The return of the lost: searching for…
Recently a friend of mine mentioned that her book group had been reading the 1975 Anne Tyler novel Searching For Caleb, and after she’d read the copy that she’d found in her bookshelf, she noticed that my name was written on the title page. Evidently I’d lent it to her around 40 years ago and both of us had utterly forgotten that fact.
This made me smile, because the theme of the novel is – among other things – an elderly man’s search for the brother who left the family in young adulthood, never to be heard from again. So it’s about an effort to find someone lost, and the symmetry of the lost-and-found book appealed to me.
I won’t spoil it by telling you anything else about the plot, in case you want to read it. But I will say that, at the time I read it so long ago, I remember thinking it was enjoyable, although I’m not keen on most contemporary novels.
What’s more, the book had come to my mind even before its reappearance in my life, because during the past couple of years I’ve had my own experience – not with a sibling who disappeared, but with a lost great-uncle whose existence I only knew about because of a story my mother told me around 50 years ago. At that time she merely said (to my great surprise because our family is so small) that her father (my maternal grandfather) had had a brother who “disappeared” (her word), and that no one knew a thing about what had happened to him.
I knew he must be dead by now, because if alive he’d clock in at around 140 years of age. When my mother told the story I also assumed that his disappearance had occurred in his early adulthood, which would have been some time during the early years of the 20th Century, the same general time frame as Caleb’s disappearance in the book (which I hadn’t yet read because it hadn’t been written yet when my mother told me the tale of the missing great-uncle).
And since my usually very talkative and non-secretive mother seemed to know nothing more about this person, I assumed she knew nothing more about the story and I didn’t ask her any more questions. I assumed that she’d never met him.
Big mistake, but I didn’t know that at the time.
About two years ago I decided to do some genealogy research, something that had never interested me before. One motive was definitely to attempt to crack the mystery of this disappearing great-uncle of mine. I didn’t really expect to get anywhere, but I was going to try anyway. The story had stuck in my mind all those years.
The research took me a long time, with a lot of work and many twistings and turnings along the way, one problem being that he had a very very common name. I’ll skip the details, but it took a lot of skill and some creativity but finally I found out more about his life, which had included a bunch of marriages and even some illegitimate children or at least suspected illegitimate children, plus one legitimate child (and one legitimate child that actually wasn’t his, but that’s a whole nother story). And that legitimate child who was his also had had a very very common name, and I didn’t even know his birthdate or his mother’s name.
I even hired a genealogist to help me, but she only got so far, too. My big breakthrough was finding the great-uncle’s step-granddaughter (again, I’ll skip the details of the story), and she gave me a bunch of anecdotes about my great uncle (she had known him well), plus a small piece of information about his son: the name of the large city she thought my great-uncle’s son (her mother’s stepbrother) had lived in for at least a little bit.
And that in turn helped me to find his most recent address.
I figured this great-uncle’s son (who was my first cousin once-removed) would have been 94 at the time I found that address for him. What were the chances that he was still alive? And if alive, what were the chances that he was cognitively capable of understanding what I was saying and who I was? I thought they were slim, but I wrote him a letter anyway in which I explained the situation very carefully. I didn’t want to jar him and cause undue alarm or upset, and that’s one of the reasons I didn’t try to phone. I thought a letter would be gentler, plus it might reach someone else who might know something about his story.
I never expected to hear another word.
But – as you may by now have suspected – about a month later I got a letter in the mail. I stared at it in joyful but gobsmacked disbelief. It had a return address sticker with his name on it and the address, and my address was written on the front in the neatest, clearest hand I’ve ever seen. His letter was handwritten, too, and that clarity continued throughout the missive, matched by a clarity of thought.
Astounding.
Since then I’ve not met him; he lives far away. And I’ll skip all the things he told me about what had happened with his father, and how certain tragedies occurred and then after his father’s remarriage he was ripped away from the only family he’d ever known till then – which had happened not at the beginning of the 20th Century (when he wasn’t even born yet), but around 1940.
1940! That meant my mother knew about his existence, and knew him well, and he knew her, which turned out to be true and I received proof of it from him. Why hadn’t she mentioned him to me? He was her first cousin (she only had two others, so it wasn’t as though there were so many).
That’s another mystery and it will almost certainly remain unsolved.
And let me add that no one else in the family – neither my brother nor my own two second cousins on that side – had ever even heard of the existence of this great-uncle and certainly not of his son. They were flabbergasted by the whole story. Of the entire family, only my mother had mentioned it, and only to me.
Maybe she thought I’d figure it out some day, if anyone would. She probably knew what a bulldog I could be. And I’m pretty sure that after the 1940s she really didn’t know much about him or his father – but she obviously knew quite a bit about him prior to that. And afterwards, once I had seen photos of this great-uncle and his new wife and I had learned what they really looked like, I was able to see that they in fact had attended my parents’ wedding in the early 1940s. There they were in the photos, big as life.
My newfound first cousin once-removed is still going strong in his late 90s now – knock wood – and who knows, maybe some day I’ll actually meet him. He lives far away in a part of the country I almost never visit, so it would take a special trip.
But it’s extraordinarily satisfying to me to have located him. I can’t even explain the joy I felt when I got that letter from him, and it still makes me smile when I think of it – a mystery solved, an open circle closed. Not that such things are ever solved – including the grief and isolation he experienced as a child – but I hope there’s some healing there, and for me it’s been very satisfying.
I like to think my mother would have been pleased.
The Babylon Bee perfectly sums up the Rittenhouse case
[Hat tip: commenter “AesopFan.”]
This:
Liberals Accuse Rittenhouse Of Trying To Avoid Punishment Through Legal Loophole Known As ‘Trial’
Roundup
These are a number of big stories I’ve barely touched on, and here are a few:
(1) First we have the FBI versus Project Veritas, though the use of raids and then intelligence leaks. A very familiar story and the way the intelligence community fights against the right. See this: “A US Government law enforcement agency conducted an illegal and unconstitutional raid on a journalist and then handed documents recovered in that raid, over to a rival journalistic group.”
(2) Now let’s turn to the 5th Circuit declaration that Biden’s OSHA vaccine mandate be enjoined:
On the dubious assumption that the Mandate does pass constitutional muster—which we need not decide today — it is nonetheless fatally flawed on its own terms. Indeed, the Mandate’s strained prescriptions combine to make it the rare government pronouncement that is both overinclusive (applying to employers and employees in virtually all industries and workplaces in America, with little attempt to account for the obvious differences between the risks facing, say, a security guard on a lonely night shift, and a meatpacker working shoulder to shoulder in a cramped warehouse) and underinclusive (purporting to save employees with 99 or more coworkers from a “grave danger” in the workplace, while making no attempt to shield employees with 98 or fewer coworkers from the very same threat). The Mandate’s stated impetus—a purported “emergency” that the entire globe has now endured for nearly two years,10 and which OSHA itself spent nearly two months responding to11—is unavailing as well. And its promulgation grossly exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority.
(3) Yeah, Joe Biden called Satchel Paige a Negro:
And I just want to tell you, I know you’re a little younger than I am, but, you know, I’ve adopted the attitude of the great Negro — at the time, pitcher in the Negro Leagues — went on to become a great pitcher in the pros — in the Major League Baseball after Jackie Robinson. His name was Satchel Paige.
I bow to no one in my detestation of Joe Biden, but I can’t quite bring myself to get excited about this particular utterance of his. After all, although the term “Negro” became verboten some time during the 60s (to the best of my recollection), I’m old enough to remember when it was the polite term, used by everyone in a respectful way. That’s why Satchel Paige was indeed a renowned pitcher in what was then called the Negro League, and in the Negro World Series (see this). That would have been in the 1930s and early 1940s, which was before my time and even before Biden’s (born in 1942) time.
But hey, we all know that Biden was actually born about 1000 years ago. As he segues deeper into cognitive decline, he probably is channeling ancient memories. But it is kind of fun to watch the press spin, and imagine the way his handlers must have cringed when he said it.
(4) Hostages taken at the US embassy in Yemen:
Houthi rebels backed by Iran continue to hold Yemeni employees of the U.S. government hostage, the State Department confirmed Thursday.
Earlier this week reports surfaced that showed 25 Yemenis in Yemen’s largest city of Sana’a, who worked for the U.S. Embassy and USAID, had been arbitrarily detained by the rebel group.
A State Department spokesman told Fox News the “majority” of the hostages have been released, but that embassy staff “continue to be detained without explanation.”
“We have been unceasing in our behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts to secure their release,” press secretary Ned Price told reporters Thursday. “We’ve seen some progress, and we’re continuing to work this critical issue.”
According to Google; according to DuckDuckGo
Grosskreutz was the man who survived being shot by Kyle Rittenhouse, and who testified for the prosecution in the trial. During that testimony it was brought out that Grosskreutz had been carrying a concealed weapon without a permit.
This is a violation for which he could and probably should have been charged. But we all know why he wasn’t charged. It would have taken away some of his credibility that the state so desperately needed to make its case, and perhaps would have even bolstered Rittenhouse’s self-defense claim.
Can’t have that, can we?
So, what happens when you do a Google search for “why wasn’t grosskreutz charged with weapons violation,” as I did? You get a load of articles, but none of the high-on-the-list ones appear to address that question. Here’s the very first one on the list if you want to take a look at what you typically get from that Google search.
It isn’t until the fourteenth article on the Google list that we come to something marginally relevant to my search: this Quora question-and-answer. But it doesn’t really deal with the question I really wanted answered, either. That Quora piece asks why Grosskreutz wasn’t charged with pointing the gun at Rittenhouse, not why he wasn’t charged for concealed carry without a permit. It’s only at article number sixteen that someone asks (tentatively, without much information on it) about that type of weapons charge for Grosskreutz. But even after that, although I looked for a short while longer, I found no more articles addressing the subject.
Go to DuckDuckGo, however, and the story is very different. The first five articles that come up are directly on point, as is number eight (at least, in my list). That’s pretty impressive. Apparently there aren’t so many places where it’s been discussed, but DuckDuckGo does a good job of locating and prioritizing them. Google does not, and of course that’s not by accident.
It’s one of the biggest ways in which Google shapes public opinion rather than merely providing information, and the only thing to do about it is to stop using Google and advise others not to use it either. But Google is an immensely popular search engine and I’m pretty sure that the vast vast majority of people who use it have no idea about its biases or how they operate to keep information from the searcher.
Open thread 11/13/21
Such ease and humor:
The Rittenhouse jury instructions: provocation included
Andrew Branca has posted his analysis of the day’s proceedings in the Rittenhouse trial. It contains the jury instructions and is quite detailed, and I suggest you read it or at least skim it.
I wish I could say it cheered me up, but it most assuredly did not.
The comments there are worth reading, too. I’ll highlight some of them, but there are plenty more:
“andrew [Branca writes] Judge explaining lesser included offenses, notes reduces risk of a second trial due to a hung jury.”
******
That is probably the most ominous thing that I have read…The judge is allowing more lesser includeds so as to increase the likelihood of a guilty verdict inorder to reduce the “risk” of a second trial. Making decisions not on “law” or the “risk” of Kyle going to prison but to increase the chance of a guilty verdict inorder to avoid the hassle of another trial!! WTF
I still have a problem with provocation with intent. KR’s statement was that he dropped the fire extinguisher because he saw Ziminski with a gun pointed at him. Ziminski proved he had a gun by firing a shot into the air several seconds later.
The state needs to disprove KR’s testimony with some evidence. Ziminski was never called to testify that KR pointed a gun at him. No witness testifiied to seeing KR point his rifle, and there were witnesses everywhere. We have a retouched photo, that now the prosecutor is going to tell the jury what it shows? That sure doesn’t sound like “evidence”, and the judge SHOULD NOT allow it.
Finally, the entire foundation for the prosecution’s close is based on a video for which we have no idea where it came from, that was only provided to the defense in the second week of the trial, immediately before the prosecution rested. So, the state charged and prosecuted KR for more than a year, and conducted the first week of the trial, without the only evidence that supposedly supports their charges? If that doesn’t prove political persecution, I don’t know what does.
As I understand things, as the trial started, the FBI unexpectedly showed up with low-res drone footage that everybody understands was from the FBI.
Then, halfway through the trial, some additional drone footage mysteriously appeared, and no one knows who took it, who stored it, who may have tampered with it, or really anything about its provenance or chain of custody.
And Kyle’s freedom is going to hinge on barely-discernable “information” recorded on that video?
How was this evidence ever accepted by the defense?
Provocation with intent occurs when the defendant deliberately provokes a violent response, with the intent of then having an excuse to use deadly force against the person provoked.
__________I don’t see how this argument is going to make any sense. If Kyle really pointed his gun at Ziminski with the deliberate intent of provoking either him or Rosenbaum to attack him so that Kyle could then shoot one or both of them, then why did Kyle run away from them, instead of just shooting them as soon as they moved towards him? The fact that Kyle tried to get away from them seems to be pretty clear and convincing evidence that Kyle had NO intent to provoke them into attacking him so he could shoot them.
The reporter witness McGinnis, who witnessed the Rosenbaum shooting, testified that when Rosenbaum first came at Kyle, Kyle “pivoted” and ran away. Kyle could have shot Rosenbaum right then, but he didn’t. When Rosenbaum caught up to Kyle, Rosenbaum came at him again and Kyle moved the barrel of his gun away from him. IOW, Kyle had yet another opportunity to shoot Rosenbaum if that was what he wanted, but he didn’t do it. Kyle didn’t shoot until Rosenbaum lunged at him and actually grabbed the barrel of his gun. Kyle’s behavior doesn’t make sense if he was just looking for an excuse to shoot Rosenbaum. Kyle did everything possible to AVOID shooting Rosenbaum for as long as possible, and only shot him when he had no other choice. That behavior is completely inconsistent with the argument that Kyle was deliberately trying to provoke Rosenbaum in order to have an excuse to shoot him.
So the Rekieta Law panel today said that the only reason provocation was allowed today is because Rittenhouse himself brought up the pointing of a gun when he took the stand. If he hadn’t have testified, it would not have come up and the state would never have been able to resurrect its dead case.
I’ve watched most this case, but trying to think back to this – is this true? The prosecution could not have brought it up via video? I know there was no other testimony about it. Ziminski sure as heck wasn’t there to say so.
The gun charge may be a blessing in disguise. If the jury wants to acquit on the felonies, this gives them a misdemeanor charge to convict on so they at least convict on something. That’s a better compromise than the “lesser” included offenses which are all major end-of-your-life-as-you-know-it felonies.
And I think that Kyle has something important going for him that has nothing to do with the law. He seems like a nice kid with good-hearted intentions. I think it was good that he took the stand. He presented himself well. It helped to humanize him and maybe help make it more difficult to callously ignore the evidence and the law and simply throw him to the wolves out of political bias.
Nevertheless, if they convict Kyle on the basis of this bogus evidence and ass-hat prosecution, it means they had it in for him anyways, the whole trial was an exercise in futility, and Kyle was doomed from the start. No actually fair and un-biased jury could possibly convict on the basis of what I was in this trial.
It’s that very last paragraph of that last comment that reflects my views. Short of a dismissal with prejudice by the judge – which I think should have happened but I also think was never ever going to happen – such cases come down to the jury.
And not just the jury as they watch what is revealed in the trial, either. I’ve said that “a mind is a difficult thing to change,” and it really really is. That certainly applies to jury members all of whom supposedly come to trials with open minds. Open minds would be nice, but it’s not that way and is almost never that way. It’s especially rare in a case such as Rittenhouse’s, which has been very heavily publicized and propagandized for well over a year, with even national figures such as Joe Biden weighing in to condemn him.
Disgusting, but true. At least Obama only said Trayvon Martin might have been his son; he didn’t say the “white Hispanic” Zimmerman was a white supremacist.
It is almost a certainly that the jury pool in Kenosha was tremendously tainted by all that negative publicity, and in addition there was and is the added threat of jurors knowing that riots will probably ensue without a guilty verdict. That’s mob rule, and it’s the terrible sword that hangs over our heads now that the authorities charged with keeping civil order have abandoned that endeavor in many cities and states in recent years. The original riots in Kenosha that sparked the Rittenhouse’s actions were a form of the same thing – people enraged at what they thought had happened to Jacob Blake, and already making up their minds that the police who shot him had to pay.
In Rittenhouse’s trial, the jurors brought with them into that courtroom whatever preconceptions they had, and it’s probably the case that none of them or few of them changed their minds because of the trial proceedings. I have no idea how they were originally leaning, though, and that’s the all-important question.
I can’t imagine any thinking person being persuaded of Rittenhouse’s guilt by the evidence in this trial. But what I can imagine isn’t the point. The point is: who are the jurors, what did they each think going into the trial, what will they each think at the end of it, and will at least one of them decide he is not guilty.
Now the governor of Wisconsin calls out the National Guard (plus, is this the end of self-defense in Wisconsin?)
Governor Evers of Wisconsin has authorized 500 Wisconsin National Guard troops in anticipation of the Rittenhouse verdict.
You could say this was prudent, because if there is anything less than a conviction on the most serious charges, riots have been promised. You could also say – and you’d be correct – that this is just another element of the case that will tend to intimidate the jury from rendering a “not guilty” verdict. I would add that in my opinion this jury should have been sequestered, because all of this could have easily been foreseen. But I’m not even sure that the defense asked for that, and at any rate it was not done.
What’s more, irony abounds. Evers didn’t see fit to call the Guard when the Kenosha riots occurred, but he should have. And that’s not just 20/20 hindsight; it was quite obvious at the time. If he had done so, it is highly likely that Rosenbaum and Huber would still be alive, Grosskreutz would have retained his biceps, and Kyle Rittenhouse’s entire future wouldn’t be in jeopardy. There were so many points along the way when authorities made the wrong decisions, and I don’t think it was mere incompetence, I think it was a combination of cowardice and leftist ideology, with sometimes one predominating and sometimes the other.
I fight against my own pessimism, but in this case I’m losing that fight.
In other developments in the trial today, I’m still trying to get a bead on what was decided about the judge’s instructions to the jury. This Legal Insurrection thread is worth reading on that score, but I’m going to wait for Andrew Branca’s roundup tonight of the day’s events before I say much more, except to quote some commenters there.
First we have this:
The state’s entire basis is that there is no such thing as self defense, at least not in practice. In this trial so far the state has argued:
1. Kyle did not KNOW that Grosskreutz was going to pull the trigger, so it wasn’t a reasonable threat.
2. A defender is a threat to their attacker and may even be MORE of a threat provided the defender has a more capable gun. Apparently that invalidates uses of force.
3. Not risking death or bodily harm to give medical aid to the person you shot shows disregard for life
4. Having a gun at all is provocation
5. Being stripped of your gun by an attacker does not create a reasonable fear of death
6. As you pointed out, shooting anyone in any way in a mob is inherently recklessThis whole trial is just a look into what the left wants self defense to look like, as well as court process in general. There is no use of force of any kind that can pass the scrutiny Binger wants applied here.
That’s the way I see it, too: if the jury convicts on these charges, the right of self-defense is pretty much gone in the state of Wisconsin.
There’s also this:
The idea of “recklessness” here is tantamount to a principle that one can never shoot in self defense if attacked by a mob. When will there not be someone “possibly behind” the attacker in a mob? One could go further and point to the historic/common sense fact that a good portion of the most deadly attacks are those of multiple attackers. This is a case of “if not now, when?” That is, if one cannot shoot to defend against mob violence, there is no right to self defense.
A charge of “recklessness ” in this context is not a “lesser included” charge, but entirely negates the right of self defense. It should not be on the verdict sheet as a matter of law (unless)…Kyle was lobbing grenades.
Arizona school board president kept files on domestic terrorists
Otherwise known as parents who might have opposed him in some way:
The president, or possibly his father, appears to have kept a dossier on 47 parents who dared to speak out against his policies at school board meetings — a dossier complete with Social Security numbers, background checks, a divorce paper, mortgage documents, trade certifications, and screenshots of Facebook posts.
There’s a petition calling for his resignation, but he denies personal involvement with this. At any rate, someone seems to have been collecting such information:
The dossier also includes videos showing a man taking photographs of parents and children in the hours before a school board meeting. “Somewhere around here we have a private investigator who’s writing down all of their plates,” the man says in the video. “They don’t know it’s me … I covered up my license plate.”
Once again I am reminded of how the internet has facilitated this sort of practice, both in its compilation and in the organization, storage, and dissemination of the information. It’s not just the federal government, either, although it certainly helps that entity gather a huge amount of information on all of us and also to store it and to locate it when the time seems right. It’s also local government and private individuals, and activists have jumped at the chance.
Rittenhouse and the right to self-defense
I probably will write more about this over the weekend, because I need more information on it in order to say something more intelligent about it. But I’ve been appalled at two things recently in the Rittenhouse trial – in addition to the fact that he was charged with murder in the first place. Both things underscore, for me, how much of our legal system depends on the integrity of public officials such as prosecutors.
Prosecutors have a lot of power, even though the system is set up to protect the rights of the accused through rules such as the presumption of innocence. But even being charged with something like murder is an ordeal – and there’s also the creation of an atmosphere (by the MSM and political operatives such as Biden) that prejudices the public against a defendant such as Rittenhouse and includes the threat of violence if a guilty verdict isn’t reached. That threat of violence is not only against the community as a whole, but against specific jurors who will supposedly be doxxed if the verdict isn’t guilty.
Remember that the genesis of this entire horror show was MSM lies about the shooting of Jacob Blake, and resultant rioting, as well as the abdication of the government of the city in keeping the peace. Rioters were allowed to – well, to run riot – and that’s the only reason Rittenhouse was there in the first place, as well as the reason anarchy prevailed in the streets that August night.
The DA’s office charged Rittenhouse precipitously, without having nearly enough information to know whether the charges were valid. It was either a cave to the mob or a political decision by leftists, but either way it was shockingly fast under the circumstances. The performance of the ADA (Binger) during the trial has been abominable, and the case against Rittenhouse is astonishingly weak. A DA with integrity would never have brought this case, but these DAs did, and the prosecutors in this trial have pursued it doggedly.
Yesterday the prosecution was allowed to introduce some extraordinarily weak and dubious evidence (you can read about it here), an “enhanced” video that surfaced recently that was originally impossible to decipher and whose “enhancement” involved a process by which the image is hopelessly distorted by the addition of enormous numbers of pixels that weren’t there in the first place.
Has such evidence ever been admitted in a court of law? It’s possible, but I certainly haven’t heard of it before. The prosecutors contend that it shows Rittenhouse pointing his gun at someone, which could go to the issue of provocation and could at least arguably cancel out his right to self-defense.
Today, it appears (I’ve gleaned this mainly from discussions in comments around the blogosphere, but the situation should emerge more clearly later on) that that the judge has allowed the prosecution to include lesser charges at this late date. The trial is over in terms of evidence, and my understanding so far is that in Wisconsin there apparently is a rule that the prosecution can add new charges if the judge thinks they fit, even after all the testimony is over. To me, this would seem to give the prosecution a terribly unfair advantage if they have a weak case and want to pursue a defendant and make sure he’s put away on something.
At least, that’s my understanding at this point. If you’ve been watching the trial today (I haven’t), and/or if you know more about the Wisconsin laws on these points, please feel free in the comments.
On August 27 of 2020, shortly after the events in this case transpired, I wrote that this case could have the result of “discouraging bona fide self-defense on the part of the rioters’ targets.” The left has been trying for a long time to weaken this right in the US as they already have done in countries such as Britain, and they see this case as a big opportunity.
Now it comes down to the jury, but so far this case has been appalling in every way.
Open thread 11/12/21
Yes, but what did he eat for lunch?
The continuing war against the right
[Hat tip: commenter “Barry Meislin.”]
The left would like Jews to believe it’s the right they have to fear:
As director of Georgetown University’s Center for Jewish Civilization who also taught at the International Institute for Counterterrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Hoffman’s message to worried American Jews is that they’re not scared enough. What Hoffman is trying to do is to scare American Jews into believing that Trump supporters—meaning roughly 75 million Americans, or half of the electorate—are domestic terrorists and violent white supremacists. Worst of all, according to Hoffman, is that there’s not much to be done to stop them. He recommended a service that will scrub your information from the internet. Otherwise, if the red-baseball-cap-wearing hordes come for you, you’re on your own.
Antisemitic extremists are real, and they live on both the left and the right. It was a white supremacist who killed 11 people at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue in 2018. Indeed, white supremacism and right-wing antisemitism, from the Ku Klux Klan to Charles Lindbergh, are deeply embedded in American history, even if by now we’d hoped to transcend them. But are they more dangerous today than ever before in American history? It may seem so, but only if you are ignorant of that history—or pursuing an agenda that threatens to endanger American Jews, rather than protect them from harm.
So why is a man who has researched terrorism for more than four decades and worked at the higher levels of the American national security apparatus telling the Jewish community that they are helpless against millions of their own fellow citizens, who should now in fact be considered their enemies? Because Hoffman is messaging on behalf of a shameful and deeply un-American push by the Biden administration to criminalize the regime’s political opponents—an initiative in which Jews are being positioned as, and told they are hopeless to avoid being, targets.
Jews, of course, are a very small part of this, because their numbers are tiny. On the other hand, those numbers tend to include some major Democratic donors. In addition, the left is afraid that various ethnic groups whose vote they’ve long counted on – in particular, Hispanics and even a small percentage of black people – are starting to leave the fold as the party moves further to the left. The Democratic leadership relies on fear in an effort to keep them in line, and this appeal to Jews is part of this.
Remember back in August of 2012, when none other than then-VP Joe Biden addressed a crowd composed mainly of black people this way?:
Biden told more than 800 ticketed supporters that Romney wants to repeal the financial regulations enacted after the Wall Street crash of 2008. “He’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules – unchain Wall Street!” Biden said. Then he added, “They’re going to put you all back in chains” with their economic and regulatory policies.
That was when the mild-mannered Romney was running.