++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Challenges facing the new IDF Chief of Staff. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++
Tom Sowell is another one of my heroes. I tried to get him to come here and speak but he is now in his 80's and frail. (See 2 below.)
And:
I am a racist because I believe Linda Sarsour is anti-Semitic as is Farrakhan. Because, I refuse to call any president a mother-f----- even though I had significant issues with Obama's policies and the way he conducted himself while in office. Race relations were improving but the economic plight of black Americans suffered during Obama's tenure and have improved greatly under Trump's. Obama heightened tensions and elevated contempt for law enforcement among black Americans. He was quick to judge events involving police. He went abroad and criticized our nation and supported the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the most radical anti-Semitic groups in the Middle East. He considered Erdogan his closest friend yet, displayed contempt for Israel, our most dependable ally.
His economic policies were a disaster as was his red tape strangulation of the private sector. He despised our military and displayed a weakness that went beyond Carter's fecklessness. He financed Iranian terrorism with pallets of money in the dark of night and allowed Russia to gain geographically and even broadcast his willingness to allow this to happen when he told Medved to pass along this fact to Putin.
I am a bigot because I believe in free speech and do not wish my tax dollars to go to kill unborn children though I do believe a woman has a right to her own body and should pay for her own abortions. I believe all citizens have a right to protect themselves but also believe background checks are in order. I believe the radical left has sought to still the voices of fellow citizens through technology, through intimidation and their efforts to dominate the political arena are dangerous and often un-American.
If we have to show identification to board a plane or get a book out of the library why does the most sacred right to vote not require an equal act.
I support our nation's right to protect its borders and believe citizenship is a right and should be obtained through a legal process and our immigration laws are archaic and need correction.
Actually the biggest racists and bigots have taken over the Democrat Party and I find their co-ordinated attack on this President and his efforts to address misguided policies reaching treasonous proportions. (See 3, 3a, 3b and 3c below.)
https://www.washingtonpost.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)Challenges of the New IDF Chief of Staff
The most important role of any IDF chief of staff, including Lt.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi, is to prepare the army for the next war. Therefore, the IDF and the political echelon must consider very carefully what type of war that is going to be. Since 1982, the IDF has not had any conventional large-scale wars against adversaries armed with tanks and aircraft, but only "small" wars.
Most chances are that this tendency will continue, due to the absence of adversaries with large conventional armies.
Nevertheless, the IDF's success curve in small wars should be improved. The Second Lebanon War in 2006 is not something to be proud of, and some of the fighting rounds in Gaza did not yield a clear Israeli victory either.
Yet Israel must prepare for a large-scale war as well. A military confrontation with Hezbollah in Lebanon is a high-probability scenario. Destruction of the 120,000 missiles arrayed against Israel will require a large-scale ground invasion of southern Lebanon. And Syria, licking its wounds after years of civil war, is about to build a new army.
Egypt, too, has a large and advanced conventional army, and it has built a considerable logistical infrastructure in Sinai. Egypt might change its policy toward Israel if the Muslim Brotherhood returns to power, turning the Egyptian military into a serious challenge. At the same time, Israel must maintain and improve its ability to project power far and wide, especially if the time comes to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat.
Therefore, the decision which war to prepare for is largely an informed historical gamble. Let us hope that Kochavi makes the right gamble. Identifying the nature of the next war directly affects the building of the army's order of battle. In recent years, the ground forces have been neglected. Tank formations were shut down and reserve units in the ground forces did not train sufficiently.
The debates held lately about the IDF's readiness were mainly focused on the state of the ground forces, and it would be appropriate to invest in improving this array. The Gaza, and particularly the Lebanese scenarios, envision an invasion employing significant ground forces, beyond the use of the air force. And even the less likely scenario of a large-scale conventional war requires the operation of a large and effective land force. Criticism has already been voiced in the IDF about the emphasis placed on air attacks based on precise intelligence, at the expense of a maneuvering land force.
A small country like Israel, and even bigger and richer countries, cannot build an army for any and all likely future scenarios. Therefore, it builds a mix of capabilities that can best deal with the expected next war. The mix of the order of battle cannot be changed quickly, since procurement and training with new platforms need time.
Therefore, Israel must strive to have large security margins. There is no textbook solution for the right mix. Here, too, the experience, the realistic assessment of the situation, and the personal intuition of the chief of staff are the key for building an army capable of attaining victory in the next military encounter.
The responsibility for operating the army against violent enemies lies on the chief of staff's shoulders. The use of force is designed for political purposes, and is an art. The timing, the scope of the required force, its components, and the way it is to be used, are like orchestra instruments requiring maximum coordination.
In Israel, the chief of staff is an active member of the security cabinet, which means that his opinion is extremely important. The rules of the game in the security cabinet are different from those in the military organization in which Kochavi has served for several decades. In his previous military assignments he has already been exposed to the political game, and yet we need to wish him good luck in this arena. Clear understandings between the political and military echelons are essential for success in the employment of military force.
Finally, let us recall that Napoleon was always looking for "generals with luck." Let us hope that Aviv Kochavi is lucky. His success is the success of the country.
The writer is president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (jiss.org.il) and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
MANY COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES ARE OPENLY OPPOSED TO PERMITTING MR. SOWEL TO LECTURE THEIR STUDENTS AND FACUILTY;
I WONDER WHY? Mr. Sowell grew up in Harlem, served in the Marine Corp during Korean War...Graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard, Masters from Columbia U..Economist, Social Theorist, Philosopher, Author...Senior Fellow. Hoover Institution, Stanford University...National Humanities Medal...
Francis Boyer Award...
Sowelism's
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) The Shaming of Karen Pence
A mob of secular Puritans targets her for teaching at a Christian school.
By William McGurn
Will no one speak up for Karen Pence other than her husband?
In scarcely a week, the vice president’s wife has become a public face of hate. CNN’s John King suggests that what Mrs. Pence has done is so grievous maybe taxpayers shouldn’t fund her Secret Service security protection. The American Civil Liberties Union says she’s sending “a terrible message to students.”
The Guardian sees in Mrs. Pence a reminder of “the vice-president’s dangerous bigotry.” During a Saturday night performance in Las Vegas, Lady Gaga told her fans that what Mrs. Pence has done confirms she and her husband are “the worst representation of what it means to be Christian.” A former Washington Post editor and senior writer for Politico tweets: “How can this happen in America?”
So what is this terrible thing Mrs. Pence has done? She plans to teach art part-time at Immanuel Christian School in Northern Virginia. This is a small private K-8 academy where Mrs. Pence has taught before. It adheres to a biblically rooted view of human sexuality.
Thanks to the crack reporters at the Washington Post, what this means is no mystery. The Post reports the following provision in the school’s employment contract: “I understand that the term ‘marriage’ has only one meaning; the uniting of one man and one woman in a single, exclusive covenant union as delineated in Scripture.”
Hmmm. Though presented as dangerous stuff, we’ve heard this before. For example, this is how Senate candidate Barack Obama put it in a 2004 radio interview: “I’m a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
So why are so many eager to cast the first stone against Mrs. Pence and not Mr. Obama? Because everyone knew when Mr. Obama spoke he didn’t really mean it; his position was taken out of political calculation. Mrs. Pence’s sin is that she really believes what she says.
In the narrow sense, the vilification of Mrs. Pence makes prophetic Justice Samuel Alito’s prediction in his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision throwing out all state laws against same-sex marriage. Justice Alito saw a perilous future for those who still embraced the view Mr. Obama once claimed to hold. “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes,” he wrote, “but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”
In the larger sense the faith-shaming of Mrs. Pence exposes an inversion of tropes. In history and literature, typically it has been the religious side that can’t tolerate the slightest disagreement from its dogma and behaves like outraged 17th-century Salemites when they think they have uncovered a witch.
Now look at the Immanuel Christian School. Those who run it know they and those who think like them are the big losers in America’s culture war. All they ask is to be allowed, within the confines of their community, to uphold 2,000 years of Christian teaching on marriage, sexuality and the human person.
When Obergefell was decided, it was sold as live-and-let-live. But as Justice Alito foresaw, today some sweet mysteries of the universe are more equal than others. In other words, it isn’t enough for the victors to win; the new sense of justice requires that those who still don’t agree must be compelled to violate their deepest beliefs, whether this means forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraception or dragging a baker in Colorado through the courts until he agrees to make a cake celebrating “gender transition.”
Today’s militant secularists ironically resemble the worst caricatures of religious intolerance of early America. Where the Puritans humiliated sinners with the stocks, the modern intolerant have Twitter . Where the Amish shunned those who lived contrary to their beliefs, today’s violators find themselves driven off the public square. And whereas in Hawthorne’s novel Hester Prynne was forced to wear a scarlet “A”—for adulterer—today we have folks such as Jimmy Kimmel using their popular platforms to paint the scarlet “H”—for hater—on people such as Mrs. Pence.
Vice President Mike Pence defended both his wife and Christian education during an appearance last Thursday on EWTN, a Catholic television network. But it says something that so few on the commanding heights of our culture have been wiling to join him there.
It would be a shame if Mrs. Pence were to allow the mob to keep her from teaching art to those children at Immanuel Christian School. But however it turns out, her experience surely tells us which orthodoxies today are truly sacred and beyond question.
3a) Kamala Harris for the Prosecution
Liberals used to champion due process and the rights of the accused. These days they’re more selective.
By Jason Willick
A report in the Guardian says that “as the Democratic party continues to reckon with its history of endorsing racist, ineffective criminal justice policies, her background has become, for some voters, a liability.” In her new campaign autobiography, “The Truths We Hold,” Ms. Harris casts herself as a “progressive prosecutor” whose aim was to “shine a light on the inequality and unfairness that leads to injustice.”
The liberal left has a long tradition of skepticism toward prosecutorial power and of giving those accused of wrongdoing the benefit of the doubt. But fortunately for Ms. Harris, that’s been changing. In recent years progressives have carved out increasingly wide exceptions to due process principles in the service of their social or political aims.
That’s clearest when it comes to sex offenses. The Obama administration ordered colleges to reduce the burden of proof for sexual-misconduct allegations. Democratic senators, including Ms. Harris, didn’t hold out for proof before demanding the withdrawal of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination or Al Franken’s resignation. “Sexual harassment and misconduct should not be allowed by anyone and should not occur anywhere,” Ms. Harris tweeted in 2017. “I believe the best thing for Senator Franken to do is step down.”
Ms. Harris’s book highlights her work prosecuting sex offenders and women abusers. Her civil-libertarian critics claim that in one sex-crime case, Ms. Harris fought to keep an innocent man behind bars. But will that bother progressive voters who have made “believe all women” a rallying cry?
The civil-libertarian instinct on the left is also increasingly likely to be suspended when it comes to organizations seen as reactionary. Ms. Harris praises her predecessor as San Francisco district attorney for pursuing “entrenched interests ranging from gun manufacturers and tobacco companies to male-only clubs.” As California attorney general Ms. Harris opened an investigation of Exxon’s role in climate change.
And consider the left’s attitude toward Robert Mueller, who has used hardball prosecutorial tactics to secure criminal convictions against Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort and other associates of President Trump. Former federal prosecutors like Preet Bharara have become cable-news anti-Trump heroes for their on-air speculation about the Trump-Russia investigation. As a result, the identity “prosecutor” has rarely enjoyed greater prestige and admiration in blue America than today.
In her book Ms. Harris reproduces lengthy passages of her cross-examinations of Trump administration officials John Kelly, Gina Haspel and Kirstjen Nielsen. While she courts the progressive base on issues of mass incarceration and law-enforcement overreach, Ms. Harris emphasizes that she is still a tough prosecutor of liberalism’s enemies.
And there are many targets. In addition to Trump officials, the Democratic base wants to pursue Russians, college students accused of sexual misconduct, conservative political groups, gun owners, energy companies and religious business owners. Law-and-order conservatives have been pro-prosecutor, and less friendly to due process, since the 1960s as part of their anticrime agenda. But today more than ever liberals see prosecution as a key tool of social and political reform—to stamp out inequality, fight climate change and control political speech.
“I never wanted to work for the Man,” a progressive employee told Ms. Harris, reflecting the counter-establishment spirit of the old-school left. When you become the Man, the temptation to use power can be irresistible, especially when you’re pursuing your ideals. Far from a liability, that could help carry Kamala Harris to the 2020 nomination.
3b) The Women’s March Follows Farrakhan off a Cliff
Its leaders’ anti-Semitism drives off the Democratic Party and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
By
Saturday’s Women’s March was much smaller than the original, held in 2017. It was notable not only because far fewer showed up but for who stayed away. The Democratic Party disavowed its partnership with the march, as did the Southern Poverty Law Center, Emily’s List, the Human Rights Campaign, NARAL, the Center for American Progress and hundreds of other liberal interest groups. The march had 550 official partners in 2018 and less than half as many this year. One by one, the pink hats came off.
What happened? The group that yelled loudest about Mr. Trump’s bigotry was brought low by bigotry of its own. Tablet reported last month that at the first meeting to organize the Women’s March, four days after Mr. Trump’s election, two of the group’s leaders, Carmen Perez and Tamika Mallory, insisted that, in the reporters’ paraphrase, “Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people” and were leaders of the slave trade. Vanessa Wruble, a key organizer who is Jewish, told reporters Ms. Perez and Ms. Mallory later berated her: “You people hold all the wealth.” Ms. Wruble was pushed out of Women’s March Inc. by late January 2017.
So were other early organizers, leaving Ms. Perez, Ms. Mallory, Linda Sarsour and Mari Lynn Foulger, who calls herself Bob Bland, as co-chairmen. The four were the toast of the “resistance,” drawing effusions from prominent Democrats. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand called them “the suffragists of our time.” Nancy Pelosi praised them as “courageous.” The American Civil Liberties Union’s magazine lauded Ms. Sarsour as a “leader in the truest form of the word.” The ACLU is still a march sponsor, as are the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the American Federation of Teachers—never mind that three of the four co-chairmen admire Louis Farrakhan.
The Nation of Islam leader makes an unlikely feminist. In one sermon, he ranted about “lazy women” who “don’t want to get in the damn kitchen and cook.” He is also infamous for his anti-Semitism, including the canard about Jews and the slave trade. In that regard at least, the three Women’s March leaders find in him a kindred spirit.
Ms. Sarsour has asserted that Zionists can’t be feminists and that “some folks . . . always choose their allegiance to Israel over their commitment to democracy and free speech.” She spoke at a 2015 rally a New York Times columnist described as a “pageant for Farrakhan” and has bragged that she has Nation of Islam bodyguards. Throughout 2016 Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez shared a steady stream of Farrakhan quotes and video clips on Instagram. In November 2016 Ms. Perez posted a picture of herself holding hands with Mr. Farrakhan. Ms. Sarsour commented: “God bless him.”
In May 2017—four months after the first Women’s March—Ms. Mallory posted her own picture with Mr. Farrakhan, calling him the “GOAT,” an acronym for “greatest of all time.” Ms. Mallory attended a Farrakhan speech in February 2018 in which he denounced Jews as “children of the devil” and gave her a nice personal mention.
Hoping to save the good name of the Women’s March, liberals pleaded with its leaders to condemn and abandon Mr. Farrakhan. They wouldn’t—not in 2017 or 2018, and not last week, when Ms. Mallory was questioned about it on “The View.”
“I called him the greatest of all time because of what he has done in black communities,” Ms. Mallory said. “Just because you go into a space with someone does not mean you agree with everything they say.”
The remaining supporters of the Women’s March—including the Democratic Party until last week—keep telling themselves they can compartmentalize the anti-Semitism and join, praise or even fund the march despite it. The implication is that it’s OK to be anti-Semitic as long you’re for the left. That was the message of this year’s Women’s March.
Mr. Kaufman is the Journal’s Joseph Rago Memorial Fellow.
3c) Virginia governor
announces bill to repeal
voter ID requirement
,
allow no-excuse
absentee voting
BY MICHAEL BURKE
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) announced Monday that he is introducing a legislative package that would repeal voter identification requirements and implement no-excuse absentee voting.
3c) Virginia governor
announces bill to repeal
voter ID requirement
,
allow no-excuse
absentee voting
BY MICHAEL BURKE
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) announced Monday that he is introducing a legislative package that would repeal voter identification requirements and implement no-excuse absentee voting.
The package also addresses campaign finance, proposing to limit large campaign contributions, ban contributions made directly by corporations and businesses and ban the use of campaign funds for personal use.
Northam said in a statement announcing the legislation that the package would "encourage every eligible voter to exercise" their right to vote.
“Participation makes our democracy strong — we should encourage every eligible voter to exercise this fundamental right, rather than creating unnecessary barriers that make getting to the ballot box difficult,” Northam said.
“I am also hopeful we will be successful working together this session to increase the transparency of our elections for Virginians by imposing reasonable limitations on campaign contributions," he added.
Kaye Kory, a Democrat in Virginia's House of Delegates, said in the statement that the current law that requires voters in Virginia to present a photo ID to vote "prevents the most vulnerable Virginians from voting."
“Voting is the constitutional right of every American citizen. Lawmakers should be working to increase access to the voting booth, not inventing ways to keep voters away from the polls,” Kory said. “The photo ID requirement prevents the most vulnerable Virginians from voting and silences the voices of those who most need to be heard.”
Northam's office argues in the statement that, if implemented, no-excuse absentee voting would also give citizens in the state greater access to voting.
If no-excuse absentee voting were to be implemented, voters in Virginia would be able to vote absentee without having to provide a reason to do so. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment