On 2nd Impeachment and the lost cause

 

The American Civil War ended 155 years ago. On January 6, 2021 a white man carrying a large Confederate flag, along with a throng of seditious insurrectionists, broke into the Capitol building in Washington D.C. The incensed mob beat back the flimsy law enforcement defenses and invaded the chambers of Congress. At least nine guns have been recovered, bombs were found outside the RNC and DNC headquarters. God knows how many people were carrying concealed firearms. The death toll currently stands at six.

My thoughts come back to the man with the Confederate flag. He (and yes, there were others carrying it) achieved something the soldiers of the white nationalist rogue state never could. He successfully invaded the American Capitol with it in hand. I have a deep hatred for the Confederacy (CSA). I have long believed the United States was too conciliatory following the end of the war. I stand by the contention that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee should have been hanged for their treason, sedition, and culpability for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Further, the Reconstruction period ended too quickly. In one of the great historical embarrassments of our nation, the US abdicated its responsibilities to the newly freed slaves of the South. The federal government removed troops and real enforcement of the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th amendments left with them. To add insult to injury, Jefferson Davis served only 2 years in prison for treason. Later he published a history of the CSA and coined the term “lost cause” which is still bandied about by neo Confederate apologizers to this day. Lee was granted amnesty by Lincoln and enjoyed the next five years of his life acting as president of a university. Following this magnanimous gesture, President Lincoln was assassinated just six days after Lee surrendered.

I indulge my historical fantasies too much, and perhaps stretch my hopes for what could have been too far. The implicit message following the Civil War was that the federal government would be permissive regarding domestic threats and even the leadership of these threats could escape consequences. If only we had the collective will to make good on the promise of the Civil War Amendments, even if it required a forceful federal response. Instead there was capitulation to apathy, aversion to hard work, and of course racism. Decades upon decades of progress were lost to the Jim Crow South (of course the North is not blameless here). During this time, the Confederate flag remained a ubiquitous symbol of a defiant South, a cause that has been lost quietly coalescing in the subconscious of those who still bemoan their white nationalist failure.

Donald Trump spent the last two months (and generally the last five years) inciting this murderous horde. He has espoused his fantastical claims of voter fraud at rallies, in press conferences, on social media, and even a forty-minute speech on his official website. The American judiciary has rejected every argument put forth by the president and his obsequious attorneys. This has not dissuaded him from his belief that he is entitled to another presidential term. Nor has it dampened the frothing rage of his sycophants who believe the same. The convergence of Trump’s lies and his sycophants’ urgent need to believe in his infallibility have created a new lost cause.

House Democrats led by the imperturbable and too often taken for granted, Nancy Pelosi have introduced an article of impeachment against Donald Trump. Unlike Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee, I do not believe Mr. Trump should be hanged, but he deserves greater punishment than either of those men received. Mr. Trump must be impeached, and though he is unlikely to be removed before the coming inauguration of Mr. Biden, the Senate should still convict him. The servile would be fascists who stormed the Capitol and terrorized our Senators and Representatives must also be dealt with harshly. We must not lose our nerve in excising this malignancy in our nation this time.

I bristle at the urging of some Republicans who pine for inaction in the name of reconciliation. The time for reconciliation will come. Now is the time for consequences.   

 

Bernard 2020: Same As It Ever Was

It was with admittedly smug satisfaction and schadenfreude that I watched a dim red sun, clearly past its zenith setting on another failed Bernard Sanders presidential campaign.

Driving home tonight (3/11/2020) I happened to hear Naomi Klein complain on a radio show about a display of “ruthless unity” by Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, and Pete Buttigieg. It struck me, not because she was saying something stupid as she often does that, but that her complaint was the precise reason Bernard was always going to fail. On a different radio show last Sunday I heard host Rickey Hendon (both shows I heard on WCPT 820, Chicago’s progressive talk station) say that politics is the art of inclusion and compromise. Mr. Sanders’ lack of legislative accomplishments is the best example of his eschewing this art. He has enacted just 7 bills out the 379 he has introduced since 1991.

Bernard’s reputation has always been that of a cantankerous codger who isn’t particularly well liked by the people he works with. Secretary Clinton pointed that out when asked a few months ago and she is by no means the first or most recent Democrat to point this out. I should mention, that I do believe there is a place for criticisms without action. However, that place should not be Congress, and certainly not the White House.

As it happens, this isn’t a very good campaigning strategy either. What Mr. Sanders refused to learn after his blow out loss in the 2016 primary was that participating in a political party and building something within it matters. It is a galling insult that one of the first public events Mr. Sanders participated in after the 2016 election was a Democratic “Unity Tour” with Tom Perez where he informed the crowd that he was not a Democrat. The insult persisted in the rise of the Justice Democrats, DSA, and Our Revolution popping up out of the astro turf to begin their insurgency. The following quote from Chapo Trap House pseudo intellectual mouthpiece Will Menaker sums it up well, “However, to the pragmatists out there and the people who don’t like purity in politics, yes, let’s come together. But get this through your fucking head: You must bend the knee to us. Not the other way around. You have been proven as failures, and your entire worldview has been discredited. You bend the knee to us…”

This was a very curious position to take after their preferred candidate lost a primary by 13%, but no one would accuse any of this ilk of being wise.

The 2018 midterms were a win for Democrats. But decidedly not a win for the Justice Democrats/DSA. Despite the obsequious coverage given to Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Justice Democrats/DSA did not flip a single Republican district to a Democratic district. They simply primaried incumbent Democrats in very safe blue areas.  Once in Congress, they instigated rumblings about not supporting Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. It is tempting to think that this represented a real schism within the party, and to be sure no shortage of ink was spilled pushing this narrative. This would be an inaccurate conclusion. I can think of no greater example of this than the July 2019 condemnation of BDS resolution vote. BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) of Israel is of strong interest to me as it is a grotesquely anti-Semitic movement that should be rejected out of hand. I was pleased to see that despite the efforts of Mmes. Tlaib, Omar and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez the Democratically controlled House overwhelmingly voted to condemn BDS. Also, of note is that the unintentionally funny mustachioed failed Chicago mayoral candidate, Jesus Garcia voted with his comrades; again in failure.

Mr. Sanders had an extremely rare opportunity in front of him after 2016. Despite being drubbed in the primary, something of his message seemed to resonate with a segment of voters. (Though the exit polling in the 2020 primary would suggest that it may have been that a bunch of people just really hated Secretary Clinton.) Be that as it may, there was at least the beginning of a chance to become a formidable force within the party. A chance to galvanize a coalition, a very real door was open to bring about the sort of change he campaigned on. Mr. Sanders looked at that open door, slammed it shut, and set it on fire.

It also cannot be said that a lack of funding was impeding him this time. Contrary to popular mythology, he does take Super PAC and PAC money in addition to a massive and impressive haul from individual contributions. In fact, the current front runner in the primary, Vice President Joe Biden was vastly behind most of his competitors at the beginning of the race. This should be good news for anyone concerned about money in politics; as money still cannot buy elections.

This time around Mr. Sanders is losing for the same reason he lost last time: not enough people vote for him. His strategy of winning the “youth” vote was always doomed to fail. There is no fickler group of voters than young voters. They historically vote in low numbers in general elections and even lower numbers in primaries. Plus, youth voters don’t stay youth voters for very long whereas middle aged and seniors stay middle aged and then seniors for many election cycles to come. His failure to reach out to black voters is widely documented elsewhere. What I can speak to is his awful showing with the Jewish community. He hired and fired a Jewish outreach coordinator in 1 day in 2016. In classic fashion, he learned nothing from this. Bernard went on to hire noted anti-Semite Linda Sarsour again. This time he also hired Amer Zahr, a comedian who has called Israel the “ISIS” of American Jews. The emetic screeching of JVP and INN were naturally to the benefit of Mr. Sanders but not indicative of the Jewish community at large.

There are primary contests left to be had. Much like 2016 Mr. Sanders should drop out now to focus on the final goal of unseating Trump. Much like 2016, I am sure he won’t leave the race expeditiously or gracefully.  We must unite as a party to bury his campaign at the ballot box. Let us bring more of the “ruthless unity” Naomi Klein lamented. Get out and vote for Joe Biden. Then, once Bernard comes to his senses and retires to one of his houses, let us mend fences with his voters.

Indefensible

A brief note about my absence. I was banned from Twitter for threatening to break the neck of the owner and editor of the neo Nazi Daily Stormer website. I admit, I named him and said I would do it. I should not have tweeted that but I don’t regret being banned from Twitter. My life is significantly better without it. I should have quit it a few years ago when I first pondered it and wrote a blog post about it.

I am somewhat hesitant to give any attention to Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar as garnering internet attention seems to be the only real skill they have. Well, that and a persistent victim complex. This reminds me of another thin skinned perpetual victim who entered politics relatively recently.

By now most people following national politics are likely familiar with Mses. Omar and Tlaib for having been prohibited from visiting Israel. Anyone even remotely familiar with their support of B.D.S. (the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction movement against Israel) would be forgivably confused at the desire of presumed boycotters wanting to enter the entity they ostensibly want others to boycott. But having the courage of their stated convictions has never been a strength of the Israel hating rabble.

To provide some clarity it must be known and understood that the BDS movement is an anti-Semitic undertaking. Without delving too deeply in its history, the founder, Omar Barghouti has said as much publicly countless times that the goal is to end the Jewish state; the only Jewish state. A reasonable person could inquire as to the other countries BDS attempts to destroy. Other countries with egregious human rights abuses, regressive theocracies, ethnic cleansings, LGBTQ oppression. A reasonable person would be stunned to learn that BDS ignores these things and focuses solely on Israel; where none of those things are happening. To seek to harm the only Jewish majority nation on the planet, when objectively more harmful places exist is an anti-Semitic double standard. This is inarguable. Sure, there are the JVP’s and If Not Now Stockholm Syndrome sufferers that are only too eager to offer the slightest bit of cover. These groups are insignificant and pitiable, much like the DSA who a couple years ago adopted BDS as an official position. How unnerving it must have been for Jewish members of the DSA to see their organization adopt this position and then hear that age old “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” chant reverberate through the room. The mind boggles that any Jewish person could stand with an organization that so enthusiastically calls for the displacement of almost 8 million Jews. On a very personal note, I wonder what will happen once they are no longer useful to whatever deplorable organization they are in. We all know how it went for those close to Stalin.

When I initially heard that Omar and Tlaib had been prevented from visiting Israel, I was initially disappointed. True, states always have an interest to make decisions on visitors that could have a desultory effect in some way. Even so, I saw their visit as an opportunity to show that Israel is able to withstand a visit from hostile actors as a show of stren8gth. The world would have an occasion to see that maybe boycotting this nation isn’t a reasonable thing to do. Then Bibi announced they would be denied entry. I was disappointed. Though Trump tweeted that letting them in would be weakness, I saw the opposite. Those in a position of strength can withstand the chattering of tiny fisted nuisances. As I later learned, the Representatives had no official or state visits planned. It was curious they weren’t adhering to a boycott, but it is peculiar they had no diplomatic or state function either. Naturally the outrage machine was activated. Ms. Omar intimated that it was akin to Trump’s non-existent Muslim ban (Israel’s 17.8% Muslim community must have been quite surprised to learn they had been suddenly banned). Ms. Tlaib tearfully claimed that she was being prevented from visiting her nonagenarian grandmother. It soon came to light that Israel had in fact given her permission to do just that, but to not engage in boycott promoting activities while in the country. This was somehow unacceptable to Ms. Tlaib, who decided to pass on visiting her grandmother because she felt she was being treated as a “criminal.”

In a very real sense, Ms. Tlaib is behaving in the tradition of Palestinian leadership. Complain about Israeli policy, Israel offers a compromise, compromise is summarily rejected, and victimhood complex remains indignantly intact. There is only one conclusion, the Congresswomen only planned this trip in an attempt to try and make Israel look bad. They failed. Much like their votes against the recent anti-BDS resolution that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support were in a losing effort. I am happy to report my Congressman voted the right way, as did most Representatives from Illinois. (But not hapless former Chicago mayoral candidate Chuy Garcia. We see you Chuy, and you would’ve been an awful mayor).

However, though the Democratic Party is not in the state of disarray some outlets would have you believe, the other side has an effective strategy in this. Trump and the Republicans are not going to run against whomever the Democratic nominee actually is (here’s hoping for Biden or Harris) they are going to run against the “squad.” Much like Hillary Clinton was not any of the myriad of ghastly things the Republicans said about her in 2016, the B Team is not representative of the Democratic Party as a whole. Republican voters don’t care about that, and they’re hoping independents won’t care either. Trump is hoping that there will be enough headlines about (undeservedly) prominent Democrats that have ties to anti-Semitic movements; which again, is true. This is why it is imperative that the Democratic Party as a whole distance itself from them. This is the quagmire that Justice Democrats/DSA wanted. They think it will revolutionize the party. It won’t, it will give us another four years of Trump.

There is hope. It lies in in Democrats like Lauren Underwood. Ms. Underwood, a woman of color, ousted a long Republican held, mostly white district in Illinois. To provide further context, this was the district that used to be held by the loathsome Dennis Hastert. Ms. Underwood has 2 master’s degrees from John’s Hopkins and worked on policy in the Obama administration and was a senior advisor in the Department of Health and Human Services. She also happened to vote the right way on the anti-BDS resolution. Ms. Underwood is an undeniable expert in policy who has proven herself more than worthy of her position. She is the type of Democrat we should all rally around, because I am not going to defend the indefensible.  

Unintended Consequences

There’s a video floating in the recesses of YouTube I happened across some time ago. It features noted progressive fraud Linda Sarsour taking a question at some sort of speaking engagement. Ms. Sarsour took exception to the line of questioning and in her response called the interlocutor a “white male” as a way to dismiss the question. In reality, that’s really where the questioner could have claimed victory. If your response to a question or critique is to simply dismiss it based on the race/ethnicity of the person questioning you, you are an intellectually weak coward at best, and potentially a racist.
One of Sarsour’s comrades, Tamika Mallory of the Women’s March, has come under fire recently for attending a Nation of Islam Savior’s Day rally. This rally of course was presided over by the inexplicably still with us Louis Farrakhan. Ms. Mallory in the past has described this man as the greatest of all time, and revealed that she has attended these rallies for 30 years. Ms. Mallory appears to have been blindsided by people taking an issue with her decades long laudatory history with Mr. Farrakhan. To put it mildly, Farrakhan has been an anti-Semite of national prominence since the 1980s. How could Ms. Mallory be a part of a prominent progressive organization and not be aware of Farrakhan’s blatant, unapologetic Anti-Semitism?
Ms. Mallory is in good company. Ms. Sarsour, she of the Sharia endorsements and vagina stealing (both things she actually tweeted about and dismissed as questions from a “white male”) of course is a fellow co-chair of the Women’s March. The rot has infested so deeply that Representative Danny Davis (D-IL) told an interviewer over the weekend that he doesn’t think Farrakhan and the “Jewish Question” are that important.   Yes, Rep. Davis did use the term “Jewish Question” in that interview. I used to live in Mr. Davis’ district when I was in college, I voted for him. In an unusual moment of moral lucidity the Democratic Socialists of America are running a candidate in the Democratic primary against Mr. Davis by the name of Anthony Clark. To Mr. Clark’s immense credit, he has been full throated in his condemnations of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism and Mr. Davis’ deafness to it. Mr. Clark’s response to Farrakhan should serve as a model for other politicians.
Moreover, the question remains: how could this have even happened in the first place? Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam are not just anti-Semitic, they are black supremacists. Rep. Keith Ellison, who was wise enough to distance himself from the NOI upon entering politics, once wrote an essay making the case for a black ethno state within the United States. NOI doctrine includes the parable of Yakoub; which is an official NOI etiological myth wherein it is revealed that white people were created in order to enslave black people. These beliefs are absurd, regressive even. And yet, we see people leading liberal organizations with very real connections to this drivel, which even in the most generous of terms is not progressive.
I’m tempted to think of this phenomenon of the Horseshoe Theory, which always has a tendency to converge upon anti-Semitism. David Duke and Farrakhan sound a lot alike when talking about Jews or Israel. I’m also desirous to think this is due to a bastardized misunderstanding and application of intersectional feminism. As I consider what could be at the root of all of it, I find something even simpler, something even more pernicious and universally understandable. It’s self-interested pandering. Sarsour and Mallory know that associating with Farrakhan carries a potential advantage to their careers. They made the bet (in error) that they could avail themselves to benefits of their alignment without culling a damaging amount of attention. So strong is their pandering that even when confronted with the consequences of their words and actions they feign disbelief. The hypocrisy of this is indefensible. They would be the first to demand someone sit down and listen to real accusations of bigotry, but are quite uninterested when they are called out for the same. This is unacceptable.
Simplicity and laziness are really the keys to understanding bigotry. It can come from anyone, anywhere directed at any group at any time. It is simple and even worse, it is easy.





I won’t tolerate it from the Richard Spencers and David Dukes on the far right, and I certainly will not tolerate it from the Farrakhans and his apologists on the far left. None of us should. Whatever patronizing benefits one might think can be gleaned from such a union, they will be short lived and ultimately detrimental.  If we on the left are going to be better than the right, and we damn well should be, we must work to eradicate bigotry, racism, and prejudice within our own ranks, regardless of the source.

Twitterless

In 1998 there was a movie that had a profound impact on me. Well, besides the Denise Richards/Neve Campbell make-out session in “Wild Things.” It was “American History X.” The story was compelling, the acting was excellent, and as I grew up “punk rock” I knew many skinheads (all decidedly anti-racist) and it resonated deeply on a personal level. As I get a bit (a lot) older, the most crucial scene is the principal character meeting with Edward Norton’s character following his being raped and severely beaten in prison. He asks, “Has anything you’ve done, made your life better?” Edward Norton’s character breaks down as his entire schema he’s applied to life, his actions, his motivations, have all failed and brought him near death and made him a murderer. (An aside: One thing that always bothered me. Norton’s character got out of jail in three years for manslaughter, though it could’ve easily been first degree murder. The black man he befriends in prison is in for 6 years for assaulting a police officer. Could be a subtle reference to institutional racism in the criminal justice system. Or a plot device.)
The question from the principal is the framework by which I endeavor to judge everything I do. I fail at it a lot. One area where I have clearly, vindictively, egregiously failed to apply this thinking is my activity on Twitter. Prior to the 2016 primary I wasn’t a regular Twitter user. I mostly used it to antagonize sports figures I don’t like. I’m shocked the Green Bay Packers account didn’t block me years ago. During the 2014 war with Hamas I found myself in some pretty intense arguments and interactions. It’s hard to be a pro Israel voice on social media at any time, especially when Israel is taking military action.
When the Democratic primary began ramping up I similarly ramped up my twitter use. First and foremost I was surprised by those on the left who were so quick and enthusiastic to rail against Hillary Clinton and embrace Bernard Sanders. I’ve written extensively about my objections to the misappropriation of the Democratic name and party apparatus by Bernard, and I don’t intend to dwell upon it again.  What is worthy of note was the intention of so many “left” organizations and news sources like the Intercept, Young Turks, Salon, Jacobin for example, to from inception, reject the only candidate who had a chance to win the Democratic primary and beat a Republican. Critique of a candidate is fine, and should happen. However, no reasonable observer can conclude that news coverage of Secretary Clinton was in any way similar to that of her opponents. The emails, servers, pneumonia, Goldman Sachs speeches, and BENGHAZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII were all addressed as serious campaign issues, while largely ignoring Bernard’s campaign information data breeches into the DNC, his authorization of dumping nuclear waste on a poor Latino community; and anything and everything Trump Was doing or saying.
I watched as people I know and like in real life turned into my ideological foes. I did nothing to help this and in fact encouraged it to happen, if not directly, certainly indirectly with my invidious rhetoric. I was energized during the 2016 campaign and not always in a positive way. I’ve always considered words the most interesting of tools (former English major here). The only thing I wanted a tool for was complete annihilation of anyone or anything that was an impediment to Hillary Clinton becoming president. I still believe that was the correct motivation, but I didn’t harness that energy appropriately. I certainly didn’t think about what I could do to reach my goal, which would make life better.
I chose to focus the brunt of my ire on the farther left than me in lieu of the right. I did this as I consider myself of the left and therefore the right was not my audience. The Republicans were afraid of Secretary Clinton, and were willing to sacrifice any sliver of integrity their party had left in order to adopt the mantle of a madman charlatan. My voice on the left certainly would be worthless in the face of that desperation. So I lashed out at the “Bernie Bros.” The people who voted for him in the primary but wouldn’t vote for Ms. Clinton in the general. In my mind that was the cardinal sin of any Democratic voter following the primary. That was the harm I feared most about Bernard’s campaign. I don’t know the extent of the damage it ended up creating, but even one person considering doing that would have been enough.
Following the election and the horror it has wrought any pretense of thoughtful discourse I had in mind for Twitter died in a blast furnace of seething rage. It was time for war. Nothing was off limits, no decorum, just scorched earth social media fire. I didn’t stop to think about the bridges that would also, and did burn. I became a caricature in the minds of people I know and love in real life. Caricatures are easy to hate in return, and even easier to dismiss. I was warned about this, I did not listen.
While I do firmly believe people are more than they present on social media, I’ve come to learn that one’s social media presence cannot be wholly removed from the person himself. There is a part of me that’s every bit as vitriolic and malicious as some of the attacks I’ve offered on Twitter. Twitter as a medium invites little more than that; little more than petty, short form hate. It is a reactionary, not thoughtful platform. And as such, Twitter is the last place public discourse should happen. It’s easy to fire off an angry tweet to an anonymous account, or one managed by a staffer who really doesn’t care what @clompthestrong says. It is much harder, and vastly more important to have a thoughtful critique, fleshed out in prose provided for public review.
I am choosing to focus on the latter. I will tweet sporadically, probably mostly about sports, Crazy Ex Girlfriend (best show on TV) car performance stuff, and coffee. I hope to refocus my blog on Israel, Trump and thoughts on the Democratic Party. That does not mean I won’t be critical of those on my left and my right, but I will not excoriate them in 140 characters or less on Twitter. I propose to be thoughtful, with solutions and not insults. I’m not going to always succeed, but I can at the very least reject a medium that served as a catalyst to display the uglier parts of my nature.
American History X also introduced me to this brilliant quote from Lincoln’s inaugural address:
“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
Twitter hasn’t made my life any better, and I intend to work harder to appeal to the angels of my better nature. 

A Brief and Incomplete Review of the DSA

WHO IS THE D.S.A. REALLY?

The failed primary candidacy of Bernard Sanders (I. VT) has left in its wake a nothing if not overstated schism within the Democratic Party. I am somewhat hesitant to even say within the party, as Bernard himself and many of his acolytes are decidedly outside of it. I would further suggest that one who did not vote for Ms. Clinton in November is certainly out of bounds to suggest to the Democratic party on how it should conduct itself. And yet it is in this much ballyhooed rift we see the influence of the Democratic Socialists of America, abbreviated throughout the following as DSA.  I found Bernard to be disingenuous throughout his primary run, but realized I don’t know enough about the organization that has suddenly been thrust into my consciousness as the only true bastion of liberalism remaining in America; at least, that’s according to what several Twitter profiles with red roses have told me in no uncertain terms.
I deign to have no false deifications in my life, and am continually perturbed by those who would insist divine attributes to Bernard. The most common of which is the patently false claim that he “would have won” the general election. Leaving aside the fact he suffered a brutal drubbing in the primary, the premise itself is a classic unknowable quality and unworthy of any consideration. Though I do not personally recall the DSA playing a prominent role in his prolonged stump speech of a campaign, its adherents are now quite convinced of their importance and supremacy. Again, the hubris of losing a primary and then insisting that the path of the also-ran is the correct one is baffling.
Who is the DSA? Upon reaching their website, the first thing I see is a picture and quote from Cornel West. Recent memory reminds us that West was appointed to the 2016 Democratic Platform Committee by Bernard. Following that venture, West proceeded to campaign on behalf of Green Party perennial nominee and WiFi fear monger, Jill Stein. West also achieved some notoriety in the past for insisting that President Obama was a “Rockefeller Republican in blackface” and he said on CNN in 2015, "I would say the first black president has become the first n*gg*rized black president." Appointing him to the committee was one of Bernard’s many mistakes and the DSA makes it quite clear that they are proud to tout the support of someone who so callously disparages arguably the most successful black man our nation has ever seen. This is not convincing me that they want to work with Democrats, but rather supplant them.
Another interesting thing I noticed on the website:
“Standing Up to Hate Emergency Response
◾In response to the anti-Mexican, anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-refugee anti-woman and general hate-mongering coming from Donald Trump and the way he is creating space for racist extremists to mobilize, DSA local chapters are reaching out to immigrant rights organizations, mosques and others who may be targets for violence. We are mobilizing to spread the message that hate only creates more hate, and we will continue to resist him and what he represents. Longer term, DSA chapters will work to build a multi-racial democratic socialist movement that is forthrightly anti-racist and includes white poor and working class and rural folks.”
Read that first sentence a few times. Something is missing. There is a group that has suffered an 86% increase in incidents directed at them since January 2017 that the DSA has chosen to ignore entirely. It’s a group for whom Trump advisor Steve Bannon has a long history of disdain. Thanks DSA, good to know who you are here for, or aren’t.
Here’s something they say about Israel:
“We also join with the European Union and most progressive religious organizations in the United States in supporting a boycott of goods and services produced by Israeli and foreign corporations in the occupied territories and for divestment from companies such as Caterpillar and Motorola that economically benefit from the occupation. (Such a policy is commonly known as “partial” boycott, divestment and sanctions.)”
Here we have the DSA explicitly endorsing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Let me be as unambiguous as possible: BDS is inherently anti-Semitic.  “Every country has its faults. It is legitimate to disagree with some of Israel’s policies. But to single out Israel and to hold it to a different standard than any other nation in the world – is antisemitic.” Gila Gamliel in the Jerusalem Post 2/6/17. There’s no better way to say it.
Here’s what they say about Bernard’s campaign corpse:
“The Bernie Sanders Campaign
◾DSA is proud of our local chapters around the country that supported Bernie Sanders' campaign to win the nomination for President in the Democratic Party. This was a grassroots "independent expenditure" campaign to start a political revolution in this country that will continue long after the 2016 campaign is over. DSA was telling America that #WeNeedBernie to make the democratic socialist movement strong - and we continue building that message. Given the presidential election results, the need for a strong democratic socialist voice at the grassroots is more clear than ever.”
This is a telling and false conclusion. Given the presidential election results, we need to abolish the Electoral College. This notion that there is some sort of undercurrent of voters yearning for the DSA is a purely confirmation biased reading of synthetic tea leaves. I will say again, anyone who voted for Bernard in the primary but abandoned Secretary Clinton in the general is only slightly less reprehensible than an actual Trump voter. It’s clear the DSA did exactly that; sorry guys, you’re bad at building coalitions.
An aside about the DSA Constitution: it contains no guarantee of freedom of religious expression. (Feel free to correct me if I somehow missed it)
The DSA website still contains a press release statement indicating their disappointment at Keith Ellison’s defeat regarding the DNC chair post. One might find it odd that an organization who did not support the Democratic candidate for president , would have such a vested interest in who leads the party. I would submit this: they are attempting to co-opt leadership in the Democratic Party by actively undermining from the outside and from within.
I have said in the past I believe the far left, alt-left, DSA has been dramatically overestimating their influence on national politics. Let’s have an unscientific look at some numbers.
DSA followers on Twitter: 80,800.
Democrats Twitter profile followers: 1.3 million.
Likes on the DSA facebook page: 127,3224.
Likes on the Democrat’s facebook page: 1,535,575.
Votes for Bernard in the 2016 primary: 13,206,428.
Votes for Secretary Clinton in the 2016 primary: 16,914,722 (13% margin of victory)
Bear in mind, these numbers come at a time when the DSA has never been more visible. This is not an uprising or revolution any more than the half-baked (connotation intended) Ron Paul fans were. Obama in 08 was a revolution. (Obama in 08 is the only person to earn more popular votes than Secretary Clinton in 2016). This is the very small, but very vocal fringe. I don’t object to this fringe existing, but I do object to their hubris and insistence that theirs is the one true path of liberalism.
What is so confounding is that all indications point to just how marginal they are. The DSA held a People’s Summit in Chicago on June 9. According to their facebook page a staggering 172 people actually went.  The DSA boasts of having 24,000 members, that’s still less than the undergraduate population of my alma mater, about a third the size of my hometown.
To put it simply: I don’t trust the DSA as an organization. They do not reflect my values in the general and in fact run in direct opposition to some of them specifically. On an intellectual level they are fundamentally dishonest about their influence and relevance. It is not for the DSA to dictate how liberals at large should behave. The onus is on the DSA to provide an argument as to why they should be considered at all beyond their own narrow scope.





Final fun fact: it was the German Social Democrats who failed to build a sufficient coalition government to resist the rise of the Nazis.

Political Parties or What's In a Name?

Political Parties or What’s in a Name?

There is no escaping the specter of Senator Bernard Sanders . The independent senator from very small, and very racially homogenous Vermont has recently been trotted out with DNC chair Tom Perez in something ironically referred to as a “unity tour.” Mr. Sanders seems to not have been informed of the title or even purpose of the these events. He was quite clear when asked if he was a Democrat that he was not. The official GOP twitter handle shared a video of Tom Perez being booed and Bernard did nothing to stop the derision from the crowd. Unity indeed.
<br>
In my recent social media forays (almost all of which are a total waste of time), I find myself engaged primarily with those who identify on the left, are highly critical of the Democratic party, and see no problem with Mr. Sanders attempting to lead a party of which he is not a member. To be clear, I take no issue with reasonable critiques of the Democratic party. It is always subject to scrutiny and there is always room for insight into party affairs. Being a sports fan, I am quick to offer that attempting to lead a party (and Mr. Sanders has accepted the title of outreach chair) one is not in would be akin to attempting to be a team captain for the New England Patriots while being a back-up punter for the Cleveland Browns.
<br>
This dissension begs revisiting the purpose of having political parties in the first place. It’s quite simple, parties are the tool by which democratic power is organized within a democracy. Given Duverger’s Law (google it) the US will always have two dominant political parties. The names of the parties have changed throughout our history, as have their affiliations, aims and goals. Looking at the Democratic party, one can see a shift from the segregation supporting party in the early 20^th century to the more liberal party today. Building a party is monumentally difficult. It involves cultivating relationships, reaching common ground with diverse swaths of people, crafting a message that resonates with constituents and ultimately convincing those constituents to vote for you. These actions all take place for the greater goal of using the party apparatus to put forth the party agenda in elected offices. The party is a tool, an engine of politics. Albeit an extremely unwieldy and unpredictable engine.
<br>
I have been accused of many things, but one thing I will gladly agree with is that I am hyper partisan and have been ever since the malfeasance of the 2000 election theft. I am a Democrat because I recognize that the Democratic party is the most effective way to enact a liberal agenda in electoral politics. That is not to say every Democratic candidate is a good one. Obviously, races have primaries for good reason. Sometimes even after a primary the nominee isn’t ideal, it’s a democracy, that will happen. It then becomes imperative to judge the nominee against the general election opponent. People will say, “I shouldn’t have to vote against  someone.” This is a fallacy in our electoral system. It is incumbent on the voting citizen to choose the candidate that will do the most good and avoid the most harm to the country. Choosing not to vote in every election possible is to be derelict in one’s duty as an American.
<br>
So, what’s all this to do with Bernard? To his credit, he has been able to amass political capital in tiny white Vermont without being affiliated with a party. Though he caucuses with Democrats, he has unquestionably been antagonistic to the Democrats throughout his entire career in public life. Most egregiously praising the Sandinista government in the 80s and musing that President Obama needed to be primaried in the 2012 election; and there are several other instances and quotes that mirror these sentiments. Mr. Sanders’ negative opinion of the Democratic both historically and in the present are perfectly allowable, but highly questionable for someone who months ago was running under the Democratic banner as a candidate for president. Furthermore, Bernard was blown out in dramatic fashion in the primary. A 13% loss that despite the coverage it received, was never close. Fans of Mr. Sanders can all tell you how close the MI primary was, but none know about the double digit wins Ms. Clinton racked up in South Carolina or Mississippi or Alabama. (This hints at the coalition building among black Democrats that Mr. Sanders was thoroughly disinterested in).
<br>
Following the drubbing he received in the primary and Ms. Clinton’s subsequent Electoral College loss, Mr. Sanders resurfaced somehow as the great white septuagenarian savior of the Democratic Party. Let us pause for a moment and consider the monumental hubris of Bernard Sanders. Here we have a politician who misappropriated a party title, infrastructure, funding and legitimacy only to cast off any sense of responsibility they conferred once it became politically expedient to do so; to then be so arrogantly presumptuous to assert that the party that he will not join, and rejected him, must be remade in his own image to save itself. Re-read that massive run on sentence again. And again. It takes a few passes to absorb the enormity of Bernard’s conceited egotism.
<br>
The bottom line is that political parties matter. Despite our flaws on the Democratic side, ours is still the best way to enact liberal, democratic values and ideals. It isn’t going to be perfect or fast enough but our country isn’t designed to be either of those things. Don’t let those flaws distract you from the bigger picture.  Don’t let a non-existent perfect be the enemy of the reality of the good. The party that we build needs leaders, but one thing they should all have in common, is that they are members. Don’t trot Bernard out in front of me or the millions of Democrats who voted against him. Give me Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, Kristen Gillibrand, John Lewis, Ted Lieu, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, even Keith Ellison. Don’t try to sell me on a politician whose entire career was made on sanctimonious sniping from the sidelines (and OMG dumped radioactive waste on a poor Latino community).
#UniteBlue      #DemForce  #butemailstho  #bothpartiestho
PS: Caucuses should be eliminated and all primaries should be closed. Pick a side and get involved.

Brief thoughts during Pesach 2017

Of course I’m eating matzo right now and one cannot eat matzo and not be reminded of the Jews’ time as slaves in Egypt. As every Jew knows, the seder is intended to remind us of all the aspects of the hundreds of years our people spent there. We are continually told that we were strangers in Egypt, so we must never forget what it was like to be a stranger. Tonight I’m thinking of a particular stranger that has been suffering horribly for years: Syrians.
<br>
I don’t usually link to other articles, but the following piece by David Inserra from the very conservative Heritage Foundation is required reading before discussing this:
http://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/how-the-refugee-vetting-process-works
<br>
It’s important to understand that from an American perspective, there isn’t a side that is good for our interests. Assad is a brutal dictator who is clearly content to watch his country fall apart while he clings to power. The opposition is bolstered by Islamic fundamentalists (except for maybe the Kurdish fighters). I support the right kind of foreign interventions, such as the Israeli airstrike that took out the North Korea designed nuclear reactor in 2007, and the Libyan intervention in 2010. I see no strategic advantage to US involvement in this civil war. What does have a clear US interest is aiding the innocent civilians who are brutalized by both sides of the conflict, and the US can do something about it.
What is undeniable is that pain, suffering, and misery have befallen the Syrian people. Donald Trump made it clear during his campaign that not only is he opposed to the refugee vetting process we’ve had in place for years, he wants to halt all immigration from certain countries. This is the failed “Muslim ban.” While I’m relieved it has failed (weren’t we supposed to be tired of all his winning by now?), it’s disheartening that such a thing was even in the platform of a candidate for president.
<br>
Reading the vetting process of refugees described by Inserra, it is comprehensive, exhaustive, and effective. I’d wager that most Americans are not familiar with what the US has actually been doing, and most don’t know that we’ve only admitted approximately 1200 Syrian refugees. I would prefer if we were taking in more. The terrorists are the ones that are staying to fight the damn war. The terrorists have the vested interest in toppling the Assad government. The Assad government is killing civilians whether they’re suspected of being terrorists or not; at times with chemical weapons Those who are fleeing the war are those that have decided that their lives are more important than taking a side; which is exactly what I would be doing because Assad is a secular dictator and the opposition would institute a repressive theocracy. People fleeing these outcomes are exactly the people that we should want to come here. These are people who would be able to see the promise of America in a positive light, and that would reverberate throughout the Middle East.
Could there be people who seek asylum here that intend to do us harm? Of course. We have law enforcement for that and I trust them to protect us. However I want to live in a country that isn’t so dominated by fear that we cower from the stranger. We were all strangers somewhere once, and it is incumbent upon us (not just Jews, but Americans) to treat the stranger among us well. Our hearts must be stronger than our fear.
<br>
Ours is supposed to be a nation of hope, not just to our citizens already here, but to the whole world. I’m not advocating for open borders a la Ellis Island. I’m calling for the vetting process that’s in place to remain, and perhaps be expedited in certain cases. Trump fired cruise missiles at an air base that was active again the next day and did nothing to prevent chemical attacks from being carried out against Syrian citizens again. This cannot be the extent of our Syria policy. In fact the actions taken by Trump made the chemical weapons situation worse. Intelligence used to know where the chemical weapons were stored, they have since been moved. We have ordnance designed to neutralize chemical weapons, but these were not engaged in the 59 cruise missiles that were launched. Trump even stated in an interview that the missiles were fired at Iraq and had to be corrected by the host that they were launched at Syria. In that same interview he spoke as much about his damn chocolate cake as he did the missiles.
#butemailstho

The Unenviable Position of the Democratic Zionist

The Unenviable Position of the Democratic Zionist

Last week a self-identified socialist called me a white supremacist. Today the synagogue I was a member of for years in Chicago received a bomb threat. This bomb threat caused the young children in the day school to be evacuated. Chicago was not the only city targeted with bomb threats today and this is the latest in a growing wave of bomb threats being called in to Jewish Community Centers (JCC), ADL offices and other types of Jewish buildings. There have been over one hundred such incidents since January. Also in recent weeks this trend has escalated to include at least two separate incidences of desecration of Jewish cemeteries.
<b>
To be sure, correlation is not causation, but there can be no denying that these bomb threats have increased in frequency and scope since after Donald Trump’s installation and inauguration. Though his press secretary, the unintentionally amusing Sean Spicer, has communicated that Mr. Trump condemns these acts of terrorism, there is scant information regarding what he is actually having done about it. Considering the ongoing scandal regarding Russian involvement in his campaign and potentially in his administration, one can hardly have confidence in Mr. Sessions having a strong handle on any such investigation on behalf of the national Jewish community. General Flynn, the original National Security Adviser appointed by Mr. Trump was forced to resign. To date, he has not been replaced. James Comey remains in charge of the FBI, but he is also embroiled in investigations into Mr. Trump. What manner of resources can we be assured of being delegated to investigate these continued attacks on the national Jewish community? We have received no assurances, and no details. Given the obvious and public disarray of our intelligence apparatuses, I am not hopeful for a speedy resolution to any type of investigation.
<b>
There has been one suspect found allegedly calling in at least 8 of the known bomb threats; a former Intercept reporter. One may recall the Intercept as the intellectually anemic “journalism” effort launched by former white supremacist defender, Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald, a fierce critic of Israel and the United States is not actually a member of the left, though he pretends to be. Several of those on the American left continue to fall under his spell despite his affinity for abhorrent regimes like Hamas. The Intercept also recently ran an article concerning anti-Semitism in the United States and the maladroit writer concluded that it is not much of a force. I humbly suggest the children hauled out of their classes in Chicago this morning likely felt differently.  
<b>
It is hardly surprising that these elements exist in the fringe left and right. Both ends of this political spectrum horseshoe enter the nexus of anti-Semitism, and always have. The Communist movements always reject any religious expression as a matter of course. Nationalist right wing movements have typically found Jews to be a perfect scapegoat as the “other” outside of the core of their movement. We are experiencing this presently from the alt right and the anti-Zionist, and occasionally anti-religious, left.
<b>
Donald Trump presents a unique challenge to Jewish and liberal Zionists, of which I am both. I am disgusted to see Donald Trump and Steve Bannon in the White House (where Truman first recognized Israel and Obama was the first president to hold seders). Trump and Bannon are both men that the alt-right (ie neo-nazi) have championed as their own figureheads. The right wing extremists of today see Trump as their own victory over liberalism; and by extension over “globalization” and “liberalism.” These are not new dog whistles or code words for Jews. Indeed, Mr. Bannon is alleged to have even removed his daughters from a school because there were too many Jews there. The Trump administration pays lip service to supporting Israel, but I am not convinced they know what that means. Mr. Trump has demonstrated no fluency in his descriptions of Israel. He has also not treated Jews he comes into contact with particularly well. Trump contemptuously told a Jewish reporter to sit down after asking a question about anti-Semitism before launching into a baffling and weak declaration that he is “the least anti-Semitic person.” There are also reports that Mr. Trump intimated that the recent waves of anti-Semitic activity were actually due to the machinations of Jews themselves. Sorry Donald, your words, actions, and the company you keep demonstrate otherwise.
<b>
I have typically felt at home on the left as a Zionist and liberal despite being aware of the tendencies of the far left to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. To be clear, not all criticism of Israel and her policies are anti-Semitic; but some are and should be identified as such. I have been long mystified of the disdain the fringe left has for Israel. Israel, with its socialized healthcare, liberal social policies (even recently decriminalizing marijuana!) and long history as a steadfast ally in a region generally unfriendly to the US, is vilified by the fringe left despite practicing many of the aims the left has for the US domestically.  It was with much consternation that I observed the rise of Linda Sarsour during Bernie Sanders’ ill-fated primary campaign. Ms. Sarsour’s apologetics for Sharia law and vilification of Israel have been widely covered and it would be redundant to readdress them here. Equally disconcerting are her vile, sexist comments regarding female genital mulitation survivor, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Sadly Ms. Sarsour has come to greater prominence on the left due to her involvement in the Women’s March and general organizing in the Trump resistance movement. Ms. Sarsour has also absorbed convicted terrorist murderer, and immigration form perjurer, Rasmea Odeh into the upcoming women’s general strike. These are not simply symbolic positions in a loosely affiliated resistance movement, these are prominent faces at the forefront of organizing it and I could scarcely be more disgusted.
<b>
The very name of our people, Israel, has the notion of struggling embedded in it. We have found ourselves in unwarrantable positions at countless points in our long history. Today we find ourselves in a new one. On one side, an administration staffed with reprehensible characters, and on the other a crystallizing resistance movement that definitively rejects our people’s natural right to national self-determination. I am reminded of Tevye and the central simile of Fiddler on the Roof. Now it is true that we are not facing the pogroms of Czarist Russia, but I find our present position to be in an unenviable and tenuous balance. I reject the platforms of Mr. Trump but I will not cast my lot with Ms. Odeh (real justice for Rasmea is a jail cell). Let us instead find common cause with each other and those who are willing to listen to our reasonable criticisms of the administration and the resistance to it. I do not suppose this is an impossible undertaking. Bear in mind, Ms. Clinton dominated the 2016 primary by 13% and the general election by 2%. The fringe left in particular is overplaying its hand as it tends to do, and we are not beholden to be led by the castoffs from Mr. Sanders’ failed campaign; who foolishly conflate Zionism with racism. The path to an effective resistance movement does not lie with deplorables on either end of the spectrum. Our voices will not be marginalized by extremists of any manner.
<b>



Final note: There is something of a silver lining to diversifying our resistance. The Trump administration will be forced to acknowledge a vast swath of peoples and interests are opposing him. I can think of nothing this insecure, small-minded man would be more insulted by than accepting that such an array of groups are opposing him in a multitude of ways.    

Conservativism is not trumpism

There is a storied, if not mythological history that is often repeated concerning Ronald Regan and former speaker of the House Tip O’Neil; that they could spend their day fighting bitterly in the public sphere but then enjoy each other’s company in social life. In this current political climate of animus, I can scarcely imagine such exchanges today. To be sure, I have had to police my words with others in my new hometown in the Deep South. As you may imagine, that is very difficult for me to do. The coded language our politicians use has been secreted into daily speech to the point where one can ascertain the political leanings of a person within a few sentences. I can personally account for someone saying to me, “We’re so lucky that bitch didn’t get into office” being the most egregious. Add that to the general timbre of catch phrases like “lock her up” and “trump that bitch” those halcyon days of a more gallant relationship between the two poles of American politics seem to be slipping farther and farther way. I admit that I am no saint in this regard, the angels of my better nature have yet to show themselves.
I watched Trump’s speech to the joint session of Congress. What I saw and heard was not conservativism. It can only be described as trumpism. Trumpism will be difficult to define as it is as slippery as the man himself. It is easier to conclude what trumpism is not, and trumpism is not conservativism. When we hear him prattle on about promising walls, excessive military spending, while simultaneously pledging to not tinker with Medicare or Social Security, we are not witnessing a conservative from the Goldwater/Buckley/Reagan tradition. Nor could this sort of pseudo populist grandstanding be described as even neo conservative. However, Trump maintains that (R) next to his name. He is a Republican. He is the de facto leader of the Republican party. And I would submit that the Republicans who have lined up behind him while barely even offering a whimper of protest to his questionable election and horrifyingly incompetent Cabinet picks are no longer conservatives. No. They have sold their political and ideological integrity to trumpism in what can only be described as craven opportunism.
There is no shortage of ink (data?) being spilled on the disarray and discord within the Democratic party. While there was certainly a bitterly fought (but decisively won) primary, the Democratic party has not lost its integrity as the party of those on the left. It is true, there are those who regard the election of Mr. Perez to DNC chair as evidence of some sort of vestige of the Democratic “establishment” continuing to assert party dominance. Though one would be hard pressed to describe Mr. Ellison who has served several terms in the House as somehow not part of the Democratic “establishment.” In a fitting and proper gesture, Mr. Ellison was made Deputy Chair of the DNC. I would urge the so-called Sanders party to coalesce around this union. After all, Sanders has still not joined the party and continues to not share information with the party that could assist the Democrats in organizing against Trump. This is in addition to his 13% primary loss. I mention these things not to further enrage these members, but to include them at the proportion they have thus far included themselves. As an aside to those who voted for Sanders in the primary but not Ms. Clinton in the general; you left the party in November. It’s a remarkably arrogant position to take; betraying the party in a general election, but then thinking that betrayal has afforded you a louder voice.
Despite being an avowed liberal and Democrat, I think it will be conservatives, not Republicans, that will be the variable in effectively resisting Trump. The Democrats will continue to organize and unify. Yes, even despite the lingering (but healing) wounds of the primary. I don’t envision the same happening for the Republicans. The leaders of the party prior to 2016 clearly preferred Jeb Bush, and if their party had a mechanism like superdelegates, Trump would never have been the nominee. We can see glimpses of failing Republican unity behind Trump in the occasional actions and words of Senators Graham and McCain (though they voted for Mr. Trump’s appalling cabinet nominations). As a resident of SC, I was able to watch a town hall with Senator Graham and can attest to his strong language against Russian interference. I watched the same with our junior Senator Mr. Scott but he did not address the issue as forcefully. I hope with the continued opposition presence at town halls, Republicans will be forced to acknowledge the voices of their constituents.
Aside from calling your elected leaders, I would recommend something else in order to effectively resist Trump. If all politics are local, then let us challenge the conservatives we personally know on an intellectual level. If they are conservatives, then they must agree that building a wall is a massively irresponsible government spending project. If they believe in ethical personal conduct, one cannot support the man who bragged about sexual assault. If they are a strict Constitutionalist, they cannot support any sort of religious based legislation regarding immigration. I know these are not new arguments or points. When our conservative friends trot out their tired apologetics for trumpism, I will respond that obviously Trump is no conservative, but he is a Republican. 

Maybe you've seen them in videos of palestinian protests and gatherings. It's quite jarring to see men (always men) at these gatherings dressed in traditional black suits, black hats, beards and payos (side curls). You'll see them holding palestinian flags, holding signs that claim Judaism opposes Zionism. They are also frequently photographed and filmed burning the Israeli flag. So who are these Jews who so openly despise Israel? (Well, besides the dolts at Jewish Voice for Peace).

Disclaimer: While I am going to be severely critical of this group of Jews, I want to make it abundantly clear that I am in no way asserting that these are not Jews. None of what follows is intended to delegitimize their Jewish identity. 

Allow me to introduce the Neturei Karta (NK). The most frequently tokenized Jews of the anti Zionist movement. I first became aware of them when the loathsome former president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmenidijad held a conference on Holocaust Denial in Tehran in 2006. Anti-Zionism (and anti-Semitism) makes for very strange bedfellows. In this case the NK were there not so much to deny the Holocaust, but to remind everyone that the Holocaust should not be used as a tool to oppress other people ie. the creation of Israel. I highly doubt that Mr. Ahmenidijad minded the fact that the NK were not completely on board with the conference's odious purpose of denying the factual record of what occurred during the Holocaust. After all, he was provided with token Jews who provided some photo ops for him to continue claiming to everyone that he doesn't really hate Jews.

It is worth mentioning that Holocaust Denial is anti-Semitism. Pseudo intellectuals like Ahmenidijad and the vile Steven Salaita like to pretend that Jews cry anti-Semitism whenever we are upset, and use claims of anti-Semitism to deflect academic freedom and critical study and thought. People who use this argument are akin to Young Earth Creationists who claim that geology and natural selection are not well understood sciences. Study of the Holocaust is at least as conclusive as carbon dating. 6 million Jews were murdered with assembly line style efficiency. Millions of other innocents were murdered as well. No reasonable person can dispute this. Only anti-Semites with an agenda do.

The NK are quite small in number. Some estimates say they have only 5000 members worldwide. The Anti Defamation League estimates that only about 100 members of the community are active in anti-Israel activism. The NK are also regressive religious fundamentalists. Their entire reason for being so adamantly against the state of Israel comes from the Talmud. Specifically a portion called the Three Oaths. This passage contends that the Jews would not rebel against the gentile world that gave them sanctuary in exile. Furthermore that Jews would agree not to immigrate en masse to Israel, and supposedly in return the gentile nations promised not to persecute the Jews. The NK see Israel as rebelling against this pact made with G-d.

It feels a little silly to say this, but I think any objective observer can conclude that this pact hasn't worked out particularly well for we Jews. The above referenced Holocaust, the pogroms of the 18th, 19th, 20th Centuries, hundreds of years of blood libels and scapegoating for every crime imaginable from throughout the world are all pretty good evidence of this. In fact, every single atrocity perpetrated against Jews throughout the world is further evidence of Israel's need to exist. Jews are still persecuted throughout the world today. the IDF covertly rescued the last of Syria's Jews last summer. a three thousand year old Jewish community in Yemen was told to convert or die mere months ago. Fundamentalists of all stripes are not known for their critical thought. In fact that is probably the common ground the NK could find with someone as despicable as Ahmenidijad. In addition to draconian views on homosexuals and women.

The anti-Zionists are a good place for the NK to fester. Like the rest of their compatriots they rest on misunderstood concepts and ideology as opposed to reality. It consistently amazes me that the Left is often anti-Israel when Israel embraces many policies that are domestically more progressive than those in the US. Tel Aviv is one of the most gay friendly cities in the world. (how's the pride parade in Gaza City?). Israel has women in government, (and a former Prime Minister!), Arabs in government, Muslims in government, Christians in government; and the Druze, those guys are awesome. These are not tokens to try to produce good optics. These are realities of life in Israel, and no other nation in the Middle East. And yet the anti-Israel gaggle despises a nation that practices the ideals they would otherwise be proud to see. "Oh but it's not anti-Semitism" they will say, "just look, we have some totally Jew-y looking guys over there."

The NK are not the only Jews who obnoxiously fight against other Jews about Israel.  In fact there's a group of more modern Jews who do so with less visual tokenizing. They are called Jewish Voice for Peace. In the immortal styling of Linda Richman they are barely Jewish, not a voice and not for peace. More to come on them next time....

I don't have a large readership, but this marks the first time I might write about something that could cause some readers to question my judgment.
From my all too frequent musings on Twitter (@clompthestrong) I have found that most like minded Zionists that I converse with are very conservative in their political leanings. This is a common feature I see in American politics: US conservatives are frequently more supportive of Israel than most liberals. I've never completely understood this as Israel is a relatively liberal nation, gay marriage was recognized a long time ago, universal healthcare etc. Conversely it is for those reasons that I've never really understood the reticence of US liberals to support Israel.
So what's the risk I'm taking? I'm going to make a recommendation for the 2016 presidential race, and that recommendation is former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Yes, I'm a Democrat. I hope that doesn't automatically disqualify me from ever being read again by my more conservative readers. Stick with me, I believe I can offer a compelling case.
How does this tie into Zionism? Hillary has a long record of being a friend to Israel, even going back to her days as First lady of Arkansas where she introduced Israeli education methods to Arkansas schools. More recently as Secretary of State she helped put together an international coalition that maintained the toughest sanctions on Iran (that Kerry helped unravel, but that's another story) and has said several times that all options are on the table to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; which clearly includes unilateral Israeli attacks on reactors should that be necessary (like Israel did to the Iraqi reactor in 1984). Hillary has also stated that any attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US.
While in the Senate Hillary introduced legislation to call for release of Israeli soldiers held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah. She cosponsored the Palestinian AntiTerrorism Act in 2006 which blocked foreign assistance to Hamas, and cosponsored the Syrian Accountability Act to pressure Syria to stop supporting terrorism in the Middle East.
A personal memory I have is watching Jon Stewart on the Daily Show try to challenge Mrs. Clinton about 2014's Gaza War. She told the following story that I still tell people who don't understand what dealing with Hamas governed Gaza. In 2005 Israel removed all settlers from Gaza. It was a heart wrenching experience for Israeli citizens being ripped from their homes. The Israelis left behind a flourish floral business that had been built up from nothing. The Israelis left their greenhouses and businesses for the Gazans to take over. Instead of picking up where the Israelis left off, the Gazans burned the greenhouses to the ground. This anecdote is a perfect microcosm of how Hamas views Israelis and Jews; they only seek to destroy us. I believe Mrs. Clinton understands this in a way no other candidate does. She was right about the Arab Spring. She recognized that it wasn't going to lead to the kind of reforms Obama was hoping. Mrs. Clinton's strength is something her Democratic opponent severely lacks, she sees the world as it is whereas Bernie Sanders sees the world as he would prefer it to be.
I'm aware of Mr. Sanders' time spent on a kibbutz in Israel. I'm of course aware that he is a fellow Jew (but that doesn't seem to be something he takes any note of). One of Sanders' best moments on Israel came during a townhall in VT during 2014's Gaza War. He told an obnoxious audience member (who was calling Hamas a humanitarian organization) to shut up and reminded the audience what a nightmare Hamas is on a daily basis for Israelis. This seems to be about the end of positive things I can say about Mr. Sanders in regard to his support for Israel. He frequently calls for less defense spending and aid for Israel. He supports the two state solution (see my previous entry for more on why that is a total fantasy) like many well intended but ignorant liberals. What is most disturbing to me from this perspective is his rank amateur understanding of the Middle East, its complexities and nuances (he demonstrates this level of ignorance for other international areas as well, but I'm focusing only on the Middle East). When recently questioned about how to fight ISIS Mr. Sanders suggested a Muslim coalition. Sounds good right? Well he intimated that Iran and Saudi Arabia should work together. Sure, maybe after they're done setting each others embassies on fire. He also stated in a recent interview that he will take Middle East analysis from the spineless hacks at JStreet. It is my conclusion that Mr. Sanders' plan for Middle East terrorism would clearly include even worse relations with Israel than John Kerry has now and well....it's hard to come up with anything else as he doesn't give much more. I don't feel Mr. Sanders has any deep understanding of the complexities and statesmanship of dealing with the interests of several nations on an international stage. Considering he's been representing Vermont, a mostly white state with a paltry population of 626,000 people this isn't entirely surprising.
For any Democratic observer of Middle East politics, Hillary Clinton is not just the smart choice, she is the only choice. One cannot overstate the shameful lack of thought Mr. Sanders has put into this crucial area of consideration.
As I'm not a Republican I'm not going to make a recommendation on their side, but I don't find their general threats of nuking Syria until their sand glows appealing. If you're a Republican, I hope you'll read this and give Mrs. Clinton some serious consideration in this primary and if she gets the Democratic nomination in November.
I'm going to go out on a final limb here. I sense in Mrs. Clinton the capacity to be a leader like Golda Meir. Strong, determined, extremely smart and also a big heart. I'm reminded of Golda's quote about when there were many sexual assaults in Israel and some politicians suggested a curfew for women and she responded that the men were the criminals, let them stay home. The State Department under Mrs. Clinton had the "Hillary Doctrine" which was essentially the directive to always include initiatives for women and girls in all dealings possible. I also think of her broken heart following the Munich Olympic massacre and her response to assassinate the terrorists. These are the kinds of heart and mind soul wrenching decisions a president has to make, that I feel Mr. Sanders is incapable of effectively making; those are the kinds of foot steps I can see Mrs. Clinton following in as president of the US.
#I'mwithher

PS- back to non partisan writing next time, I promise. Thanks for sticking around until the end.

Why the 2 State Solution doesn't make sense (right now)

Every time I find myself discussing Israel and the disputed territories a well intentioned person will usually chime in and say something about how the 2 state solution is the best chance at peace in the region. 
This stance is a popular one, and on its surface really does seem to be the most reasonable way to settle the decades (well several millenia) long conflict. It begs the question, well why not?
I begin, as I often do with a very important bit of context that is crucial always keep in mind when discussing Israel and her enemies. That is that the other side is simply not reasonable.
A former foreign minister from Israel once said that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Let's look at a few examples of this.
I'm going to start with 1948 and the UN partition. The original partition plan actually included an Arab state following the transition of power from the British Mandate. The Jews accepted this. The Arabs rejected this and the 1948-49 war for Israeli independence began. (As an aside, many opponents of Israel believe that America has always supplied Israel with weapons. This is not true. In fact the US had an arms embargo on the new Jewish state at the time of the Israeli war of independence. Check out a great documentary on Netflix by Nancy Spielberg called, "Above and Beyond." It's very good.)
Israel won the war against the neighboring Arab armies. Thus is the first time the Arab side of the conflict was offered a state, rejected it, chose war, and lost.
I next draw our attention to the 6 Day War in 1967. Israel learned of imminent attacks from surrounding Arab nations, preemptively attacked, and won a decisive victory. Though this armed conflict did not include an outright offer of a state to the Palestinians, it is worthy of mention because one will often hear people reference "pre 1967 borders." The insistence on returning to these borders can be dismissed out of hand. The expansion of Israel's borders during the 6 Day War were a result of war planning and strategy in response to being attacked. To be sure, had Israel not been attacked, the borders would not have changed.
Between 1967 and the Oslo Accords, there was of course the Yom Kippur War, the 1978 Camp David meetings and the first Intifada. I'll mention the 1978 Camp David Accords because they demonstrated that Israel has always been willing to exchange land for real peace.
In 1988 the first Intifada began. One would be correct to conclude that the first Oslo Accords, announced in 1993 following secret meetings, were a response to the first Intifada. I will add here, that this set a dangerous precedent. Namely that the international stage began to truly see Palestinian incitement and terrorism as legitimate. Furthermore, the Oslo Accords (though I support them to a degree) rewarded Palestinian terrorism with a chance to set the stage for a future state. The Palestinian side did not hold up their end of the agreements. Israel withdrew from Jericho completely and 80% of Hebron (which has had a Jewish population for at least 2500 years). The PLO became the Palestinian Authority and continued to be corrupt and absent in their agreement to stem the tide of Palestinian terrorism.
By 1999 it was clear that the Oslo Accords had failed. President Clinton, nearing the end of his second term decided to address the conflict. Then Israeli PM Ehud Barak and PA chairman Arafat met with Clinton at Camp David. Israel offered the PA 91% of the West Bank, to withdraw from 63 settlements, and 100% of the Gaza Strip. I will quote President Clinton writing about the Camp David Summit: Clinton wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one." Here's another quote from Saudi Prince Bandar while negotiations were taking place: "If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won't be a tragedy; it will be a crime." Arafat of course, walked away from the negotiations and the Second Intifada began.
In 2005, under the order of former PM Ariel Sharon, Israel withdrew all troops and all settlers from Gaza. Pure disengagement, nothing Israeli remained in Gaza. Well there was a floral industry that the Israelis left for the Gazans to take over. Instead of picking up where the settlers left off, the Gazans burned the greenhouses to the ground. The hope was that disengaging with Gaza would lead to less terror attacks from Hamas. It didn't. In fact, Gaza is where Hamas fires rockets into Israel and has complex networks of tunnels used for smuggling weapons. During the height of the 2014 war with Gaza, hundreds of rockets were being fired daily into Israel from Gaza.
In 2008 Israeli PM Ehud Olmert made an offer to the PA. The following quote is from the Jerusalem Post, 5/24/13:
"Olmert essentially agreed to forgo sovereignty of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest site, and proposed that in the framework of a peace agreement, the area containing the religious sites in Jerusalem would be managed by a special committee consisting of representatives from five nations: Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, the United States and Israel. The advisors and Fatah officials heard from Abbas that Olmert laid out for him not only the details of the agreement but also a large map upon which he outlined the borders of the future Palestinian state."
Abbas, whom I had hope for following the death of Arafat, walked away from this offer as well just as his predecessor would have. (Also of note, Abbas is now in the 11th year of a 4 year term.)
What I have outlined above are summaries which have a common theme: the Palestinian side is only interested in one thing: the destruction of Israel. As can be gleaned from the above pattern of behavior, they are not interested in existing peacefully alongside Israel. There have been times a 2 state solution would have made sense, now is not one of them. There is no indication that the PA or Hamas has any intention to accept any agreement offered by Israel. They have chosen war and terrorism at every possible chance at peace. This is not to say Israel has behaved perfectly, but it is to say there is no question that Israel has made reasonable, and exemplary efforts at resolving the conflict, only to be met with violence. I bring your attention to the current wave of stabbings and car ramming attacks against Israelis that has been happening for the last few months. Now especially is not a time for the 2 state solution. The world cannot allow for murder and terrorism to become a tool for nation building. The Palestinians need a revolution of leadership, new voices that reject terrorism and truly want peace with Israel. Abbas, the PA and certainly Hamas are none of those things. The onus is on the Palestinians to bring about this revolution, it is not Israel's responsibility and Israel is incapable of making it happen. So do not speak about a 2 state solution, let us instead re-frame the conversation to, what can Palestinians do to build a nation committed to peace with Israel?
I would submit that a revolution in Palestinian leadership is the first step, because everything else they have tried has failed.

We're All Israelis Now

It's impossible not to write about the terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday. 
On a somewhat personal note, I have seen the band, Eagles of Death Metal (not a death metal band fyi) at least twice. From what I understand their merch manager was killed with scores of others simply enjoying a rock show. If they had been performing in Chicago, I might have been there.
We're all Israelis now.
What I mean by that is that we in the West are increasingly targeted by Islamic terrorists. This is something we all should have soberly realized after 9/11. This wasn't even the first terrorist attack in France this year. I'm sure everyone remembers the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January. Less people seem to remember the terrorist attack and hostage situation on the kosher supermarket (which Obama stupidly called "random").
Some speculation: France is a primary target for ISIS and Islamic terrorists in general. France is the starting point of enlightened thought, egalitarianism, democracy. Terrorists thrive on symbolism in their attacks. What could be more enticing to them than striking at the heart of liberal, godless, western civilization?
I cannot stress enough that I do not mean to write about the French terror attacks to further my own agenda. It is my sincere opinion that if France had counter terrorism procedures in place similar to those in Israel, this may not have happened. Israel faces the threat of this sort of attack on a daily basis. I also must make it clear that ISIS is not Hamas, Hezbollah, or Al Quaeda. These terrorist factions are all different, and those differences are important, in fact, one of the best ways I think to fight them, is to somehow capitalize on the differences between them so that they fight a war of attrition against each other. Something to exacerbate the kinds of attacks like the one ISIS made against Hezbollah in Lebanon recently. I think exploiting the Sunni/Shia divide is the best avenue, however I admit I don't know how to do that specifically.
One thing that they all have in common is they all would prefer to see the destruction of the Jewish state.
The EU recently approved a law requiring the labeling of all goods imported from Israel. It is infinitely ironic that the country most adept at addressing how to handle ISIS is so demonized by so many in Europe. Just today, some moron in the Swedish government blamed the Paris attacks on the suffering of palestinians.I've been saying for a long time that Israel provides a micro example of how to deal with a macro problem. This is part of why I have no sympathy for so many whiners complaining about your metadata being collected by phone companies. If your metadata helps catch a potential suicide bomber, fuck you, I hope they read your emails and see your dick pics. The capability of saving one life is worth more than your desire to keep your call destinations, and call duration, that the phone company records anyway, private. (Also, I'm still hoping little Eddie Snowden gets some polonium 210 delivered to him somehow).
Israelis live with the threat of physical terrorist violence daily. Yet they have created a free and open society. If you're looking for proof that Israel isn't an apartheid state, just google MK Haneen Zoabi. She is a member of the Knesset who basically hates Israel. The irony of serving in the government of a country you despise is mind boggling, but it's also an excellent example against the idea of a monolithic, repressive regime governing Israel.
Israel has struck a delicate, and by no means perfect, balance of security with civil rights. We are all Israelis because this is the sort of reality we must come to accept. Yes, even here in the US. Oceans never did protect us from our enemies (remember when Bush said that they used to? I was screaming, "what about in the War of 1812 when the British BURNED THE WHITEHOUSE?!") and they won't now.
I have seen a movement of state governors in the US urging the closing of state borders to Syrian immigrants. I don't think this is the right way to go. According to syrianrefugees.eu 150,000 Syrians have declared asylum in the EU. It is presently thought that 8-10 people were involved in the 11/13 Paris terrorist attacks. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people fleeing the war in Syria do not like ISIS very much, and are excellent potential intelligence sources. Finding potential terrorists in the mass of Syrian refugees is like finding a needle in a haystack. In order to find that needle though, first you need a haystack.
I have two ideas as to how to respond to ISIS. One of which France has already started doing. First: destroy their defacto capital of Raqqa, Syria. Destroy it. Leave nothing left standing. This can be done with airstrikes and cruise missiles. Second: Kill self appointed caliph ruler Al-Baghdadi. This will of course be much harder and dependent entirely on good intelligence. Cut the head off the snake and destroy where it lives and it cannot thrive.
ISIS are fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are not necessarily stupid, but their strict adherence to ideology should make them somewhat predictable. We know what they want and how they intend to do it. I believe we (western governments) have the ability to stop it, but we must not lose the will.
I am not a war monger (as I've recently been accused of). I would prefer peace. But we see before us an enemy that is implacable. Similar to Hamas (who in their founding charter calls for the destruction of Israel), ISIS is not an organization that can be negotiated with. They think luring the US and other western countries into another Iraq/Afghanistan quagmire will help them. We have the presence of mind to learn from the horrifically managed wars of the recent past, and learn how to fight a smarter war. This is within our capabilities, especially against an enemy who aims to see the entire world return to the manner of rule of an 8th century Arab dictator.
PS: Wouldn't it be absolutely wonderful if a Jewish woman somehow killed Baghdadi? Just as a Jewish woman poisoned Mohammed?