Maybe half of America have Lost their Minds

In a recent article in Cracked the author tried to explain the “Trump phenomena”. It was a pretty good article people should read it. I have my only conclusions, but want to take a brief moment to expound and rant.

“I am one of the “deplorables” Hillary Clinton speaks so fondly of. So many of my friends are absolutely baffled, still, how I can publicly support Donald Trump. I am a college graduate, religious Jew and live in the suburbs. I work in light manufacturing, and seen how the American manufacturing worker has gotten absolutely screwed. Not your typical Trump voter. Let just explain in one short and hopefully eloquent rant.

Here’s the way I see the United States actually succeeding in a world global market. ---Fix the damn trade deals. Yes, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are correct; and so is Donald Trump. The only place someone can go and work on the “line” is at McDonald’s. Fast food has now become our great manufacturing base. Thank you Clinton for NAFTA, that killed our middle class, manufacturing and the hope that anyone could work hard and make a better life.

The second reason is the world, yes, I want America to be involved in foreign policy and not take a ridiculous back seat to every single other country. It sucks. The past 8 years have been an utter disaster; electing the woman who implemented much of that just doesn’t sit well with me. I will grant that Trump hasn’t had the background as Hillary, but considering the Iran deal, the Russia reset, Libya and other decisions; it’s hard to take her seriously.

Taxes, because it really is always about the economy stupid. I tend to agree with both sides when they mention that the middle class is getting squeezed. The only way to fix that is to readjust the trade deals but also create an environment where corporation large and small pay the same rate with no carve outs. Even JFK pushed for a lower corporate tax rate. And yes, Trump is the only one pushing for a sane tax policy.

So there you have it. And if you think telling me and finding more tapes of Trump proving that he is a pig is going to change my mind, it won’t. I want policy. I want someone who has the policies that I just showed you. That person is not Hillary Clinton and it never will be. So the three reasons I am voting for Trump are Taxes, Trade Deals, Foreign Policy. If that makes me deplorable then so be it.

Oakland County Water Resource Commissioner Jim Nash Gives Himself an Award

On August 2, 2016, Jim Nash received an award from the Clinton River Watershed Council for raising money for their organization. Mr. Nash is currently running for re-election as the Oakland County Water Resource Commissioner. Questions arise as to the legitimacy of receiving this award considering that the Clinton River is extremely contaminated. Why is the watershed acknowledging the person who is faulted for poisoning the Clinton River?

“…ongoing contamination problems are almost exclusively of nonpoint source origin” –Michigan DEQ.

This contamination in large part comes from many of the lakes and rivers in Oakland County, under Nash’s prevue. According to the group Save Lake St. Clair, this pollution was caused in part, by Oakland County.

”We dumped in over 429 million gallons through the Conner Creek Tributary to Detroit into the Detroit River on July 8th as a RTB event…
The Conner Creek Tributary … have dumped over 3 Billion Gallons this year as a RTB (retention basin event). “

Why was Nash given an award, when he hasn’t done anything to deserve this recognition?

The answer unfortunately is, cronyism. The executive director of the organization is, Anne Vaara. Ms. Vaara is also the active secretary of Pure Oakland Water.

“Pure Oakland Water is a Michigan not-for-profit organization dedicated to protecting Oakland County and regional water resources through public education, community organizing, environmental advocacy, and promotion of a sustainable future.”

Of course the chair of Pure Oakland Water is none other than Oakland County Water Resource Commissioner - Jim Nash.

The web of organizations seem like an easy way to self-congratulate, without actually doing the main job of having safe and clean water. Oakland County should not sit on the sidelines and allow politicians, who don’t have any sort of background in science to pollute our water. Let us learn our lesson from Flint and fire Jim Nash in November.

Be More Negative about Israel

I am proud to announce that, in my own small way, I've joined the ranks of Pamela Geller, Michael Oren, and other truth-tellers: a speech I was scheduled to give about Israel got cancelled because it was too positive.

It all started some months ago, when I was talking about Israel to a fellow we'll call "Fred." One thing led to another, and I ended up offering to give a presentation about the "startup nation" to a local business group he was a member of. Although I didn't know him very well, Fred, an older retired gentleman, was always friendly whenever we talked, and he seemed enthusiastic about my speech.

Last week I sent him my PowerPoint, which, as promised, focused on Israeli innovation, with some names and dates thrown in. Imagine my surprise when I got the following in response:

"My main suggestion is to avoid a talk of all hype and occasionally indicate where Israel could be more open and sensitive to world opinion."

Well, I don't happen to think that Israel needs to be more "sensitive" to a world that dislikes it. I told Fred that.

"Pure propaganda, we don’t need," Fred responded. "I’m thinking this is not a good fit for our club. I think we should cancel."


Are statistics and history now considered "propaganda" if they show Israel in a positive light? Should Israel feel guilty it has produced 12 Nobel Laureates, or that it invented drip irrigation and the Intel 8088 chip, and the Palestinians didn't?

What exactly does Fred want Israel to be more open to?  The constant stream of criticism leveled at it by the UN and its hideously corrupt Human "Rights" Council, where countries like China and Cuba sit in judgment of the only democracy in the Middle East?

Being "more sensitive" means apologizing: for winning more wars, sustaining fewer casualties, being smarter than the enemy. Being sensitive means not firing back if Hamas is shooting at you from a mosque, because "world opinion" will not like it. What other country is expected to put the world's opinion above the safety of its own citizens?

As it happens, Fred cancelled my speech the same day 13-year-old Hillel Yaffa Ariel was murdered as she lay sleeping in her bed. Her crime was being Jewish. She was stabbed 18 times by a Palestinian teenager, whose mother later praised him as a shahid, a martyr.

How would Fred like Israel to handle this? Should they be "more open" to the idea that "the Occupation" excuses the most depraved attacks, and have the good taste  not to complain so much when a 13-year-old is savagely butchered?

Elie Wiesel, who died yesterday, said “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

Fred might want to think about that.

Israel in Real Life

I've been a pro-Israel blogger for some years now, but I had never actually visited the country until last month, when I went on a tour given by the Rohr Jewish Learning Institute.

Among other activities, we: went to Masada, swam in the Dead Sea, saw Qassam rockets in Sderot, walked around the Kabbalistic city of Safed, visited the Knesset, had a lunch at a kibbutz and a barbecue at a tank battalion base, heard Natan Sharansky speak, and wandered around the Christian, Jewish, and Armenian—but not Muslim—quarters of the Old City of Jerusalem, all in nine days.

The visit confirmed my impression of Israel as a miracle. Seventy years ago it was a barren desert, a vestige of the Ottoman Empire then under nominal British control. After fighting—and prevailing—against five Arab armies in 1948 (and in between regular attacks for the next 60+ years), Israel has somehow found time to set up a functioning pluralistic democracy and a lively free press, make amazing archaeological discoveries, invent drip irrigation, win a few more wars, and become a hub of medical and tech innovation, all while giving its people (including its Arab citizens) a standard of living unmatched in the neighborhood.

It's the only place in the Middle East where you can be a gay Muslim and not fear for your life. The only place in the Middle East where you can write nasty things about political leaders and not risk jail. The only place where Jews, Arabs, and Christians can serve together in parliament. (Although that's kind of a trick question, since there aren't any Jews left in Arab countries to hold public office.)

Israel isn't perfect, of course. There's plenty of corruption and stupidity, just as there is in any other country. And life is not all milk and honey for the hapless Palestinians, although a lot of that is their own fault. But we don't expect perfection from any other nation; why do we require it from Israel?  Doublestandard much?

One of the images I will always remember is the IDF soldier with braces. We saw her near the Western Wall, dancing and laughing with her compatriots. A strawberry blonde, dressed in Army fatigues, her gun slung around her shoulder, she couldn't have been more than 18 years old. She was just a kid—she still had braces on her teeth!—but in the eyes of the world she is an evil baby-killer. Is it ignorance or hate that fuels this? Either way, all we can do is continue to tell the truth and hope someone listens.

Why Silicon Valley should Worry about Merrick Garland

The President has finally chosen his pick for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. While much has been written about his judicial views, one thing stands out in particular; he does not view the second amendment as something to be protected. This one aspect about Judge Garland should be scrutinized for all angles. While gun owners might have an issue with his nomination, Silicon Valley should as well. There has been a brewing war between Apple and the FBI about the IPhone encryption program. This is not a new battle; it dates back to the 90’s.

During the Clinton administration, the second amendment played a crucial role in trying to curb encryption.  Encryption takes electronic information and scrambles the data to make sure that only the recipient is able to decipher the message. If you are sending unimportant messages to your friend, the government really doesn’t care. If you are a terrorist planning an eminent attack, it is a big problem.

The so called “Crypto Wars” was an effort by the Federal Government to maintain full control over cryptography devices. During that time the government claimed that these devices were a weapon and therefore covered under the second amendment.  The government claimed that this technology can help plan attacks of foreign entities.

As technology has developed, Apple is now the leader in encryption and the iPhone represents the latest battle between the Tech world andthe Government. Even though this case has seemingly resolved itself, Apple and tech should be on alert. One of these cases will very likely end up at the Supreme Court. With the court holding at 4 conservative and 4 liberal justices, the Obama pick of Merrick Garland will change it to a 5 to 4 liberal court. In fact Apple’s CEO, Tim cook has already brought up the Second amendment as a backing for his case against the government.

Judge Garland has shown to be more liberal in his interpretations of the Second amendment. It would not be a huge stretch that the Second amendment will be argued in relationship to phone encryption. If Mr. Garland is confirmed, it could have not only a lasting impact on gun owners, but the technology sector for years to come.

Trump’s Elephant and the Hypocrisy of Everybody

This column was originally supposed to be titled The Trouble with Trump. My initial intent was to use his comments last Wednesday to expose his lack of any policy to support his statements and his clear inability to think through and understand an issue. I had a plan, a good plan to pull the wool off everyone’s eyes with regard to what Trump actually said and what he should have done had he understood what he said. I had several discussions with various friends on Thursday to ensure that my understanding of the law was correct and that my logic was sound.

As I continued to mull over what I wanted to write, I found myself watching the Kelly File because The Blacklist was still on break. Then I heard Mark Thiessen say the following and my head has not stopped spinning since:

"Well, basically what it is, what Donald Trump said about abortion is something that no conservative would say. But it's something that a liberal pretending to be a pro-life conservative would say. It's like when he say[s] two Corinthians instead of second Corinthians. It's a tale that he really is not conversing, doesn't understand what pro-lifers really believe. He said in that interview with Chris Matthews, he said, this is a direct quote, conservative Republicans would say, yes, they should be punished. No, they would not say that. And what Donald Trump does is because he doesn't understand what conservatives think or he doesn't understand what pro-lifers think, he repeats the liberal caricature of conservatism and he says it because he thinks that is what conservatives want to hear. 
But it's really what Liberals what to hear because Liberals and Democrats want to run against the caricatures of conservatives, they want to run against the Republican who wants to put women in jail. Not the Republican who wants to stop abortion because women are victims just like the babies are. So, he doesn't understand the issues. And so he's saying things that are utterly silly."
That is what all of this has come to, a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

Donald Trump accidentally hits on the crux of the issue, the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about and everyone attacks him from all sides of the issue, both conservatives and liberals, pro life and pro choice, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Mark Thiessen says, well, that.

And then Trump takes back what he said, multiple times in case we didn’t understand him the first time, because that seems to be happening to him a lot in this campaign, right?

But is what Trump said wrong? If abortion were illegal then the law would be broken, right? So shouldn’t the lawbreaker face some sort of punishment?

I know, that’s called a logical argument, and coming from Trump I am shocked, shocked I say!

It’s a big elephant, the law I mean, in this hypothetical scenario where Trump bans abortion.

And what would the punishment be? It’s actually quite obvious. Let me present a scenario:

Kevin premeditatively kills Dave. Kevin is guilty of first degree murder. But John ordered Kevin to commit the murder. John is also guilty of first degree murder. Now let’s say John is Jane, and Jane has Dr. Kevin abort her viable fetus, Dave. Is not Jane just as guilty as John of first degree murder?

The slogan is “My Body, My Choice,” right?

This elephant in the room is the real issue that nobody wants to talk about. Conservatives don’t want to talk about it. Liberals don’t want to talk about it. Pro Life and Pro Choice lobbyists don’t want to talk about it. Ted Cruz and John Kasich don’t want to talk about it. Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Shultz don’t want to talk about it. The main stream media doesn’t want to talk about it. Conservative and liberal news outlets don’t want to talk about it. And Fox News doesn’t want to talk about it.


Because apparently following Trump's statement to its logical conclusion will cause the end of life as we know it or something like that. But really because Mark Thiessen is right about one thing: Everyone on both sides would rather argue against caricatures of each other’s positions than admit the logical repercussions of their own positions.

I present hypocrisy at its finest, the whole lot of them!

The Road to Hell was Paved by Donald Trump

I've started this blogpost four times. And each time it went "As I write this, Donald Trump has [insert the latest awful thing] and I can't believe anyone's still supporting him."

Today, it's the Heidi situation.  An anti-Trump PAC unaffiliated with the Cruz campaign posted revealing photos of Melania Trump. So in response, naturally, Trump found the ugliest picture of Heidi Cruz he could and tweeted it out alongside a photo of his model wife. He saw this as a "yuge" win for him. Because to Trump, the only important thing about a woman is what she looks like.

The Trumpsters loved it, And the female Trumpsters called in to Rush and the other radio talk show hosts to say it didn't bother them at all.

Similarly, people who once called themselves tea party conservatives, who thought Bill Clinton was going to burn in hellfire because of his sins, are supporting the profane serial adulterer and pro-choice big-government Trump. Newt Gingrich apparently compared him to Reagan. The entirety of the Fox News primetime lineup is actively pushing for him.

And then there are My People, and the speech he gave at AIPAC.

Remember, Trump has been talking about being "neutral" between the Israelis and Palestinians, which isn't anti-semitic as much as it is stupid. The very morning of his AIPAC speech he wondered aloud about continuing Israel's foreign aid funding.

Yet his AIPAC speech was very well received, and the vendors sold out of "Trump 2016" kippahs, all of which makes me think My People aren't as smart as they're made out to be. He said all the right things, but it was obvious someone else had written every last comma of it--except possibly for that "yay" that got AIPAC's panties in a bunch. You could tell he had practiced pronouncing the hard words, and was reading things he didn't understand. If you'd stopped him and asked him to clarify anything, he wouldn't have been able to.

There's been a lot of talk about Trump being Hitler, and Godwin's Law has been broken so many times I've lost count. And it's true that even Hitler wasn't Hitler until he was.  

But Hitler wasn't really the problem: the people who followed him were the problem. Trump himself said he could kill someone on Fifth Avenue and his supporters wouldn't mind, and he's right.

No, I don't think Donald Trump is Hitler. But I sure do see a lot of Americans acting like Germans.

We need a CEO in the Oval Office

When traveling through North Africa, Morocco in particular, I was aboard a bus with some Spaniards that I had met along the way. A Gendarme boarded the bus and looked around at the passengers, asking some for Passports. I had long curly hair, a goatee, and darkened skin. Not as easy to place me geographically as my fellow, non-Sephardic Spaniards. The officer asked me for my passport, and I proffered it quickly.

My passport was a thing of beauty, a regal dark navy blue, with a fantastic golden embossed eagle carrying arrows, protected by a shield, stating in Latin, E Pluribus Unum, Out of many, One. The officer looked at my passport, with a weighty, impressed gaze, front and back, and handed it right back to me. Never opening it. I welled up with pride, and felt very much American, and a GD proud one at that.

Fast forward a handful of years, and post 9-11, things seemed different. An innocence had been shattered. Perhaps it was just mine, but shattered nonetheless.
Upon reading Donald Trump's book I was ready to start rolling my eyes at every paragraph. I agreed with a few of the things he espoused. I disagree greatly with his delivery, and caustic tone. If I learned anything from Forensics and Debate, it's to know your audience. Trump is not a dumb man. He's got his LCD/lowest common denominator covered, when it comes to speaking from the heart, and shooting from the hip. Don't forget his CCW license. His plainspeak read quite genuine, and I left believing that he really wants to help in restoring the US to a place of global respect and prominence.

If our troops have boots down in one of the many Stans around the world, I agree that said government should help in footing the bill for us to be there helping protect their and our interests. I also concur that trade should be equally beneficial for us and whomever they, should be. I also agree that 19 Trillion Dollars is far too much to owe to China.

I've been to Mexico numerous times, and have always found them to be a hard working, honest and industrious people. I also understand that the drug cartels are loathsome savages with little regard for human life. If a wall were to help curtail said violence, shrink the massive artery of drug flow, and assist in proper immigration, well then, I have to admit that I'd be all for it. I don't believe it's a perfect answer, as evidenced in Israel, but it certainly has helped.

I've longed believed the two party system to be full of shit, and in need of arduous therapy. Perhaps one of the many reasons there is so much media/establishment pushback on Trumps meteoric rise, is the fact that he is indeed an outsider, to a degree. Perhaps instead of a President with a JD, we need a CEO in the Oval Office with a slight chip on his shoulder wanting to return the luster to our noble crest.

I Trust Ted

Tuesday night saw sweeping change to the Republican primary landscape. Marco Rubio bowed out after failing to win his home state of Florida. John Kasich vowed to press on as he held on to his home state of Ohio. Donald Trump sounded downright presidential in his victorious speech. And Ted Cruz gave a victory speech after coming in second place in every primary.

Cruz welcomed Rubio's supporters to join him in opposing Donald Trump. He pointed out that only he and Trump have a path to 1,237 delegates, declaring this now a two-man race. Later Cruz called for Kasich to drop out of the race, claiming his continued candidacy plays in Trump's favor and prevents Cruz from uniting the anti-Trump majority under his banner.

But is that true? Would Kasich's supporters vote for Cruz should Kasich be kind enough to oblige the Senator's wishes? I'm not so sure.

As someone whose primary has come and gone, my vote has been cast. I chose to vote for Kasich in Michigan. I wanted to vote for Rubio for many reasons, but he never recovered from Christie's defining him in the Governor's last debate. So I had to consider my options, and I chose a moderate who knows how to get things done, Governor Kasich.

Kasich had been making the most of his time at every debate, consistently touting his success at getting things done in Washington D.C. and in Ohio. Kasich knows how to make deals, as his record proves, and sending someone to Washington who can cut through the gridlock and make the right deals to turn this country around is very appealing to me. It's why I viewed Rubio's initial work in the Gang of Eight as a strength, not a weakness. I believed Rubio understood when to compromise and when to walk away from a deal gone bad.

So would Kasich's supporters flock to Cruz? Will Rubio's supporters flock to Cruz? Or will the voters looking for a deal-maker seriously consider the man who has spent his entire life making deals?

Would Kasich's supporters instead flock to Donald Trump?

I believe the answer is mostly yes. I believe people looking for someone to make deals, to make Washington work again will run to the man who claims he can make better deals than any politician because that's what he's done his whole life, make deals.

What deals has Cruz made? Can Cruz make a deal?

So yes, I trust Ted. I trust Ted because I've seen this before, and I know he's telling the truth. I've seen a freshman senator campaign on ideology and do exactly what he said he was going to do, and I have no doubt Ted Cruz will follow in that man's footsteps.

I trust Ted to be uncompromising in every way. I trust Ted to continue the politics of gridlock in Washington. I trust Ted to fight battles that need not be fought and hold lines that should be crossed.

I trust Ted. Do you?

The Fall of Establishment American Politics and the Birth of the New Era

Over the past two decades we have witnessed the two major parties in American Politics battle and cut chords with each other after each painful election cycle. As the 90's fade away and the 2000's begin its life we are slowly becoming more starkly different in political opinions as citizens but cannot fully see the big picture yet. On domestic vs. foreign interest, Social programs reform, Civil rights, and the environment. We even began to yell which of these held the highest importance. Then the floor fell in 2008. The Great Recession came and it all became about the economy and jobs. Gas prices soared, wages continued to be stagnant, old American jobs such as manufacturing, trade, and construction began to dry up across blue-collar America that affected hundreds of thousands of families and individuals. At first our instinct was to blame a person,  then people, a party, then both parties. All of the blame boiled into the 2010 midterms where the Tea-Party rose to reignite a struggling national republican party focused on fiscal conservatism and new blood in Washington. This was the chemical X that was the last ingredient needed for the meltdown we have before us.
The new blood promised a new Washington which they indeed gave but the "new" they gave the public was a obstructionist, constant-candidate representative across the nation. Things both parties use to be able to work along side were now hot topic issues flashing on the news. The threats of multiple government shutdowns and the actual shutdown cost thousands of workers their contracts with government agencies. Workers were sent home and told there was nothing that could be done. Washington finally overplayed its cards. The bitterness of hurt from many across the nation expressing the same idea that all of the elected officials had lost touch with the majority of Americans and the problems and needs of their families. They based their decisions off polls instead of prospering. The self-serving agenda on both sides of the aisle had reached its limit with even their most loyal supporters. The accountability factor is now playing a key factor during this point but district by district, state by state, voters are blaming other representatives and not their own claiming he or she is the rarity in D.C. that will spark change. Alas, nothing changed. Now in 2012, more divisiveness, the rhetoric becoming harsher, the parties became polar opposites ideologically in order to keep or obtain a new voting bloc for elections to come. Some not even putting on the show anymore by saying no to even discussing the issue at hand even though people already resented "the show", they could at least go to sleep with it when they turned off the news. Stubbornness and Invincibility has set in for them. They cannot see the monster at their doorstep patiently waiting.

2015 rolls around and the news of Donald Trump, Michael Bloomberg, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz all running for president made them wonder if this was just a phase or something they should take care of. Sanders had low support around 3%, Trump was never taken seriously from the beginning (not sure if he is now still), Bloomberg watched in the background as a shadow waiting to see if this was his last opportunity at the job he coveted throughout his political career. Cruz,  who was projected to be the anti-establishment candidate. The contradictory candidate who promised change but institutionalized stagnation and divisiveness in D.C. politics throughout his short tenure as a senator.  Nothing was done as 2016 rolled around and Sanders, Trump and Cruz got their footing in the race and stoked the anger and emotion and betrayal that most Americans felt had been done to them from establishment politics. They finally understood if they wanted the change, they had to be the change. This is where the story  must end because the rest has yet to be written. I can guess Bloomberg will regret more than less he didn't run, Mr.. Trump will win the nomination but lose horribly in the general in a electoral college landslide, Mr. Sanders will lose against Ms. Clinton who will become the nation's 45th president, but the era of anti-establishment politics has blossomed and Ms. Clinton may have the highest seat to watch it spread throughout the halls of Congress, but all I mention is only the most likeable scenario.

It will be exciting times in American politics for us to witness and be apart of. Accountability is what can save the small chance for the re-grasp on Americans for the establishment of both sides but will they admit to their wrongdoings, and lack of empathy and repay the constituents by getting things done instead of demanding they get everything they want and not do anything if not? Maybe.(don't count on it.)
 Americans trust the government just as less as they did during the Vietnam War. A person, people, a party, nor both parties can change the minds of those who distrust them. Nothing will. A new era had to emerge to continue the typical democratic structure we have became accustom to in politics. Now, the actors will have to act more on the script constituents wrote for them more than their own. As I close, I find myself feeling very fortunate to be apart of an era and generation that has witnessed so much and yet to even reach the quarter century mark in my life. Until next time, its important to remember how you feel now about this time, because in years to come someone will ask you, "How did you feel when....." and you will not have to ponder about it, you will know exactly what you said or maybe even what you did.

Am I Part of the Problem #stoptherhetoric

Dear Friends,

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The commitment to this pledge has kept our society civil. We are all part of this great melting pot. There are 300 million people with 300 million views about God and country. No one agrees with each other and frankly, no one should. But we should all respect one another and the other person's right to disagree. The rhetoric in this political season has gotten out of hand. I love disagreement. I love saying things that people disagree with. I love having debate. But debate should be polite, civil and occasionally loud. But the blind hatred that has been growing on all sides has got to STOP!

In light of what has happened to Ben Shapiro and Breitbart, I want to be part of the solution. As someone with a smaller website, I am sometimes guilty of promoting some bad rhetoric with not enough policy. Therefore I pledge to #stoptherhetoric. That doesn't mean I won't stop presenting my ideas, or arguing with others. I have strong differences with the left and some on the right. These should make our country stronger, not weaker.

I encourage everyone to sign the pledge and spread the word.

There Must be Something in the Water

My Twitter feed has been going absolutely crazy. A while ago, I wrote an article about Nine Hot Jewish Republicans. It was a fluffy article that was just meant to be humorous. However, I included, accidentally, a non-Jewish lady; Michelle Fields. She was very nice about the mistake and I corrected the article. No harm, no foul.
This morning I awake to my Twitter feed going crazy bashing me, Ms. Fields and Ben Shapiro. Huh? Michelle Fields was attacked at a Trump rally by Mr. Trump’s campaign manager. Instead of apologizing and moving on, he denied and called Fields and anyone who backed her story liars and all sorts of names.
Here is where I come in; she made my list -- People connected Mr. Shapiro and Ms. Fields as Jewish and that must be why Breitbart supported her.
WTF is going on.
We are in an alternate universe. Maybe Flint isn’t the only place in the United States making people sick. There is a growing illness building in the sewers that has been festering. This "mood slime" is engulfing and making people stupid, ignorant and mean.  What can stop this? With more than 7 months to go until the election, what can be done? How do we stop this ooze from taking over and ruining our country?


Do you ever wonder why Jews keep voting overwhelmingly for Democrats? Heck, you may be Jewish and wondering why YOU keep voting for them.  

It wasn't always like that, and there are plenty of reasons (Trump notwithstanding) for Jewish voters to consider voting Republican again. And on March 16 on the University of Michigan campus, you'll be able to hear some of them, and ask questions of your own.

Moderated by The New Paine's own Ezra Drissman, "Why we are [politically] CONSERVATIVE" will feature a panel of three prominent Jewish Republicans. (See the PDF for more info.) An audience q&a will follow a panel discussion. The event is being co-sponsored by the Washtenaw County Republican Party and the U-M chapter of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF).

(On a side note, YAF is just one of the groups of brave U-M students who are putting on some great events at that ultra-liberal campus. YAF also sponsored the Dinesh D'Souza-Bill Ayers throwdown a few weeks ago. And the Michigan Review, the conservative student newspaper, hosted unverified-by-Twitter tech genius and gay provocateur Milo Yiannopoulous last month. Good work kids!)

The fun starts at 7pm at Hutchins Hall, in U-M's beautiful Law Quad. Luddite Blogger will be there, and we hope you will be too!

A Four Person General Election Race?

This election is getting stranger by the day. Who would you vote for with these four as general election candidates?

Time for a Xanax Republicans!

Ok, it is time for people to chill out! There has been a growing battle between the Tea Party, Establishment, Conservatives, RINOs, Libertarians, Neo-cons and any other type of Republican you can think of. Everyone has their gripe, complaint and a litany of issues to bash, mock and take down the other person. And what does that get you? --Socialism-- Does it make you feel better than you can call someone out on Facebook or Twitter?

Donald Trump, very likely could be the Republican Presidential candidate. If he is, accept it. We have a very long political season and frankly many other primaries coming up. These primaries are decided by the folks in those states. You don't live there and frankly, the people there probably don't care about your opinion either. There are enough candidates in the race that you can find the man you like and vote for them.

The infighting is getting old quickly. Take a chill pill, go to Colorado and spoke, have a cigar, scotch or whatever it is you do to relax.

Have a bless and relaxed day,


There is no such thing as Neutral

[Note: A few days ago, Donald Trump cheerfully announced that he plans to be "neutral" on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. This column is dedicated to him. - LB]

"How's your new Muslim boyfriend?" I teased my friend Casey. "Oh c'mon," she said. "He's a perfectly normal person. He's not religious. He drinks, he goes to the bar, he hangs out with my Jewish friends--
"And," she added, "I asked him what he thought about the Israeli-Palestinian situation, and he said 'Both sides are so crazy, they just keep on fighting, there will never be peace."

She smiled at me as if to say See? He's not a hater. He's just like everybody else.

And he is. Because "both sides are crazy, both sides just keep on fighting" is just how most well-meaning Americans would describe the conflict.

Those who believe this are decent people. They pride themselves on being able to see past the cheap sloganeering of "Free Palestine!" on one side and "Am Yisrael Chai!" on the other. They understand there are two sides to every story. It's nuanced, they say. It's complicated.

Well, I'm here to tell those well-meaning people that that's total bullshit.

Let me clarify.

The "cycle of violence" is bullshit. Stabbing an old lady on a bus and being shot for stabbing an old lady on a bus are not the same thing. No other country in the civilized world would tolerate Israel-like levels of terrorist attacks.

"There's hate on the Israeli side too" is bullshit. A friend said this to me, before comparing Abbas' "Jews' filthy feet defiling al Aqsa" comment to her teenage son's Israeli friend, who once guiltily confided that he "sometimes felt like he hated Arabs." Sorry, but that's apples and oranges: there's nothing in Israel comparable to the institutionalized anti-semitism and anti-Zionism of the Palestinians (paid for largely by you, American Taxpayer! )

"They're just frustrated because they want their own state like the Jews have Israel" is bullshit. They could have had their own state in 1948, and at least four times since. They said no each time. They don't want a state, they want the State—of Israel.

In other words, "It's complicated" is bullshit.

One side gives up land for peace. The other side takes the land, but instead of peace, gives Qassam rockets and terror tunnels in return. (But guess who gets accused of "not making the tough choices for peace"?)

One side goes over and above what any other military does to avoid harming civilians. The other side uses civilians as human shields. (But guess who gets told it's "not trying hard enough to avoid civilian casualties"?)

One side is a diverse, vibrant country of Arabs, Jews, and Christians of all colors and national origins. The other side has been doing its best to make the West Bank Jew-free for years, and has already announced that the putative state of Palestine will be 100% Judenrein. (But guess who gets accused of "apartheid"?)

Do both sides have rights? Of course. Does each side agree that the other has rights? Sadly, no. And that's why it's all such bullshit—and so tragic.

What I learned from Flint

Flint Michigan has been in the headlines of Local, National and International press for weeks. The reason is because, some folks who knew and some who didn't poisoned and potentially killed Flint residents. Many who don't like the Republican Governor have shaken their fingers and said, see, that's why you don't want to run government like a business. And the other side just wanted to blame the EPA or a government agency. There is some truth to both arguments but I think there is a larger point that everyone is missing.

I spent many years at Wayne State University getting my degree in Public Affairs. One of the major things that I have learned is that one of the most misunderstood terms that people throw around is "Career Politician". What I hear is, "We don't want qualified pencil pushers". Let me explain. Both Barack Obama and Rick Snyder are very similar in their complete lack of political experience. In fact, Obama had more than Snyder, albeit not so much. When you have relative newbies to the political scene in Lansing or Washington, it comes with a lot of mistakes. These mistakes come in the form of political appointments.

Political appointments are not a dirty word. These folks whether you like it or not, are what keep your water running, literally. Without knowledgeable and experienced political folks, things can go disastrously bad. Nationally, we have seen this play out, but that is for another time. Lest people think that I am blaming President Obama for anything that happened in Flint, I am not. The buck and blame must be placed with the Governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder. He is to blame, based on the ineptitude of not knowing the system, the business.

Government is a business. It is has its own particulars and nuances. Understanding these, is crucial to running it properly. That is why some of the seemingly more successful politicians were not always the cleanest of person or character. Political appointments done for the sake of scratching your friend's back, does not work in the real world. The real shame of the Flint malfeasance is that it was all preventable. Government must be run like the business that it is. It needs people in seats that understand what is happening and how to deal with the issues that come up. It needs the pencil pushers with knowledge of the material and the system. And the voters must realize that while the political labels matter in the general sense, competency and political experience is a must.

Soldier of Allah

Did you happen to see Dennis Prager's excellent article about Obama's mosque visit?

"President Obama spoke a lot of nonsense, some of it dangerous," says Prager.

Here are two samples, with comments:

Obama: "So let's start with this fact: For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam's message of peace. And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salaam--peace."

Prager continued, "Why did Obama say this? Even Muslim websites acknowledge that "Islam" means "submission" [to Allah], that it comes from the Arabic root "aslama" meaning submission, and that "Islam" is in the command form of that verb."

. . .

Obama: "These are the voices of Muslim scholars, some of whom join us today, who know Islam has a tradition of respect for other faiths."

Another falsehood. Islam has no such tradition. Islam has always demanded that Jews and Christians be treated as humiliated second-class citizens--when not forced to choose between conversion or death.

Reading this account, something a little chilling occurred to me:

Who, really, was this speech for?

Not the people at the mosque, surely. That audience of all audiences had to know Obama was lying. They sat there and let him lie because they were part of the kabuki theater that is the Obama anti-Islamophobia road show.

So, who was he talking to? To us.

He wants AMERICANS to believe that 'Islam' means 'peace'. He wants us to think that Islam is "part of the fabric of this nation" when in fact, as Prager points out, it isn't. He pretends there's an epidemic of discrimination against Muslims--that WE have the problem, not the Islamists--while ignoring the real problem of growing antisemitism.

One Islamic principle Obama didn't mention in his speech is taqqiyah. Taqqiyah is the principle that says that lying in the service of Islam is not only ok, it's encouraged.

There are really only three possibilities: either Obama is an idiot, or he's so delusional he really believes what he says, or he is practicing taqqiyah. I'll leave it to you to decide.

Is Donald Trump a Nazi?

It wouldn't be a boring day without a mindless liberal Facebook friend speculating that Donald Trump is a Nazi. Frankly, conservatives and republicans don't make those types of comparisons. On our side we question people’s love for God and Country. Most of the time we are correct, but still get raked over the coals for making such statements. Yet, the farther Trump goes in his bid for the White House, the more we will hear such claims. So let's dive right in and do some fun comparative analysis.

Adolf Hitler was a veteran of WWI and got involved in politics soon after. He attempted a coup of the government and was imprisoned. In prison he wrote a book called Mein Kampf that was a step by step plan to exterminate European Jewry. Later, Hitler worked his way, not so cleanly, to becoming the Dictator of Germany and exterminated and murdered over 10 million people. He also led the world into WWII. Along with Stalin, Pol Pot and a few others, he is considered one of the universes most evil people EVER!

Donald Trump was born into a wealthy family in New York. He was given control of his family's business and went on to build many casinos and hotels. He wrote his book, the art of the deal, presumably at his computer. In all his books he talks about how great the United States is. Trump is running for President and won a primary in New Hampshire. While extremely bombastic and slightly self-absorbed, he seems by most accounts to be a decent person.

I digress. While Donald Trump is not my first or second choice for the Republican candidate, these smears and comparisons must stop. That may be too much to ask from the left these days, but thought I would try.