Thursday, January 31, 2019

Trump: Let "Dingbat Edith " Pelosi Bring DownThe Democrats . Trump Frame The Issue In Your SOTU Address. Abort Ye Demwits! Venezuela Reality. Podhoretz Speaks Out.



Skidaway Island Republican Club Presents

Click Here to RSVP

Advance reservations and payment required. 
Click Above to RSVP via Email Or
Call: 912-598-9986
Mail or Tube Checks, payable to SIRC, to
Dan Huffer, 2 Westshell Court

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With a little luck "Edith" Pelosi will bring down the Democrat Party once again.  The "dingbat" who said we had to pass it to understand what was in it now is seeking to thwart Trump's desire to resolve the illegal immigration and "DACA" mess which politicians from both parties have foot-balled for decades and which has resulted in untold costs and human tragedy.  Talk about what is immoral.

Pelosi is a politician of the rankest order, has been in office so long that she is isolated from reality and cares not a whiff about what is best for the nation as long as she can defeat Trump. Her reasons for her attitude towards Trump are not based on much beyond pure political partisanship. There is very little depth to her reasoning but she holds a powerful position and knows how to squeeze.

I hope and pray she hangs tough because she will cause her party to implode. The American people want to bring a semblance of justice to those who came illegally, have proven to be productive citizens and thus, have earned a path toward citizenship. Trump understands granting "amnesty" has not worked in the past and  has led to more illegal efforts to enter and that is why he wants to strengthen our barriers in a variety of ways including building more effective walls among other efforts including technology etc. One thing he knows is on time construction.

Trump has a chance, in his SOTU address, to frame the debate - and "wall" dingbat  in at the same time. Will he do it?  He can if he stays on script and takes the advice of those who want to help him avoid shooting himself in the foot with his mouth.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Virginia Governor comes clean about blood on is hands. (See 1 below.)

From a dear friend and fellow memo reader:  Virginia majority leader 'horrified' by Democrats' abortion bill allowing termination up until birth. G---

Video link:https://video.foxnews.com/v/5996880841001/


If you base everything on what Trump says you miss the essence of what has happened since his presidency.  (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
GMOA breaks past fund raising  limit.(See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sent to me by a wonderful friend and fellow memo reader.

This was sent to me by a West Point Classmate and a very good friend  a Colonel who has spent most of his career in South America as a Foreign Area Officer (FAO) including time in Venezuela . J---  


Subject: What's Happening in Venezuela?: Just the Facts
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John Podhoretz speak out. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)In Rare Moment Of Honesty, Democrats Finally Admit They Support Infanticide


.-In a rare moment of honesty this week, Democrats finally just came right
out and admitted that they actually support infanticide.

After a Virginia lawmaker made an utterly repulsive defense of abortion
during birth and the state's governor calmly discussed the killing of an
already-born child should the mother so choose, the nation at least had to
admit that Democrats were finally being honest about something.

"Usually, we try to hide behind the 'pro-choice' label or spew a bunch of
crap about the mother's health or something," Virginia governor Ralph
Northam said. "But we're going to part ways with our usual deceitful methods
and actually just be upfront about our position here: infanticide? We're
totally cool with it. We're all about being pro-choice, no matter if we're
talking about a baby that's in the womb or one that's already been born,
patiently standing by to see if their mother decides they're a person."
The nation agreed that this approach is preferable to the usual doublespeak
exhibited by Democrats on the abortion issue.

"It's kinda refreshing, to be honest," said one man in Florida. "At least
now we know what we're getting with the Dems---before I couldn't tell if
their support for abortion really had to do with women's rights or if they
secretly wanted to kill babies."

"It's a nice change of pace," he added.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)

Much Has Changed for the Better Since 2016—Not That Trump Will Get Credit – American Greatness


The news obsesses over the recent government shutdown, the latest Robert Mueller arrest and, of course, fake news—from the BuzzFeed Michael Cohen non-story to the smears of the Covington Catholic High School students.

But aside from the weekly hysterias, the world has dramatically changed since 2016 in ways we scarcely have appreciated.

The idea that China systematically rigged trade laws and engaged in technological espionage to run up huge deficits is no longer a Trump, or even a partisan, issue.
In the last two years, a mainstream consensus has grown that China poses a commercial and mercantile threat to world trade, to its neighbors and to the very security of the United States—and requires a strong response, including temporary tariffs.

The world did not fall apart after the U.S. pulled out of the flawed Iran nuclear deal. Most yawned when the U.S. left the symbolic but empty Paris Climate Accord. Ditto when the U.S. moved its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
In retrospect, most Americans accept that such once controversial decisions were not ever all that controversial.

There is also a growing, though little reported, consensus about what created the current economic renaissance: tax cuts, massive deregulation, recalibration of trade policy, tax incentives to bring back offshore capital, and dramatic rises in oil and natural gas production.

Although partisan bickering continues over the extent of the upswing, most appreciate that millions of Americans are now back again working—especially minority youth—in a manner not seen in over a decade.

The Supreme Court and federal judges will be far more conservative for a generation—as Trump’s judicial nominations are uniformly conservative, mostly young and well qualified.

For all the acrimony about illegal immigration, the government shutdown over the wall and the question of amnesties, most Americans also finally favor some sort of grand bargain compromise.

The public seems to be agreeing that conservatives should get more border fencing or walls in strategic areas, an end to new illegal immigration and deportation for those undocumented immigrants with criminal records.

Liberals in turn will likely obtain green cards for those long-time immigrants here illegally who have a work history and have not committed violent crimes.
Both sides will be forced to agree that illegal immigration, sanctuary cities and open borders should end and legal immigration should be reformed.

Americans have paradoxically grown tired both of costly overseas interventions and perceptions of American weakness that led to the Libyan fiasco, the Syrian genocide, the rise of the ISIS caliphate, and Iranian-inspired terrorism.

Today U.S. foreign policy actually reflects those paradoxes. The public supports a withdrawal from the quagmires in Afghanistan and Syria. But it also approved of bombing ISIS into retreat and muscular efforts to denuclearize North Korea.
Two years ago, most Americans accepted that the European Union and NATO were sacrosanct status quo institutions beyond criticism. Today there is growing agreement that our NATO allies will only pay their fair share of mutual defense if they are forced to live up to their promises.

Europe is not stable and steady, but torn by Eastern European anger at open borders, Southern European resentment at the ultimatums of German banks, and acrimonious negotiations over the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.
Most Americans have now concluded that while the EU may be necessary to prevent another intra-European war, it is increasingly a postmodern, anti-democratic and unstable entity.

Trump has not changed his campaign reputation for being mercurial, crass and crude.

But what has changed is the media’s own reputation in its hysterical reaction to Trump. Instead of empirical reporting, the networks and press have become unhinged.

When reporting of the presidency has proved 90 percent negative, and false news stories are legion, the media are no longer seen as the remedy to Trump but rather an illness themselves.

Since 2016, polls show that Americans have assumed that the proverbial mainstream media cannot be counted on for honest reporting but will omit, twist and massage facts and evidence for the higher “truth” of neutralizing the Trump presidency.

When asked on “The View” why so often the liberal press keeps making up facts, “jumps the gun” and has to “walk stuff back when it turns out wrong,” Joy Behar honestly answered, “Because we’re desperate to get Trump out of office. That’s why.”

Trump’s popularity is about where it was when he was elected—ranging on average from the low to mid-forties. But many of his policies have led to more prosperity and address festering problems abroad.

And despite the negative news, they are widely supported, even—or especially—if Trump himself is not given proper credit for enacting most of them.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)

Georgia Museum of Art gala raises more than $300,000


Athens, GA — This past Saturday, January 26, the Friends of the Georgia Museum of Art hosted the 16th biennial Elegant Salute, the museum’s largest fundraising event, bringing in more than $300,000 in sponsorships and ticket sales. Elegant Salute is a black-tie event that provides critical funding for exhibitions and educational programs.

This year’s Elegant Salute chair was Sarah Peterson, who worked incredibly hard alongside her co-chair Isobel Parker Mills, the rest of their volunteers and museum staff to create a stunning and spectacular evening. The theme was “An Imperial Evening,” inspired by the exhibition “The Reluctant Autocrat: Tsar Nicholas II” and followed by a “From Russia with Love” dance party with DJ Mahogany.

The sponsorship goal for the event was an ambitious $200,000, but fundraising co-chairs Ham Magill, David Matheny and Gordhan Patel managed to increase that amount by nearly 50 percent, to $279,000. Ticket sales brought in the rest of the amount raised.

Epting Events handled catering, with Big City Bread Café, Condor Chocolates, Oconee Events and Terrapin Beer Company supporting the dining experience. Hotel Indigo served as the host venue for the Friday night patrons’ party and the official hotel for the weekend.

Airee Edwards chaired the dance party committee, with assistance from Liz DeMarco, Amy Flurry, Diana Harbour, Elizabeth Katz, Christina LaFontaine and Heather McElroy. Maggie Hancock chaired décor and Ligia Alexander chaired floral, with assistance from Joyce Allen, Lucy Allen, Rinne Allen, Jenny Broadnax, Alice Bulloch, Ann Cabaniss, Freida Clark, Greta Covington, Janyce Dawkins, Betty Alice Fowler, Lucy Gillis, Brett Glenn of European Floral Design, Bree Hayes, Judy Hogan, Lauren Schlesinger, Beverly Sligh, Tony Stringer and Mary Anna Terrell. Mike Landers headed up the entertainment committee, with help from Mark McConnell and Suzi Wong. Bree Hayes was in charge of food, with able assistance by Judy Hogan and Gail Wilfong. Evelyn Dukes chaired logistics, with Lauren Schlesinger and Mary Lillie Watson lending a hand. Last but not least, Devereux Burch was in charge of social, with help from Evelyn Dukes, Anne Hathaway, Sylvia Pannell, Jinx Patel, Tony Stringer and Gail Wilfong.

The museum relies on private donations to continue its efforts in artistic education and outreach in the state of Georgia and beyond.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)

The Left would be wise to worry about its anti-Semitic wing

Jewish conservatives get asked this question more than any other: “Why are Jews liberals?” The question eventually got so tiresome that my father, himself a prominent Jewish conservative, wrote an ­entire book about tracing the history back to Biblical times. You can still buy it on Amazon. So I’m not going to answer it here.

What we know is this basic fact: In national elections, Jews vote for Democratic candidates by a margin of 3 to 1. That number has been fairly consistent through four elections now. It suggests Democrats should have no concerns about keeping Jews in their coalition for another generation.

And yet they do have such concerns. And they should.

This week, prominent Democrats announced a new group called Democratic Majority for Israel, led by the pollster Mark Mellman. He told The New York Times: “Most Democrats are strongly pro-Israel, and we want to keep it that way. There are a few discordant voices, but we want to make sure that what’s a very small problem doesn’t metastasize into a bigger problem.”

The “very small problem” Mellman has in mind is a trio of newly elected Democrats: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib and Minnesota’s Ilhan Omar. They seem to have very few foreign policy views aside from a caricature of Israel as an occupying colonial force that sits up at night thinking of new ways to torment Palestinians.

Such ideas haven’t arisen from nowhere. They are the full flowering of decades of leftist propaganda and fashionable campus blatherskite. From such repellent acorns mighty trees grow, as we have seen in Europe. Britain’s Labour party did little to head off the virulent Israel hatred in its ranks, and it is now headed by an out-and-out anti-Semite.

In Britain, once-overwhelming Jewish support for Labour has cratered. A poll before the 2017 election found that only 13 percent of Jews supported Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour because of its horrid record on ­anti-Semitism.

That is why Mellman and his fellow Democrats are smart to be doing this now, before the conflict actually begins to bite. The problem is “very small” at this moment, but the party’s trend line to the left suggests it will grow in force absent some major intervention or ideological change of heart.

Nor are the views of the new, leftist members of Congress completely alien to the kinds of Democrats who take official roles in the party. At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, delegates removed language supporting Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

When the Obama White House, fearful of losing campaign dollars, intervened to have the language restored, there was a vocal fight on the convention floor. It sounded very much like those who didn’t want the pro-Jerusalem language restored won a voice vote — and when the chair announced otherwise, the hall erupted in boos.

Bernie Sanders came very close to espousing anti-Zionist opinions openly in 2016, and he won 22 states. His path was softened by the hostile posture of President Barack Obama’s administration. Obama claimed to be a friend of Israel, but there was no country or government he criticized more over his eight years — and he concluded his term allowing a UN resolution hostile to the Jewish state to pass without an American veto.

The activist base’s growing antipathy to Israel is less worrisome to friends of the Jewish state than it would have been at any other time in the country’s history, because Israel finds itself in a surprisingly strong position internationally and at home. It has held the line against Palestinian terrorism, and it is working in concord with Arab and Muslim nations in a manner that would have seemed science-fictional at the turn of the century.

What should be concerning is the subject that goes unaddressed in Mellman’s fight: the potential mainstreaming of anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party as represented by the renewed public importance of Louis Farrakhan and the refusal of vanguard figures on the left, like the leaders of the Women’s March, to repudiate his noxious filth.

Here, too, Democrats need not worry today about this electorally or when it comes to votes and donations. Instinctively liberal, Jews are bound to be more alarmed by some of the white-nationalist encroachments into President Trump’s GOP. But the Corbyn example looms large and is arguably far more dangerous to the American Jewish future than anti-Israel sentiment in the Democratic Party is to Israel’s future.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


4:51 PM (3 minutes ago)

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Wall Immoral, Infanticide Legal? Democrat Goals "Border" On Insanity! Casio Spills Coffee On Schultz - Latte Dah! Feb. 18 - Come!




Skidaway Island Republican Club Presents

Click Here to RSVP

Advance reservations and payment required. 
Click Above to RSVP via Email Or
Call: 912-598-9986
Mail or Tube Checks, payable to SIRC, to
Dan Huffer, 2 Westshell Court

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++The legislation being proposed in New York and supported by Governor Cuomo, pertaining to a women's right to her body and therefore can abort a child several days before her due date, is an amazing political perversion.

I attended a meeting yesterday at which I learned about what a local hospital is doing to save the life of babies who are born prematurely. In the case discussed, the mother was addicted and taking drugs during her pregnancy.  The baby was 2 lbs at premature birth and 93 days, later when the child left the hospital, it was 5 lbs.

The person talking to us said the issue of "crack" babies was reaching epidemic proportions and the cost to society and the long term harm to babies that survive was tragic. I mention this because technology is allowing babies who never would have survived to do so because equipment now exists that basically duplicates the mystery of the womb.

For Cuomo to favor legislation that legally allows aborting  a child several days before a normal birth (due date) borders on murder. (See 1 below.)

Democrats believe voters do not have to present ID's, they oppose possession of guns, they want to tax one's assets and raise rates on the wealthy simply because they are wealthy,  they support sanctuary cities, they seem to interpret our Constitution as supporting every entitlement they can dream up, free government medical care, free education, regardless of cost.  They are pushing socialism and now seem to favor allowing a woman to abort her child several days before the due date .

This is only a partial list of the extremism Democrats embrace and are selling.

 I find it hard to believe  Democrats  have allowed their party to be pushed so far  left of mainstream thinking and still believe these candidates have a practical chance of election.  If, in fact, any one of them is elected you can kiss  MLK's and my America goodbye.  Only a matter of time. (See 1a and 1b below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ocasio reveals her ignorance once again. (See 2 below.)


Dick
+++++++++++++++++++
1)

Democrats Think a Border Wall is Immoral and Infanticide is a Right

This is the state of play into 2020. Democrats have decided to blast through their own historic norms and go straight to radical socialism on the economic front and nihilist social policy. They are, in multiple states, rushing to expand abortion laws to include infanticide immediately after birth while declaring a border wall immoral.
They are championing wealth confiscation and massive income taxes, which would actually be paid by upper income professionals, not the billionaires the left claims. Why? Billionaires mostly play the capital gains tax rate, not the income tax rate.
Howard Schultz, the leftwing billionaire running for President, has some pretty convincing polling that a significant portion of Democrats would rather go with an independent centrist than a progressive Democrat like Elizabeth Warren or Kamal.... 
Read More..

1a) The State of Trump’s Union

Here’s how to make sure Nancy Pelosi rises to applaud the president’s speech.

By 

The Democrats’ carpet-bombing of Starbucks founder Howard Schultz’s third-party bid proves one thing: The party thinks whoever it nominates to run against Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States.
Rather than the distractions of an independent candidate asking what the meaning of “free” is (free health care, free college, free lunch) Democrats want voters focused all the time on Mr. Trump’s bumptious, chaotic personality.
He won in 2016 in part because so many people voted “against” Hillary Clinton. Now Democrats believe the midterm election results—in which Democrats defeated Republicans in competitive suburban districts everywhere—show that their best bet is to reduce the 2020 election to ABT—Anyone But Trump.

It could be that a lot of voters are on the Trump bubble. But the left’s hysteria over an outlier like Howard Schultz is intriguing. It suggests that if Mr. Trump is re-elected, Democrats are planning to stage a sort of political Jonestown, which for some might be reason enough to vote for the devil you know.
It also suggests that if the Democrats expect to win in 2020 with a strategy of subtraction, then anything additive Mr. Trump can do to make the case for his presidency will put his 40 or 50 Democratic presidential opponents in a hole.
On Tuesday the world will be watching his State of the Union speech. This would be the moment, nearly two years before the election, to wrap this thing up. He could do that by saving the Dreamers.

The Dreamers—innocent bystanders to an immigration system Mr. Trump calls “a source of shame”—are the biggest unclaimed political prize in American politics.
Polls, such as those done by Pew Research, conclude that what most people want is both border security and a solution for the Dreamers.
During the shutdown fight, President Trump pressed his case for a wall and secure border. Nothing new there. What was new, oddly so, was that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer effectively left the Dreamers out of their arguments. They had only one idea: Whatever Donald Trump is for, we’re against.
The left has pushed the notion that Mr. Trump is racist and anti-immigrant. Implanting that idea more deeply into voters’ minds is surely the reason the Democrats have chosen Stacey Abrams, the black woman and Georgia gubernatorial candidate, to give the party’s reply to Mr. Trump’s Tuesday speech.
The Democrats assume they’ll gain ground with uncommitted voters by posing Ms. Abrams’s presence against what they assume will be Mr. Trump’s riffs on Central American gangs, rapists, drug smugglers and homicidal aliens.
If, in addition, Mr. Trump stands before the world and proposes permanent legal status for the Dreamers and an eventual path to citizenship, the Democrats running on ABT are done. Once Mr. Trump takes the Dreamers away from the Democrats, they’ll never recover.
In the midterm elections, 40 Democrats won in traditionally Republican House districts. Now they are on the bubble. Among those freshman Democrats, Reps. Anthony Brindisi (N.Y.), Mikie Sherrill (N.J.) and Angie Craig (Minn.) have recently acknowledged the need to do more on border security. So has Montana Sen. Jon Tester, a Democrat on Congress’s 17-member solve-the-shutdown committee.
But won’t the Trump base abandon him if he saves the Dreamers? Well, yes, he is likely to lose the votes of four or five restrictionist pundits, who will insult him for “caving.” This proposal is too big to be a cave. Mr. Trump has to decide whether the right’s minimal-immigration faction helps or hurts him. The Republicans’ stunning November losses in the Houston and Dallas suburbs suggests this sort of rejectionism has now put Texas—and Mr. Trump—at risk.
As to the real Trump base, he said something once about getting away with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, and that is still true. But that mindless stereotype is unfair to most of the people who voted for Mr. Trump. Are some anti-immigrant nativists? Yes, and some of the people who will vote for Kamala Harris, Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren in 2020 are anti-Catholic bigots. Welcome to real life.
For the bulk of Mr. Trump’s base, what’s at stake here is mainly two things: the rule of law broadly and border security, which means making a good-faith effort at control, not some impossible leakproof thing.
Mr. Trump put himself in a bind when he said in his nationally televised meeting with Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer that he would take “responsibility” for the shutdown. They went to ground and let him take the blame.
Now Mr. Trump gets to reset the stakes Tuesday by describing the state of the American union. If with that audience he’s the one who invites the Dreamers into the union, see if Nancy Pelosi, on camera right behind him, is the last one in the room still seated. That won’t be a good look.

MLK's legacy is about moral clarity, not easy analogies

Editor's Note: (Thane Rosenbaum is a novelist, essayist and distinguished fellow at New York University School of Law, where he directs the Forum on Law, Culture & Society. He serves as legal analyst for CBS News Radio and discusses Middle East politics for various cable news networks. The views expressed here are the author's.

Recently, in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day (although it has also surfaced in Black Lives Matter and amid calls for greater "intersectionality" on college campuses), the civil rights movement, which King led, and the struggle for Palestinian statehood, have been analogized and morally linked -- in ways that might have surprised King himself.
These tortured analogies reject everything King represented. After all, he preached peaceful and "passive nonviolent resistance," both a term of art and a strategy that most Palestinian leaders have never embraced. It's not that they haven't seen "Gandhi." It's that too many of them are dedicated to eradicating Israel, not living beside it. Yes, some Fatah leaders have proposed or advocated nonviolent resolution to the conflict, but most of them aren't following the path of Gandhi or King.

Michelle Alexander, a columnist for The New York Times, took the occasion of King's day of remembrance to demonstrate her moral courage. She pointed out that when King spoke out against the Vietnam War, he risked alienating anti-Communist Americans and even allies of his movement. But he was a man of conscience, and he could not remain silent.
Unlike President's Day, Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday doesn't inspire mattress sales but rather moments to reflect on matters of racial justice and civil society. Delving into one's own conscience -- as Alexander did to see how she measures up next to King -- is a valuable exercise that many people should emulate this time of year.

Fortunately, like King, she, too, has a pulpit, and she used it to proclaim that there is far too much silence surrounding Palestinian suffering, which she refers toas one of the "great moral challenges of our time." In breaking her own silence, she metaphorically locks arms with King and speculates that were he alive today, he, too, would have become a critic of Israel.
Remarkably, there's not a word in her commentary about genocides in Syria or Myanmar, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen or the occupations in Tibet, Northern Cyprus, Kurdistan or Kashmir. These crisis zones suffer from conditions far worse than mere silence. Most Americans are unaware of their existence at all. And it is also in such places where moral judgment is arguably easier to render than in the murkier precincts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet, for Alexander, the injustices against the Palestinians are the most in need of heralding, and the demonization of Israel is the most urgent.

In a region of the world where the stoning and dismembering of women and the torching of homosexuals are treated by some as mere oddities of moral relativism, Alexander could have mentioned many countries that, as she phrases it in her piece, perpetrate "injustices beyond our borders," but she singled out Israel for condemnation.
Why? Despite widespread slanders of ethnic cleansing, there is no genocide against the Palestinians. Their people, in fact, have doubled in population since 1967. Nor are Israel's practices, as Alexander assesses, "reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow segregation in the United States," surely not when Arabs serve on the Israeli Supreme Court and can live, work and eat anywhere they choose, vote freely in elections and are represented in parliament. While Israel may be an imperfect democracy, there is no institutionalized racism there that bears any resemblance to Jim Crow -- something King would surely recognize if he were walking the streets of Tel Aviv today.

Alexander reserves her own silence for the real reason for Israel's security fence: not separation but survival.

Alexander's invocation of King is even more disingenuous when one considers that he, and nearly all the leaders of the civil rights movement, were avowed Zionists. Even earlier, in 1948 when the State of Israel was established, the NAACP passed a resolution supporting it. These crusaders for justice didn't see colonial enterprise at work in Jews being given a state in their once-ancestral homeland.

Moreover, they deeply resented any attempts to misappropriate their cause, hijack their language or conflate their struggle with that of others. King feared the very thing that is happening today: diluting the essence of racial justice by introducing false analogies, such as comparing Israel to South Africa, or Gaza to Selma. King was among the first to see how anti-Zionism was a smokescreen for anti-Semitism. He famously said, "when people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism!" And he was not alone. More than 200 African-American leaders publicly rejected the 1975 UN General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism. Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver called it a "travesty upon truth."
The alliance between African-Americans and Jews, which helped galvanize the civil rights era, began to fray by the 1970s. Today it is largely forgotten. Thedisunity within the Women's March and charges of anti-Semitism against some of its founding leaders (which those leaders have denied) is emblematic of this lost love. Black Lives Matter, with its origins in Ferguson, Missouri, coincided with the 2014 war in Gaza. Together they became twin cities of solidarity,inspiring dangerously false comparisons -- like Israel's separation barrier being analogized to maximum-security prisons.

Alexander is not alone in her thinking, although her argument is one-sided and lacks the historical complexity that defines this longstanding dispute. Even many liberal Jews have grown weary of Israel's continued custody over a people with dreams of self-determination. Israel, an otherwise young country, is perceived as a colonial oppressor -- as if Jews have no connection to these biblical lands, despite what the Bible actually says.

King, a reverend himself, famously invoked the saying, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Surely justice should bend for the Jewish people and their homeland, too. Yet, a number of Palestinian leaders, and some in the enabling BDS movement (those who support the boycotting of, divesting from and sanctioning of Israel), are unequivocal in singling out Israel as illegitimate. No two-state solution for them. They are interested in a very different kind of contortion than the one King contemplated -- one of breakage, not bending.
The romance of King's legacy transcends the national holiday and extends throughout the year -- especially in black churches and on college campuses. In 2013, throughout the month of King's birthday, the University of Pennsylvania hosted a Commemorative Symposium on Social Change. Two of the events perpetuated the very canard that King himself debunked -- the falsehood that Zionism is racism. The organization Penn for Palestine screened a film, "Roadmap to Apartheid," and BDS supporters hosted a discussion, "From Birmingham to Nablus." And at universities around the country, student protesters conflate the legacy of King and other civil rights leaders with events such as "Israel Apartheid Week," mock checkpoints and "die-ins," and the posting of mock eviction notices on the doors of dormitories.

How does a skewed understanding of the plight of the Palestinians honor King's legacy of truth? After all, the Palestinians could have had a state of their own, even if it meant sacrificing some important security and nationality priorities, had they accepted the various land-for-peace proposals that Israel offered over the years. King received prison sentences and death threats, not olive branches, from Southern governors. If he were alive today, he might lament the squandered opportunities for peace.

It is certainly true that what King believed in the 1960s, when Israel was regarded as a socially-democratic underdog, may have changed over time as it became a regional superpower. Five decades later, with the expansion of settlements, two intifadas, checkpoints and curfews, King's romance with Israel might have waned. He could still admire its religious freedom, pluralistic makeup and start-up moxie, but the fate of the Palestinians might have weighed on him, too.

As for violence perpetrated by Palestinians, especially within Hamas but also, to some degree, among Palestinians living in the West Bank, in a world of hardened absolutes, King might, as others did, have come to doubt the virtues of nonviolent resistance. After all, should the moral claims of a people for self-determination be forfeited simply because so many of them resort to violence? King was not unfamiliar with such moral and tactical conflicts. He had competition, in Malcolm X and the Black Power movement, for the hearts of African-Americans. If the cause of a people is just, does their moral authority disappear simply because they employ violent means -- even if they sacrifice their own civilians for a perceived greater good?

Unlike Alexander, I can't speak for King -- but I believe it does. Moral authority, not to mention global sympathy, can be forfeited when some leaders, when choices are presented to them, consistently choose rejectionism over pragmatism and reconciliation.

This much we do know. The only nation in the Middle East or Persian Gulf where civil rights exist for racial minorities, homosexuals and women is Israel. It is to Israel where Ethiopian Jews were airlifted from Sudan, escaping famine and civil war, and where an Israeli-born Ethiopian woman was in 2013 crowned Miss Israel. It's also in Israel where a forest is named for King.

Some essential truths, like the moral clarity of nonviolence, are beyond distortion. And Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday and the various efforts undertaken to memorialize him throughout the year are not the time to undermine that.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)

Ocasio-Cortez Attacks Howard Schultz, Embarrasses Herself With Major Mistake

By Ryan Saavedra

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responded to a criticism of her from former Starbucks' CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday by portraying herself as a victim of classism and ended up embarrassing herself.

"I respect the Democratic Party. I no longer feel affiliated because I don't know their views represent the majority of Americans. I don't think we want a 70 percent income tax in America," Schultz said in a CNBC interview on Monday. "The way I’ve come to this decision is, I believe that if I ran as a Democrat, I would have to say things that I know in my heart I do not believe, and I would have to be disingenuous."

"Why don’t people ever tell billionaires who want to run for President that they need to 'work their way up' or that 'maybe they should start with city council first'?" Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.
Ocasio-Cortez's tweet suggests that she most likely did not know about Schultz's background, which is a literal rags-to-riches story. Business Insider reported:
  • Schultz was born on July 19, 1953, in Brooklyn, New York. In an interview with Bloomberg, he said growing up in the projects — "loosely described as the other side of the tracks"
  • He experienced poverty at an early age. When Schultz was 7 years old, his father broke his ankle while working as a truck driver picking up and delivering diapers. At the time, his father had no health insurance or worker's compensation, and the family was left with no income.
Schultz worked various low-level jobs — including as a bartender, which was Ocasio-Cortez's previous occupation — until he landed a sales role at Xerox. Schultz left Xerox for a role at a housewares company called Hammarplast, where he worked his way up to vice president. While working at Hammarplast, Schultz discovered Starbucks and later convinced Starbucks to hire him as the director of retail operations and marketing. Several years later, Schultz bought Starbucks and eventually went on to become a self-made billionaire. That is the very definition of someone "working their way up."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++