+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is plenty of mass media notoriety when a black person is killed by a white person. Particularly is this so if a policeman is involved. Every once in a while the mass media might even inform us how blacks seem unable to curtail their anger towards their own race. Seldom do we hear from the mass media about black's killing/attacking Asians or even a Jew, like just happened in Baltimore. The Baltimore assassination apparently was due to a robbery attempt. The victim was from Israel attending a family wedding in Baltimore. He had to come to America to get killed when he could have stayed In Israel and a peace loving Palestinian could have done the same thing.
Biden is releasing hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars to reward Palestinians for some reason which I am not quite sure I comprehend but we are a rich nation and Biden enjoys playing Santa Claus.
And:
Jewish man visiting Baltimore from Israel for relative's wedding shot and killed in Baltimore
And:
Exclusive: GOP Rep Calls for CDC Director To Resign Over Union Collusion
We have an open display of hypocrisy once again by Democrats who are frightened by blacks who stand on their own feet and can debate deceitful politicians who profess to care about their "black brothers."
Who’s Afraid of Tim Scott?
The GOP senator forced the president and vice president to respond to him.
By William McGurn
Kamala Harris went first. In the Republican response to Joe Biden’s address to Congress, Sen. Tim Scott avowed that America “is not a racist country.” The next day on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” the vice president was asked if she agreed with him.
“I don’t think America is a racist country,” she said, “but we also do have to speak truth about the history of racism in our country and its existence today.”
The following day, it was President Biden’s turn. In an interview with NBC’s “Today,” he, too, was asked about Mr. Scott’s characterization—and he, too, agreed. “I don’t think America’s racist,” he said, “but I think the overhang from all of the Jim Crow [laws], and before that slavery, have had a cost, and we have to deal with it.”
Though no one was impolite enough to bring it up, Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris would never have said what they did if the black Republican senator from South Carolina hadn’t used his moment to force their hands. Essentially, he dared them to speak aloud the logical conclusion from all their repeated references to systemic racism and the threat of white supremacy. Wisely recognizing that this would be political poison, they flinched.
How different from only two weeks ago, when a Columbus, Ohio, police officer saved the life of a black teenager by shooting another black teen about to stab her. Asked about it, White House press secretary Jen Psaki went right for the progressive go-to: “Black women and girls, like black men and boys, experience higher rates of police violence.”
That’s the trouble with narratives. They are one size fits all, with no room for considering the individual case on its merits and particular circumstances. This is what Mr. Scott was referring to when he suggested race is used as “a political weapon to settle every issue the way one side wants”—by slamming anyone who raises an inconvenient fact as racist or dismissing speech as invalid based solely on the speaker’s racial identity.
As Mr. Scott put it, “It’s wrong to try to use our painful past to dishonestly shut down debates in the present.” But this is precisely what narratives do—and in fact are meant to do.
It isn’t only race. Mr. Biden and the Democrats are using larger narratives to override the hard questions that should be asked regarding $4.5 trillion in new spending. In this way, paid leave becomes “infrastructure,” paying your “fair share” always means paying more, and a bill can be “bipartisan” even if it’s rammed through without a single Republican vote.
Again, Mr. Scott calmly took it on. He characterized the “family plan” announced that night by Mr. Biden as “even more taxing, even more spending, to put Washington even more in the middle of your life—from the cradle to college.” More striking, he tethered Republican policy counterproposals to classic principles such as the dignity of work, the trust that ordinary Americans can make decisions for themselves, and the benefits that Americans have enjoyed when policies flow from these principles.
It was as much a moral message as a practical one: “Just before Covid, we had the most inclusive economy in my lifetime. The lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians and a 70-year low—nearly—for women. Hear me: Wages were growing faster for the bottom than at the top. The bottom 25% saw their wages rise faster than the top 25%.”
Now, it is true that Mr. Scott, as an African-American, is better positioned than a white Republican to push back on progressive race narratives. Then again, a white Republican never has to face the ugly treatment reserved for African-American conservatives and Republicans who dare challenge the prevailing progressive pieties.
As we saw after his speech, progressive bigotry can be as crude as the more traditional varieties: “Uncle Tim,” an unsubtle way to call Mr. Scott an “Uncle Tom,” trended on Twitter ; a Texas county chairman of the Democratic Party called him an “Oreo” in a Facebook post; and white liberals such as Jimmy Kimmel and Joy Behar condescended to the senator, apparently believing him in desperate need of celebrity instruction on race and racism.
The sweet irony is that it has all backfired, notably by proving true Mr. Scott’s complaints about progressive hate. Even sweeter, in a Republican Party working to define itself post-Trump, these liberal slurs have served only to elevate Mr. Scott’s national standing as a powerful and promising party leader.
So chalk one up for the senator, the first American politician in memory to pull off a televised response to a presidential address to Congress that upstaged the president himself. So effective was Mr. Scott that the president and vice president not only ended up having to respond to him—but had to admit he was right.
And that’s just what makes it sting.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
And Lynn won't even let me have a dog:
The upside of Israel’s electoral mess
If right- and left-wing parties can consider forming even a temporary coalition that illustrates both Netanyahu’s difficulties and the broad consensus on security issues.
(May 5, 2021 / JNS) If someone in Israel just woke up after being in a coma for the last two years, they’d have a lot of catching up to do learning about what happened while they were asleep. They might be happily surprised by the signing of the Abraham Accords and not so thrilled to learn about a year spent in coronavirus lockdowns. With respect to Israeli politics, that might be the real eye-opener: They would discover that very little had changed.
After four elections and endless negotiations, no stable majority coalition government in Israel has come to fruition. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is still scrambling to hold on to power by every means and tactic imaginable. And though there’s no way of predicting what might happen next in this long-running dysfunctional saga, it’s more than likely that the end of this crisis is not in sight.
What’s most interesting about this is not so much Netanyahu’s desperate bid to stay in place against all the odds. Rather, it’s the way opinions about him have superseded the convictions about territory, settlements and the conflict with the Palestinians that once were the only things that really mattered in Israeli politics.
The latest development doesn’t add any clarity to the situation. After receiving the mandate to attempt to form a government by President Reuven Rivlin, Netanyahu acknowledged failure after 28 days. Rivlin has now given the same opportunity to Yesh Atid Party leader Yair Lapid, and the smart money says that he’s as likely to fail as Netanyahu.
The problem of forming a government with the 61 votes necessary to have a majority of the Knesset remains the same. There is a clear majority of members in the legislature who were elected in the election held in March who can be classified as being on the right with respect to the security issues that used to determine almost everything in Israeli politics. Netanyahu can continue to count on the support of 52 Knesset members who represent his own Likud Party and its religious party allies. Seven more from the Yamina Party led by Naftali Bennett might have supported a Netanyahu government, but that still left them two short of a majority. In theory, the 13 right-wingers from the New Hope and Yisrael Beiteinu parties might have given Netanyahu his majority, but they believe that ousting the prime minister after 12 consecutive years in office is a higher priority.
Even more bizarre is the fact that Netanyahu might have gotten past the 61 mark with the aid of one of the Arab political parties. The Islamist Ra’am Party has indicated its willingness to work with Zionist parties, whether Netanyahu or Lapid. Netanyahu, who seemed to be courting the Arab vote in the last election, was willing to break the taboo of giving an Arab anti-Zionist party like Ra’am part of a governing coalition, even if meant supporting him from outside it.
Yet that attempt to break the logjam was foiled by the determined opposition of one of Netanyahu’s allies, the far-right Religious Zionist Party led by Bezalel Smotrich, which includes some disciples of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.
Netanyahu’s characteristic response to this setback was to blame it all on Bennett rather than Smotrich. The reason for that is that although Bennett was willing to go along with Netanyahu if he could get to 61, he is also a greater personal threat to him and a potential kingmaker who could make a deal with Lapid.
That option presents the bizarre prospect of a government in which right-wingers opposed to Netanyahu would serve alongside left-wingers with whom they disagree on just about every conceivable issue except dumping the prime minister. Indeed, Lapid has publicly said that he would acquiesce to Bennett going first in a rotation agreement in which the Yesh Atid leader would go second. Such a coalition, however, would also depend on the votes of not only the suddenly reasonable Ra’am but the more obdurately anti-Zionist Joint Arab List.
Bennet may, in fact, be the only person with even a remote chance of emerging from the current mess as prime minister. But he knows that if he does wind up leading a coalition that includes leftists like those of Labor and Meretz and anti-Zionist Arabs, he may well be finished in electoral politics, as right-wing voters may never forgive him for empowering these groups and for applying the coup de grace to Netanyahu.
All of which means the most likely scenario is a fifth election later this year, though the prospects of that resolving the problem are slim. That’s especially true when you consider that the Likud vote declined from election number three in 2020 to the most recent go-round.
The argument is about whether Netanyahu should stay on or has rendered an already dysfunctional election system completely unworkable. Given that the smaller parties that represent distinct constituencies like the ultra-Orthodox, the prospect of a much-needed constitutional reform being enacted is no greater now than it was at any other time in Israel’s 73-year history as an independent Jewish state.
Ironies abound in the debate about Netanyahu. He’s coming off a year of events—both in terms of Israel’s diplomatic breakthroughs with Arab states and his successful guiding of the country through the COVID crisis—that can be seen as the crowning achievements of his long career.
On the flip side, two years of electoral stalemate have also seen Netanyahu at his worst. He may be unchallenged as a master tactician, but his maneuvers against both allies and enemies have shone a light on his well-earned reputation as a back-stabber whose word is worthless.
That makes no difference to the quarter of the Israeli electorate that will vote for him and Likud no matter what he does. Though his admirers may rail at the anti-Netanyahu right-wingers as renegades, they represent the belief of many Israelis that the long-running Bibi show must end. Part of that has to do with the trial on corruption charges that he is facing. But even many who believe those allegations are politically inspired feel that the claim that he only cares about holding onto power is justified.
Still, there’s an upside to even this discouraging situation.
Many Americans, including the people running foreign policy in the Biden administration, act as if the failed peace policies of past presidents are still viable. They think that Israel should be pressured into making concessions to the Palestinians to achieve a two-state solution. But while the Israeli left is not quite completely dead, the current electoral equation demonstrates that it is completely marginalized. There is no real debate in the country about a peace that the Palestinians have proved time and again that they don’t want. Nor is there any serious argument about the wisdom of Netanyahu’s tough stand on Iran and the folly of the United States returning to a nuclear deal that will endanger Israel, the Arab states and the West.
Netanyahu’s troubles stem from his personal behavior, not policy. But the fact that so many on the right and left think that his quest to stay in office indefinitely is the most important issue facing the electorate is a sign of stability and relative consensus on the life-and-death issues facing the Jewish state, even if it also demonstrates other problems that currently defy a solution.
So while friends of Israel—whether fans of the prime minister or his detractors—must shake their heads at the dispiriting spectacle that Israeli politics has become, they should not be worried about the country’s fate or the future of its democracy. Sooner or later, this stalemate will be resolved. And if Iran, Hezbollah or the Palestinians create a crisis before that happens, there’s equally no doubt that the country will unite to deal with it. Israel is strong and will remain so. It’s not broken, even if its election system has broken down.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have not paid much attention to the Liz Cheney matter but I will now add my two cents.
I do not believe the 2020election was stolen, per se, but I do believe conditions for theft, prior to the election, created circumstances that were unusual, were conducive to creating distrust and in some instances, like in the case of Pennsylvania, were unconstitutional. I also believe The SCOTUS failed to examine certain facts that were politically sensitive for the court and Chief Justice Roberts always seeks to protect his court from politics and winds up betraying his oath in the process.
I believe Roberts is one of the worst Chief Justices in my lifetime because he is feckless.
Now that the rule of law has been trashed and our elections no longer breed confidence in their fairness and reliable outcomes we are set in motion the unwinding of our Republic.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Republicans seldom win issues that are lay-ups. Why? Because they are timid, they do not know how to craft a saleable message and seem reluctant/hesitant to make the effort to win. They are the party that has perfected the phrase "brink of success failures:"
Teachers Unions’ Covid Cop-Outs Are a Winning Issue for GOP
By Jason L. Riley
When is the Republican Party going to declare war on teachers unions?
Doing so would be smart politics as well as smart policy. There is no appreciable downside to the GOP taking on the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, which already give nearly all their money and political support to Democrats. And the nation’s pupils have everything to gain, especially if they happen to be low-income minorities.
The move is long overdue, and the pandemic offers Republicans the perfect opportunity to explain to voters how the unions’ ironclad control over public education does grave harm to children. We’ve known from the earliest days of the virus that youngsters are the least likely to catch it or spread it to others. We also know that many low-income parents struggle with home schooling and need to go back to work. Distance learning exacerbates racial and economic achievement gaps and takes a heavy psychological toll on kids. Union leaders couldn’t care less.
California, which is the most populous state and currently has the lowest per capita Covid rate in the country, also has the highest percentage of school districts that remain entirely virtual. Teachers unions have used the pandemic to demand more money and more-generous benefits. They know that millions of Americans can’t return to work if kids can’t return to schools. For parents it’s a dilemma, but unions see it as leverage. The United Teachers of Los Angeles requested free child care for its members as a condition for returning to the classroom. Union clout is the main reason that California’s percentage of all-virtual school districts is more than three times the national average.
An exposé published in Sunday’s New York Post shows how diligently teachers unions have been working to capitalize on our misery. “In the days before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released their much-anticipated school-reopening guidelines on Feb. 12, the American Federation of Teachers launched a full-court press to shape the final document and slow the full-reopening of schools,” the Post reported. “The lobbying paid off. In at least two instances, language ‘suggestions’ offered by the union were adopted nearly verbatim into the final text of the CDC document.”
The Biden administration isn’t “following the science.” It’s following orders. The nation’s largest teachers unions spent more than $40 million in the 2020 cycle to elect Democrats. And labor leaders are getting a fabulous return on that investment. The Covid-relief law President Biden signed in March allocates $123 billion for public schools, with no requirement that districts first reopen for in-person learning to receive the money.
Before the pandemic, the political landscape for teachers unions was improving. Recall that the Democrats had a strong 2018 midterm election. They not only regained control of the House but also picked up seven governorships and flipped more than 300 state legislative seats. In recent years, teacher walkouts in Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Washington state and West Virginia were largely successful in garnering bigger school budgets, higher pay and smaller class sizes (which translates into more union jobs). The question now is whether Covid will reverse this momentum.
What Americans have learned from the lockdowns is the degree to which unions control not only the public school systems but by extension the everyday lives of tens of millions of parents with school-age children. If Republicans are smart, they won’t let voters forget this lesson anytime soon. Education always ranks high among the concerns of the electorate, and the virus exposed the catastrophic consequences of having so few school alternatives for families of modest means. Private schools, religious schools and charter schools have all outperformed traditional public schools during the pandemic, and teachers unions labor to limit access to better alternatives.
GOP candidates in the 2022 midterms could campaign hard on the unions’ myriad Covid cop-outs. Voters should know all about how the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, along with thousands of state and local affiliates, consistently gave priority to their adult members instead of the children and families they are supposed to serve. Moreover, Republicans could take this message directly to the communities hit hardest by the unwillingness of educators to do their jobs.
Republican outreach should include running ads on radio and television and social-media outlets with large black and Latino audiences. It should include visiting churches and barbershops in low-income neighborhoods to explain how voucher programs and charter schools change the power dynamic by giving parents the ability to switch school systems if the educational needs of their children aren’t met. Remind these voters that the union-controlled schools Democrats support have an abysmal record when it comes to educating minorities. With apologies to a former president, what the hell do Republicans have to lose?
No comments:
Post a Comment