Roast AIPAC #3

You may have already seen these videos and articles, but because this week is Roast AIPAC week I’ll take the opportunity to list them here together. They make it clear that Ilhan Omar’s criticism of the Israel lobby was too mild. AIPAC’s reach goes further than we would like to think, and AIPAC is not the only organization that influences American opinion and policy in favor of Israel.

The Washington Post published an informative article as well. This seemed surprising at first, given the Post’s previous support of the lobby, but maybe it wasn’t so surprising after all. The article did not criticize AIPAC. It praised the Democratic Party for supporting a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict–a stand that had a negative impact on Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Netanyahu’s ‘wedding’ together of Israel with the Republican Party has hurt the prospects of peace in the Middle East, the article claims. As for Reps. Ilhan Omar (Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), it identifies them merely as the new members of Congress who have attracted attention with ‘toxic tweets’ and support for boycott and insists that they represent a minority of Americans. Not only that, they have both endorsed the BDS movement. The Post argues that this behavior is not representative of the majority of Democrats who think the United States should support Israel. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-democrats-israel-problem-is-not-ilhan-omar-its-netanyahu/2019/02/17/db624298-306c-11e9-86ab-5d02109aeb01_story.html?utm_term=.3c51127e756f

I think the Post’s criticism of Netanyahu merits a place here, but US support for Israel was not the point of Omar’s tweet, was it? She was making a comment on the undue influence of AIPAC. She was right too. Shortly after Omar’s tweets, The Nation Magazine published an article outlining the extent to which AIPAC has been able to influence American politics.

We do, in fact, have a growing anti-Semitism problem in America. But Omar and Tlaib are not a part of it. They are allies of mine and of Jews across this country who are fighting for peace, racial justice, immigrants’ rights, and the defeat of fascism. The anti-Semites are the Nazis and white supremacists who marched and murdered in Charlottesville, whom Donald Trump called “very fine people,” and the MAGA supporter who massacred worshippers at a Pittsburgh synagogue.

https://www.thenation.com/article/ady-barkan-aipac-ilhan-omar/

The last video ends with Sam Seder wondering why it was left to the new Muslim members of Congress to call out AIPAC.

Seder’s point is appreciated, but by now we have a pretty good idea why the Democratic establishment keeps its collective mouth shut about AIPAC.

A New Theory About Hillary’s Health Problems

An article in the Washington Post has raised the alarm that Hillary Clinton may have been poisoned.((Cindy Boren, The man who discovered CTE thinks Hillary Clinton may have been poisoned. Washington Post, September 12, 2016. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/12/the-man-who-discovered-cte-thinks-hillary-clinton-may-have-been-poisoned/))I’ve been thinking the same thing.  It’s disturbing to even be thinking such things let alone writing about them so I’m glad someone else said it first.

The Post article proposed that the Russians or Trump might be the culprit. I disagree. Another analyst thinks it could be the people in her campaign. My suspicion is worse than that. My suspicion is so horrible I hope it’s wrong.

The toxicology tests should be done by a trusted lab leaving nothing to chance. In the meantime, Hillary should be given a new team of caretakers just to be safe.

 

In Search of the Citizen

Today the Washington Post is counseling us about how we should speak of the dead. ((Steven Petrow, Now is not the time to Publicly Flog Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, The Washington Post, Feb. 15, 2016. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/now-is-not-the-time-to-publicly-flog-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia/2016/02/15/2612b376-d3f1-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html)) Apparently, columnist Steven Petrow objects to the criticism of Justice Antonin Scalia that came out so soon after his death. His reason is revealing. He ends his plea by saying,

“Indeed, none of us are custodians of our legacies; in the end, it’s our own words and actions that will speak for us or against us. In the case of Scalia, his words and actions proved to be one and the same. History will be the judge of all that —and so will many individuals, once we’ve laid him to rest.”

That he can chock this up to a question of Scalia’s legacy tells me everything I need to know about him. In this light, it’s not surprising that he focused on the justice’s red-flag issues like same-sex marriage, LGBT equality, affirmative action and abortion, in other words partisan politics, while failing to mention Scalia’s biggest accomplishment—the whitewashing of corruption and the oh-so important midwifery services he performed at the birth of corruption’s bastard child, global oligarchy. Either Petrow doesn’t know the difference between partisan politics and treason or he fancies himself one of the elite and expects to benefit accordingly.

Here’s a news flash Steven Petrow—the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision was a slap in the face of every citizen of the United States.  I personally see this presidential election as very possibly our last chance to escape the fate that the Court had in mind for us. I am never free of the anxiety that the oligarchs might win this election and complete the coup that it has begun.

Back when Citizen’s United was first decided it was an outrage. Now it’s unfortunately just one outrage of many. Month after month I get emails from people who are supposed to be rolling back this decision. They continue to ask me for more money even as I watch our leaders cow tow to the little twits in robes who did this to us. Apparently no one has considered the fact that the remaining justices will remain free to work their magic, constitutional amendment or no. What is your solution to this problem? To puff them up by stroking their dead partner in crime? Ha!

This is not about the dead, Steven Petrow! This is about the here and now. Here and now we are patiently pursuing the only course open to us—the election of a candidate who can make a difference. If we are not allowed to identify the problem we’re trying to address, we may as well not bother. So don’t presume to counsel me about respect. The proper focus of respect in a democratic society is the citizen, and that’s true even for a justice of the Supreme Court.