Saturday, May 29, 2021

Important News.


This dud sees clearly.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am in the processing of finishing a fabulous book by David Goldman entitled: " Into Submission." Those who have been reading my memos for years know how concerned I am about China both as a commercial competitor and as a military adversary.  I intend to do a standalone memo review of this book and urge those so inclined to purchase a copy and read it for themselves because It is that interesting and challenging.
+++++++++
Seems Israel will avoid another election?

Bennett to announce forming change government on Sunday

Yamina leader Naftali Bennett informed Lapid of his decision on Friday * They agreed that Bennett would serve first as prime minister until September 2023

Barring last-minute unforeseen circumstances, Yamina leader Naftali Bennett will announce in a meeting with his faction on Sunday that he has agreed to form a coalition government with Yesh Atid head Yair Lapid, sources in the faction who spoke to Bennett told The Jerusalem Post on Saturday night.

Bennett informed Lapid of his decision on Friday. They agreed that Bennett would serve first as prime minister until September 2023, after which Lapid would take over until the term ends in November 2025. But sources in Yamina said there are still some disputes with Yesh Atid that remain unresolved.

Final coalition deals will be signed by Monday and submitted to the Knesset. The swearing-in ceremony could take place as early as Wednesday, but legally, once Lapid tells President Reuven Rivlin that he could form a government, he has a week to bring the government to a vote of confidence in the Knesset.

MKs and other candidates in Yamina who oppose building a coalition that would replace Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be asked to resign by Monday in order to be replaced by a candidate who would vote in favor of the government, because the support of at least six of the seven MKs in Yamina is necessary for a majority.

Sources in Yamina accused Netanyahu of lying about an agreement with Likud on a minority government being reached. They said the only agreements reached with Likud were about running together if there would be a fifth election.

In a three-minute video released on social media on Friday, Netanyahu said Likud and Yamina negotiators had reached what he called a far-reaching agreement, but Bennett refused to sign it. He said the agreement would create a coalition of 59 MKs, two less than is needed. Bennett has declined to form a minority government and urged Netanyahu to find two defectors.  

Netanyahu accused Bennett of rejecting a right-wing government and instead seeking to become prime minister of a “government of the Left.”

“Naftali Bennett is running to the Left,” Netanyahu said. “This goes against all their principles and promises and everything necessary to guarantee the future of our state.”

Netanyahu noted that during Operation Guardian of the Walls, Bennett and his No. 2, MK Ayelet Shaked, ruled out a government of change. He warned that Bennett and Shaked were endangering the country, the land of Israel and the IDF.

“Either it was a show or they have no principles,” he said.

Netanyahu said it was not too late to reject Lapid’s offer to replace him.

EARLIER ON Friday, prior to the report, Lapid said that despite his meeting the day before with Bennett, he did not know whether he would succeed in building a coalition by the time his mandate to form a government from Rivlin will expire on Wednesday night. Lapid’s meeting with Bennett raised speculation that a government of change that would replace Netanyahu was on the way.

“I don’t know if we’ll form a government or not,” Lapid wrote on Facebook. “We’re leaving no stone unturned, doing everything we can – but it doesn’t just depend on us.”

Lapid said that what he did know was that even if he had many more seats than the 17 Yesh Atid won, he would try to form the unity government he was trying to build now with the same partners – from the Right, Left and center – which he said sends a message that different sectors of society do not hate one another and want to work for the greater good.

“Even if Yesh Atid had 40 seats, even if Netanyahu wasn’t there, it would still be the government we need,” Lapid wrote. “It’s the government the people of Israel need and the State of Israel needs – we need it like air to breathe.”

He said Israel needs a government in which Bennett and [Meretz leader] Nitzan Horowitz work together to improve the healthcare system, [New Hope chairman] Gideon Sa’ar and Labor head Merav Michaeli work together to reduce social gaps, and [secularist Yisrael Beytenu leader] Avigdor Liberman and [religious Zionist Blue and White minister] Chili Tropper find solutions together that allow Israel to be a Jewish state that respects the principle that religion cannot be coercive.

“I have reservations, of course, including the number of ministers that it looks like we’ll have, and the issues we’ve decided not to touch in the first year or two until we can bring about some stability,” he wrote. “But still, given all the options, this is the one I’d choose. I’d choose it because we need a government with religious and secular together, where Left and Right combine with a large national-liberal centrist bloc, where Jews and Arabs who think and say loudly that they believe in coexistence – living here together and in the rule of law – sit together.”

TO SUPPORTERS of Netanyahu, Lapid wrote that it was important to remember that in a lively democracy, sometimes the leadership changes.

“Compromise isn’t a dirty word, but the basis of shared existence,” he wrote. “People who think differently from us aren’t enemies and don’t want to harm us (and they’ll be the first ones to stand by our side against our real enemies – Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran). If we do form this government, then in six months there will be people who will be surprised to discover that it hasn’t made Israel less Jewish or less Zionist – it’s just reduced the level of violence and anger, brought about growth and prosperity, and reminded us that we’re better than what we have now.”

Labor and Yesh Atid announced on Friday that they had finalized a coalition agreement.

Michaeli is expected to be appointed transportation minister and MK Omer Bar-Lev will be public security minister, a post once held by his father, Haim Bar-Lev.

The third portfolio given to Labor will be Diaspora Affairs. Labor has not revealed its candidate for the third portfolio, but it could be MK Emilie Moatti or MK Gilad Kariv, who is a Reform rabbi. A new department for advancing religious pluralism would be created in the ministry.

The agreement includes steps to strengthen the police force, stop crime in the agricultural sector and fight traffic accidents.

Michaeli would be a member of the Judicial Selection Committee, which will also have right-wing representatives from Yamina and New Hope. Six judges are set to be appointed to the Supreme Court over the next four years.  

With Bennett Lapid change gov't, what will Knesset portfolio look like?

 

Prime Minister: Naftali Bennett (Yamina)

Alternate Prime Minister/Foreign Minister: Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid)

Defense Minister: Benny Gantz (Blue and White)

Finance Minister: Avigdor Liberman (Yisrael Beytenu)

Justice Minister: Gideon Sa'ar (New Hope)

Education Minister: Yifat Shasha-Biton (Education)

Interior Minister: Ayelet Shaked (Yamina)

Transportation Minister: Merav Michaeli (Labor)

Health Minister: Nitzan Horowitz (Meretz)

Internal Security Minister: Omer Bar-Lev (Labor)  

Environmental Protection Minister: Tamar Zandberg (Meretz)

Economy Minister: Abir Kara (Yamina)

Construction and Housing: Ze'ev Elkin (New Hope)

Communications Minister: Yoaz Hendel (New Hope)

Religious Affairs Minister: Matan Kahana (Yamina)

Culture and Sports Minister: Chili Tropper (Blue and White)

Agriculture and Rural Development Minister: Alon Schuster (Blue and White)

Regional Cooperation Minister: Esawi Frej (Meretz)

Diaspora Affairs Minister: Emilie Moatti or Gilad Kariv (Labor) 

Welfare Minister: Pnina Tamano-Shata (Blue and White) or Yisrael Beytenu minister  

Immigrant Absorption Minister: Pnina Tamano-Shata (Blue and White) or Yisrael Beytenu minister  

Tourism Minister: Yesh Atid minister

Energy: Yesh Atid minister

Science and Technology Minister: Yesh Atid minister

Minister of Social Equity:  Yesh Atid minister

Jerusalem Affairs, Ministerial Liaison to the Knesset:  Yesh Atid minister

Knesset Speaker: Meir Cohen (Yesh Atid)

Knesset Finance Committee chairman: Oded Forer (Yisrael Beytenu)

Strategic Affairs, Intelligence Services, Community Development, Cyber, Higher Education and Water: Dismantled

Cody Levine contributed to this report.


 

Many Prefer To Believe Lies Because It Is Easier To Believe What You Believe Than Accept Change. Why? Because Facts No Longer Matter, Maybe Never Have






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

Posting again to drive the message home because FNLM.  
Most of the world would rather believe lies because most of  the world cannot shake it's embrace of anti-Semitism: Why? Because it is easier to believe what you believe than to accept change. Why? Because facts no longer, and probably never did, matter.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More facts most refuse to believe and particularly if they are liberal and hate Trump.

Ironically, liberals are often so liberal they only believe what they say? Why? Because if They Say it, it must be true.

They have  liberated themselves  from having to listen to what others say and from other opinions and ideas.

I think this is a very neat and clever accomplishment. The fact that it has caused the entire world a whole lot of grief is inconsequential.

If what I have just written is basically true and liberals can kosher what they say why is there so much anti-Semitism?
+++

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

        Our Increasingly Unrecognizable Civilization

April/May 2021  • Volume 50, Number 4/5 • Mark Steyn

Mark Steyn
Host, The Mark Steyn Show


Mark Steyn, host of The Mark Steyn Show, writes regularly at steynonline.com and has contributed to numerous publications, including the Daily Telegraph, The Irish Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Jerusalem Post. He is the author of several books, including Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech, and The Twilight of the West, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, and The [Un]documented Mark Steyn. A frequent guest host of Tucker Carlson Tonight, he was for 15 years a guest host of The Rush Limbaugh Show. His albums include Making Spirits Bright, with Jessica Martin, and Feline Groovy: Songs for Swingin’ Cats. From 2008 to 2013, he was a Eugene C. Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Journalism at Hillsdale College.                                                                                                                                                                

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 26, 2021, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Franklin, Tennessee.

I live about 20 minutes south of the Canadian border, which used to be called the longest undefended frontier in the world. People moved freely back and forth across it all day every day. But now it’s been closed for over a year. At one point my daughter asked me to drive her up there, because there was a 30-minute opportunity for people on one side to talk to their friends on the other. “Sad!” as President Trump would say. It was like Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin during the Cold War, except that both sides are now like East Berlin. 

I don’t know how this happened, but it is just one indication that America, and the West in general, have become almost unrecognizable from what they were not that long ago.

Look at just three things we have lost.                      

One is equality before the law, something absolutely essential to a free society. In its place, we now have politicized law. If a policeman fatally shoots someone, whether his name is released to the public depends on whether the shooting is consistent with the preferred narrative of the ruling class. A policeman recently took down a young woman who was threatening the life of another young woman with a knife, and that policeman was immediately identified—indeed, his photo was posted and he was threatened by NBA superstar LeBron James on Twitter. On the other hand, we know nothing of the policeman who shot dead an unarmed woman in the U.S. Capitol on January 6. His name will apparently never be released to the public.

Second, border control. Functioning societies, at least since the Peace of Westphalia three centuries ago, have borders. America has no southern border and no plans to get one. The official position of our government seems to be that any of the seven billion persons on this planet has a right to come and stay in the U.S. for three years, until his or her assigned court date comes up. As the number of people with pending cases continues to grow, that three years will extend out to five or seven or 15 years. If we get all seven billion people to come here, the court system will break down entirely and maybe we can go back to having a functioning border.

And third, dare I bring up the fact that it is a real question whether we can go back to agreeing to have open and honest elections? And if we don’t have open and honest elections, control of our borders, and equality before the law, then we don’t have the conditions for politics or free government. 

And here’s the thing. It is not at all clear to me that many of America’s conservative politicians understand the seriousness of all this. You can see it in the fact that they go around trying to scare people with the specter of a “radical socialist agenda.” For well over a year now, we have been living in a world in which it’s accepted as normal that the state has essentially unlimited power—and in which our freedom to decide for ourselves has been diminished almost to invisibility. Why do these conservative politicians think the words “radical socialist agenda” still scare anyone in a time when the state can tell us whether we can have Aunt Mabel over for Christmas? They are completely out of touch.

Over the same period as the pandemic lockdowns, we have seen an escalation of so-called wokeness. And if you look at one of the most startling manifestations of this, transgender fanaticism—which involves, after all, the abolition of biological sex and, I’m sorry to have to say it, the physical mutilation of children—one notices that America is farther down this road than any other country in the Western world. In other words, at this moment of crisis for Western Civilization, or for what we used to call Christendom, the leading country of the free world is pulling the wrong way.

Think of it. Your daughter has been training since she was a little girl to run in school sports. Now at 17, she’s in the state high school track championships, and you are forbidden even to notice that she’s competing against a woman who is 6’2” with thighs like tugboats, a great touch of five o’clock shadow on her face, and the most muscular bosom you’ve ever seen. You’re not supposed to notice the craziness of this, and the craziness is at its craziest right here in America.

We traditionally think of France as being a bit screwy, but today there are French intellectuals who regard themselves as hardcore leftists and yet who think America has gone bonkers on this transgender issue. President Macron himself has said that American wokeness is an existential threat to the French Republic, and he even found bureaucrats in France’s education bureaucracy who agreed. There is not a single bureaucrat in the Department of Education in Washington, D.C., who would agree, but there are apparently a few in Paris.

If you look further east in Europe to the lands that were once behind the Iron Curtain—to Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, which still function as conventional nation-states calculating their best interests—you find tremendous fear of the threat of wokeness that is being exported, sometimes aggressively, from America. So it is here in the U.S. where we have to put the stake through these ideas. 

But again, even most of our conservative leaders and institutions seem oblivious. School districts in America are talking about revising their curricula to cover transgender issues from grade school on. Now, I went to an English boys’ school, and we were expected to pick up sexuality on our own time. In those days people would have looked puzzled if you had said, “We’re going to have to cancel geography or Latin, because we need to put gay studies in there.” These days, instead of going off behind the bike shed during recess to learn about sex, kids need to sneak behind the bike shed to do a little bit of closeted geography or closeted Latin. It’s completely backwards. And yet what do we hear from most conservative politicians? That it would be nice to offer people a tax cut! 

We are way beyond tax cuts. We’re broke. We’re just a smidgen away from $30 trillion in federal debt—something with no historical precedent. Talking about tax cuts today is like talking about VAT tax refunds on the Titanic. It’s not actually what’s necessary at the moment.

Another big issue that should take our minds off tax cuts is China. I can’t get over the way we in the U.S. have been ordered by our governors and the CDC to punish ourselves by living small, shrunken lives, while the people in China who loosed this pandemic on the world have paid no price for it. 

Dr. Fauci has been a federal government bureaucrat since 1968. He’s the J. Edgar Hoover of public health. He talks about the COVID virus as if we’re at war. But he seems to think a country wins a war by taking it out on its own population rather than the enemy, which is what we’ve done.

Which do you think was the only major economy to grow in 2020? It’s not a hard question. America’s economy shrank 3.5 percent last year. The economies of Germany and Japan shrank almost five percent. France’s, Italy’s, and India’s economies all shrank over eight percent, and the economy of the United Kingdom was down ten percent. China’s economy, on the other hand, grew 2.3 percent in 2020, and first quarter growth for 2021 in China set a new world record—it was up over 18.3 percent. The COVID pandemic has been hugely profitable for China. 

U.S. policy towards China since the 1990s represents perhaps the biggest strategic miscalculation by any great power in human history. Just as communism was wobbling and beginning to fall everywhere else, we helped Beijing come up with the first economically viable form of communism.

At first we were told it was only our manufacturing that we would ship to China. After all, we were told, it wasn’t economically viable for Americans to make widgets. Remember the talk in the ’90s? We were going to be the “knowledge economy.” All the clever people told us this. We weren’t going to have mills and factories, but we were going to be the knowledge economy. Well, in case you haven’t noticed, China’s got the entire knowledge economy for itself now. It makes our laptops and our smartphones and it’s out front with Huawei and 5G. It also makes the batteries that power our gizmos and the chips that run our cars. When COVID struck, we found out fast that the Chinese not only make our viruses, they also make the personal protective equipment that protects us against the viruses—and all of our medicines to boot! Those wily Chinese get you both coming and going.

China is now the number one global power. You can define this militarily, where it now has the largest surface fleet on the planet. You can define it economically. But the way I define it is to look at who gets its way in the world. New Zealand has just effectively pulled out of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing arrangement—an arrangement between the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the oldest such arrangement on the planet. New Zealand has pulled out with respect to China because it doesn’t want to offend China. I would think Canada might be the next to go. Or look at the World Health Organization. America pays for it, but Chairman Xi in Beijing calls the shots. China gets its way now, and the U.S. doesn’t.

We need politicians with a sense of urgency about these problems, but all they seem to have is urgency about things that aren’t urgent. Look at climate change. People say we need to take action over climate change or else rising sea levels are going to overwhelm the Maldives in the Indian Ocean in the 22nd century. That’s the century after this one, which is still quite young. These same people say about the immediate crisis on the southern border that it’s “a natural phenomenon beyond the control of politicians.” But changing the weather in order to lower the sea levels that will threaten the Maldives in the Indian Ocean in the next century is within the power of politicians? In general, our leaders are urgent about nothing that matters and not in the least bit urgent about things that matter very much. 

The things our news media talks about incessantly, whether it’s transgender bathrooms or Confederate statues being toppled or the totally dishonest national conversation on race—nothing like this is heard in China as it goes along steadily strengthening its position as the world’s leading power. The Chinese don’t find themselves stuck in these sterile, drain-circling, dishonest public conversations about identity politics. These conversations are a waste of time. And one thing we should demand of our politicians is that they talk about things that aren’t a waste of time. 

At the root of our problems is that we have seen the emergence of a true ruling class, like Grand Dukes in medieval Europe. Its members intermarry. They send their kids to the same schools. They circulate back and forth between government and the private sector. And over time it has become increasingly easy to identify members of this class.

John Kerry gave a commencement address a couple of years ago in which he told the students, “You are going to be the first generation to live in a borderless world.” And for the elite, the idea of a borderless world rings true. A typical member of the ruling class will get a job with a firm like Goldman Sachs, work for a couple of years in Hong Kong, then move on for a couple of years in Geneva, and then maybe come back to America. What are borders to such a person? Meanwhile, for the common American, COVID has literally ended, to a large degree, any freedom of movement. They live in the farthest thing from a borderless world. Oftentimes they’re trapped in a town that is dying because of the open-border, cheap-labor policies advocated by people like John Kerry. 

Our political division in America today is a class division, and we need to expose it as such whenever we see it. The ruling class tries to keep racial and other forms of division stirred up in our politics so that we don’t notice the class protection racket they are running. Look at that guy from Twitter, Jack Dorsey, who wears a beard like he’s playing the hobo in a Charlie Chaplin silent film. I wouldn’t mind betting that when he’s called to testify in Congress, he has his valet hook on the beard and lower him into the clothes that make him look like he’s been sleeping in a dumpster. Then at night after the cameras are off he’s like Lord Grantham in Downton Abbey, spending an hour being dressed for dinner. Our elites have become incredibly good at theater.

Getting back to the southern border, it perfectly symbolizes the bifurcation of our society. We’re told there’s a health emergency. We’re told we can’t open our businesses or attend weddings or funerals. Yet at the same time, every day, thousands of people pour across the southern border, test positive for COVID, and are then driven to a nice hotel and put up there at taxpayers’ expense. 

It’s also interesting to compare the southern border with the northern. Prior to the pandemic, when the border with Canada was open, my kids had their Kinder Eggs confiscated by the Department of Homeland Security when we would cross the border going south into Vermont. Kinder Eggs are chocolate eggs with a kid’s toy inside. They are sold in Canada, but they are banned in the U.S. because the Food and Drug Administration calls the toy a “non-nutritive embed”—and that’s good enough to send Homeland Security agents swinging into action! There is always a big crackdown before Easter on Kinder Eggs. So at the northern border there are lots of things, down to Kinder Eggs, that are illegal. But at the southern border you can come in with pretty much anything you want, including COVID. Why is that? It is because some groups serve the needs of the ruling class and others don’t. License is extended to the former and not the latter. 

People ask me, “Why are you going on about Kinder Eggs? They’re not important. It’s more important that  so-and-so is up two points in Iowa and three points in New Hampshire. That could be a real game changer.” To which I answer no, that’s not how it works. If they take the small freedoms away from you, whether it’s the freedom to eat Kinder Eggs or to enjoy a high pressure shower, you will lose all the larger freedoms, which is the world we’re in now. 

I used to get occasional pushback when I’d talk about rights. “Rights are abstract things,” people would say—“they don’t have anything to do with our real lives.” Well, after the last year, we know they have everything to do with our real lives. When you’re told you can’t open your hair salon, when you’re told you can’t have family or friends over for dinner, when you’re told you must wear a mask in your own garden, there’s nothing abstract about it. This is where all the stupid Kinder Egg laws have been trending for years. And it’s why we need to push back.

I made a little joke earlier about studying transgenderism in grade school, but it’s not a laughing matter. Education is the biggest structural defect in our society. We have an almost entirely corrupt and abusive education establishment. And in one corner of Governor Whitmer’s Michigan, of all places, Hillsdale College stands against this. Hillsdale’s literature, I’ve noted through the years, talks a lot about the College’s 177 years of being rooted in the soil of Michigan. And this reminds me of the fact that if you do not have roots, you are not a functioning society. You can’t just be flotsam and jetsam, bobbing around on the currents of the age, wheresoever they tend. If you do that, you’re cut off from your roots.

This is what’s so frightening about the trends in education today. Cromwell told his portrait painter, “Paint me, warts and all.” That’s not what is happening in America, where the trend in education is to paint only America’s warts. So even the great Kate Smith, who sang “God Bless America” for years, is having her statue taken down because she made a racially insensitive record in 1931. Well you know who really had a racially insensitive record in 1931? The Democratic Party. But unlike Kate Smith’s statue, it’s still around. 

President Macron of France is not my favorite chap—he’s a sinister globalist for one thing. But he made an admirable stand when he announced that not one French statue would be taken down and not a single French street name would be changed, because they are all part of French history. And “Bingo!” as Peter Navarro likes to say, the statue toppling and street-name changing in France went away. Why can’t American conservatives show that kind of strength? The Senate Minority Leader says he personally would not be bothered if the historical names of U.S. military bases are changed. The editor of National Review says that he wouldn’t be bothered about taking down Confederate statues. But of course it doesn’t stop there—now they’re going for all the statues. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, McKinley, and on and on. The point conservatives need to grasp is, unless you’re prepared to surrender everything, don’t surrender anything.

I’ll end by pointing out that the Left wins because it seizes language. Take the policy of letting people vote who are not U.S. citizens and shouldn’t be voting. The Left calls this policy “counting every vote.” Therefore someone who wants to make sure voters are citizens is opposed to “counting every vote.” If we don’t take back the language, we will lose the truth. Even on FOX News, I have noticed, news anchors now talk about “gender assigned at birth,” as if that’s something different from one’s biological sex. There may be 57 genders, but there are only two biological sexes. 

Don’t surrender the language. Reclaim the language. It’s the first step to recovering our civilization.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 


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

Never Was A Palestine or Palestinians. Sorry , FNLM.





12:47 PM (2 hours ago)


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Story of Israel since there never has been a Palestinian Nation or a people

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

 As Violence in Minneapolis Continues to Rage, the Liberal Media Is MIA 

Spencer Brown

+++ 

Time for State Department to lower BLM"s Flags to half mast:

BLM Founder with Massive Wealth and Four Homes to Step Down

Rebecca Downs

+++ 

 

More

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

Print all

In new window

Remembering those whose call to serve shaped a nation

By Salena Zito

 

An estimated 41 million Americans have served in the U.S. military during conflicts and wars since 1776. 

That amounts to about 7 percent of the total population preserving the liberty and freedoms of the other 93 percent of us. 

Richard Baker, a retired Army master sergeant and historian who leads the research team at the Army Heritage and Education Center in Carlisle, wants to thank you and your ancestors who have served among this “Magnificent Seven,” as he calls them. 

Henry Peiffer was 24 when he enlisted in the northern army to preserve the Union. He and his brother, Levi, mustered into service at Harrisburg — in Company I, 201st Regiment, a volunteer infantry. 

Henry was married with two young boys, nine months apart in age, when he enlisted; census data show he was a laborer. 

No account exists as to why he volunteered; one would love to imagine he was caught up in patriotic determination. But poverty in Dauphin County was real in the 1860s, so finances could have played a part. 

His regiment was stationed in Chambersburg, then sent to Manassas Junction, Va. He and his brother were honorably discharged in June 1865 after the war ended. 

Henry's fortunes fell after the war: He and his young wife, Amelia, divorced; he lived in a poorhouse for a time. By the turn of the century, though, he had become a prosperous man, remarried, owned several hundred acres of prime Central Pennsylvania farmland and a livery business. 

Whatever demons he carried from his rise from poverty apparently touched his sons; both committed suicide in Pittsburgh after failed business ventures. Henry died in 1916, having outlived his two sons and second wife — but not his first wife (my great-great-grandmother) or his grandson (my grandfather) with whom she lived on Pittsburgh's North Side until my grandfather (also named Henry) reached age 18.

Between April 1861 and April 1865, at least 2.5 million men served in the Union Army, the majority volunteers. For some of us who never served our country in uniform, what draws someone to the military remains a profound mystery. 

Yes, some were driven by poverty, but that does not mean they didn't have that same quiet pride of most veterans when they reflect on why they enlisted, why they stayed on, and how the military shaped them. 

My uncles all served in World War II. We listened at their knees as they shared experiences, from the Battle of the Bulge to the Pacific theater; with childish awe and terror, we imagined them as young men, covered in mud, firing guns, protecting our country. 

To many of my generation, these men were “regular guys” who worked as laborers during the day, had a drink after work with boyhood friends, rarely moved far from the homes in which they grew up, and dedicated their weekends to tinkering or spending time with those beloved homes and the families they cherished. 

Many young people today do not share such connections with a service member; in all likelihood, they don't know anyone who has served. According to the Defense Manpower Data Center, approximately 1.4 million people are serving in the U.S. Armed Forces — about a half a percent of our population. 

But that doesn't mean young people do not have a connection with someone who served, as I discovered when the Army Heritage and Education Center's historical research placed me face-to-face with a young Henry Peiffer, who posed for his portrait when he enlisted in the northern army. 

Looking at his face, I see my grandfather all over again. 

Stone sentinels of forgotten military men jut out from rolling grassy hills all across this country, some of which have not seen a single visitor kneel at graveside for more than a century. All are part of the fabric of who we are as a country, and who you are as a person. 

On this Memorial Day, think not only of the men and women who have served in our current wars but also those who shaped this country and shaped us as people, families and communities for more than 250 years. 

Their stories should not be forgotten.

Click here for the full story.

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




Friday, May 28, 2021

NYT's/journalism Get Wilder and Wilder. Atlanta's Next Dud? Only Your Money. Candidate Defunds While Getting DeCared. Stepping Stones To Presidency?


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why doesn't the NYT's use red ink?

Shameless NY Times’ Depiction of Jewish ‘Bloodlust’ Sparks Outrage


Former Israeli diplomat Lenny Ben-David said that he has ‘never seen worse anti-Israel propaganda,’ calling Times coverage ‘a blood libel’ demonizing the Jewish state.

By Ira Stoll, The Algeimeiner

Outrage is mounting at New York Times coverage of the recent Israel-Gaza war, with prominent Israeli and American Jewish leaders denouncing the newspaper using terms like “shameless,” “bias,” “propaganda disinformation” and “blood libel.”

Lenny Ben-David, a former Israeli diplomat, commented, “I have never seen worse anti-Israel propaganda disinformation than this @nytimes piece in my 40+ yrs of defending #Israel in media trenches. Every child’s death is a disaster, but the Times presents a blood libel vs Israel.”

The national director emeritus of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, wrote, “The New York Times continues to be shameless in its coverage of the Hamas war against Israel and its citizens. Its bias against Israel and Jews who support Israel is reflected in its coverage internationally, domestically and on the opinion pages. NYT readers deserve better!”

The assistant managing editor for international news at the New York Times, Michael Slackman, did not respond by deadline to a request for comment submitted through the New York Times website.

At issue are not only an avalanche of harshly anti-Israel Times opinion pieces, but news coverage faulting Israel for inflicting what the newspaper has described in news articles as a “high civilian death toll” in Gaza.

For example, a top-of-the-front page headline on Friday reported, “More than 250 Dead, Mostly Civilians.” An article by Ronen Bergman in Sunday’s New York Times reported that Israel “claims to have killed about 200 Hamas operatives.”

The math is hard to reconcile, unless the Times is double-counting as “civilians” the people Israel is describing as “Hamas operatives.” That’s certainly possible, given that Hamas is not a uniformed conventional military force but rather an Iranian-backed terrorist group that also controls religious and civil affairs in Gaza.

But describing Hamas operatives merely as “civilians” could convey to Times readers the false impression that they were innocent people killed by Israel either deliberately in a war crime or accidentally in a mistake or as collateral damage. The Times cited no source for the headline claim that the dead were “mostly civilians.”

In addition to the headline, the Times has published two long, heart-tugging recent articles that put a face on mostly Arab suffering. One carried the online headline “Life Under Occupation: The Misery at the Heart of the Conflict,” as if it were primarily what the Times calls “the routine indignities of occupation” that accounts for Iranians funding and training Gazans to launch rockets at Tel Aviv from territory Israel left in 2005.

Another project, “They Were Only Children,” identifies children, noting that “while most of the children were Palestinians killed by Israeli airstrikes, there are exceptions. At least two of the children killed in Gaza — Baraa al-Gharabli and Mustafa Obaid — may have been killed when Palestinian militants fired a rocket at Israel that fell short, according to an initial investigation by Defense for Children International-Palestine.

And one of the children killed in Israel, Nadine Awad, was Palestinian.”

The best comment on the topic may have come from, of all places, a Times staffer, Bret Stephens, whose May 24 column said, “the accusations made against Israel — stealing Palestinian land (despite the fact that Israel vacated the territory from which it was subsequently attacked) and wanton violence against Palestinian civilians, particularly children (despite the fact that Israel regularly warned its targets to vacate buildings before targeting them) — can’t help but make me think of ancient libels about Jewish greed and bloodlust.”

Good for Stephens for calling out the libels, ancient and contemporary. His voice at the Times these days seems, alas, a lonely one.

Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.

Finally, journalism keeps getting wilder and wilder:


On Emily Wilder, and why no one believes the media

The Associated Press’s admission of fault after staffers fumed over the firing of a fledgling reporter for spewing anti-Israel propaganda on social media explains everything that is wrong with contemporary journalism.

(May 27, 2021 / JNS) What befell Emily Wilder could not have happened to earlier generations of journalists. Before the start of platforms like MySpace and Facebook in the early 2000s, no one was held accountable for the things that they said or wrote when they were in college or even high school. In the era before social media, the musings of students were not a matter of public record. And prior to the rise of the Internet, when anything can be “Googled,” accessing even published articles would have required in-depth research in libraries or scrolling through microfilm and microfiche archives to be brought into public view.

Until last month, Wilder was an unknown left-wing college activist who aspired to a career in journalism. But today, she is something of a celebrity, acclaimed as a martyr to a right-wing smear campaign while her fate is being cited by veteran journalists in well-known publications like Politico and Vox as emblematic of the cruel abuse that those in the mainstream liberal press must endure at the hands of conservatives.

Wilder, a recent graduate of Stanford University, came under fire when she was hired at the Associated Press after a brief stint at The Arizona Republic newspaper. When that became known, the Stanford College Republicans group thought it relevant to note that her years of college activism consisted of smearing Israel and its supporters, including calling Sheldon Adelson, the late Jewish philanthropist and contributor to Republican candidates, “a naked mole rat.” In their opinion and that of others, that ought to have been disqualifying for someone who wanted to work as a reporter.

Wilder posted that insult of Adelson by way of explaining her support for Jewish Voice for Peace’s “return the Birthright” campaign, which opposed the Birthright Israel program for young American Jews to visit Israel on free trips that Adelson helped fund. Those who supported that campaign believe that Jews should not visit Israel until all the descendants of the 1948 Palestinian Arab refugees are allowed to “return” to Israel, which is shorthand for saying they wish to eliminate the Jewish state.

The Stanford Republicans were under the impression that being a member of an anti-Zionist group that, despite its Jewish title, has promoted anti-Semitic blood libels against American Jews should have been relevant as to whether or not she would be trusted to report the news fairly. That notion was supported by conservatives like journalist Ben Shapiro and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).

Though nothing about what they said about her was inaccurate, Wilder and her many well-connected supporters characterized the attention brought to her past comments as a “smear” campaign against a young Jewish progressive.

Those who engage in the kind of vicious rhetoric employed by Wilder—let alone someone whose idea of activism is supporting efforts to destroy the only Jewish state on the planet—are undeserving of sympathy. But treating all things that college students say, do, believe or tweet as evidence to be held against them later on in life is a harsh standard that few of us (especially those who came of age before the Internet and social media) would wish to be judged by.

Numerous examples now exist of foolish or hateful things posted by teenagers coming back to haunt them and essentially ruining their lives as the politically correct cheer their public shaming. The New York Times’s decision to run a lengthy feature about one such victim underlines the way the press has enabled the worst forms of cancel culture to flourish. It should only matter when college excesses point to subsequent behavior, as was the case with newly confirmed Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke, who was an anti-Semite in college and then subsequently defended other anti-Semites many years later.

Which is to say that perhaps even Wilder deserved a fresh start once she left the hothouse atmosphere of an elite college campus where left-wing hate speech is in fashion. She was entitled to the presumption that once in journalism, she would stop being an “activist” and stick to her new job of reporting the news; as such, her private views, however odious, would be kept private.

And so they would have if she had been transitioning from college to journalism 20 or 30 years ago. But not today.

When the story about her college tweets broke, the AP ignored the criticism and stuck to their decision to hire her. To back that up, she was apparently given some instruction about maintaining at least the appearance of objectivity by avoiding social-media use that would mark her as an ideologue or partisan.

Nevertheless, Wilder—no doubt following a practice commonplace throughout journalism these days—didn’t stop tweeting her support for the Palestinians and her contempt for Israel. At that point, her supervisors clearly felt that she considered herself about the rules and fired her.

The response to her firing illustrates the fact that many in the profession share her apparent belief that trying to establish even a veneer of objectivity is no longer necessary. AP employees expressed outrage about the treatment of Wilder, as did others at mainstream and legacy outlets. The AP subsequently apologized for the way it handled her firing but has not yet retracted it.

How is it possible that someone like Wilder could be supported by so many in the profession, let alone treated like a martyr?

To most of those who currently work in many, if not most, mainstream media newsrooms, partisanship and openly promoting leftist causes and talking points are not incompatible with being a reporter, even if that creates a clear conflict of interest.

For some, this was justified by their conviction that former President Donald Trump was so awful that it was necessary for the media to give any and all assistance to his opponents. But this goes way beyond bias about Trump. Indeed, as we saw last summer, when just such a woke mob of journalists forced The New York Times to retract an op-ed by Cotton because of its stance towards the Black Lives Matter movement and the riots it inspired. They intimidated the Times’ management into forcing out the editor who approved it. Similarly hostile attitudes toward Jews and Israel, as well as anything about anti-Semitism unconnected to Trump, was the reason that Bari Weiss gave for leaving the paper.

There’s also a sense that many of those who are BLM supporters in the press believe that Israel should be treated in the same manner as the police officer who killed George Floyd. That’s a particular issue for the AP because of its role in sharing a building in Gaza with Hamas operatives and then behaving as if they were wronged when Israel bombed the place, even though it first warned the journalists to vacate the building, and no one was harmed. Former AP staffer Matti Friedman wrote about the organization’s anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian bias in The Atlantic in 2014.

In the past, much of the media bias against Israel was rooted in ignorance on the part of many in the press. But in an environment where the behavior of someone like Wilder—both in college and once she began working as a journalist—is not only considered defensible but actually normative, then such journalism has zero credibility.

At stake in this minor controversy is more than the fate of one young woman, though it’s likely that her claims to martyrdom will ensure her a future in the field. If we are now at the point where we assume that all journalists are going to slant the news in favor of causes or politicians they support, there is no reason to believe anything that you read, hear or watch from news outlets unless it confirms your pre-existing beliefs and prejudices.

People like Wilder and those who support her are killing journalism. The consequences for the future of democracy—let alone a Jewish community that has already seen how smears of Israel can inspire anti-Semitic violence—are ominous.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

+++

It's only your money:

Breaking: Americans STUNNED to Learn How Much The Bill Was for National Guard Troops in DC

+++
Atlanta has not had a truly decent Mayor since Hartsfield and  Ivan Allen. Massel. Jackson,Young were acceptable.  I lived there during all  their administrations and then some.

 More on Atlanta's Mayoralty candidate. Another dud?


Council Member Votes to Defund Police – Gets Victimized Instantly

BY Ryan H.

City Council Member Antonio Brown is running for Mayor of Atlanta.

He recently “voted to withhold $73 million of the Atlanta Police Department’s budget.”

Shortly after this vote, Brown’s Mercedes coupe was stolen by a group of kids in broad daylight.

I’m not kidding.

Brown said the oldest was maybe 11 or 12 years old and the youngest maybe 6 or 7.

So how in the world did this happen?

City Council Member Antonio Brown had just arrived at a ribbon-cutting ceremony and jumped out of his white Mercedes coupe, which features a keyless ignition, and was chatting with community leader Ben Norman.

“Brown told police that he noticed four children no more than 11 or 12 years old, the youngest possibly 6 or 7 walking around a nearby store. Within seconds they were in his car,” WAGA-TV reported.

“One kid was in the driver’s seat,” Brown told the station. “Ben attempted to open the door to get him out of the car. He fought with Ben. I then engaged and tried to get him out of the car. The three other kids were trying to figure out how to get in the car or stay out of the car. He started to hit on the gas. Ben let go.”

But Brown said he held on and got dragged a short distance before he let go. “As he started to speed up, and I knew that if I had not let go, I knew I probably could have killed myself because he was going so fast, I would have started to tumble. And I would have hurt him,” he said.

Daily Wire

Brown doesn’t plan to press charges against the kids, saying, “This is a generational poverty issue.”

Is Brown extending grace due to his own past behavior? Just last July he was indicted by a grand jury on federal fraud charges.

He was indicted on multiple fraud charges “in connection with Brown’s attempts to defraud several financial institutions by taking out loans and making credit card purchases – and then falsely claiming that he was the victim of identity theft and was not responsible for the charges or repaying the loans,” said the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Georgia.

“For years, Antonio Brown allegedly sought to defraud a number of banks and credit card companies by falsely claiming that he was the victim of identity theft,” said U.S. Attorney Byung Pak. “Brown’s scheme was eventually brought to light, resulting in his indictment by the grand jury.”

So to sum up…

A man who’s been indicted on federal fraud charges voted to defund the police, got his car stolen by a gang of kids in broad daylight, and now wants to be the Mayor of Atlanta

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



It is true , Georgia is a stepping stone for Stacey to get to the Oval Office but it is also true I see far too many provocative ads and articles being sent in order to raise money:

Emergency: Abrams for President - From Bo Snerdley