fbpx

September 2, 2022

Instead of Healing Our Wounds, President Biden Inflamed Them

As I heard President Joe Biden in his primetime address malign the “extremist forces” in our country that are “threatening our democracy,” I couldn’t help think of another president who also faced a domestic threat.

The threat consisted of a third of the country with an army of about a million soldiers at war with the rest of the country. Rebel states like Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia were in a vicious war with northern states.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans had already perished.

So, on March 4, 1865, faced with this ongoing carnage, President Abraham Lincoln addressed the nation in his Second Inaugural.

Had Lincoln followed Biden’s approach to dealing with threats, he presumably would have bashed the rebel states and held them accountable for the atrocities of the Civil War, before demanding an immediate surrender.

Instead, Lincoln spoke compassionately and almost objectively of both sides, going as far as to discourage judgement: “Let us judge not that we be not judged.”

Here is a brief excerpt from that address, as the guns and canons continued to blaze:

“Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained.

“Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease.

“Each looked for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding.

“Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other.

“It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces but let us judge not that we be not judged.

“The prayers of both could not be answered– that of neither has been answered fully.”

Lincoln took a deeply wounded and divided nation and applied the force of ten Emergency Room centers to his patient.

Of course, it’s not fair to expect from President Biden the extraordinary wisdom and rhetorical brilliance of President Lincoln.

But it is fair to expect from our president an effort to heal the wounds of our nation rather than inflame them, especially since “unity” was the theme of his own inaugural address.

Biden started off with a grand reminder that “America made its declaration of independence to the world more than two centuries ago, with an idea unique among nations: that in America, we’re all created equal.”

Then he proceeded to undermine a big chunk of the country.

In his fiery speech, Biden repeated over and over the term “MAGA Republicans,” asserting angrily that they “represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic.”

I wonder if he realizes that 74 million “MAGA Americans” voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Was he accusing 74 million voters of being a threat to the republic? How could he not anticipate that “MAGA” would be interpreted as “Trump voter”? Who was he talking to, the other half?

According to our president, “MAGA forces” are “determined to take this country backwards, backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love. They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fanned the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.”

Hearing those words, one would think the barbarians were at the gate. What triggered such an inflammatory speech? Well, that’s not really clear.

As Noah Rothman reminds us in Commentary:

“[The speech] was not preceded by any episode of mass violence, no outpouring of primitive racial antagonism. The January 6 rioters are being systematically prosecuted by the legitimate executors of American justice, in whose crosshairs even the former president has found himself. What crisis is the American right precipitating?”

Apparently, as much as anything, that crisis was politics.

Indeed, the speech was so partisan that many critics have called it a mostly political exercise to activate the Democratic base before the November midterms. You can despise Donald Trump and fear extremism and still agree that Biden’s angry speech ended up being unusually divisive.

Realizing that he went too far, the next day Biden tried to walk back his sloppy partisan venom by assuring us, “I don’t consider any Trump supporter a threat to the country.” Had he recognized that before delivering his speech, maybe he would not have needlessly alienated millions of Americans who don’t consider themselves threats to the republic.

When the country needed a fully staffed emergency room, all the president could offer us was a band aid.

Instead of Healing Our Wounds, President Biden Inflamed Them Read More »

Berkeley Law Student Groups Pass Bylaw Pledging to Not Invite Pro-Israel Speakers

Multiple student groups at the UC Berkeley School of Law passed a bylaw on August 21 stating that they would never invite any speakers that support “Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine.”

The bylaw, which was spearheaded by UC Berkeley’s Law Students for Justice in Palestine (LSJP), stated that not inviting such speakers is necessary for “the safety and welfare of Palestinian students on campus.” It also stated that any student organization that adopts the bylaw is required to hold a “Palestine 101” training hosted by LSJP “to create a safe and inclusive space for Palestinian students.” The student groups who adopted the bylaw include the Berkeley Law Muslim Student Association, Middle Eastern and North African Law Students Association, Womxn of Color Collective, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Queer Caucus, Community Defense Project, Women of Berkeley Law, and Law Students of African Descent.

The Jewish Students Association at Berkeley Law wrote in an August 27 Medium post that they were “saddened” and “concerned” that the bylaw could “silence Jewish voices on campus” and alienate “many Jewish students from certain groups on campus.” “Students should not be forced to choose between identifying as either ‘pro-Palestine’ and thereby ‘anti-Israel,’ or ‘pro-Israel’ and thereby ‘anti-Palestine,’” the association wrote. “This dichotomy distorts the complexity of this issue. Students can advocate for Palestinians and criticize Israeli policies without denying Israel the right to exist or attacking the identity of other students. To say otherwise is antithetical to the dialogue around which our educational community is built. We are troubled that this by-law creates an environment in which only one viewpoint is acceptable.”

The Jewish Students Association also wrote that the bylaw could have an “antisemitic impact” on campus. “Many Jewish students’ identities are intertwined with the existence of Israel as an ancestral Jewish homeland, just as many Palestinians’ identities are strongly connected to their ancestral homeland,” they wrote. “When an affinity group adopts this by-law or conditions speaking privileges on denouncing Israel, many Jewish people are put in a position all too familiar: deny or denigrate a part of their identity or be excluded from community groups.”

Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Cherminsky, who identifies as a progressive Zionist, told The Jewish News of Northern California (The J) that “many students” view the bylaw as “antisemitic” because “to say that anyone who supports the existence of Israel — that’s what you define as Zionism — shouldn’t speak would exclude about, I don’t know, 90 percent or more of our Jewish students.”

Various Jewish groups criticized the bylaw.

“The actions of Berkeley Law Students for Justice in Palestine are not only antisemitic at their core, but also hinder any sensible or legitimate discussions on campus about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Anti-Defamation League Central Pacific Deputy Regional Director Teresa Drenick said in a statement. “We thank Dean Chemerinsky and Berkeley Law for their commitment to ensuring freedom of dialogue including the diverse views held by the University’s vibrant communities.”

StandWithUs CEO and Co-Founder Roz Rothstein said in a statement to Fox News, “Misrepresenting Zionism is antisemitic and will never lead to peace. Half the world’s Jewish people are in Israel, the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, and the other half likely have friends and/or relatives who live there. Denying Jews the right to self-determination creates a double standard against only one country in the world. Those who lead biased, anti-peace campaigns should rethink their end goals and be honest about their prejudice against the Jewish people and the only Jewish country in the world.”

AMCHA Initiative Director Tammi Rossman-Benjamin told Jewish News Syndicate that the bylaw “is part of the anti-normalization element of BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions], which seeks to exclude, marginalize and demonize Jewish and Zionist identity on campus, and is one of the reasons that BDS inspires the targeting of Jewish students for harm.”

Kenneth L. Marcus, who heads the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and a Berkeley Law alumnus, told The J that the bylaw is not “just a political stunt. It is tinged with antisemitism and anti-Israel national origin discrimination.”

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) National President Morton A. Klein criticized Chemerinsky’s response to the bylaw as being “painfully weak.” “When he noted his support for Israel’s existence, he felt the need to qualify it, by adding that he condemned many of Israel’s policies – as if that is even remotely relevant to whether Jewish and pro-Israel voices and views have the right to be expressed at Berkeley Law,” Klein said in a statement. “The dean should be forcefully and unequivocally condemning all of these student groups and taking immediate steps to discipline them for their antisemitic, anti-free speech actions.”

Canary Mission tweeted: “This kind of discrimination towards any other group on campus would be unacceptable. It is not acceptable towards Jews or Zionists either.”

Berkeley LSJP responded to criticism of the bylaw in a statement posted to Instagram on August 30, arguing that because “Israel is an apartheid state,” they believe they “have an obligation to act.” “Supporting Palestinian liberation does not mean opposition to Jewish people or the Jewish religion; in fact, Jewish liberation and Palestinian liberation are intertwined, and we are committed to each other’s safety,” Berkeley LSJP wrote. They pointed to a statement from the Jewish Anti-Zionists at Berkeley Law endorsing the bylaw. The Jewish Anti-Zionists statement argued that “the foundation of Israel is

built on longstanding ethnic cleansing and dispossession of Palestinians, and as Jews we reject this violence in our name.” They also said that “our freedom is incomplete without Palestinian freedom. Opposition to Zionism is not about displacing Jews, but about seeking justice for the displacement of Palestinians.”

 

 

Berkeley Law Student Groups Pass Bylaw Pledging to Not Invite Pro-Israel Speakers Read More »

Update on New COVID Vaccine Boosters

Flu shots are updated every year to try to be more current with the strains, and it’s about darn time they did the same here. My prediction is that within the next two years at most, they will have an all in one shot flu/COVID boosters to just get everything completed annually, one and done.

This Bivalent one (half original vaccine, half updated to the most common and contagious Omicron strains) is available now for anyone ages 12 and older as long as they have:

-Received 2 or more shots of Pfizer/Moderna or one or more shot of J&J.
-It’s been at least 2 months since you got your last shot (however many).

-It’s been 3 months since you had COVID.

You can always mix & match Pfizer/Moderna and my recommendation is always Moderna simply due to it being 50mcg versus Pfizer 30mcg so it’s the same thing basically but should last a bit longer, but yes also have stronger side effects as a result (so if you’ve had awful side effects you don’t wish to repeat feel free to get Pfizer).

Between being up to date on the boosters (I’m signing up for mine today), the great medications that we now have, and yes also natural immunity from catching COVID, this is thankfully becoming easier and easier to live with every day!

Next week I will be talking to Dr. David Agus, and if he allows it to be recorded I’ll announce it here so you can tell me your questions. Stay tuned.

Update on New COVID Vaccine Boosters Read More »