental principle of socialism is to rid the world of Jews. In this way, it is precisely the same as Islam, a fundamental principle of which is to rid the world of Jews. Both doctrines reflect the totalitarian opposition to an ideology predicated on individual liberty, as well as the mad tyrant’s rejection of a faith that, in one way or another, made him feel bad about himself. In other words, Islamic and Socialist anti-Semitism are bound together by ignorance, narcissism, and sociopathy. No wonder the two ideologies are so comfortable in each other’s company.

You can see, therefore, why anti-Semitism is becoming increasingly prominent in the Democrat Party. Once upon a time, the American Democrat party was a totalitarian party committed to slavery. After the Civil War, it tried to shake that image by presenting itself as the party of expertise (those were the racist Wilson Progressives). It swept-up the intelligentsia that way, by making them feel that their learned skills entitled them to petty tyranny.

During the Depression, the Democrats quite openly went for fascism, which is a form of soft socialism. By this I mean that, under fascism, rather than having the state actually take over all private property, the state just gets to dictate what is done with private property. It’s still state control.

Frankly, the only difference between Rooseveltian fascism and Hitler’s and Mussolini’s fascism is that the Americans never went in for wars fought for world domination and genetic purity. (Although one cannot deny that Hitler was inspired by the Democrat Party’s race laws when he first set about trying to legislate against the Jews.)

The American Democrat party figured out a variation of the “if you can’t beat them, join them” principle. Committing genocide against American blacks was a bridge too far and Jim Crow was (sadly, as far as Democrats were concerned) a strictly regional phenomenon. What Democrats realized was that, because so many American blacks existed in abysmal poverty (thanks in large part to Democrat racism), their votes could be bought.

Enter welfare. Blacks had a choice: Starve thanks to Democrat policies while proudly voting for the Republicans who had liberated them from slavery; or eat while voting for the Democrats who starved them with one hand and fed them welfare with the other. Pragmatism won the day. And after a few decades of dependency, just like lions in the zoo, America’s blacks got used to being fed in a cage rather than freely hunting for their own food.

But even this was still not a truly socialist Democrat party. After WWII, the previous soft fascism was anathema, so the Democrats re-fashioned fascism as a “Republican thing.” Moreover, the Democrats still had a constituency of white working and middle class voters who saw Dems as a working man’s party, not a plutocrats’ party (which was laughable, considering that FDR was the ultimate plutocrat). That’s the Democrat party in which I grew up. Republicans were considered to be white shoe bankers while Dems were the people’s people.

Even for the last few decades, despite the fact that Dems were embracing more and more hardcore Marxist ideology, the party still remembered that it was getting votes from the old-fashioned working class and the lower middle class, and that these were people who still thought socialism was a bad thing. Interestingly, having controlled academia since the 1960s, Dems didn’t need to worry about their middle- and upper-middle class constituents.

The sad reality is that people who attended American colleges and universities beginning in the 1960s were endlessly, mindless, and repetitively taught that socialism was a good thing. The fact that socialist countries were despotic basket cases did nothing to discredit the idea. “They just hadn’t done socialism right.”

Moreover, for decades starting in the 1960s and going right through the 1990s, academics and their progeny loved pointing to Europe as the ne plus ultra of working “socialism.” they were undeterred by the fact that (a) Europe still had a market-based economy and (b) Europe’s beloved cradle-to-crave social welfare system was actually an American product. Yup, we Americans paid for it by absorbing almost all of Europe’s defense costs during the Cold War. Americans worked hard so Europeans could retire early, travel endlessly, and get free (although lousy) health care.

Now, in 2019, the Democrats are finally abandoning their pretense that they are not now and never have been socialists. After six decades of controlling education (not just college now, but K-12, plus Headstart), the media, and the entertainment world, Lefties are no longer content to be the ignored man behind the curtain. They’re out and proud. They are socialists. And when you accept their proud assertion, remember what’s baked into the socialist pie: Anti-Semitism. Today’s Democrats are not criticizing Ilhan Omar because their ideology when it comes to Jews aligns perfectly with hers.

But what about all those Jews who are good socialists? Why is that? What the Hell is wrong with those people? Again, there are a few things:

Historically, despite Marx’s ignorant ravings about Jews and capitalism, most of the world’s Jews were horrifically ignorant and downtrodden. They were ferociously abused by various governments, whether Polish or Russian or French or whatever. Unaware of the finer points of Marx’s writing and anti-Semitism, they gravitated naturally to his socialist promises, especially the one about the overthrow of those governments that abused them so badly. Moreover, to the extent that the Church opposed socialism, a church Jews had feared as a fount of anti-Jewish preaching . . . well, we’re back to the whole “enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing.

After WWII, Jews also fell into the trap (thanks to hard work from American Leftists) of believing that the Nazis (aka fascists) were right wing, not proud Left wing socialists. For a smart people, this was crazy stupid, considering that the Nazis’ real name was National Socialists, but whatever….

The confusion was made worse by the fact that Israel was founded as a socialist country, embracing Marx’s idiot ideas while ignoring his anti-Semitism. So fascists are Republicans, and socialists are the good guys, and Jews are good guys, and you know the rest.

But really the main reason Jews in America are staunch Leftists is because Jews are among those Americans most committed to higher education. Jews send their children to college — and American colleges and universities are deeply committed to using their power over vulnerable young people to convert them to Leftism. This is why I’ve been saying for a long time that the best way to stop Leftism in America is to pull federal funds from all institutes of higher education. Trump’s promise to do so for free speech violations is a good start, but it’s not enough.

I think I’m done now: Christians (true Christians, not Leftists who pretend to Christianity) have matured beyond anti-Semitism; Muslims and Leftists have anti-Semitism baked into their core doctrine. The Democrat Party has gone full Leftist, so it embraces Islamic anti-Semitism. And Jews, having had way too much college education, are so deeply imbued with Leftism that they are incapable of seeing that the toxic combination of Islam and Leftism is already preparing the road to the gas chamber. They are exactly like good German Jews in 1933 who refused to accept that their beloved country could ever turn on them.

The post Leftism, Islam, anti-Semitism, and the Jews appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

#DearFellowJews: a hashtag to help a #Jexodus (or #Jexit)

Jexodus (or Jexit) asks Jews to leave an increasingly anti-Semitic Democrat Party, something I’m trying to facilitate with tweets to my #DearFellowJews.

If you’ve been paying attention to the news of late, you can’t have missed stories about anti-Semitism. For example, for many years now, France has periodically been roiled by grotesque anti-Semitic murders, including one that happened in connection with the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, in January 2015.

I mention that massacre specifically, because it was an event that lifted for Leftists American Jews, even if ever so slightly, the veil hiding the anti-Semitic rot at the heart of the Democrat Party. As you may recall, in January 2015, Islamists committed a mass murder at the headquarters of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo because it had dared to mock the eminently mockable Mohamed. Two days later, a member of the same radical Islamist community entered a kosher market in Paris, took hostages, killed four people, and injured nine.

The massacre did not occur because anyone in the Hypercacher market had mocked Mohamed. No one had, of course. The only reason the Hypercacher massacre happened was because Islamist murderers always use the opportunity of a massacre to include a few Jews. Thus, when Islamists committed the exceptionally bloody Mumbai massacre, they wasted resources deviating from their central massacre just so that they could torture to death a rabbi and his wife who had a small Chabad House in Mumbai.

In a way, this Muslim massacre technique (a big massacre that includes, as a sideline, brutally killing a few Jews) is comparable to Hitler’s Holocaust: For Hitler and Germany, the primary goal was world conquest. However, just as was the case with the Islamists, Hitler’s anti-Semitism was so all-encompassing that he willingly diverted resources from the main goal to accomplish a secondary goal that was neither ancillary to nor necessary for world conquest. Indeed, it lessened the chances for world conquest, but Hitler couldn’t stop himself.

But I digress. This is not a post about rising anti-Semitism around the world. It’s just a prelude to a post about rising anti-Semitism in America and, more specifically, about the anti-Semitic rot at the heart of the Democrat Party . . . which brings me back to the purposefully anti-Semitic attack on Jews in the Hypercacher market in Paris.

Obama, by then well into his second term as President, had something to say about that event: He casually remarked that the Hypercacher victims were “a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris” whom terrorists “randomly” shot. It was bit of cavalier word-play manifestly intended to hide the fact that the dead and wounded were not just a “bunch of folks in a deli” nor was their shooting random: It was a deliberate, targeted anti-Semitic attack.

Those of us paying attention to Obama in 2008 were not surprised by this cavalier attempt to cover up manifest anti-Semitism within Islam. We knew about the Los Angeles Times hiding “a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat….” We knew that Obama ran with a hard Left crowd that celebrated the “Palestinians,” who are carpetbaggers who came to the Holy Land in the mid-19th century and considered the Jews, whose ties to the Holy Land extend back in an unbreakable march of over 5,000 years, to be interlopers.

These examples, though, informed only those few Jews paying attention. This stalwart 22% of American Jews refused to vote for Obama in the 2008 election in significant part because they knew that Obama came in with a slimy trail of anti-Semitism in his wake.

When we tried to raise this anti-Semitism with the 78% of Jews who were unbelievably excited about Obama, they dismissed us as paranoid. The Khalidi bash was mere rumor because no sensible newspaper would ever sit on something as newsworthy as that. As for the anti-Semites with whom Obama traveled, well, hadn’t every president made kissy faces with Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson and Al “Diamond Merchants” Sharpton?

We were also told that Presidents can’t always choose their followers so we shouldn’t take it too seriously when they have some extremists backing them — a bit of wisdom that vanished when a minute speck of white supremacists threw their backing to Trump who had never attended secret racist meetings but had, instead, won awards for his work benefiting the African-American community.

Almost immediately, Obama’s nascent presidency exposed a few more problems our president had with Jews. In his first major overseas appearance, Obama went to Egypt subtly implied that Israel came into being, not because of her 5,000 plus years in that land, but because of the Holocaust — a grotesque canard that Muslims advance to support their claim that they are victims of the Nazis too: That is, were it not for Europe’s guilt about the Holocaust (which Muslims claim never happened), the Western imperialists would never have dumped white Jewish Zionist supremacists onto the beleaguered, victimized Muslims.

Obama’s slimy anti-Semitic associations also followed him right into the White House. Immediately after his first inauguration, Obama’s beloved Reverend Wright, who hated America, made it patently clear that he didn’t like Jews either. But again, the 78% of Jews who voted for Obama told us we were hypersensitive, paranoid, unfair, and unrealistic about how the world works.

As Obama’s years in the White House began to add up, those of us Jews who were suspicious never had anything to allay those suspicions. Instead, we saw him treat Benjamin Netanyahu like trash (and we saw Veep Joe Biden do the same. Moreover, we didn’t like it when Clinton treated her opposite number in Israel like a whipped child. And those Jews paying attention got really worried when Obama went out of his way to court Iran, which has as a central part of its government platform the genocidal destruction of Israel. It didn’t get better when Obama shipped pallets full of cash to Iran and lifted sanctions in exchange for . . . nothing. But . . . “world peace!” we were told.

People noticed things and, by 2012, the 22% of Jews who distrusted Obama in 2008 expanded to 31% — but that wasn’t enough to stop him then and still hasn’t been enough to stop the Democrats now.

Funnily enough, though, for all those Jews who were cavalier about Obama’s actions towards Israel and his sleazy acquaintances, Obama’s remark about some random folks in a deli hit close to home. I think that’s because every Jew I know has stories of relatives who died in or survived the death camps. These relatives weren’t some random folks who happened to be caught in a Nazi dragnet. They were people whom the Nazis killed solely because they were Jews. And for Obama to say that the people in the Hypercacher market died randomly, unrelated to their Jewishness . . . well, that bugged a whole lot of Jews who had forgiven Obama much more serious acts of active or passive anti-Semitism. Of course, by then, Obama was on his way out of the White House, so it didn’t matter anymore.

But still, it was an opening; it was the thin edge of the wedge. It raised in people’s minds the concern that the American Left really might have an anti-Semitism problem. And even while too many Jews joined the rest of the Leftists in donning pink hats and marching down the streets with obscene signs, Jews across America have noticed — have been forced to notice — that the Women’s March has been taking over entirely by people who are open in their loathing, not just for Trump, but for Jews. And by people who venerate Farrakhan who likened Jews to termites and called them Satanic. (And don’t forget Bill Clinton’s willingness to stand side-by-side by Farrakhan at Aretha’s funeral.)

And then there’s Ilhan Omar. She’s pretty and she’s very articulate in intersectionality victim-speak. But people, especially Jewish people, started noticing that Omar obsessively kept making rancidly open anti-Semitic statements. In a way, she is as compulsive as the Charlie Hebdo murderers who couldn’t stay away from Hypercacher, as the Mumbai killers who couldn’t leave the rabbi and his wife untouched, or as Hitler who compulsively undermined his own war effort just to kill the Jews.

People also noticed all of Omar’s “sorry, not sorry” fake apologies. And they’ve been noticing that the Leftist media, including the New York Times, has been spinning like a top to cover for Omar’s remarks: If only the Jews wouldn’t give her a reason to be anti-Semitic, if only AIPAC weren’t all about the Benjamins, if only people would understand her intersectional suffering, if only this and if only that.

And Jews have noticed, oh, boy! have they noticed, that the Democrats in Congress have been incapable of doing to Omar what the Republicans did to Rep. Stevens the moment he awkwardly said something even vaguely supportive of white supremacy — they slammed him against the wall, stripped him of committee assignments, and made it clear that the disavowed everything he said, might have said, might not have said but sounded as if he said, etc. But not the Dems. They stand with Ilhan. She’s still on a prestigious committee that can see her doing massive damage. Moreover, they’re compulsively watering down the language of their “we stand against anti-Semitism” statement so much that it’s a statement against nothing at all, except that Congressional Dems really disapprove of Islamophobia, especially when it intersects with people being castigated for anti-Semitism, or something….

So I’ve been tracking all those things today on Twitter, first by saying “Dear Fellow Jews,” and then by actually creating a #DearFellowJews hashtags. Here are my tweets:

One of my Twitter friends even got into the act:

I wish others would follow Yosef Cornfeld’s example.

Here’s the thing: As I’ve often said before, people will go along believing in a certain worldview until something very personal breaks through for them. I turned conservative in large part because (a) public radio kept lying about Israel and (b) it was obvious that welfare incentivized illegitimate babies. Once those two things created overwhelming cognitive dissonance, I turned away from my old Democrat Party allegiance.

For my Mom, her “turn away” moment was the media’s lie that Michelle Obama was a the new Jackie Kennedy. For Brandon Straka, who created the “Walk Away” movement, it was seeing video proving that Trump had not mocked a handicapped reporter. Once he saw one Leftist media lie, he knew there were more. For increasing numbers of African-Americans and Hispanics, it’s seeing that Trump’s policies, by keeping out competition from illegal aliens and letting businesses keep money to grow jobs, are benefiting not hurting them.

Once something breaks through the cognitive dissonance in which the Left seeks to confuse and then bury people, it’s over . . . for the Left.

In the title to this post, I used the phrase #Jexodus. That’s not mine. I stole it from SultanKnish:

A high pressure media campaign has rolled out across major papers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, not to mention the usual digital media smear sites, normalizing and defending Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitic comments.

The Progressive Caucus is standing by her. As is the Congressional Black Caucus, which has met with Farrakhan, and has its own issues with anti-Semitism. Look for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and some of her cohort, which have defended Omar’s anti-Semitism, to start claiming the heads of some of her Jewish critics, like Rep. Engel, as the Corbynization of the Democrats get underway.

The Corbynization of the Democrats will leave Jews with few options as the party turns not only anti-Israel, but overly anti-Semitic, as Corbyn’s Labour has. And it’s important to note that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her DSA mothership are Corbyn allies.

When the process is properly underway, only the most radical leftists of Jewish origin, who are willing to work non-stop to defend anti-Semites, will be able to remain in the party.

Meanwhile the Jexodus momentum is slowly building. The process is partly generational. It will decisively split millennials between Jewish and leftist allegiances. There will be plenty of leftists with Jewish last names vocally defending the DNC’s anti-Semitism, but they will not consider themselves Jewish, except where briefly politically convenient, whose those who identify as Jewish will leave.

This will be a slow and ugly process. Jexodus would make it quicker. It’s the difference between leaving Egypt and having to be expelled.

If you’re on social media, please help the Jexodus (or Jexit, if you prefer). Using hashtags, write #DearFellowJews posts and explain to them the beauty of #Jexodus and #Jexit. It’s time, because if Jews wait too long, every day will be Hypercacher day somewhere in America.

(Regarding the photo for this post, you can read here)”>here the story about this amazing moment in Jewish freedom.)

The post #DearFellowJews: a hashtag to help a #Jexodus (or #Jexit) appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.