… and I guess Purim – which celebrates the thwarting of a genocidal ruler who wants to kill all the Jews – is still apropos.
See also this. Jew-hatred is especially rampant on the left, but is has a home on the right as well.
Reports of the demise of the Democrat Party: are they premature or not?
Political fortunes are strange. A political party can go bankrupt of ideas slowly and then all at once. It certainly seems as though that’s happened to the Democrats.
Their formerly-appealing ideas – appealing to slightly over half the country for many years – went like this: Trump is a demon; Republicans are racist, xenophobic, homophobes who are out to hurt poor people and everyone except the GOP’s greedy fat-cat supporters; Democrats are the truth-tellers and all the rest is “without evidence.”
Somewhere along the line that message got stale. Maybe it was the naked injustice of the lawfare charges against Trump and the left’s relentless pursuit of them. Maybe it was four years of denial of the reality of a cognitively-challenged president. Maybe it was the preposterous insistence that biological men should be able to compete against women just by declaring themselves to be women. Maybe it was the wars that happened on Biden’s watch, or the ignominy of the Afghanistan withdrawal. Maybe it was that young people like to rebel, and after being force-fed so much leftism, supporting conservatives becomes rebelliousness.
And maybe it’s also the utter ridiculousness of the current crop of Democrats, such as this:
Tensions between prominent Democrat leaders grew Friday, as former Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuked Senate Leader Chuck Schumer for caving on the Republican continuing resolution (CR). At the same time, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries refused to comment on his future as a leader.
The striking remarks by Pelosi (D-CA) and the lack of response by Jeffries (D-NY) speak volumes about how disappointed they are with Schumer’s actions. …
The remarkable level of disarray and infighting in the Democratic party has been simmering for a while, but Schumer’s offer to go along with the CR and temporarily keep the government open appears to have been a bridge too far for some.
The Democrats have long operated as though messaging is the key to victory – that, plus demographics and identity group voting. Both things did not work in 2024. Anyone who actually listened to Kamala Harris’ interviews could see that she was struggling to say anything of substance, and kept repeating memorized talking points that didn’t necessarily have much to do with the questions being asked. People knew that inflation was hurting them in the supermarkets, and no amount of pointing to figures that the rate of inflation had slowed could tell them there wasn’t a problem. Trump’s supporters had never deserted him, but in 2024 they got assistance even from some Black and Hispanic men, who decided that Trump would be a better bet. That in particular probably shook Democrat operatives to their cores.
Not all that long ago Democrats looked invincible. A lot of people on the right who believed the 2020 election was won by cheating also believed there never would be another Republican victory. It also looked as though Trump might be going to prison. But look what happened instead. The reversal – beginning, I believe, with Trump’s surviving the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania – has been stunning. I don’t think the Democrats know what hit them.
But as I see it, Trump’s success in consolidating support during his term will depend on results. He certainly gets A for effort so far; it’s been a whirlwind. But in a way – and forgive the mixed metaphor – it’s a high-wire act. Almost everything Trump does has been high-risk. He will have to produce: for example,ceasefires that don’t offend either side too much; the reduction of inflation, fraud, and waste; the clean-up of agency partisanship and persecution of political enemies without unjustly persecuting his enemies; and the end of unchecked open borders and the deportation of criminal illegal aliens (he’s already made a good showing there).
How forgiving will the American people be if all those things don’t happen? How many people will want the pendulum to swing right back to the left? I don’t know the answer. I just know that I cheer for every good result he can accomplish, because I do not want to see the left regain power.
Happy pi day
I just learned that today is pi day.
No, not that kind of pie. National Pie Day comes on January 23rd – and now that I’ve learned that, I plan to celebrate next year. Pie is one of my very favorite desserts.
Today is Pi Day – this kind of pi:
Pi Day is supposed to be a celebration of math. Good luck with that – it’s been my experience that people either like math or they don’t. My mother hated it, my father liked it, and I liked it to right up to some point in college where it suddenly became opaque to me. Perhaps that was because my professor at the time couldn’t speak English and therefore could explain nothing to us. Or perhaps I had simply reached my math ceiling, like the guy in the photo.
So, let’s celebrate!
Open thread 3/14/2025
On Dennis Prager
Prager’s been on the right and in the public eye for decades. Roger L. Simon reports that Larry Elder has suggested that Prager should get the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and Simon agrees:
Many people have their Dennis Prager stories, I among them. He doesn’t know it—I never told him, but I guess I am now— but his influence on me was as strong as anybody’s. Back in the 1990s, when I was still a Jewish liberal but, shall we say, questioning, I would listen to Dennis on the car radio on my way back from tennis, then and now my primary way of getting exercise.
At first I thought he was a bit too right-wing, too rigid, but he was clearly quite intelligent. Gradually, however, he won me over. Maybe it was that “Happiness Hour,” because in those days, like so many liberals, I had bouts with depression. His highly moral, Torah-based, way of thinking also had an impact. He was a man of principle and I admired that, even envied it.
Recently I’ve enjoyed Jordan Peterson’s series on Exodus, and Prager was an active participant in that. I also was aware that last November he suffered a catastrophic fall (at the age of 76) that left him paralyzed and on a respirator. From what I’ve heard, he has improved to the point of now being off the respirator and there is a possibility of some further improvement, and he is set to take up his radio show again.
I wish him all the best, and further healing.
Now it’s Putin’s turn
Once Zelensky got onboard – which he sorta kinda is – the ball was in Putin’s court. So this could be the start of a big story or it could end up meaning nothing at all.
How’s that for clarity on my part? How’s that for going out on a limb with a prediction?
Here’s the news from earlier this afternoon:
In his first public remarks on the proposed 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin said Russia is “for it” but that he wants his own security guarantees.
Putin raised questions regarding a 30-day ceasefire during a press briefing in Moscow on Thursday, as President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff landed in the city to discuss the proposal.
“It seems to me, it would be very good for the Ukrainian side to reach a truce for at least 30 days. And we are for it. But there is a nuance,” Putin said, highlighting concerns regarding Russia’s Kursk region, where Ukrainian forces pushed into last year in a surprise offensive but in recent weeks have seen Russian forces retake significant ground.
“If we stop the hostilities for 30 days, what does it mean? Does it mean that everyone who is there will leave without a fight?” Putin said. “Or the Ukrainian leadership will give them an order to lay down their arms and just surrender? How will it be? It is not clear.”
That’s what talks are for.
Witkoff certainly has his hands full, as of course does Trump.
The Democrats may have realized that shutting the government down isn’t really their best gambit
Or rather – at least one Democrat named Fetterman may have realized it. The GOP needs eight, however:
Shut the government down, plunge the country into chaos, risk a recession
or
Exchange cloture for a 30 day CR that 100% fails.
The House GOP CR will then pass the Senate because it only needs 51 votes.
Total theater is neither honest with constituents nor a winning argument.
One of the responses at X: “I’m old enough to remember the Democrat outrage about a potential government shutdown last year.”
And the year before that, and the year before that, and …
Here are the guys at the Ruthless podcast discussing the continuing resolution. If you’ve never listened to them, I suggest you do. IMHO they’re both knowledgeable and entertaining; they always seem to be having a good time. I’ve selected a 5-minute segment:
Open thread 3/13/2025
It’s roundup time again
And again and again …
(1) The rate of inflation appears to have slowed since Trump took office.
(2) The House passed a continuing resolution, and now Senate Democrats face a dilemma:
After Magic Mike Johnson magically passed a continuing resolution through the evenly divided House, Senate Democrats are left in an impossible position: Vote for a continuing resolution that cuts $13 billion from non-defense spending… or shut the government down and let my friend, OMB Director Russ Vought, be in charge.
That’s right, if the government is shut down, the most hated man in leftwing circles and the face of Project 2025 will directly manage the government shutdown.
I am begging Senate Democrats… fight the Republicans, filibuster the legislation, and shut the government down!!
Of course, if Democrats spark a government shutdown, the left will suddenly consider government shutdowns to be good.
(3) New Hampshire’s Senator Jeanne Shaheen has announced she won’t run for re-election in 2026 (she’s 78 now, although being that old hasn’t stopped a lot of people). New Hampshire is a funny state and hard to predict, but there’s no question this could represent a GOP pickup in 2026. It depends, of course, on who runs – if it’s ex-Governor Sununu he would probably win, but I think he may really be through with politics and not eager to be a senator in a Trump administration. I’ve never understood Shaheen’s appeal. She’s extremely bland, runs as a moderate, and virtually always votes with the far left.
(4) Zeldin, head of the EPA, has ended this practice:
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin ended the $20 billion “gold bar” scheme set up by former President Joe Biden’s administration.
The money went to people in the National Clean Investment Fund and Clean Communities Investment Accelerator.
“20 billion of your tax dollars were parked at an outside financial institution in a deliberate effort to limit government oversight,” said Zeldin. “Doling out your money through just eight pass through, politically connected, unqualified, and in some cases, brand new NGOs. The money has since been frozen, and the Department of Justice and FBI have been investigating.”
(5) Greenland votes:
A political party in Greenland that favors an incremental approach to independence from Denmark came first in the Arctic territory’s parliamentary election. But a pro-U.S. party recorded its best result ever in a vote that took place in the shadow of President Donald Trump’s pledge to take control of the island.
The center-right Demokraatit party won 29.9% of the votes, up from 9.1% in 2021, ahead of the opposition Naleraq party, which seeks rapid independence and closer ties with the U.S., at 24.5%.
That’s a total of over 50%.
Those emails with Trump-ets
Bob Graboyes writes about what he calls “Trump-et blasts” – that is, gratuitous anti-Trump statements in emails on a wide variety of unrelated subjects:
My friend’s note was merely one car in an endless freight train of similar emails rolling and rumbling into my inbox each day. In them, one can discern empirical regularities. Trump-et Blasts are never offered as hypotheses, opinions, or topics for discussion. Rather, they are always stated as Euclidean postulates—self-evident Truths that we surely agree upon and which warrant no discussion. Recipients of Trump-et Blasts have five possible Supreme Court-like responses: affirm, ignore, concur, dissent, or defer.
I’ve noticed these Trump-et blasts more in conversation than in emails to me, probably because almost everyone I know is aware of my politics and doesn’t bother with the random snipes in emails. It’s in casual talking that it comes out, especially if I’m part of a group. In a group, even if people know I disagree, they’re not catering to me. And why should they, actually? Often, it’s a group bonding experience, a sharing of what is considered tautological and the mark of their agreed-on virtue. I’m grandfathered into the group, as it were.
And that is why – as Graboyes describes – the critique of Trump is not really up for discussion on the merits. It’s an article of faith, and/or a thesis they believe has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt or perhaps beyond any doubt.
I wrote on a similar topic back in January of 2005, when I was rather new to the blogging game. It’s called “The fine art of insulting half your audience,” and can be found here. An excerpt:
It happens nearly every time. I’ll be reading a short story, let’s say, enjoying myself, lost in the experience—when suddenly, there it is: the gratuitous and mean-spirited and out-of-context slap at Bush, or at those who support him. It’s not as though the story is even tangentially about politics, either; it can be about anything at all, it doesn’t really matter.
The Bush-dissing will be thrown in when you least expect it, just to let the reader know—well, to let the reader know what, exactly? To let the reader know that the author is hip, kindly, intelligent, moral—oh, just about everything a person ought to be. And that the reader must of course be a member of the club, too—not one of those Others, the warmongers, the selfish and stupid and demonized people who happen to have voted for Bush.
Back when I was one of the gang, too, back when I was in with the in crowd (“if it’s square, we ain’t there”), did I notice when authors dragged in their political credentials from left field? Or perhaps it wasn’t quite as commonplace back then for them to do so?
At any rate, now it seems positively obligatory. I’m reading along, sunk deep within the story, bonding with the characters—and then, suddenly, it’s as though the author has reached a hand out of the pages of the magazine (OK, I’ll confess, sometimes it’s the New Yorker—yes, I still read it for the fiction, just as some people claim they read Playboy for the interviews) and slapped me across the face.
Authors, do you really want to do this? Because, with a single sentence, you’ve managed to alienate and offend (not to mention insult) up to half your audience.
More at the link.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Open thread 3/12/2025
Khalili, legal residents, free speech, and supporting terrorist organizations
As one might expect, the left is very upset at the government’s attempt to deport green card holder and Hamas-friendly former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalili. Senator Kennedy, Louisiana Republican, summarizes the case quite well here:
Well, Mr. Khalil will receive due process because by now his lawyer has already filed a writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Khalil was involved in the protests. He was a Columbia student under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. If you support a terrorist organization you can be deported. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Mr. Khalil’s side of the story, I understand to be that I don’t support Hamas, I just support Palestinians. All I did was file some — post some Facebook posts. I wasn’t involved in any of the illegal protests or the illegal occupation of student buildings or physically intimidating the Jewish people and Jewish students. We’ll find out who’s right.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act, though, is fairly broad. And if the administration can show acts directly and probably indirectly supporting Hamas, they’ll deport him. And he should be deported, if that’s what’s shown in court.
For those interested in a more detailed legal explanation, Mahmoud Khalil is also deportable for another reason:
Khalil is a spokesman for an organization that supports armed resistance by Hamas. That makes him deportable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B).
That provision in the statute allows the deportation of even lawful permanent residents who are “representative[s]” of a “political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(aa)-(bb); see also id. at (B)(v) (“representative” defined as including “an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization.”) Columbia University Apartheid Divestment (“CUAD”) supports armed resistance by Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization.
See Sharon Otterman, Pro-Palestinian Group at Columbia Now Backs Armed Resistance by Hamas, N.Y. Times (Oct. 9, 2024), https://nytimes.com/2024/10/09/nyregion/columbia-pro-palestinian-group-hamas.html…… (CUAD supports armed resistance by Hamas).
Mahmoud Khalil is a spokesman for CUAD.
More at the link.
There is a hierarchy of non-citizens: illegal aliens, legal visa holders, and then legal green card holders. Khalili may have entered on a student visa, but now he has a green card which conveys greater rights. The arguments for deportation depend on the extent of his involvement in support of Hamas and the extent of his illegal activities on its behalf.
My questions are: why was Khalili here in the first place? When did he arrive in the US? Why was he granted a student visa and later a green card? When did he receive his green card – before or after his Columbia activities – and on what basis did he qualify for a green card? Did someone pay for his coming here and his activism?
Mahmoud Khalil was born in a Syrian refugee camp in 1995 and is a citizen of Algeria. He completed his undergraduate studies in Beirut before enrolling at Columbia University’s SIPA, where he earned his master’s degree in December 2024.
Between June and November 2023, Khalil worked as a political affairs officer with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in New York.
Not any more information there about how he came to be in the US. Here’s a NY Post article with a smidge more background, but it doesn’t even begin to answer those questions of mine.