Rep. Omar: she's at it again and its becoming harder, ya know, to afford her the benefit of the doubt. Her criticism of Israel, done of her own volition, puts one in mind of the old saw - "if it quacks like a duck. . . ." Ok but she's approaching incredibility in her smirking, Brer Rabbity disclaimers of antisemitism. Within the last couple of days she has sneered at the notion that her criticism of the Jewish State stems from anything other than that "entity's" proven and incomparable perfidy . She pleads her innocence of personal prejudice in her choice of public opposition to Israel, arguing that it is Israel's actions which make her snide references inevitable.
Antisemitism: simply one of the oldest and historically condemned - monstrous and subhuman in its enactment - of injustices.
We have within living memory compelling evidence of the consequences of failure to oppose "persons" who expressed concerns analogous to Rep. Omar's obvious, ehhh, fixation on Jewish Israel.
Her family are refugees from Somalia, yes? When people endure the indescribable hardships of flight from their homes because of unendurable oppression and travel in anguish, uncertainty, discomfort and poverty to strange cold places, there must be something very compelling motivating them to do so. But this motivation appears to have had little effect on Rep. Omar. Rather it is Israel which excites her. Has she been there? If so, was she wronged? Has she fought against Israeli forces? If so, why? Has she considered how one as assertive as she would be treated in Somalia? Somehow, I think not.
What drives her? Why, could it be just plain, visceral , yes, antisemitism?
Perish the thought, says Nancy Pelosi ; rather, consider all forms of destructive disdain save those approved by our unassailable righteousness to be, by definition, justified. Oh, maybe Rep. Omar erred but LOOK at all the other forms of "hate", why just look at them!
I comment on Rep. Omar in this way because she is integral to my consequent comments:
In 1994 Newt Gingrich hamstrung the Clintons' administration with his Contract with America. The Dems clearly now offer an analogous though not as honest implied contract in their undeniable radical swing to the unabashed left. Here is what they promise therein:
"That AOC and Rep. Omar and their devotees will be afforded limitless deference and leeway for their impetuous declarations of condemnation for virtually all that everyday Americans value, we affirm and as our power grows to be total, that they will guide us. No, we will not presently surrender to them actual authority over our party but be patient , be patient, they are close at hand. The years will not be much and will pass quickly and then the "fundamental transformation" will be realized. We are the means by which you may bring this to reality simply by voting for us. After that, we will trouble you no more and you may retire into listless subjectivity - after all, that's all you want isn't it? Oh, leave it all to us!"
That the Dems offer us this contractual arrangement becomes more obvious every day. Jack
Sunday, March 24, 2019
Sunday, March 10, 2019
They don't call 'em "progressives" for nuthin'.
No, they surely don't. It would have been a simple and consistent thing to take affirmative action, such as that they supported for Rep. Steve King, against Rep. Omar for her very apparent and casually expressed antisemitism. But leave it to them to rewrite one of the millenia old verities of criminal law (criminal law now being, for the left, an organic element of adversarial politics). "No longer will we punish the perpetrator; rather we will task the crime itself and minister correction to it alone! Excepted from this amendment is the present President; he must answer in ongoing proceedings and indeed his close confinement is to expected".
I can just picture it. "You have been found guilty of the crime of . . . . You are sentenced to . . . immediate personal exoneration and relief from all legal disabilities. The crime for which you were convicted will be publicly chastised at and by. . . ."
How very artificial it was of Nancy Pelosi to word the resolution opposite to concepts like "hate" and "bigotry" instead of citing an apparently hateful and bigoted person sitting in her own caucus. Since she and her party consider the definition of hate to be that of insolent opposition to their irrefutable wisdom, this was slick indeed (shades of slick willie). In doing so they fancied themselves freed of the responsibility for specificly taking to task their antisemitic colleague publicly (privately they excuse her). And they arrogated to themselves the focus of the condemnation on those they know to be their fundamental enemy, the real America.
As for "bigotry", its definition is that of unreasoning and intolerant support for a specific creed . Why, this defines the American left! Their reflexive excoriation of all who question them is legend.
I spent twenty years working with state prison inmates and they were very clever in composing, ehhh, disingenuous language. One said to me "maybe there should be a riot and some people should get their throats cut" after I enforced on him a common prison rule. He expected he would not be held responsible for the obvious threat he had uttered because his wording did not express an intention.He should have been indicted. I'm not surprised that leftists seek to enfranchise cons. They think just like them. They think any amoral or senseless device of theirs excused by their consummate and self evident righteousness.
Its time to revisit the brilliant and courageous David Horowitz's 2004 book Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. In it he soundly documents the sympathy and empathy expressed and enacted by America hating leftist Americans for kindred radical Islam. Too, the journal Commentary has held forth at length over the increasingly open and obvious antisemitism of a significant faction of the left worldwide.
Gads! I am sick to death of antisemitism, that ancient and deathless scourge! I've never understood its ferociousness and its persistence. It must be visceral, no more, no less and it must be met with equally essential intolerance. Though opposition to Israel is not by definition antisemitism, its inordinate extent and intensity world wide is plainly indicative of motivation by unmitigated, essential Jew hatred.
In the '60's it was hard to imagine scruffy America hating whelps someday exercising decisive institutional power just as it may now seem a reach to picture such as Reps. Omar and AOC someday exercising totalitarian rule. But we know better now don't we?
How many countries have or would now admit to their law making institutions members determined to destroy their nations and to replace them with their very antitheses ? That we do bespeaks a laudably principled political culture but we must not exalt these wrongheaded dreamers; we must disempower them and their apologists. Luckily the democracy they would extinguish affords us still the means to do so, if we remain true to our precious heritage and fully appreciate the continuing threat to it. Jack
I can just picture it. "You have been found guilty of the crime of . . . . You are sentenced to . . . immediate personal exoneration and relief from all legal disabilities. The crime for which you were convicted will be publicly chastised at and by. . . ."
How very artificial it was of Nancy Pelosi to word the resolution opposite to concepts like "hate" and "bigotry" instead of citing an apparently hateful and bigoted person sitting in her own caucus. Since she and her party consider the definition of hate to be that of insolent opposition to their irrefutable wisdom, this was slick indeed (shades of slick willie). In doing so they fancied themselves freed of the responsibility for specificly taking to task their antisemitic colleague publicly (privately they excuse her). And they arrogated to themselves the focus of the condemnation on those they know to be their fundamental enemy, the real America.
As for "bigotry", its definition is that of unreasoning and intolerant support for a specific creed . Why, this defines the American left! Their reflexive excoriation of all who question them is legend.
I spent twenty years working with state prison inmates and they were very clever in composing, ehhh, disingenuous language. One said to me "maybe there should be a riot and some people should get their throats cut" after I enforced on him a common prison rule. He expected he would not be held responsible for the obvious threat he had uttered because his wording did not express an intention.He should have been indicted. I'm not surprised that leftists seek to enfranchise cons. They think just like them. They think any amoral or senseless device of theirs excused by their consummate and self evident righteousness.
Its time to revisit the brilliant and courageous David Horowitz's 2004 book Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. In it he soundly documents the sympathy and empathy expressed and enacted by America hating leftist Americans for kindred radical Islam. Too, the journal Commentary has held forth at length over the increasingly open and obvious antisemitism of a significant faction of the left worldwide.
Gads! I am sick to death of antisemitism, that ancient and deathless scourge! I've never understood its ferociousness and its persistence. It must be visceral, no more, no less and it must be met with equally essential intolerance. Though opposition to Israel is not by definition antisemitism, its inordinate extent and intensity world wide is plainly indicative of motivation by unmitigated, essential Jew hatred.
In the '60's it was hard to imagine scruffy America hating whelps someday exercising decisive institutional power just as it may now seem a reach to picture such as Reps. Omar and AOC someday exercising totalitarian rule. But we know better now don't we?
How many countries have or would now admit to their law making institutions members determined to destroy their nations and to replace them with their very antitheses ? That we do bespeaks a laudably principled political culture but we must not exalt these wrongheaded dreamers; we must disempower them and their apologists. Luckily the democracy they would extinguish affords us still the means to do so, if we remain true to our precious heritage and fully appreciate the continuing threat to it. Jack
Monday, March 4, 2019
If everything is a crime then everybody . . . right gunowners?
I heard on the radio a commentary which really caught my attention with its clarity, plausibility and applicability to New York State and the burgeoning national assault on gunowners' yet Constitutionally affirmed rights.
The speaker said he had seen in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged the following prediction, which I can only paraphrase: a prime means in the establishment by tyrants of unassailable rule will be the incipient enactment of myriad laws establishing theretofore lawful acts as crimes. This, done thoroughly, will eventually render every citizen an outlaw and subject to the sanctions society directs to those so judged. These laws may not be extensively enforced, perhaps they will be only to make fearful examples. Their chief purpose will be to intimidate and to motivate compliance with the measures totalitarians must disingenuously seek in an essentially free America, such as the willingness to give up natural and Constitutional rights. The process would be twofold: first create a perception of guilt among the law abiding majority leading to cooperation by most in measures they perceive to be not quite as bad as they feared, at least at their inception. Secondly, for the recalcitrant, the means for official repression of any insolent enough to assert their wrong headed "freedoms" in the face of the unchallengeable wisdom of the leftist elect, is closely at hand,since all citizens would by then be criminals, yes?
The speaker saw in this a plausible perception of Andrew Cuomo's crusade to disarm the lawful, not for protection from the amoral monsters (truck mass murderers, killers of police) blithely excused by such as he but to disarm the institutions (such as NRA) which he knows stand firm against his left's determination to take full control of our lives.
He made a very good point. Cuomo's latest chapter in what he glories in being "just a step in a continuing crusade" did not contain some of the outrages which were predicted (at his behest perhaps? Oh I think so) . Unobtainable insurance policies, constant surveillance of gun owners, byzantine regulations, the proscription of hundreds of thousands of firearms presently owned by his subjects (we are no longer citizens, but then, that's what he's always thought) were not in this latest pronunciamento . But stand by!
Andrew is running for President, I am told by one who knows and even he, through the haze of his aristocratic contempt for fly over country, knows he must hold his nose and patronize it until January of 2021. He must be seen as arguably motivated by just good ol' common sense in Chariton, Iowa or McCook ,Nebraska after all. Too, those federal lawsuits do pile up and that unforgiveably lawful new Supreme Court could be trouble. "Ahh, though, sue me, just sue me, ahh, win some ,lose some", says Andrew, " as we say in our New Yawk which is an oasis of civilization and culture in an American wilderness I am destined to tame. Yessiree!"
Recently there was a terrible accident in New York State involving a stretch limousine. Andrew's proposed solution, which has met a temporary setback - "just ban all stretch limousines, yeah. I know some people have their life savings and 18 hour days invested in such businesses but what do I care? I've got a state job!" That's vintage Cuomo.
Andrew is a frantic child and he is recklessly demonstrating in N.Y. what any Dem elected President now will do if empowered. The threat to freedom and our entire proven way of life in the real America is manifest. Jack
The speaker said he had seen in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged the following prediction, which I can only paraphrase: a prime means in the establishment by tyrants of unassailable rule will be the incipient enactment of myriad laws establishing theretofore lawful acts as crimes. This, done thoroughly, will eventually render every citizen an outlaw and subject to the sanctions society directs to those so judged. These laws may not be extensively enforced, perhaps they will be only to make fearful examples. Their chief purpose will be to intimidate and to motivate compliance with the measures totalitarians must disingenuously seek in an essentially free America, such as the willingness to give up natural and Constitutional rights. The process would be twofold: first create a perception of guilt among the law abiding majority leading to cooperation by most in measures they perceive to be not quite as bad as they feared, at least at their inception. Secondly, for the recalcitrant, the means for official repression of any insolent enough to assert their wrong headed "freedoms" in the face of the unchallengeable wisdom of the leftist elect, is closely at hand,since all citizens would by then be criminals, yes?
The speaker saw in this a plausible perception of Andrew Cuomo's crusade to disarm the lawful, not for protection from the amoral monsters (truck mass murderers, killers of police) blithely excused by such as he but to disarm the institutions (such as NRA) which he knows stand firm against his left's determination to take full control of our lives.
He made a very good point. Cuomo's latest chapter in what he glories in being "just a step in a continuing crusade" did not contain some of the outrages which were predicted (at his behest perhaps? Oh I think so) . Unobtainable insurance policies, constant surveillance of gun owners, byzantine regulations, the proscription of hundreds of thousands of firearms presently owned by his subjects (we are no longer citizens, but then, that's what he's always thought) were not in this latest pronunciamento . But stand by!
Andrew is running for President, I am told by one who knows and even he, through the haze of his aristocratic contempt for fly over country, knows he must hold his nose and patronize it until January of 2021. He must be seen as arguably motivated by just good ol' common sense in Chariton, Iowa or McCook ,Nebraska after all. Too, those federal lawsuits do pile up and that unforgiveably lawful new Supreme Court could be trouble. "Ahh, though, sue me, just sue me, ahh, win some ,lose some", says Andrew, " as we say in our New Yawk which is an oasis of civilization and culture in an American wilderness I am destined to tame. Yessiree!"
Recently there was a terrible accident in New York State involving a stretch limousine. Andrew's proposed solution, which has met a temporary setback - "just ban all stretch limousines, yeah. I know some people have their life savings and 18 hour days invested in such businesses but what do I care? I've got a state job!" That's vintage Cuomo.
Andrew is a frantic child and he is recklessly demonstrating in N.Y. what any Dem elected President now will do if empowered. The threat to freedom and our entire proven way of life in the real America is manifest. Jack
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)