http://freebeacon.com/
Michelle said we go high when they go low. Another lie.
The Democrats will dig more of their own grave when they display contempt for whomever Trump nominates. They did it to Thomas, they did it to Bork,( I even coined the phrase to be "Borked" which later was placed in The Webster Dictionary.)
"Up Chuck," Pelosi and Waters have become the face and voice of The Democrat Party. Pretty pathetic.
FDR ran against Martin, Barton and Fish and Trump is running against Chuck, Pelosi and Waters.
Democrats refused to accept their 2016 defeat gracefully and, along with their losing candidate and mass media friends they continue to make childish, petulant fools of themselves so now the boomerang is coming back to smack them in the head. There is always a price to pay and consequences to experience. That is the story of life and human nature.
Heaving to the far left and where will that take them? (See 1, 1a and 1b below.)
https://tiny.iavian.net/nl9c
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Toronto Mayor does not want his city to become a dumping ground for Trudeau: https://tiny.iavian.net/nl8t
When it comes to Mexico, allows their land to become a traversed conduit for turning America into a dumping ground for illegals, because doing so makes Mexico a big income earner.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Sympathy for the stranger, but none for the rule of law?
Jewish opposition to Trump on immigration is rooted in sympathy for the downtrodden. But the current debate is more about partisanship and hysteria than anything else
ByJONATHAN S. TOBIN
Only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision to uphold U.S. President Donald Trump’s right to restrict entry into the United States from seven countries, including five with Muslim majorities, Jewish groups were issuing condemnations and organizing protests. Much of the organized Jewish community has been involved in opposing the administration. That opposition has deepened as the understandable anger over the government separating children from their parents who had crossed the southern border without permission ignited a firestorm of protest.
This anger has set off a torrent of comments that damn Trump as a racist and proto-authoritarian, as well as prompted a comparison of the situation of current immigrants to the plight of refugees from the Holocaust, and of the administration to the Nazis. Yet some of those who have been inflaming this debate believe that in doing so, they are upholding Jewish values.
Are they right?
Concern for the “stranger” is deeply ingrained in Judaism. The immigrant experience is also crucial to understanding the way American Jews view the world. Most Jews trace their origins to the waves of migration from Eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That historical memory helped form both the political worldview and the culture of the American Jewish community. Identification with subsequent generations of immigrants from other communities were often tied to ideas about Jewish identity and faith.
Supporting more liberal immigration laws is second nature for Jews who remember that most of their forebears arrived in this country prior to 1924, when the United States more or less welcomed anyone in good health that wasn’t excluded by racist laws prohibiting immigration from China. The unwillingness of the United States to open its doors to those fleeing Nazi Europe is also imprinted into the Jewish consciousness by usually putting them on the side of those claiming refugee status.
Revulsion at the way the president has engaged in demagoguery regarding immigration has deepened these convictions. Trump’s December 2015 call for a ban on the entry of all Muslims smacked of bigotry. Since then, his comments depicting illegal immigrants as criminals have appealed to our basest instincts more than concerns about security.
But the idea that Jews are compelled to condemn the Supreme Court’s decision or oppose the administration’s focus on border security says more about Jewish politics than principles. The tone of this debate reflects the way the left-right divide in America has become the function of a culture war on everything, rather than specific debate on the merits of any one thing. The invocation of the Holocaust reflects a general panic felt by many liberals and Democrats about the Trump administration, in which they are not so much opposed to its policies as convinced that it is a threat to democracy.
Shock at Trump’s unexpected election victory led to some apocalyptic rhetoric about his presidency. But rage about Trump has now gotten to the point where much of the country cannot separate his personality and tweets from what has been for the most part a rather conventional conservative government. Normal disagreements about border security and much else have been inflated into existential questions; people feel they cannot agree to disagree as is necessary in any political debate.
But no matter how deeply you are angered by the “zero tolerance” policy when it comes to illegals at the border, the desire to conflate the plight of Central Americans seeking to enter the country without permission largely because of economic reasons with Jews otherwise doomed to death in Hitler’s Europe is a function of the impulse to “resist” Trump. It’s simply not sober analysis.
Nor is there any substance to attempts to compare Trump to Hitler or even to claim that disagreements over immigration policy echo the first steps towards fascism in Germany. You don’t have to be a fascist to think that the government should enforce current immigration laws, whether or not we completely agree with them. Officials of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authority, which some on the left demand be abolished, are not the Gestapo, anymore than they were when President Barack Obama was the one giving orders to arrest illegals.
Nor is the effort to evade the law by providing “sanctuary” to those who entered the country illegally the same thing as hiding Jews from the Nazis. Such analogies are an insult to the Holocaust and misrepresent a debate largely motivated by partisanship. Support for the rule of law or opposition to what amounts to a call for open borders is not racist. Like all countries, the United States has a right to determine who may cross its borders, and saying so is not contrary to Judaism.
The same applies to the so-called “Muslim ban” upheld by the court. One may claim Trump’s order was unnecessary or a political stunt. But it’s also true that this order, which was well within his constitutional authority and far from unprecedented, wasn’t a general ban on Muslims, and did impact countries where terror is rampant and where the ability of the United States to vet asylum-seekers is limited.
Sadly, what’s happening now is not so much a debate about the merits of stands on immigration as it is a situation in which left and right increasingly view each other as evil and unworthy of respect.
The president’s instinct for division and incivility is greatly to blame, but his opponents are now responding in kind as Americans engage in a race to the bottom of the gutter. It’s time for both sides to step back from the overheated partisan rhetoric.
Supporting more liberal immigration policies is legitimate, though the same can be said of those who urge more caution. Still, it’s not the duty of Jews to promote a false narrative about analogies to the Holocaust or to feed a hysterical panic about the end of democracy. Those who do so are now part of the problem—and not the solution.
1a) The New Queen of Queens
The Democratic left shows its muscle in a New York primary.
By The Editorial Board
Republicans are chortling after Tuesday’s primary defeat of New York Democratic Congressional baron Joseph Crowley by Sandernista Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but they might want to hold the Schadenfreude. The rise of the Democratic left in this primary season portends more polarization and a more radical policy turn when the party next takes power.
Mr. Crowley’s defeat is being compared to Rep. David Brat’s primary victory over then Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2014, and in some respects that’s true. The 56-year-old Mr. Crowley is a 10-term Member often called the King of Queens for his control of that New York borough’s politics.
He was widely touted as a Democrat who could succeed, or even challenge, Nancy Pelosi for House party leader next Congress. He’s a major-league fundraiser with ties to business even though he’s a reliable liberal vote on every issue on Capitol Hill
.
But Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is further left than Mr. Brat is right. The 28-year-old is a former community organizer for the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign who proudly calls herself a Democratic Socialist. She is running on the priorities of the new left: Medicare access for all Americans, a government-guaranteed job for everyone, and abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE.
The ICE theme gained enough political traction that in a debate with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Mr. Crowley called ICE “fascist.” The challenger turned the tables on him by saying that if it’s really fascist why won’t he abolish it? Mr. Crowley was left to argue that abolishing ICE wouldn’t solve the problem of immigration enforcement. President Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric and policies are motivating a new generation of Democrats on the left.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a sure winner in November, and she is already the new star of MSNBC and CNN, with late night TV gigs to follow. So she will have real influence if Democrats retake the House majority. Her victory over a party leader will scare other Democrats who will want to avoid their own primary challengers if they aren’t sufficiently socialist or anti-Trump. Her victory will also narrow the negotiating ability of Democratic leaders with President Trump. Impeach or go home may be the governing motto.
Republicans want to believe that a sharp left turn makes Democrats less electable. But that’s what the British Tories thought when the socialist Jeremy Corbyn became the Labour Party leader, and he nearly won last year’s election that was supposed to be a Tory landslide.
One lesson of history is that successful democracies tend to have parties of the left that are moderate. Think Tony Blair in Britain and Bill Clinton. When the left gets extreme, bad things tend to happen.
1b)
Progressives should back up their rhetoric on immigration
By Victor Davis Hanson
There are lots of short-term solutions to address the wave of immigrants who have swarmed the border in an effort to enter the U.S. illegally.
Why not use the thousands of currently half-empty residence halls at American colleges and universities to help house families from Central America and Mexico who await adjudication of their asylum claims?
The federal government could contract out to universities such as UCLA , Stanford , Cal-Berkeley and large public universities in Colorado , Arizona and New Mexico to offer migrants temporary summertime shelter and sustenance. Law schools could offer pro bono legal counseling, and medical schools could offer health services.
Such multifaceted help from institutes of higher education would be particularly apt -- and far better than using military bases. The vast housing, recreational and meal-service infrastructures of colleges are often underutilized in summer. Campuses are also bastions of liberal activism, proud both of their diversity and their expertise in dealing with sensitive matters of acculturation.
What better first glimpse of America could be offered to immigrants than the energy, pastoral beauty and hospitality of a quiet college quad or well-maintained residence hall?
It also makes no sense for college students to venture far and wide for internships when they could be enlisted on campus over the summer to tutor children from Central America and to monitor their safety and treatment.
If progressives believe that sovereignty and border enforcement are passé notions, then they should at least match their rhetoric with concrete solutions. In California , there are ongoing existential crises with homelessness, unaffordable housing and dismal public schools that rate near bottom of national surveys.
How could California square its present circle of being both the most impoverished and affluent of states -- the most callous in fact, the most caring in theory?
Why not cease the current stampede to private academies that has left the public schools of the greater coastal corridor non-diverse and near-apartheid?
The huge Los Angeles Unified School District is now over 70 percent Latino, as whites and Asians have fled the arrival of immigrant children. It's much the same in Silicon Valley , where private prep schools are expanding enrollments to meet the demand from the affluent members of the tech industry.
Yet scholarly studies show that immigration works best when new arrivals are fully ingratiated into diverse schools, neighborhoods and social activities.
The huge, multibillion-dollar market capitalizations of West Coast giants such as Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook and Yahoo have so far not led to more affordable housing, more diverse top-flight public K-12 schools, or a growing middle class energized by new arrivals from Mexico and Central America .
Instead, despite the rhetoric of inclusion, and televised and tweeted fury at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement , the progressive left coast is among the most exclusionary of all American communities.
Zoning and environmental laws drive immigrants into enclaves and ghettoes. Gentrification ends up in the eviction of the first-generation immigrant poor from already overpriced rental units.
It is almost as if the louder one rails about unfair border enforcement, the more likely one is to avoid encounters with illegal immigrants. Outrage has become a safe way for elites to signal their virtue, acting out in theory what they are uncomfortable doing in fact.
One of the strangest scenes in impoverished rural Fresno County , where I live, is the epidemic of substandard housing. Almost every small old farmhouse now has trailers and shacks tacked on to them -- all substandard and not meeting codes -- to accommodate recent waves of new immigrants from Mexico and Central America .
Yet the media often showcase the huge gated homes and enclaves of Silicon Valley , Hollywood and the journalistic elite. Surely some of all that unused square footage and those guest houses could be used to offer at least temporary hospitality to those in need.
Actor Peter Fonda could do far better to help immigrants than by tweeting threats to 12-year-old Barron Trump from his most non-diverse ranch in Paradise Valley, Montana . Instead, Fonda might advocate that Hollywood actors live among newly arrived immigrants, associate with them as equals rather than as the help, and promote public schools by ensuring that their own children and grandchildren attend them.
Better yet, why doesn't Fonda invite a few of the immigrant families awaiting word on their legal status to the open spaces of his Montana ranch? Media accounts of his expansive and tasteful digs show an infrastructure that easily could accommodate a few needy immigrant families.
It is easy to invoke the Nazis and the Holocaust to express anger at the temporary detention of children and their families who have entered the U.S. illegally. It would be far more meaningful if marquee journalists, actors, academics and activists knew immigrants not just as a distant abstract cause, or as nannies and landscapers, but as their neighbors, their children's school friends -- and as their social equals.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment