The Deadly Manipulations of the Anti-Israel Mob

 Seth Mandel – Commentary Magazine 

The claim that Israel is carrying out a genocide of the Palestinians is meritless, but its proponents already know that. This is what is known as Holocaust inversion, whereby some person or persons seek to lessen the historical judgment on Nazi Germany by assigning to its victims an equivalent judgment. It is a rhetorical tactic—one not without consequences, as the death of Aaron Bushnell reminds us.

   "Everyone knows blood libels have consequences for their intended targets, but Aaron Bushnell’s suicide shows how deadly they can be to anyone who believes them.

"Bushnell, a 25-year-old active-duty cyber-defense specialist in the Air Force, self-immolated in front of the Israeli embassy on February 25. His reason for doing so—and for broadcasting it as it happened—is important not for the content but for the evidence of how pro-Hamas activists across the country have manipulated Bushnell and so many others.

“I will no longer be complicit in genocide,” Bushnell said, referring to “what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers.”

The claim that Israel is carrying out a genocide of the Palestinians is meritless, but its proponents already know that. This is what is known as Holocaust inversion, whereby some person or persons seek to lessen the historical judgment on Nazi Germany by assigning to its victims an equivalent judgment. It is a rhetorical tactic—one not without consequences, as the death of Aaron Bushnell reminds us.

That Bushnell was in the U.S. military is key to his post-suicide beatification by activists. His friend Levi Pierpont, who served with Bushnell and who left the force last year as a conscientious objector, eulogized Bushnell in the Guardian with this proclamation: “Aaron is by no means the only United States military member who has felt complicit in the military’s violence, powerless to change anything, and stuck waiting until the end of a four- or six-year contract. There are thousands of military members similarly distraught, having thoughts of taking extreme actions to escape something that feels inescapable.”

How Can Biden Stay In Now?—Part 2

  Commentary Magazine

But Joe Biden is not getting younger, and it’s doubtful he’s going to get more skilled—or that he will show a kind of focus and energy that will calm American fears he cannot do the job. Actually, it’s more than doubtful. It’s actually getting to the point where it’s unimaginable. 

. . ."Well, it turns out they just held onto that information until today (Sunday), for a second-day story that is maybe even more devastating than the first. Lisa Lerer and Ruth Igielnik report: “Widespread concerns about President Biden’s age pose a deepening threat to his re-election bid, with a majority of voters who supported him in 2020 now saying he is too old to lead the country effectively.” That’s a majority of Biden’s own voters. I’m not talking about a majority of the country.

"So what does the country say? Fully 45 percent of all voters say flatly that Biden is “not capable of handling the job of president.”

"OK, let’s play this out. You might object, and reasonably, that this question just gives Trump voters a different way of saying they don’t want or like Biden. Reasonable! But wrong. Voters were asked the same question about Trump, and logically that would have given Biden voters a chance to express their dislike of Trump in similar fashion by saying he too, at 78 and mixing up things at rallies and the like, is not capable. But only 19 percent say it, compared to the 45 percent who say it about Biden. Remember, these are the same people being asked the same question about both men." . . .

How Can Biden Stay In Now? Part One

 John Podhoretz; Commentary Magazine   

“In the poll, only 83 percent of voters who say they chose Biden in 2020 plan to vote for him this year, whereas 97 percent who voted for Trump plan to vote for Trump again.

"There’s a scene in the peerless animated comedy Monsters Inc.—a cable-news special report featuring Dr. Frasenberger, who looks like a giant pencil. “It is my professional opinion,” he begins calmly, “that now is the time…TO PANIC!!!!!” If I were a Democrat today, or a Never Trumper, I would be Dr. Frasenberger. Because now is the time TO PANIC!!!! if you don’t want Donald Trump to be president.

"The release early Sunday morning of a New York Times-Siena poll of the presidential race showing Trump up by 5 points nationally not only confirms the undeniable evidence over the past six months that Trump has pulled into a measurable lead in the presidential race outside the margin of error but also that things are getting worse and worse for the president as the year 2024 progresses.

"There is literally no good news for Biden in this poll. Let’s break it down.

"First, the simple practical math. NYT-Sienna confirms results we’ve been seeing for months now. It features Trump winning by 4 nationally—and remember that even in victory in 2016, Trump lost the popular vote by 3 points. Trump has not historically done well in national polling. If you go back and add up the number of days in the 2016 and the 2020 electoral races, you find that Trump led in the poll averages on exactly 5 days out of 600—and never for a single day against Biden.

"Now get this. On October 18, 2023, Biden and Trump were tied in the RCP average of all polling. Since that day, 135 days ago, Trump has led. Every single day. Not by a huge amount, mind you—his largest margin came on January 26, when he led by 4.3 points. As I write, his lead is 2.3 points. Still, the point stands. It may have taken him 8 years in presidential politics to achieve it, but Trump is now a steady polling favorite." . . .

Why GA Judge Won’t Disqualify Fani Willis

David Catron; American Spectator  In two months, Judge McAfee has to face the voters in overwhelmingly Democrat Fulton County.

His behavior in the courtroom suggests that he lacks the courage to do so 60 days before he faces Fulton County voters. He isn’t corrupt, but he may be a coward. 

"Any rational person familiar with the behavior of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis during the prosecutorial misconduct hearings that finally ended last Friday has probably concluded that her conduct has created the “appearance of impropriety.” This, according to defense lawyers for former President Trump and several co-defendants, is sufficient to disqualify Willis and the Fulton County DA’s office from prosecuting the RICO case they launched last August. Indeed, defense attorney Harry MacDougald cited six examples of actual conflicts of interest, any one of which is sufficient to disqualify Willis and her office. Yet it’s unlikely that it will happen.

"Why not? The decision must be made by Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, who said on Friday that he would rule on the motion to disqualify Willis and her office in about two weeks. Unfortunately for the defendants, McAfee is a temporary appointee to the bench who must face Fulton County voters for the first time about 60 days after his ruling. Georgia’s Republican Gov. Brian Kemp appointed him last year to complete the term of retiring Judge Christopher S. Brasher. According to McAfee’s campaign website, his election will take place on May 21. Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, is overwhelmingly Democratic and its voters will be less than pleased with the judge if he disqualifies Willis and her office. 

"Further complicating matters is the fact that McAfee once worked in the Fulton County DA’s office and was supervised by none other than Fani Willis, according to a report in the New York Times. This presumably explains his weirdly passive response to her disruptive courtroom antics during her February 15 testimony. He allowed her to ignore questions, accuse defense attorneys of lying and imply that they represented a threat to democracy. McAfee’s supine attitude doesn’t bode well for disqualification. Nor do the questions he asked defense attorneys during closing arguments. Here’s how he responded to an attorney who questioned Willis’s claim to have repaid Nathan Wade back in cash for all his monetary gifts:" . . .

Birdbrains watch Trump own them in court; An innocent man cannot rely on his innocence to win. He must fight back

 Don Surber (substack.com)

"All that explains why Democrats are running on crazy indictments. They laughed when they finally had a mugshot of him. President Trump got the last laugh on that one. He likely will have the last laugh on all of the court cases."  DS

"MSNBC talking head Joyce Vance is panicked. Trump is winning in court, the one territory that liberals believe they still own.

"She wrote, “The legal landscape in three of the four criminal cases against Trump continues to shift in his favor this week, following the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the presidential immunity appeal in the D.C. election interference case, creating at least a two-month delay for Trump.’

"Democrats know they are stuck with FJB. Their plan was to tar Trump as a criminal. No president before was charged with criminal activity while president. Democrats have indicted President Trump four times on a total of 91 counts.

"They also filed two civil lawsuits. One charged him with fraud even though there was no victim. The other charged him with defamation for saying he did not rape a woman who never filed rape charges. The awards are incredibly over-the-top in size. The judge awarded the woman who wasn’t raped $83 million — $83,000,000.

"The Democrat plan is twofold. One to tarnish his reputation and the other is to hurt his campaign by tying him up in the courts. They creamed their pantaloons when they finally got a mugshot of him. That backfired, as I observed in August, days after the mugshot appeared:

The Hill reported, “Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) shared a video of him laughing at the mugshot photo and saying, ‘We got you, and more to come . . . Clown, thug, crook, criminal.’”

The tweet is here.

Shortly afterward, the congressman realized the error Democrats made.

. . . 

It's up to us; It was YOU!

 It's up to us - American Thinker

. . ."Pretending to be worried about offending the few, they lose concern for the many. Well, we the many are the ones who make the world work. Push us out altogether and the structure collapses. Then the leeches and parasites have no one and nothing to pick at, pick on, or pick over." . . .

"Some years ago, Ann Coulter commented about the TV series Law and Order: Special Victims Unit: "The scripts involve the sort of real-life crimes that are a lot more common since our country has become 'diverse,' such as child rape and incest. But the child-rapists are never diverse, as they are in real life. No, the perps are always blond, blue-eyed American men. In fact, the modern American white male is the least rapey, most gentle, protective, chivalrous creature God has ever created."

"This has been obvious to anyone interested in the truth for, oh, six decades or thereabouts. People who can think follow facts to logical, reasonable conclusions. They don’t force-fit reality to a template based on doubtful assumptions that produce silly rules and policy, such as the presumption of police racism that led to the prohibition on profiling. We all profile as a matter of course. To profile is to think, to narrow a search universe. When you look for a lost sock, you ignore panties and pencils.

"The Left, sticking to social justice templates and assumptions, refuses to acknowledge reality that doesn’t fit. So it's up to conservatives to re-establish law and order by using common sense and following facts to reasonable, lawful conclusions. The time's fast coming when America will rip itself apart if reasonable people don't stand up to injustice and stupidity masquerading as social justice.

"I don't know how legally to keep the Idiot Left out of office, but disaster follows wherever such people run things.". . .

Related: The Brutal Wielding of the Mis/Dis Information Club

. . ."Perusing these results leads to an unambiguous conclusion: The term represented eight straight years of blaming you. The messaging was consistent: Your understanding of the matter—whatever it was—was flawed. The Obama White House never erred. Oh no. You presented some defect, some flaw in your understanding. You’d been watching Fox or listening to Rush Limbaugh, so you’d gotten it wrong. It was not them.

"It was you."

While Pledging to Defend Taiwan from China, Biden Shifted on Taiwan Independence. Here’s Why That Matters. |

 Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)

. . ."President Biden’s embrace of strategic clarity is a welcome and overdue adjustment to U.S. policy, but a critical corollary to that shift should be clear messaging that such a commitment would not be operative if Taiwan were to provoke a crisis by unilaterally declaring independence." . . . 

"On Sunday evening, President Joe Biden made headlines when he asserted in a 60 Minutes interview that the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense if China were to launch an unprovoked attack. His embrace of strategic clarity, however, was not his most notable comment on Taiwan, since this was the fourth time that Biden has articulated such a commitment. Instead, the comment that will raise more alarms in Beijing was Biden’s statement that “Taiwan makes their own judgments about their independence…that’s their decision.” While this comment might seem innocuous, it would mark a significant shift in U.S. policy.

"Since the United States severed diplomatic relations with Taiwan (formally the Republic of China) in 1979 and established formal diplomatic ties with the People’s Republic of China, U.S. policy has been to not support Taiwan independence. The State Department’s website currently notes, “we do not support Taiwan independence,” and Secretary of State Antony Blinken used the same language in his major speech outlining the Biden administration’s China policy.

"In this regard, the Biden administration’s policy is the same as its predecessors. In the 1982 communique between the United States and China, the Reagan administration stated it had no intention of “pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan’” (i.e. it would not support Taiwan independence)." . . .