Lynn attended a meeting today of conservative women and came back messaging that a subtle groundswell shift is building. I pray she is right. Leave it to women to get things done. They are far more zealous when they finally commit than men. One of the women who spoke said the left has moved so far left they are now in radical la la land and Democrat moderates may not yet know it but will soon find a home in the republicans Party. The speaker who said this is a former Democrat, a lawyer who came south and is now a Republican.
Dan Heninger's op ep below caused me to conclude progressive liberal policies have destroyed the middle class, is finally forcing blacks to open their eyes so radical Democrats must bring in illegals to replenish their ranks. This is why Biden is being forced to move quickly, enact legislation that will solidify their power and control
Meanwhile, what I find ironic is thousands of "WOKE" CEO's, who enriched themselves through capitalism and were even awarded golden parachutes by their brain dead boards when they failed, have now apparently chosen to abandon capitalism, jump out of planes, sans anything on their backs, previously piloted by Republicans.
When CEOs Zoom for Democrats
Last weekend, some 100 corporation leaders did a Davos by laptop to vilify Republicans and validate their status.
The CEOs of about 100 U.S. companies gathered Saturday
for a Zoom meeting, in Covid-stricken America, to discuss and denounce state
voting laws, though only the ones written by Republicans. Several called in to
the meeting—about the future of “democracy”—while attending the third round of
the Masters golf tournament in Georgia.
The spectacle of 100 executives meeting on the weekend to
discuss voter suppression is the Zoom version of Davos, the World Economic
Forum’s earnest annual exercise in Switzerland for “addressing” the world’s
problems, though its primary function is to bestow status and validation on the
CEOs invited to attend.
As in Davos, the air in CEO Zoomland seems dizzyingly thin,
triggering a giddy euphoria most company leaders don’t bring to meetings about
spending their own firm’s money. How else to explain the political
obliviousness of this event?
However high-minded their intent, these CEOs are bolting their
company’s interests to the professionals running the Democratic Party, whose
No. 1 project is enacting a federal election law that advantages Democratic
voting strategies such as ballot harvesting. That’s “democracy”?
More astonishing, these CEOs are acting as though a strong Democratic majority will extend to the horizon of national politics. In fact, Democrats control half of the U.S. Senate and have a six-seat majority in the House. In 2020, Republican congressional candidates ran ahead of Donald Trump in New York and California. Odds are that Nancy Pelosi won’t be speaker after next year’s midterm elections. When that happens, one way or another, there will be retribution for this Zoom meeting.
For many of the CEO Zoomers, the meeting was simply a political
coming-out party. This group is a self-selecting subsample of America’s
business leadership. A lot support the Democratic Party financially and will go
wherever it asks them to go.
According to the Journal’s report on the meeting, “some
executives on the call described some bills as either racist or restrictive.”
But what really matters to Democrats whose lifetime compensation depends on
winning is that in the 2020 election, between 12% and 18% of black men voted for
the Republican presidential candidate, in large part because of
economic gains—jobs and wages—from 2016 through 2019.
Democrats can’t afford additional voluntary black-voter swings toward Republicans
in closely contested states such as North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. For
professional Democrats, the details of the voting legislation in a state like
Georgia are a second-order concern. More important is creating a dramatic
public narrative aligning the party with black voters while making Republicans
look anathema. The Zoom CEOs played their assigned partisan roles beautifully,
though even in an era of compulsive virtue-signaling, one hates to see virtue
reduced to political PR.
None of this is to suggest that the attendees at the Zoom Davos are hopeless political naïfs. One doesn’t rise to the corporate mountaintop without an eye on the bottom line. Some of the CEOs are betting on the Democrats propping up their businesses with the multiple subsidies and tax credits embedded in Joe Biden’s spending on green energy, infrastructure, healthcare and technology.
As always, new public subsidies imply new taxes, which, as
always, CEOs can afford—or afford to pay someone to minimize. But their line
managers and employees will pay. Someone has to.
In a way, these smug Zoom CEOs remind me of what were called
“country club Republicans” in the 1950s. But in a world with woke employees’
eyes on you 24/7, you can’t get away with riding out Covid at a country home.
So some of them are ostentatiously threatening to withhold investments from
disfavored Republican states.
All this has caused some conservatives to decide to tee up
“corporations” as the enemy of a post-Trump populist movement they imagine can
be built around “working-class Americans.” This is a mistake and misjudgment.
Conservatives or Republican politicians attacking “corporate
America” are rhetorically provocative but must confuse many average people
hearing it—who themselves are corporate America.
Google, Facebook and Twitter may be woke compost heaps from the
executive office down through entry-level interns, but corporate America isn’t
Santa Clara County.
Across the U.S., legal entities called corporations employ
millions of Americans—most of them middle class, most raising families, and
many living in battleground states and suburbs that Republicans must carry to
win elections.
Coca-Cola has more
than 86,000 employees, many living in up-for-grabs Georgia, but what are they
supposed to think when conservatives attack “Coca-Cola,” though in fact their
(deserved) target is one person—CEO James Quincey ?
By all means, call out these CEOs by name. But it makes no sense
for Republicans to cancel millions of Americans as “the corporate class,” a
phrase with virtually no real meaning outside an AOC tweet.
The problem isn’t the American corporation. The problem is a
small but influential and unbearably sanctimonious swath of leaders who’ve gone
ga-ga over progressive politics.
Another mental freeze:
Yellow Stickies
From The
Refrigerator
Door of My Mind
Part 2:
Other Nagging
Thoughts From “The Fridge”
by Pem SchaefferApril 15, 1 A.T.
· I recently read this somewhere;
it might have been in the report released by the Trump 1776 Commission,
cancelled by Biden with one of his first executive orders.
· “It wasn’t strokes of luck but
divine Providence that made this possible. President Washington later charged
his fellow Americans that 'We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious
smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal
rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.' ”
· The names of some elected leaders
discourage respect, and instead cry out for parody. Consider: Andy “Slides”
Cuomo; Gavvy “Monger mon Shorts” Newsom, or perhaps “Gruesome” Newsom; Lori
“Two Left Feet” Lightfoot; DeBilly “DeFund” DeBlasio; Jenny
“Summer Love” Durkin; Ted “Teddy Bear” Wheeler; Jake “Fish”
Frey; and Lyda “Lightweight” Krewson. I mean, who wouldn't
stand down when “Mayor Jenny” says “stop this peace spreading,
and stop it right now, or no Ice Cream tonight!”
· How many times have you heard our
betters proclaim that “the wealthy and corporations” need to
pay “their fair share?” Can someone direct me to the federal
statutes defining “wealthy” and “corporations” as
applied in these standards of bloviation? And the statute defining “their
fair share” as well. If there are no such statutes, please tell
me the name of the Handbook that provides the precise, definitive language
clarifying these terms, so I can order it on Amazon. Don't tell me it's
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, though many might think so.
· Abortion is to “reproductive
rights” as gun confiscation is to Second Amendment Rights and removing
vocal cords is to Free Speech Rights.
· If Gender Identity is a social
construct, then Racial Identity must necessarily be so as well. And what
about parentage and ancestry? The family tree? Shouldn't they be
socially constructed as well, rather than biologically and genetically?
· If Black Lives Matter (BLM) goes
off in a rage when anyone counters with All Lives Matter, then what they must
really mean is OLDM (Other Lives Don't Matter). We already know they only
mean Some Black Lives Matter, not All Black Lives. Sounds
like systemic racism to me. Just check on the thousands of shootings and
hundreds of homicides in places like Chicago, in which both shooter and victim
are black, yet BLM takes no direct action.
· BLM and Systemic Racism reduce to
Our Race in Your Face.
· Diversity and
Inclusion? Screw you; We want Perversity and Exclusion! We want
segregation in college ceremonies and housing! How's that for
equity? THIS is Jim Crow 2.0; when will they want their own classes, water
fountains, rest-rooms, and dining counters?
· Follow the Science? You mean
the science that says gender is a social construct, instead of assigned at
birth? The science that says there are 57 gender varieties or
more? Including fluid? You want us to follow that science?
· From a Thomas Sowell
column: This is ultimately not about the environment but about
egos. As T.S. Eliot said, more than fifty years ago: "Half the
harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important.
They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they
do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless
struggle to think well of themselves."
· Government run Public Schools are
the closest example we have of socialism; an enterprise totally controlled by
Governments and elected and unelected bureaucrats. Using it as a model for
the rest of society, are these schools how you would imagine every aspect of
your life being governed?
· If Gender Identity is a social construct,
why do so many candidates for “transition” want to mutilate their
bodies to mask their sex assigned at birth? Can't they just adopt the
change intellectually with their socially re-constructed
gender?
· Equity is a fancy word for
socialism; a euphemism. You know, spread the wealth around. How many
of those in the upper reaches of society preaching equity are willing to lower
their lifestyles down to the average of the working classes?
· If you have a hard time seeing
100,000 border crossings as a problem, imagine a caravan of more than 2,000
buses full of immigrants pulling into your town looking for a “free ride”
to go with their free ride. And then remind yourself that $2 Trillion
amounts to $1 Billion for each one of those buses.
· Why is it that 25,000 National
Guard troops build dual fence rings around the Capitol Grounds and stay for
months to protect the inhabitants after a few hundred “over zealous”
peaceful protesters breach the normal Capitol security boundary for a few
hours. But at the Southern US Border, thousands per day breach the security
boundary, at the invitation of the President, and no troops are sent at all to
protect against the on-going breach, and provisions of every type are relaxed
to make it easier for the illegal crossers to stay permanently and collect
amnesty benefits for doing so. We have lost control of the border, and of
our collective minds.
· Gender is a social construct just
like ears, eyes, noses, mouths, hands, and feet are social constructs.
· Remember Rep. Jim Clyburn
preaching with outrage about the voter suppression that was clearly happening
in Georgia and elsewhere? Did you see the video of him taking that charge
back once the outcomes were as he wished? Hmm; maybe YouTube deleted it.
· How come so many of the “asylum
seekers” illegally crossing our borders have smart phones and active
accounts for their use, and $5,000 or so per person to pay cartel operatives to
get them to our border? What's wrong with this picture?
· If Math is systemically racist,
will telling the 4's and 5's to take a knee when the US Flag is within their
sight be an acceptable way to show regrets? Are just the odd numbers
racist, or the even numbers, or the irrational numbers? Oh wait....odd and
even are just social constructs. An even number can dress like an odd
number and express as odd.
· If Math is racist, then so are
the following:
· Calculators, adding machines,
computers, and math teachers.
· “Trust/follow the science;”
science relies on math as a foundation.
· Physics and all the engineering
subjects and disciplines, which are built on a math foundation.
· Architects, builders, plumbers,
electricians, carpenters, construction engineers...
· Finance managers, accountants,
and investment councilors.
· The IRS and every government
revenue, accounting, and budgeting office.
· The stock markets and banks.
· Your mortgage and personal
lenders.
· Your utility companies.
· Competitive sports.
· In sum, anything that relies on
math as a core element must be racist.
· If United Airlines is going to
rebuild its Pilot population to look more like America, shouldn't we expect the
NFL and the NBA to commit to rebuilding their player ranks to look more like
America? If choosing the most qualified, regardless of gender and race, is
no longer the best way to run things, than shouldn't we go all in?
· (Props to Greg Gutfeld). If
the Government gives you food assistance, they don't give the money to their
favorite market; they give it to you so you can pick the market you prefer.
Colleges and Universities seem to survive in a competitive market without
Government mandated attendance. So remind us again why students have to
attend public K-12 unless there is a law that says they can choose their own
schools and use government $ to pay for it?
· If the Government provides food
benefits via EBT cards, why can't they provide the benefits of an education
with the same methods?
· If gender is a social construct,
than a watermelon can become a baseball bat and vice versa.
· If Shakespeare is racist, would
revising it to “To Be Black, or Not To Be Black; that is the question” help
correct things? If Shakespeare is racist, then:
· Every form of the arts and
literature is racist.
· Poets are racist.
· Songwriters and singers are
racist.
· Authors of every stripe are
racist.
· Newspapers and magazines are
racist.
· Media, in all its forms, is
racist.
· When rampaging Black “peaceful
protesters” loot, burn, and otherwise destroy businesses owned by
OTBs, is that a Hate Crime? If not, why not?
· If a Black kills an OTB, is that
a hate crime? If not, why not?
· Sanctuary cities in a supposed
nation of laws? Ignoring bail and sentence enhancement laws? We are
not a nation OF laws; we are a nation WITH laws, and there is an enormous
difference.
· Laws don't stop crime. Enforcing laws
can lower the crime rate by deterring repeat violations and convincing others
it is a bad idea. This requires thoughtful contemplation, and many will
never get the intended lessons, just like some high school graduates can't
read.
· It's not “Racism;”
It's “Prejudice.” My parents always cautioned me against prejudice,
not racism. Kendi, BLM, Robin DiAngelo, and all the other race gurus of
our day are all prejudiced: they prejudge.
· Whither goest The National DNA?
· Where are the Bennetts, the
Sinatras, and the Crosbys of the new age?
· Where have all the great American
songbook writers gone?
· Where have the great Broadway
show writers/composers gone?
· Where have the Looney Tunes, the
Disneys, the Poohs, the Dr. Seuss's gone? Can you believe Disneyland
opened in 1955?
· Where have the simple joys of
laughter and song and dance gone?
· Why are there no more Astaires,
Grants, Kellys, Donald O'Connors, Dan Daileys, Danny Kayes, Bob Hopes, and Jack
Bennys? And those gorgeous, talented ladies with whom they co-starred?
· Why are there no more pure
entertainers: those who could act, sing, dance, and be at ease and likable as
guests on Johnny Carson?
· Why are the patriotic parades
with Fire Engines, Marching Bands, Troops, Scouts, and kids riding bikes with
decorated wheels no more?
· Where is River City when you need
it?
++++++++++++++
Blinken finally nods over Iranian uranium threat:
http://www.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Virtually every day Biden hides yet somehow continues to display his stupidity:
Trump’s Action Against Iran Almost Bankrupted It, Report Finds
(RightWing.org) –
President Biden is making headlines with his push to restart the diplomatic
process with Iran. He’s committed the US to rejoin the nuclear deal negotiated
when he was Obama’s VP and done everything else he can to distance himself from
President Trump’s Iran policy. So he won’t be pleased with a new report that
says his predecessor’s policy was working.
On April 14, the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) released its latest research on the Iranian
economy, and it shows that Trump’s sanctions were hammering the Tehran regime.
Between 2018 and 2020, the rogue state was forced to spend $118.5 billion of
its reserves and was down to its last $4 billion when Biden took over. That’s
exactly what Trump was trying to do – force the ayatollahs to burn cash so
they’d have to stop spending
money on nuclear research.
Now Biden is lifting
the sanctions just as they start to bite. Iran has already shown what it thinks
of the nuclear deal, announcing it will enrich uranium to 60% – 10 times higher
than what it needs for peaceful purposes and not far short of weapons-grade.
And Joe Biden will give them the money to pay for it
++++++++++++++++++++
Apparently Biden's goal is to make sure government is one big diverse mosaic. However, our "good old boy" State Department continues to embrace the worst attitudes when it comes to Israel. According to Tobin, Biden's selections reflect a new virulent anti-Semitic posture
Will the State
Department’s new anti-Semitism monitor give a pass to anti-Semites?
Jewish Democrats are competing for the post. But if the
progressives get their way, the pick may not uphold a definition of Jew-hatred
that applies to the left as well as the right.
(April 13, 2021 / JNS) In recent weeks, an attempt to derail a
consensus about the definition of anti-Semitism has received serious support
from the Jewish left. The mainstream Jewish community, in addition to the United
States and a number of other nations, has embraced the definition put
forward by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association. But two new
definitions have emerged to challenge that text. This controversy may also play
a role in both the selection of a new head of the State Department’s Special
Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism and the future role of that office.
In one case, a group
of scholars and activists backed an alternate
definition cooked up by the Nexus Task Force, a group
affiliated with the University of Southern California. Days later, a similar
document, dubbed the Jerusalem
Declaration by its authors, was published. In both, critics and
foes of Israel joined together to craft a definition of Jew-hatred that took
care to exempt those who oppose Israel’s existence or compare it to the Nazis.
The goal of both
groups was to shift the debate about anti-Semitism from one that recognizes
that hatred and delegitimization of Jews comes from both the left and the right
to a sole focus on extreme right-wingers.
The key to
understanding this controversy is politics.
In the wake of the
Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot, many on the left as well as leading Democrats and
members of the media, have concentrated on sounding the alarm about the
far-right. Anti-Semitic imagery among some of those in that mob reinforced the
concerns that have understandably been heightened since the synagogue shootings
in Pittsburgh and Poway.
At the same time,
there is the recognition of an uptick in anti-Semitism—largely operating under
the cloak of anti-Zionism—in American life and in some new circles. That’s
partly the result of the notoriety and favorable publicity given by the media
to Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who are both
supporters of the anti-Semitic BDS movement. The pair has also trafficked in
anti-Semitic tropes.
Nor are they alone.
Leading supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement, like Tamika
Mallory are vocal supporters of Nation of Islam hatemonger
Louis Farrakhan and have engaged in discrimination and incitement against Jews.
The 2019 epidemic of attacks on Orthodox Jews in the New York area by
African-Americans can also be seen as, at least in part, evidence of the
influence of both Farrakhan and some of the extremists associated with the BLM
movement.
That means for any
official tasked with the job of monitoring and advocating against anti-Semitism
to be effective, they must shake off their partisan blinders and be ready to
speak out against hate from both ends of the political spectrum.
But if one
increasingly influential faction gets their way, that won’t be the case in the
next four years.
The State Department’s
office dealing with anti-Semitism only dates back only to legislation passed in
2004, and the first person to get the job wasn’t sworn in until 2006. Like the
other 4,000 political appointments that any new president can make, there are
many people who want the job. But unlike the usual quiet lobbying that goes on
behind the scenes for most such jobs, the competition for this post has gone
public.
Several Jewish
Democrats are openly vying for the position, and the battle over it has
unsurprisingly become a proxy war between party factions.
A lot of mainstream
traditionally pro-Israel Democrats want President Joe Biden to name former
Anti-Defamation League head Abe Foxman to the job. Given Foxman’s long record
of fighting anti-Semitism and strong support for Zionism, he’s the most
qualified choice. And given the fact that he dropped his nonpartisan stance in
favor of open advocacy against former President Donald Trump, as well as endorsed the
Democrats’ disgraceful analogies between the most pro-Israel president to date
with the Nazis during the 2020 election campaign, perhaps he’s earned Biden’s
gratitude.
Another possible
contender is historian Deborah Lipstadt, who is well-known for her
groundbreaking work on Holocaust denial, and who also supported Biden and
backed the bogus Nazi analogies about Trump.
Now it appears that
there is also serious support for Nancy Kaufman, a veteran liberal Jewish
community professional and the former CEO of the National Council of Jewish
Women. As an article in The Forward made clear, Kaufman is the clear choice
of “progressives.” And given the increasing sway the left has in the Biden
administration, she may be the most likely choice.
The scramble for the
position can be seen as merely a matter of patronage with the plum going to the
candidate who can amass the most political IOUs from the people in power. In
this case, however, there’s more at stake here than the pedestrian question of
which Jewish Democrat will get what is, in the context of the many other more
powerful jobs up for grabs, a relatively minor post.
That’s because while
Kaufman is a very familiar face in the alphabet soup world of Jewish
organizational life, she cannot be counted on to oppose left-wing anti-Semites.
As The Forward pointed out, though Kaufman claims to be
a mainstream supporter of Israel, she only thinks of the IHRA definition as “an
interesting tool” and opposes codifying it into law. That means that she
opposes the passage of laws that outlaw discriminatory business practices
rooted in BDS boycotts of Israelis and Israeli products. She also praised the
so-called Jerusalem Declaration on anti-Semitism, whose purpose is to
essentially give a permission slip to anti-Semites who masquerade as advocates
for “human rights” but who seek to deny to Jews what no one would think of
denying to anyone else: the right to live in peace and sovereignty in their
homeland and the right to defend themselves.
Even more damning, in
the course of pursuing anti-Trump and liberal political activity, she has made
common cause with and even praised open anti-Semites like Mallory and Linda
Sarsour when they worked at the Women’s March, from which they were ultimately
booted for their support for Farrakhan and discrimination against Jewish women.
Among Kaufman’s
supporters is the viciously anti-Zionist IfNotNow group, which seeks to
sabotage Birthright Israel trips, although that organization is probably more
interested in stopping Foxman than boosting Kaufman.
Just as telling is the
support Kaufman has received from American Federation of Teachers President
Randi Weingarten. Just last week, Weingarten invoked anti-Semitic
tropes and toxic critical race theory arguments to defend her
union’s outrageous stand against reopening public schools.
Yet the person who
wants to be the leading voice against anti-Semitism abroad had nothing to say
about Weingarten’s outrageous and disgraceful statement. The same can be said
about everyone else on the Jewish left, especially the Anti-Defamation League and
its leader, Jonathan Greenblatt, who also refused to condemn a fellow liberal
like Weingarten.
Seen in this light,
it’s clear that not only is Kaufman unfit for the job, she is also likely to
use her post not to advocate, as her GOP predecessor Elan Carr did, against
anti-Semites abroad, but could instead use her office’s resources to play
domestic politics by lending legitimacy to leftist Jew-haters like Omar, Tlaib,
Mallory and Sarsour.
If Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken are serious about supporting the IHRA definition and fighting anti-Semitism, then they will risk offending progressives and turn Kaufman down. If not, the administration’s effort to fight Jew-hatred may be over even before it starts.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News
Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.
He is also a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for the New York Post, Newsweek and Haaretz. He can be reached via e-mail at: jtobin@jns.org.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
HOOVER Daily Report (edited.)
|
No comments:
Post a Comment