%20(1)%20(4)%20(1)%20(1).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Explaining Conservativism II: Why the Left Hates It
+++
| White House KNEW -- Pushed FALSE Narrative Anyway! |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The man who occupies The Oval Office is both a liar and probably corrupt. Certainly his son is corrupt.
https://justthenews.com/accoun
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Times have changed:
+++
+++
I Used To Be A Normal Person ……
I used to think I was pretty much just a regular person, but I was born white, into a two-parent household which now, whether I like it or not, makes me privileged,a racist,
and responsible for slavery.
I am a fiscal and moral conservative, which by today's standards, makes me a fascist because I plan, budget, and support myself.
I went to Grammar School, and have always held a job. But I now find out that I am not here because I earned it, but because I was "advantaged".
I am heterosexual, which according to gay folks, now makes me a homophobe.
I am not a Muslim, which now labels me as an infidel.
I am older than 70, making me a useless eater who doesn't understand Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or Snapchat.
I think and I reason, and I doubt most of what the ‘main stream’ media tells me, which makes me a Right-wing conspiracy nut.
I am proud of my heritage and our inclusive culture, making me a xenophobe.
I believe in hard work, fair play, and fair reward according to each individual's merits, which today makes mean anti-socialist.
I believe our system guarantees freedom of effort - not freedom of outcome or subsidies which must make me a borderline sociopath.
I believe in the defense and protection of my nation for and by all citizens, now making me a militant.
I am proud of our flag, what it stands for, and the many who died to let it fly, so I stand during our National Anthem - so I must be a racist.
Please help me come to terms with the new me because I'm just not sure who I am anymore!
Funny - it all took place over the last 12 to 14 years!
If all this nonsense wasn't enough to deal with, now I don't even know which toilet to use... and these days I gotta go more frequently!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Saints, Sinners And Salvageables: Tackling The Crisis Of Confidence In Elections | Ben Ginsberg | Hoover Institution
Interview with Benjamin Ginsberg, Mindy Finn via Saints, Sinners, & Salvageables:
Restoring America's Faith In Voting
How to remove distrust and negative partisanship – the politics of maximum fear and maximum blame – from America’s voting population?
+++
Is Trump’s critique of American Jews justified?
T. Belman. Blum nails it. She is the daughter of the late Commentary editor, Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter. Commentary was my favorite publication when growing up. I read every article and saved every edition for many decades.
Kindly note how she spells “antisemitic”. Today. it is most common to spell it “anti-Semitic”. I am with her and I often amend articles that I post to correct the spelling. In the fifties and sixties, the only spelling one used was antisemitic. This is not about being against Semites. It is not about Semites. It is about Jews.
The response to the former US president’s Truth Social post has been nothing short of a hysterical – purposeful – misreading of his words, which were neither threatening nor antisemitic.
By Ruthie Blum
The response to the former US president’s Truth Social post has been nothing short of a hysterical – purposeful – misreading of his words, which were neither threatening nor antisemitic.
The latest brouhaha surrounding former US President Donald Trump pertains to comments he posted on Sunday about – and directed to – American Jews.
“No president has done more for Israel than I have,” he wrote on his platform, Truth Social. “Somewhat surprisingly, however, our wonderful Evangelicals are far more appreciative of this than the people of the Jewish faith, especially those living in the US”
All true, other than the “surprisingly” part. The majority of Jews in the United States wouldn’t support a Republican if their lives, or Israel’s, depended on it. A befitting quip that circulated in Jerusalem ahead of the 2012 election was that if then-President Barack Obama were to nuke Tel Aviv, the Jewish vote for him might drop to 75%.
Trump continued, “Those living in Israel, though, are a different story; highest approval rating in the world. Could easily be PM!”
Again, though characteristically self-congratulatory, what he said is accurate. During his tenure, many adoring Israelis joked about wanting to elect him to the premiership. And with good reason.
He canceled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear deal with Iran. He moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which he recognized as Israel’s capital. He ceased funding for the terrorist-supporting UNRWA. He shuttered the PLO mission in Washington. He recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. His State Department removed the word “occupied” from references to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). He designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. And he brokered the historic Abraham Accords.
Still, his political and personal foes were furious that he dared to take credit for being the best friend that Israel ever had in the White House. What really got their bilious juices flowing was his warning that “US Jews have to get their act together and appreciate what they have in Israel, before it is too late!”
The response has been nothing short of hysterical, and not in the funny sense.
“We don’t need the former president, who curries favor with extremists and antisemites, to lecture us about the US-Israel relationship,” tweeted Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt. “It is not about a quid pro quo; it rests on shared values and security interests. This ‘Jewsplaining’ is insulting and disgusting.”
Greenblatt is actually the one who has no business talking about “shared values” with Israel, whose harshest critics he regularly defends. It is he who could use a hefty dose of “Jewsplaining,” to remind him of what his role is supposed to entail.
The Jewish Democratic Council of America spewed equally vile vitriol. “More unabashed anti-Semitism from GOP leader Donald Trump,” the group tweeted. “His threat to Jewish Americans and his continued use of the antisemitic dual loyalty trope fuels hatred against Jews. We will not be threatened by Donald Trump and Jewish Americans will reject GOP bigotry this November.”
This is particularly worthy of note in its idiocy. Trump issued no “threat,” and he certainly wasn’t invoking the “dual loyalty trope.”
On the contrary, he was calling on Jews to be more, not less, invested in Israel’s future and well-being. And he was warning that failure in this regard would have negative consequences for the Jewish state. What about this is wrong, let alone antisemitic? The answer is: nothing.
Nevertheless, White House Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre parroted the false accusation, though “plagiarized” would be a better depiction.
“Donald Trump’s comments were antisemitic, as you all know, and insulting both to Jews and to our Israeli allies,” she told reporters on Monday. “But let’s be clear, for years, for years now, Donald Trump has aligned with extremist and antisemitic figures. … We need to root out anti-Semitism everywhere it rears its ugly head. We need to call this out. With respect to Israel, our relationship is ironclad and it’s rooted in shared values and interests. Donald Trump clearly doesn’t understand that either.”
Really? Maybe she ought to tell her boss to “root it out” of the Democratic Party and its backers in academia, where it’s been “rearing its ugly head” with a vengeance.
Perhaps, as well, she might want to review the definition of “ironclad.” You know, since the Biden administration refers to Palestinian terrorists and the Israeli military as “both sides” when urging restraint and de-escalation.
This brings to mind comedian Jay Leno’s 2014 barb about then-President Barack Obama knowing “just how unbreakable the US-Israel bond is, since he’s been trying to break it for years.”
It was Trump who turned this around, to the dismay of the very progressive Jewish organizations that have been slandering him for his Truth Social post. They and numerous media outlets have been going so far as to compare his statements to those of rapper/designer Kanye West (a.k.a. Ye), whose recent rants have been filled with unapologetic Jew-hatred with violent rhetoric.
It’s a neat trick, since West is a pro-Trump conservative. But, comparing Kim Kardashian’s ex-husband – who boasted of his intention to go “death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE” – to Israel’s proven ally isn’t merely disingenuous. It’s also transparent.
Not only does it serve to highlight the subpoenaing of Trump to testify before the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riots; it also constitutes a Hail Mary pass on the part of all those praying to stave off a likely defeat for Democrats in the upcoming midterms. Prominent among the worriers are Jews.
Though Trump is not alone in bemoaning their counter-intuitive ballot-box behavior, he makes the mistake of taking the age-old phenomenon personally. As the late sociologist Milton Himmelfarb famously pointed out in Commentary magazine in 1973, “Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.”
Fortunately, there are exceptions to that rule. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), for example, announced on Friday that it will be awarding Trump its Theodor Herzl Medallion. The honor will be bestowed on the “best friend Israel ever had in the White House” during the organization’s gala on Nov. 13 in New York City.
Kudos to the ZOA for giving gratitude where it’s due.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Crookedness knows no color but neither does it surprise me and when a lot of money flows into the coffers of black politicians it is frequently mishandled. Think Maxine Waters and BLM was the latest and now Stacey. Elect her Governor and watch the money flow.
+++
Abrams PAC Investigating Itself Over Funds To Family And Friends
Stacey Abrams’ Fair Fight PAC has launched an investigation into its internal actions after revelations that large sums of money are being handed out to its director’s family and friends.
Records show that people with little experience and maintaining other full-time employment are receiving thousands of dollars for their “work.”
Fox News Digital first reported the findings, which resulted in a Friday announcement from Fair Fight PAC. The organization declared it is now “aware that PAC funds may have been incorrectly paid to consultants.”
The group added that, as they strive to serve the community “with the utmost integrity,” they take the allegations “seriously” and have begun an investigation into their practices.
The PAC was founded by Abrams in 2019 in the aftermath of her loss to Republican Brian Kemp in the 2018 Georgia governor’s race. The Democrat repeatedly cast aspersions on the results and called the state’s voting practices into question.
The group, she asserted, was founded to push for “equitable elections” in Georgia. However, it was those close to Fair Fight PAC’s political director, Andre Fields, who stood to benefit.
One of those who drew a hefty payday was Darius Faulk, Field’s sister. According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, she received more than $120,000 for training services just since August 2021.
And that payday came even with little or no political experience. Faulk had worked as the director of operations and assistant women’s basketball coach for Hofstra University.
It is also reported that a pair of Fields’ close friends, Asa Fludd and Cruz Alvarado, collected tens of thousands of dollars from the PAC.
Fludd, who had worked in computer systems, received $29,800 for training consulting since last year. Alvarado was paid $29,000 after having worked in the event industry.
A separate review by CNN of FEC filings showed that the true total for the three recipients for this and previous election cycles may be closer to $250,000. These outrageous sums have not been lost on Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.
The Republican tweeted last week that “Stacey Abrams’ group is using hundreds of thousands in political donations” to enrich her friends while ordinary Georgians struggle under inflation rates not seen in 40 years.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Truth or consequences
The Saudi crown prince has some legitimate grievances
By Clifford D. May
President Biden is hopping mad that Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince and, since last month, prime minister, refused his request not to cut oil production – or least to wait a month before doing so. Mr. Biden is threatening “consequences” in retaliation.
What is MBS thinking? Let’s hazard some guesses.
Cutting production will keep prices up if demand falls due to a global recession, an eventuality many economists predict. If you were MBS, would you forego that benefit to please Mr. Biden?
During his presidential campaign, Mr. Biden declared: “I guarantee we're going to end fossil fuels!” Since occupying the White House, he has been aggressively pursuing that goal. If you were MBS, might you think: “If Biden despises fossil fuels – the primary source of Saudi wealth – shouldn’t he thank me for producing less of them?”
MBS has surely not forgotten Mr. Biden’s vow to make him a “pariah” for his role in the murder of Saudi dissident and Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi.
His reasoning might run along these lines: “The rulers of Russia and Iran kill those they regard as traitors by the score! They’re responsible for more than 500,000 deaths in Syria! China’s ruler is committing genocide – according to Biden himself! But I’m the guy he wants to make a ‘pariah’? On what basis?” To recognize that this a valid question in no way condones the heinous crime that was committed.
We may assume MBS is familiar with the history of Washington’s relations with Riyadh. Is Mr. Biden? In case he’s reading this – and since I know you are – I’ll summarize.
In February of 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt traveled to the Middle East to meet with Saudi King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud. That was a curious decision considering that World War II was not yet over, and the American president was mortally ill.
But FDR understood that oil was the world’s most strategic commodity. Thirst for oil was the primary reason Hitler invaded both North Africa and the Soviet Union in 1941. “Unless we get the Baku oil,” he told one of his commanders, “the war is lost.”
He was correct. In the Battle of the Bulge, a Panzer assault literally ran out of gas. Fully fueled American aircraft destroyed the tanks where they were parked.
Japanese imperialists invaded Southeast Asia to obtain the fossil fuels they needed. The U.S. responded by declaring an oil embargo against Tokyo. After Pearl Harbor, American submarines in the Pacific hunted two primary targets: aircraft carriers and oil tankers.
FDR understood, too, how essential oil would be for America’s post-war prosperity: to provide electricity and transportation, and heat homes in cold weather. In 1933, air conditioners were first installed in the White House. He didn’t need a crystal ball to foresee that middle-class households would soon crave this luxury as well.
So, FDR struck a deal with the monarch. The Saudis would keep the oil flowing at a reasonable price to provide stability for the American-led global economy. In exchange, the U.S. would guarantee the kingdom’s security. This understanding persisted for more than six decades.
Then came Barack Obama. He envisioned a realignment of the Middle East, one in which the Islamic Republic of Iran would “share the neighborhood.”
His talks with Iran’s rulers leading to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action violated the diplomatic principle that, when it comes to allies and partners, “nothing about us without us.”
He excluded the Saudis and others existentially threatened by Iran’s rulers: the Bahrainis, the Emiratis, and the Israelis. He offered to provide Iran’s rulers with billions of dollars they would be free to spend to undermine those nations.
All Mr. Obama asked of the theocrats in return was a promise to delay – not end – their nuclear weapons program. If you were in MBS’s sandals, what would be your reaction?
You know what happened next. President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, imposed stiff sanctions on Tehran, and took pains to restore America’s partnership with the Saudis. However, Mr. Trump took no serious actions in response to Iranian drone and cruise missile attacks on two key oil installations inside Saudi Arabia in 2019. MBS cannot have been pleased.
President Biden has been attempting to revive the Obama approach, but Iran’s rulers have so far rebuffed offers of a deal that would restrain them less and enrich them more than the original JCPOA.
Mr. Biden now says he will punish MBS. “There’s going to be some consequences for what they’ve done with Russia,” he told CNN’s Jake Tapper. Note: He’s implicitly denying that he asked MBS for a favor linked to the midterm elections and accusing MBS of cutting oil production to help Russian President Vladimir Putin finance his war against Ukraine.
MBS must be thinking: “If Biden objects to helping Putin why is he still courting Iran’s rulers who are sending Putin drones to slaughter Ukrainians?” Not just coincidentally, MBS this weekend announced $400 million in aid to Ukraine.
Should Mr. Biden impose “consequences” – for example, cutting off sales of American weapons to the Saudis – what will MBS do? Maybe buy weapons from other nations. Russia sells plenty.
China is an important Saudi trading partner, one not interested in eliminating fossil fuels. MBS knows that Xi Jinping, at the 20th Communist Party Congress that opened on Sunday, is almost certain to become the most powerful Chinese ruler since Mao Zedong.
With all this in mind, President Biden ought to be asking himself: “Does it serve America’s interests for me to further weaken relations with MBS and push the Saudis closer to Xi and Putin?”
It’s a consequential question. And, truthfully, it answers itself.
Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for the Washington Times.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Wahlberg flees Hollywood with his family:
+++
Why Hollywood ICON Announces His Departure – He’s Had Enough!
Why Mark Wahlberg Is Leaving California
(ConservativeInsider.org) – As various politicians dealt with COVID-19, they either held fast to the American ideals of freedom and independence or used it as an opportunity to grab more power and control over their state. In California, residents felt the pressure as strict lockdown measures were put in place amidst already-high taxes. Crime rates also rose as support for police waned. Many residents left due to these reasons and others, and now actor Mark Wahlberg added his family to the exodus.
On Tuesday, October 11, Wahlberg appeared on the CBS show “The Talk” to discuss his recent move away from Hollywood. He noted how he was first drawn to the state to further his acting career, but in order “to give my kids a better life,” he is moving to Nevada. The actor, previously known as Marky-Mark in the 90s, has two teenage girls and two teenage boys with actress and wife Rhea Durham.
In Nevada, Wahlberg hopes to open his own state-of-the-art studio to produce movies while his children pursue their various sports interests, which include horses, basketball, and golf. The actor left behind his $87.5 million Beverly Hills mansion in California, and he hopes this separation from the liberal state will give his family a “new look” and “fresh start.”
With this move, Wahlberg is joining the ranks of Matthew McConaughey, Joe Rogan, and Katy Perry, all famous celebrities who have left California for greener pastures.
Copyright 2022, ConservativeInsider.org
+++
No comments:
Post a Comment