Richard Spencer Wins Again

To My Black Brothers

Actually, I'm white, but I still consider us brothers.  And, brother-to-brother, I have a suggestion.  If you're going to protest, understand clearly what you're protesting about.  If you want to sit, or kneel, while the American anthem is being played go to it.  But do it for a reason.

Americans have protested things in the past.  There were the WW I vets who came home and found no jobs or support of any kind.  There were the the Vietnam War protests.  Cassius Clay, later Mohammad Ali, protested.  He wouldn't allow himself to be inducted into the army.  He suffered for that.  But he was right.  We should never have been in Vietnam.  It was a French problem; never an American problem.  (It's often overlooked, but it was the ever popular JFK, who put us squarely into that mess.)  Almost any form of protest against the Vietnam War was legitimate except one; namely, Jane Fonda seated behind a Vietnamese antiaircraft gun and aiming the gun into the sky in a mock act of shooting down American pilots.

So what are you black athletes and your brothers protesting?  Slavery?  Slavery is a terrible, unconscionable condition.  But it wasn't invented in the U.S.  It existed globally before the creation of America -- before our independence from the British.  Over the years, four million, or thereabouts, of our brothers were shipped from Africa to Brazil, three million were distributed among various colonies in the Caribbean, and one million to the British colony that was later to became the U.S.  Regrettably, the U.S. didn't end the practice of slavery until Lincoln became president.  Getting rid of slavery was a tough job.  Lots of whites died.  Blacks too.

But, where did the slaves come from?  Africa?  Sure, but where in Africa?  We can use place names like the Congo, or Nigeria, but these were names given to different areas in Africa by the white colonists.  Who exactly gathered up these black folks and marched them to the slavers whose ships were parked on Africa's west cost.  Mostly they were sold by tribes who didn't get along with their neighbors or simply felt that they could make some easy money rounding up their weaker neighbors and selling them to the Europeans waiting at their ships.  These Europeans ships flew the flags of Britain, Holland, Spain, France, and America.  No doubt there were others.

Okay, we got rid of slavery.  But we didn't  alter the thinking of a great number of white people.  They went on to create a situation known as Jim Crow.  Special water fountains for blacks, no sitting at lunch counters where whites were served, seating at the back of the bus for blacks, lynchings, and other horrific abuses.  It took a while to get rid of Jim Crow, but through legislation and the will of good men, Jim Crow was ended.

As to present day bigotry and racism, that's a more difficult thing to end.  Here I would say two things.  First, most immigrants have gone through some of this -- wrong, though it may be.  Italians know what it is to be called a wop and a guinea.  The Irish were micks, The Poles, pollacks, and the Jews, keiks.

But, that was essentially yesterday.  Amos and Andy (whites in black face) gave way to the Jeffersons, to Dr. Huxtable, and to Sanford and Son.  Shows like, "All In The Family," helped raise the pride of blacks.  The movie industry did its part too.

So what are we protesting bro?  Police brutality?  Some, most assuredly exists.  But, most is a put-up job.  Let's start with Ferguson.  Where to begin?  Some poor cop trying to do his job.  A six foot something, 265 lb black thug who felt he was entitled to take whatever he wanted from local merchants without paying.  But that's not why he was killed.  Punching the cop through his open, squad car window, reaching for the cop's gun, and then, on the street, with lowered head, rushing the cop.  That is what caused the cop to fire.  And those actions, despite a witness who plagiarized herself, were the facts that led to Michael Brown's death.

Was the cop rewarded for doing what had to be done?  Was Michael Brown recognized for the thug that he was?  No.  Reverend Al Sharpton to the rescue.  Michael Brown became a fallen hero of the movement, "Black Lives Matter."  It was a movement that  raised the fortunes of Michael Brown's family to heights they had never imagined.

There are causes that deserve support from all Americans, but Sharpton's "Black Lives Matter" is not one of them.  Does no one remember the Tawana Brawley affair?  What about his stoking up the Crown Heights neighborhood.  That riot ended in the murder of a Yeshiva student.  Mr. Smith, a follower of Sharpton's, set a clothing store on fire.  The fire killed 8 people.

Do my black brothers, the players on national football teams, want to disrespect the American flag for the likes of the Reverend Al Sharpton?  Is that their cause?  It's hard for me to believe.

Trump Should Condemn White Supremists -- Really!

As reported in the NY Times on 9/13/17,  Congress just passed a bill instructing Trump to condemn white supremacists!  Add to that,  racists, anti-Semites and the Ku Klux Klan.  But what about Antifas and nuts on the left?

Do our legislators in Congress really think that a bill like this will finally get their reputation out of the toilet?  Their bill is so obviously demagogic.  And, these people we have elected don't seem to see that.  Why didn't they add to their list of people the president should condemn pedophiles, mass murderers and Islamic terrorists?  And, what about nations that imprison reporters, and torture them, and, indeed, kill them.  Why stop with white supremacists?

I think one must be pretty warped to identify with the white supremacy movement.  But, if one were a white supremacist, I believe such a person would be really impressed and flattered to find that he and his ilk had come this far in America - - - that his group had caused Congress to feel the need to pass a bill telling the president, what we already know; namely, that he, along with a vast majority of the American people,  despise and condemn white supremacists and other hate groups.  Passing such a bill puts white supremacists clearly on the map.  Is this what Congress wants to do  . . . . to make them so very much more important than they actually are?

Countries everywhere have haters.  Sometimes they become a threat.  Sometimes not.  I don't see them growing in numbers in our country.  Indeed, as it now stands, I believe they are quite inconsequential.  But, they certainly do know how to get attention and generate publicity.  And, in this, the Congress is being most useful.

But Congress, as I see it, doesn't care if they boost the importance of the white supremacists.  Their only interest is to diminish Trump.  From Liberals, I would expect no less.  But what are the Republicans doing joining them in their effort to besmirch Trump?  Shame on them.  Thank goodness we now have a president with the stamina to rise above  party politics.

If the  Congress wants to do something, why don't they sign a tax bill?   Why don't they pass a bill straightening out our immigration system?  There are so many other things that the Congress needs to be doing.  Is white supremacy the only thing these jokers can focus on?  

Jews The I-O-people

The "I-O" in I-O-people refers to people who are both insiders and outsiders.  They're insiders in the sense that they are part of the society in which they find themselves.  During WW I, German Jews fought for the Kaiser.  They contributed to the German chemical industry.  As French citizens, they also fought for their country.  Ditto, the English Jews, the Russian Jews, American Jews and so on.  They added to their country's literature, sport, justice system and industry.

And, yet they were most often also outsiders.  Consider the Dreyfus Affair and the treatment he received at the hands of the French military.  In so many countries, despite their contributions to the advancement of those countries, they were treated like lepers.  This can, perhaps, be chalked up to anti-Semitism; an example of the dislike for the other.

Is there a possibility that there is something about Jews that makes them subject to such treatment.  What makes Jews different.  Even in America, where Jews play important roles in all walks of life, is there anything inherently different about them.  Yes, of course.  They are Jews.  They may be Orthodox or they may be reform, but they're still Jews.  They are a people with a unique history.  Hebrew, like Latin, was once considered a dead language.  With the advent of Israel, that is no longer so.  It has come back to life and now flowers.  As for Latin, it remains a building block for a great number of languages, but it's still dead.

Jews may dismiss their religion.  Repairing the world has become for some their prime directive.  But, they're still Jews.  Distancing themselves from their religion may seem simple.  But is it?   Does atheism provide the same rich texture to one's life?  Judaism my not seem perfect.  It's got any number of imperfections.  These however fade to insignificance when it's held against the world's other religions.  A rabbi might easily find himself humming "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas"  at yule time.  But, he's still a rabbi -- anyway, the song was written by a Jew.  For better or worse,  Jews, though they may be "insiders" to the culture in which they find themselves, will also always be "outsiders."

Why I like Trump

When Eisenhower ran for the presidency, the Republican slogan was "I Like Ike."  What exactly did that mean? That he had an avuncular demeanor?  Is that what made him a fine president?  What makes for a superior president?  In Ike's case we must point to him having been a really fine commander  leading the allies in WW II.  But that achievement wasn't a presidential achievement.

 Ike wasn't a traditional Republican.  No eye brows would have been raised if he had run as a Democrat.

He did have a talent for deflecting political pressure on matters wth which he disagreed.  In the face of mounting pressure to enter into war with Vietnam, he found a way of keeping out of that war. When pressure mounted for him to pick up from the French their military struggle in Vietnam, his decision was to send American forces; but not as combatants.  Instead, he sent them as observers.  He had no particular affection for the State of Israel.  That was regrettable.  But, in his behalf, his avoidance of getting into Vietnam showed great wisdom.

JFK succumbed to the voices that would have us enter Vietnam.  He turned U.S. military observers into full fledged combatants.  This was a tremendous mistake for which he still hasn't been called to account.  (See David Halberstam's "The Best And The Brightest.")

Why regurgitate these bits of history?  Because we need some sort of yardstick if we're going to pass judgement on Trump's presidency.  The first thing to note is that Trump arrived at the presidency from a background that wasn't the usual background for an American president.  JFK, Nixon, LBJ, Bush H and W, Obama, all had a background in government.  For some it was deeper than for others.  But all had people that knew the Washington ropes and whose loyalty had been tested.

When you set out to clean the swamp, you won't find many ready and able to help you.  Trump hasn't found it easy, but he's still working on it and I give him a lot of credit for that.

Damning Trump As A Racist Or As An Anti-Semite Damns Me

Are there anti-Semites?  Of course, it seems they will never go away.  The same goes for racists.  But, it's nothing like it was in the days of Arthur Godfrey.  Hotels no longer exclude Jews, or for that matter African-Americans.  Thank goodness.

But, David Duke and proponents of Nazism remind us that the virus is never entirely wiped out.  So how are we to deal with it?  Can we end hate speech by prohibiting it?  Experience tells us no.
To end the virus of religious hatred, of race hatred, we must offer lessons of tolerance.  And, I submit that in many ways Americans have been doing exactly that.

However there are times when we relapse.  When does that happen?  When people express themselves through violence.  In matters large and small, violence sets us back.  Whether it is Crown Heights or Ferguson, the lessons of tolerance find themselves under attack.  Remove the violence and you can begin to make progress.  Skokie is an excellent example of that.

And now we come to Charlottesville where violence rose to the level of murder by an unhinged racist.  Some time earlier, the attack on Republican Congressmen playing ball in a park in Washington DC resulted in extremely serious injures to a number of the Republicans and their two guards.  But the outrage over this incident died down rather quickly.

It must be said; the media makes a far bigger noise reporting on violence by crazies on the right than they do when it's the left that acts violently.  Remember the Trump rallies, back when Trump was running for the presidency?  Remember, seeing on TV, members of the left attacking, with their sticks, cans, and pepper spray, Republican  families lined up for Trump rallies.  The media treated it as not much of a big deal.  But show a protestor being led out the door, and the press will cry out how the protestor was manhandled.

The Right has their bully boys.  But so do the Liberals.  You hear of the Nazis and the skin heads, but you hear very little of the Antifas, those who use violence to suppress the voice on the Right.  (Antifas is a relatively new term used to describe those who present themselves as people who are against fascists.  Get it?   Antifas . . . . anti-fascists . . . . )  Why the fancy name?  Why not simply refer to these ruffians as "violent liberals."  It's like referring to Islamic terrorism as simply "terrorism."  Abstract terrorism seems far more attractive to the politically correct than the more honest label; namely, Islamic terrorism.

This is not to say that all liberals engage in strong-arm methods.  And, for that matter, neither do all people on the right, even those on the far right, engage in violent confrontations.  And that was the situation in Charlottesville.  We all know about the deranged right-wing driver who killed a woman protestor against the statues of southern generals.   But we hear almost nothing of the behavior of the violent leftists.

Trump spoke against the fascist demonstrators, as well as against the racists.  But he also noted the presence of violent people on the left; namely, the antifas people.  For this he was pilloried in the press.  The police, often targets of violent liberals, were keenly aware of who was attacking them.  They may well have included white supremacists.  But, it also included violent liberals.  It was, of course, politically incorrect to point this out.  When Trump did so, the press piled on.  He was called a racist and an anti-Semite.

The media will play their game, but I stand with the truth.  I stand with Trump.

Slavery: Not Made In The USA

Slavery is and has always been a horror.  And, it was so in America.  Indeed, it afflicted North America even before it's independence from England.  And, like any disease, to understand it requires an understanding of how it began in North America.

Based on my readings, there were three migrations of slaves to North America.  The first involved Africans who had been in Spain, Portugal and other European countries.  No one took any special note of them as they were treated pretty much as indentured servants.  This was also the condition of many of the white Europeans who came to this country.

The second migration of Africans was from the Chesapeake area to the farms, where slaves were used in raising tobacco and other crops.  In the third major migration, the slaves were moved to the south where a major crop was cotton..

The sequence of African migrations is interesting because the first of the migrations was of Africans who came here not in slave ships, but as merchandise that called for some care -- not much care, but some.  These slaves were not locked in the wretched holds of slave ships as were the Africans that followed.  Also, these early slaves had some knowledge of Europeans and in most cases spoke in one of the European languages.  Their servitude was not very different from that of the many indentured Europeans.  Upon arriving in America, they were able to adapt to local conditions.

Later Africans to arrive to these shores found themselves in very different circumstances.  These later arrivals entered by why of the Chesapeake docks.  They were put to work harvesting tobacco and growing rice.  The last migrations of African to America was the one most noted; namely, shipping the slaves further south and west to tend the cotton fields.

From a presentation in the Ellis Island Museum (If course, slaves did not come through Ellis Island.  The following figures came from a poster board presentation on exhibit there.)  Half of all Africans sent to the new world were sent to Brazil.  They numbered roughly 4 million.  Roughly three million enslaved Africans were distributed among French, Spanish, and English islands in the Caribbean.  About one million were sent to America.

In America, as we well know, slaves were eventually freed under the Emancipation Proclamation issued by Abraham Lincoln, January 1, 1863, following a horrible Civil War.  Slavery in Brazil continued until May 13, 1888, 25 years after it ended in America.  In the British islands in the Caribbean it ended in 1833.  In that year slavery was ended in all British territories except those under the authority of the British India Company.  There it ended 10 years later.

The misery for Africans sold into slavery did not begin on the west African docks were they were loaded into slave ships.  It began when a weaker tribe was captured by a stronger tribe, often in Africa's interior and marched to the coast were they were sold to owners of the slave ships.  The march was brutal and many died along the way.

But as we know, the freeing of Africans in America did not return to them their human dignity nor place in their hands the rights due all Americans.  Rather it was followed by a period referred to as Jim Crow that lasted around 90 years and was more onerous in southern parts of America than in the north.  But, generally, bigotry and racism could easily be found to a greater, or lesser extent, all over America.  Voting restrictions, rights to an equal education and other privileges enjoyed by whites followed slowly.

How are we to judges America's race relations compared to that of other countries?  What other country in this hemisphere has had a black leader. other than Haiti? That is not, of course, the ultimate yardstick by which to judge a nation's race relations.  There are other features that could be used as yard sticks.  America could do better; but frankly, in my opinion, we've done pretty well.  Even in a country like Haiti, largely devoid of whites, a light skin is favored.  The debate goes on.

U.S. Press Colludes With David Duke

During the presidential campaign, what was the story line of the American liberal press?  Trump was a bully, Trump shot from the hip, Trump was a know-nothing, Trump supporters were goons, and on, and on in that vein.

At Trump rallies, prior to his election, TV cameras couldn't avoid showing violent confrontations between Trump supporters and the liberal haters of Trump.  But what they deemphasized, as best they could, was the pepper spraying and assaulting of the Trump followers by the anti-Trump ruffians.    The Trump supporters often came to these rallies with their families and young children.  They were defenseless against the frequent assaults by the liberal bullies.  (If you followed the campaign, you could not have missed these violent confrontations.)  Did you ever hear the press condemn these assaults on Trump supporters?  I didn't.  What the press kept telling us was that Trump was divisive and that confrontations seemed to  follow him wherever he went.

The drumbeat of charges that Trump was a bigot and a racist continued unabated.  And then came Charlottesville.  Initiated by black movements, the demonstrations included white liberals, calling for the removal of statues of Robert E. Lee.  Had that been the extent of it, there would have been no problem.  These statues of leading Confederate figures on public lands and on, and about, college campuses, were an issue well worth debate.  Such debate should then have been followed by such action as determined to be appropriate.

But, it didn't work out that way.  Instead there were demonstrations lasting into the night.  (A night-time demonstrations is especially difficult to control.)  And as they viewed the unfolding events, David Duke realized that for him, for the KKK and their racist followers, here was a situation tailor made for them.  It would give them space in the media to spew they noxious hatred of blacks and Jews.

The media loved it.  They had long charged Trump with racist tendencies as well as bigotry.  They regretted, however,  never having had the slightest bit of evidence.  But, now, here was David Duke making their case.  Trump was championing the KKK.

It was, of course, all nonsense.  Trump had come out immediately, at the time of the riot, as denouncing the racist and bigoted gangs that had set upon the demonstrators.  However, from reports he had gotten of the riot, he was also aware that among the demonstrators that night were liberal hooligans with clubs that attacked not only the followers of David Duke, but also law abiding, conservative whites who felt that the willy nilly removal of statues of Confederate leaders like Lee was wrong.

Let me be clear.  I am in favor of removing these statues from the public eye.  I know a bit of history and I realize that Germany had some very effective generals.  I'm thinking of Rommel, the desert fox, who fought valiantly in behalf of his country.  But, would I like to see Germany put up a statue in his honor?  Definitely not.  The country for which Rommel fought so valiantly was dedicated to the destruction of 6 million Jews.

I see statues of Lee in the same light.  A man dedicated to the preservation of slavery deserves no public honor.  He might have been a good general but he clearly was limited in his understanding of what was right and wrong.

But, how do we relate this to Charlottesville, VA?  Protests are a valid form of expression, but it must be kept from running amok.  Night time demonstrations are especially problematic.  Actions should be preceded by discussion and debate.  It is the duty of public officials to establish a suitable forum.

Yes, I believe that statues of Robert E. Lee should have been removed, but not by an unruly mob acting without the scintilla of due process.  And, yes, David Duke was there with his bully boys and Nazi acolytes.   But, present also at Charlottesville were liberal goons eager to give the conservatives a good thrashing.

It was a situation created for David Duke.  The press loved it.  The could now tie Trump to Duke.  I don't buy that connection, but many people will.  Mark it down as a win for the press.

What's China's Need For A Buffer State?

Common wisdom holds that China should be expected to assist America in bringing to heel a rambunctious and militaristic North Korea.  Trouble on their border, everyone understood, wouldn't serve China well.

But, generally, no asks why China needs a buffer state in the first place?  If it doesn't want Chinese leaving China without approval, or if it doesn't want outsiders coming into China without Chinese approval, wouldn't a fence serve just as well.  It seems to work pretty well for Israel.  And, of course, it's what Trump is planning to build for America.  Does China really need a nation on its border that treats its citizens like so many serfs laboring to buff the image of its fat, little, child-like leader; a leader that thinks nothing of using an artillery weapon to murder his uncle and others among his circle of friends?

After losing it's union of nations, Russia now finds itself surrounded by nations like Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, etc.  It's relationships with these countries are as good or as bad as Russia chooses to make them.  The only real problem for Russia is that it has aspirations of empire.  It's really a sorry country; huge in land mass, but with a population inadequate for its size.  It's love for a centrally controlled economy dooms it to industrial inefficiency and kleptocracy.  It's main export is oil and gas.  Indeed, energy exports are it's only real ace-in-the-hole.  That, and its propensity for making trouble for its neighbors, e.g. Georgia, Crimea and the Ukraine.

But what's with China?  They have a substantial land mass.  They've got a sizable population.  Their most peaceful border seems to be with Russia.  (I guess the two are fairly well matched.)  But China can't seem to make peace with India.  Mianmar, Laos, and Vietnam are too small and underdeveloped to give China any sort of trouble.  And, yet even with it's small and scrawny neighbors to the south China can't seem to live in peace.

What is China thinking when it declares that the entire China Sea belongs to it and it alone.  Little, uninhabited islands that have been acknowledged for the longest time as belonging to Thailand, the Vietnamese and the Philippines, along with China, are all claimed by China.  They have taken  uninhabited islands and have built them up to accommodate military bases.  Further, they have denied fishing rights to the nations that have exercised such rights for generations.  If China were to attempt to restrict free movement through the China sea it would mean war.  What is China's problem?

I guess my problem is that I'm an American.  I see a peaceful neighbor to the north.  To the south there are problems; two in particular.  It seems to be our border with Mexico across which most narcotics flow into America.  Second, it is this border across which millions of migrants have flowed with absolutely no control on the part of our government.  Hopefully, these problems with Mexico can ultimately be resolved by better policing.  It hardly seems something that requires aircraft carriers or atomic weapons.

Our real problem is with China rather then North Korea.

The War Against Israel -- It Never Ends

The establishment of the State of Israel was for the Arabs a Nakba (a disaster).  For them it was totally unacceptable for a Jewish state to be established on land they had always viewed as Islamic.  Three grueling wars later, Israel still stood.  More than that, Israel now controlled more land than it had before Egypt, Jordan and Syria had attacked it.

Egypt realized that further attacks on Israel would exact heavy costs and had little chance of success, Egypt's Sadat decided to make peace.   He was rewarded for this by being assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic association of like-minded Muslims for  whom any relationship with Israel was intolerable

Then there emerged a real scalawag, the notorious Arafat.  This self-proclaimed leader of the Palestinian people, talked peace, peace, peace as he launching intifada after intifada.  He deluded the west with his constant talk of peace.  Had the west paid even the slightest attention to what he said to his fellow Arabs in Arabic, they'd have known better.  He turned down one peace offer from Israel after the other.  Truth be told, if he had made peace with Israel, he might well have shared Sadat's fate.  In any event, his leadership role suited him nicely.  When he died, the world marveled at how much wealth he had been able to tuck away in his various Swiss bank accounts.

Abbas is much the same as Arafat.  His problem is that he doesn't have Arafat's charisma and the mideast has changed.  It's now Saudi Arabia against Iran and America, as well as Israel, sides with the Saudis.   Israel's support in this conflict means far more to the Saudis than the Palestinian cause.


One other development deserves mention; namely, the visit of the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi to Israel.  Why?  Because when India first emerged from British colonialism, they leaned toward socialism and the Russian model.  Also, they were greatly supportive of the Palestinian cause.
Now, that's all changed.  Modi's trip to Israel was the first trip to Israel by an Indian prime minister.  Not only did Modi visit Jerusalem, he returned to India without bothering to stop in Ramallah and say hello to Abbas.

The Arabs and Saudis in particular noticed one more thing.   Besides visiting Israel, Modi oversaw the signing of huge military contacts as well technology contracts covering water purification, agricultural development and other areas of technological development.  The Palestinians had nothing comparable to offer.  And, for that matter, neither does any other Islamic nation.

This being as it is, how can Islamists and anti-Semites be waging a war of any significance against Israel?  The key for them is to use other countries with an affinity to the Islamic culture plus convenient idiots.  Let's first address countries with an infinity to the Islamic culture.  That would, of course, include Muslim nations stretching from Morocco to Indonesia.  They share with the Palestinians the same feelings of Islamic triumphalism.  These countries still have laws against blasphemy on their books.  They persecute homosexuals.  And, all are strongly influenced by sharia.  Consequently, they have a strong bias against Israel.  In forums, such as the UN, they vote as a block against Israel and make ridiculous pronouncements, such as that the Temple in Jerusalem is not holy to Jews,  or that Hebron, where Abraham, the first Jew,  and his wife Sarah are buried, is Islamic.  This, despite the fact that Islam was not even a religion at the time of Abraham and Sarah.  Islam would not be a religion until it was established in Arabia by Muhammed  hundreds of years later.

As to the "useful idiots," that was a phrase coined by Lenin to describe liberals in America who aided the stultifying communist cause.  Today we see campus liberals decrying Israel as an apartheid nation when upon examination, Israel in no way fits this term.  But, their propaganda is fierce.  We actually have a Palestinian-Syrian woman who opened a bakery in Oakland California decorated with a wall-size mural of Rasmea Odeh.  Odeh is the lady who was released from a life-sentence in Israel for murdering two university students, Edward Joffe and Leon Kamen.  Her release resulted from a prisoner exchange.  And, this is who this bakery proprietor honors!

Enjoy your mid eastern pastery.

Is It Me, Or Has The Western World Gone Nuts?

Consider The Slut Walk.  It's a parade, a demonstration, if you will, of women parading in sexually provocative dress.  The idea, if I understand it correctly, is that what a woman looks like should make no difference in how men, and, perhaps, people in general, respond to a woman's dress.  It should most certainly give men no idea that it's okay to rape them.

But, it also seems like people demonstrating for one cause often feel strongly about other causes.  Women who demonstrate for Black Lives Matter will often demonstrate against homophobia, or Islamophobia.  And, women, who are found to be on a Slut Walk, may have a love for Israel.

But, here's what happened in Chicago on a Slut Walk.  Women were told they could not carry LGBT flags with a Star of David superimposed on it.  And, why not?  Because, they were told that Israel was a nation that Slut Walkers hated.  It was a country that mistreated Muslims in general and Palestinians in particular.

Really?  One is tempted to wish that such misguided demonstrators try organizing a Slut Walk in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or Jordan, or Indonesia, or the west bank, or any Muslim country.  It must be troubling to such Jew-haters that Israel is to be found among the nations that actually hold their own (believe it or not) Slut Walks.

Putin: The Puppet Master

Putin surveyed his opponents.  Clinton (Slick Willy) looked Teflon coated.  He could go to Moscow, have the Russians pay him a half a million for a 30-minute speech, yet stir up very little controversy.  He had the media in his hip pocket.  But, his two terms were up.  Putin would now face new American contenders.

Hillary at first glance seemed much the same as her husband.  She got America to slip him 20% of their uranium reserves via a Canadian cutout.  And, again, she managed  this with minimal hullabaloo in the American media.  But, Putin saw something ruthless in her manner and felt she might not be such a great president from a Russian point of view.  Reducing her chances for the presidency proved easy.  Her arrogance made her blind to Russian cyber capabilities.  She observed no caution and disregarded proper cyber practices leaving vulnerable her emails and her server.  For Putin she proved to be an easy mark.

With Obama, Putin could take a nap.  Obama was a nothing.  He led from behind in Libya.  He hobbled his military in Syria and Iraq.  He gave the store away to Iran.  Putin figured, let Obama do what Obama does best; namely, alienate his country's true allies and reward America's enemies.

Trump was a puzzle.  At first glance, Trump looked like some kind of nut.  The far left would have been best for him, thought Putin.  They would have hollowed out the US economically.  But, this weird new guy seemed to have managed to build an important following.  Who could guess that he would become the next president?  But, was he going to be good for Russia?  Trump's initial remarks suggested that he might work out fairly well for Russia.

But then things happened.  It was not what Trump said, but rather what happened in real time.  First there were the guys Trump picked to head the military.  Putin had a thick dossier on Gen. Mattis.  From a Russian point of view, it didn't read well.  Second, when Bashar Assad, the man Russia decided to make one of their own, dropped poison gas on his people, Trump's people fired rockets on the air field from which Assad had launched those attacks.  Trump had never mentioned "red lines," except in a nebulous sort of way.  But, here he was, pounding his Russian buddy's air field.  And, then when forces allied with Russia's moved eastward in a direction that would soon have them confronting American backed forces, Trump's planes blasted the crap out of Russia's friends.  It stopped them dead in their tracks.  It was becoming clear that this guy, Trump, was likely to become a much bigger headache than Putin had anticipated.  It was time to put some moves on Trump.

Lack of experience in the Trump political camp made this easier than it should have been.  Putin got one of his agents, a Russian lawyer admitted into the U.S. by the Obama administration, to set up a meeting with Bannon and the Trump kids.  The purpose of the meeting was to share some dirt with the Trump people about the Democrats.  Putin's agent had no intention of doing this.  The whole thing was set up simply to create bad optics for Trump.  Americans would now see Trump people colluding with the Russians.  It went off like clockwork.  The Democrats and their friends in the press jumped on this "nothing" meeting and worked it for all it was worth.

Putin's gambit worked.  But it would also show Trump a thing or two.  First, Steve Bannon was, supposedly, a professional political operative.  He should never have let this meeting happen.  Then there's Donald Trump Jr., who is clearly wet behind the ears.  Expressing his glee at the possibilities of getting dirt on the Democrats in an email was childish.  Kushner got roped into this nonsense too.  But, unlike the others, he quickly saw what was happening and promptly left.

To sum up -- and you won't hear it from either the Democrats nor from the Trump camp -- this was a learning experience for the Trump camp.  A painful one, but one that did it no real harm.  They'll learn.

Who's A Jew?

How to define a Jew?  I say that if it looks like a Jew, walks like a Jews, behaves like a Jew, and claims to be a Jew, it's a Jew.  But how does a Jew behave?  What does a Jew look like?

Theologically, a Jew is anyone with a Jewish mother.  Or, someone who's been converted to Judaism by an Orthodox rabbi.  Clearly that leaves out a whole lot of people who think they're Jewish and are accepted as Jewish by their community.  Clearly, Hitler had a more expansive picture as to who was a Jew.

The Orthodox claim they're being so persnickety, because otherwise the boundaries of Judaism and what truly constitutes Judaism would be lost.  What they don't understand is that for better or worse, they, the Orthodox, are in a poor position to lay claim to being the ultimate deciders as to is and who is not a Jew.

Let's look at a few items that would seem to tell who's Jewish and who isn't.  Can a Jew have more than one wife?  Roughly a thousand years ago. Rabbi Gershom banned the practice of polygamy.  Before that, it had been perfectly acceptable for a Jew to have more than one wife.  But then Gershom comes along and says, no.  It's not acceptable.  So is that Judaism?  Nothing more, nothing less than the opinion of a noted rabbi?  We should also point out that Rabbi Gershom's ban of polygamy applied only to Ashkenazi Jews.  Sephardic Jews continued to practice polygamy up until the State of Israel emerged.  But, again, it was not a theological decision, but rather a political one; a decision  that better resonated with modern ethics.

Then too there is the matter of Jewish prayer.  At the time of the Temple in Jerusalem, Jews showed their devotion to God by bringing sacrifices to the Temple.  They might bring a pidgin, or a lamb, or some barley.  What they brought depended on their wealth and their fervor.  Then came the  expulsion of Jews to Babylonia.  No more temple to which to bring sacrifices.  What to do?  They decided to substitute prayer for sacrifice.

A problem arose when King Cyrus ended their expulsion and allowed those who wished to return to Israel.  Those Jews who had avoided expulsion, the Sadducees, continued the practice of animal sacrifice.  The returnees from Babylonia, the Pharisees, showed their devotion through prayer.  The split between the Pharisees and the Sadducees ended with the final destruction of the Temple by the Romans.  No more Temple, no more sacrifices, no more Sadducees.

The point is that Judaism, is a religion that has evolved, as have so many other religions.  But some subdivisions try to keep to their peculiar beliefs.  An example that springs to mind are the Neturei Karta.  As they see it, there should be no State of Israel.  A Jewish nation should arise only upon the return of the Messiah.  He clearly hasn't returned and so Israel is something that shouldn't be.  Quite odd, but that's the way it goes in the land of Orthodoxy.

As to the Chief Rabbis of Israel, one Ashkenasie, the other Sephardic, they issue their that only the Haredi have any faith in.  The more secular Jews, the ones that do the heavy lifting, militarily, in order to protect their fellow Jews, find that their thoughts are never weighed by the poobahs in Jerusalem.

A New Vision Of America's Place Upsets Liberals

Most countries have some sort of self image; a conceptual identity of who they are, and where they're going.  It's an image of themselves that connects them to the world outside and how they fit into this world.  I dare say that America's self image has been changing, and not all Americans are comfortable with the change.  Indeed, it's at the heart of a great deal of political controversy we see evident in our politics.

Let's quickly review past self images.  In 1776, we started out as the new kid on the block.  To the Europeans, we were upstarts.  Indeed, we had a great deal to work out, i.e. states' rights, the need for a central bank, etc.  We were largely (80% of GDP) an agricultural nation, which made us somewhat different from Europe.  But we did have a society where the people wanted to do better, to get ahead.  And, where it didn't much matter who your parents were.  Okay, it's a pretty, broad brush description of who we were.  Like other plantation nations, e.g.  Brazil and Caribbean nations, we had slavery.  Also, the Protestants, didn't care much for Jews, and women couldn't vote.  But what we did have was a pretty good constitution and a background in law that was taken from Great Britain.

In this brief review, let us turn to "America's destiny."  It was an expansionist vision.  We were to become an American nation from sea to sea.  We then added Alaska through a purchase from the Russians.  Parts of the south were taken from Mexico.  Our borders with Canada became finalized.  Industrialization followed pretty much as it had in Europe.  Our advantage lay in our wealth of natural resources.  Oh, did I skip slavery?  Yep, we had a Civil War.  We weren't quite home yet.  Slavery ended, but was followed by Jim Crow.  We haven't yet solved all our racial problems, but we've gone a great distance and we've done a pretty good job of it.  It is, however, something we've got to keep working at.

Two world wars established the U.S. as a major force on the globe.  The Second World War, pretty much made our country the go-to country.  Our main competitor was the Soviet Union.  It was to be a contest between two economic models, communism and capitalism and capitalism won out.  With the Soviet Union's collapse the U.S. became the defender of all nations threatened by communism.  The results are clear.  Capitalism may be far from perfect, but communism is clearly a failure.  (Consider Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia.)  Things don't resolve themselves perfectly.  Russia is still one of our major opponents.  But, it's strength does not lie in its economy, but rather in it's possession of huge stores of oil and it's belligerent military posture.

China is a country we have yet to figure out.  It wants to enjoy the fruits of capitalism, but want to do this with a single-party political system.  Is this even possible?  No one really knows.

The U.S. finds itself in a number of quandaries.  Our earlier visions no longer seem to fit.  We find that in confronting Russia it becomes a matter of playing military chicken.  It may end quite badly.  In China, we have a country that has claimed an entire stretch of sea through which major shipping lanes travel.  How can such claims be accepted?

The U.S. must also fashion a policy to contain North Korea, a country whose only economic initiative seems to rely on developing intercontinental missiles.

Another challenge we face today is a religious one.  We pride ourself in extending to all religions freedom of expression.  But, Islam is something quite new; and something different from our previous experiences with religious beliefs.  Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Mormonism and even Scientology are belief systems with which we, as a country, have been able to co-exist.  We've  have had to accept some new ways of looking at these religions.  Catholics were once suspect because it was felt that their loyalty was divided between this country and the Vatican.  This matter was resolved with the election of JFK.  Then too, with new pope, the Vatican appeared ready to modify some of its beliefs.  Mormons were once hounded by fellow Americans.  That's changed and Mormons ended their practice of polygamy.

With Islam however we face something quite different.  One one hand, we find that 95, or maybe 98 percent, of Muslims fit right into the American way.  But, as with most religions, we find that the Muslims also have their orthodox followers, otherwise known as Salafists.  But with Muslims, this difference between fundamentalist views and more secular views has never been properly bridged.  Most Catholics accept the religious views expressed by the Vatican.  But generally they disregard those teachings with which they disagree.  Birth control and abortion are two issues that come to mind.  In Europe different branches of Protestantism once found themselves in fierce conflict with one another.   In America, however, each branch of Protestantism simply went its own way.  We see the same thing with the Jews and their Orthodox, and Conservative and Reform movements.

With Muslims we see something different.  In countries where Muslims are strongest, their national laws and practices generally favor their Muslim population over their other citizens.  That's quite different from nonIslamic nations.  Italy, for example, is generally seen as a Catholic nation.  And yet in Italy we find one of the strongest communist movements to be seen anywhere in Europe.

In Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example, we find strong antipathy to people, who, in the case of Iran, are Sunni and, in the case of Saudi Arabia, are not Sunnis.  In Pakistan, we find the national attitude toward those citizens who are not Sunni to be extremely hostile.  In Indonesia we find an Islamic nation where citizens can still be charged with blasphemy for speaking against the Quran.

In Europe, where there has been a large influx of Muslims, we see neighborhood acceding to Muslim demands for "modesty patrols."  And also find other major differences when viewing Muslims.  The fundamentalists have no hesitation to use muscle against their coreligionists, should they fail to accede to fundamentalist demands.  Forceful persuasion can not be easily applied where Muslims are relatively few in number.  But it can be carried out in communities where Muslims are concentrated.  This behavior is now challenging the American dream.  We have yet to respond.



  

Medical Care -- The Dems And the Republicans Both Have It Wrong

It's not that the Democrats want to provide health care for all and that the Republicans want to give tax breaks to the rich and deny health care to the poor.  Rather it is that American healthcare, which is several times more expensive than that of other counties such as Canada, Germany, and Great Britain, is entirely out of control.

Obama's health plan mislabeled the Affordable Health Care Act reduced the charges to people on Medicaid and raised it to most everyone else.  I can't read Obama's mind, but my guess is that as the huge costs of his plan became apparent those costs would be transferred the the government; in other words, to you and me through taxation.  It would become a national plan.

The Republican approach to health care pursues a different avenue.  They try to create a plan that falls within budgetary constraints.  These's only one problem.  It's impossible to devise such a plan where many of our poor would find themselves, either without coverage, or with inadequate coverage.

What neither party is willing to do is tackle the real problem; namely, the galloping increases in the cost of healthcare.  The Sage of Omaha himself, Warren Buffett, pointed out that that in most areas we've been able to reduce costs.  TV's don't cost what they once did.  Cars are now made at lower cost than was once possible.  (We keep adding new items to cars, e.g. back cameras, navigational devices, blind spot indicators, etc.  These add to a car's cost and yet we've managed to keep the vehicle's cost within the consumer's budget.)

So let's consider for a moment what is contributing to our mushrooming medical costs.  Not necessarily in order of importance, but one of the first things that occurs to me is our refusal to accept death.  Diabetes was once a death sentence.  The only treatment was slow starvation.  But, then insulin was discovered and diabetes was no longer a death sentence.  Despite the discovery of insulin, this disease still requires a patient to follow a prescribed diet.  Failure to follow the prescribed diet will lead to debilitating and, ultimately, fatal symptoms.

Doctor-prescribed diets must be followed if illness is to be held in check.  Restricting salt intake for a patient suffering from high blood pressure is an example.  Smoking, careless use of alcohol, and the use of drugs are other examples.  But, now we come to the area defined by addiction, which unquestionably leads to increased medical costs.

Other areas of high costs are those associated with the start of life and the end of life.  If a baby had two hearts or some other serious malady, death followed.  It was accepted.  Now heroic efforts are made to save the new-born regardless of how premature or misshapen that baby might be.  There are religious issues that enter this discussion but they must be taken up separately.  Much the same can be said for dementia that afflicts many old people.

Then there is the cost of treatment of our wounded servicemen and women.  The cost of such treatment should not be rolled into the cost of healthcare.  It should be a separate item of our military spending.

There are many other aspects to healthcare that make this such a difficult area to cost.  Despite the high administrative cost of our hospitals, examples abound of patients that fail to get a medication prescribed by his doctor, or nurses who administer the wrong medicine or the wrong dosage to a patient.

Then there is the balance between a patient's rights to legal counsel and protection of the medical system against excessive litigation.  Equally important is that the standards met by doctors be monitored.  When such standards fail to be met, doctors must be subject to being fired.

It can also be argued that the medial industry has been far too slow to adopt newly developed but currently available technology with the potential for cost reduction.

It's a big area, but the Democratic idea of a single payor system doesn't necessarily get you to where you want to go.  But, then I don't see the Republican approach working either.  We may find that just as charter schools breaks up the hide bound methodology of the our public schools, a similar approach to medicine might do the same.

The Trump Tweets

A storm has swept through the media howling for Trump's head because he referred to Morning Joe's co-anchor, Mika, and her alleged chin lift.  His words were unkind.  They were down at Mika's level and the question arises as to whether Trump should have made the remarks.

First let me say that I was a Morning Joe fan for years.  That's changed.  Morning Joe, at one time, tried to give a balanced view of political events.  He did that by inviting guests from both sides of the political spectrum.  He may have given Democrats a bit more space, but you could, if you waited, hear words supporting the other side.  No more.  Morning Joe is now no more balanced than Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and the rest of the MSNBC team.  They are relentless in their attacks on Trump.

The question, however, is whether Trump should have attacked Mika.  Isn't that "punching down'?  In politics, isn't that what you shouldn't do?  And, anyway, why is Trump bothering to attack a "talk show"?  Aren't they beneath news programs?

A couple of points:  The general public is finding it almost impossible to distinguish between a talk show and a news program.  This can be seen in print media where the NY Times, once considered a newspaper of record, has become largely a dispenser of editorial content.  Indeed, I find that the NY Times does not hesitate to use their page 1 for editorial purposes.  Is it surprising then that the general public often takes the opinions of this kind of media to be the same as real news?

You and I may not view comments made on these talk shows as news, but I would guess that large portions of the public do.  For this reason I do not find it unreasonable for Trump to attack purveyors of this kind of "news".

The media is constantly changing.  We probably first became aware of this with the advent of TV.  Today it's talk shows.  Maybe Trump is right to fight Morning Joe back, just as though it were a legitimate news program.

Anti-Israel Fifth Column Within The U.S.

Although somewhat out of style, "fifth column,"  remains, nevertheless, a useful term.  It refers to the people working against the interests of another group, a majority group, while imbedded within the group against which they are working.

Usually a fifth column functions within the country to which it is opposed.  But, as a concept, it is equally valid to include groups that works agains a nation from within a second nation.  Consider the case of Israel.  With Israel and Jews, we find a bipolar situation.  The two poles being Israel and the U.S.  It is a somewhat unique situation that arose from the decimation of the Jewish people in Europe.  You can find Jews all over the world, but the centers of gravity are the U.S. and Israel.  And for this reason, it is in these two locations that the fifth columns seeking to weaken Israel to the point where it can no longer survive are most active.

In the U.S. the forces of Israel's fifth column were brought together by George Soros, who sees the world as a place where there will emerge a common culture.  Although the world is still far from a having arrived at a common culture,  people like Soros find Israel especially annoying.  It is such a unique nation.  It has achieved great growth without the benefit of oil although after almost 70 years this may be about to change.  It is Israel's very success that so annoys Soros.  The cultures of Israel and its Muslim neighbors should be slowly, but inevitably, arriving at a common culture.  Such a common culture would allow the two people to mingle and merge.  But, it's not happening.

Mr. Soros won't stand for that.  His first line of attack is to bring the fight to Jewish organizations that speak up in behalf of Israel.  For Soros, a major enemy is AIPAC, the lobbying organization that presents Israel's positions to Congress.  To undermine AIPAC, Soros launched J-Street, an organization that presumably speaks in behalf of Israel, but in fact takes positions that are contrary to Israel's interests.

Mr. Soros is not the only prominent member of the Fifth Column working against Israel's interests.  Abe Foxman, former leader of the ADL and even more so, Jonathan Greenblatt, while doing valuable work in behalf of the Jewish people, they have taken positions harmful to Israel.  One obvious example was their disparaging of President Donald Trump. They might find Trump not quite to their taste.  They may find him too conservative.  But after two terms of Obama, they should clearly see that, while Trump may, in their eyes, have some imperfections,  he is so much better for America and for Israel than Obama.

In siding so clearly with liberal, U.S. politicians against Trump, the ADL is doing Israel no favor.  Not to be overlooked among those who harm Israel is Rick Jacobs leader of the American Reform Judaism movement.  Even a country as outstanding in matters of human rights as is Israel can still leave room for improvement.  Israelis know this themselves.  But, by his unwarranted criticism of this outstanding nation, Rabbi Jacobs has unfairly damaged Israel's reputation. There are others that I might cited, but let me end with Ron Lauder.  Clearly his heart is with Israel and with the Jewish people.  Unfortunately, as can happen from time to time with super-rich people, they begin to think they know what's better for Israel than Israel's own political leaders.  Israel's leaders, whether from the right or the left, have been in the trenches fighting in behalf of Israel's survival.  Their sons and daughters have died for Israel.  Where does Mr. Lauder get off circumventing Israel's Prime Minister, Beebee Netanyahu?  The hubris of some of these self-appointed Jews is astounding.

Fortunately, we have writers such as Caroline Glick, who writes for the Jerusalem Post, who can help lead us through the blather of so many self-important Jewish leaders.  Besides Ms. Glick, we have Morton Klein, head of the ZOA, to speak the truth and to make clear the reality that Israel faces every day.   Glick and Klein understand the support Israel gets from the likes of the much maligned Sebastian Gorkin.  The also serve to highlight the poisonous hatred of Jews from the likes of Linda Sansour.  In the end, a well informed Jew is Israel's first line of defense.

Crime vs. Popularity: The Presidency

Managing government in a country, where the opinions of the public count can get very complicated.  America's Constitution gives us some guidelines.  But, so does history.  As to history: I'd like to remind my readers of three historical incidents:  The election where JFK beat Nixon.  Our entry into the Vietnam War.  And, the aura that surrounds a president.

The current motto of Democrats like Hillary Clinton is Resist.  She won the popular vote (thanks to California), but Comey's release of Hillary's tapes and hacking by the Russians all favored the ultimate victory by Donald Trump.  Now the Democrats feel they must resist Trump by all means.

However, the victory of JFK over Nixon was also the result of a very, very close election.  It was alleged that LBJ's control over the political machinery in his state and his shady manipulation of that machinery delivered Texas to JFK.  It is further alleged that the truckers union in Chicago illegally delivered Illinois to JFK.  These two wins made possible JFK's win over Nixon.

Nixon was urged to challenge the results of that election.  However, he felt that close elections were something that happens and it would harm the nation for him to now challenge the results. Today things are apparently quite different.

Popularity does make a difference.  You commonly hear that we should never get into a shooting war.  We shouldn't have gone into Vietnam.  We shouldn't have fought in Korea.  We shouldn't have taken out Saddam Hussein.  We shouldn't have meddled in Afghanistan.  The only except in recent history was WW II.

And, if you go by our Constitution, only the Senate can declare a war.  But, that's a rule often disregarded.  The Korean War was a "police action."  (I feel it was a necessary war, but that's just my opinion).  I believe our war in Vietnam wasn't declared until much after the fact.  (The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution).  But, even though today most everyone agrees we should never have taken over from the French colonial power in Vietnam, few bother asking how and why we did.  David Halberstam answers this question in his excellent book, "The Best And The Brightest." a book that was once a best seller, but is now mostly forgotten.  If you're popular that's what happens.

As for the Camelot period:  How does that jibe with JFK's infidelities with regard to his wife?
I guess it's popularity.

And, now we come to Trump.  My goodness, how the Democrats would love to impeach him.  They have just one problem.  No one can point to a crime.  Talking to the Russians is not crime, unless, like Flynn, you lie about it.  Even discussing elections with the Russians is not crime, unless you actually suggest that they do such and such.  Firing the head of the FBI is not crime.  Asking people at the FBI or CIA to down peddle an investigation is no crime unless a grand jury has been impanelled to investigate you, which in this case had not happened.

The Senate has been investigating.  The House has been investigating.  The FBI investigated.  The CIA investigated.  Result: nothing.  Or, should I say, "Until now, nothing."  But hope springs eternal.  Maybe, just around the corner, someone might actually find a crime.  In the meantime, the Democrats enjoy the continuing process of investigating Trump.  They suggest that where there's smoke there must be a fire.  That's somewhat disingenuous when it's the Democrats blowing the smoke.



  

Jews Who Find Israel Imperfect

I was going to title this piece, "Jews Who Hate Jews," but I felt that the word "Hate" generated excessive heat.  Anyway, let me get to the point.  What prompted me to write this item was a question posed to me by my daughter-in-law.  "I have a friend with whom I communicate on Facebook.  The other day she posted an item that declared that Israel's army, the IDF, was criminal.  I'm so upset.  What should I do?  Turn my back on her?  I really don't want to speak to her anymore."

This was my advice:  "Don't disconnect with her.  Better to give her information that might lead her to see the error of her statement.  People who speak as she speaks really don't understand Israel.  Help them out."

Many people can't be dissuaded from some of their opinions.  There's nothing much you can do about that.  But, at least show them a reality that, somehow. escaped them.

First and foremost, it is important to know that what the Palestinians say depends on whom they're talking to.  To the Israelis and the outside world, they speak, "peace, peace, peace."  Many in the west are taken in by that.  But organizations that take the words of Palestinian leaders, spoken to their own people in Arabic, show a very different picture.  When you translate what Abbas says in Arabic, he sounds pretty much Hamas.  They encourage their Palestinian people to remain steadfast until the day they can dislodge the Jews from Israel and regain their lands.

"Nakba," is he Arabic word that denotes the day their land was taken from them and given to the Jews.  They view their land as having been illegitimately taken by Israel.  If your friends, who berate the Israelis, think that what I've just said is too extreme, have them check out what the Palestinians teach their children beginning from the first grade.

How can you justify the behavior of a people who honor men who would climb aboard buses filled with Israeli school children for the purpose of setting off explosives to kill as many kids as they can?  On the west bank, they honor such murderers by naming streets after them and providing their families with pensions.

The borders between Switzerland and Germany, Italy, and France need no walls or fences.  No one has any interest in attacking Switzerland.  The biggest problem faced by the Swiss are the illegal immigrants who want to enter, either to settle, or to transit on to another country.  Compare that to Israel with Gaza on the west, Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Syria on the north, Jordan on the east, and the Sinai on the south.  Israel's border with Sinai is increasingly coming under attack by ISIS.

And who protects these borders?  The sons and daughters of ordinary Israelis.  And, to some small extent, they are aided by men from the Druze, Bedouin, and Christian communities.

There are many other issues your friend should be aware of; namely, the lack of interest on the part of the Palestinian leadership in "normalization,"  in their use of NGOs to malign Israel.  And as she might know, well funded Muslim campaigns on American campuses to promote the BDS agenda.

Your friend should also aquatint herself with the Arab culture and how it manifests itself as to their relationship to women and gays.  Pro-Palestinians like to refer to the facts regarding Muslim attitudes toward gays as "pink-washing."  They should take care not to get too close to pink-washing lest some of the pink-wash gets in their eyes.  Then too there is the very nature of the clan oriented Islamic community where the prime objective of the extended Muslim family is to enhance the wealth and power of their particular family.

There are other Islamic concepts anyone who wishes to understand the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians should be aware of.  They include an understanding of the shades of meaning between the words, "truce," "hudna," and "lasting peace."

I believe once your friend has acquainted herself with an understanding of the differences between the Israelis and the Palestinians she will be less glib in her condemnation of the IDF and Israelis in general.


  

In Memory Of A Righteous Muslim -- Yameen Rasheed

On April 24th, 2017, Yameen Rasheed died from a stabbing he suffered in the stairway of his home in the city of Male in the Republic of Maldives.  He was stabbed 16 times.

What sort of man was this Yameen Rasheed to be assassinated in this way?  According to close friends, he was soft-spoken and funny.  Others describe him as smart, witty and sweet.

So what was his crime?  Why was he targeted for murder?

As Yameen himself explained prior to his murder, he wrote a blog and "did the campaign."  He was known for his satyrical tweets.  In his popular blog,  "The Daily Panic," Yameen often criticized the government for using the religion of Islam in presenting its agenda to the public.

His "campaign" refers to Yameen's effort to find his close friend, Ahmed Rilwan Abdulla, who was a journalist for the Maldives Independent.  Ahmed was abducted in 2014 and has not been heard of since.  Recently, under great pressure, the authorities conceded that they had knowledge of the perpetrators of the murders of both Yameen and Ahmed.

What sort of place is this Republic of Maldives?  It's a nation of about 1,200 islands with a population of about 400,000 people southwest of India.  It is a gorgeous vacation destination popular with tourists.  The population, Sunni Muslim, has traditionally been liberal in its interpretation of Islam.  Women went about without covering covering their heads.  But that changed about two or three years ago.  Under the increasing influence of Saudi Arabia, the Maldives began to shift to a more conservative strain of Islam.  One indicator of this shift is the finding of an international security firm that estimates that 200 Maldive people have travelled to the Middle East to fight with ISIS.

This movement to a more Salafist version of Islam was brought about through Saudi offering scholarships to the youth of the Maldives to study in Saudi Arabian universities.  In addition, Saudi Arabia has supplied the Maldives with Saudi imams. who have been rolling out a wide ranging agenda that is Sharia based.  On October 18, 2015, the Maldive Independent reported the sentencing of a woman to death by stoning for the crime of adultery; the first such sentence given in the history of the Maldives.

For more details on what is happening in the Maldives, Google " Maldive Clerics Roll Out Wide Ranging Religious Agenda."  There is a lesson to us in the west in what has happened in the Maldives and it is this:  Muslims are a good people, but the teachings of Salafist imams is destructive of western values.  In the case of the Maldives, Salafism has been spread by a country that permits no churches or synagogues to be built in its own nation but brazenly builds mosques all over the globe.


Credits:  Essential information contained in this entry come from Hassan Moosa, of Male, and Kai Schultz of New Delhi.  Geeta Anand contributed reporting from Mumbai, India.

The Drip, Drip Drip of Alec Baldwin's Acid Humor

Alec Baldwin is a talented actor and a really funny guy.  But humor isn't always funny.  My wife loves the skits of Alec Baldwin where he plays Donald Trump.  I watch him only to observe his style.

So what's my problem with Alec Baldwin?  It's the context of his humor.  A biting narrative can be both funny and supportive of the individual of whom fun is being made.  "Roasts" are typical of this type of humor.

However, humor can also be used to tear down an individual whom we hate.  And, make no mistake; Baldwin and many others in Hollywood hate Donald Trump.

They say anyone who brings up the name "Hitler" will lose an argument.  I'll take that chance.  Remember World War II when Mel Brooks used his enormous wit to denigrate and belittle Hitler.  And, we cheered.  And, we cheered because Hitler was truly evil.  Only someone like Mel Brooks could show this vile individual for the low-life trash that he was.  Mel Brooks was a genius.

Alec Baldwin is no Mel Brooks.  Still, he's pretty good at what he does.  And, where Brooks had Hitler, Baldwin has Trump.  The question is:  Is Trump Hitler?   Of course not.  At least not for half of America.  But, whether Trump's a Hitler or not, Baldwin's going to do his best to bring Trump down in the minds of Americans.  If Aristophanes with his play, Clouds, could destroy Socrates, why not Alec Baldwin bringing down Trump with his skits?  Why not?  Chutzpa is Alec Baldwin's middle name.

Stick It To The Man

"Stick it to the man" was a song written for the play/movie, School of Rock, about a rock musician who finds himself teaching music to a high school class of gifted students.  The "man" in "stick it to the man" refers to anyone in a position of authority: teachers, parents, principals and the like.

Today, we have a situation that might be paraphrased, "Stick it to United."  Who hasn't been inconvenienced  by one airline or another?  A number of us have arrived late because of traffic and have seen the door of our plane slam shut in our face.  We have found ourselves with seats suitable only for people shorter than five feet.  We've found it impossible to get to a lavatory because a drink cart blocked our way.  We've been seated next to crying babies.  We've had chunky passengers seated next to us with oversized shoulders that intruded into our space.  We've suffered through delayed departures; not to mention cancellations.  Just taking off your shoes and belt prior to entering the departure area served to darken our mood.  Flying generally isn't fun.

So who's to blame.  Difficulties at security can all be attributed to Muslims who would like to blow us out of the sky.  The bastards!  All the rest is the responsibility of the airlines.  Bad weather?  Oh, sure.  Ticket price?  Everyone pays a different fare, depending on the day and they booked the flight, and most paid less then you.   And, then there's the amount extra you must pay if your luggage is a bit overweight.

Flying ain't fun.  We'd just love to stick it to the airlines.  Who cares about them having to compete with other airlines.  Who cares what the weather conditions.  Who cares?  Suddenly we can stick it to United.  It feels so good.

To those who care to give it a moment's thought, it might be pointed out that in the end passengers are a kind of cargo.  Yes, they are people and deserve care and special handling.  But, in the end we've all signed up for the airlines to take us from here to there as cheaply as possible.  And, the pilots hold the same power as the captains of a ship.  Indeed, the head pilot is called "captain."

David Dao, the passenger dragged off of the United flight was initially described as "belligerent" and "disruptive."   Later when the public saw their chance to stick it to "the man;" namely, United, United changed its tune and said the man was not to blame.  But, of course, the man had indeed been belligerent as well as disruptive.  And, what images he incurred were brought about by his own actions.  Had he simply gotten out of his seat and left the plane as the other two passengers did who were also asked to leave Dr. Dao would have been none the worst for wear.

Can airlines avoid this situation in the future?  Of course, they could set up a glass enclosed waiting areas.  Then, when the flight was ready to board, and unfortunate, but necessary adjustments, had been made, those passengers, whose final status had been firmly established would be allowed to board the plane.  It would cost the airlines more to operate this way.  But, of course, it would be one more cost to be transferred on to the passengers.  Thank you Dr. Dao.

To Black Lives Matter: Grow Up

Two things should be said at the outset: One, slavery is an abominable practice.  And, two, it has a very long history.  It was practiced in biblical times and, no doubt, even earlier.

Having said that, let's now turn to the Africans brought to the New World as slaves.  Who took them from their villages?  Fellow Africans.  Before the city-state, people tended to identify as clans.  To some extent, it is still that way in many places.  Clan identification is still strong in the Middle East.  In Africa we refer to groups of people as tribes.  In the 16th century, and, no doubt earlier, stronger tribes would raid weaker ones, and, where convenient, make slaves of them.

The Portuguese needing labor to work Brazilian sugar plantations turned to slaves shipped over from Africa.  The Spanish had tried using Indian slaves but they died or disappeared into the rain forests.   It was in the Americas that the plantation system was developed for raising crops such as sugar cane, cotton, rice and tobacco.  But, in Brazil and in the Caribbean, sugar was the most important crop.

Shipping companies stepped in to get a piece of the slave cargo market.  Ten percent of the slaves died in transit to their destinations in the Americas.  Brazil took the most slaves; roughly 4 million.  The Caribbean countries took, collectively, roughly 3 million.  And the U.S. came in with a bit under 1 million.

It is interesting to ponder what makes people not see the horror of slavery.  Could it be their awareness of the practice of slavery in earlier ages?  I think not.  The only thing that occurs to me is that Africans were viewed as some sort of subhuman species.  Hadn't they been taken out of jungles?  They had no written language, as far as anyone could tell.  No, they were clearly subhuman.

And, yet, slave holders feared that they might learn to read and write.  In short, they feared testing their hypothesis that the Africans were subhuman.  They also seemed preoccupied with converting them to Christianity.  It makes no sense -- not now, not back then.

An awareness of the inhumanity of slavery came to William Wilberforce the British parliamentarian who succeeded in having slavery ended in all British colonies.  It was something also painfully obvious to American abolitionists.  Ultimately, slavery ended under President Lincoln.

It might be noted, however, that many American presidents, up to the time of Lincoln, owned slaves.  One can only assume that those who fought to maintain slavery; primarily in the south, saw emancipation as undermining their plantation system and their financial interests.  And, it must also be recognized that even with Lincoln, the first salvo in the fight against slavery was not to end it entirely, but rather to keep in from being instituted in the western territories that would soon become states.  But, of course, once the battle was jointed, the institution of slavery throughout all of the American states was to be ended.

It took many more years to end Jim Crow, the practice that denied African-Americans their full rights.  In the battle against Jim Crow, blacks were supported by a number of white groups and white individuals.  A white man helped establish the NAACP, once the preeminent black group fighting for equal rights.  Whites, including a noted rabbi and Catholic priest, among others, marched with the Rev. Martin Luther King in Selma Alabama.  And, can we forget the two young men, Schwerner and Goodman, who died with their black friend Chaney at the hands of racists.

The Yad Vashem, a memorial to the 6 million who died at the hands of the Nazis, the Jews also commemorated the non-Jews who, at their peril, worked to aid the Jews.  They are referred to as the "righteous gentiles."  There were too few of these people, but Jews recognize the importance of giving them recognition.  It is an example America's blacks might seek to emulate.
                           



   

Health Care: Inconvenient Realities

Health care is a bit like the elephant four blind men tried to define.  Actually, it's even worse.  The doggone thing keeps changing.

Politicians try to give the public what it wants and what it wants is freedom from sickness and the cost of repairing one's damaged body.  And, so Obama gave us the Affordable Health Care Act (Obama Care).  Unfortunately, it seems not to be affordable.  The administrators of this plan -- the insurance companies -- are finding that this new healthcare act is one tar baby they're not going to touch.  Doctors too are beginning to fear the constraints of this Obama monstrosity and are retiring as quickly as they can.  Have you noticed the advent of concierge practices -- healthcare covered by no government plan?  So you want to keep your doctor?  The trick may be in finding him.

So now we are hearing of the Trump plan that's going through Congress.  I know almost nothing about it.  It's being touted as a plan that gives the consumer choices.  Really?  How does the consumer go about making those choices?  It's hard enough deciding to go with Microsoft or Apple.  Picking a new car isn't that easy either.  Of course, research is the key.  But how well positioned is the average citizen to do this research.

Look at America's vitamin business.  Half the doctors will tell you that most vitamins do nothing for you.  Then there's the matter of the doctor's list of incentives.  Consider the Caesarian procedure for giving birth.  One advantage of this procedure is that you don't have to wait around to determine when the mother is ready.  She's ready when the sonogram says she's ready.  No more waiting on stand by for what could amount to days.  Nope.  With a Caesarian procedure you can pretty much pick your day and time.

Then, of course, there's the matter of remuneration.  Obstetricians do better financially, if they are called upon to do a Caesarian.  And, who calls upon the doctor to carry out this procedure?  Why, of course, the doctor.

Most citizens want and deserve some help and guidance when it comes to matters of medicine.  For cars, we have Consumer Reports.  Actually, we do have consumer reports on hospitals, but they're meager when compared to the kind of comparisons you get with trucks and cars.  And, which is more important: your choice of vehicle or your choice of hospital.

And, perhaps even more important, how good is the doctor?  Finding an honest and talented car mechanic can be a challenge.  Now try figuring out if your choice of doctors was a wise one.

And, then we come to cost of delivering medical care.  Studies done by Dartmouth University some time ago. rated the Mayo Clinic and the Brigham Hospital as being both low cost and extremely competent.  I read that report some years ago, so I can't vouch for its being correct today.  But, my reading of that report was in connection to a presentation I was making to a bunch of senior citizens.  This matter of cost and excellence in medical care is something that (a) should be reviewed regularly and (b) made easily accessible to all Americans.

And, finally, technology should help not only improve medical care, but should also bring down the cost of such care over time.  Consider cars:  They've come well down in price over the years.  They would have come down even more if we hadn't added all those safety features and improvements needed to increase mileage  and to reduce noxious fumes.  Don't misunderstand me.  We want the improvements I've just mentioned, but they do come at a price.

It's the same with medical technology.  Initially expensive but in the not too distant future capable of delivering better results at a lower price.

There are a host of other choices that must be made.  How heroic do you want to get in extending life  and in trying to save a fetus that has no chance of growing into a productive human.   (There will of course be a great deal of discussion regarding the word "productive.")

And finally what should be done to provide good health to people who undermine their own health by smoking, or indulging in excessive drinking of alcohol, or taking drugs.

These are all issues that we must grapple with and i don't see Obamacare or Trump's health care plans addressing them.

In Defense of Donald Trump -- Immigration

There is no single immigration issue.  There's at least two.  There's the immigration of Mexicans and other Latinos across our southern border and there's the inflow of middle eastern refugees.

Immigration across our southern border creates two issues.  One; should we be in control of our borders?  And, two, what should be our posture regarding illegal Latino immigrants?

America like any nation has a right to secure it's borders.  If mountains and natural topography can secure a stretch of the border; then fine.  If electronic fencing can do the job, fine.  If it takes concrete slabs topped by electronic wiring, fine.  Very likely various methods might be called for.  In my mind, this issue is settled.

Illegal immigrants, largely Latino, who have crossed our southern border present another, more difficult issue.  If, among them, are criminals, they should, of course, be ejected in the most efficient ways possible.  However, if they have broken no law, other than to have entered the country illegally, I believe we must view these people differently.

What can we say about these people?  They share our country's values.  Their culture is much like ours.  They are hard working.  And, frankly, they can help America and, indeed, they have already been doing so. They are good people and should be viewed as such by Trump.

However, we can't continue with unsupervised immigration.  The gate must be closed until we have had a chance to reassess our patterns of immigration.

Immigration from the middle east is an entirely different matter.  First, we know from first hand observation that Muslims carry a culture very different than our own and, indeed, very different than that of our immigrant parents.  Can you find beneficent words in the Quran?  Of course.  Can you also find hateful words that demean non-Muslims.  Yes.  Muslims still issue fatwas against those who blaspheme either the prophet Mohammed or Islam in general, or both.  In the west, blasphemy is a thing of the past.  We recognize the rights of people to express themselves and indeed to question the beliefs of others.  Indeed, atheists have equal rights to speak freely.

The real problem with Islamic thought is that we don't fully understand it.  We know there are secular Muslims who are quire westernized.  But, can we have a test for devout Muslims?  Is that even legal?
How do you feel about four Muslim women swimming in a municipal pool with full burqas?  And, now we're not even speaking of terrorists.

For Jews there is an additional problem.  We love Israel.  But does a secular Muslim?  Suppose we are able to define and admit only secular Muslims.  These will overwhelmingly be people who have been taught to hate Jews all their life.  And, even if they accommodate themselves to Jews will they work against the interests of Israel once they're U.S. citizens?

In Defense of Donald Trump -- The Flynn Affair

The forced resignation of national security advisor, Michael Flynn, has delivered to Trump the first major challenge to his presidency.  Up to now there's been a lot of ridiculous confrontations.  There's been the issue of the extent to which Trump should disengage from his many and varied businesses.  There's been his wife's women's fashion business and extravagant claims he's made regarding various matters more central to his presidency.  But the Flynn matter is more serious.

The Flynn matter concerns the conversations that Flynn had with the Russian government at a time when Obama was still president.  Those conversations violated an old U.S. statute that has never been subjected to court tests.  The second question is to what extent did Trump, then still not president, knew of Flynn's conversations with the Russians, thereby potentially becoming complicit in the violation of those laws.

These issues tie into the internal hacking of conversations of American leaders at the time leading up to the election and the extent to which Russia used those hacked conversations  in order to tilt the election in favor of Trump and against the Democrats.

The last issue strikes me as the easiest to deal with.  Sure, the Russians hacked into U.S. internet communications.  The Chinese also hack into our conversations as do other nations, and as also does the U.S.  If hacking is a crime, we find ourselves with a very long list of potential criminals.

Let's try to tease these issues apart.

1. Hacking is a hostile act.  It may under circumstances be justifies and under other circumstances not be justified.  But, it is an act unlikely to be ended by scolding perpetrators.  The only meaningful response is to do superior hacking of our enemies and to establish practices and technological defenses against hacking.  At the time of the elections, all parties  should have been keenly aware of the threat of hacking.  Hadn't Hillary occupied the position of Secretary of State?  Had she not been aware of this very real threat?  In the face of this well understood threat, why did she act so negligently?

2. The hacking of governmental conversations by entities within our government verges on treason.  In this category also falls leaking of state secrets.  The press and other opposition to Trump seems to glory in the practice of such hacking and leaking; especially, if it can generate ammunition to fire against Trump.

The Flynn matter revolves primarily around Flynn not being truthful to V.P. Pence.  But, why was Flynn being duplicitous?  Was it because he was trying to build a wall around Trump?  Had he been truthful with Pence, it would have implied that Trump knew what Flynn was doing.  Indeed, it might have suggested that Flynn was doing what Trump had asked him to do.  That would have created a problem for Trump, who, at the time, was only president-elect, not president.

But as Americans, we should ask ourselves what sort of a crime was this?  Note the following:
1. Presidents often usurp the power of Congress.  For example, only Congress can declare war.  However, Truman's police action in Korea was clearly a war despite not being declared that by Congress.  JFK sending military observers to Vietnam marked the entry of the U.S. into that quagmire.  However, it was not declared a war until well into LBJ's term as president, when Congress enacted the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

2. Presidents sometimes violate acts of Congress.  Consider the Iran-Contra matter: Pres. Reagan had two objectives (a) Fund the Contras fighting the Sandinistas.  This was, of course, in direct opposition to the wishes of Congress.  And (b) obtain the release of prisoners held by Hizbollah by supplying arms to Iran.

Reagan achieved a portion of some of his aims at a very high cost.  He did free hostages, but new ones were taken.  As for the Nicaraguans:  The Sandinistas prevailed.

What Trump tried to do with the Russians was to see whether a deal could be struck.  The opposition from Obama holdovers managed to throw a wrench into what Trump was attempting to find out vis a vis the Russians.  It is possible he may still arrive at a deal with the Russians, but there will be more testing on both sides.  Suffice it to say that the opposition to Trump in this matter has not been helpful to American interests.

Open Letter To "The Jewish Week (New York)"

The Jewish community that contributes to the UJA is being poorly served by New York's Jewish Week (JW).  It needs an alternative newspaper.  If JW were an evenly balanced paper, that probably wouldn't be necessary.  But, it's not.  The UJA needs to support an alternative newspaper -- not abandon JW but rather to provide another option for its contributors.

This idea is, for me, not a new one.  But the JW issue of January 13, 2017 brought it to a head.  Here we find two items.  First is the article by Gary Rosenblatt, editor and publisher, titled "Pray For The President? A Divine Dilemma."  Clearly this article is based on the presumption that -- now that Trump has become our president -- Jews are torn between praying for our head of state and choosing not to pray for Trump.  Rosenblatt then offers information that will help the Jewish community resolve this dilemma.

We now see where Rosenblatt and, by extension, JW, is coming from.  The idea that the Jewish community is facing a dilemma is sheer arrogance.  Sure, for some Jews, especially those who abhor Trump, they may well find themselves with a dilemma.  But, that's hardly the feeling in all corners of the Jewish community.  Many contributors to the UJA have been active supporters of  Trump.

Regrettably, JW serves as a mouthpiece for only one segment of the Jewish community and, for me, that's a problem.

In this same issue of JW, we find a letter to the editor by Edith Everett.  (Confession: I'm jealous of Ms. Everett.  As a member of the board of JW, she is unlikely to have any of her letters-to-the editor get rejected.)  Since she's on the board of JW, it can be safely assumed that her views reflect the views of JW; namely, that Israelis must decide if they want to be Jewish or democratic.  They can retain their Jewishness only if they opt for a two state solution.  A single state implies occupation and that in turn defines a nation lacking in democratic values.  Nonsense!

Why is it assumed that there must be two equal states, one Jewish and one Palestinian?  By "equal," I am speaking of two states with the same air rights, the same right to militarize, the same right to make agreements with other nations, including nations hostile to Israel, the same rights to territory  . . . .  If Israel is to survive and have peace and tend to its affairs this can not be.

There are other miniature states such as Monaco, Liechtenstein, and Singapore.  The Palestinians currently administer Area A (Oslo Agreement).  That, plus a few more square miles from Area B, should be quite adequate.  Would they accept that?  Of course not.  But, as it happens, there's no deal acceptable to Israel that the Palestinians would also accept.  We know this, not through hypothetical reasoning, but by how they've responded to earlier, and to far more generous, offers.  Also instructive was the response by the people of Gaza when Israel gave them absolutely everything.

My purpose in setting forth this last proposition is not to argue here for its validity, but to point out that the ways forward for Israel are multiple.  It's not simply this way or that way, as apparently one member of the JW board believes.  JW's views in this matter narrow considerably Israel's options.

If Jews don't like Fox News they can go to MSNBC and vice versa.  Clearly, Jews also need an alternative to JW.

Russia, Obama's Second Booby Trap

The first booby trap that Obama -- America's Hamlet, now become Road Runner  --  laid out was engineering the UN vote against Israel.  The most serious self-injury that that maneuver inflicted on Obama was when it became clear through Egyptian sources, that Obama not only failed to veto the UN resolution against Israel, but that he had actually coordinated the entire situation with New Zealand and the other countries.  But, the injury he suffered for his perfidious act was minor.  He knew he could count on the American press to bury the story.

His second booby trap was expelling Russian diplomats from America because of Russia's hacking of the Democratic National Committee and for gaining access to some of America's voting machines.  Let's be clear, the DNC, for all practical purposes, invited the Russian hackers.  It wasn't the Russians that told Hillary to put a private, non-secure server, in her basement.  She had been our Secretary of State and presumably was well aware of the need to safeguard her emails as well as those of the DNC.

The hacking of our  voting machines is indeed a serious matter, but our intelligence organizations have determined that while information may well have been taken, no attempt was made to manipulate the voting results.  That has now given the U.S. clear warning that anything electronic, including our voting machines must be properly secured.

So what made this an Obama booby trap?  In the covert warfare that never ends, between the U.S. and nations that would do us harm, much is never made public.  And, for good reason: namely, it's to deny to our enemies information as to our ability know what they're doing and to covertly counter their maneuvers.  If they do something to us that we consider wrong, unfair and inappropriate, we have a responsibility to our citizens that we take appropriate countermeasures.  The decision, as to what measures are most appropriate, is an executive decision.  It is a decision for the president.

Before all the facts were nailed down, Obama decided to slap Russia in the face.  But to what end?  Russia's done far worse to America's interests and Obama's been found to stand around being entirely ineffectual.  Indeed, in matters of foreign policy, Obama has been a disaster.  So why do we now find him coming out like gangbusters?

To understand that, we've got to understand that it's all about Trump, not Russia.  The Chinese, and no doubt others, have acted just as aggressively against America's interests as the Russians.  And, what have we done?  Nothing -- at least not publicly.  So, why now, has Obama decided to publicly slap Russia?  It's to put Trump in a difficult position -- regardless as to whether this helps our country pursue its interests or not.  It denies Trump the maneuverability to deal with Russia in a way that best furthers the interests of America.

As a booby trap, or a wrench tossed into the body politic, it's worked quite well for Obama.  It's gotten the press to focus its attention on whether Trump has confidence in our security organization; whether he trusts the CIA and the FBI and other security departments within our government.  Of course, he does.  But, if he's to serve the best interest of America, Trump has got to realize that not only is America watching, but so is Russia.  If the adversary weren't Russia, Trump could say honestly and with full voice, of course our security agencies are correct.  Of course, our adversary must pay.  But, has Obama chosen the best strategy for making Russia pay?  And, how will we deal with Russia when  future problems unfold as surely they will.  And, then there's China, a more formidable enemy, as I see it.  China's now standing on the sideline laughing as it watches America's political show.  

The proper course of action would have been for Obama to step aside and leave the Russian problem to the President-Elect.  But that's not Obama's style.  He's a man that will do anything to screw Trump; America's interest be damned.  Regrettably, he's got useful idiots like McCain and Graham helping him.