Displaying posts categorized under

POLITICS

Rep. Omar and anti-Semitic distractions By Lawrence J. Haas

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/433633-rep-omar-and-anti-semitic-distractions

Imagine that a new member of Congress denounces Muslims as terrorists and suggests they’re more loyal to their faith than to America.Then imagine that a cross-section of politicians, pundits, and Muslim leaders denounce the ugly sentiments but also stress that Islamic-driven terrorism is a legitimate issue of debate; that the Islamic Republic of Iran is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism; that Saudi Wahhabism fuels the intolerance that drives some Muslims to violence; that Islamic states in the Middle East discriminate harshly against Jews, Christians, and others; that Muslims aren’t the group in America that faces bigotry; and that the controversy over one lawmaker’s remarks are diverting attention from far more important issues around Islamic governments.

Inconceivable? Indeed. Instead, policymakers, opinion leaders, and religious figures would unite to condemn the remarks, denounce Islamophobia, and insist on a full-throated apology from the member.That highlights the double standard that far too many influential figures apply to anti-Semitism – a double standard that long predates the ugly utterances of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and the defenses of her supporters.Consider the multiple distractions that prevented a singular denunciation of Omar’s anti-Semitism.First, the Israel distraction.

Dear Jewish-American Leftists: It’s Time For a Talk You have the power to determine how history will judge us. Valerie Sobel

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273133/dear-jewish-american-leftists-its-time-talk-valerie-sobel

From one Jew to another. From one parent/grandparent to another. From one who utters “Never Again!” to another. From one witnessing the vile anti-Semitic floats in Belgian parades to another. From one in horror watching the U.K. descend into 100 monthly anti-Semitic incidents to another. And from one seeing, in disbelief, the rise of anti-Semitism in the U.S. to another. We may not agree on much else, but this outrage we have in common.

You are the resounding 72-74% majority of the 5.4 Million American Jewry who have backed the Democratic Party since the sun has risen in the East. We get it; you’re for minority rights because you will forever identify as a minority. You’re forever for JFK , even though his brand of liberalism is long gone and has actually morphed into modern conservatism. You’re forever for FDR, even though it was the Republican Ronald Reagan who delivered approximately 3,000,000 Soviet Jews from bondage of Anti-Semitic leftist oppression.

The Democratic Party of the 1950s was the party of the underdog, and you’re forever the underdog, in your mind, in your memory and by virtue of our tiny demographic. Your parents and grandparents have been married to the Democratic party since before you were born, and you can’t let go of what has been engrained in you with mother’s milk. Understandable.

Today is 2019, not the 1950s. And after the devastating failure of your Party to stand with you (as Jews) unequivocally against the rabid Nazi-era anti-Semitism of Democratic Congresswoman Omar, you stand in the final hour of a critical decision, depleted of all excuses for your political loyalty. And you know it.

Bernie Sanders Is Now The Moderate Democratic Presidential Candidate Do Bernie’s currently strong poll numbers (and fundraising) reflect some recognition that what distinguishes him from the emerging 2020 field is his distaste for identity politics? Warren Henry

http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/12/bernie-sanders-now-moderate-democratic-presidential-candidate/

In 2016, it seemed unlikely that Sen. Bernie Sanders—technically not a Democrat—would become one of the most important figures in Democratic politics and arguably the moderate candidate in the 2020 presidential field. Many may not believe it now. After all, he’s a self-described socialist. But it’s a true story that says as much about the Democratic Party as it does Sanders.

Campaigning in Iowa, Sanders bragged that the major planks of his 2016 campaign—Medicare-for-all, “free” college tuition, and a $15 minimum wage—were considered “radical “ then but are Democratic Party dogma now. He is not wrong (Sanders might have added that he was the godfather of the Green New Deal). Bernie has gone from persona non grata to acceptable presidential nominee among his Democratic Senate colleagues.

Democrats’ leftward lurch was not due solely to Sanders’ 2016 campaign. President Obama’s misgovernance reduced his party to its bedrock supporters, who leaned heavily left. Once the supposed “centrist” Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump based on blue-collar states, progressives pounced on the chance to argue Sanders could have won and his issues were the future of the party. (Conservatives often make the mirror argument when Republicans lose, which is how we got the Tea Party in 2009.)

Stacey Abrams clarifies timing on possible presidential run The Georgia Democrat spoke at the South by Southwest gathering and later tweeted about her plans. By Alex Seitz-Wald

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/stacey-abrams-clarifies-timing-possible-presidential-run-n981986

AUSTIN, Texas — Stacey Abrams said Monday that a 2020 presidential run is “definitely on the table,” clarifying earlier remarks that seemed to rule one out.

The Georgia Democrat, who narrowly lost a gubernatorial bid last year, suggested earlier in the day that she wouldn’t be ready to consider a presidential campaign until 2028.

But later, she said on Twitter that a White House bid in the current election cycle was still under consideration.In an onstage interview at South by Southwest, the former minority leader of the Georgia Statehouse, said she had been keeping a spreadsheet mapping out her future since she was a young woman, which showed she would not ready to make a White House bid for another eight years.

“In the spreadsheet with all the jobs I wanted to do, 2028 would be the earliest I would be ready to stand for president because I would have done the work I thought necessary to be effective at that job,” Abrams said.

Democrats’ new campaign ‘reforms’ are a war on free speech: Rich Lowry

https://nypost.com/2019/03/11/democrats-new-campaign-reforms-are-a-war-on-free-speech/

The same Democrats who can’t abide President Trump’s alleged offenses against the First Amendment passed, as their first priority, a speech-restricting bill opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Trump shouldn’t call the media the ­“enemy of the people” or inveigh against Jeff Bezos for owning The Washington Post, but Nancy Pelosi’s HR 1, enacted in the House last week, is the true affront to the Constitution.

The wide-ranging legislation purports to reform campaign finance with a series of vague, sweeping measures that will act to chill speech when they don’t actively regulate or squelch it. HR 1 is called the For the People Act but would be more aptly titled The Be Careful What You Say, It Might Be Illegal Act.

‘Intersectional’ Democrats Reap What They Sow: Candace Owens

https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/11/intersectional-democrats

The party that has spent years working to turn American politics into a mud pit of racial strife is finally reaping what it sowed.

Once the exclusive province of campus leftists, “intersectionality” is the idea that all “oppressed and powerless” people ought to put their squabbles aside and unite in a common struggle. As they have grown increasingly reliant on a coalition of non-whites, sexual minorities, and feminist white women in recent years, Democrats flirted with and then lionized the intersectional Left.

This strategy works effectively when there’s one agreed-upon group of oppressors to cast as a common villain. So Democrats have now fostered and embraced the most extreme activists from every identity group in America—and they have united around their enmity for the white men who voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump.

As the Democrats are learning, however, the plan breaks down when the various sections of the coalition begin to jockey over which has the most privilege or endures the most oppression. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had to subdue a mini-revolt within her caucus last week over a watered-down resolution to condemn anti-Semitism because some Democrats considered it a distraction from other forms of bigotry that are more important to them personally. Pelosi’s solution was to dilute the resolution even further until it essentially became meaningless.

It turns out when you invite people into your coalition based on their racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual resentments, eventually they begin to resent each other.

That’s exactly what happened when Somali-American Representative Ilhan Omar’s intersectional allies swooped in to prevent the Democrats from condemning the Minnesota freshman’s promotion of anti-Semitic “dual loyalty” tropes against American Jews and their supporters in Congress.

“[N]o one seeks this level of reprimand when members make statements about Latinx + other communities,” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) complained on Twitter. “[W]here are the resolutions against homophobic statements? For anti-blackness? For xenophobia? . . . don’t even get me started on misogyny.”

Dem House Passes Anti-Democratic Election Overhaul Welcome to the Left’s election theft wish list. Matthew Vadum

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273111/dem-house-passes-anti-democratic-election-overhaul-matthew-vadum

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed an outrageous legislative assault on fair elections and the First Amendment last week that would drive up the occurrence of the voter fraud Democrats increasingly rely on to win elections.

The House approved H.R. 1, dubbed the proposed “For the People Act,” on a strict party line vote of 234 to 193 on March 8. Conservatives quite correctly denounced the measure as a “voter fraud and election theft” wish list.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) trashed the bill, saying it would “unconstitutionally infringe on the speech and associational rights of many public interest organizations and American citizens.”

In a tweet, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) described H.R. 1 as the “Democrat Politician Protection Act,” after previously saying the measure was “a massive power grab.”

“What is the problem that we’re trying to solve here? We had the highest turnout last year since 1966 in an off-year election,” McConnell reportedly said March 6. “People are flooding to the polls … because they’re animated. They’re interested. This is a solution in search of a problem. What it really is, is designed to make it more likely that Democrats win more often.”

On the day the House passed the bill, McConnell repeated his vow never to allow the bill to move to the Senate floor for a vote. This means H.R. 1 will likely become a big issue for both parties on the campaign trail in 2020.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) tweeted: “Democrats did not design #HR1 to protect your vote. They designed it to put a thumb on the scale of every election in America and keep the Swamp swampy.”

Who Wants to Play the Race Card Against Joe Biden? By Jim Geraghty

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/who-wants-to-play-the-race-card-against-joe-biden/

Today in the New York Times, columnist Jamelle Bouie offers a blistering attack on the racial politics of . . . Joe Biden, arguing his election as president would continue “Trumpism” in some ways:

For decades Biden gave liberal cover to white backlash. He wasn’t an incidental opponent of busing; he was a leader who helped derail integration. He didn’t just vote for punitive legislation on crime and drugs; he wrote it. His political persona is still informed by that past, even if he were to repudiate those positions now. Biden could lead Democrats to victory over Trump, but his political style might affirm the assumptions behind Trumpism. The outward signs of our political dysfunction would be gone, but the disease would still remain.

Last week, the Washington Post ran an article with the headline, “Biden’s tough talk on 1970s school desegregation plan could get new scrutiny in today’s Democratic Party.” Clearly, a lot of progressives who prefer other candidates see this as a potential vulnerability. Current Affairs declared Biden’s “record on racial integration is indefensible.” Paste calls it his “pro-segregation past.”

(Biden’s anti-busing stances were one of the 20 Things profile of Biden.)

While there was a little bit of discussion about these parts of Biden’s record back in 2008, there was no significant outcry from African Americans then when Obama picked Biden to be his running mate. Biden’s runaway mouth — “first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” “you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent” — was well-known back then, and the Obama campaign overcame that challenge twice. The overwhelming majority of Democrats voted to put him a heartbeat away from the presidency twice.

Biden didn’t lose the love of most Democrats after “gonna put ya’ll back in chains,” “my state was a slave state” or “these Shylocks.”
3

Just how much will African Americans, the Democratic-primary electorate, and the voters as a whole buy into the idea in 2019 that Joe Biden was somehow racist or pandered to racists? As luck would have it, McClatchy has a new article today, reporting that “African-American faith leaders, state legislators, voters and party operatives in South Carolina” believe that Biden shouldn’t be underestimated among that demographic in that early primary state.

There’s a chance that at some point, either one of Biden’s rivals or a surrogate tries to press the former vice president on this, and he responds with something like:

Are you out of your mind? I fought for every Affirmative Action program and diversity initiative and African-American history recognition proposal for years, voted to extend the Voting Rights Act, voted for sanctions on South Africa, voted to make Martin Luther King day a federal holiday, expanded the definition of hate crimes, and I was Barack Obama’s vice president for eight years. And you have the nerve to sit there and point to some vote from the 1970s and accuse me of racism?

Kamala Harris: ‘It Is a Fact That We Can Change Human Behaviors’ on Climate Change By Tyler O’Neil

https://pjmedia.com/video/kamala-harris-it-is-a-fact-that-we-can-change-human-behaviors-on-climate-change/

On Sunday, 2020 presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) again revealed her tyrannical desire to use government to “change human behaviors” on climate change. Since Harris has endorsed the shoddy and absurd Green New Deal concocted by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), this is a truly radical declaration.

“It is a fact that we can change human behaviors without much change to our lifestyle and we can save the future generations of our country and this world,” Harris said in a video first published by The Hill. She argued that government is the problem — and the solution.

“There has been a failure to do that because this administration and the people who are part of it are in the pockets of big oil and are denying what we know is a reality around greenhouse gas emissions and what we need to do to curb those, what we need to do to focus on the fact that water is a precious resource,” Harris said, citing the climate change theories that warn of dire destruction based on climate models that fail to predict the future.

Ocasio-Cortez praises Ilhan Omar as one of the most ‘effective’ voices in politics by Chris Perez

https://nypost.com/2019/03/10/ocasio-cortez

Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez continued to heap praise on fellow freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar early Sunday night — calling her “one of the most effective voices right now.”“Rep. Omar, a survivor of war, is one of the most effective voices right now at cutting through the authoritarian foreign policy tendencies of this administration,” tweeted Ocasio-Cortez.

She linked back to a post that the Minnesota lawmaker put up earlier in the evening criticizing President Trump’s handling of the crisis in Venezuela.“Trump and Elliott Abrams cannot be trusted to tell the truth about what’s happening in Venezuela,” Omar tweeted, along with a link to a New York Times story questioning the circumstances behind an alleged attack on a Venezuelan relief convoy.“We must continue to question the narratives they provide and promote dialogue instead of intervention,” Omar added.