On the Jewish vote in 2024
I’m too busy today to put up Part II of my series on the Israeli hostages; I’ll probably do it tomorrow. There’s a lot to say.
But in the meantime, I happened to see this Caroline Glick piece about the Jewish vote in the US in 2024. That topic seems to occupy a lot of people’s minds, and I’ve written about it before. Over and over I see comments here and elsewhere to the effect of, “And despite everything, the Jews will be voting overwhelmingly for the Democrats, as usual.” It’s sometimes written with sorrow and sometimes with venom, but it’s a standard observation from many people on the right.
I’ve written on the topic before, for example here as well as here, here, and here. Now I want to quote what Caroline Glick said yesterday:
The growth of antisemitic violence in the United States will lead a “significant number” of Jews to vote for Republicans in the upcoming election, Caroline Glick, a former policy adviser for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and currently a senior editor for the Jewish News Syndicate, said Tuesday on Newsmax.
“I think that you’re seeing that already in polls that have come out two or three times over the past several months of Jews in New York, which is the largest Jewish population,” Glick said on “Newsline.”
“You find for the first time that President Trump is getting over 50% of the Jewish vote, which is an earthquake. Those numbers are largely reflected in larger samples that are not specifically about the politics of American Jews.”
Who knows? I guess we’ll see in November – although the only mechanism for that is exit polls, and they are somewhat iffy, especially for small groups like the Jews. I don’t think, for example, that Orthodox Jews – who vote overwhelmingly Republican – are likely to be responding to many exit polls.
Our broken voting system
Ever since 2020 I’ve been saying the same thing over and over about our voting system: there is no developed nation on earth with such a loose system in terms of security, and therefore there is no trust in our elections, and that this is very dangerous. I don’t know whether or not Trump lost in 2020 because of fraud by the left. But I do know that people who think he did are well within their rights, because the opportunity was there and the motivation was there, and there is no reason to trust that our system could protect us.
Today I found this article that goes into the situation in depth. It’s long but well worth reading. Here’s an excerpt from the piece:
Whatever happens in November, one-third to one-half of the country is likely to doubt the integrity of the vote. Whether these people are Democrats or Republicans, it will be foolhardy to dismiss them as disinformation-addled cranks. A democracy exists in the minds of its citizens, in the intangible shared belief that the political compact accurately reflects some measurable quantity of the popular will. But the new American voting system is practically calibrated to produce mistrust, and to create broad segments of public opinion that believe the whole thing is fake—regardless of who wins.
I think it’s obvious that if voting fraud occurs it would happen at the hands of the left, for the simple reason that in swing states the left controls the cities and it’s easier to accomplish fraud on a more significant level in the cities, as well as the fact that the left embraces “the ends justify the means.” But if, for example, Trump were to win, the accusations of pro-Trump fraud from the left would follow a different but very familiar route: the influence of foreign powers such as Russia who supposedly favor Trump, the spread of “disinformation” that should be stifled, and/or “racist voter suppression” by the remaining states that still have a relative amount of voting security in place.
The level of distrust has reached a very dangerous level.
Free speech: as Brazil goes, so goes … ?
There are growing ominous signs that the leftist governmental forces arrayed against freedom of speech are growing bolder and bolder. Now that the Gramscian march has given them control of the more conventional forms of media, such governments would like to block their citizens from access to other sources of information that could challenge their grip on power.
Prior to the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, it was easier for governments (or, during the time of the Trump administration, anti-Trump government agencies such as the FBI) to muzzle Twitter through a combination of suggestions and threats, as well as deceptions. Now that it’s much more difficult to do, they may resort to outright blocking of the platform – as did Brazil recently.
Brazil has not just banned X (formerly Twitter) from the entire country, but citizens will now be fined $9000 a day (more than the average salary in the country) for using VPNs to access the platform. X is the main source of news for Brazilians, who will now be left with government-approved sources or face financial ruin in seeking unfettered information.
The Guardian is reporting that the confiscatory fines are part of a comprehensive crackdown on efforts to get news through X, including ordering all Apple stores to remove X from new phones.
The move puts Brazil with China in the effort to create a wall of censorship between citizens and unregulated information.
For the anti-free speech movement, Brazil is a key testing ground for where the movement is heading next. European censors are arresting CEOs like Pavel Durov while threatening Elon Musk.
However, it is Brazil that foreshadows the brave new world of censorship where entire nations will block access to sites committed to free speech values or unfettered news. If successful, the Brazilian model is likely to be replicated by other countries.
The current administration in Brazil is leftist.
Here’s some reaction from our own left:
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison responded to the ban with a posting declaring “Obrigado Brasil!” or “Thanks, Brazil!” Ironically, he did so on X.
Ellison previously praised the virulently anti-free speech group Antifa and promised that it would “strike fear in the heart” of Donald Trump.
And this from Kamala Harris is ominous:
This is what she actually believes.
Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and the Democratic Party (Kamala is just a puppet) wants to destroy it. https://t.co/kntGcq2WnK
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 3, 2024
Open thread 9/3/2024
Hamas and the murder of hostages, Part I: the background
[NOTE: I plan for this to be a two- or three- part series, sparked by the terrible news of Hamas’ murder of six Israeli hostages who had survived almost a year in captivity.]
First, a bit of background on the early post-10/7 days.
When the enormous carnage and torment (as well as kidnappings) wrought by Hamas on ordinary Israeli citizens (plus a fair number of resident non-citizens, such as workers from Thailand) was revealed, the reaction in Israel was intense grief and rage. Some of the rage was against Hamas, of course. But a great deal was also against the government and the military that had failed to protect its people. That reaction got even more intense when it was learned that there had been multiple prior warnings about what was about to happen, and those warnings were brushed away, although they later turned out to have been spot on.
Not long after 10/7, Hamas threatened to execute hostages. This possibility was always part of the equation, as with any kidnapping by a violent (and in this case sadistic and fanatic) group. It’s easy to forget these threats – after all, so much has happened since. But I remember them, and here’s a refresher in case you’ve forgotten. The dateline of the story is October 9, 2023, two days after the attack:
On Monday, Hamas’ al-Qassam Brigades, the terrorist group’s military arm, chillingly declared it would begin killing its prisoners if the Israeli government continues bombing Palestinian lands.
“Any targeting of innocent civilians without warning will be met regretfully by executing one of the captives in our custody, and we will be forced [sic] to broadcast this execution,” said Abu Obeida, a Qassam Brigades spokesman.
“We regret [sic] this decision, but we hold the Zionist enemy and their leadership responsible for this.”
That statement brought into sobering view one of the main reasons Hamas seemed so intent on capturing innocent civilians: the leverage it could provide.
“The cruel reality is Hamas took hostages as an insurance policy against Israeli retaliatory action, particularly a massive ground attack and to trade for Palestinian prisoners,” said Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
The only reluctance Hamas has had to killing the hostages is the need to parade them as well as to use them as negotiation leverage against Israel, and for the latter purpose live hostages are better than dead ones, although dead ones will do in a pinch.
I bring all of this up to remind us all that in the early days it was reasonable to assume that we’d be seeing these televised executions, and that the abductors would be taking a leaf out of the book of Daniel Pearl’s killers. After all, inherent in kidnapping and hostage-taking is always a good possibility of murder if the abductors’ demands are not met. But in this case those public executions never happened, because Hamas is smarter than that. They are playing a public relations game, and so far they are winning. So in the post-10/7 phase of the conflict, Hamas has been careful to walk a tightrope of pretend magnanimity versus bloodthirstiness.
The pretend magnanimity came last fall during the hostage-for-prisoners exchanges, in which Hamas gave up the hostages seen as most vulnerable, the ones most likely to garner worldwide sympathy: mothers and children, and older women. In return Hamas got a great many prisoners.
But that’s not all Hamas got. It also was able to give the impression that future negotiations with Hamas (through its proxies such as Qatar) would bring Israel even greater dividends, as time went on, and that all the hostages might be released alive if only Israel gave up more and more. Hamas had every reason to believe that over time the pressure from the Israeli public and the world (including of course the present US administration) would increase to the point where Israel would be pressed to give up just about everything. And in fact, the metrics of the 2011 Shalit deal, in which Israel released 1027 prisoners for one Israeli soldier who’d been held for five years (including 280 prisoners with life sentences, who altogether were responsible for the murders of 569 Israelis) would lead them to believe that. It’s no accident that among those released prisoners was Sinwar, future mastermind of 10/7. If Israel had been willing to agree to a deal so lopsided for one Israeli – and a soldier at that – what might it give up now? It’s easy to understand why Hamas was motivated to take as many hostages as possible on October 7.
Over time – and as I write this post, it’s been about a month short of a year since 10/7 – many hostages have died. We don’t know the exact number, but Israeli intelligence has learned a lot. Even prior to the recent murder of six of the young adult hostages (I’ll be writing more about that in Part II), the dead bodies of some hostages had been found and taken back to Israel for burial. Some were known to have been murdered on October 7 in Israel and Hamas operatives had ghoulishly brought their bodies to Gaza to be used as negotiating currency. Some had died more recently, and Hamas claimed – of course – that they’d been killed by Israeli bombs, although the autopsy evidence and condition of the bodies didn’t indicate that. Then there was the terrible case of three hostages mistakenly killed by Israeli forces during a firefight. And always there was the threat of Hamas murdering more hostages.
Meanwhile, the IDF and/or Israel’s intelligence forces managed to rescue some hostages unharmed. This was cause for great celebration in Israel, and probably a great deal of anger and chagrin on the part of Hamas. There was a basic pattern to the successful rescues, however: nearly all the hostages whom Israel had managed to free previously were in above ground houses, which made it easier to surprise their captors and easier to get intelligence on the hostages’ whereabouts because neighbors might inform or unknowingly give information. The only hostage found alive in a tunnel was the recent case of Farhan al-Qadi, an Israeli Bedouin grandfather who was found alone and apparently had been abandoned by his minders as the IDF closed in – although we don’t know for sure. It doesn’t appear that the IDF knew of his exact whereabouts to begin with, and my guess is that he was guarded by less fanatical Hamas members compared to those guarding the six Israeli captives who were later murdered in the tunnels as the IDF approached.
Unlike many hostage situations, the one that began on 10/7/2023 is apparently somewhat decentralized. Some of the hostage-takers were originally what I call free-lancers, meaning that they were not Hamas regulars but rather Hamas sympathizers trying to cash in on the deal. Not only that, but the hostages have not been kept in one place, and one reason for that was that it guaranteed that at no point could Israel do something heroic to rescue them all or even most of them. All the rescues have been bit by bit by bit. And it is my belief that, at present, the vast majority or maybe all of the living hostages are in the tunnels being guarded by the most coldblooded of minders, because Hamas has learned that rescue is almost impossible under such circumstances – because not only can Hamas kill them as the IDF approaches, but the hostage guards can get out alive afterwards through the warren of tunnels that Hamas has constructed over the years.
Therefore I don’t think we’ll see any more rescues of living hostages, although I hope I’m wrong. And I think we’ll learn of more hostage murders, much like the ones we learned about over the weekend.
Hamas murdered the hostages to further psychologically torment Israelis and their sympathizers, as well because it knew that another result would be that the pressure on the Netanyahu government to surrender to Hamas and/or resign would increase to a fever pitch. That is exactly what has happened. There was a general strike (it’s over now), and the anti-Netanyahu forces have strengthened their protests and machinations. I plan to deal with that phenomenon in more depth in Part II, but till then I suggest you watch the following video by Caroline Glick (especially around minute thirty and after, although the whole thing is well worth watching):
Or if you prefer, please read this very informative article of Glick’s that covers much the same territory.
Happy Labor Day
[NOTE: This is a slightly edited version of a previous post.]
Labor Day is the bookend standing at the opposite end of summer from its holiday beginning, Memorial Day.
July Fourth is summer’s early peak, with the promise of long light-filled days ahead. But Labor Day is summer’s last gasp, the moment I dreaded as a child because it marked the end of vacation and the start of the school year. Spiffy new clothes, a shiny bookbag, freshly sharpened pencils, and the promise of the beautiful autumn leaves’ arrival were nice. But they couldn’t make up for the fact that a new school year was beginning. Where oh where had the summer gone?
And it goes even more quickly these days.
Here’s wishing you all a Happy Labor Day, despite the difficult times. Barbecues, picnics, the beach, just hanging out in your yard, whatever you desire and whatever you decide. And for the historically-minded among you, here’s some information on the origins of the holiday.
Open thread 9/2/24
Playing right field
Here’s a comment by “Rufus T. Firefly”:
“[Kamala Harris] seems like the kid playing right-field in baseball, who just stands out there daydreaming, hoping the ball doesn’t come her way.”
Also a great line.*
(*from a kid who played right field often)
That immediately brought up a song association for me. You might enjoy this:
Here’s an article about the guy who wrote it:
As a kid, Welch played right field, so he knows of what he sings.
Thirty-five years ago, Welch’s fortunes were altered when the folk group Peter, Paul & Mary recorded his song for their 1987 album “No Easy Walk to Freedom.”…
“My life actually changed radically,” Welch said from his home in South Egremont. Songwriting royalties allowed Welch “to quit my day job and to have a down payment on a house.” At the time, his day job involved “typing briefs and trying to write computer programs” for a law firm. …
Welch “wrote the song one afternoon in 1982 or ‘83.” He said he had no idea anyone would like it until he performed it at a New York City cafe in 1983. “I played it and the crowd went nuts,” he said; “You never know, really, it turns out.”
Ohio voting fraud
Here’s a disturbing although unsurprising situation:
Election integrity issues involving employees of a leftist company [called Black Fork] committed to “Building Long-Term Progressive Power,” have been popping up all over Ohio.
Earlier this month, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose announced he had had referred evidence of suspected election law violations to 20 county prosecutors “for review and possible criminal prosecution.” … LaRose is also asking the local prosecutors to investigate allegations of fraudulent voter registration forms like those submitted in Hamilton County.
Black Fork is also under a dark cloud in Cuyahoga County, home to Cleveland, where the local board of elections reported at least 18 suspicious voter registration cards. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections Director Anthony Perlatti told members at a June 21, 2023 meeting that “multiple counties have encountered issues with potential registration cards being submitted from deceased individuals,” according to minutes from a June 21, 2023 Cuyahoga County Board of Elections meeting.
Butler County Prosecuting Attorney Mike Gmoser this week told me that his office has received a referral from the secretary of state.
“It does involve a document with [suspect] signatures and we are seeking the verifications of all the signatures that were harvested and submitted to the Board of Elections,” he said in a phone interview.
Cuyahoga County elections officials asked LaRose’s Public Integrity Division to investigate the suspicious voter registration cards in July 2023. … Election integrity advocates have criticized LaRose for, in their estimation, moving too slowly on the complaints. …
The concerned citizen letter also asks LaRose to take immediate steps “to address the threat of noncitizen registration and voting in the 2024 elections.”
“Ohio’s election eligibility verification procedures permit third-party advocacy groups in the state to register thousands, if not tens of thousands, of ineligible individuals who then become eligible to vote in Ohio elections. The Biden Administration has exacerbated the problem by aiding and abetting the importation of untold numbers of noncitizens … ”
LaRose has taken issue with some of the changes election integrity advocates have sought, insisting that the legislature would have to pass laws to do so. …
“So to the extent that there’s any press watching, voter fraud is real, it does happen. It happens oftentimes in the form of phony registrations all in the same handwriting,” Triantafilou, the Hamilton County Board of Elections members said at the July meeting.
If the government of a state is red or purple, there’s some hope of restoring election integrity, although it depends on the officials and on the state. Otherwise, this stuff goes undetected and/or uncorrected. It’s all very similar to things we heard may have happened in many swing states in the 2020 election. But after that election, courts for the most part said the issue was moot or impossible to prove or disprove.
Nicole Shanahan has made quite a video
The left needs to watch out for leftists mugged by the reality of Democrat betrayal. This is an effective video:
I think Harris is temperamentally unsuited to be president and she knows it
That won’t necessarily stop her from being elected, of course. But I really wonder why she decided to become a politician. Among other things, although she lies and lies and lies, she – unlike most politicians – seems somewhat uncomfortable doing so. That discomfort gets transmitted in awkward body language and stress in her voice, as well as a lack of emotional match to the content of what she’s saying. That’s why the awkward forced laugh comes out sometimes; I think it’s nervous laughter.
And that is why Walz was part of her interview with CNN and why people joke that he’s her emotional support animal. And I don’t think Walz has any discomfort whatsoever with lying.
But this uneasiness of Harris’ is not her only difficulty when she’s playing the role of a politician (and on her it really does seem to be a role). Most politicians are verbally fluent. They may be lying through their teeth, but the listener has no trouble understanding what they’re actually saying. Kamala Harris, on the other hand, generates a lot of near-meaningless words in the process of trying to find her way to an answer that doesn’t implicate her. She is, to be blunt, BS-ing and stalling, and in the process leaves the listener scratching his or her head. Again, this is something most or all politicians do, but they ordinarily accomplish it with smoothness and finesse.
For some reason, Harris has trouble doing that.
I’ve seen pundits and commenters say that she did much better in her DNC speech than in her interview. Well, d-uuhh. Reading a speech off a teleprompter is a whole different activity than responding – even with canned answers – in an interview. In an interview, there’s always the chance of the unexpected. In a speech, the speaker is in control – especially when in front of a friendly audience lacking hecklers – and in an interview the control is partially ceded to the interviewer. In a speech, the task is simple: to read. In an interview, the person has to think on his or her feet (or while seated, as in Harris’ interview with Bash).
Many people describe Harris as stupid. I don’t think that’s it at all. She’s not brilliant by any means, but no one gets through law school being stupid. But most lawyers are far more verbally adept than Harris, I think that something else is going on with her. Yes, it’s possible she has some sort of problem with alcohol or other substances. But I think that deep down she lacks confidence and isn’t as good as most politicians at hiding that fact.
More interesting is why the Democrats have nominated two people in a row who aren’t good speakers and seem to have some challenges, whether cognitive or emotional or both. After all, it’s not as though the Democrats lack glib talkers. With Biden, who wasn’t doing well in the primaries in 2020 until everyone else was “encouraged” to drop out, he was chosen by the Democrat powers that be because he could be promoted as a moderate, a “nice” guy, and someone experienced. With Harris, as VP she was the obvious heir to Biden, and getting rid of a black woman would ruffle too many voters’ feathers. So, once Biden imploded, the Democrats were pretty much stuck with Harris and they are now deeply engaged in trying to make the best of it by pretending she’s something she’s not. But that only increases the emotional pressure on her, in my opinion.
The fact that polls indicate that Harris is basically tied in the race for the presidency reflects several things, the first being the strength of Trump Derangement Syndrome. For a great many people, all the Democrats need is a placeholder, and Harris or anyone else would do the trick. The second is the strength of identity politics: for many voters, the fact that she’s a black woman is enough to get their vote. The third is the role of the press and pundits in telling people that Harris is the best thing since sliced bread.
Once you look at the Harris interview, it’s more obvious than ever why she has been avoiding non-scripted events like interviews and press conferences, and probably will continue to do so for the most part. She’s trying to run out the clock.
Right now we don’t even seem to have a working president. Biden acts like he’s retired, and Harris is out campaigning. Someone or some group (I think the latter) is running the country, and already has been for quite some time. Biden did have some input, but for the most part he deferred to this group. Although Kamala is a lot younger than Biden, I think she’s okay with continuing the process if she’s elected, and with governing mostly as a figurehead who gives speeches now and then as the country continues on its present terrible trajectory.