Politico deleted anti-Semitic Tweet (is that in their playbook?)

Few blogs are as unrelentingly anti-religious as Politico.  In New Jersey, the blog has pursued an agenda clearly at odds with traditional religious beliefs, be they Judeo-Christian or Islamic.  Bloggers like Matt Friedman appear to think that their worldview – fashionable, secular, and centered on sexuality – is the measurement by which everyone else’s religious views are to be judged.  Friedman openly mocks what he doesn’t want to understand.  There are the ignorant and then there are the invincibly ignorant.  He is the latter.

But now the entire Politico enterprise is being called into question, and its anti-religious bias is even making it onto the pages of the benign Wikipedia…

In April 2017, Politico magazine published a wild conspiracy-theory article that tried to link President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin with a Jewish outreach organization Chabad-Lubavitch.  The article was  widely condemned.  Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the Anti-Defamation League said Politico was conjuring up anti-Semitic myths about Jews. 

And Wikipedia details Politico’s own anti-Semitic Twitter scandal:

Politico was accused again of anti-Semitism, when an article depicting imagery of presidential candidate Bernie Sanders next to money trees, was published. Sanders being the only Jewish presidential nominee was targeted for the amount of wealth he accumulated over his entire life time [60] Politico staff writer Michael Kruse wrote the article detailing the senator’s wealth, writing that Sanders “might still be cheap,” according to one of the senator’s friends, “but he’s sure not poor.” To share the story Politico’s official Twitter account used the quote, Sanders “might still be cheap, but he’s sure not poor,” managing to combine two anti-Semitic tropes (Jews are cheap; Jews are rich). The tweet was later deleted. [61]

Hypocrisy, thy name is POLITICO.  Before calling on others to resign over a re-tweet (as opposed to full length, original content, articles), maybe the staff at Politico should lead by example and cut-off their own heads first?  Just a thought.

Why is a journalist on a sexual-identity “power” list?

Some people still subscribe to newspapers in the hope of providing themselves with basic information on the current events of the day.  And once upon a time, newspapers did just that.  Older journalists worked very hard to keep their personal opinions, emotions, feelings, and biases away from their job of reporting the news. 

Not anymore.  Now newspaper reporters publicly celebrate their biases – flaunt them – and, as a result, journalism as a career is on life support. 

Readers today expect reportage to be grossly untrue and biased and they are guided accordingly.  More and more, newspapers bore voters.  Most voters can tell you today how the newspapers will report on each and every debate next year between Donald Trump and whoever the Democrat candidate is.  You could place a bet on it if anyone would take a bet on it but nobody will because everybody knows.  So very predictable.

What happened to intellectual curiosity?  Back during the day before yesterday, a reporter approached a story with an open, interested mind – excited by the prospects of where the story might take it.  Not today.  Now it is “time to make the donuts” – the work of drudgery – a fine cabinetmaker reduced to nailing together crates.  Reporters have everything arranged in advance.  The story is written before they write it.  There are those with the white hats and them with the black – with 95 percent of the story slanted against the designated “baddies” and praising the “goodies” – and 5 percent reserved for a “response” from the “baddies” (which, in the course of a conversation with the reporter, is often turned into the worst bit).  Journalism today is like writing while sleepwalking.  A fiction produced through automatic writing.   

Many reporters – the Star-Ledger’s Jonathan Salant comes to mind – cannot get their brains out of their comfortable suburban surroundings, the cozy press club, the shared prejudices and opinions.  Never meeting another soul who is unlike them, they cannot imagine any way but their own.  A machine stuck at one speed, one function, doing the same thing, grinding on until it burns out. 

Then there are the activists.  These are the so-called journalists who think it cool to show that they are compromised from the start, their minds made up.  The Star-Ledger’s Tom Moran laid in out last year when he wrote:  “Voters will be standing in the booth Tuesday, and our core mission is helping them decide which lever to pull.”  Sounds more like the “core mission” of a political operation than of journalism.

Of course, there still are some genuine journalists out there.  A month before Moran wrote that stunning admission, the Atlantic City Press published an editorial which included these reassuring lines:  “Telling readers how to vote, however, is contrary to the mission of newspapers and other media, which is to extend the public’s experience and perspectives.  Newsgathering organizations give the public eyes, ears and memory beyond the capability of an individual.  

People want them to be reliable and credible.  When the media start making judgments, their audiences wonder if they’re altering their content to support that judgment too.”

Arco.png

Which brings us to Matt Arco of… you guessed it, the Star-Ledger.  Why is Matt Arco number 34 on a list of 100 “LGBT Power” brokers?  Why is that kind of self-defining celebrity necessary for a journalist?  We thought he was covering the news, and here he is a power broker making the news.  What is a journalist doing cheek-by-jowl on a list of politicians, lobbyists, and political operatives?  

And why is he described as a “voice” when he should be a conduit of information, which is the heart and soul of journalism.  Is anyone really looking for another celebrity “voice” shouting to be heard, telling us their feelings, thoughts, opinions – or do we want to be informed about what’s really going on?  The title “political reporter” shouldn’t be meant literally. 

How can a journalist who allows himself to be placed on a celebrity “power” list be taken seriously?  As one of the top named members of a political identity group, how can we expect Matt Arco to fairly and honestly cover stories concerning religious groups with theological traditions that don’t line up with the policy agenda of his political identity group?  Groups such as Biblical Christians, Torah Jews, and adherent Muslims. 

How can Matt Arco be expected to fairly and honestly cover a candidate or  political organization whose positions or platform is not in agreement with the positions and platform of his political identity group – of which he is the 34th most powerful operative in the state?  Having Matt Arco cover the Republican Party is like sending Ann Coulter to cover the Democrats.  It’s not fair or honest.

LGBT.png

State Democrats huddle over Sanctuary… decide to attack Christian clergy

An old trial lawyer once asked, “What is the single most important thing in a trial?  Answer: A sympathetic victim.” 

Whatever you think about the “re-tweets” concerning Congresswoman Omar or Tliab or A.O.C. or even about Sharia Law… there is a real dearth of sympathetic “victims” to this saga.  That, coupled with two facts, suggests what is happening has nothing to do with the pretense of outrage by some Democrats.    

First, the Democrats neglected to even file candidates for Sussex County Freeholder this year.  Yes, the Republicans are running unopposed.

Second, Donald Trump has actually said and tweeted (original content) far worse than anything Jerry Scanlan has been accused of “re-tweeting” and… wait for it… does anyone, in their wildest imaginings, believe that Donald Trump will not carry Sussex County by 60 percent or more?  So… the point of this exercise is…??? 

Yes, it becomes obvious that the intensive efforts by state Democrats in Sussex County are about something else.  That something else is Governor Phil Murphy’s illegal Sanctuary scheme. 

Over the weekend, top Democrats from around the state huddled in an effort to try to get their Sanctuary State scheme back on track.  As we begin to count the first victims of Murphy’s scheme (literally, the body count has begun) and he gets push back from the media, from individual towns and counties, even from elected Democrats – the Murphy team is getting worried.  And it’s not just their failing Sanctuary scheme they need to be worried about.  Murphy and the Democrats are suppressing victims in a rape case – no, not “tweets” or “re-tweets” but violent, sexual assault, which (unless you are a Murphy Democrat), is one hell of a lot more egregious than a “re-tweet” or even… a “tweet”.  Rape trumps Tweet.  Always.

Then there is the Democrats’ attack on a Disabled American Veteran, their embrace of a group designed a “terrorist organization” by one of America’s best Islamic allies in the middle east, the Rain Tax, the cuts in funding for kids’ education, their economic failures… jobs, spending, infrastructure, debt… Murphy and his merry crew are a pack of fools. 

And now it is going to get worse.  What they discussed and decided to do (all of them, the group of them, for which they should be held to account individually and collectively) is to put the New Jersey Democratic Party on record as opposed to the Christian faith because it is “not LGBTQ… enough”.  No kidding.

That was the outcome of all that huddling.  Desperate to change the focus from their illegal Sanctuary debacle, they came up with this.  Maybe the heat got to them? 

Just wait until State Democratic Chairman John Currie starts fielding questions from outraged clergymen in his community.  We would love to be in on those calls… and we just might be.

The summer keeps getting better and better!

Yes Alan Steinberg, once upon a time America did send people “back to where they came from”

What is a “Congresswoman of color”?  How does she differ from a plain old “Congresswoman”?  Are the duties, rights, and responsibilities different?

Terms like “Congresswoman of color” are generally used by people who come from mono-chromatic worlds – whether that world is an all Somali-neighborhood in Minnesota or a Palestinian enclave in Michigan.  You can tell such places by the flags they fly.  If a neighborhood flies a flag other than the American flag it’s a good chance you have wandered into a mono-chromatic world.

See, Americans are a mixed people.  Ethnically and racially – as was often pointed out by the great Harlem Renaissance poet Jean Toomer.  A Quaker, Toomer knew that Americans were a “people of the word” – what sets us apart are the words in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  Our freedoms make us who we are.  After spending many years traveling, Toomer lived and mentored in Doylestown, Bucks County, where he died in 1967. 

Those who think in terms of “people of color” and who are obsessed by the tint of one’s skin are almost always themselves racialists.  Wikipedia notes that “Racialism is the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races, that are ostensibly distinct biological categories.”

The philosopher W.E.B. DuBois argued that racialism was merely the philosophical position that races existed, and that collective differences existed among such categories.  DuBois held that racialism was a value-neutral term and differed from racism in that the latter required advancing the argument that one race is superior to other races of human beings.

Of course, science has largely erased such arguments.  Aside from some genetic correlations in the incidence of diseases in this subset or that, the idea of “racial identity” that is forced down every American child’s throat, that haunts our society in everything from census forms to employment applications, is entirely a political construct.  The American idea of “race” is nonsense and calling people “racist” is a nonsense game.  The actor Morgan Freeman got it right…

Enter Alan Steinberg, house “Republican” for a far-Left insider blog financed by some rather unsavory government vendors.  Steinberg longs for the days when the NJGOP was run by rich, so called “blue-bloods” (a mixed caste that claimed it could trace some measure of its history back to America’s colonial masters).  Unfortunately for Steinberg, all the rich “blue-bloods” are today Democrats, which is why Steinberg is such a decidedly anti-Republican “Republican”.  Like the writer Stefan Zweig, he longs for a lost monarchy, his queen, in exile. 

Alan Steinberg is a racialist.  He embraces the concept of race as central to our political, academic, economic, and cultural discourse in America.  He wants to elevate it to the center of all things, a thing that does not exist.  In some ways, Steinberg is like Donald Trump, who is also a racialist, albeit a tongue-in-cheek one.  Who can take half of what he tweets seriously?  How much of it is designed to arouse – like the comedic entertainer – simply for the pleasure of it.  Steinberg however, is very serious.  He applies heavy meaning to his racialism.

So do his allies in the Democrat Party.  As do those radical Democrats he claims he doesn’t like – Ms. A.O.C. and her posse.  They are racialists all. 

Alan Steinberg is deeply troubled by President Trump’s most recent taunt to Congresswoman A.O.C. and her… wait for it… fellow congresswomen of color, that they “go back to where you came from”.  Of course, they all came from here, from the America of made-up racial and ethnic “identities”.  All from mono-chromatic worlds.  Fake worlds, with flags from other places that are meant to impart some sense of false nationality, irrelevant to the place in which they actually live.  But fly them they do, in these make-pretend “colonies” that unwind and break-up as those within them meet, fall-in-love with, and are absorbed by the real place, by the nation that is, by America.

But as Steinberg fumes and pouts, it is funny to remember that – once upon a time – America really did send people “back where you came from”.  And for the most part, they could in no way be described as “people of color”.  Most of these people where Nazis, war criminals, and America was more than happy to use the words “go back to where you came from”.  Wikipedia notes:   

“According to a February 2, 2011 release from the United States Department of Justice, since 1979, the federal government has stripped 107 people of citizenship for alleged involvement in war crimes committed during World War II through the efforts of the Office of Special Investigations (OSI).  An unabridged 600-page Justice Department report obtained by The New York Times in 2010 stated, ‘More than 300 Nazi persecutors have been deported, stripped of citizenship or blocked from entering the United States since the creation of the O.S.I.’ The Los Angeles Times reported in 2008 that five such denaturalized men could not be deported as no country would accept them, and that four others had died while in the same situation.”

One wonders:  With Governor Murphy’s Sanctuary State directives and the unwillingness by many Democrats to in any way question an asylum seeker’s claims, how many sometime war criminals (or just plain violent criminals) will we be holding similar proceedings on some decades from now?  Stay tuned…

Some thoughts on the Long Peace (aka Pax Americana)

Every life lost, every casualty of war, is a personal tragedy for some family, its friends and neighbors.  Modern media – with its emphasis on “human interest” stories has tended to magnify these personal tragedies, turning them into national tragedies as well. 

This November, the first children born after the attacks on September 11, 2001, will be coming out to vote.  They who were not present for that seminal event are now coming into the bloodstream of the body politic.  

The question is:  Can we really judge what national tragedy is anymore?  Our perceptions have changed.  In a world of “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” what measurements do we use to make that judgement? 

Establishment media now uses histrionics and superlatives to describe most every person and event.  “Donald Trump is a Nazi” is among the most frequent.  But if we place what we call tragedy into the longer context of history, perhaps we will learn to temper our use of superlatives?

Below is a very straightforward video on the on-going tragedy of war that serves to place the violence of the last century into some context.  It will also serve a self-congratulatory role for those of us who are happy to call ourselves Americans – citizens of the great Republic that has provided for the world this “Long Peace” that is another name for Pax Americana.  We will let Wikipedia explain…

Pax Americana (Latin for "American Peace", modeled after Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, and Pax Mongolica) is a term applied to the concept of relative peace in the Western Hemisphere and later the world beginning around the middle of the 20th century, thought to be caused by the preponderance of power enjoyed by the United States.

Pax Americana is primarily used in its modern connotations to refer to the peace among great powers established after the end of World War II in 1945, also called the Long Peace. In this modern sense, it has come to indicate the military and economic position of the United States in relation to other nations. For example, the Marshall Plan, which spent $13 billion to rebuild the economy of Western Europe, has been seen as "the launching of the Pax Americana".

The Latin term derives from Pax Romana of the Roman Empire. The term is most notably associated with Pax Britannica (1815–1914) under the British Empire, which served as the global hegemon and constabulary from the late 18th century until the early 20th century.

Happy Independence Day all you Americans out there… take a moment to pat yourselves on the back.  Pax Americana… the world owes our Republic a debt for the Long Peace.